Was Jesus confused? Did He know He was Messiah? or divine? Did He know much
about the afterlife? Did He have at least one superstition? Did He have
only the mentality of a Jew of the first third of the first century?--Wild
as it may seem, some prominent scholars charge Him on all the above counts,
and more too.
But: What does the Church teach on these things? Pope Pius XII, in his
great Encyclical on the "Mystical Body," on June 29, 1943, rejected all
such charges. He taught: "By that blessed vision which He enjoyed when just
received in the womb of the Mother of God, He has all the members of the
Mystical Body continuously and perpetually present to Himself." In other
words: His human souls saw the vision of God at once, and in it all
knowledge is at hand. In another Encyclical, "Sempiternus Rex," in 1951,
the same Pope complained many were not accepting his teaching. Then in
still another Encyclical, "Haurietis aquas," in 1956, he clearly repeated
his earlier teaching. Further, on July 24,1966, the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith under Pope Paul VI, complained many were still not
accepting. Clearly, the repeated teaching shows the Church means to make
this definite and definitive, namely, that the human soul of Jesus, from
the first instant, saw the vision of God, in which all knowledge is
accessible. (The objectors do not really mean that a divine HE was ignorant
-they mean His human mind did not register some things).
The stubbornness of those who reject is remarkable. For on two counts this
teaching rates as infallible: 1)The repetition, as we said, shows the
intention to make a thing definitive. So it is infallible. 2) Pius XII, in
his "Humani generis" of 1950 told us that if the Popes in their official
journal deliberately take a position on something then being debated in
theology, it is removed from debate, and comes under the promise of Christ
(Lk. 10:16): "He who hears you, hears me." Of course, a promise of Christ
cannot fail. The modern trouble on Christ's human knowledge was sparked by
a book, by P. Galtier, "L'unit� du Christ," which appeared in 1939 -
followed soon, in 1943, by the Encyclical of Pius XII, and then by still
more texts, as we said. So this teaching is infallible, on two counts.
Really, even without the help of the official texts, we should be able to
see for ourselves that the human mind of Jesus not only happened to have
that vision, but could not lack it. We see it in the following way. For any
soul to reach that vision (which happens to others in heaven), two things
are needed: 1) the power of the soul to see needs to be elevated by grace.
Of course that was true in Jesus; 2) The divinity should join itself
directly to the human mind, without even an image in between, so that the
mind may see God. Now in an ordinary case, if we put together human body
and human soul, that is automatically a human person. That did not happen
in the case of Jesus - His human mind, and whole humanity, was assumed,
taken over, by the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore His human
mind was joined to the divinity, even more closely than happens in the case
of an ordinary soul - for when an ordinary soul receives that vision, it
remains a separate person. But in Jesus, there was only one Person, the
Divine Person. So His human soul could not possibly have lacked this
vision.
In other souls, this vision causes complete blessedness. In Jesus, there
was in a way blessedness, but only on the highest point of His soul, as it
were. On the other hand, the vision revealed to Him, in merciless detail,
everything He would have to suffer in His Passion. If one of us foresees
something dreadful coming, he can take refuge in the thought: Maybe it
won't happen; maybe it won't be that bad. But the vision in Jesus could be
called merciless: it showed Him with distressing clarity and absolute
infallibility what was to come.
To live a life under such a vision was dreadfully painful. When we have a
long-running trouble, as it were, it wears the skin thin. In Him it did
something like that. Yes, His divinity could have protected Him from that.
But He had resolved, when He "emptied Himself" (Phil. 2:7) not to use His
power for His own comfort, only for the sick. So an unprotected humanity
would be in unending apprehension. Twice He let us see inside Himself In
Lk. 12:50: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened
until it be accomplished". That is: I have to be plunged in the deep waters
of suffering. I am in a tight spot, cannot get comfortable until I get it
over with. Again, about a week before His death, He was speaking to a crowd
in Jerusalem, and decided to let us see inside again (John 12:27): "Now my
heart is troubled. What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour!" After
that, in Gethsemani, the nightmare that had been pursuing Him caught up. He
could not scream and find it only a dream: it was there in all its hideous
reality. The interior tension ruptured the small blood vessels near the
sweat glands, resulting in literally a sweat of blood, medically known as
hematidrosis. He even, as St. Mark's Gospel reports (14:33), felt fear. The
fact He knew He would rise on the third day could not keep the nails from
hurting. Again, His divine power could have rescued Him from suffering. But
He had resolved not to use that for His own sake. So again, an unprotected
humanity could not help shrinking back in horror.
Instead of charging Him with such ignorance, we should be immeasurably
grateful that He was willing to go through such a life, such a death. We
owe Him reparation too for the charges of ignorance.
There are objections: In Lk. 2:42 we read that He advanced in wisdom and
age. So was He deficient in wisdom before? No, the Fathers of the Church,
after St. Athanasius, point out there is a difference between actual growth
in wisdom, and growth in manifestation of it, how much He showed. He
measured it out in accord with each point of age.
Again, in Mark 13:32 He Himself said He did not know the day of the end.
Pope St. Gregory the Great solves this problem by saying that He knew the
day in His humanity, but not from His humanity. That is, in our terms, the
information did register on His human mind, even though His humanity was
not the source of that information.
When His Mother, on finding Him in the temple, did not understand, it was
not that she did not know who He was. It was that she did not understand
this strange departure form His usual compliant way of acting. Actually, as
soon as the Archangel at the Annunciation told her He would reign over the
house of Jacob forever, she knew at once He was the Messiah - any ordinary
Jew would grasp that, for only the Messiah would reign forever. Then all
the prophecies about the Messiah would come to her mind as she pondered in
her heart, including the dread chapter 53 of Isaiah, about the lamb led to
the slaughter, along with Psalm 22, saying,. "They have pierced my hands
and my feet." So she too must have suffered all along, together with Him.
So we owe reparation, make-up, to her together with Him.
