Hi Brian —
I'm curious - if there was no Judas, surely there would be no crucifixion or resurrection??
Yes ... that is the billion dollar question, isn't it ... and no ... I don't know the 'official' line on that one offhand. I'll have a look.
My personal speculation is this: What occurred happened in the way that it did, because that's the way the world is. It couldn't have happened any other way, because the world is not like that.
And as regards God orchestrating events ... yes, within that prior context. What happened tells us something about the Way of God, the way of the world, and ourselves.
As an aside – the Fathers asked: If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would the Incarnation be necessary for man's salvation?
Well strictly speaking no, as man would not be lost, but then, incorporation into the Body of Christ is more than 'mere' salvation — man can be saved without entering into Divine Union — and it would seem that such was not the deal on the table for Adam and Eve, so in another sense, yes.
The Fathers likewise follow the idea that humanity would have 'matured' and grown into a desire for just such a Union, at which point the Son would become incarnate in the flesh to make such a union possible (as the flesh cannot enter into God), but there would have been an acceptance that did not require crucifixion.
The Passion and the Cross is symbolic of just how much the Father 'suffers', or perhaps is a measure of God's patience, His mercy and His love, in the face of our intransigence.
The passion on the Cross is also symbolic of all our fears ... of death as final extinction, of abandonment, of desolation, of pain, suffering and privation.
But Judas as the bad guy? Let's not kid ourselves, we betray ourselves daily.
And if all part of God's plan anyway, then would Judas really have free will in the process when he's obviously been:
a) chosen as a disciple despite claims above he was a dirty rotten scoundrel
b) was enacting a plan for the salvation of mankind
Just asking.
Another speculation, which comes with some theological (but not doctrinal) endorsement, is that those mentioned in Scripture by name are called to a destiny greater than they can conceive. In that sense, although they are free, 'events' conspire to cause them to act in a certain way, and God, knowing their inner natures, draws those to the play of events, according to their inclination to the roles, if you like, that need to be fulfilled.
I would hesitate to say they have no say, no choice at all. It is a fundamental tenet that Mary was free to say no to the angel who told her of the part she was to play. At the very least, when she said 'yes', the Voice of God did not say, "I'm not asking, young lady, I'm telling, and you'll do as you're bloomin' well told!" — that's more like me, talking to my daughters! (Usually, I'm a 'voice in the wilderness', it seems ... women!)
By the same token, we insist on the freedom of man to accept God or deny Him. Our 'yes' is Mary's 'yes' — the very difficult doctrine-in-the-wings of Mary as the co-mediatrix of our salvation (and personally I find it difficult, because it so easily implies deification of the Immaculata) is all about this aspect of human freedom in regard to the Word of God, that man does have a part to play in his own redemption, something that is denied to a greater or lesser degree by the religions of the Reformation.
Thomas
