I plan to publish it for discussion in short installments as Catholic-Orthodox caucus threads. All Christians as well as non-Christians are very welcome, but I ask all to maintain the caucus discipline: no interconfessional attacks, no personal attacks, and no off-topic posts. Avoid mentioning confessions outside of the caucus for any reason.
Previous: Cur Deus Homo I-III
Cur Deus Homo III-V
Cur Deus Homo VI-VIII: Is God Omnipotent and Wise?
Cur Deus Homo IX-X: Did The Father Wish Christ To Die?
Cur Deus Homo XI-XIV: God's Honor, Compassion, and Justice
The summary:
With sin, honor of God does not suffer in an objective sense, but it appears to be suffering:
no one can honor or dishonor God, as he is in himself; but the creature, as far as he is concerned, appears to do this when he submits or opposes his will to the will of God
The rest of the installment is a digression into the tension between the perfection of the creation and the fallen state of some angels and some men. The central assumption for this part of the discourse is that since God created a perfect universe, there is a certain perfect number of perfect creatures that inhabit it in eternity. Since we know that some angels fell, questions arise about how this number is to be made up after the Creation reaches its intended glorified state.
The number of fallen angels is to be made up from men and not from angels, because men are designed with an ability of reaching perfection through their intelligent nature, while angels are either perfect already or fallen for all eternity. If the number of fallen angels were to be made up from other angels, these other angels would have had the benefit of seeing the punishment due for sin, and hence would not have matched in perfection the originally steadfast and obedient angels.
this restoration can only be made from human beings, since there is no other source...
the first angels in that case would have persevered without ever witnessing the punishment of sin; which, in respect to the others who were substituted for them after their fall, was impossible
There will be more holy men than there were fallen angels. Firstly, all angels created initially (before the fall of Satan) must not have been the perfect number. Why? There are several logical possibilities. If the creation was progressive, then either the angels were in the perfect number and men were created to make up for the deficit after the fall of Satan; or the angels were incomplete in number as God deferred the completion till the creation of man. If the creation was instantaneous (the six days being metaphorical days), then certainly the initial number was less then the perfect number, in order to complete it with holy men even if the fall of Satan did not occur. We see that only the theory that the initial number was less than perfect survives both logical possibilities of looking at the dynamics of the Creation. Further, since we cannot believe that man's creation was superfluous, we have to conclude that man was created to compete the perfection of the divine design, substituting his own nature for the angelic nature. Therefore, the number of holy men and steadfast angels together is the perfect number, and the number of steadfast angels and fallen angels is less than the perfect number: there are more holy men that fallen angels. St. Anselm concludes:
if the perfection of the created universe is to be understood as consisting, not so much in the number of beings, as in the number of natures; it follows that human nature was either made to consummate this perfection, or that it was superfluous, which we should not dare affirm of the nature of the smallest reptile. Wherefore, then, it was made for itself, and not merely to restore the number of beings possessing another nature. From which it is plain that, even had no angel fallen, men would yet have had their place in the celestial kingdom. And hence it follows that there was not a perfect number of angels, even before a part fell; otherwise, of necessity some men or angels must fall, because it would be impossible that any should continue beyond the perfect number.
There is a second consideration that leads to the same conclusion. Suppose that a perfect number was initially created. Then, the fall woul have been a joyous occasion for the elect. But that is unseemly to rejoice over the fall. If however, the number of the elect exceeds the number of the fallen angels, then no one "will have cause to rejoice over the perdition of another"
Thirdly, let us consider the state of the creation prior to the fall of Adam. Was the number of the holy creatures perfect then? We have to conclude that it was either not perfect or, if perfect in potential, not confirmed as perfect:
if God determined to bring to perfection, at one and the same time, that intelligent and happy state and this earthly and irrational nature; it follows that either that state was not complete in the number of angels before the destruction of the wicked, but God was waiting to complete it by men, when he should renovate the material nature of the world; or that, if that kingdom were perfect in number, it was not in confirmation, and its confirmation must be deferred, even had no one sinned, until that renewal of the world to which we look forward; or that, if that confirmation could not be deferred so long, the renewal of the world must be hastened that both events might take place at the same time.But God did not confirm Adam and Eve immediately in holiness, as they did fall. From this it follows that perfection was not complete in them alone: "It therefore remains that the celestial state was not complete in its original number, but must be completed from among men".
Finally there seems to be an objection from Scripture: "He has appointed the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel" (Deuteronomy 32:8), -- doesn't "children of Israel" refer to the angels of God? St. Anselm uses this occasion to set up the proper rule of biblical exegesis:
if I say anything not upheld by greater authority, though I appear to demonstrate it, yet it should be received with no further certainty than as my opinion for the present, until God makes some clearer revelation to me. For I am sure that, if I say anything which plainly opposes the Holy Scriptures, it is false; and if I am aware of it, I will no longer hold it. But if, with regard to subjects in which opposite opinions may be held without hazard, as that, for instance, which we now discuss; for if we know not whether there are to be more men elected than the number of the lost angels, and incline to either of these opinions rather than the other, I think the soul is not in danger; if, I say, in questions like this, we explain the Divine words so as to make them favor different sides, and there is nowhere found anything to decide, beyond doubt, the opinion that should be held, I think there is no censure to be given.
In other words, a theological hypothesis must not contradict clear scripture; but it does not have to conform with every possible explanation when several are available. In this case: I think there is no other possible method of explanation: "he has appointed the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel," that is, that there will continue to be a people in this stage of existence, as I said above, until the number of holy men is completed. And we infer from either translation that as many men will be taken as there were angels who remained steadfast. Yet, although lost angels must have their ranks filled by men, it does not follow that the number of lost angels was equal to that of those who persevered. But if any one affirms this, he will have to find means of invalidating the reasons given above, which prove, I think, that there was not among angels, before the fall, that perfect number before mentioned, and that there are more men to be saved than the number of evil angels.
keep alive