Feast of the Presentation: Purgatory, Penal Substitution, and Mary as Co-Redemptrix | Year C

Readings: Click Here

Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here

---

Hey everyone,

 

Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.

 

I’m Dr. Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.

 

In today’s episode, we’re going to focus on several details from the first and second readings, along with the Gospel, for this upcoming Feast of the Presentation of the Lord that are related to apologetical discussions. One detail comes from the first reading, taken from Malachi 3:1-4, and the related topic is Purgatory. Another detail comes from the second reading, taken from Hebrews 2:14-18, and the apologetical topic that this detail relates to is the theory of penal substitutionary theory. The remaining details, three in total, come from the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 2:22-40. The relevant topics are Jesus’ Messiahship, Jesus’ Divinity, which will be seen in connection with the first reading, and Mary as Co-redemptrix.

 

Lots to cover. So, let’s get started with the first reading, again, taken from Malachi 3:1-4. Here’s what we read:

 

Thus says the Lord GOD:
Lo, I am sending my messenger
to prepare the way before me;
And suddenly there will come to the temple
the LORD whom you seek,
And the messenger of the covenant whom you desire.
Yes, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.
But who will endure the day of his coming?
And who can stand when he appears?
For he is like the refiner’s fire,
or like the fuller’s lye.
He will sit refining and purifying silver,
and he will purify the sons of Levi,
Refining them like gold or like silver
that they may offer due sacrifice to the LORD.
Then the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem
will please the LORD,
as in the days of old, as in years gone by.

 

The detail that I want to highlight is the description of God as “the refiner’s fire” who sits “refining and purifying silver,” and “the sons of Levi.” This text comes into play with discussions surrounding the doctrine of Purgatory—particularly, discussions about 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 as biblical support for Purgatory.

 

There, Paul describes a Christian who stands before God on “the Day,” which, for Paul, is the Day of Judgment—a postmortem state of existence since judgment comes after death. And this Christian’s works are tested by “fire.” If the works are good, represented by gold, silver, and precious stones, the Christian will receive a reward. If, however, his works are bad, represented by “wood, hay, and straw,” Paul tells us the Christian will suffer loss on account of those bad works, yet will be saved “as through fire.”

 

Now, such a postmortem state of existence can’t be heaven, since there is the presence of bad works and suffering on account of those bad works. But it can’t be hell either because Paul says this person had built his “house” on the foundation of Jesus and is “saved as through fire.” What is it? We call if purgatory.

 

But, given Malachi’s description of God as a “refining fire,” some have interpreted this final postmortem purification in Paul’s teaching in terms of a person standing before the judgment seat of Christ and being purified by Christ himself, the refining fire. Pope Benedict XVI puts forward this interpretation as a legitimate Catholic opinion in his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi. In section 47, he writes,

 

Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy.

 

So, this detail of God being a “refining fire” provides us an opportunity to reflect on the nature of the final postmortem purification that we call purgatory.

 

Let’s now turn to the second reading, which, again, comes from Hebrews 2:14-18. The author states the following:

 

Since the children share in blood and flesh,
Jesus likewise shared in them,
that through death he might destroy the one
who has the power of death, that is, the Devil,
and free those who through fear of death
had been subject to slavery all their life.
Surely he did not help angels
but rather the descendants of Abraham;
therefore, he had to become like his brothers and sisters
in every way,
that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest before God
to expiate the sins of the people.
Because he himself was tested through what he suffered,
he is able to help those who are being tested.

 

The detail that I want to highlight here is the author’s teaching that Jesus, as high priest, and through his death on the cross, “expiates” for our sins. For some Christians, this is evidence for the model of Jesus’ death on the cross known as “penal substitutionary theory,” or at least a version of it.

 

According to some versions of the theory, Jesus’ death on the cross is an active inflicting of punishment by the Father that satisfies the Father’s wrath/anger. Consider the following excerpts from the book Pierced for Our Trangressions:

 

• The Lord Jesus Christ died for us—a shameful death, bearing our curse, enduring our pain, suffering the wrath of his own Father in our place (pg. 21; emphasis added).
• [Jesus] took our sin and guilt upon himself and died a cursed death, suffering in his human nature the infinite torment of the wrath and fury of his Father (pg. 104; emphasis added).

 

John Calvin makes this view explicit in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:

 

[W]ith [H]is own blood expiated the sins which rendered them hateful to God, by this expiation satisfied and duly propitiated God the Father, by this intercession appeased his anger, on this basis founded peace between God and men, and by this tie secured the Divine benevolence toward them (II.16.2; emphasis added).

 

A reason why this “expiation” text is viewed as support of the penal substitutionary theory is that the Greek word hilaskomai means “to propiate,” in the sense of appeasing an offended party’s wrath for some wrongdoing to regain goodwill. To speak of Jesus’ death as an expiation (or propitiation), therefore, entails that God’s wrath/anger is appeased by Jesus’ death. And if that’s the case, then Jesus’s death is an active inflicting of punishment by God the Father.

 

Now, there is much to say in response to penal substitutionary theory. However, for our purposes here, I want to focus solely on whether this theme of “expiation” justifies such a view. I answer that it does not!

 

The reason is that God doesn’t have anger or wrath properly speaking. The reason is, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, anger “in its primary meaning includes passion,” which is a bodily movement in sentient beings (see Summa Theologiae Ia, qu. 19, art. 11 resp). Since God is not a body, it follows that God can’t have the passion of anger.

 

Therefore, this version of penal substitutionary theory gets Jesus’ death on the cross wrong because there can be no appeasement of God’s anger.

 

But what about all the Biblical references to God’s anger? The answer is that this is to be taken metaphorically (see ST Ia, qu. 20, art. 1 obj 2). Just like our prior philosophical knowledge of God being immaterial excludes us from taking references to God having “wings” as literal, so too our prior philosophical knowledge of God being immaterial excludes us from taking references to God having “anger” as literal.

 

The Bible speaks of God being angry to, in the words of Aquinas, “signify metaphorically the vengeance of Divine justice” (ST I-IIae, qu. 87, art. 4 obj 1). It does this because, again, in the words of Aquinas “to punish is properly the act of an angry man” (ST Ia, qu. 3, art. 2 ad 2). Or, as he puts it elsewhere, “[Punishment] is called anger in [God], from the fact that it is an expression of anger in ourselves” (ST Ia, qu. 19, art. 11 ad 2).

 

So, whenever we read about God’s anger in the Bible, we’re to interpret such anger as a way of expressing the rational creature’s action being contrary to the Divine Will and thereby subject to punishment.

 

Let’s now turn to the Gospel reading, which, again, is taken from Luke 2:22-40. This is Luke’s record of the Presentation of the Lord at the temple, which is this upcoming Sunday’s Feast. I’m not going to read the whole entire passage, since it’s quite long. Rather, I’ll just highlight the relevant parts.

 

The first is the canticle of Simeon, known as the Nunc Dimittis, which is Latin for “now dismiss”). Inspired by the Spirit, Simeon proclaims:

 

“Now, Master, you may let your servant go
in peace, according to your word,
for my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you prepared in the sight of all the peoples:
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and glory for your people Israel.”

 

So, what’s the apologetic significance? This oracle is a tapestry of Isaian prophecies, all of which are about the coming Messiah. Thus, insofar as Simeon’s oracle is inspired by God, we have divine confirmation that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

Here’s the tapestry: that Jesus is God’s salvation (2:30) recalls Isaiah 40:5, 46:13, and 52:9-10; that Jesus is a light for the Gentiles evokes Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6.

 

As Curtis Mitch puts it in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “Jesus is the covenant representative who takes Israel’s vocation upon himself and completes the mission that was left unfulfilled at his coming, i.e., to pour out blessings on all nations” (pg. 110).

 

So, our Gospel reading reveals to us that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

The second detail that I want to highlight is Simeon’s very welcoming of Jesus to the Temple. There’s a prophecy in Malachi that speaks of God returning to his Temple in the Messianic age. Malachi 3:1 reads as follows:

 

Thus says the Lord God: Lo, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me; And suddenly there will come to the temple the Lord whom you seek.

 

In light of this prophecy, and through the eyes of faith, we can read Jesus’ presentation at the temple as the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy. Jesus is “the Lord” who comes to his temple.

 

Now, there’s one more detail that I want to highlight, and it has to do with Our Lady. Notice Simeon says to Mary,

 

“Behold, this child is destined
for the fall and rise of many in Israel,
and to be a sign that will be contradicted
-and you yourself a sword will pierce-
so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

 

Some have seen here an implicit hint to Mary’s role as “co-redemptrix.” Now, before someone has a heart attack and thinks this claim usurps Jesus’ role as Redeemer, the term “co-redemptrix” simply means that Mary redeems with Christ but not on a par with Christ. There is an essential difference between Mary’s redeeming activity and Christ’s redeeming activity, given that Mary is a creature and Jesus is not—he’s the Creator. Nevertheless, Mary does participate in, in the highest degree among creatures, so we believe as Catholics, in the redeeming work of Christ.

 

But how does Simeon’s oracle support this idea? Well, notice in the very same breadth of Simeon saying how Jesus’s cross will be a sign of salvation (“sign that will be contradicted”)—insofar as from it the thoughts of many hearts would be revealed—Simeon inserts that Mary’s soul would be pierced by a sword. Apologist Tim Staples puts it this way:

 

The Greek text here reads ek pollon kardion dialogismoi—“the thoughts out of many hearts” may be revealed. The Greek word for thoughts is where we get the word dialogue. The suffering of Christ on the cross pierces the soul of every man and reveals the innermost dialogue of the heart. It is in that “dialogue of the heart” where souls are purified and transformed by grace. Mary’s suffering with Christ uniquely participates in both the suffering of Christ and the resulting redemption.”

 

So, Simeon’s oracle gives us an opportunity to reflect on Mary’s role as co-redemptrix, an important apologetical topic indeed.

 

Conclusion

 

Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming Feast of the Presentation of the Lord provides us with some good apologetical material. We have material for

 

• An understanding of purgatory is standing in judgment before Christ who, as the refiner’s fire, purifies us.
• A potential argument for penal substitutionary theory, which, as we saw, is an argument that doesn’t work,
• The Messiahship of Jesus, and
• The divinity of Jesus

 

As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well through any podcast platform that they use. You can also access the archived episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word at sundaycatholicword.com.

 

You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast, and Tim Staples “1 on 1 with Tim,” all of which can be found at catholic.com. And if you want to follow more of my own work, check out my website at karlobroussard.com

 

One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.

 

I hope you have a blessed Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.