|
Hi, guys —
Greetings and God bless you!
I received my S.T.L. (1984) from the Angelicum
and much of my study has been on the Church's
teaching of suffering, the Subjective Redemption,
Saints who greatly suffered, and victim souls.
However, after all these years, I've become
confused, not why people suffer; but about
the suffering of Jesus. Since I was young,
I have heard Catholics speak as if the Father
caused the Passion. (People once also said
Judas had no choice!) Their talk seemed unkind
to the Father though they didn't think it
was. Nor had they any devotion or relationship
with the Father.
He, and not the Holy Spirit, seems to be the
forgotten Person of the Holy Trinity. These
people's statements didn't bother me personally
as I just thought they were wrong.
Recently, I started to investigate this and
read the appropriate sections in the Catechism.
(Part One, The Profession of The Christian
Faith, Chapter Two, Article 4, paragraph numbers 565-623)
which does state that the Father's plan of
Redemption was the sending of His Son to (or
who would) suffer and die for our sins.
There are, in these sections of the Catechism,
Scripture quotes affirming this and statements
of Our Lord seeming to imply, (not withstanding
the people involved in the cruel actions of
Our Lord's Passion), that it was the Father's
plan for our Redemption but because He loves
us and Jesus accepted this willingly.
- Is this a valid theological appropriation
which we appropriate to the Holy Trinity?
Creation is thought of as having been done
by the Father. St. Augustine, St. Thomas and
St. Leo the Great all taught that it is an
appropriation of a quality that all Three
Divine Persons have equally. Abelard taught
otherwise (that they were individual qualities) and
the Council of Sens and Pope Innocent II condemned
his teaching.
My second question is:
- If it is not a valid appropriation, aren't
we saying that sin offends the Father more
than the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and out
of Love for us, the Father sent His Son
to suffer and die to redeem us?
I do see how this would be painful for the
Father and how the Son was willing to do this
but we are never told that the Son is offended
by sin. Yes, we are, in the revelations to
saints, but even there, the Father's wrath
and anger are mentioned and the Mercy and
Work of Jesus intercedes on our behalf to
hold back the Father's anger.
- My very real and painful confusion is,
if all this is not appropriated to the
Trinity, does it not seem to make Our Dear
Father concerned about His Son or does
it not seem to make His Son offended over
sin?
I discovered your site by searching on Google Ask
a Catholic Theologian and was heartened
you are in Massachusetts! I am living in exile
in Florida.
I would appreciate any help you could provide.
I am very grateful for your time and help.
You are providing a holy and much needed apostolate.
Gratefully and with prayers,
Confused and Troubled
|
|
John
replied:
|
Dear Confused and Troubled —
Thanks for your question.
For the benefit of other readers
let's define what you mean by the
word appropriation.
Appropriation — consists
in attributing certain names,
qualities, or operations to one
of the Persons of the Trinity,
not, however, to the exclusion
of the others, but in preference
to the others.
When dealing with this question,
you have to bear the following in
mind.
The Church has not defined the Mystery
of Redemption and Justification in
the same way she has defined other
doctrines. Rather the best we have
to go on is several working theories,
each of which helps explain a certain
aspect of the Mystery, but each of
which is woefully inadequate.
The model which is currently the
most popular is Anslem's Theory of
Satisfaction but remember it's just
a theory. If you take it to an extreme
you wind up with God the Father needing
anger management because in order
to forgive us, He needs to poor out
His wrath on Jesus. Of course, this
is not the case, but it's easy to
see how one could come to that conclusion.
St. Anslem is working inside of a
Juridical Paradigm but it's only
a paradigm or model. It's not actual
doctrine. As I stated, there are
other models or paradigms that the
Church has used throughout the centuries.
You can read about these models at
the following
link.
Beyond these paradigms and models,
St. Paul gives us others. Among them,
he alludes to
the marriage or bride
of Christ analogy. St. John
also gives us a taste of this in
Revelation.
St. Paul also talks about being in
Christ or the Mystical Body;
and in Galatians, he talks in terms
of maturing as sons and heirs, so
we have the sonship or divine
inheritance paradigm.
The point is: there is more to this
than: Jesus paying the price for
our sins. Salvation is far
more than avoiding Hell and getting
to Heaven.
Finally, there is a reason why the
Church has not defined this doctrine.
It is a mystery that cannot be defined
in human terms so stop beating yourself
up trying to squeeze sense out of an
incomplete paradigm which is not
a defined doctrine.
I like to look at this Mystery as
simply Christ giving Himself for
us in order to give Himself to us and to give us to the Father.
Salvation
is nothing less than participating
in the life of God in a covenant
relationship.
Beyond that, you'll
go nuts if you spend too much time
on one paradigm.
John
|
|
