Questions on the Exultet

[ctkrcia]

For the super-Apologists: On Holy Saturday, the Exultet will be sung. There are two phrases in there that I don’t fully understand and would appreciate some expansion upon.

Those phrases “Happy Fault” and “Necessary sin of Adam”.

“Happy Fault” - I understand that it is through this fault that God sent His Son to redeem us. However, if through “one man’s sin death entered mankind”, how can this be considered “happy”? If by this fault, all of mankind has been and will forever be born with concupiscence, how is this considered “happy”?

“Necessary sin of Adam” - Why was this necessary? Is the implication that Adam was created with that intention in mind? I understand the glorious consequence of this sin. But what I don’t understand is “necessary”. Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[tee_eff_em]

What is the next phrase?

tee

 

[ctkrcia]

The next phrase is "…which gained for us so great a Redeemer! "

I agree wholeheartedly with this! But this is the result after the cause. Why was the cause necessary? God certainly could have sent the Redeemer without the cause.

Still wondering…

 

[EricFilmer]

The next phrase is "…which gained for us so great a Redeemer! "

I agree wholeheartedly with this! But this is the result after the cause. Why was the cause necessary? God certainly could have sent the Redeemer without the cause.

Still wondering…

Theologians have long wondered if the Son would have come among us in human flesh if no one had ever sinned. Some say he would not, because if there was no sin, we would not have needed a Savior. Others say that he would still have desired to become one of us to more closely unite divinity with humanity (in this case the motive would have been for the sake of a deeper loving union rather than for the sake of salvation). Only God knows the answer to this question.

But the fact remains, the Son came specifically as a Redeemer because of the reality of sin. If Adam had not sinned (and consequently sent the whole human race falling from grace) then the Son would not have come as a Redeemer. After all, why would we need redemption? From what would we need to be redeemed? The words of the Exultet are an elaboration on this.

The Exultet is not actually suggesting that evil is a necessary reality or that Adam had to sin. We must keep in mind that the Exultet is the language of poetry and not to be taken as a philosophical discourse. It is simply stating in a poetic way that whereas Adam’s fault allowed the power of evil to enter the world, it also prompted the Father to send the Son to save us, a Redeemer whose power of love & goodness far exceeds the evil in the world. Hence, the “happy” fault of Adam. If there is going to specifically be a Redeemer, then this has to “necessarily” be preceded by an actual need for redemption. Jesus cannot redeem us from sin if there is no sin to begin with. As I said before, he may still have come to be one of us (or maybe not) but not as a Redeemer.

 

[ctkrcia]

Theologians have long wondered if the Son would have come among us in human flesh if no one had ever sinned. Some say he would not, because if there was no sin, we would not have needed a Savior. Others say that he would still have desired to become one of us to more closely unite divinity with humanity (in this case the motive would have been for the sake of a deeper loving union rather than for the sake of salvation). Only God knows the answer to this question.

But the fact remains, the Son came specifically as a Redeemer because of the reality of sin. If Adam had not sinned (and consequently sent the whole human race falling from grace) then the Son would not have come as a Redeemer. After all, why would we need redemption? From what would we need to be redeemed? The words of the Exultet are an elaboration on this.

The Exultet is not actually suggesting that evil is a necessary reality or that Adam had to sin. We must keep in mind that the Exultet is the language of poetry and not to be taken as a philosophical discourse. It is simply stating in a poetic way that whereas Adam’s fault allowed the power of evil to enter the world, it also prompted the Father to send the Son to save us, a Redeemer whose power of love & goodness far exceeds the evil in the world. Hence, the “happy” fault of Adam. If there is going to specifically be a Redeemer, then this has to “necessarily” be preceded by an actual need for redemption. Jesus cannot redeem us from sin if there is no sin to begin with. As I said before, he may still have come to be one of us (or maybe not) but not as a Redeemer.

Nice. Really, really good. I think you have hit the mark mostly with the reminder this is the language of poetry.

I think there is still more depth to delve into. If anyone else can offer a different view point, it will be most welcome! Meanwhile, I will be over in the corner gnawing on Eric’s response for a while… :coffeeread:

 

[Robintrinket]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 412, says, “But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, ‘Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those that the demon’s envy had taken away.’ And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote’…God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more”, and the Exultet sings, “O happy fault,…which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”’”

 

[fhansen]

I’ve often thought that sin might’ve been inevitable, because of the inevitable- or necessary- lack of perfection inherent in all creation relative to the perfection of God, so that when sentience and free will are combined, sin would eventually result. Creation is good but, in the form of angels and man, it has the choice to remain so-or not. That may not be precisely consistent with Church teachings, however.

In any case, God would’ve foreknown the sin that would occur and deemed creation to be worth it anyway, planning from the beginning to use the evil to bring about a greater good. In this sense, I can’t help but believe that the greater good to be had is the perfecting of wills that can occur when beings are allowed to be exposed to –to know -both good and evil, when, combined with revelation and the grace of God working in their lives, they begin to choose only the good, aligning themselves with His will, until all creation is in one accord again. When we know for ourselves why Gods will is supreme, then the universe is back in order, sin is excluded the same way it entered-by man’s free choice but not without the help of God, who was the key element man rejected to begin with-at the fall-the very One he needs in order to have life and have it abundantly. Scripture alludes to man being created a little lower than the angels-but ending up higher, sitting in judgment of them.

I think all this may point to the original fault being a blessing in disguise, or at least a necessary detour on the road to God creating the beings He’s always had in mind.

 

[Nita]

Theologians have long wondered if the Son would have come among us in human flesh if no one had ever sinned. Some say he would not, because if there was no sin, we would not have needed a Savior. Others say that he would still have desired to become one of us to more closely unite divinity with humanity (in this case the motive would have been for the sake of a deeper loving union rather than for the sake of salvation). Only God knows the answer to this question.

…

In pondering the hypothetical situation where man did not sin, but the Son still assumed a human nature and lived among us, one realizes that the Incarnate Son would then not have suffered death on our behalf. That act (dying for us) which most definitively demonstrates the depth of God’s love for us would not have been absent in human history.
*John 15:13 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. *
Scripture says “God is love.” (cf 1 John 4:8, 16). Without Our Lord’s suffering and death, God’s manifestation of Himself to us - who He is - would not have been as complete.