Reviewed here.But, I recommend the erudite D. Armstrong:
“Young Messiah” Contains Christological Heresy
March 12, 2016 by 6 Comments
Christ in the House of His Parents (1850), by John Everett Millais (1829-1896) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
* * *
The Young Messiah is the latest “Bible movie” to appear. The problem is that it’s not (technically speaking) all that “biblical.” We know very little about Jesus’ childhood, and so the film draws from extrabiblical sources of mostly dubious historical value. For background’s sake, it’s drawn from Anne Rice‘s 2005 novel Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. Rice has since left the Catholic Church and “organized religion” (I havewritten about the inadequacy of her reasoning in that respect).
As soon as I saw the first TV ad for this movie my immediate reaction was to be suspicious of it. I highly suspected that it would portray the young Jesus in a way that was contrary to the Catholic faith, in terms of Jesus’ own self-consciousness andomniscience. I haven’t seen it, but this is indeed the case, according to several sources. One of my roles as a professional Catholic apologist is, of course, to be a sort of watchdog, and I write occasionally about religious films, from that standpoint — not from the purely artistic perspective (though I like art — especially music — as much as the next person).
Thus, following that distinction, I’m not asserting (I want to make it clear) that there is no good in it whatsoever or that it can’t possibly be a good movie qua movie, or move people, or even bring some into the faith or a deeper faith walk (God may use whatever and whomever He likes for that purpose); but it is so suspect that I would strongly recommend avoidance of it, lest someone receive wrong theology from it (more on that below).
I was happy to learn that the director consulted Christian theologians and didn’t include some aspects of Rice’s novel that were thought to be too controversial. Indeed,The Young Messiah has been glowingly reviewed by Cardinal Seán O’Malley,Archbishop Thomas Wenski, and Archbishop Charles J. Chaput.
These distinguished men of the Church (I once met Abp. Chaput and am a great admirer of his) seem to see nothing wrong with the movie at all, which (with all due profound respect to the office of bishop, and with trembling) is disturbing to me and a curiosity. Steven D. Greydanus, “everyone’s” favorite Catholic movie critic, wrote analmost ecstatic review. He links to a second piece he wrote specifically about Jesus’ self-awareness. I must, again, respectfully disagree with his summary of the issue of Jesus’ human knowledge (Steven’s not a bishop, but I like his work a lot!). He stated that “when and how Jesus came to the conscious human knowledge of his identity that he did not have at conception is not a matter of clear scriptural teaching or defined Catholic dogma.”
This is untrue. There are several aspects of development of the human knowledge of Jesus (an extraordinarily complicated aspect of Christology) that are legitimate and perfectly orthodox. But not knowing Who He was (or growing into that awareness) is not one of these. Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a solid source for the determination of what the Church teaches on a doctrinal and dogmatic level. It will soon be updated, by the way. My good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, of Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, is involved in that. Dr. Ott provides the following dogmatic statements (his bolding):
Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.). . . Christ’s soul possessed it in this world . . . from the Conception. . . . (p. 162)Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Sent. certa.) Cf. D2184 et seq. (p. 165)
Brad Miner, in his review of The Young Messiah in The Catholic Thing (3-12-16) notes the serious theological errors in the film:
The Young Messiah Christology is appalling.The movie fails to grasp the truth about Christ’s knowledge of Himself. It suggests that this confused, questioning prodigy had to be taught that He is God. But were that the case, as it clearly is in the film, the boy would not be God. . . .
As the closing music swells, Jesus addresses his Heavenly Father: “Someday you’ll tell me why I’m here.”To be clear, Pius XII wrote in Mystici Corporis (1943) that there was never a question in our Lord’s mind about his identity, never a moment of doubt:For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love.
Neil Madden’s review in Conservative Review (3-10-16) also takes note of these serious theological deficiencies:
“The Young Messiah” depicts Mary and Joseph as having more knowledge about Jesus’ true nature than He does. This is a problem. If Jesus always was God, begotten and not made, surely wouldn’t an omnipotent God know who he was as he was learning and growing in preparation for His mission here on Earth? . . .Almost as troubling about the storyline are how many of its plot points seem to be adapted from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a heretical Gnostic text which portrays the child Jesus as an omnipotent menace, rather than the Lamb of God and perfect Savior of mankind. . . .“The Young Messiah’s” rich cinematography and hopeful message undoubtedly have the power to uplift and inspire audiences, but the viewer must be willing to overlook the theological problems of the storyline itself in order to appreciate these qualities. Furthermore, if one wishes to use this film as an evangelization tool, he or she must be ready to clear up any confusion that will arise as a result of the story’s apocryphal speculation.
I wrote about these unfortunately widespread Christological errors in my paper, Jesus Had to Learn That He Was God?: drawn largely from my 2007 book, The One-Minute Apologist. Since I am a mere lay apologist, with no authority, and only the ability (hopefully) to persuade, I cited more authoritative sources (as is my constant custom, wherever possible). The late Fr. William G. Most was a superb Catholic theologian and thinker, of impeccable orthodoxy. I linked to his book, The Consciousness of Christ, which is available online. In chapter 4, he states:
The Epistle to the Hebrews (4:15) is often quoted as supporting a general charge of ignorance in Jesus, one which would, probably, include ignorance of His Messiahship and divinity: “We have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect (kath’ homoioteta) has been tempted(pepeirasmenon) as we are, yet without sinning.” So, the argument goes, since we are ignorant, He must have been ignorant. The basic flaw in this line of thought is that it ignores the literary genre of Hebrews, generally admitted to be homiletic. Within that genre, it is common to speak a bit loosely, and therefore it would be out of place to attempt precise deductions from mere implications. Further, who would know just where to draw the line, if we ignored the genre? Would that text quoted refer to merely external, physical sufferings? Did He have various kinds of bodily diseases like other humans? Mental illnesses? Did He even suffer from psychoses as many persons do? And so on. Common Catholic faith and piety have provided interpretative guidelines that critical exegesis ignores to its own detriment. We are attempting to remain within this tradition.
In his chapter 7, Fr. Most cites magisterial sources:
Only July 3, 1907, the Holy Office, in the Decree Lamentabili directed against the Modernists, a document approved by Pope St. Pius X, rejected the following propositions:
The natural sense of the Gospel texts cannot be reconciled with what our theologians teach about the consciousness and infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.. . .Christ did not always have a consciousness of His messianic dignity.
Fr. Most concludes in chapter 8:
[R]eason concurs with what the documents of revelation and the Church have taught us, namely, that the human soul and mind of Jesus, from the first instant of its existence, enjoyed the Vision of God. In it Jesus could not help but see His own divinity, and have all knowledge available to Him, as it related to any matter to which He turned His attention. His consciousness was, therefore, fully in keeping with His two natures-human and divine-in one Divine Person.
See also a related article by Fr. Most: “An Ignorant Jesus?”
*
The most interesting and in-depth treatment of our topic that I cited in my post was “The Double Consciousness of Christ”, by Bertrand de Margerie, S. J. (Faith and Reason, Spring, 1987). Those who wish to truly have a “handle” on these issues are strongly urged to read this entire piece. But here is the “heart” of it:
The Human Consciousness of the Son of God Made Man*In Christ, as we know through Revelation and faith, there are two natures, one divine, the other human. That is, there are two principles of operation. Consequently, consciousness is immediately a quality of the nature, there are two consciousnesses in Christ: one divine, the other human.*However, all the actions of the human nature of Christ, all the actions posited by this human nature, are ultimately ascribed to the divine Person of the Logos acting through its human nature. (Let us not forget that the same Logos, Son of God, acts both as God, as possessing the divine nature, and as man, through his human nature.) So the acts of human consciousness of the Incarnate Son of God are always posited by his divine Person acting through his human nature. The divine Ego of the Son is always both the Subject and the ultimate object of these acts.*In other words, due to the unique Person of Christ which is divine, there is no human consciousness of Christ which would be the consciousness of a Person only human. When Jesus says I, his divine Person expresses in this human word and concept his human consciousness of a divine Self.*This means that the same and unique divine Ego knows himself divinely on one side, humanly on the other. It is not a human ego who would know itself humanly, as in our case. It is a divine Ego who knows Himself not only divinely, but also humanly.*How? On the ultimate basis of the New Testament, on the more proximate basis of traditional Catholic theology (recognizing since the thirteenth century, at least, the existence in Jesus, since his conception, of the act of Beatific Vision as affecting his human intelligence), several modern Catholic theologians have concluded that there is a connection between this act and His human consciousness of his divine Self. Without the permanent elevation of the human mind of Jesus to the act of Beatific vision, that is to say, to the face to face vision of His Eternal Father and of His own eternal and divine Ego, there is no possible explanation of His permanent consciousness of His divine identity.*. . . the general Biblical witness to the divinity of Jesus would oblige us to postulate for Him, ever since the creation and immediate assumption of His soul by the Logos, this beatific vision, this beatifying and immediate experience of His divine Person by his human intelligence–in other words, His human consciousness of His divine Ego.*. . . Nothing in the Gospel indicates in Jesus a becoming conscious of a previously unknown identity: neither the first human words recorded by Luke as pronounced by Jesus, in the Temple of Jerusalem, when He said to Mary: “I had to be in my Father’s house” (Lk 2:48-50, obviously meaning, not Joseph, but his Eternal Father), nor the first declaration of the eternal Father witnessing to His beloved Son during His baptism by John, in the Jordan. Jesus did not learn Who He was: He always knew it; as the Belgian Bishops wrote in 1967, “no one had to tell him who He was.”
If, therefore, someone says that Jesus developed in His awareness of His divinity (was ignorant and then obtained this knowledge), they are wrong: even if it is a bishop. They have somehow missed or misunderstood these magisterial teachings, somewhere along the line. It’s entirely possible for a bishop (even a pope, on very rare occasions) to be mistaken. Their individual opinions (many do not realize) are not magisterial: not even in summaries of a collective of bishops. They’re only magisterial when expressed in an ecumenical council (or at least a synod), in conjunction with the pope’s agreement and approval. The writers and priests whom I cite above are not magisterial, either, but they cite magisterial sources of teaching.
*
So, back to the film . . . It’s good to discuss and ponder the relationship of cinema to theology, faith, and heresy. No one should “get” their theology from movies, but the fact remains that millions who don’t know any better, will or could be led astray by heresy (which is present in this film). That’s the point. Drama has great power to influence and move a soul. In fact, Jesus of Nazareth in 1977 was instrumental in my devoting my life to Jesus as an evangelical Protestant in 1977. That was an orthodox movie. So was The Passion, which was the most moving and soul-wrenching experience I’ve ever had in a movie theater.
*
I’m all for the notion of cinema reaching folks who might not otherwise be interested in the gospel and Christianity. I’ve devoted my own life and career to reaching out in every way I can, and to make Catholicism more “accessible.” So I get that; I really do. I’ve been sharing the gospel for 35 years. But if the methods we use (including films) have erroneous theology, then I have a problem with that. That raises the old red flag.
*
In my opinion, with error so rampant today, people don’t need anything that will lead them further astray. If a person knew his or her theology well, then they could discern the error and “spit out the bones” so to speak. But the problem is that many people (including even many who are otherwise orthodox) do not understand or fully grasp Jesus’ omniscience and those sorts of complicated things; and it’s because these are very complicated aspects of theology, dealing with the Two Natures of Christ.
*
It was the same with The Last Temptation of Christ. It worked, strictly viewed as a movie / piece of drama (I saw it), yet it contained blasphemy and heresy (the notion that Jesus was subject to concupiscence and internal temptation).
*
Movies should ideally be orthodox and not lead astray folks who watch them, completely unsuspecting that the source material is from dubious historical sources. Many (I dare say, most) would simply casually assume that the information that the movie drew from was in the Bible, when in fact much of it is not.
*
One can view it simply as a film; or one can take a larger view, as to how it may harm people spiritually, by giving them some bad and heretical theology. The less people know about theology, the more dangerous it is to see such a film. I argued in precisely the same way about Harry Potter (back when the theological debates were raging pro and con about that): that it could very well (with it’s explicit occultic elements) be dangerous for those less educated in Christianity, but not so for those who are (like my four children, who are Potter fanatics).
*
Millions will assume that all of this is in the Bible, and that concerns me. I’ve always held the view that movies purporting to be historical have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible, within the parameters of use of the usual “historical fiction” elements. I have had that discussion with a filmmaker friend of mine (a perfectly orthodox Catholic), who disagrees. But I am looking at it from the point of view of an amateur historian and apologist, whereas he obviously views it from the artistic perspective. He’s thinking about art. I’m thinking about theology, doctrine, and possible effects and influences on people. As an apologist, I have to deal with the aftermath and effects and whatever bad theology is in films like this, and spend time explaining how and why whatever errors are there, are wrong.
*
Bottom line, then: should a film that is otherwise moving, pleasing drama, edifying, wholesome, liked by many good Catholics, be promoted even if it has serious Christological heresy, because the good outweighs the bad, and it is a supposed “net gain” for the cause of evangelism and making Catholic theology and the history of our Lord Jesus come alive? I say no. The errors are so serious that, to me, they are dealbreakers.
*
Steven Greydanus panned The Last Temptation of Christ as blasphemous, yet he lovesthis movie. But he is mistaken as to it not containing error. That movie contained the falsehood and heresy that Jesus was subject to concupiscense, and hence, possible successful temptation from the devil. This one contains the falsehood and heresy that Jesus didn’t know Who He was at the age of seven. That’s two serious Christological errors: both momentous and dangerous in their harmful influence. If one movie is panned and not recommended as a result, so should the other be.
*
I’d love to see these erroneous elements taken out of the movie (could there not be — as a “compromise” — two versions: a “Catholic” one, similar to the Catholic RSV, that changes just a few Bible passages?). Then we wouldn’t have to have this discussion at all. There would still be much speculation in the film about Jesus’ childhood, of course, but this could (if done properly) be acceptable within certain parameters (in the best sense of “historical fiction”), if it is minus the outright falsehood.
*
Just as we would never give someone a box of twelve chocolate-covered cherries that contained one that was poisonous, so we shouldn’t recommend a movie that is 90% “good” but contains 10% pernicious Christological heresy. “One bad apple . . .” The thing to do is get rid of the poison and the cancer and the bad apple and the heresy, because all spread, and all gravely harm.
* * *
