T
tom_francis
Guest
Did he always know that he was the son of God?
- Status
B
babygirlmock
Guest
yes
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
No, He didn’t even know He had fingers and toes at first, just like all babies. How soon He became aware of His Divine nature is open to question.
S
Shin
Guest
Yes.
He knew all, and everything in his soul. He always had the beatific vision.
The age and form of His body did not limit his soul’s knowledge and awareness. His experiential knowledge was not that of learning new things truly, because He knew all, I believe saying it so puts it properly, God help me these are deep matters. We must always go to the references and submit to the judgement of the Church.
Or to put it as Ludwig Ott’s book puts it, 'according to St. Thomas a real progress of knowledge was not possible as both modes of cognition, from the very beginning, encompassed all things of the past, present, and future. In regards to these two modes of cognition, a progress can be spoken of only in the sense of a successive manifestation corresponding to His different age-states of the knowledge which He had from the beginning.
In His scienta acquisita a real progress was possible in so far as the habit of knowledge acquired in the natural way could be increased step by step by the abstracting activity of His intellect. As the knowledge which Christ acquired through His experimental knowledge was already contained in His scientia beata and in His scientia infusa, it was new, not in its content, but only in the mode by which Christ attained it.’
Also from Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.)
Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and error. (Senta. certa.)
From the beginning of Christ’s life His soul possessed infused knowledge. (Sent. communis.)
…
If you read the revelations to the saints you can see Christ’s awareness continually even as an infant.
‘As to why I did not immediately assume the same stature at birth as I had in my thirtieth year, I answer: If I had done this, everyone would have been full of wonder and fear, following me more out of fear and because of the miracles they had seen rather than from love. And how then would the sayings of the prophets have been fulfilled? They foretold that I would be placed in a manger among animals, and adored by kings, and presented in the temple, and pursued by enemies. Therefore, in order to show that my human nature was real and that the prophecies were fulfilled in me, my limbs grew over intervals of time, although I was as full of wisdom at the start of my birth as at the end.’
Christ, ‘The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden’
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Proof?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
You got some proof the other way?
The Church teaches Jesus was true man. True men do not arrive as true newborns if they have adult intellects. Whatever Jesus’ soul knew, His body was just that of an infant, with an underdeveloped brain like all other infants, or else he wasn’t a true man at all but a super-being.
S
Shin
Guest
A popular blog recently did a post on Christ’s knowledge, here are some of the references it cited:
'If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ who is both true Son of God and true Son of man did not know the future or the day of the Last Judgment and that he could know only as much as the divinity, dwelling in him as in another, revealed to him, anathema sit.' (Pope Vigilius, Constitutum I of 14 May 553)
The following proposition is condemned: ’The natural meaning of the Gospel texts cannot be reconciled with what our theologians teach about the consciousness and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.' (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili of 1907)
The following proposition is condemned: ’A critic cannot assert that Christ’s knowledge was unlimited, unless by making the hypothesis, which is historically inconceivable and morally repugnant, that Christ as man had God’s knowledge and yet was unwilling to communicate so much knowledge to his disciples and posterity.' (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili of 1907)
The following proposition is rejected: ’The opinion cannot be declared certain, which holds that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing but from the beginning knew in the Word everything, past, present and future, that is to say everything which God knows with the knowledge of vision.’ (Pope Benedict XV, Decree of the Holy Office of 1918)
…
This sermon covers the matter too:
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20060305-On-the-dual-nature-of-Jesus.html
'If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ who is both true Son of God and true Son of man did not know the future or the day of the Last Judgment and that he could know only as much as the divinity, dwelling in him as in another, revealed to him, anathema sit.' (Pope Vigilius, Constitutum I of 14 May 553)
The following proposition is condemned: ’The natural meaning of the Gospel texts cannot be reconciled with what our theologians teach about the consciousness and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.' (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili of 1907)
The following proposition is condemned: ’A critic cannot assert that Christ’s knowledge was unlimited, unless by making the hypothesis, which is historically inconceivable and morally repugnant, that Christ as man had God’s knowledge and yet was unwilling to communicate so much knowledge to his disciples and posterity.' (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili of 1907)
The following proposition is rejected: ’The opinion cannot be declared certain, which holds that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing but from the beginning knew in the Word everything, past, present and future, that is to say everything which God knows with the knowledge of vision.’ (Pope Benedict XV, Decree of the Holy Office of 1918)
…
This sermon covers the matter too:
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20060305-On-the-dual-nature-of-Jesus.html
E
empther
Guest
Just to clean up some things said here:
The human nature of Jesus was a finite thing. It could not be infinite in any way. That would not be a human nature.
However,
( you knew that was coming )
his didn’t have to be as limited as ours is at birth. He could know at lot, not everything, but a lot.
He wouldn’t have practical skills such as speaking Chinese or making a wooden table. This practical things he had to learn just like any other man.
But in moral questions, he had to know everything from conception because he had divine personhood and it would definitely not be appropriate for a divine person not to have the beatific vision.
That should clear up any difficulties.
The human nature of Jesus was a finite thing. It could not be infinite in any way. That would not be a human nature.
However,
( you knew that was coming )
his didn’t have to be as limited as ours is at birth. He could know at lot, not everything, but a lot.
He wouldn’t have practical skills such as speaking Chinese or making a wooden table. This practical things he had to learn just like any other man.
But in moral questions, he had to know everything from conception because he had divine personhood and it would definitely not be appropriate for a divine person not to have the beatific vision.
That should clear up any difficulties.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Matthew 24:36:
“But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
Said by the Savior Incarnate about Himself. This is a note on the passage from the NAB:
- [24:36] Many textual witnesses omit nor the Son, which follows Mk 13:32. Since its omission can be explained by reluctance to attribute this ignorance to the Son, the reading that includes it is probably original.
S
Shin
Guest
The statement above about Papal teaching is misplaced applied to the texts above and that would show a misunderstanding of how it works.
Too a Christian necessarily, as a matter of virtue, Faith, and religion has a profound respect for the authorities cited.
I suggest listening to the sermon!
The passage it is said can be read as simply that ‘the Son’ does not ‘know’ to tell, rather than ‘not know’ in the sense of actual knowledge.
I.e. it is not His place to reveal it to. Or there are other readings.
Further from Ludwig Ott’s ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’:
'Christ’s freedom from ignorance was** denied by the Arians, the Nestorians, and especially by the Agnoetes,** a monophysitic sect of the 6th century. The last mentioned appealling to Mk. 13, 32; Mt. 24, 36: “But of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the angels in Heaven, but the Father alone.” attributing to Christ ignorance, notably in regard to the day and the hour of the General Judgement. . .
Christ calls Himself the Word became Man, the Light of the World (John 8,12), which is come into the world, in order to bring true knowledge to mankind (John 12, 46);** He calls Himself Truth **(John 14, 6), and gives as the purpose of His coming into the world the giving of testimony to the truth (John 18, 37); He permits Himself to be called Teacher (John 13,13) He is, as Holy Writ witnesses, full of grace and truth (John 1,14), full of wisdom (Luke 2,40); in Him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden (Col. 2,3). He knows about the happenings which occur far away (John 1, 48); 4, 50, 11, 14), and sees through the heart of man (John 1, 17; 2, 24 et seq. 4, 16 et seq; 6, 71). With this is irreconcilable the notion that Christ’s human knowledge is defective or erroneous.
. . . The Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, the chief opponent of the Agnoetes, teaches **“Christ’s humanity which was taken up in the hypostasis of the inaccessible and substantial wisdom of Christ cannot be ignorant of anything of the past or of the future” **Pope Gregory the Great approved the teaching of Eulogius, basing it upon the Hypostatic Union, from which Christ derives a communication of the knowledge from His Divine to His human nature.
Only if one accepts Nestorianism can ignorance on the part of Christ be maintained: “He who is not a Nestorian cannot possible by an Agnoet.” He expressly calls the Agnoetes heretics.
. . . The ignorance of the day of the General Judgement (Acts 1,7): “It is not for you to know the times or the moments, which the Father has put in His own power,” is a so-called economic ignorance, that is . . . founded on God’s decree, or a scientia noncommunicada, that is Christ, should not, in accordance with the will of the Father, reveal the moment of the General Judgement to mankind. “It was no part of His teaching duty to make it known to us.” (St. Augustine)
. . . Modernism with liberal Protestant Theology, teaches that Christ erred in believing that the end of the world and His coming-again was immediately imminent.’
Etc.
Too a Christian necessarily, as a matter of virtue, Faith, and religion has a profound respect for the authorities cited.
I suggest listening to the sermon!
The passage it is said can be read as simply that ‘the Son’ does not ‘know’ to tell, rather than ‘not know’ in the sense of actual knowledge.
I.e. it is not His place to reveal it to. Or there are other readings.
Further from Ludwig Ott’s ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’:
'Christ’s freedom from ignorance was** denied by the Arians, the Nestorians, and especially by the Agnoetes,** a monophysitic sect of the 6th century. The last mentioned appealling to Mk. 13, 32; Mt. 24, 36: “But of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the angels in Heaven, but the Father alone.” attributing to Christ ignorance, notably in regard to the day and the hour of the General Judgement. . .
Christ calls Himself the Word became Man, the Light of the World (John 8,12), which is come into the world, in order to bring true knowledge to mankind (John 12, 46);** He calls Himself Truth **(John 14, 6), and gives as the purpose of His coming into the world the giving of testimony to the truth (John 18, 37); He permits Himself to be called Teacher (John 13,13) He is, as Holy Writ witnesses, full of grace and truth (John 1,14), full of wisdom (Luke 2,40); in Him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden (Col. 2,3). He knows about the happenings which occur far away (John 1, 48); 4, 50, 11, 14), and sees through the heart of man (John 1, 17; 2, 24 et seq. 4, 16 et seq; 6, 71). With this is irreconcilable the notion that Christ’s human knowledge is defective or erroneous.
. . . The Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, the chief opponent of the Agnoetes, teaches **“Christ’s humanity which was taken up in the hypostasis of the inaccessible and substantial wisdom of Christ cannot be ignorant of anything of the past or of the future” **Pope Gregory the Great approved the teaching of Eulogius, basing it upon the Hypostatic Union, from which Christ derives a communication of the knowledge from His Divine to His human nature.
Only if one accepts Nestorianism can ignorance on the part of Christ be maintained: “He who is not a Nestorian cannot possible by an Agnoet.” He expressly calls the Agnoetes heretics.
. . . The ignorance of the day of the General Judgement (Acts 1,7): “It is not for you to know the times or the moments, which the Father has put in His own power,” is a so-called economic ignorance, that is . . . founded on God’s decree, or a scientia noncommunicada, that is Christ, should not, in accordance with the will of the Father, reveal the moment of the General Judgement to mankind. “It was no part of His teaching duty to make it known to us.” (St. Augustine)
. . . Modernism with liberal Protestant Theology, teaches that Christ erred in believing that the end of the world and His coming-again was immediately imminent.’
Etc.
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
“The Son of God came into this world to save men from sin and the consequences of sin. The whole life of Christ, therefore, is dominated by this purpose. From the very beginning of His human life, from the moment of his conception in the womb of His mother, Christ is the Saviour of Mankind. Moreover, since He was capable of rational acts and therefore of free acts from the first moment of His existence in the womb of Mary, He began even at that very moment to give to God that perfect obedience which is the soul of the sacrifice of Himself whereby He has redeemed mankind. As Adam had destroyed all human nature by his disobedience, so Christ restored human nature by His obedience to God. And that perfect obedience began at that very first instant of His existence in His human nature.”
My Way of Life, Pocket Edition of St. Thomas, The Summa Simplified for Everyone
My Way of Life, Pocket Edition of St. Thomas, The Summa Simplified for Everyone
G
grannymh
Guest
Jesus Christ is one divine person with two natures. Obviously, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, He knew His own two natures.
Around 35 years ago, I heard about this theory of Christ’s dumbness which essentially leads to diminishing Christ’s divinity similar to the original heresy of Arianism. I really thought that this speculation downgrading the hypostatic union doctrine had been laid to rest.
G
grannymh
Guest
Jesus Christ assumed the human nature of a true human being. And yes, Jesus Christ is a super-being in order to be both True Man and True God.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
All the smilies on earth won’t alter the fact that in order to come here and share our lives Jesus has to live our lives which you don’t with the self-concious mind of God.Jesus Christ assumed the human nature of a true human being. And yes, Jesus Christ is a super-being in order to be both True Man and True God.
Look at this from a previous post::
This what you believe, Granny? You believe a single cell was humanly aware of being in Mary’s womb with full capability of rational acts? Do you think without a brain cell to His human form He acted purposefully to replicate, to differentiate, to activate hormones?
This what you really believe?
When the 2nd Person of the Trinity humbled Himself to become like us, He had to actually become like us. That He would know as the 2nd Person is obvious, that He would choose not to know as a human being is also patently, ineluctably obvious.
If He was as you insist, then the whole of the Incarnation as we teach it is a lie. You simply cannot hang on a cross crying out and asking why God has abandoned you if you have perfect and constant knowledge of Godhood. You cannot share in our humanity if you do not have the mind of a human and you cannot be the model for us to follow, the people who can be transformed into the image of Christ, if we also have to be God.
And when Jesus Himself says He does not know the day or hour, only the Father knows, I believe Him. I don’t reinterpret His words, because if I can, then I can certainly reinterpret This Is My Body into symbolism and rip those keys right out of Peter’s hands.
G
grannymh
Guest
For the Catholic teaching about the Hypostatic Union, True God and True Man, check both the Index and the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
Because some Catechism paragraphs are in smaller print, please read CCC 18-22 for directions.
For additional understanding of “True God and True Man” please use the cross-references in the margins and the footnotes.
One will find the Catholic answer to the OP by using the above sources.
Because some Catechism paragraphs are in smaller print, please read CCC 18-22 for directions.
For additional understanding of “True God and True Man” please use the cross-references in the margins and the footnotes.
One will find the Catholic answer to the OP by using the above sources.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Catechism
Christ’s soul and his human knowledge
471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.100
472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103
473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104 "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."105 Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.107
474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.109
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p1.htm#III
Christ’s soul and his human knowledge
471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.100
472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103
473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104 "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."105 Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.107
474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.109
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p1.htm#III
G
grannymh
Guest
The fact remains that Jesus Christ assumed, not absorbed, human nature. Thus, he did not need a human father. (CCC 470 and following)
Did the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity need a real human father in order to live our lives?
Was the Holy Spirit insufficient in power at the Incarnation?
We need to realize that 35 years ago, when I heard the parish director of religious education say that Christ would not be able to know He was God until He was “baptized” by John, the universal* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, was not available. What was available in various catechisms were the doctrines regarding the Hypostatic Union, i.e., True God and True Man, plus some common sense.
As a student in my parish grade school (grades K-8) the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union was taught in the early grades but without the Greek title. I remember this because we were taught the basic [common sense] Catholic doctrines of Original Sin.
It is obvious on CAF, that the concept of teaching the facts of Original Sin has been shelved for a very long time. Also ignored is the connection of Original Sin to the necessity of One Person with two natures.
It is sad, but from what I read on CAF, the difference between the Creator and Adam is no longer considered. Instead, Original Sin is explained in the terminology of a “regular human family”. Maybe that follows from the speculation that Jesus was a “regular human family individual” so “naturally” He was not always aware of His very own divine nature?
No wonder there was the push for a universal Catholic catechism!
Thank you Julia Mae for reminding me of the “new” views of Jesus Christ 35 or more years ago. Now I understand one more reason that the idea that Jesus was a prophet among prophets (just a human among other humans) exists in today’s society.
In order for Catholics to respond to the OP question with a complete answer, including the foundational reason for the existence of Jesus Christ on earth, there has be awareness of the Catholic teachings about the beginning of human history.
S
Shin
Guest
Thank you PennyinCanada!
G
grannymh
Guest
It is because Jesus is Divine that He is able to be present in the Catholic Eucharist.
- Status