Glory in suffering

[Thorolf]

Sola Scriptura:

By Scripture Alone

And it's two words not just one.   

We all know what the TRANSLATION is... I just don't think there is a very good understanding of what it MEANS.

None of us are really Sola Scripturists.

And I posted a direct quote. The fact that Inigo Montoya was talking about one word and you are misunderstanding two words doesn't really detract from the humor of the quote. 

[Thorolf]

Fasting is indeed mortification and Jesus did practice mortification and "self flagellated."

Jesus was God and could have called on all the power of His divinity to stop most if not all of His passion.  I don't see how someone could gather that an all powerful God does not "ask" for something that He willfully subjects Himself to.

Jesus certainly "asked" for His passion, because He knew that it would redeem His people.

Personally, I don't see how someone could surmise that there is no difference between ASKING for something to happen, and ALLOWING it to happen. The two concepts are so dramatically distinct that it borders on nonsense to pretend otherwise. Convenient nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless.

Indeed, I think it's more valid to argue that Jesus asked to NOT have to go through the torment - but He allowed it to happen, anyway. Justification for allowing it to happen when you have the power to stop it is a far cry from asking for it.

As a parent, I understand the difference all too well. I COULD lock my daughter in her room, keeping her from the dangers and tough lessons of the world... I have that power (child services notwithstanding).

[Acumen]

El,

Persons with differing opinions can go back and forth all day long on what sounds like nonsense to each other, the only difference here is that what I am proposing has been accepted and taught for thousands of years by the vast majority of Christendom, while the other proposition is "personally" held.

Might doesn't make right.  And the majority opinion doesn't make it right either.  I'm sure you don't need to hear the cliche examples that demonstrate this fallacy.

However, let's add the appropriate context of our subject and revisit the question.  Does a woman who wears provocative clothing AND is then told by the would be rapist that if she didn't leave and change her clothing that he would rape her, if she doesn't heed the warning...Is she then "asking" to be raped?

I would say no.  The way I understand the phrase "Asking for something" is really no different than "wanting something."  Wanting or craving something is not the same as refusing to let someone set conditions for you.  If someone told me that if I didn't leave my home, they would hurt me -- not leaving my home doesn't mean I want to be hurt.  It may mean that I would risk the chance of being hurt to protect what I own.  It would be a cost/benefit analysis on my part because I won't let someone set conditions for me when it concerns the things I love.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

Generally speaking might does not mean right however, in Christian theology Christains are to maintain that God wants all people to come to the knowledge of truth in Christ. God's truth is Christ and Christ told His Church to go and spread His Gospel...then yes it is quite obvious to a believer that "might would mean right."

And the christian church can't come to this knowledge of truth using the scriptures? 

Considering the scenario I presented (the way I presented it) there is no other conclusion but that the woman "wanted it."

I seriously doubt it.  The woman, as you describe her, was doing something that would tempt a person of a disorderly mind to commit evil.  It may not be the wisest choice, but it is her choice to make.  Apparently, he had enough control to warn her, but not enough to stop himself if she wouldn't leave or change her clothing.  He warned her of the potential consequences if she didn't submit to his conditions, so the choice is clearly her's.  However, this scenario doesn't translate well into the passion of Christ.  First, you set up a nice little theoretical situation where it wasn't at all reasonable for her stay.  And since it wasn't reasonable to stay, staying implied a desire to be raped.  In the passion, however, Jesus had an excellent reason to stay and submit to pain and suffering.  And therefore, it doesn't mean that Jesus wanted it, but rather he wanted to purchase salvation for us.  If I forfeit my life to save my wife's, it doesn't mean I wanted to die, it means I wanted her to live.

-Acumen 

[Acumen]

El,

If the situation is a matter of necessity without any other option and the "desired" outcome is achieved then there is no real distinction between what had happened and what was desired.

I'm not sure why there is no real distinction.  Jesus, as a man, didn't want to suffer.  But he knew the cause was righteous.  This is reflected in Matt 26:39

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

-Acumen

[Acumen]

There was a reason I mentioned my wife.  I'm glad you caught on.   

[fidei in nuce]

Good afternoon all…my family and I did a day trip to Manhattan yesterday, where I always stop by Strand Bookstore on 12th & Broadway [18 miles of books]; I enjoyed the visit, but couldn’t find anything on corporal mortification to liven the discussion…so!  I am going to think through this subject aloud and invite criticism.  I will try to address each comment sincerely and to the point.

Thorolf stated: [Reply 19]
Well, no…Fasting is not that [mortification]. Fasting is a method of subjugating the flesh to allow us to separate from the things of the world and focus on God. My daughter may want a new toy... my saying no and beating her into accepting that she's not getting a toy are a far cry from the "same thing."

Fasting is not abuse, self-inflicted or otherwise, and it is not "mortification." It has a long tradition and is evidenced in the Bible as something Jesus actually did - and not for the purpose of feeling humiliation and shame.

Jesus never self-flagellated, and never instructed - or even volunteered - to be so abused. Did He know it was coming? I'm sure He did... but accepting what must be and asking for it are two completely different things. It seems that some either can't or won't see that very distinct difference.

I'm not sure why you think the disagreement lies elsewhere... frankly, I think the disagreement lies ALSO with this issue...

Fidei responds:
Strictly speaking, fasting is mortification [although I realize that is not your whole point], because it disciplines the body and calls for the privation of pleasures and needs.  I think it fits any standard and recognized definition of the word; though practices differ in degrees and aesthetics.

Now you also state that “Jesus never self-flagellated, and never instructed - or even volunteered - to be so abused”

I want to take the ‘volunteered’ off of the table for the moment and speak to that further down the post.  You are quite correct that Jesus never self-flagellated.  The Christ has never grabbed a flagellum and struck himself.  To what degree corporal mortification is in line with authentic spirituality and related to Christ’s suffering will be part of the ongoing discussion.

As to where the disagreement lies, you are right, it lies with this issue too.  I didn’t mean to suggest that it didn’t, only that the necessity of mortification and its principle purpose fit a Catholic understanding of soteriology, sanctification and the interdependent Body of Christ.  Even if Protestants accepted it as a legitimate practice, it would be only to ‘train’ the flesh or ‘focus on God’ [as Thorolf stated] and have no redemptive qualities.

Acumen stated: [Reply 24]
“If someone slapped me because they knew I would turn the other cheek; and they knew I could have stopped them, is that the same as asking to be slapped?”

Fidei responds:
They are not the same, but as Eluminati has stated, I don’t know if that question frames the distinction as it applies to the Christ.  We’ll see!

Thorolf stated: [Reply 27]
“Personally, I don't see how someone could surmise that there is no difference between ASKING for something to happen, and ALLOWING it to happen. The two concepts are so dramatically distinct that it borders on nonsense to pretend otherwise. Convenient nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless.”

Fidei responds:  Is there a “difference between ASKING for something to happen, and ALLOWING it to happen.”  There is a difference here also and I hope the pursuit of the answer is not nonsense; but it may be in the end and it won’t be the first time I chased after a shiny object that turned out to be tin foil.

I want to begin with the specific example of Christ’s Passion and death; remember this is my thinking aloud and working through the question. 

Did Christ volunteer to suffer and die?  Christ knew the suffering was immanent [“The Son of man must suffer many things”—Luke ix.22] and was to be so severe as to lead to His death [“and be killed”—Mark viii.31].  So, I think we can safely conclude that the Christ allowed His Passion and Death to happen.

Did the Christ ask for it to happen?  Sacred Scripture tells us that Christ came to do His Father’s will [“My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt [be done]—Matthew xxvi.39].  I think it is fair to surmise that His will and the will of the Father are one, but Christ possessed two wills—human and divine; that’s a dynamic, but I don’t know if it is pertinent here. 

Sacred Scripture reads, “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father."—John x.17-18.  I want to insert ‘Passion and death’ in Acumen’s statement; “If someone [tortured and killed Christ] because they knew [or discovered] [He] would [not resist]; and they knew [Jesus Himself] could have stopped them, is that the same as asking to be [tortured and killed]?”  I think that you are going to get wet swimming, whether you asked for it or not.  I don’t see how we can separate Christ’s submission to His Father’s [and own] will and Christ indeed asking, in the sense that this was the only way to redeem Mankind, to be tortured and killed.  I would liken this to giving myself as a hostage in exchange for one of my children, knowing that I will not survive the incident.  This example fails in that I personally would desire another way, but this was Christ’s plan from the beginning, to become Incarnate to save us, [“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”—John i.1].  Others say He came only due to sin [St. Thomas Aquinas]…this too can be true and does not alter our discussion as much as I can tell. 

So, is Christ’s submission [allowing death] to His Father’s will the equivalent of asking to die?  It seems to me they are the same, not just practically, but substantially?

Now, His suffering, even if it was not self-inflicted, came from His desire.  Is that desire not equal to someone inflicting corporal mortification on themselves?  Restated, Christ put Himself in the location of those who would torture and kill Him, so can someone walk willingly into a room and cause themselves pain by flagellation [monitored by prudence]?  Have not both been consciously pursued?  If there is a purpose in corporal mortification [which is presumed in Catholic theology], then ‘bringing it on yourself’ does not disqualify the act as partaking in Glory.

Though one is worthy of atonement and the other is a discipline that allows us to share in His sufferings and for those of others vicariously.  But, where Christ submitted to this atonement, He never practiced the discipline.

Julrich stated: [Reply 11]
I think asceticism in Christianity is a result of Hellenistic syncretism, not the suffering of Jesus in the flesh.

Fidei responds:
Hellenistic influence doesn’t bother me; Early Christianity, St. Paul especially, borrowed from both Jew and Greek.  The origins are clearer to me as coming post-‘Edict of Milan’ as part of the new-martyrdom.  Regardless of their origins, I do think those who practiced corporal mortification did so as a result of Jesus in the flesh. 

To all, I want to admit that I don’t see my conclusions as convincing.  But, I still admit to the practice being licit and redemptive [moderated by prudence], because I don’t see the distinctions made between ‘asking’ and ‘allowing’ as significant; and certainly not foolish.  I’m going to continue thinking about this and will look forward to your responses.

Fidei

[Acumen]

Fidei,

So, is Christ’s submission [allowing death] to His Father’s will the equivalent of asking to die?  It seems to me they are the same, not just practically, but substantially?

Like the example I used about my wife -- if forfeiting my life were necessary to spare her life, I would do it.  In itself, dying is most undesireable because we are programmed to survive, and that is why we fear it.  Wanting her to live doesn't mean I want to die; it means I recognize that I must forfeit my want for life in order to get my want for her life.  For some reason, Eluminati has confused the means for the end, the obligation for the desired result.  He presumes if we want the end, we must also want the means.  This is not true, but rather it is a lack of concentration to distinguish between the two. 

[fidei in nuce]

I have heard of Leen’s, but never had the opportunity to read it…is it good?  Good luck with the Latin!  So much of what I read is laced with Latin and no explanations, so the more you know the better!

I’ll be upstate—PA [coal region], visiting with my mother and in-laws for a couple of days, so after tonight, my responses will have to wait until then.  Thanks!

Fidei

[Acumen]

El

Jesus was a man but He was also God, the all knowing and all powerful God.  The problem Acumen is that you are speaking in a hypothetical with a human perspective, not all knowing and not all powerful.

On the contrary, seeing things from a human perspective is an advantage when considering the nature of human choice.  You point out that Jesus was God.  Indeed he was, but he was human too.  Concerning his Godhead, I think you describe the scenario quite well.  Concerning his humanity, you seem to gloss over the fact that humans don't desire death, we fear it.  Hence, when people sacrifice their lives for our country, they are quickly identified as heros.  If humans generally desired death, then there would be nothing heroic about it.  Jesus was a hero precisely because he wanted the cup to be taken from him, and yet he submitted to his Father's will.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

Whoa, are you suggesting that the Father and the Son are distinct?

Absolutely!

Either way the question was whether or not he "wanted" "desired" to die and the answer should not be clouded with fleshly desires but His divine desire, which is infinite....

That makes no sense considering the history of this debate.  Mortification is a denial of bodily passions and appetites, which sometimes involves pain and suffering.  How does pain and suffering apply to an omniopotent God?  The topic of mortification refers to the humanity of Jesus, not to God.  Jesus' fleshly desires made him want not to die as it is reflected in Matthew 26. 

[Acumen]

The topic is about mortification, but we first have to get to it's theological origin and that starts with God....sigh, and that's why I then said (now for the 3rd time)....

The topic is indeed mortification, but the issue we're tackling right now is if Jesus wanted to suffer.  We have good reason to believe that Jesus didn't want to suffer when he asked the Father, "if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me."

First, the words "if it is possible" indicates that Jesus didn't prefer to suffer, but rather prefered something else.  However, he knew what must be done and suffering was required of him.  There isn't much more to say on this subtopic.

[Acumen]

El,

There is nothing else to say, you are rejecting the Divinity of Jesus on this issue and seem to believe that someone cannot desire two things at the same time, and one more than the other.

I'm not rejecting his divinity on the issue, I just see no reason to consider it.  The subtopic is mortification.  In an earlier post, you stated that Jesus practiced mortification and "self flagellated."  And yet, the only application of these practices to Jesus' person concerns his humanity, not his divinity.  God cannot undergo denial or self-inflicted pain; so if Jesus did these things, he must have done them as a man.  In the same token (as a man) Jesus did not want to suffer because the passage in Matthew clearly expresses Jesus' preference to have the cup taken from him.  He didn't want to suffer, but he willing suffered in submission to a higher calling.

Now, if you're saying that the God in Christ wanted to suffer, then I say fine.  However, the man Jesus didn't.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

Make the argument for your hypostatic union, and I'll honestly evaluate it.  If not, then I don't want to hear how my lack of research contributes to a heresy.  Such dogmatic opinions and a peremptory tone don't go over to well in an academic forum, especially from a member of a Church with a rich history of a dogmatic opinions.

[Acumen]

This thread isn't on the Hypostatic union, if you want to start an appropriate thread then do so.

The thread doesn't need to have "Hypostatic union" in the title to discuss it.  If you don't wish to discuss it here, then don't use it as a cheap shot on how it contributes to my "silly" heresy.

[Acumen]

This isn't the "Learn about Catholicism" Board, so if you do not know what the Hypostatic union is, you either need to request and explination on that board or research it for yourself.

I don't really care what the hypostatic union is, just like I don't really care for a host of other Catholic dogma.  You mentioned I should research it out in your wisecrack about my silly heresy.  And frankly, I'm getting less patient when posters don't post arguments, but resort to indirect ad hominem remarks by their implication that if such investigative work is done, then we would receive enough enlightenment to form an agreement.  All that does is frustrate posters to retaliate with compensatory arrogance, and before you know it, this forum becomes like any other.

[Acumen]

If you don't want this forum to become like other forums then do your research or don't engage in a topic that you can't keep up with.

I think you have successfully proved my point.  The problem is not the content of your statements, but your tone. 

Let's see if you can address the topic and not respond in the way that you have falsely accused me of doing.  My first post (that you found objectionable) was a direct comment about your Nestorian views that have clouded your ability to understand this topic and the fact that Jesus' humanity cannot be seperated from His Divinity (Hypostatic Union.)  My comment, while playfully offensive, was still on topic and appropriate.  Instead of responding in kind you only got defensive without addressing my critique (rude or not.)

Your comments may be "playfully offensive," but there is a common theme.  The theme is if people only understood what you are saying -- if they only did the research with an open mind, then they would have to agree with everything you say.  This theme is reflective of your absolute certainty that the Catholic church is infallible in all things theological.  We protestants typically don't start with the presumption of infallibility.  Every time I debate a topic with another poster, I consider the possibility that I am wrong.  Many times I have been wrong, and this is how my theology develops.  This doesn't appear to the a possibility with you.  You make no concessions in your discussions, not ever. 

Still you refuse to address these critiques but instead choose to divert the conversation.

There is really no point addressing your points if you can't be wrong.  Any alternative perspective is only another form of rebellion against apostolic authority and is a demonstration of ignorance.   


 

[fidei in nuce]

Acumen stated: [Reply #40]
Wanting her to live doesn't mean I want [asked] to die; it means I recognize that I must forfeit my want for life in order to get my want for her life.

Fidei responds:
These are the phrases that I want to dissect first and then we’ll apply the same logic to Acumen’s above statement. 

Christ wanted to suffer for our sins! 
Christ asked to suffer for our sins!

Looking at the end of the object and then the end of the person in these two sentences may, offer insight into our discussion.  I can almost hear ‘caution’ from a morality professor of mine in this application, but I’m still only thinking aloud as we work through this discussion, so no guts, no glory. 

Here are my definitions for analyzing the two sentences.  The end of the object is the ultimate good or goal of the action without prejudice [what is the immediate intention of the action chosen by the will] and the end of the person is the means, including the motive of the person doing the action and the good sought internally.

Christ wanted to suffer for our sins!
The end of the object=passion and death on the cross.
The end of the person=to do the will of the Father.  [“Take me instead”]

Christ asked to suffer for our sins!
   The end of the object=passion and death on the cross.
   The end of the person=to redeem Mankind [“I will die for them”]   
      
When I lay it out like this, it appears that since the ‘good’ of the Father is to redeem Mankind, the Passion and Death become the same [good] as to the means to doing His will.  In this way, Jesus wanted to suffer and so accepted suffering.  In the other scenario, Jesus wanted to redeem Mankind and so accepted suffering.  They appear to be identical.

Acumen stated:
…If forfeiting my life were necessary to spare her life, I would do it.  In itself, dying is most undesirable because we are programmed to survive, and that is why we fear it.  Wanting her to live doesn't mean I want to die; it means I recognize that I must forfeit my want for life in order to get my want for her life.

Fidei responds:
How does this application we used previously work with Acumen’s scenario?

Acumen wanted to die in substitution for his wife!
The end of the object=to die as substitution
The end of the person=to appease the transgressor [“Take me instead”]

Acumen asked to die in substitution for his wife!
The end of the object= to die in substitution.
The end of the person=to spare his wife. [“I will die for her”]

I will be honest and state that I am not certain I have this correct or even that you can apply this to our discussion.  But, the good sought in each does seem to be substantially the same.

At least this helps me to formulate the structure of this dilemma.  Does Christ’s wanting to die, which would intend to atone for Mankind’s sin differ from doing the perfect will of His Father, which would be to atone for Mankind’s sin by dying?  Both ends are the same and are the identical goods sought after.  In one scenario, Christ’s asks for it and the other Christ wants to do it.

Now, Acumen has mentioned [somewhere] that Christ has two wills; these would correspond to His two natures.  The heresy attacking this doctrine is the Monothelite heresy of the 7th century.  The human and divine will acted harmoniously if we define ‘willing’ as the ultimate decision.  Willing taken as the ‘power’ results in separate divine/human wills, but where one has as its nature divine [God’s will], the other will [being Human], must be in perfect submission [to do the Father’s will], because it would be free from concupiscible passions [He knew not sin].   

I believe Mark xiv.36—“ remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt,” illustrates this perfectly.  This shows the two wills of Christ and the perfect submission of the human will to the Divine, resulting in one activity.  It appears that ‘wanting’ and ‘asking’ cannot be in tension to each other in the case of the Christ. 

This, of course is where our own examples would not suffice for comparison.  But enough for this post.  If this argument stands, then the case would still have to be made that there is glory in our human suffering, whether asked for directly or merely accepted.

Fidei

PS:  Have you ever driven over a winding mountain road, on an icy-sleeting night when, your windshield wipers collected ice and weren’t doing their job, so you reached out of the window to grab one to slap it against the windshield as it was making a pass, to knock the ice off?  I did and broke the driver’s side windshield wiper clean off!!  In the words of Alfred E. Newman, “What, me worry?”

[Acumen]

Fidei,

Good post.  I like the way you mapped it out for us.  Unfortunately, I think we are at an impasse in the conversation.

I see a difference between desiring salvation for mankind, and desiring the means of acquiring it.  In my example of my wife, I spelled it out as clearly as I could.  I have no problems with the concept that glory can be found in suffering, but I reject the notion that Jesus self-flagellated.  The NT passage I quoted quite clearly demonstrates that Jesus didn't desire to suffer, but yet submitted to his Father's will in all righteousness.  I like a clean house, but don't like cleaning it.  It's really a simple understanding we don't see eye to eye on.  If you conclude that wanting a clean house is equivalent to wanting to clean it, then we are at an impasse.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

All this I have expressed to give some background and context to my "tone" and attitude towards those I debate with.  In other words, I am not hard headed and have admitted many times that I have been wrong and am interested only in the truth.  St. Jerome was known to be a very hard person to debate with (and get along with in general) but he was a very important asset to the body of Christ and I hope to be also (I am not suggesting that I will have the same impact.)

I can appreciate your testimony because I think it provides context to the way you approach religious dialogue.  We all go through journey's -- some more dramatic than others.  You know I'm content with your progression from Oneness Pentecostalism to Roman Catholicism because I've witnessed a stronger sense of spirituality and devotion in you since the change.  That being said, even before the change you resisted opportunities to admit being wrong on issues.  So, I don't think you're being honest with yourself when you deny being hard-headed. 

Ironically enough, Acumen knows my story better than anyone else on this website and as well if not better than most people in my regular life.  It is amazing how someone could have all the information right in front of their face but refuse to properly recognize it when making accusations against someones intentions and sensibilities and not just their arguments.

I understand your testimony.  I was there when you accepted Roman Catholicism.  Sure we debated the reasons for your conversion, but it's never stood in the way of our collective search for something better.  The issue here isn't entirely about Roman Catholicism, but I think it plays a role.  I think there are several factors that contribute to your debating style, but I wouldn't dare presume I know all of them. 

First, you have the zeal of a new convert, which is to be expected when one is excited about spiritual progression.  Like Eve eating the fruit, you feel as if your eyes have been opened, and there is a rich body of spiritual knowledge that are not only good for the soul, but impeccable in all doctrinal truth.  Your zeal, I believe, closes your mind to learning something new that lies outside of Roman Catholic teachings because you would rather share this valuable truth with others than learning truths from non-catholics.  Second, I think part of the problem is you don't link mincing words, and therefore your posts sometimes appear overly direct and haughty.  You may think I brown-nose posters by mincing words, but I think it is good debating etiquette and quite common in academic circles.  And third, but not mincing words, it gives the impression that you don't care enough about what other members post to dignify it with a lengthier response.  I, too, used to be direct and dogmatic in my posts during my Bnet years, but I believe this forum is much more academic and civil -- and the posters here appear to have a better appreciation for intelligent discourse.

-Acumen