Did Jesus lose His Omniscience for a time?
Note: This is take from my website.
A man I met online with the nick name CIA insisted that Christ (in His Divinity) was not omniscient while on earth after the incarnation. He then used Philippians 2, Mark 6:5, and Mark 13:32.
I used to think this was possible, but when it goes down to it, it denies Jesus was Fully Man and FULLY GOD, I came to learn that this view is nothing short of apostasy. The main argument people use for this is Mark 13:32 which reads "But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” It was condemned the Church Fathers that this teaches ignorance in His Deity. Christ was omniscient when He said this and His omniscience was due to His Divine nature, not His human nature, which only knew this because of His Divine Nature. Philippians does not at all say Christ lost an attribute of His Divinity, it merely says He humbled himself as a servant. To say Jesus was not omniscient after the incarnation is an assault on the divinity of Jesus Christ, by far the worst thing. The short answer as to why Christ said He did not know was He was referring to His human nature, not His divine in Mark 13/Matthew 24, as chapters both have Christ speaking as "the Son of Man," not the 'Son of God.' The Church Fathers that explain this verse and claim Christ was omnipotent while on Earth. First lets look at the biblical claims for Jesus' omniscience.
"His [Jesus’] disciples said, "Now you are talking plainly, and not in any figure of speech. Now we realize that you know everything and that you do not need to have anyone question you. Because of this we believe that you came from God."—John 16:29-30
(St Augustine says this means Christ is omniscient in Tractate 103)
…Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You..."—John 21:17
“…Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”—1 Corinthians 1:24
"..Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."—Colossians 2:3
Fathers (just to prove that the Classical view is the only real view):
"If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, true Son of God and true Son of Man, was ignorant of future things, or of the day of the last judgment ... let him be anathema."—Pope Vigilius, Against Nestorians, May 14, 553 (Denzinger, 29th ed., No. 419). found here in Latin
"If anyone does not say that the Son of God is true God just as [His] Father is true God [and] He is all-powerful and omniscient and equal to the Father, he is a heretic."—Council of Rome, Tome of Pope Damasus, Canon 12 (A.D. 382), in DEN,31
"If any one denies that the Son of God is very God, omnipotent and omniscient, and equal to the Father, let him be anathema."—Theodoret, On Pope Damasus' decree in Ecclesiastical History Book V Chapter 11
“These things being so, come let us now examine into 'But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son ;'[Mark 13:32] for being in great ignorance as regards these words, and being stupefied about them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare themselves with it, see in them the giants again fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom all things were made, has to litigate before them about day and hour; and the Word who knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day; and the Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day; now what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be likened to this? Through the Word all things have been made, times and seasons and night and day and the whole creation; and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of His work? And the very context of the lection shows that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying, 'nor the Son,' He relates to the disciples what precedes the day, saying, 'This and that shall be, and then the end.' But He who speaks of what precedes the day, knows certainly the day also, which shall be manifested subsequently to the things foretold. But if He had not known the hour, He had not signified the events before it, as not knowing when it should be. And as any one, who, by way of pointing out a house or city to those who were ignorant of it, gave an account of what comes before the house or city, and having described all, said, 'Then immediately comes the city or the house,' would know of course where the house or the city was (for had he not known, he had not described what comes before lest from ignorance he should throw his hearers far out of the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond the object), so the Lord saying what precedes that day and that hour, knows exactly, nor is ignorant, when the hour and the day are at hand….Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious where He has been silent; for 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor [Romans 11:34] ?' but why, though He knew, He said, 'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's deficiency , but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant...[continues in arguing]”—St Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians Chapter 28, c. AD 370
"Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, 'Father, the hour is come, glorify Your Son ,'[John 17:1] it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Savior's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant , to say 'I know not,' that He may show that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh . And therefore He said not, 'no, not the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not the Son,'[Mark 13:32] that the ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men." --St Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians Chapter 43, c. AD 370
"The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself.""—St Augustine (doctor of the Church), On the Trinity, 15:14 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, III:213
"For one who is not prescient of all things is not God."--St Augustine, The City of God, Book 5 Chapter 9
"But when His disciples (who are our apostles) put this question to the all-knowing Christ, they were told: " It is not yours to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put in His own power"[Acts 1:7]. "—St Jerome (doctor of the Church) Letter 144 section 8 ca. AD 400
"No man save Him who for our salvation has designed to put on flesh has full knowledge and a complete grasp of the truth."--St Jerome, Letter to Pope Damacus in reply to Genesis 27:23, ca. AD 400
also see St John Chrysostom Matthew 77:1
“1. Enquiry has already frequently been made concerning the saying of the gospels as to our Lord Jesus Christ's ignorance of the day and of the hour of the end; [Mark 13:32] an objection constantly put forward by the Anomœans to the destruction of the glory of the Only-Begotten, in order to show Him to be unlike in essence and subordinate in dignity; inasmuch as, if He know not all things, He cannot possess the same nature nor be regarded as of one likeness with Him, who by His own prescience and faculty of forecasting the future has knowledge coextensive with the universe. This question has now been proposed to me by your intelligence as a new one. I can give in reply the answer which I heard from our fathers when I was a boy, and which on account of my love for what is good, I have received without question. I do not expect that it can undo the shamelessness of them that fight against Christ, for where is the reasoning strong enough to stand their attack? It may, however, suffice to convince all that love the Lord, and in whom the previous assurance supplied them by faith is stronger than any demonstration of reason.
Now no man seems to be a general expression, so that not even one person is excepted by it, but this is not its use in Scripture, as I have observed in the passage there is none good but one, that is, God. For even in this passage the Son does not so speak to the exclusion of Himself from the good nature. But, since the Father is the first good, we believe the words no man to have been uttered with the understood addition of first. So with the passage “No man knows the Son but the Father”; [Matthew 11:27] even here there is no charge of ignorance against the Spirit, but only a testimony that knowledge of His own nature naturally belongs to the Father first. Thus also we understand “No man knows,” [Matthew 24:36] to refer to the Father the first knowledge of things, both present and to be, and generally to exhibit to men the first cause. Otherwise how can this passage fall in with the rest of the evidence of Scripture, or agree with the common notions of us who believe that the Only-Begotten is the image of the invisible God, and image not of the bodily figure, but of the very Godhead and of the mighty qualities attributed to the essence of God, image of power, image of wisdom, as Christ is called the “power of God and the wisdom of God?” [1 Corinthians 1:24] Now of wisdom knowledge is plainly a part; and if in any part He falls short, He is not an image of the whole; and how can we understand the Father not to have shown that day and that hour— the smallest portion of the ages— to Him through Whom He made the ages? How can the Creator of the universe fall short of the knowledge of the smallest portion of the things created by Him? How can He who says, when the end is near, that such and such signs shall appear in heaven and in earth, be ignorant of the end itself? When He says, “The end is not yet.” [Matthew 24:6] He makes a definite statement, as though with knowledge and not in doubt. Then further, it is plain to the fair enquirer that our Lord says many things to men, in the character of man; as for instance, “give me to drink” [John 4:7] is a saying of our Lord, expressive of His bodily necessity; and yet the asker was not soulless flesh, but Godhead using flesh endued with soul. So in the present instance no one will be carried beyond the bounds of the interpretation of true religion, who understands the ignorance of him who had received all things according to the œconomy, and was advancing with God and man in favor and wisdom.
2. It would be worthy of your diligence to set the phrases of the Gospel side by side, and compare together those of Matthew and those of Mark, for these two alone are found in concurrence in this passage. The wording of Matthew is of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. That of Mark runs, “But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” [Mark 13:32] What is noticeable in these passages is this; that Matthew says nothing about the ignorance of the Son, and seems to agree with Mark as to sense in saying but my Father only. Now I understand the word only to have been used in contradistinction to the angels, but that the Son is not included with His own servants in ignorance.
He could not say what is false Who said “All things that the Father has are Mine,” [John 16:15] but one of the things which the Father has is knowledge of that day and of that hour. In the passage in Matthew, then, the Lord made no mention of His own Person, as a matter beyond controversy, and said that the angels knew not and that His Father alone knew, tacitly asserting the knowledge of His Father to be His own knowledge too, because of what He had said elsewhere, “as the Father knows me even so know I the Father,” [John 10:15] and if the Father has complete knowledge of the Son, nothing excepted, so that He knows all knowledge to dwell in Him, He will clearly be known as fully by the Son with all His inherent wisdom and all His knowledge of things to come. This modification, I think, may be given to the words of Matthew, “but my Father only”.[Matthew 24:36] Now as to the words of Mark, who appears distinctly to exclude the Son from the knowledge,[c.f. Mark 13:32] my opinion is this. No man knows, neither the angels of God; nor yet the Son would have known unless the Father had known: that is, the cause of the Son's knowing comes from the Father. To a fair hearer there is no violence in this interpretation, because the word only is not added as it is in Matthew. Mark's sense, then, is as follows: of that day and of that hour knows no man, nor the angels of God; but even the Son would not have known if the Father had not known, for the knowledge naturally His was given by the Father. This is very decorous and becoming the divine nature to say of the Son, because He has, His knowledge and His being, beheld in all the wisdom and glory which become His Godhead, from Him with Whom He is consubstantial.”—St Basil of Caesarea, Letter 236
"Their tenth objection is the objection, and the statement that of the last 'day and hour knows no man, not even the Son Himself, but the Father.'[Mark 13:32] And yet how can Wisdom be ignorant of anything? ...How then can you say that all things before that hour He knows accurately, and all things that are to happen about the time of the end, but the hour itself He is ignorant? For such a thing would be like a riddle, as if one were to say that he knew accurately all that was in front of the wall, but did not know the wall itself; or that, knowing the end of the day, he did not the beginning of night--where knowledge of the one neccessarily brings in the other. Thus everyone must see He knows as God, and knows not as man,--if one may separate visible from that which discerned by thought alone."--St Gregory Nazianzen, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 30:15 ca. AD 370
[here we see that ST Gregory declares that Jesus Christ] "does not empty himself of any part that makes up his divine nature, and not-withstanding this he saves me like a healer who bends over festering wounds.... He was of the line of David, but was the Creator of Adam; he was made of flesh, but was also a stranger to it; he was generated by a mother, but by a virgin mother; he was limited, but also immense; he was born in a stable, but a star led the Magi to him, who brought him gifts and bowed down and knelt before him. As a mortal man he battled with the devil, but, invincible as he was, he overcame the tempter with a three-fold strategy.... He was victim, but also High Priest; he was sacrificed, but was God; he offered his blood to God and in this way he purified the entire world. A cross raised him up from the earth, but sin remained nailed to it.... He descended to the dead, but came back from the netherworld redeeming many who were dead. The first event is typical of human misery, but the second is part of the richness of the incorporeal being..., that earthly form the immortal Son takes upon himself because he loves us"—St Gregory Nazianzus, Doctor of the Church c. AD 370 (Carmina arcana, 2: Collana di Testi Patristici, LVIII, Rome, 1986, pp. 236-238). (quoted by Pope Benedict XVI October 26, 2005 in General Audience)
“For He, as the Only-begotten Son of the Father, and the Word, both was and is omnipotent, and there is nothing that is not easy to Him.”—St Cyril of Jerusalem Homily 47, On Luke
“He performs the miracle not only in word, but also touches the bier, to the end that you might know that the sacred body of Christ is powerful to the saving of man. For it is the body of Life and the flesh of the Omnipotent Word, whose power it possesses. For as iron applied to fire does the work of fire, so the flesh, when it is united to the Word, which quickens all things, becomes itself also quickening, and the banisher of death.”—St Cyril, quoted by St Thomas Aquinas in the Golden Chain
"We can now understand why He said that He knew not the day. If we believe Him to have been really ignorant, we contradict the Apostle, who says, "In Whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden" [Colossians 2:3] . There is knowledge which is hidden in Him, and because it has to be hidden, it must sometimes for this purpose be professed as ignorance, for once declared, it will no longer be secret. In order, therefore, that the knowledge may remain hidden, He declares that He does not know. But if He does not know, in order that the knowledge may remain hidden, this ignorance is not due to His nature, which is omniscient, for He is ignorant solely in order that it may be hidden. Nor is it hard to see why the knowledge of the day is hidden."—St Hilary of Poiters (doctor of the Church) On the Trinity Book IX paragraph 67
“The Son is ignorant, then, of nothing which the Father knows, nor does it follow because the Father alone knows, that the Son does not know. Father and Son abide in unity of nature, and the ignorance of the Son belongs to the divine Plan of silence, seeing that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. This the Lord Himself testified, when He answered the question of the Apostles concerning the times, “It is not yours to know times or moments, which the Father has set within His own authority” [Acts 1:7] . The knowledge is denied them, and not only that, but the anxiety to learn is forbidden, because it is not theirs to know these times. Yet now that He is risen, they ask again, though their question on the former occasion had been met with the reply, that not even the Son knew. They cannot possibly have understood literally that the Son did not know, for they ask Him again as though He did know. They perceived in the mystery of His ignorance a divine Plan of silence, and now, after His resurrection, they renew the question, thinking that the time has come to speak. And the Son no longer denies that He knows, but tells them that it is not theirs to know, because the Father has set it within His own authority. If then, the Apostles attributed it to the divine Plan, and not to weakness, that the Son did not know the day, shall we say that the Son knew not the day for the simple reason that He was not God? Remember, God the Father set the day within His authority, that it might not come to the knowledge of man, and the Son, when asked before, replied that He did not know, but now, no longer denying His knowledge, replies that it is theirs not to know, for the Father has set the times not in His own knowledge, but in His own authority. The day and the moment are included in the word 'times': can it be, then, that He, Who was to restore Israel to its kingdom, did not Himself know the day and the moment of that restoration? He instructs us to see an evidence of His birth in this exclusive prerogative of the Father, yet He does not deny that He knows: and while He proclaims that the possession of this knowledge is withheld from ourselves, He asserts that it belongs to the mystery of the Father's authority.
We must not therefore think, because He said He did not know the day and the moment, that the Son did not know. As man He wept, and slept, and sorrowed, but God is incapable of tears, or fear, or sleep. According to the weakness of His flesh He shed tears, slept, hungered, thirsted, was weary, and feared, yet without impairing the reality of His Only-begotten nature; equally so must we refer to His human nature, the words that He knew not the day or the hour[Mark 13:32].”— St Hilary of Poiters (doctor of the Church) On the Trinity Book IX paragraph 74
"Those, then, who say that He is a servant divide the one Christ into two, just as Nestorius did. But we declare Him to be Master and Lord of all creation, the one Christ, at once God and man, and all-knowing. "For in Him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the hidden treasures[Col 2:3]""—St John of Damascus (doctor of the Church) An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book III Chapter 21
(But) concerning that which has been written: That neither the Son, nor the angels know the day and the hour [cf. Mark 13:32, Matt 24:36], indeed, your holiness has perceived rightly, that since it most certainly should be referred not to the same son according to that which is the head, but according to his body which we are . . . . He [Augustine] also says . . . that this can be understood of the same son, because omnipotent God sometimes speaks in a human way, as he said to Abraham: Now I know that thou fearest God [Gen. 22:12], not because God then knew that He was feared, but because at that time He caused Abraham to know that he feared God. For, just as we say a day is happy not because the day itself is happy, but because it makes us happy, so the omnipotent Son says He does not know the day which He causes not to be known, not because He himself is ignorant of it, but because He does not permit it to be known at all. Thus also the Father alone is said to know, because the Son (being) consubstantial with Him, on account of His nature, by which He is above the angels, has knowledge of that, of which the angels are unaware. Thus, also, this can be the more precisely understood because the Only-begotten having been incarnate, and made perfect man for us, in His human nature indeed did know the day and the hour of judgment, but nevertheless He did not know this from His human nature. Therefore, that which in (nature) itself He knew, He did not know from that very (nature), because God-made-man knew the day and hour of the judgment through the power of His Godhead. . . . Thus, the knowledge which He did not have on account of the nature of His humanity-by reason of which, like the angels, He was a creature this He denied that He, like the angels, who are creatures, had. Therefore (as) God and man He knows the day and the hour of judgment; but On this account, because God is man. But the fact is certainly manifest that whoever is not a Nestorian, can in no wise be an Agnoeta. For with what purpose can he, who confesses that the Wisdom itself of God is incarnate say that there is anything which the Wisdom of God does not know? It is written: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . All things were made by him [John 1:1,3]. If all, without doubt also the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so foolish as to presume to assert that the Word of the Father made that which He does not know? it is written also: Jesus knowing, that the Father gave him all things into his hands [John 13:3]. If all things, surely both the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so stupid as to say that the Son has received in His hands that of which He is unaware?—Pope St Gregory the Great (I) (doctor of the Church) to Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, "Sicut aqua frigida" August AD 600 (Denz. old 248)
"If any one denies that the Son of God is very God, omnipotent and omniscient, and equal to the Father, let him be anathema."—Theodoret, On Pope Damacus' decree in Ecclesiastical History Book V Chapter 11
"If any one deny that the Holy Spirit is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, as also the Son of the Father, let him be anathema."—Theodoret, On Pope Damacus' decree in Ecclesiastical History Book V Chapter 11
“The Lord wishing to prevent His disciples from asking about that day and hour, says, But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. For if He had said, I know, but I will not reveal it to you, He would have saddened them not a little; but He acted more wisely, and prevents their asking such a question, lest they should importune Him, by saying, neither the Angels nor I.”--THEOPHYL on Mark 13:32 (quoted in St Thomas in the Golden Chain)
"We believe that the same Son of God, the Word of God, is eternally born from the Father, consubstantial, co-omnipotent, and equal through ALL things to the Father in divinity, temporally born from the Holy Spirit and Mary ever Virgin with a rational soul; having two births, one eternal birth from the Father, the other temporal from the mother; true God and true man, proper and perfect in each nature, not adopted nor phantastic, but the one and only Son of God, in two and from two natures, that is divine and human, in the singleness of one person impassible and immortal in divinity, but in humanity for us and for our salvation having suffered in the true passion of the flesh, died, and was buried,"—Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus, Council of Lyons AD 1274
"He is one and the same undivided, both natures, God and man, remaining in their own peculiar properties, God and man, Son of God and Son of man, equal to the Father according to divinity, less than the Father according to humanity, immortal and eternal from the nature of divinity, passible and temporal from the condition of assumed humanity."—A Decree to the Jacobites, Cantata Domino, February 4, 1442
“It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.”—Pope St Pius X LAMENTABILI SANE Article 32 July 3, 1907, Condemning Modernist Errors (Denz. Nos. 2032)
“The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.”—Pope St Pius X LAMENTABILI SANE Article 34 July 3, 1907, Condemning Modernist Errors (Denz. Nos. 2034)
When the question was proposed by the Sacred Congregation on Seminary and University Studies, whether the following propositions can be safely taught:
2183 I. It is not established that there was in the soul of Christ while living among men the knowledge which the blessed and the comprehensors have [cf. Phil. 3:12,13 ].
2184 II. Nor can the opinion be called certain which has established that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing, but from the beginning knew all things in the Word, past, present, and future, or all things that God knows by the knowledge of vision.
2185 III. The opinion of certain more recent persons on the limited knowledge of the soul of Christ is to be accepted in Catholic schools no less than the notion of the ancients on universal knowledge.
The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals, general Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals, the prayer of the Consultors being held first, decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.
--Certain Propositions on Knowledge of the Soul of Christ, Decree of the Holy Office, June 5, 1918 (see Denzinger 2183-5)
The recent popes reiterate Christ’s emptying and humbling are because He became man, not because He “deposited” or temporarily ceased having divinity powers:“Commenting on this text of the Letter to the Philippians, St. Athanasius says, "This expression, 'has exalted him,' does not imply that the nature of the Word was exalted. The latter has been and always will be equal to God. It indicates, however, the exaltation of human nature. These words, therefore, were uttered only after the Incarnation of the Word, so that it would be clear that terms such as humbled and exalted refer solely to the human dimension. In fact, only what is humble can be exalted" (Athanasius, Adversus Arianos Oratio I, 41). Here we shall add merely that the whole of human nature, all humanity, humiliated in the painful condition to which it has been reduced by sin, finds the source of its new glory in the exaltation of Christ the man.”—Pope John Paul II, General Audience: Jesus Christ Emptied Himself, February 17, 1988 *Notice here Pope John Paul II in this General Audience DIRECTLY refers to the “kenosis,” he says the emptying refers to the fact Christ is TRUE MAN, not at all changing His divinity in ANYWAY. Whenever Pope John Paul II said Christ gave up his “glory” he means Christ became a MAN, not losing His Divine powers even temporarily.
“Although he felt united with the Father in so intimate a way, Jesus admitted that he did not know the hour of the final and decisive coming of the kingdom. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" (Mt 24:36). This is an indication of the "emptying of himself" proper to the Incarnation, which conceals the eschatological end of the world from his human nature.”—Pope John Paul II, General Audience on March 3, 1999 *notice Pope John Paul II said it is just his HUMAN nature that was ignorant
“He 'emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,' but without abandoning his divine form. Consequently, he who was God, made himself man, taking on what he was not without losing what he was; thus, God became man.”—Pope John Paul II, General Audience on August 4, 2004 commenting on Philippians 2:6-11
"Undoubtedly, he possesses divine nature with all its prerogatives. But he does not interpret and live this transcendent reality as a sign of power, of greatness, and of dominion. Christ does not use his being equal to God, his glorious dignity and his power as an instrument of triumph, sign of distance, expression of crushing supremacy (see verse 6). On the contrary, he "emptied" himself, immersing himself without reserve in the miserable and weak human condition. The divine "form" ("morphe") is hidden in Christ under the human "form" ("morphe"), that is, under our reality marked by suffering, poverty, limitation and death (see verse 7)."—Pope Benedict XVI commentary on Phil 2:6-11 of "emptying"
“If neither the angels nor the Son (insofar as he is man and not insofar as he is God) know the day or hour of the end, is it possible that a member of some sect or some religious fanatic would know and be authorized to announce it?”--Father Cantalamessa, On the End of the World, November 17, 2006
for more read The Inflated reputation of Han Ur von Balthsar
One of CIA’s rebuttals
was that Jesus was not omnipotent because Mark says He could not do
miracles…though he did not present the text I assume CIA referred to Mark 6:5
which reads: “…he was not able to
perform any mighty deed” which
I admit looks bad if you read only THAT part of the chapter and verse and not
try understanding it and not reading the next verse and ignoring Church Fathers
interpretation of it… However, what the whole verse says is: “So
he was not able to perform any mighty deed there,
apart from curing a few sick people by laying his
hands on them.” The
reason Christ did no miracles because He did not want to do it THERE, and
scripture says he did SOME miracles there he CURED the sick! The next verse
further explains why: “He was amazed at their
lack of faith.”(v. 6)
Here is St Thomas Aquinas’ rebuttal to this argument in his Summa Theologicae:
to Objection 1: When it is said that "He could not do any miracles
there," it is not to be understood that He could not do them absolutely,
but that it was not fitting for Him to do them: for it was unfitting for Him to
work miracles among unbelievers. Wherefore it is said farther on: "And He
wondered because of their unbelief." In like manner it is said (Gn. 18:17):
"Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" and Gn. 19:22:
"I cannot do anything till thou go in thither."—Summa
Theologica, Question 43, Article II, Rebuttal to Objection I
Lapides commentary on Mark 6:5
And He could not do any miracles there. Could not, i.e., would not, because He did not think it proper to give what was holy to dogs, that is, to force His miracles upon unbelieving and ungrateful citizens. So could not is used for would not (Gen. xxxvii. 4, and John vii. 7). “Because,” says Victor of Antioch on this passage, “two things must coincide for the attaining of health, namely, the faith of those who need healing, and the power of him who will heal; therefore, if either of these be wanting, the blessing of a cure will not readily be attained.”
Likewise, reads St John Cassian in Conference 13, Chapter 15:
"But among others the unfathomable depth of Christ's beneficence was so stopped up, that it was said: And Jesus could do there no mighty works because of their unbelief. [Mark 6:5-6] And so the bounty of God is actually shaped according to the capacity of man's faith, so that to one it is said: According to your faith be it unto you: [Matthew 9:29] and to another: Go your way, and as you have believed so be it unto you; [Matthew 8:13] to another Be it unto you according as you will, [Matthew 15:28] and again to another: Your faith has made you whole. [Luke 18:42]"
Tatian's Diatessaron (fourfold gospel harmony) has the corresponding verse reading
"And he was not able to do there many mighty works, because of their unbelief ;"--Diatessaron Section 17, Tatian c. AD 175
In fact St Matthew's Gospel reads:
"And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith."--Matthew 13:58
In reponse to those who say that Jesus as God while being a child in the flesh was ignorant of things and have to learn and grow. (possibly citing Luke 2:52):
"Do not think to yourself, "How can God grow?" "How can he who gives grace to angels and to men receive fresh wisdom?" Rather reflect upon the great skill with which we are initiated into his mystery. For the wise Evangelist did not introduce the Word in his abstract and incorporeal nature. He says of him that "he increased in stature and wisdom and grace," [Luke 2:52] but after having shown that he was born in the flesh of a woman and took our likeness, he then assigns to him these human attributes. Only then does he call a child and say that he grew in stature, as his body grew little by little, in obedience to corporeal laws. So he is said to have increased in wisdom, not as receiving fresh supplies of wisdom. God is perceived by the understanding to be entirely perfect in all things and altogether incapable of being destitute of any attribute suitable to the Godhead. So God the Word gradually manifested his wisdom proportionally to the age which the body had attained.
The body then advances in stature, and the soul, in wisdom. The divine nature is incapable of increase in neither one nor the other, seeing that the Word of God is all perfect. With good reason he connected the increase of wisdom with the growth of the bodily stature, because the divine nature revealed its own wisdom in proportion to the measure of the bodily growth."--St Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Luke, Homily 5, (CGSL 36-64**)
St Jerome says likewise:
"How does he who is Wisdom receive understanding? "Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men."[Luke 2:52] This means not so much that the Son was instructed by the Father but that his human nature was instructed by his own divinity. There is the seer's prophecy of him who blossomed from the root of Jesse," The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and of understanding."--St Jerome, Homily on Psalm 15(16) (FC 57:26**)
Also see St John Damacus in Orthodox Faith 3.22
Here is the Catechism on this issue:
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 [ie human nature] 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
109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.
Simply put, Christ as God knew EVERYTHING, but He was not sent to reveal everything, for this reason His Divine nature did not reveal the hour to his human.
Furthermore the "kenotic" view that CIA takes is condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1951:
There is another enemy of the faith of Chalcedon, widely diffused outside the fold of the Catholic religion. This is an opinion for which a rashly and falsely understood sentence of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (ii, 7), supplies a basis and a shape. This is called the kenotic doctrine, and according to it, they imagine that the divinity was taken away from the Word in Christ. It is a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it. It reduces the whole mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption to empty the bloodless imaginations. 'With the entire and perfect nature of man'--thus grandly St. Leo the Great--'He Who was true God was born, complete in his own nature, complete in ours' (Ep. xxviii, 3. PL. Liv, 763. Cf. Serm. xxiii, 2. PL. lvi, 201).--Pope Pius XII, Sempiternus Rex Christus, Paragraph 29, September 8, 1951 (for more on this see Light in Darkness
CIA however will respond "I do not deny Christ was God." Yet CIA's view is still condemned in this because the Popes here state that Jesus "complete in his own nature" and ours, CIA's view is that Christ temporarily gave up or "deposited" his Divine attributes. Christ is the Word incarnate, not part of the Word.
CIA will argue he is not making Jesus any less divine--but CIA is, since God is omniscient and Jesus is God He must be omniscient according to His divinity. A)Jesus is God B)God is omniscient C) ergo Jesus is omniscient. To say Jesus is not omniscient would mean that Jesus is only semi divine as if He were a god of the pagans similar to a demigod perhaps. CIA simply tries to twist the fathers as to make Jesus' limited knowledge seem plausible, for example he explains that the Council of Rome is too vague and makes no reference to the incarnation so therefore his belief is not condemned at all by it. Unfortunately, he's just trying to jump through hoops--the council simply says that the Son of God is OMNISCIENT--the time does not matter. CIA acknowledges that Christ being omniscient is the “classical view.” But he claims his “kenotic” view is not heretical, and may be right, as if the Church was wrong those 1900 years waiting for a theologian like Balthasar to put it on the right path. CIA claims not to be a modernist and that Lamentabili Sane does not condemn those who say Christ was not omniscient...On this point many scholars, apologists, a priest, and theologians have said IT DOES make CIA a modernist to claim Christ was not omniscient after the incarnation and that it was condemned by Pope St Pius X, if not apostacy.
Clearly CIA claims to know something that was not even known by the Apostles themselves, which in fact is condemned by the words of the Apostles in the Gospel.
To say Christ in His divinity on earth was NOT all knowing is to make Jesus’ divinity LESS than that of the Fathers. Christ in saying He did not know the day was saying in His human nature he was ignorant since God does not allow such knowledge to men as Acts 1:7 makes clear, Christ solely in His Deity was aware of the hour.
Some tried defending CIA tried to state that Christ in His human nature would not be capable of comprehending omniscience. I however also showed 1 Corinthians 13 which says others wise that we will see face to face and partial understanding will end. Furthermore, the Catechism 474 says otherwise concerning Christ. Furthermore, Vatican I states:
If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development: let him be anathema.—Vatican I, Canon 3 on Revelation
CIA's utilization of St. Mark's Gospel 13:32 is erroneous since the chapter in context is Jesus referring to Himself as the "Son of Man" not "Son of God," the same is true with the corresponding verse in Matthew 24 (v.36)
Part of the difficult of this whole mess is the significance of the term "kenosis" or "emptying." Here is how the late Pope John Paul II interpreted it:
"Behold the man!" This expression contains in a certain sense the whole truth about Christ, true man; about him who "is like us in all things but sin"; about him who "has united himself in some fashion with every man" (cf. GS 22). They called him the "friend of tax collectors and sinners." Precisely as a victim for sin, Jesus entered into solidarity with all humanity including "sinners," even to death on a cross. Precisely in this condition of victim to which Jesus was reduced, a final aspect of his humanity stands out. This aspect must be accepted and profoundly meditated on in the light of the mystery of his self-emptying (kenosis). According to St. Paul, "though he was in the form of God, [Jesus] did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:6-8).
This text from the Letter to the Philippians introduces us into the mystery of Christ's kenosis. To express this mystery the apostle uses first of all the words "emptied himself," which refers especially to the reality of the Incarnation. "The Word became flesh" (Jn 1:14). God the Son assumed human nature, humanity, and became true man, while remaining God! The truth about Christ as man must always be considered in relation to God the Son. This permanent reference itself is indicated by St. Paul's text. "He emptied himself" does not in any way mean that he ceased to be God; that would be absurd! It means rather, as the apostle perceptively expressed it, that "he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped," but "though he was in the form of God" (in forma Dei), as the true Son of God, he assumed a human nature deprived of glory, subject to suffering and death, in which he could live in obedience to the Father, even to the ultimate sacrifice.....
In this self-emptying which profoundly characterizes the truth about Christ, true man, we can say that it re-establishes it and restores it. When we read that the Son "did not regard equality with God something to be grasped," we cannot but see in these words an allusion to the first and original temptation to which Adam and Eve yielded in the beginning: "You will become (that is, you will be) like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:5). They yielded to the temptation to be like God, even though they were only creatures. He who is God the Son "did not regard equality with God something to be grasped." In becoming man, "he emptied himself" and by that choice he restored all human beings, however poor and deprived, to their original dignity.
To express this mystery of Christ's kenosis St. Paul also used another phrase: "He humbled himself." He used this expression in the context of the reality of the redemption. He wrote that Jesus Christ "humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8). Here Christ's kenosis is described in its definitive dimension. From the human point of view it is the dimension of the self-emptying by means of his passion and cruel death. From the divine point of view, it is the redemption effected by the merciful love of the Father through the Son, who freely obeyed out of love for the Father and to save humanity. In that moment there was a new beginning of God's glory in human history, the glory of Christ, his Son made man. The Pauline text says, "Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9)....
Commenting on this text of the Letter to the Philippians, St. Athanasius says, "This expression, 'has exalted him,' does not imply that the nature of the Word was exalted. The latter has been and always will be equal to God. It indicates, however, the exaltation of human nature. These words, therefore, were uttered only after the Incarnation of the Word, so that it would be clear that terms such as humbled and exalted refer solely to the human dimension. In fact, only what is humble can be exalted" (Athanasius, Adversus Arianos Oratio I, 41). Here we shall add merely that the whole of human nature, all humanity, humiliated in the painful condition to which it has been reduced by sin, finds the source of its new glory in the exaltation of Christ the man.—Pope John Paul II, General Audience: Jesus Christ Emptied Himself, February 17, 1988
"Christians are sometimes tempted to miss the point of the kenosis of the Cross of Jesus Christ, preferring instead the ways of pride, power and dominion."--ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER POPE JOHN PAUL II TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE GENERAL CHAPTER OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARITY (ROSMINIANS), 26 September 1998
and Pope Benedict XVI:
With this parable Jesus emphasizes his predilection for sinners who convert, and he teaches us that humility is essential for welcoming the gift of salvation. St. Paul, too, in the passage from the Letter to the Philippians that we meditate on today, calls for humility. “Do nothing out of selfishness or vainglory,” he writes, “but humbly regard others as superior to you” (Philippians 2:3). These are Christ’s own sentiments, he who laid aside divine glory for love of us, became man and lowered himself even to dying on the cross (cf. Philippians 2:5-8). The Greek verb that is used here, “ekenôsen,” literally means that he “emptied himself” and places the profound humility and infinite love of Jesus, the humble Servant par excellence, in a clear light.--Pope Benedict XVI, September 28, 2008, Papal Address, On Pope John Paul I
and Pope Benedict XVI:
The hymn found in his Letter to the Philippians (Phil 2:6-11) contrasts Christ’s pre-existence "in the form of God" and his subsequent "kenosis" or self-emptying, "even to death, death on a Cross".--Pope Benedict XVI October 22, 2008, Papal Audience on St Paul's Christology
"God's love for us, which began with creation, became visible in the mystery of the Cross, in that kenosis of God, in that self-emptying, that abasement of the Son of God which we heard proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the First Reading, in the magnificent hymn to Christ in the Letter to the Philippians."--Pope Benedict XVI, Homily to the Youth for World Youth Day, March 29, 2007
and of Cardinal Rode
"The service of the Society [Society of Jesus] is a service "under the banner of the Cross" (Formula I). Every service done out of love necessarily implies a self-emptying, a kenosis. But letting go of what one wants to do in order to do what the beloved wants is to transform the kenosis into the image of Christ, who learned obedience through suffering (cf. Heb 5: 8)."—Homily of Cardinal Franc Rode, C.M., January 7, 2008
Father Cantalamessa (preacher of the Pontifical Household) states (on the interpretation of Phil. 2:6-7's kenosis):
"We have here two different "ways" or routes in the discovery of who Jesus Christ is. One, that of Paul, begins from humanity to reach divinity, from the flesh to reach the Spirit, from the history of Christ to arrive at the preexistence of Christ. The other, that of John, follows the inverse path: It begins from the Word's divinity to arrive at affirming his humanity, from his existence in eternity to descend to his existence in time. Paul's approach makes the resurrection the hinge of the two phases, and John's sees the passage as turning on the incarnation.
These two approaches consolidated in the epoch that followed and gave rise to two models or archetypes and finally to two Christological schools: the Antiochene school influenced by Paul and the Alexandrian school influenced by John. Neither group was aware of choosing between Paul and John; each takes itself to include both. That is undoubtedly true; but it is a fact that the two influences are visible and distinguishable, like two rivers that merge together but are nevertheless identifiable by the different color of their waters.
This difference is reflected, for example, in the different way in which the two schools interpret Christ's kenosis in Philippians 2. From the 2nd and 3rd centuries, even down to modern exegesis, two different readings can be delineated. According to the Alexandrian school the initial subject of the hymn is the Son of God preexistent in the form of God. In this case the kenosis, or "pouring out," would consist in the incarnation, in becoming man. According to the Antiochene school, the sole subject of the hymn, from beginning to end, is the historical Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. In this case the kenosis would consist in the abasement inherent in his becoming a slave, in submitting himself to the passion and death.
The difference between the two schools is not that some follow Paul and others John, but that some interpret John in the light Paul and others Paul in the light of John. The difference is the framework or background perspective that is adopted for illustrating the mystery of Christ. It can be said that the main lines of the Church's dogma and theology have formed in the confrontation of these two schools, which continue to have an impact today."-Fr Cantalamessa's 3rd Advent Meditation, December 19, 2008
also on discussing "power":
"Power, like money, is not intrinsically evil. God describes himself as "the Omnipotent" and Scripture says "power belongs to God" (Psalm 62:11).
However, given that man had abused the power granted to him, transforming it into control by the strongest and oppression of the weakest, what did God do?
To give us an example, God stripped himself of his omnipotence; from being "omnipotent," he made himself "impotent."
He "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7). He transformed power into service. The first reading of the day contains a prophetic description of this "impotent" Savior. "He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth. ... He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity."
Thus a new power is revealed, that of the cross:....."--Father Cantalamessa on Power, October 20, 2008 *Only a superfical reading would suggest he advocates Balthasar/CIA's kenosis heresy.
Concerning the soul of Christ (ie His Human nature) the extent of His Knowledge seems uncertain, undoubtedly He knew more than all human beings, but was His soul given all knowledge of God, the Catechism says the soul of Christ was not in of itself omniscient, certain Christ did ALWAYS know He was God as Pope Pius XII states:
"But the knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all that the human intellect can hope to grasp. 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."--Pope Pius XII, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTIhere is a page discussing the Soul of Christ's knowledge