Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: sedevacantist on July 26, 2016, 03:17:43 PM
-
What are we supposed to think about the episode of Christ’s Agony in the Garden? What exactly was the Son of God agonizing over that fateful night? The most common explanation would have us believe He was tormented with the thought of the incredible pain and suffering He was to endure for our salvation. Unfortunately, this explanation appears in nearly every one of the scholarly commentaries and meditations I have personally come across. Perhaps you have heard it as well? Perhaps you have even believed it yourself, as I did for many years. I grew up with it. But have you ever wondered where this explanation came from? Who first proposed it? Why it has become the world’s most popular and accepted explanation? It is my sincere wish that after reading this letter, you might better understand who is really behind this version – and, as quickly as I did, confine it to the putrid sewers of Hell from which it came.
Granted, the Son of God agonized over something that night – even to the point of sweating blood. We know because Holy Scripture tells us so. And yes, He begged His Father in Heaven to relieve Him of something – something He refers to as “this chalice”. Even so, Scripture never tells us what He meant by “this chalice”. Nor does it give us the slightest clue as to what He was agonizing over. In other words, the most popular explanation of this event, aside from what is expressly mentioned in Scripture, is nothing more than speculation – an hypothesis at best. Well intentioned by its supporters, perhaps; yet the fact is, the unspoken implication of such a version has proved disastrous not only to the image of the Son of God, but to one of the key messages of His sacrifice – that is, His incredible desire to suffer and die for mankind. You see, what is clearly implied by this misinterpretation (though its supporters will never consciously admit it) is that the Son of God cowered in the face of His martyrdom.
No doubt the defenders of this misinterpretation will deny such a preposterous accusation. “He was certainly not a coward” they will protest. “He was just really distraught over the thought of His future pain and suffering, and asked to be released from it. That’s all. He wasn’t cowering though.” As anyone can see, short of redefining the word “cower”, the defenders of this position have no defense at all. Nor is there any need for one. What is needed is a proper interpretation of the events – or at the very least, an understanding of where this blasphemous absurdity came from.
Back in the 1960’s, Paul VI adopted a crucifix upon which Christ is displayed in a miserable drooping form. This same crucifix is an exact replica of a 6th century crucifix found in the Museum of Witchcraft in Bayonne, France. In the realm of Satanism, the purpose of representing Christ as a miserable, drooping rag is to mock Him as a “weakling”. This is why the corpus sags as it does on the witch’s crucifix. It is meant to portray the Son of God as a wimp. This image of the “weakling” is likewise the image we are forced to adopt, whether consciously or subconsciously, when we buy into the commonly held explanation of why Christ suffered in the Garden of Gethsemani. That is to say, the blasphemous portrayal of the Son of God cowering in the face of His martyrdom is nothing but another attempt by Lucifer to portray his conqueror as a frightened little pansy.
Unfortunately, it would seem he has convinced the greater part of mankind to adopt this explanation as well. Nonetheless, you may rest assured it is from the Father of Lies and the sworn enemy of Christ that we have received this blasphemous version. If nothing else, what better way to destroy the spirit of future martyrs than to portray their champion as a coward in the face of His own martyrdom? In the end, there can be no doubt that any portrayal of Almighty God as a weakling is the handiwork of Lucifer.
Nor is it necessary that we rely solely upon the replica of a Satanic crucifix to prove the origins of this blasphemous explanation. Simple common sense betrays it, for even women and children have acted with far greater bravery in the face of horrific tortures than the so-called Christ of this version. St. Alphonsus de Liguori wrote a magnificent book entitled Victories of the Martyrs in which he gives numerous accounts of such courage – some involving children no more than two and three years old. Likewise, the second Book of Macchabees tells of the martyrdom of seven young men and boys who stood before the king with unflinching courage as they were slowly and unmercifully tortured to death one after the other. They were whipped; their tongues were cut out; the skin of their head, with the hair, was peeled off; their fingers and toes were chopped off; lastly, they were fried to death in large heated pans. Moreover, this was done in full view of each one so as to scare the next in line; and yet not a single one of them showed the least bit of fear, but even mocked the cruel tyrant to the very end. And yet, we are to believe that Almighty God Himself cowered before His own torture and death, pleading like some frightened little wimp to be relieved of His fate? It's a blasphemous absurdity.
Nor does this explanation make any sense. Christ was agonizing over the thought of His Passion? An event He referred to affectionately as “My Hour”? His sacrifice was the highlight and single greatest event of His entire life. This was something He had longed for from all eternity. This is precisely why it is referred to as His “Passion”. Yet we are to believe He was in mortal fear of it? That He even begged His Father to be released from it? Nonsense.
Of course, this is not to say that the Son of God enjoys pain… far from it. Yet we must keep in mind, whereas pain might have been foremost in our thoughts were we to find ourselves in the same circuмstance, God had something far greater in His – the eternal damnation of His children. Let me offer a scenario to illustrate just how preposterous this wimpy version is: Imagine coming home from work one day, looking forward to those wonderful hugs from your children and maybe a good tail-wagging from the dog. Only this time, you find your home engulfed in flames. Fire is shooting like a whirlwind from the windows and blazing 20 feet in the air from gaping holes in the roof. Neighbors have gathered in the street, covering their mouths in horror and disbelief. A sickening fear grips your stomach as you slam the car into park and jump out. You feel the burning intensity of the heat as you run through the crowd of onlookers shouting frantically for your children. Just then, through the shrill crackling of embers you hear their distant, terrified screams…
Now tell me – what are you afraid of? What’s going through your mind? Are you considering the pain you might have to endure if you tried to save your children; or the flames that might singe your hair or ruin the clothes you just had dry-cleaned? Are you thinking about yourself at all? Suppose, after you kick the front door off the hinges, someone in the crowd threatens to whip you if you continue?
And do you think God’s desire to save His children is any less? That His love is no greater than yours? What is more, keep in mind that in the above scenario, were the children caught in the flames, their suffering would last but a few moments. Christ was facing an infinitely worse scenario – that of His children burning forever. With this in mind, do you think He was concerned in the least with the pain He was going to endure? Do you think He was concerned with Himself at all? The mere thought betrays not only simple human nature, but the very nature of God Himself, Who IS love. No. Christ was thinking of ONE THING that night in the Garden of Gethsemani – the potential damnation of His children. You can be sure of that. As far as what exactly caused Him such intense agony that the pores in His skin burst – no one really knows. I do have my suspicions though, which I will share.
We are told by Saints and theologians that God could have atoned for the sins of mankind in countless different ways. The shedding of a single drop of blood would have sufficed. Or a single tear. Or a prayer. Whatever He would have accomplished on our behalf would have been infinite in merit, and therefore would have been more than sufficient to atone for sin. Even so, not all methods would have had the same result in regard to man. In other words, some methods would have brought about more conversions than others. The reason being, the ultimate decision whether one will be saved or not is up to the individual.
You see, strictly speaking, the sacrifice of Christ did not save us. It made our salvation possible. The ultimate decision is up to us. He has given us the prison’s key, but it is up to each individual to use it. So then, since the final decision is ours, God chose a means of atoning for sin that would persuade the greatest number of people to accept His offer – He chose to move our hearts.
Not only did He suffer and die in punishment for our own sins, and at our own hands, but He chose to suffer the most painful torture ever conceived by man – a torture so excruciating that even the cruel and godless Roman soldiers were in the habit of offering the victims an elixir to deaden the initial shock. In fact, the word “excruciating” was derived from the very word “crucifixion”. Finally, God chose to sacrifice Himself in this manner in full public view – in front of the entire world.
This supreme act of love was the most perfect means of touching the hearts of men, and thereby gaining the greatest number of conversions. It was also the very last thing Lucifer wanted the world to see. Therefore, I believe that what took place in the Garden of Gethsemani was a life and death battle between Christ and Lucifer. Christ even said that His sorrow had reached to the very point of death; and since it is ludicrous to imagine His Father was trying to kill Him, it might be reasonable to assume the Devil was behind this horrific degree of misery. In short, I believe Lucifer sought to kill the Son of God that night – alone, under cover of darkness, while His disciples and the rest of the world slept, insuring that no one on earth witnessed the depths of God’s love for mankind.
As to exactly how he attempted this, I can only guess. Perhaps in the supernatural realm, it is possible to cause someone to become sorrowful for no reason at all; but if I had to, I would say that Lucifer paraded before the eyes of Christ actual visions of souls burning in Hell. Indeed, on account of His unfathomable abyss of love for mankind, what else in all of creation would have caused Him more agony than this – than to see his children burning in eternal Hellfire? Moreover, it is not unheard of that people actually die from grief. It is quite possible. Yet Christ had absolutely no intention of dying alone and unseen. The salvation of countless souls depended upon His glorious martyrdom.
I believe the sheer intensity of the battle to preserve His life caused the pores in His skin to burst open. At the same time, being a man, the continual, unyielding strain on His body, mind, and soul wore Him down enough that He feared He might truly die if there were no help from Heaven. In that moment, He begged His Father to take away the “chalice” of His silent, unspeakable war with the Legions of Hell. And what did His Father do? Send an Angel to console Him? To tell Him everything was going to be just fine? No. His Father sent an Angel to strengthen Him so He could continue the fight (Lk. 22:43).
So then, far from cowering in the face of His martyrdom, Christ actually fought with every ounce of energy He had, and with every fiber of His body, for the opportunity to suffer and die for mankind. He is, and will always be, the supreme martyr. Gods fears absolutely nothing but the damnation of His children. He is the Good Shepherd, Who lays down His life for His sheep – no matter what the cost, for there is nothing more important to Him. Love casts out all fear, as Scripture says. Therefore, let all those who imagine in their minds that the Son of God cowered in the face of His martyrdom reflect more deeply upon such a blasphemous absurdity; lest, in the coming persecution, they find themselves without the strength to bear their own sufferings...
-
Enjoyed reading. Have you read the "City of God". In there it states that the demons did not know that Christ's crucifixion was "love".
Lucifer asked Christ, "IF you are the Son of God... never did Christ say that he was.
Back to the crucifixion in the City of God, Mary stood by the Cross and the demons were there and God allowed the demons to "know" that the Precious Blood "Love" was taking place. They shrieked! Our Lady asks God to keep the demons chained there for awhile and then let them go shrieking back to hell.
It needs to be said, over and over again, the Power is in the Precious Blood! The Precious Blood is in All the sacraments.
This is why the enemy will have it destroyed. Chapter 12 of Daniel states that the Continual Sacrifice will end one day and will last (?) days that equal 3 and a half years.
I would say we are very near. It reads that it is not the end of the world, but it will be an end of evil times with some peace to follow. Our Lady has been known for Peace.
-
Interesting, but I don't agree at all that it's considered blasphemous to think that Christ was afraid of all the pain He was to go through. You can still be a very brave and courageous person, and still be afraid. If Christ truly was a "wimp" He would have run away or something. He courageously accepted His impending agony by saying "Thy will be done." If someone meditates on this sorrowful mystery like so, I doubt they'd be blaspheming.
-
You are not a sedevacantist, you're a devious little squirrel demon that is espousing a mixture of Gnostic and Pelagian garbage.
You don't understand the meaning of the Incarnation. Your statement that Jesus Christ did not save us, he only made it possible for us to save ourselves is plain and simple heresy. Realizing the horror of what is about to come to pass, and pressing on anyway for the love of your brothers is not "cowering", but complete bravery.
I suggest you go back to playing with your toy trains.
-
Interesting, but I don't agree at all that it's considered blasphemous to think that Christ was afraid of all the pain He was to go through. You can still be a very brave and courageous person, and still be afraid. If Christ truly was a "wimp" He would have run away or something. He courageously accepted His impending agony by saying "Thy will be done." If someone meditates on this sorrowful mystery like so, I doubt they'd be blaspheming.
Correct. The Gospel tells us Christ did fear what he was going to suffer. He was a human being just like the rest of us and chose to suffer pain like any man. Of course he did not look forward to that suffering, and suffering He knew he had to endure to fulfil the salvation of souls. This 'fear' added to his sacrifice as it showed us he was human when facing his torture and crucifixion.
-
Lighthouse said,
Your statement that Jesus Christ did not save us, he only made it possible for us to save ourselves is plain and simple heresy.
I never said Christ made it possible for us to save ourselves. I don't know how you got that from my post. He opened the door to Heaven, making our a salvation possible. Even so, we still have Free Will to choose whether to follow Him or not. God doesn't walk down the line with a magic wand touching people on the head and saving them despite their own will. Whether we want to be saved or not is our choice, and God will not infringe on that freedom. This is why He chose a means of suffering that would tug at our heart strings - so that we would be persuaded to follow him.
And to those who argue that Scripture says Christ "feared", I completely agree. The question is not whether He feared or not, but WHAT DID HE FEAR. I say it was not His impending martyrdom, but the possibility of dying that night - before the chance to prove his love for us.
-
Absolutely, and not only did He feel most poignantly,
fear and pain but His very abandonment from the Father,
so that all could be fulfilled. This was so important at the
Crucifixion that He cried out the iconic phrase of Psalm 22:1
-
With the exception of a point here or there, I agree with OP that the chief part of Our Lord's agony had nothing to do with fear of suffering and death. I agree that there's no way other martyrs, who derived their strength from Him, would have greater fortitude in the face of suffering and death than Our Lord.
It's quite clear what caused Our Lord to suffer so much. In order to atone for our sins, Our Lord had to take OUR SINS upon Himself. No, He did not simply take the PUNISHMENT for our sins upon Himself. That would blasphemously turn God into some wicked caricature. God needed to punish someone, anyone, for all these sins. Not so. Our Lord mystically took OUR SINS upon Himself, the GUILT for those sins. It became as if He Himself had sinned. That is what tortured His soul nearly to death. And He grieved for these sins as His own sins. St. Paul says that He became sin. And the "chalice" in the Old Testament and in Revelation refers to the wrath of God. Our Lord mystically incurred the displeasure of God as if He were a sinner. And this wasn't just play-acting. I'll play the part of sinner, you pretend to be upset with me, punish me, and pretend that these others actually paid the price. No, the sins actually became His sins, and the thought of having offended His Fathers is what nearly tortured Our Lord to death.
-
It's quite clear what caused Our Lord to suffer so much. In order to atone for our sins, Our Lord had to take OUR SINS upon Himself. No, He did not simply take the PUNISHMENT for our sins upon Himself. That would blasphemously turn God into some wicked caricature. God needed to punish someone, anyone, for all these sins. Not so. Our Lord mystically took OUR SINS upon Himself, the GUILT for those sins. It became as if He Himself had sinned. That is what tortured His soul nearly to death. And He grieved for these sins as His own sins. St. Paul says that He became sin. And the "chalice" in the Old Testament and in Revelation refers to the wrath of God. Our Lord mystically incurred the displeasure of God as if He were a sinner. And this wasn't just play-acting. I'll play the part of sinner, you pretend to be upset with me, punish me, and pretend that these others actually paid the price. No, the sins actually became His sins, and the thought of having offended His Fathers is what nearly tortured Our Lord to death.
I'm a bit confused, please correct me if I'm wrong - what you are saying sounds like a Protestant heresy of Penal Substitutionary atonement (that is the Father puring his wrath on Son and thus the Son being punished in our place). As Catholics we should believe in Satisfation Atonement as taught by St. Thomas. First you say that God did not simply punish the sins in Jesus, but later you seem to indicate so. Please clarify.
Also, your interpretation of "he became sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21) seems to be contrary to that of the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers believed that "he became sin" refered simply to the Incarnation, it was another way of saying "he became flesh" because flesh is sinful by nature.
St. Gregory nαzιanzen, Letter to Cledonius "And so the passage, The Word was made Flesh, seems to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that He was made sin."
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius He made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin,” giving once more the name of “sin” to the flesh.
St. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 10.47 "To condemn sin through sin in the flesh, He Who knew no sin was Himself made sin; that is, by means of the flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, He became flesh on our behalf but knew not flesh."
Here (http://catholicnick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/is-imputation-taught-in-2-corinthians.html) is the collection of Church Fathers' quote on 2 Corinthians 5:21.
That is consistent with Romans 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh;"
-
It's quite clear what caused Our Lord to suffer so much. In order to atone for our sins, Our Lord had to take OUR SINS upon Himself. No, He did not simply take the PUNISHMENT for our sins upon Himself. That would blasphemously turn God into some wicked caricature. God needed to punish someone, anyone, for all these sins. Not so. Our Lord mystically took OUR SINS upon Himself, the GUILT for those sins. It became as if He Himself had sinned. That is what tortured His soul nearly to death. And He grieved for these sins as His own sins. St. Paul says that He became sin. And the "chalice" in the Old Testament and in Revelation refers to the wrath of God. Our Lord mystically incurred the displeasure of God as if He were a sinner. And this wasn't just play-acting. I'll play the part of sinner, you pretend to be upset with me, punish me, and pretend that these others actually paid the price. No, the sins actually became His sins, and the thought of having offended His Fathers is what nearly tortured Our Lord to death.
I'm a bit confused, please correct me if I'm wrong - what you are saying sounds like a Protestant heresy of Penal Substitutionary atonement (that is the Father puring his wrath on Son and thus the Son being punished in our place). As Catholics we should believe in Satisfation Atonement as taught by St. Thomas. First you say that God did not simply punish the sins in Jesus, but later you seem to indicate so. Please clarify.
No, I'm specifically arguing against penal substitution and for satisfaction atonement (developed first by St. Anselm actually). But this is a deeper satisfaction atonement.
-
Nor does this explanation make any sense. Christ was agonizing over the thought of His Passion? An event He referred to affectionately as “My Hour”? His sacrifice was the highlight and single greatest event of His entire life. This was something He had longed for from all eternity. This is precisely why it is referred to as His “Passion”. Yet we are to believe He was in mortal fear of it? That He even begged His Father to be released from it? Nonsense.
You're using Passion incorrectly here. "Passion", when referring to Our Lord's Passion, does not mean passion in the modern sense: a passionate love, a passionate kiss. Passion comes from passive, to receive; passion as opposed to action, patient as opposed to agent. Our passions are the things that move us "passively", without an act of our will; which is why they can often contradict our will. Basically, Passion means to be moved or acted upon, and in this case it refers to all the suffering Our Lord suffered - that's His Passion.
Furthermore, God did not desire to die on a cross. He desired to redeem mankind, and death on a cross was his chosen means to that end. Christ did ask the Father not to have to die in this way, but only according to the Father's will; well, it was the Father's will that Christ should die on the cross, so Christ obeyed.
I think that the greatest thing that Christ feared was all the pain that he was about to suffer. Not just the extreme physical pain and humiliation, but the spiritual pain that came from God abandoning His soul (in the sense of no longer giving the human part of Christ any of the divine consolation and strength), and the attacks of the demons which must have been more brutal than anyone has ever suffered. Your comparison between Christ and the brave martyrs does not stand, because no martyr ever suffered nearly as much as Christ suffered; yes, some martyrs were crucified like He was crucified, but the difference was that God gave all of the martyrs divine support/consolation to bear their martyrdom well - think of St. Stephen, the first martyr, who literally saw God in heaven right before he was martyred. What did Christ see before he was martyred? Darkness. I can understand that you want to guard Christ's Godhood, but you also have to understand that it's just as important to uphold Christ's Humanity. I know in this day and age people are more likely to deny His Godhood than His Humanity, but that wasn't always the case. The earliest heretics denied that he was truly human. Christ was able to fear and suffer just like any human being. He was free from the temptation to sin, but fearing suffering is not sinful unless it causes you to turn away from your duty.
No, I'm specifically arguing against penal substitution and for satisfaction atonement (developed first by St. Anselm actually). But this is a deeper satisfaction atonement.
I'm not sure how the two theories are distinguished exactly, but I think it's wrong to say that Christ took on the guilt of our sins. He did not take on the guilt of our sins, but only the punishment that was due to them. I don't think that it's possible even theoretically to take on somebody else's guilt; the best you can do is bare the punishment in their place. The Lamb of God is not guilty, He is just treated as though He were.
-
I don't think that it's possible even theoretically to take on somebody else's guilt; the best you can do is bare the punishment in their place. The Lamb of God is not guilty, He is just treated as though He were.
That would be penal substitution. He became mystically guilty. That also explains why the Father mystically abandoned Him on the cross.
-
No, I'm specifically arguing against penal substitution and for satisfaction atonement (developed first by St. Anselm actually). But this is a deeper satisfaction atonement.
I'm not sure how the two theories are distinguished exactly, but I think it's wrong to say that Christ took on the guilt of our sins. He did not take on the guilt of our sins, but only the punishment that was due to them. I don't think that it's possible even theoretically to take on somebody else's guilt; the best you can do is bare the punishment in their place. The Lamb of God is not guilty, He is just treated as though He were.
No, it is just the opposite to what you wrote. Christ taking punishment for sins upon himself in our place is the Protestant heresy of Penal Substitution. If Christ took the punishment for our sins upon himself then no one can go to hell - by sending anyone to hell God would punish for the same sin twice (once in punishing Jesus Christ, and afterward in punishing the sinner by sending him to hell). Protestants like Calvin or John Owen understood this, thus they came up with the heresy of limited atonement (according to which Jesus died not for everyone, but only for the elect, and thus the reprobate can still be punished because Jesus did not take punishment for their sin upon himself).
Here are some helpful articles on this topic:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/
http://catholicnick.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/was-jesus-damned-in-your-place.html
-
Also, Christ taking on the punishment for sin does not make God into a caricature, a kind of sadist. The fact is that punishment is due to the sins of mankind, and if Christ doesn't pay it, man will. In fact, the punishment due is so great, that mankind as a whole would never be able to pay the debt; so Christ was the only one that could pay it. And there isn't any sadism here, because Christ voluntarily gave Himself over as the sacrificial lamb, He was not slaughtered against His will. God did not take any pleasure in Christ's suffering. It's not that God had to "pour out His wrath" upon Christ, like the Protestants say. It's more that Christ's voluntarily sacrifice was a "pleasing aroma" to God, as scripture says. The Father looked on the Son with love, not wrath/hatred, because the Son did not bear the guilt of the sin - which is the object of God's hatred - but the just punishment due to the sin, which is an object of love in that it fulfils justice. If your son sins you hate his sin/guilt; but if you see him doing penance for his sin, you love the penance because it shows your son fulfilling justice and recompensing for his sin. The Crucifixion was like penance for all mankind's sins, including Adam's original sin.
-
In the remission of our sins the innocent blood of Christ was shed.... In this redemption, Christ's blood is given for us as the price.... Christ undertook, though innocent, our punishment, that thereby He might free us from guilt and also put an end to our punishment.
-
Sacred Scripture testifies that Christ redeemed us by paying the price, namely, by shedding His blood. But this means to satisfy in the strict sense and not merely metaphorically, namely, by preaching, giving us advice and example, as the apostles did. In the strict sense He died for us by paying the penalty that is due for our sins. This is already evident from the above-quoted scriptural texts[1850] concerning the mystery of redemption considered in a general way. To these must be added the following texts: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world."[1851] "Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many."[1852] "This is My blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."[1853] "For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body."[1854] "You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men."[1855] "Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver..., but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled."[1856] "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."[1857] In a word, as St. Paul says: "Christ died for our sins."[1858]
http://www.thesumma.info/saviour/saviour62.php
-
The idea that Christ satisfied for our sins by the superabundant love He showed to God makes no sense whatsoever. Christ loved God subabundantly from all eternity. He loved God just as much before His crucifixion than during it, so it makes no sense to say that seeing Christ's love for Him made the Father decide to ignore men's sins. That is sentimental and irrational. The reason that Christ satisfied for our sins is that He bore the punishment due to them. I can't see any other explanation.
Christ is a substitute for us in the sense that He bears the punishment. There is no opposition between satisfaction and substitution, in fact, they depend on each other. Christ satisfied for sin by substituting Himself for us. This substitution theory only becomes problematic if you say that Christ bore not only the punishment, but even the guilt itself. That would turn Christ into an object of God's wrath and hatred, which is the Protestant error on this subject. But bearing the punishment for somebody else's sin does not make you an object of hatred; in fact, it makes you an object of love, because it shows how self-sacrificing and loving you are towards your friend. Like I said though, I don't think it's even possible to take on somebody else's guilt, even "mystically" as Ladislaus affirms, because guilt is something that binds to your soul. It's the same with merit/reward. I can't give my merit to somebody else, I can only give the reward due to the merit to somebody else - but the merit itself binds to my soul, and can never be anybody else's but mine. The same with guilt/punishment; the guilt is always mine, but the punishment can be loaded on to another. The only way my guilt can be taken away from my soul is if the person whom I have offended chooses to forgive me.
Think of the distinction between guilt and punishment when it comes to confession / indulgences. Confession wipes away the guilt, indulgences take away the punishment. The souls in purgatory aren't guilty, they are just paying for the punishment due to their sins in order to satisfy justice. God doesn't hate these souls like He does those in hell; He doesn't will their suffering, but only their satisfaction for their sins.
-
The very words, "behold the Lamb of God, behold He who takes away the sins of the world", imply a substitution. The Lamb of God takes away the sins of the world, i.e. He substitutes Himself for the world, and suffers on the world's behalf.
-
Rather than penal substitution (Christ payed the penalty for our sins), I think the Protestant theory should be called culpable substitution (Christ became culpable, guilty, in our place).
-
I'm sorry to backtrack here, but I didn't see this before:
Lighthouse said,
Your statement that Jesus Christ did not save us, he only made it possible for us to save ourselves is plain and simple heresy.
SV:
I never said Christ made it possible for us to save ourselves. I don't know how you got that from my post He opened the door to Heaven, making our a salvation possible. Even so, we still have Free Will to choose whether to follow Him or not. God doesn't walk down the line with a magic wand touching people on the head and saving them despite their own will. Whether we want to be saved or not is our choice, ...
I never said Christ made it possible for us to save ourselves. I don't know how you got that from my post.
Apparently you read English differently than I do.
(NON)Sedevacantist:
You see, strictly speaking, the sacrifice of Christ did not save us. It made our salvation possible. The ultimate decision is up to us. He has given us the prison’s key, but it is up to each individual to use it.
(NON)Sedevacantist:
I never said Christ made it possible for us to save ourselves. I don't know how you got that from my post.
-
St. John the Evangelist said
You're using Passion incorrectly here. "Passion", when referring to Our Lord's Passion, does not mean passion in the modern sense: a passionate love, a passionate kiss. Passion comes from passive, to receive; passion as opposed to action, patient as opposed to agent. Our passions are the things that move us "passively", without an act of our will; which is why they can often contradict our will. Basically, Passion means to be moved or acted upon, and in this case it refers to all the suffering Our Lord suffered - that's His Passion.
Whereas I would agree that the word "Passion" here refers to the sufferings of Christ - I would argue that even this definition has a direct relation to His affectionate desire for martyrdom (that is, the chance to prove his love for us). In fact, if we dig deep enough, we might even discover that the Bible translators' decision to substitute the original word "Sufferings" with "Passion" stems from Christ's desire to suffer for us. In other words, His martyrdom came to be known as "His Passion" because it was the object of His greatest desire. At the very least, there can be no doubt that when Christ referred to His martyrdom as "My Hour", it was done in an affectionate sense. This was the single most anticipated, and longed-for event of his earthly life. He clearly had a passion for it. This is beyond question.
On the same note, we must admit that this peculiar definition of the word "Passion", never existed prior to Christ's earthly sojourn. The original Greek doesn't even use the word "Passion" - but "Suffering". So why the translator's substitution? Why was the word "Passion" eventually chosen by the translators in place of the original Greek word for "suffering"? Was it intended as a euphemism, similar to the Church's decision to refer to the day of Christ's agonizing torture and death as "Good Friday"? Perhaps. But I believe it goes deeper than that. I believe the Holy Ghost is behind the substitution. I believe the reason is because God wants us to remember that Christ desired to die for us. His martyrdom was not something He dreaded, or would have preferred not to undergo for us. No. He called it "My Hour" because it was the moment He longed for. Ultimately, He lived out this great passion of His through suffering. This, I believe, is why His martyrdom is referred to as "His Passion".
St. John the Evangelist said
Furthermore, God did not desire to die on a cross. He desired to redeem mankind, and death on a cross was his chosen means to that end. Christ did ask the Father not to have to die in this way, but only according to the Father's will; well, it was the Father's will that Christ should die on the cross, so Christ obeyed.
I would have to take issue with your opinion here. First of all, whereas Christ had two wills, they never conflicted with each other, but were always in perfect union. His human will never conflicted with His Divine will. This would prove an impossibility. What you are implying here, if I understand your statement correctly, is that Christ's Will conflicted with that of the Father's. In other words, God's will conflicted with God's will. This is theologically impossible, whether you are referring to Christ's human, or Divine will. God cannot contradict Himself.
Secondly (following the same train of thought as above), God most certainly desired to die on the cross. In fact, one could argue that the method of torture and death we know as crucifixion was inspired by God Himself - through the agency of the devil, of course. If we look at the curious design of the human body, we must come to the inevitable conclusion that it was designed with the crucifixion in mind. The main nerves of the wrist, for example, are in the perfect location for crucifixion. The same is true of the main nerves through the feet. Furthermore, the position of the body during crucifixion is perfectly conducive to horrible suffering because of the specific design of the body. Breathing becomes difficult, the lack of oxygen eventually resulting in muscle cramps so sever that (according to one doctor) rigor mortise actually sets in while the victim is still alive. And the list goes on. It is even curious to note that the victim's survival instinct - a consequence of our Fallen Nature - prevents him from dying of his own will. Crucifixion is also the only torture for which the otherwise barbaric Roman soldiers supplied an elixir to deaden the initial shock. In short, it is the most painful torture known to man. In fact, the very word "excruciating" comes from "crucifixion".
The point being, this method of death was inspired by God because it was the most painful torture one could possibly suffer - and therefore the most perfect means of gaining the most souls. For this reason alone, Christ desired it. This is not to say that I believe the Father positively desired that His Son suffer pain in reparation for our sins. Again, Christ could have shed a single tear and this would have been more than sufficient to satisfy Divine justice. But again, this method of death was the most perfect way to gain the most souls. In the end, this was the whole reason for choosing this method of atonement. And yes, God most certainly desired it for that reason alone.
-
In one of my daily prayers, there is a sentence I found very profound,
"God the Father agreed to be appeased by the Suffering and Blood shed of His Son".
Perhaps this was already mentioned on this thread to consider the sweating of His Blood during His prayers in the garden prior to His taking away. Which indicates in my mind, fear. God does not deceive us nor can He be deceived.
-
MyrnaM said
In one of my daily prayers, there is a sentence I found very profound,
"God the Father agreed to be appeased by the Suffering and Blood shed of His Son".
Again, God's Will cannot contradict God's Will. Granted, it's a nice prayer, but you must admit it necessarily implies that God the Father was discussing the means of atonement with God the Son; and at some point in the discussion, the Father agreed to the Son's request - as if prior to the Father's agreement, Their Wills were not in absolute conformity with one another. The prayer follows the same type of poetic speech as those which mention God "repenting" of His actions, as if He was surprised and saddened at what had happened and decided to try something else. It's poetic speech. I apologize for raining on your parade here, but Catholics must realize that God knew from all eternity what He was going to do, and desired it with His whole heart as the most perfect means of atonement. It is theologically impossible that the Wills of the Father and Son were not in absolute conformity from all eternity. Both desired the crucifixion from the very start. Again, it's a nice prayer. Unfortunately, it's theologically impossible.
Perhaps this was already mentioned on this thread to consider the sweating of His Blood during His prayers in the garden prior to His taking away. Which indicates in my mind, fear. God does not deceive us nor can He be deceived.
Once again, the question is not whether Christ "feared". Scripture says He did. No, the question is WHAT DID HE FEAR. Was it the pains of His martyrdom that He was afraid of? This is cowardice. It's the very definition of cowardice. You can try and make it sound manly (well, He bravely pushed on didn't He?), but aside from redefining the concept of cowardice, there is no possible way to acquit this version of what it is.
There is not a culture on the face of this earth - not even here in soft, effeminate America - where one doesn't instinctively recognize what it means to be manly. A cowboy; a football player; muscles; hot rods; dirt and grease; bravery; fearlessness; the refusal to ask for help, especially directions. We all instinctively know what it means to be manly. Cowering in the face of pain is NOT MANLY. It's cowardice! Women and children have shown greater bravery in the face of pain than this wimpy "Christ". Are we not even willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt? Why so tenaciously cling to this sniveling pansy. Honestly, let it go.
The sweating of blood was caused by stress, not fear. It's a medical fact.
Christ was literally dying, and had He not asked for relief, He would have ultimately succuмbed.
-
sedevacantist said
Catholics must realize that God knew from all eternity what He was going to do, and desired it with His whole heart as the most perfect means of atonement. It is theologically impossible that the Wills of the Father and Son were not in absolute conformity from all eternity. Both desired the crucifixion from the very start.
I for one have no problem and agree that the Wills of Father, Son and Holy Ghost were in absolute conformity from all eternity. However, the sentence in the prayer is a comfort to me because as a mother I could not understand how or why a Father would desire such pain and suffering for His Son. Yet, when I prayed this particular prayer and thought about the words "was appeased" it put a meaning that was acceptable to me, it showed me a different sense to the mystery.
I confess just this morning while praying my prayers I was thinking of the sweating of the Blood of Jesus and understood it to mean, not fear but ... (excuse my lack of a better words to explain ) Jesus saw all the human faces from the beginning of time until the end; was so hurt by the few who accepted His sacrifice, His seeing so many souls who chose Lucifer instead of His sacrifice broke His heart if that was possible and He sweat His own Blood.
-
Be gone, squirrel boy.
You move gracefully from heresy to blasphemy.
I know you will accuse me of ad hominem.
You jump from one miserable confusion of your mind to another. Again the word
"cower" is your way of claiming insight into a situation you are not intellectually, or by dint of discovery, qualified to examine and espouse.
-
sedevacantist said
Catholics must realize that God knew from all eternity what He was going to do, and desired it with His whole heart as the most perfect means of atonement. It is theologically impossible that the Wills of the Father and Son were not in absolute conformity from all eternity. Both desired the crucifixion from the very start.
I for one have no problem and agree that the Wills of Father, Son and Holy Ghost were in absolute conformity from all eternity. However, the sentence in the prayer is a comfort to me because as a mother I could not understand how or why a Father would desire such pain and suffering for His Son. Yet, when I prayed this particular prayer and thought about the words "was appeased" it put a meaning that was acceptable to me, it showed me a different sense to the mystery.
I confess just this morning while praying my prayers I was thinking of the sweating of the Blood of Jesus and understood it to mean, not fear but ... (excuse my lack of a better words to explain ) Jesus saw all the human faces from the beginning of time until the end; was so hurt by the few who accepted His sacrifice, His seeing so many souls who chose Lucifer instead of His sacrifice broke His heart if that was possible and He sweat His own Blood.
I'm genuinely happy to hear of your devotion. And I'm glad you're praying. And you may very well be right that this is what caused His sweating of blood.
As long as you understand that to deny the fact of conformity of wills is heretical. That's all. Think of my response simply as a warning. Unfortunately, this is where the "cowering" explanation leads. Christ didn't want to suffer, and therefore, His will must not have been in conformity with the Father's. That's where it leads. No, they were in perfect conformity, and Christ could only have desired His martyrdom.
-
Be gone, squirrel boy.
You move gracefully from heresy to blasphemy.
I know you will accuse me of ad hominem.
You jump from one miserable confusion of your mind to another. Again the word
"cower" is your way of claiming insight into a situation you are not intellectually, or by dint of discovery, qualified to examine and espouse.
Heresy? Blasphemy?
Explain your accusation with examples.
While you're at it, perhaps you could explain to everyone why the "Cowering" explanation is so dear to your heart...
-
Be gone, squirrel boy.
You move gracefully from heresy to blasphemy.
I know you will accuse me of ad hominem.
You jump from one miserable confusion of your mind to another. Again the word
"cower" is your way of claiming insight into a situation you are not intellectually, or by dint of discovery, qualified to examine and espouse.
Heresy? Blasphemy?
Explain your accusation with examples.
While you're at it, perhaps you could explain to everyone why the "Cowering" explanation is so dear to your heart...
No answer yet? It's been almost a week now.
You throw out some gravely serious accusations - without offering any explanation, quote, or evidence whatsoever, and then run away.
I was perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to the reason you prefer the "cowardly" image of Christ over the manly one, but it seems to me by your actions that I would have been mistaken.
-
Non-Sede:
No answer yet? It's been almost a week now.
Sorry. I had no idea you were missing me so much, and were counting the days to my return.
It must get very lonely down in mom's basement.
To tell you the truth, I'm at a loss as to where you have taken this.
I thought I made it clear that I was in the "non-coward" camp and you were hellbent on trying to convince us that He was a coward.
At some point in your meanderings you appeared to be pleased with making the Lord look bad, and what? Convince us that we should stop worshiping Him?
Then you seemed to go off a tangent about indifferentism and BOD.
Maybe, if you could just state your thesis in a few sentences and be plain about it.
-
Non-Sede:
No answer yet? It's been almost a week now.
Sorry. I had no idea you were missing me so much, and were counting the days to my return.
It must get very lonely down in mom's basement.
To tell you the truth, I'm at a loss as to where you have taken this.
I thought I made it clear that I was in the "non-coward" camp and you were hellbent on trying to convince us that He was a coward.
At some point in your meanderings you appeared to be pleased with making the Lord look bad, and what? Convince us that we should stop worshiping Him?
Then you seemed to go off a tangent about indifferentism and BOD.
Maybe, if you could just state your thesis in a few sentences and be plain about it.
My entire point was that Christ was NOT A COWARD. It's unbelievable. How on earth did you misunderstand this? Did you even read the OP?
And no, I'm not counting the days. I simply noticed the dates of the last post.
-
.
I am surprised no one has made a reference in this thread to this well-known icon and its explanation:
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Ffb%2F0e%2Fae%2Ffb0eaef9539b0d3ea973237e32b0345b--icon-icon-catholic-art.jpg&sp=7974abbd3966cd7dc781c31136997681)
.
There are many versions of this icon, but they all have the same elements.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Feducation.dublindiocese.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F5%2F2016%2F01%2Four-mother-of-perpetual-help-rome-jay-milo.jpg&sp=84c15c2f0a48c6428555a56cb217c522)
.
The Christ child looks over His shoulder at the vision of angels carrying the implements of His crucifixion, and the sandal falling off of His right foot shows us that He has come running to His mother, leaping into her arms, to seek refuge from the hovering menace of the reminders of His passion in the future. He clings to her hand and draws close for protection from His Mother of Perpetual Help. Meanwhile her eyes are fixed on us, to whom she offers this same protection, if we would but seek her aid and protection. We are given this picture of Our Lord in His early childhood to help us understand that He knew all along what He would one day face, and His reaction to this reality, since He was entirely human (and at the same time entirely divine) He could not have had no emotional reaction to this stark reality. He knew what He would one day have to suffer and this knowledge alone could not but evoke a human reaction from Him in a universally human sense. Call this reaction what you will, but do not deny its existence.
-
.
I am surprised no one has made a reference in this thread to this well-known icon and its explanation:
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Ffb%2F0e%2Fae%2Ffb0eaef9539b0d3ea973237e32b0345b--icon-icon-catholic-art.jpg&sp=7974abbd3966cd7dc781c31136997681)
.
There are many versions of this icon, but they all have the same elements.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Feducation.dublindiocese.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F5%2F2016%2F01%2Four-mother-of-perpetual-help-rome-jay-milo.jpg&sp=84c15c2f0a48c6428555a56cb217c522)
.
The Christ child looks over His shoulder at the vision of angels carrying the implements of His crucifixion, and the sandal falling off of His right foot shows us that He has come running to His mother, leaping into her arms, to seek refuge from the hovering menace of the reminders of His passion in the future. He clings to her hand and draws close for protection from His Mother of Perpetual Help. Meanwhile her eyes are fixed on us, to whom she offers this same protection, if we would but seek her aid and protection. We are given this picture of Our Lord in His early childhood to help us understand that He knew all along what He would one day face, and His reaction to this reality, since He was entirely human (and at the same time entirely divine) He could not have had no emotional reaction to this stark reality. He knew what He would one day have to suffer and this knowledge alone could not but evoke a human reaction from Him in a universally human sense. Call this reaction what you will, but do not deny its existence.
Splendid