Why was the Cross Necessary?
Posted by admin on May 28th, 2010
That is a question I have asked at various times, trying to understand the great mystery of our redemption. Here’s an answer from Father Barron that makes a lot of sense;
June 4th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I enjoy reading your posts… so, thanks for keeping your blog up to date.
I have to tell you, though, I was sorely disappointed by Barron’s explanation of the cross. Here was an excellent opportunity for him to present the gospel… but the gospel did not come through.
What must I do to be saved? Not a word. Why should I be grateful for the cross? Not clear.
As a Protestant this kind of presentation only further confirms why I am not Catholic. Even if we could put aside most of our differences it seems, to me, deeply troubling that the gospel does not come through.
Jesus did not die merely to be present in death or to participate in our death. He died as our substitute. He took our penalty on Himself… and it was necessitated by the justice of God. Justice had to be served somehow, and the glory and wonder of the cross is that it was served by Jesus so that if we will come to Him in faith and repentance we need not serve it ourselves.
June 5th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
I suppose I should have elaborated on the context of the discussion. As I understand it, in this series Father Barron is discussing theological questions with students, presumably already believers. This in his capacity as a theology professor.
Thus, he is not evangelizing in the sense of presenting the gospel to non-believers or those fallen away from the faith. However, watching it again I do think there is an entire group of people for whom this discussion would hold appeal in evangelistic terms. I spent some time many years ago on the fringes of the New Age and this speaks in their language.
However, the question, “why was the cross necessary,” is perhaps ambiguous as well. By that question we could mean “why would I have need of the cross, or why do I need salvation?”
On the other hand, as I was thinking, we could also ask, “why did not God provide a way of reconciliation other than the cross? Why did it have to be suffering and death in such a way?” In that case, we presuppose the necessity of salvation, we know and accept the problem of our separation from God, and his plan of reconciliation.
If we look at how Father Barron begins, he mentions two of the various views of the necessity of the cross as the means of our reconciliation, first St. Anselm and then Aquinas, as the classical poles of the discussion. St. Anselm’s view might be considered closest to the view of Calvin, although not nearly as exclusive. Aquinas, Father Barron says, did not want to limit God, in the sense that God could be compelled by necessity to save us at all, and specifically in the manner of crucifixion.
As a metaphysical alternative (and that is what he is discussing here) he brings the perspective of Von Balthasar and describes that view.
Perhaps I should have made a lengthier post in explanation. I think the principle reason that I posted this was because he provides an understanding of the larger picture of redemption that does not rely heavily on the “angry God” model requiring punishment from someone, and thereby punishing his own son in our stead.
There is that element within the teaching of the Church, both in Scripture and from the Fathers, but there is much more. I tend to think that the satisfaction for sin is the simpler understanding often necessary for direct evangelization, to wake up the dead in sin, so to speak. It is much like the expression, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom, which Scripture tells us. Yes, fear comes first, but it is clear that what God desires of us is our love. This is the same principle that I found in my own upbringing. At one point, there was fear of the punishment of my father, but by the time I left home, my fear was more in disappointing him.
The problem is that our understanding of justice, and God’s understanding are different. Ours pales by comparison. If we look at it strictly in terms of our justice, we already get what we deserve, without Christ’s incarnation, passion and resurrection. There is no necessity for our salvation other than the love of God for us.
Once we recognize that, then the cross becomes an even deeper mystery, because we can then ask, “why was it necessary to go to that length to save us?” Is not God all powerful? Could he not just simply change us, in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, to borrow an expression from Scripture?
What goes unsaid in Father Barron’s discussion, which underlies all of Catholic theology and brings us to a point of conflict with some non-Catholics, is our free will. God did what he did on the cross because he respects our free will, and the cross was a necessity only because God made it so by limiting himself to seeking our love only from our own free will.
Thus, as Father Barron points out, not only did the Word become flesh but he went all the way with us, to the darkest corner of our existence. In that act of unconditional love for us, he provided the means for us to be reconciled with him. That is the way. Jesus said it, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.”
The Catholic understanding of the cross goes very deep, and is always with us. As St. Paul says, we preach Christ and him crucified. So much so that we have been criticized for it. We make the sign of the cross in prayer, reminding us of the Trinity, of our own baptism and of Christ’s passion. We depict Christ on the cross for the same reason, following the practice of the early Church that St. Paul refers to.
Having said all of that, I understand perfectly where you are coming from Stephen, and far from dismissing your comment I would like to take it up in another post, because I think the issue is not so much theology as methodology. But it is something that I have thought about at various times.
June 6th, 2010 at 12:54 am
[...] are a couple of segments that pertain to the discussion from our most recent post. [...]
June 7th, 2010 at 1:46 am
[...] a comment from Steve to our post “Why Was The Cross Necessary?”. I wish to highlight it because he hits upon something that has bothered me in the past, [...]