Aut Deus aut Mendax – Either the Lord God, or a Liar. A Consideration of the Divinity of Jesus as the "Make or Break" Dogma

45 Replies to “Aut Deus aut Mendax – Either the Lord God, or a Liar. A Consideration of the Divinity of Jesus as the "Make or Break" Dogma”

1. Great post. Allow me to add a few points:

   One other really important theme in the gospels is how Jesus replaces the temple. The temple was considered to be the very dwelling place of God. If Jesus supersedes or replaces the temple, then he is claiming to be the dwelling place of God. We see this when he mentions that “something greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6) and “tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days.” (Jn 2:19; see also Mk 14:58). This is also alluded to in Jn 1:51 where Jesus says “You will see angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man”. This is a reference to the story of Jacob’s ladder (Gen 28) where Jacob concludes that the spot where he saw angels ascending and descending was the very dwelling place of God (Gn 28:17).

   On a smaller point, I would note that Jesus’ claim to oneness with the father is not only found in John, but is also confirmed in Matthew 11:27.

   On the question of the veracity of the gospels, I recently watched a wonderful talk online that presents some fascinating new evidence that the gospels are faithful eyewitness accounts. The speaker builds off the same question to which you alluded: Is Jesus Lord, a lunatic, a liar, or legend? The talk is a bit lengthy, but is entertaining and brilliant:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r5Ylt1pBMm8

   1. Yes, thanks for these additions

2. With all that scriptural evidence it is difficult to imagine how the Arian heresy, which got rolling in the fourth century, came to be so widespread that there were Arian bishops of the Church with enough power behind them to banish into exile those who maintained their belief in the dual nature, fully divine and fully man, of Jesus.

   Hillside Belloc explains it pretty well in the third chapter of his book, “The Great Heresies”: 

   http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY3.TXT

   He also suggests that the old heresy has been resurrected in our own day, and as your post illustrates, is evident even in our seminaries and universities. Perhaps even among our bishops?

   1. Thanks for the link. I am not aware of any bishops who hold this view. Though again, it remains a disturbing thing how many of our catholic colleges are permitted to disseminate false teaching.

3. Some people think of Jesus what some Christians think of false gods and false prophets: A good guy worshiped as a god or hailed as a perfect man by some crazy followers. Other people think of Jesus what other Christians think of founders of false religions: Just another guy in history trying to make the world a better place.

   1. Get real. Most people do not think of the founders of false religions as “trying to make the world a better place”, except maybe for themselves. That applies as much to Mohammed and Joseph Smith as to David Koresh or Jim Jones. Why would anyone think that such a person was “a good guy”?

      1. I don’t think Nick holds this view, Howard, he is simply articulating what many say, to evade the question.

         1. Actually, I didn’t say that he did believe that Jesus was “just a good guy”. I said that most people don’t really believe founders of new religions tend to be good, because, quite aside from theoretical considerations, the historical record shows them to typically be egocentric scoundrels. Most of the “good man” talk is simply an attempt to avoid hurting someone else’s feelings.

            I would certainly take to task Nick’s assertion that CHRISTIANS think that false gods were, in real life, “good guys”. It’s hard to know the character of a historical Odin or Osiris, or even if there ever was one, though some scholars think there may have been. Let’s look instead, then, at people who are known to history and who were literally worshiped as gods: the emperors of pagan Rome. Are they typically held forth as paragons of virtue, particularly by Christians? How about the pharaohs of Egypt, worshipped as living incarnations of Horus?

4. I love that hymn you have put a video to before: Jesus my Lord, my God, my all …
   CS Lewis talked about this in Mere Christianity (and it is very accessible to laymen): either Jesus is a world’s greatest liar and scoundrel, a lunatic or He is God.

   It is very nice to have all your references to Jesus’s divinity in one place. I wish my Jewish friends would see that Jesus is the Messiah! I’m not quite sure what exactly they think of Him, besides being a blasphemer. I know the Muslims think of Him as a prophet.

   1. Scripture more than suggests that one day the Jewish people will come to Christ.

5. The book that Fr. Barron wrote, also called Catholicism, is also excellent.

   1. The book is essentially the script for the whole series (I have both).

6. I have had the opportunity to watch all 10 episodes of “Catholicism”. I am working on having the series shown in my Archdiocese but I am unfortunately getting some resistance. It looks like I may be able to get it viewed on the parish level however. The series is wonderful and doesn’t shrink from the Truth. Father Barron has an incredible gift of being able to synthesize all the wonderful intellectual history of the Church into language that most people can understand. If only we could get everyone who calls themselves Catholic to spend 10 hours and watch the series it would go a long way to revitalize the Faith.

   1. Yes, Indeed.

      1. Yes! EJCM…my diocese seems rather lukewarm on this project…I just don’t understand. The first time I saw the trailer for Catholicism…I was so excited…it’s so outstanding ….I couldn’t wait to share it. I have purchased the 10part DVD, the leader’s kit, the preview kit and a workbook….my parish remains lukewarm…but I’m not giving up!

7. Something parallel can be said about the Catholic Church: It must be either the Bride of Christ or the Whore of Babylon.

   I was raised as a Fundamentalist, but when I came to actually looking at the Catholic Church in detail and saw that it was NOT the Whore of Babylon, my conversion was inevitable.

8. Now please, please, Mr. Pope. Understand, I did not say that Jesus was not God, I just said that he was not divine. Please. Please. – Oh, those were the days! Hope all is well and God bless your ministry -both parochial and internet!

   1. I am not sure what you are saying here or who you are responding to. Anyway divine=God.

      1. I think TJVigg was with tongue in cheek projecting what those heretical professors you mentioned might have been thinking or saying to themselves.

9. This is a great post, Father; it is brilliant to have so many Scripture references that prove this truth in one place, clearly structured. He is God. Amen. Thank you!

   1. Yes, thanks, they were compiled from several sources.

10. Thank you for putting these scriptures in one place. Truly Jesus is Lord!

    1. Glad to do it.

11. Msgr.,
    I can’t speak to your particular experience of seminary, but having had a seminary experience of my own I wanted to say a few words on behalf of the challenge of Scripture study and it’s relationship to dogmatic theology. I would specifically like to point out the other half of Christology–namely, that Jesus is human. I think this is often the more difficult reality to accept, and the one which Scripture study is frequently concerned with. To elevate Jesus as a purely Divine Being can also be an attractive heresy to us in the sense that it gets us “off the hook” for having to try to emulate Him because He is God, after all, and I’m not.
    But the struggle to accept the dogma that Jesus is fully human is the sticking point for many precisely because it forms the direct soteriological connection between me and God. If Jesus lived a human existence, did He struggle in school like so many humans? Did he have an awkward experience during puberty like so many human adolescents? He must have grown and developed in His understanding of self and the world, for surely that is what it means to be human. What He did not assume He did not redeem…
    I think that those who, employing the historical critical method (or other scientific theological methods of Scripture study) suggest things like “he [Jesus] did not claim to be God, or he did not know he was God”
    are not necessarily claiming He wasn’t divine. The question of what Jesus knew about Himself and when He knew it is a valid elucidation of the dogma of the humanity of Christ, not necessarily a threat to His divinity. It is also accepted that the Scriptures are indeed a result of Tradition and were not composed at the time of Christ. Only after decades of reflection were they finally set down on paper–this is where redaction criticism becomes a tool for deepening our understanding of Scripture and what God intends to convey through the human authors, not threatening to debunk it.
    Anyway, there’s my “sed…contra” in defense of some seminary professors. “et Deus et homo”!

    1. Ironically, those who claim to be defending the humanity of Jesus end up treating him like a fictional character rather than as an actual person. Furthermore, they seem to put him on the same level as themselves, or even as their inferiors. Yet human beings of genius have natural gifts that make us by comparisionRichard.Richar seem like morons Richard Feynman, the greatAmerican physicist, has written of the frailty of our knowledge, Even physicist of high intelligence, he observed, had only a formulistic knowledge, and could build only by extending th.ose formulaes.They could not look at things and see the substance behind them. No intuition. But if human genius can see things so clearly, then what about our Lord? And if someone like the Cure D’ars could read men’s souls,or Padre Pio exhibit similar gifts, then why so try to limit our Lord? Do they think he had the same crippled psychology that give us so much pain?.The personal delusions that make us make choices with unintended consequences?

12. Even with all the textual evidence there are those who will still simply poo poo these as just pious hyperbole. In those situations I would think of then quoting the bread of life discourse and the establishment of the Eucharist passages then pointing to and connecting it all to the irrefutable evidence of Eucharistic miracles over the centuries. Do you think this would be a good idea for me to do?

    1. Yes, indeed.

13. I can’t understand how people can claim that only in John is Jesus presented as divine? I went to a Catholic University and was taught just that in theology class. Thanks for the great list compiled in one place!

    1. Glad this helps. I was so frustrated too in my theology classes.

       1. I was rather shocked at what I encountered. One of my textbooks used in another class was authored by none other than Bart Ehrman. In no theology course did we ever make use of a catechism. Luckily I had excellent philosophy professors. Thanks for writing this great blog Monsignor, its been my favorite on the internet ever since I found it.

14. I agree 100% with Daniel’s observations. What Jesus knew during his ministry about his divinity was not necessarily clear but something he could only grasp vaguely . Jesus in his humanity was not omniscient .This does not take away from his union with the divine nature.

    1. Your account of the human knowledge of Jesus lacks distinction and nuance, for you mention nothing of his infused knowledge or of the beatific vision. And though do you reference the Christological perichoresis (aka circuminsessio), you seem to strip it of any real affect in the psyche of Jesus by your use of the term “vaguely.” None of the volume of scripture references quoted in the article suggest any vagueness on Jesus’ part.

15. Great blog post.

    Just wanted to add that Father Barron handed out key chains to all the young Catholics on World Youth Day for a new website that featured The Catholicism Project, Faith Clips, and Faith & Culture Videos:

    http://www.WordOnFireKey.com/

    God Bless,
    John Clem
    Ambassador, Word On Fire Ministry

16. Dear Msgr Pope – I’m glad that you posted this very good entry. I will use it for my personal studies. 🙂
    Peace,
    Taylor

17. There is no basis in Scripture or the Patristic Tradition that Jesus had the Beatific Vision. Scholastics who wanted to attribute every possible perfection to the human nature of Jesus maintained that He had the beatific vision. It is not an infallible teaching of the Church although it has even been mentioned in an Encyclical. Two points should be considered. First, the evidence in the New Testament of the limitation of Jesus’ knowledge. For many examples see Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction To New Testament Christology. Second, “How admit that Christ could really have suffered in his human nature the terrible trial of the Passion if he already possessed the beatitude reserved for the elect in heaven? How, too, could we take the agony of Gethsemane and the dereliction of Calvary seriously? Since the entire process of the Incarnation is oriented towards the work of the Redemption, the beatific vision must be excluded from Jesus’ earthly life. … He did not have the immediate vision or the beatitude of the vision.” Jean Galot, Who Is Christ? That Jesus had extraordinary knowledge is evident from the Gospels and that would be understood as the limited infused knowledge necessary for his mission.

    1. You ask questions that are deeply mysterious, mysteries that should be held in balance, but then you rush to answer them. This is a poor idea and shows that your approach lacks balance.

       You are free to differ with St Thomas but I’ll take him any day over Flamen or Ray Brown.

       Better to hold these mysteries in balance than to attempt to solve them by choosing what conforms to modern psychological theory. That Christ did suffer is taught, that he did possess the vision of God is taught and these should be held in tension. It is not for you to solve.

       As for your claims that this is not taught in Scripture tradition or taught by any pope in an encyclical:

       As for Scripture cf Jn 8:55; Jn 3:11; Jn 1:17ff

       As For the Fathers cf Fulgentius Ep 14, 3,26

       As for the Papal Magisterium cf Benedict VV DZ 2183-2185; Pius XII Mystici Corporis (DZ 2289)

18. I did say that it was even mentioned in an encyclical although I did not name it. But that does not make it infallible. The BV was only explicity taught by Candide in the 9th century – not the Patristic Tradition. As for the lack of biblical evidence I refer to modern Catholic biblical scholars who have carefully examined and explained certain texts that might seem to imply the BV. Father Galot quite convincingly brings out the true humanity of Jesus. The theory of Jesus having the BV diminishes his humanity and verges on Docetic
    Gnosticism. Unfortunately much Church teaching striving to stress the divinity of Jesus has not given
    any emphasis on the true humanity of Jesus.

    1. I vote for Thomas and the Church over Flamen

       1. You chided Flamen that his “approach lacks balance”, yet you seem to be dismissing any theological inquiry after Thomas. There have been some wonderful things happening in the Church since the 13th century, so it is not accurate to equate a vote for the Church with a vote only for Thomas. I don’t see where Flamen has contradicted the Tradition of the Church. Rather than dismissing his insight (or that of your professors) as heretical, perhaps a more balanced approach could bring us to a clearer understanding of the Creed.

          1. I’ll take St. Thomas over you, Daniel, any day, along with Pope Pius XII, and the vast body of Scripture I quoted. Jesus knew clearly who he was and was not in any way “vague” as to his self knowledge. See, I just trust these sources more than you and the “theological inquirers.” I hope you understand. By the way Popes Benedict XV and Pius XII did come after St. Thomas according to my Gregorian Calendar. I would prefer to think I am discerning rather than dismissive sed nemo judex in sua causa On the other hand Daniel is not my judge either.

             Jesus is Lord, and he knew it.

             1. Indeed – Jesus IS Lord, and some who advance in prayer and faith and persist in good works experience and know this personally and can not help but preach about this. Skeptics will generally not know this on their own merits because of their disbelief. If we act like sensory-perception-limited scientists, then we will not advance beyond what our bodies can sense (a limitation of non-intellectual, sentient animal life). However, with our intellectual faculties, we are free to choose to believe (advance into light) or disbelieve (withdraw into darkness). Light is always better than darkness. 🙂

19. I don’t have a Denzinger. Could you give me the exact source for Benedict XV? Thank you.

    1. Decree of the Holy Office On Certain Propositions on the Knowledge of the Soul of Christ (AAA 10 (1918), 282)

       Here is the quote:

       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. Ph 3,12).

       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.

20. Thank you. This was the overreaction of the time against Modernism. It was not infallible. Was the teachings SAFE? That reminds me of the classic movie scene where Laurence Olivier asks Dustin Hofman, “Is it safe?” (A little bit of humor.)

21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG5Qk for “Is it safe?”

Comments are closed.