Atonement

[Didi]

Hi Maria –

I guess I’m still confused as to where the phrase “God’s gaze turning from Christ” comes from. It is not in the scriptures during the passion, nor is it in the suffering servant passage in Isaiah. Nowhere in the scriptures do I ever recall these words being used, so where do they come from?

 

[MariaG]

From the psalm 22 beginning words, why have you forsaken me. While these words point to the ultimate triumph, it does not negate the suffering that Christ had to go through. In the Protestant teaching in the churches I went to, part of that suffering was God’s gaze was turned from Christ.

God Bless,
Maria

p.s.

I do not know if there is any other place that Protestants draw from for this teaching. But I do not understand yet why it could not have happened.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Didi,

Thanks for the research you’ve done so far. Did you find the Collegeville commentary online? If so, I’d like to visit it myself. Can you link to it or give the address?

As far as commentaries go, they are the opinion of the commentators and not infallible teaching. Psalm 22 is a Messianic prophecy. It foretold what would happen to our Lord on the Cross. Read the whole psalm and you’ll see what I mean. Verse 18 foretold of the soldiers gambling for his clothing!

Your quote from the Catechism is interesting. I don’t think it’s too far from what most Evangelical Protestant scholars believe about Psalm 22. Jesus took our sins upon Him on the Cross. He didn’t have this feeling of abandonment because of any sin on His part because He was/is the sinless Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity incarnated in human flesh. This feeling of abandonment came because of our sins that He was bearing.

Gene

 

[MariaG]

The words “God’s gaze” are the words a pastor used to understand why Christ would feel abandoned and forsaken.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Gene C.

Your quote from the Catechism is interesting. I don’t think it’s too far from what most Evangelical Protestant scholars believe about Psalm 22. Jesus took our sins upon Him on the Cross. He didn’t have this feeling of abandonment because of any sin on His part because He was/is the sinless Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity incarnated in human flesh. This feeling of abandonment came because of our sins that He was bearing.

:yup: That is what I was taught.

How is that different from the Catechism and church teachings?

 

[Didi]

Gene C.:

Thanks for the research you’ve done so far. Did you find the Collegeville commentary online? If so, I’d like to visit it myself. Can you link to it or give the address

I am fortunate to have my father-in-law’s commentaries (he was a deacon) so I’m not sure if they are available on-line or not.

Interesting story there – I was talking with my priest, who is my spiritual advisor, and he suggested I get a good commentary (because I have a lot of questions!). When I found out how expensive they were, I knew I couldn’t buy one, so I just asked God to help me find a way to get one. He did!

I’m afraid I’ve exhausted my understanding of Psalm 22, and the fact that Jesus and the Father were in this redemptive act together, so it doesn’t make sense to me that God the Father would turn away from Jesus at the time that He was completing His mission of redemption.

 

[bengal_fan]

Mark 10:45 - “for the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

i only put this because some one earlier said that Jesus wasn’t a “ransom”, but in His own words…He was. also, i think if we view this as Jesus being the sacrificial lamb, we have to assume that our sins (and not just each individual sin but sin in general) was placed upon Christ, not because of anything He had done but because of His love for us. He, unlike the lambs, was a willing sacrifice. and as c.s. lewis talks about in the narnia books…when a willing sacrifice who has done no wrong, freely gives his own life, death begins to work in reverse. i think some of us are getting caught up in the either/or game that can trap us so easily into a corner. Christ was a willing sacrifice because of His love for us, but He was also a substitutionary atonement for there had to be justice. yes, God could have saved us anyway He wanted, but He set it up in this way and His perfect justice demanded a sacrifice. Romans says, “the wages of sin is death”. meaning there was a payment due because of sin and Christ paid that. but that doesn’t just cover up our sins, by His grace, it washed them completely away. here is where some of our protestant brothers and sisters miss out. martin luther described himself as a pile of dung covered in snow. well, that doesn’t work because…deep down…we are still dung. Christ’s work has completely changed our nature. we are now children of God, siblings to Christ. and, as long as we don’t give up that calling and continue to seek His graces offered to us through the sacraments, we shall inherit the kingdom together. Christ chose to die for us to pay for our sins because He loved us even while we were still sinners (romans), but now we must choose Him and to be a part of His sacrifice by offering our own bodies as a living sacrifice. i know i’ve rambled a little here, hopefully i’ve made sense.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Jimmy

You hit upon one of my main problems with substitutionary attonement. The protestants actually take the idea of the atonement and they say that Christ was actually made sinfull when he was on the cross. They say that our sins were made his and that he was guilty of them. It is a very unCatholic thing to say.

When it says that Christ was made sin, it is referring to him becoming man. Aquinas affirms this. The flesh of man is sinful in nature. Yes, Christ was free from Original Sin, but that does not refer to the body as much as it refers to the divinity. His divinity was always in control of his flesh and sin never could touch the soul of Christ.

This is different from what Jimmy said above.

posted by Bengal Fan
i think if we view this as Jesus being the sacrificial lamb, we have to assume that our sins (and not just each individual sin but sin in general) was placed upon Christ, not because of anything He had done but because of His love for us. He, unlike the lambs, was a willing sacrifice. and as c.s. lewis talks about in the narnia books…when a willing sacrifice who has done no wrong, freely gives his own life, death begins to work in reverse. i think some of us are getting caught up in the either/or game that can trap us so easily into a corner. Christ was a willing sacrifice because of His love for us, but He was also a substitutionary atonement for there had to be justice.

Do you know where this is expressed in Catholic teaching? Gene and I have been told up until now that this is not Catholic teaching, but no reference of where except Bible quotes. (Or maybe we just are not understanding?) Now you say that it is. Can you find a reference for us? Ask you RCIA?

The possibly has been brought up that this is not clearly defined but we have a range of which Catholic can believe. And cannot believe. We both would like to know the “Catholic Answer”, and where it can be found in the teachings of the Church.

Thanks!

God Bless,
Maria

 

[bengal_fan]

MariaG:

Do you know where this is expressed in Catholic teaching?

well, the idea of Jesus being the Lamb of God is expressed repeatedly in scripture and we repeat it in mass. the purpose of the lamb was for the nation of israel to place all of the sins of the nation for the year on that unblemished lamb. then they would sacrifice it for the atonement. they knew there had to be a sacrifice to restore their end of the covenant. just as Jesus is now the sacrifice for the new covenant, having our sin placed on Him. i don’t see in scripture where the Father “turned His eyes from the Son” but i do think that Jesus experienced the pain of sinning against the Father and that pain must have been more severe since He never did sin yet had to experience the outcome of sin. again, i think we get caught up in the either/or argument when it is a both/and. Jesus was a substitutionary sacrifice to appease the justice of God and He was a willing sacrifice because of His love for us. also, i don’t think the idea of the Father turning His eyes from the Son is far-fetched. yes, they are one in the same but all things are possible with God and we can’t put it past Him unless He has said He didn’t do it.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi all,

Thanks Didi, that’s a great story about getting the commentary. I think maybe I should see if there are any deacons/priests who are retired and would like to sell their books/commentaries.

bengal_fan, you said it very well. What you said makes sense to me. Maria and I have been talking about this and have decided to continue this search on our own. I’ve read too many threads and read too many differing opinions from well-meaning Catholics to believe that this doctrine has been clearly defined. I think it is a case of the Church saying, “You can believe this or you can believe this but you definitely cannot believe this.”

Thanks again,
Gene

 

[jimmy]

I think I have created a controversy I did not want to start. I do believe the atonement. I am not saying that Christ did not die for our sins. Yes, he died for our sins, and he suffered for our sins. It is clearly stated in the scriptures that Christ died for our sins, and it fits with the teachings of the Church. Just look at Revelation, it calls Christ the lam of God 27 times. What I am trying to say is that God did not punish Christ in order to satisfy a need for punishment. Our sins are not turned into Christs sins by him dying for us on the cross.

The way I look at it is that Christ came and he suffered for us. He suffered to appeal to God. A sinless man came and suffered and died for the world that they might be saved. Its kind of like him saying, as a man, “we are sorry for what we have done and we give ourselves to you.” Christ was completely innocent and was willing to sacrifice himself for the rest of us. When I think about it I think of it in like a family kind of situation. Where all the
children, except Christ, went against the Father. Christ being innocent sacrificed himself for his brothers and appealed to the Father for forgiveness for the sins. The Father sees the sacrifice of the Son for his brothers and he forgives them for what has been done. Do you understand what I am saying?

The problem I have is that many protestants(not all) view Christ kind of as the wipping boy. God takes his wrath out on Christ rather than us. That is an extreme view of the atonement.

When I say that he was not a ransom I am reffering to the theory that he ransomed us from the devil. That is what the ransom theory says and I completely disagree with it. The sacrifice was to the Father.

I do not want to cause controversy and if I am wrong with my analogy and the way I am thinking of it, I submit to the Church.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Jimmy

I do not want to cause controversy and if I am wrong with my analogy and the way I am thinking of it, I submit to the Church.

Don’t want to cause controversy? And you come here?

Just kidding. I never thought you were, and you have always presented (and submitted to ) the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As Gene and I have said, we were just trying to nail down exactly what can be believed and can’t be.

And as much of it uses such different language from Catholic to Protestant, trying to discover how much of the differences are just semantics rather than substance. Or as Bengal fan said not either /or but both.

What I am trying to say is that God did not punish Christ in order to satisfy a need for punishment.

But Christ was punished wasn’t he? The comparrison from the Catechism to Isaiah, in verse 5 it specifically speaks of punishment.

I am still not in the Catholic mind here yet. (Funny coming from a revert, but there it is!)

Our sins are not turned into Christs sins by him dying for us on the cross.

No our sins do not *become *His, He just bore them for us. Agree?

And received my punishment for me? Would you agree with that?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[jimmy]

MariaG:

Don’t want to cause controversy? And you come here?

Just kidding. I never thought you were, and you have always presented (and submitted to ) the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As Gene and I have said, we were just trying to nail down exactly what can be believed and can’t be.

And as much of it uses such different language from Catholic to Protestant, trying to discover how much of the differences are just semantics rather than substance. Or as Bengal fan said not either /or but both.

I think there is some leway with what you can believe. I don’t think that everything is defined to a point that you have to believe one thing. I would say that you have to believe that Jesus suffered and died for our sins and the sacrifice was to God. I am not sure how much after that you have to believe.

MariaG:

But Christ was punished wasn’t he? The comparrison from the Catechism to Isaiah, in verse 5 it specifically speaks of punishment.

I am still not in the Catholic mind here yet. (Funny coming from a revert, but there it is!)

I would say that he bore our punishments.

MariaG:

No our sins do not *become *His, He just bore them for us. Agree?

And received my punishment for me? Would you agree with that?

God Bless,
Maria

I agree to both.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Jimmy,

Please don’t think you are causing controvery because you are not. We are simply a group of disciples of our Lord wrestling with the Scripture and Tradition on the most important topic in the world…our salvation. I understand the point you are trying to get across, that God is not a sadist who needs to satisfy a need for punishment.

If I have time today, I’m going to post some of what I’ve found on the atonment.

Grace and peace,
Gene

P.S… Maybe we should contact Cardinal Ratzinger and ask him for an online Catechism lesson!

 

[MariaG]

posted by Jimmy

I would say that he bore our punishments.

Aha! Okay, this is the Catholic mind! Saying not that he was or was not punished, but he bore our punishment. Many times I find that in reality there is not a difference in what the average person thinks, Protestant or Catholic, just in the words used. I would agree that Christ bore our punishment, but have just never expressed it in that manner. When I say He bore our sins, and was punished for them, my understanding is along the lines of “bore our punishment”.

posted by Jimmy
The problem I have is that many protestants(not all) view Christ kind of as the wipping boy. God takes his wrath out on Christ rather than us. That is an extreme view of the atonement.

Did God pour our His wrath? I mean, God did not pour it out on Christ because Christ was sinful, but because Christ bore our sins, the wrath fell to Christ?

posted by Gene C.
If I have time today, I’m going to post some of what I’ve found on the atonment.

Grace and peace,
Gene

P.S… Maybe we should contact Cardinal Ratzinger and ask him for an online Catechism lesson!

Can’t wait to see it!

God Bless,
Maria

 

[jimmy]

Gene C.:

Hi Jimmy,

Please don’t think you are causing controvery because you are not. We are simply a group of disciples of our Lord wrestling with the Scripture and Tradition on the most important topic in the world…our salvation. I understand the point you are trying to get across, that God is not a sadist who needs to satisfy a need for punishment.

If I have time today, I’m going to post some of what I’ve found on the atonment.

Grace and peace,
Gene

P.S… Maybe we should contact Cardinal Ratzinger and ask him for an online Catechism lesson!

Thankyou Gene, I can’t want to see it.

 

[jimmy]

Gene C.:

Hi Jimmy,

Please don’t think you are causing controvery because you are not. We are simply a group of disciples of our Lord wrestling with the Scripture and Tradition on the most important topic in the world…our salvation. I understand the point you are trying to get across, that God is not a sadist who needs to satisfy a need for punishment.

If I have time today, I’m going to post some of what I’ve found on the atonment.

Grace and peace,
Gene

P.S… Maybe we should contact Cardinal Ratzinger and ask him for an online Catechism lesson!

I would like to hear the cardinal give a lesson.

 

[jimmy]

MariaG:

Did God pour our His wrath? I mean, God did not pour it out on Christ because Christ was sinful, but because Christ bore our sins, the wrath fell to Christ?

I think it depends on how you look at it. I would agree if you mean that Christ was sent by the Father to suffer and to die for our sins. I don’t think he went beyond that to make Christ suffer.

What do you mean when you say he poured his wrath out on Christ?

 

[Gene_C]

I found these on a Web site called theworkofgod (.org) and gives credit to Dr. Ludwig Ott from his book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I’ve posted only those dealing with our topic. There are many more (as you can imagine).

God the Creator

· Through sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God.

· Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the devil.

God the Redeemer

· The Son of God became man in order to redeem men.

· Fallen man cannot redeem himself.

· The God-man Jesus Christ is a high priest.

· Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a true and proper sacrifice.

· Christ by His sacrifice on the Cross has ransomed us and reconciled us with God.

· Christ, through His passion and death, merited award from God.

God the Sanctifier

· The causes of Justification. (Defined by the Council of Trent) :

1. 1. 
      *]The final cause is the honor of God and of Christ and the eternal life of men.
      *]The efficient cause is the mercy of God.
      *]The meritorious cause is Jesus Christ, who as mediator between God and men, has made atonement for us and merited the grace by which we are justified.
      *]The instrumental cause of the first justification is the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus it defines that Faith is a necessary precondition for justification (of adults).
      *]The formal cause is God’s Justice, not by which He Himself is just, but which He makes us just, that is, Sanctifying Grace.
      
      These might be a good stepping-off point for our discussion.
      
      Gene

 

[Gene_C]

I found this in The Credo of the People of God, an updated creed issued by Pope Paul VI on 6/30/68. Again, I’ve only posted what is relevant to our discussion.

We believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. He is the Eternal Word, born of the Father before time began, and consubstantial with the Father, homoousios to Patri, and through Him all things were made. He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was made man: equal therefore to the Father according to His divinity, and .inferior to the Father according to His humanity, and himself one, not by some impossible confusion of His natures, but by the unity of His person.

He dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. He proclaimed and established the Kingdom of God and made us know in himself the Father. He gave us His new commandment to love one another as He loved us. He taught us the way of the Beatitudes of the Gospel: poverty in spirit, meekness, suffering borne with patience, thirst after justice, mercy, purity of heart, will for peace, persecution suffered for justice sake. *He suffered under Pontius Pilate, the Lamb of God bearing on himself the sins of the world, and He died for us on the Cross, saving us by His redeeming Blood. *He was buried, and, of His own power, rose the third day, raising us by His Resurrection to that sharing in the divine life which is the life of grace. He ascended to heaven, and He will come again, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead: each according to his merits – those who have responded to the love and piety of God going to eternal life, those who have refused them to the end going to the fire that is not extinguished.

Gene