Posted on 08/27/2007 5:29:22 AM PDT by fr maximilian mary
In recent times, an expert on angelology and demonology, the chief exorcist of the Diocese of Rome, Fr. Gabriel Amorth, wrote a most concise and lucid summation of the Franciscan thesis in his book An Exorcist Tells his Story. Before he ‘tells his story’, he begins by “first stating some basic facts about God’s plan for creation.” He writes (in Chapter 1):
“All too often we have the wrong concept of creation, and we take for granted the following wrong sequence of events. We believe that one day God created the angels; that He put them to the test, although we are not sure which test; and that as a result we have the division among angels and demons. The angels were rewarded with heaven, and the demons were punished with hell. Then we believe that on another day God created the universe, the minerals, the plants, the animals, and, in the end, man. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve obeyed Satan and disobeyed God; thus they sinned. At this point, to save mankind, God decided to send His Son.
“This is not what the Bible teaches us, and it is not the teaching of the Fathers. If this were so, the angels and creation would remain strangers to the mystery of Christ. If we read the Prologue of the Gospel of John and the two Christological hymns that open the letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians, we see that Christ is ‘the firstborn of all creatures’ (Col. 1:15). Everything was created for Him and in the expectation of Him. There is no theological discussion that makes any sense if it asks whether Christ would have been born without the sin of Adam. Christ is the center of creation; all creatures, both heavenly (the angels) and earthly (man) find in Him their summation. On the other hand, we can affirm that, given the sin of our forebears, Christ’s coming assumed a particular role: He came as Savior. The core of His action is contained within the Paschal Mystery: through the blood of His Cross, He reconciles all things in the heavens (angels) and on earth (man) to God. The role of every creature is dependent on this christocentric understanding.”
Assuming for the moment, the Franciscan school's view of the fall of the angels because of outrage over the prospect of the incarnation, it would be consistent for the fallen angels to assume that the Incarnate God could indeed be tricked. (I think . . .)
Your own speculation is thought-provoking, especially tying them into the conditions of the Jews at the time. Is there any historical reason to suggest, though, that hunger would be any more pressing than at any other time? My own historical knowledge is spotty (I guess everyone's is -- just sometimes the spots are closer together!).
I imagine Satan’s motive was simply to induce suffering on Jesus.
As for the rhetorical question: “If” is used in logical constructions. The only other option Satan would have would be to say, “SINCE you are the Son of God.” That would involve Satan confirming the divinity of Christ. I guess Satan was trying to suggest to Jesus that he was not really the Son of God: “If you were the Son of God, you would do such-and-such. If you refuse to do it, then you aren’t the Son of God.”
Yes, the temptation could not succeed, but the realization that he could not use his powers to alleviate his countrymen’s current suffering probably was a great suffering to Jesus.
Lastly, I wonder whether one can suggest what Jesus could learn without falling into the heresy of adoptionism. Did the human aspect of Jesus know when he was an infant that he would be crucified?
St. Bonaventure distinguishes 5 types of knowledge in Christ:
1. Divine knowledge which He would have as the 2nd Divine Person of the Trinity.
2. Beatific knowledge which His human nature had from the beatific vision which His human soul had of the Divinity from the very moment of the Incarnation, the moment of its creation.
3. Infused knowledge of all things pertaining to salvation history which the Divinity would have infused into His human soul.
4. Knowledge of the essence of all created things.
5. Experimental knowledge—whereby Jesus learned by experience what He already knew by some or all of the various other avenues of knowledge listed above. Only in this way could Our Lord grow in wisdom and knowledge, namely, He learned from experience what He already knew in different ways. (By way of analogy, this happens to us when we have a textbook knowledge of something, for example, of driving—so we know it from the book—but we learn it in a new way (by experience) when we get behind the wheel and actually experience it.)
If we don’t say that Our Lord knew who He was or what His mission was, we end up (as you noted) falling into one heresy or another. He knew, but He “learned obedience by what He suffered” (somewhere in Hebrews), He learned from experience what it was to be the Messiah—not because He didn’t know before, but He didn’t know from experience.
Pax et bonum...
This is a fantastic thread. I’ve been stumbling around attempting to explain all this to my “almost there” non-Catholic husband.
The whole thread is a great help, very clear and concise.
Ave Maria!
You might also want to look at this previous thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1866256/post
God bless you...
I forgot to thank you for this.
Let’s both thank God for the Church and Doctors of the Church like St. Bonaventure. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have come down strong against some heretical tendencies to “undivinize” Jesus Christ.
Ave Maria!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.