Speaking of Christ's vicarious atonement...There seem to be at least five principal Old Testament texts to be considered. There are two great Jewish liturgical feasts that are particularly important: The Day of Atonement, and The Passover. Then there are two detailed prophesies of the crucifixion: Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 (this latter being connected to Christ's prayer from the Cross). Finally there is the theme of the cup of God's wrath throughout the prophets which must be considered in relation to Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Let this cup pass from me..." Have I missed any really important texts here?
Then there are the ways in which Christ's passion effects our salvtion, which Aquinas numbers as four: Christ makes satisfaction inasmuch as the positive value of his self gift outwieghs and thus counterbalances the negative value of all men's sins. Christ offers a sacrifice to God, the proper effect of which is to appease God's wrath (this makes nonsense out of the typically Protestant notion that God's wrath was vented upon Christ). Christ's death redeemed us inasmuch as his death paid the price of our punishment (N.B. this means that he paid a price so that punishment be not meted out, not that he accepted the punishment). And Christ's death effected our salvtion by way of merit (often overlooked it seems) inasmuch as Christ is rewarded head and members for his infinitely meritorious work.
Then there is Ratzinger's idea that I am working with right now, Christ suffers through our sin in order to heal it from the inside. Ack! It's 2:11 AM; Deus miserere me!
5 comments:
John-
Check out the concept of the Scapegoat ("Azazel") in Leviticus 16:8-26, though this may be connected with one of the Feasts.
Perhaps also the symbolic atonement in Genesis 3 where God slays animals to make skins for Adam & Eve, ie, to "cover their nakedness" by the death of an animal.
How about Hebrews 9:22: "And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission."
I think other than that you have all of the pertinent points covered.
I have never heard Ratzinger's argument that Christ suffers through our sins before; does he offer any patristic evidence to back this up? In Spe Salvi chapter 39 he does quote Bernard of Clairvaux as saying, "God cannot suffer, but He can suffer with" (Impassibilis est Deus, sed non incompassibilis. Very curious indeed...
Happy St Lucia day!
John-
I heard that Medjugoria is a hoax? Could you enlighten me if possible please?
Boniface,
The scapegoat is part of the Day of Atonement ritual that I mentioned.
Blood is certainly key, which is rather mysterious. Seems to be connected to the O.T. statement that the life is in the blood.
The funny thing about Ratzinger's speaking of suffering through sin is that he doesn't really argue for it because I've only come across it in Jesus of Nazareth which is not a systematic treatise. I've seen him mention Bernard's quote in a few different places.
The way he describes it corresponds closely with the traditional meaning of "contrition" which happens to mean "crushed, bruised" and related verbs are used in the Vulgate version of Isaiah 53: "He was bruised (adtritus est) for our iniquities," and "the Lord was pleased to crush (conterere) him..."
St. Thomas also says: "This pain of Christ surpassed any pain ever felt by a penitent, first because it proceeded from a greater wisdom and love, by which the pain of contrition is increased, and second, because he suffered for all sins at once. As Isaiah said, truly it was our infirmities he bore."
The idea seems to be that Christ's pain of soul was essential sadness at and detestation of sin - which is an essential ingredient in our common contrition. It is all very interesting and I still don't know what to make of it.
Repovz,
I certainly can't claim definitive knowledge one way or the other. The Church has not approved it; and my understanding is that the local bishops have forbidden organized pilgrimages to be made there. My limited research into the matter thus far indicates that its authenticity is very dubious.
If you would like to read more about it yourself, a very credible theologian named Michael Davies (whose wife is Croatian) was given access to all the archives in the diocese by the local bishop there. His investigations left no doubt in his mind that it is indeed "a hoax" as you put it. You can read his work here:
http://www.mdaviesonmedj.com/fulltext.rtf
Pax!
Post a Comment