On must return to Tradition to confront and counter the modern blasphemous heresy that Jesus became sin and to confront and counter the temptation to understand scripture differently than did the early Church Fathers and Drs. of the Church for not every word of Holy Writ is literal, especially "He became sin" or "He was made a curse.
The Hypostatic union is a real substantial unity which means that Jesus did not empty Himself of His Divinity as claimed by Our Pope and Our Cross.
What sort of Catholic is it who thinks that Jesus would destroy The Hypostatic Union or that He could become sin, become a serpent?
To destroy the Hypostatic Union would mean that Jesus would not longer be the Divine Person, perfect God and perfect man, and to think that He actually became sin, even a serpent, would mean that God accepted a sinful victim to redeem the world and to ransom us from the Devil.
In what sort of Catholic mind is it that these insane ideas are thought not only ontologically possible but praiseworthy?
Lord have mercy. Heresy on high during the Sacred Tritium, the Holiest time of the Ecclesiastical Calendar.
Well so much for Catholic Tradition and Dogmatic Teachings, they are out and surprises and heresy are in.
At one time, before seminaries threw-out his Great Commentary, those young men studying to become priests were learnt true Theology in the classic commentary of Cornelius a Lapide and they were taught what the words of Holy Writ meant and, thus, were spiritually inoculated against the malign and baleful poison of modernism which is making a blasphemous mockery of truth masquerading behind the smiley face of a farcical mercy that pits Jesus against Himself.
Now, let's turn to Lapide to understand what Holy Writ truly means about became sin for the true meaning of those words is as completely separated from the claims of what those words mean by Cantalamessa and Franciscus as Heaven is separated from Hell.
What sort of Catholic is it who thinks that Jesus would destroy The Hypostatic Union or that He could become sin, become a serpent?
To destroy the Hypostatic Union would mean that Jesus would not longer be the Divine Person, perfect God and perfect man, and to think that He actually became sin, even a serpent, would mean that God accepted a sinful victim to redeem the world and to ransom us from the Devil.
In what sort of Catholic mind is it that these insane ideas are thought not only ontologically possible but praiseworthy?
Lord have mercy. Heresy on high during the Sacred Tritium, the Holiest time of the Ecclesiastical Calendar.
Well so much for Catholic Tradition and Dogmatic Teachings, they are out and surprises and heresy are in.
At one time, before seminaries threw-out his Great Commentary, those young men studying to become priests were learnt true Theology in the classic commentary of Cornelius a Lapide and they were taught what the words of Holy Writ meant and, thus, were spiritually inoculated against the malign and baleful poison of modernism which is making a blasphemous mockery of truth masquerading behind the smiley face of a farcical mercy that pits Jesus against Himself.
Now, let's turn to Lapide to understand what Holy Writ truly means about became sin for the true meaning of those words is as completely separated from the claims of what those words mean by Cantalamessa and Franciscus as Heaven is separated from Hell.
Cornelius a Lapide (2 Corinth 5)
Ver. 21.—Him who knew no sin. Experimentally, says S. Thomas, Christ knew no sin, though by simple knowledge He did, for He did no sin.
Hath made Him to be sin for us.
For us, says Illyricus, who were sin; because, he says, sin is the substance and form of our soul. But to say this of ourselves is folly, of Christ blasphemy. (1.) The meaning is that God made Christ to be the victim offered for our sin, to prevent us from atoning for our sins by eternal death and fire. The Apostle plays on the word sin, for when he says, “Him who knew no sin,” he means sin strictly speaking; but when he says, “He made Him to be sin for us,” he employs a metonymy. So Ambrose, Theophylact, and Anselm. In Ps. xl. 12, Christ calls our sins His. (2.) Sin here denotes, says S. Thomas, the likeness of sinful flesh which He took, that He might be passible, just as sinners who are descended from Adam are liable to suffering. (3.) Sin, in the sense of being regarded by men as a noteworthy sinner, and being crucified as a malefactor. So the Greek Fathers.
Of these three interpretations the first is the more full, significant, and vigorous, and the one more consonant with the usage of Scripture, which frequently speaks of an expiatory victim as sin. Cf. Hosea iv. 8; Lev. iv. 24 and 21; Ezek. xliv. 29. The reason of this metonymy is that all the punishment and guilt of the sin were transferred to the expiatory victim, and so the sin itself might seem to be also transferred to it. In token of this the priest was accustomed to lay his hands on the victim, and call down on it the sins of the people; for by the hands are signified sinful actions, which are for the most part executed by the hands, as Theodoret says in his notes on Leviticus i. Therefore the laying of hands on the victim was both a symbol of oblation and a testimony of the transference of guilt to the victim, showing that it was expiatory, and that it bore the sin itself, with all its burden of guilt and punishment. In this way the high-priest on the great Day of Atonement turned a goat into the wilderness, having imprecated on it the sins of the whole people. Cf. Lev. xvi. 20.
Aquinas on Galatians 3:13
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree)
Having explained the curse brought on by the Law, as well as the Law’s incapacity to deliver from sin, he now shows forth Christ’s power to set one free from this curse.
First, he shows how through Christ we are set free of that curse;
...
As to the first, he does three things:
First, he presents the author of the liberation;
Secondly, the manner of liberation (v. 13): being made a curse for us;
Thirdly, the testimony of the prophets (v. 13): for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.
He says therefore first: All who observed the works of the Law were under a curse, as has been said, and they could not be delivered by the Law. Hence it was necessary to have someone who should set us free, and that one was Christ. Hence he says, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3). He redeemed, I say, us, namely, the Jews, with His own Precious Blood: “Thou hast redeemed us in thy blood” (Rev 5:9); “Fear not, for I have redeemed thee” (Is 43:1), from the curse of the law, i.e., from guilt and penalty: that he might redeem them who were under the law (4:5); 1 will redeem them from death” (Hos 13:14).
Then when he says, being made a curse for us, he sets forth the manner of the deliverance. Here it should be noted that a curse is that which is said as an evil. Now it is according to two kinds of evil that there can be two kinds of curse, namely, the curse of guilt and the curse of punishment. And with respect to each this passage can be read, namely, He was made a curse for us.
Having explained the curse brought on by the Law, as well as the Law’s incapacity to deliver from sin, he now shows forth Christ’s power to set one free from this curse.
First, he shows how through Christ we are set free of that curse;
...
As to the first, he does three things:
First, he presents the author of the liberation;
Secondly, the manner of liberation (v. 13): being made a curse for us;
Thirdly, the testimony of the prophets (v. 13): for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.
He says therefore first: All who observed the works of the Law were under a curse, as has been said, and they could not be delivered by the Law. Hence it was necessary to have someone who should set us free, and that one was Christ. Hence he says, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3). He redeemed, I say, us, namely, the Jews, with His own Precious Blood: “Thou hast redeemed us in thy blood” (Rev 5:9); “Fear not, for I have redeemed thee” (Is 43:1), from the curse of the law, i.e., from guilt and penalty: that he might redeem them who were under the law (4:5); 1 will redeem them from death” (Hos 13:14).
Then when he says, being made a curse for us, he sets forth the manner of the deliverance. Here it should be noted that a curse is that which is said as an evil. Now it is according to two kinds of evil that there can be two kinds of curse, namely, the curse of guilt and the curse of punishment. And with respect to each this passage can be read, namely, He was made a curse for us.
First of all with respect to the evil of guilt, for Christ redeemed us from the evil of guilt. Hence, just as in dying He redeemed us from death, so He redeemed us from the evil of guilt by being made a curse, i.e., of guilt: not that there was really any sin in Him—for “He did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” as is said in 1 Peter (2:22) —but only according to the opinion of men and particularly the Jews who regarded him as a sinner: “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to thee” (Jn 18:30). Hence it is said of Him, “Him who knew no sin He hath made sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21). But he says, a curse, and not “accursed,” to show that the Jews regarded Him as the worst type of criminal. Hence it is said, “This man is not of God who keepeth not the sabbath,” (Jn 9:16) and “For a good work we stone thee not, but for sin and for blasphemy” (Jn 10:33). Therefore he says, being made for us a curse in the abstract. As though to say: He was made “curse” itself.
Secondly, it is explained with respect to the evil of punishment. For Christ freed us from punishment by enduring our punishment and our death which came upon us from the very curse of sin. Therefore, inasmuch as He endured this curse of sin by dying for us, He is said to have been made a curse for us. This is similar to what is said in Romans (8:3): “God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin,” i.e., of mortal sin; “Him who knew no sin,” namely, Christ, Who committed no sin, God (namely, the Father) “had made sin for us,” i.e., made Him suffer the punishment of sin, when, namely, He was offered for our sins (2 Cor 5:21).
Then He gives the testimony of Scripture when he says, for it is written: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” This is from Deuteronomy (21:23). Here it should be noted, according to a Gloss, that in Deuteronomy, from which this passage is taken, our version as well as the Hebrew version has: “Cursed by God is everyone that hangs on a tree.” However, the phrase “by God” is not found in the ancient Hebrew volumes. Hence it is believed to have been added by the Jews after the passion of Christ in order to defame Him.
But it is possible to expound this authority both with respect to the evil of punishment and the evil of guilt. Of the evil of punishment thus: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree, not precisely because he hangs on a tree, but because of the guilt for which he hangs. And in this way Christ was thought to be cursed, when He hung on the cross, because He was being punished with an extraordinary punishment. And according to this explanation, there is a continuity with the preceding. For the Lord commanded in Deuteronomy that anyone who had been hanged should be taken down in the evening; the reason being that this punishment was more disgraceful and ignominious than any other. He is saying, therefore: Truly was He made a curse for us, because the death of the cross which He endured is tantamount to a curse—thus explaining the evil of guilt, although it was only in the minds of the Jews—because it is written: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree. But with respect to the evil of punishment, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree is explained thus: The punishment itself is a curse, namely, that He should die in this way. Explained in this way, He was truly cursed by God, because God decreed that He endure this punishment in order to set us free
More to follow tomorrow as these heresies must be confronted and refuted and, to the extent that is possible, completely annihilated