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
Cur Deus Homo XV-XVIII: Men and Angels, Perfection and Election
Cur Deus Homo XIX-XX: No Satisfaction
Cur Deus Homo XXI-XXIII: Enormity of Sin
Cur Deus Homo XXIV-XXV: Unhappiness of Man
Cur Deus Homo Book Second I-IV: Holy, Happy Man
Cur Deus Homo Book Second V-VII: The Necessity of God-Man
Cur Deus Homo Book Second VIII: The Necessity of the Virgin Mary
Cur Deus Homo Book Second IX-X: The Sinless Word
Cur Deus Homo Book Second XI: Christ Chose To Die
Cur Deus Homo Book Second XII-XV: Christ's Death Removes Sin
Cur Deus Homo Book Second XVI: Christ, Mary, Adam, Eve
Cur Deus Homo Book Second XVII-XVIII(a): Will and Necessity
The summary:
If Christ's death is necessary for atonement, as we've seen, and since He was sent by the Father for that purpose, how then can one say that Christ could have avoided His suffering and death? Yet that freedom of His choice is necessary for His gift to be of atoning value.
Morevoer, His suffering and death gave an example for other martyrs, and again, it was necessary for Him to die in order for that example to hold.
Others, St. John the Baptist among them, also suffered death for the sake of the truth. But only Christ did so freely: No man except this one ever gave to God what he was not obliged to lose, or paid a debt he did not owe. But he freely offered to the Father what there was no need of his ever losing, and paid for sinners what he owed not for himself. Therefore he set a much nobler example, that each one should not hesitate to give to God, for himself, what he must at any rate lose before long, since it was the voice of reason; for he, when not in want of anything for himself and not compelled by others, who deserved nothing of him but punishment, gave so precious a life, even the life of so illustrious a personage, with such willingness.
It is true that "it was better for [Christ to die], or that so doing he pleased God more than if he had not done it". So in what sense was Christ free to choose or not choose His Passion? Anselm starts his answer with an analogy: it is at times the case that while a certain debt is owed, freedom exists in the manner in which the debt is satisfied. Such is the case with the choice between celibacy and marriage: both satisfy a certian requirement albeit in a different manner.
When any creature wishes to do a thing that is left entirely at his own disposal, we say that he ought to do it, for what he wishes to be ought to be. So our Lord Jesus, when he wished, as we have said, to suffer death, ought to have done precisely what he did; because he ought to be what he wished, and was not bound to do anything as a debt. As he is both God and man, in connection with his human nature, which made him a man, he must also have received from the Divine nature that control over himself which freed him from all obligation, except to do as he chose.
Finally, let us not forget that the unity of the Father and the Son exists in the Holy Trinity and so in the trinitarian sense, Christ "offered himself for his own honor, as well as for that of the Father and the Holy Spirit".
keep alive