Cardinal Ratzinger v. Catholic Encyclopedia: Did humanity owe a debt?

[grannymh]

Good morning Granny! Happy New Year, Happy Advent!

We await the coming of our savior.

I know, you see the CCC as the last unalterable words. The CCC emphasizes certain views, Granny, and some legitimate views are not emphasized enough. I get the idea, generally speaking, that** people want the stability of doctrine**. To me, God is much more than doctrine.

Bingo! **
I put the exact truth in bold!!**
people want the stability of doctrine!!!

Personally, I like the stability of God!

Possibly, but I think that now you are mixing up Anselm with the others.

That is correct. I can’t ignore current authors.

The question I asked is more broad, Granny. Here was my question:

Why is the appeal of Anselm’s view so universal? Yes, as the Cardinal said, the theology is prevalent, and occurs in many, many, religions.

Pagan and other religions the world over have the view that payment is due God. Some of it is offerings of gratitude, most of it is for reparations of perceived disfavor. However, it also happens that some people do not perceive disfavor.

Indeed, even the atheist is subject to the same issues, but “God” can become the society as a whole. Does society favor me, or disfavor me? What can I do to placate society? etc.

You are free to apply the answer in post 118 to any place on earth and in any century you choose.

Do you see what I am asking, Granny? Why does our mind operate in this way?

Sorry, I am not the sharpest knife in drawer.

Have a great Sunday!

Thank you and the same to you.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Happy Advent!

---

It is part of the legitimate view. Because how else is Christ central to our relationship with God? If we are united with God apart from Christ, then there is no need for the Church.

But God doesn’t love us before Christ. Christ is God’s love for us.

Think about it this way: creation is a “thought” of God’s; God thinks in all of eternity about a finite existence called creation. This finite existence exists solely for the purpose of being brought into supernatural unity with the eternity of God, but at the same time it already does exist in that unity with God. How? Not by the very nature of the “thought”, but that thought has supernatural unity with God because of Christ.

Thank you, and well stated. Yes, creation already exists in union with God, through Christ. Christ showed us that the unity is there, and showed us how to overcome our own (inadvertent) disunity with Abba.

When I said that God loves us before Christ, I was saying that God loved us without condition even before the incarnation. That such love was uninhibited by payment due would be one view of God, that such love was inhibited by payment due would be the other.

Or, perhaps, “payment due” and “condition” can be seen as one and the same.

But apart from Christ, we have no love for God.

All of this is true, but I don’t see how it proves your point in anyway.

Given that Christ (God) is the source of love, and Christ is within all of us, then yes, we would have no love for God. In addition, we would not exist, right? We are nothing without God.

Well, yes, I also see the truth of the absence of God’s wrath. We need not fear His wrath, is what I am hearing from Pope Benedict, the wrath is not there. The point I am making is that the debt incurred is intrinsically tied to the sense of God’s wrath.

Maybe this will help better explain what I mean: The only link we have in our existential condition to God’s eternity is in Christ, and while his Incarnation brings our nature to the supernatural level of God, the “door” isn’t opened for us until Christ has atoned for our sins via the Crucifixion. The Resurrection is what enables us to “enter through” that door.

The “door” is eternity–love–which our sin, incompatible with absolute love and therefore an infinite offense against that love, blocks us from entering. Christ entered by his Incarnation, and we can enter after him once he has died and risen.

But Christ is also the very purpose for the creation. Without him, God would’ve had no reason to create. So Jesus isn’t just an afterthought to the problem of sin. Because creation is meant to show God’s glory, which is done in the highest fashion–although in God’s freedom could’ve been shown in any other way–in Christ (since he is God). So rather, sin is in a sense an “afterthought” to Christ—something permitted (although not desired) to show God’s glory.

This can help us understand why sin is an offense to God. It disrupts the plan he made for us, to be united with God in eternity. When we sin, we sin both against God and against ourselves.

So there exists a debt. Not a debt that God creates and all of a sudden forgives by some human action, but a debt that we create by blocking out the free love of God. The debt–the blocking out of God–is made up by Christ who enables us to have access to the forgiveness of God. Without Christ, we don’t have any bridge to God’s forgiveness, because Christ is God’s forgiveness for us.

So, a block is a “debt” if there is a creditor, right? In one legitimate view, God is a creditor. In the other legitimate view, God is there with open arms, but we block Him out (even though He is within all of us). In the former view, God disfavors until payment is made, and then the door is opened. In the latter view, God favors all along (even though we do not realize it), but our own ability to love and live in this love is somewhat blocked. In the latter view, the door is already open, but we do not know that it is, and we do not know to get through it.

FWIW, I realize some of the above is theological speculation, but only because it helps us understand how two doctrines of the Church can be reconciled, namely God’s eternal love for us and the sacrificial and expiatory value of Christ’s death.

*If any of this is incomprehensible, my excuse is I’m very hungry.

The incarnation itself was sacrificial. Jesus’ life was also a sacrifice. The key word we are working on is the word “expiatory”, and I think in this post I framed the differences, from my angle, a little more accurately than I have before (or maybe not!).

Well, I hope you finally ate! Now, come to think of it, I am also a bit hungry.

Have a great Sunday!

 

[OneSheep]

So Christ would have still come to earth to teach us, although we would be without sin, which to me would exclude all unlove, violence, greed etc, etc. And as a humanity of love, Christ would not have had to suffer and be put to death, because we would not do such a thing to anyone in the first place. So no debt to be paid.

What of all the prophets before Christ, who spoke to God, saw him even and then taught the wayward peoples about morals etc?

None of this would have accured, we would be very different people had sin not entered the world. I think we would be very different in the 21st century if Christ is had not arrived to make it right.

Hi Simpleas!

Let me try to frame this more personally. If someone lies to you, and causes you grief, do you have the sense that the person “owes” you something? On the other hand, if you forgive that person at the deepest level of forgiveness (i.e. you understand why he lied, and you can see yourself doing the same, in the same circumstances, and not self-condemn), do you still feel that the person “owes” you something?

Happy Advent!

 

[CrossofChrist]

Good morning, Happy Advent!

Thank you, and well stated. Yes, creation already exists in union with God, through Christ. Christ showed us that the unity is there, and showed us how to overcome our own (inadvertent) disunity with Abba.

When I said that God loves us before Christ, I was saying that God loved us without condition even before the incarnation. That such love was uninhibited by payment due would be one view of God, that such love was inhibited by payment due would be the other.

Or, perhaps, “payment due” and “condition” can be seen as one and the same.

But if Jesus himself is God’s love for us, then it doesn’t really make sense for us to speak of God’s love for us before Jesus.

It is true that Jesus’ merits extend into all time so that there was no time when we didn’t have access to God’s love. But it also means that, apart from Jesus, we are infinitely separated from God.

Given that Christ (God) is the source of love, and Christ is within all of us, then yes, we would have no love for God. In addition, we would not exist, right? We are nothing without God.

We wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Christ, true. But if we try to conceive of our lives without Christ, we have no access to God.

Well, yes, I also see the truth of the absence of God’s wrath. We need not fear His wrath, is what I am hearing from Pope Benedict, the wrath is not there. The point I am making is that the debt incurred is intrinsically tied to the sense of God’s wrath.

True, but apart from Jesus if we don’t have God’s love, we only have separation from God, or God’s wrath.

The point of saying that there is a debt to justice by committing sin is because it creates a separation from God. The point of saying Jesus cancels out that debt is because he is what gives us access to God. Even if at every moment we are given that access (whether or not we choose to use that would mean whether or not we sin).

So, a block is a “debt” if there is a creditor, right? In one legitimate view, God is a creditor. In the other legitimate view, God is there with open arms, but we block Him out (even though He is within all of us). In the former view, God disfavors until payment is made, and then the door is opened. In the latter view, God favors all along (even though we do not realize it), but our own ability to love and live in this love is somewhat blocked. In the latter view, the door is already open, but we do not know that it is, and we do not know to get through it.

If there wasn’t Jesus but still us with our sin, that would mean there would be no extension of love from God to us, which would therefore mean yes, God would disfavor us.

But God gave us Jesus, and because his life extends into eternity via the hypostatic union, God favors us all along.

The incarnation itself was sacrificial. Jesus’ life was also a sacrifice. The key word we are working on is the word “expiatory”, and I think in this post I framed the differences, from my angle, a little more accurately than I have before (or maybe not!).

Christ’s sacrifice is by nature also expiatory, because it also makes up for our sins. Maybe my answers above will explain how better.

Well, I hope you finally ate! Now, come to think of it, I am also a bit hungry.

Have a great Sunday!

I did, but not I have to again

Happy Advent!

 

[OneSheep]

But if Jesus himself is God’s love for us, then it doesn’t really make sense for us to speak of God’s love for us before Jesus.

It is true that Jesus’ merits extend into all time so that there was no time when we didn’t have access to God’s love. But it also means that, apart from Jesus, we are infinitely separated from God.

We wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Christ, true. But if we try to conceive of our lives without Christ, we have no access to God.

True, but apart from Jesus if we don’t have God’s love, we only have separation from God, or God’s wrath.

Good morning, CrossofChrist!

Let me begin by taking one line from above and substituting a few words:

“But it also means that, apart from God, we are infinitely apart from God.”

Well, this does make sense, but then we run across that issue again, that we are nothing without God, (without God, there is no “I”) which is legitimate. Also legitimate, I think, is the view that it is possible to separate ourselves from God, that without God, there is an “I”. I have experience the same sense of separation when I have sinned, when I feel guilty. I sense a rejection from God, God’s wrath, etc. So, even though I sense that I am separated, I am sensing, therefore I am.

Oh, I have accidentally added there, what I see as a means of harmonizing the two legitimate standpoints. I will let it sit for now, and you can respond if you like.

The point of saying that there is a debt to justice by committing sin is because it creates a separation from God. The point of saying Jesus cancels out that debt is because he is what gives us access to God. Even if at every moment we are given that access (whether or not we choose to use that would mean whether or not we sin).

Again, I see the legitimacy of the idea that sin separates us from God, as I explained above.

However, I am wondering, taking the question from the angle of spirituality, do you see the footprints in the sand? When I look back on the times that I was most enslaved by sin, there are only one set of prints, those of God carrying me. In other words, when I am enslaved by my appetites, wanting, anger, trying to find fulfillment in all the wrong ways, I do sense (eventually) that there is something very lacking, that God has rejected and abandoned me. On the other hand, when I have repented, (and that repentance includes forgiving myself, at the deepest level, for what I had done,) then I see that there never was a separation in the first place.

My quote:

OneSheep:

So, a block is a “debt” if there is a creditor, right? In one legitimate view, God is a creditor. In the other legitimate view, God is there with open arms, but we block Him out (even though He is within all of us). In the former view, God disfavors until payment is made, and then the door is opened. In the latter view, God favors all along (even though we do not realize it), but our own ability to love and live in this love is somewhat blocked. In the latter view, the door is already open, but we do not know that it is, and we do not know to get through it.

Your response:

CrossofChrist:

If there wasn’t Jesus but still us with our sin, that would mean there would be no extension of love from God to us, which would therefore mean yes, God would disfavor us.

But God gave us Jesus, and because his life extends into eternity via the hypostatic union, God favors us all along.

It sounds like we are at a chicken-egg point here, like “what came first, God’s forgiveness or man’s sin?”. So, because of Jesus, God favors us all along. So, let me do another word substitution: Because of God, God favors us all along. Is this something like trying to determine what happened in the first microseconds of the creation of the universe?

So, I am wondering, can you can see the legitimacy of the point of view that God (Jesus) would never disfavor us, even for a microsecond?

Allow me to pull out a modern experiment in robotics, here,

In this experiment, which was meant to examine the evolution of communication, the robots eventually “lied” to each other, contributing to the ability for some robots to have more “surviving offspring” than others. Let’s say I have the forethought to know that this would happen in the experiment. Would I go through with it, or would I not? Would I love my robots, regardless of the capacity to lie, (which I gave them), or would I not? Would I resent their lying?

Christ’s sacrifice is by nature also expiatory, because it also makes up for our sins. Maybe my answers above will explain how better.

Yes, I see the legitimacy of “Christ sacrifice makes up for our sins, because it makes up for our sin.” And this creation of debt, that is, the sense of God as Creditor, is an extension of the sense of God’s wrath, which is legitimate, right? I guess what I am still not seeing is that you can also see the legitimacy of the other view, that God never disfavored, not even for a microsecond. Not because of payment, but because of lack of wrath, lack of resentment, lack of incurment. Do you see the legitimacy of this view, or is it one to eliminate?

Thanks for your response, and your patience!

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

Let me try to frame this more personally. If someone lies to you, and causes you grief, do you have the sense that the person “owes” you something? On the other hand, if you forgive that person at the deepest level of forgiveness (i.e. you understand why he lied, and you can see yourself doing the same, in the same circumstances, and not self-condemn), do you still feel that the person “owes” you something?

Happy Advent!

Happy Advent to you also

I don’t see what your question has to do with a debt to be paid to God for sinning against him.

Sin is what…missing the mark? So we fall short of being completely holy, because why? Maybe its the conscience subject, all of us has a different view of who owes us what when something happens. I know I view why people may do things very differently from other people. I’m I right or are they right…maybe neither of us are right, we just think we are.

Anyway, if Adam caused sin to enter the human condition, in a way, why would God want a blood human sacrifice, when he knew this would all happen.

Sorry my mind is blank…

 

[OneSheep]

Bingo! **
I put the exact truth in bold!!**
people want the stability of doctrine!!!

Personally, I like the stability of God!

Hi Granny!

And yes, the stability of God is reflected in the CCC, to some degree, right? This is legitimate. There is much more stability to be found in relationship, and I think you agree.

Sorry, I am not the sharpest knife in drawer.

I dare to differ, Granny. Behind that humble facade is a brilliant, ever-so-sharp knife! It doesn’t take a psychologist or a neurologist to come up with the answer to the question:
“Why does our mind operate in this way?” The problem is that I am not being specific enough in my question. Allow me to rephrase:

What is the purpose in our survival (creation from a loving God) of making it so that human mind would operate in a way that we would sense debt, and that we would be compelled to demand payment?

Would you like a hint at a possible answer?

Have a very nice day, Granny.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny!

And yes, the stability of God is reflected in the CCC, to some degree, right? This is legitimate. There is much more stability to be found in relationship, and I think you agree.

Agree to what? What, which relationship are you referring to? I have lots of relationships, even unstable relationships.

In addition, how do you explain stability of God? Where did you find it “reflected in the CCC, to some degree, right?” Never mind, it is hard for me to comprehend your teachings.

It is so much easier on my little brain to follow Catholicism.

Christ broke bread at the last supper (Eucharistic Prayers I, II, III, IV). In doing this, Christ, True God and True Man, gave Himself to us in Holy Communion. This is so much better than two humans breaking bread with each other in some kind of secular communion.

 

[grannymh]

The incarnation itself was sacrificial.

Is this a typo?

 

[CrossofChrist]

Is this a typo?

Sacrifice=offering to God. So in every instance of Christ’s life he was offering to God a sacrifice–he is a living sacrifice.

Catechism:

Sacrifice

2099 It is right to offer sacrifice to God as a sign of adoration and gratitude, supplication and communion: "Every action done so as to cling to God in communion of holiness, and thus achieve blessedness, is a true sacrifice."16

2100 Outward sacrifice, to be genuine, must be the expression of spiritual sacrifice: "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit. . . . "17 The prophets of the Old Covenant often denounced sacrifices that were not from the heart or not coupled with love of neighbor.18 Jesus recalls the words of the prophet Hosea: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice."19 The only perfect sacrifice is the one that Christ offered on the cross as a total offering to the Father’s love and for our salvation.20 By uniting ourselves with his sacrifice we can make our lives a sacrifice to God.

What sacrifice did Christ offer on the Cross? His life and his love.

 

[CrossofChrist]

One Sheep, I’m just going to respond without quoting since I don’t think quoting you will add much new…

You are viewing things in a linear way, evident by your use of “microseconds”, etc.

But can you see how they could both be true simultaneously, in a kind of paradox?

Pope John Paul II: “He made him who did not know sin to be sin” (2 Cor 5: 21). A few moments ago, in the second reading, we heard this surprising assertion made by the Apostle. What do these words mean? They seem, and in effect are, a paradox. How could God, who is holiness itself, “make” his Only-begotten Son, sent into the world, “to be sin”? Yet this is exactly what we read in the passage from St Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. We are in the presence of a mystery: a mystery which at first sight is baffling, but is clearly written in divine Revelation.

If it is true about Christ in relation to us, that it is a paradoxical relationship, couldn’t that also be true about us in relation to Christ?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing God always loves us. In fact, that is Catholic dogma, because God is love. But it is incoherent to say that sin isn’t separation from God; if sin is an action against love, then sin is incompatible with God’s nature.

Pope JPII again: However, Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the intimate core of his being, he completed the work of reparation which was the purpose of his sacrifice for the expiation of sins. If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.

To deny that sin separates us from God (not that God separates himself from us) is tantamount to saying there is no hell and we have always been justified/inastateofgrace, that sin doesn’t exist.

CCC 1263: By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

 

[grannymh]

Sacrifice=offering to God. So in every instance of Christ’s life he was offering to God a sacrifice–he is a living sacrifice.

Catechism:
Sacrifice

2099 It is right to offer sacrifice to God as a sign of adoration and gratitude, supplication and communion: "Every action done so as to cling to God in communion of holiness, and thus achieve blessedness, is a true sacrifice."16

2100 Outward sacrifice, to be genuine, must be the expression of spiritual sacrifice: "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit. . . . "17 The prophets of the Old Covenant often denounced sacrifices that were not from the heart or not coupled with love of neighbor.18 Jesus recalls the words of the prophet Hosea: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice."19 The only perfect sacrifice is the one that Christ offered on the cross as a total offering to the Father’s love and for our salvation.20 By uniting ourselves with his sacrifice we can make our lives a sacrifice to God.
What sacrifice did Christ offer on the Cross? His life and his love.

It looks to me that the quoted CCC paragraphs refer to humans. 2100 refers to the Old Testament. The Incarnation, in the New Testament, refers to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Also, the physical reality of the Incarnation/birth seems to be different from the physical reality of death on the Cross. You may have the last word.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It looks to me that the quoted CCC paragraphs refer to humans. 2100 refers to the Old Testament. The Incarnation, in the New Testament, refers to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Also, the physical reality of the Incarnation/birth seems to be different from the physical reality of death on the Cross. You may have the last word.

What does the “physical reality” have to do with this?? Christ is human from the moment of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is when God the Son assumed human nature and became man. Clearly his human life had sacrificial value.

2100 is about sacrifice in general, not specifically the Old Testament. As we see, Christ is mentioned.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Anyway, if Adam caused sin to enter the human condition, in a way, why would God want a blood human sacrifice, when he knew this would all happen.

Sorry my mind is blank…

It shows God’s love for us. Aquinas I know listed a bunch of good reason why Christ died the way he did. By Christ enduring sin, man overcomes sin. Jesus’ infinite love is what enables him to overcome it.

 

[OneSheep]

Happy Advent to you also

I don’t see what your question has to do with a debt to be paid to God for sinning against him.

Sin is what…missing the mark? So we fall short of being completely holy, because why? Maybe its the conscience subject, all of us has a different view of who owes us what when something happens. I know I view why people may do things very differently from other people. I’m I right or are they right…maybe neither of us are right, we just think we are.

Anyway, if Adam caused sin to enter the human condition, in a way, why would God want a blood human sacrifice, when he knew this would all happen.

Sorry my mind is blank…

Hi Simpleas,

The question pertains to God-as-we-can-relate-to-Him. If you forgive someone, but still think that they owe you something, then you are going to relate to a Father who forgives and then still thinks you owe Him something. If you forgive someone, and after forgiving have no sense that “he owes me for this”, then you will relate to a Father who forgives in that way.

The “blood sacrifice” only makes the issue more gruesome, but the concept of “debt” is still the same. The ancient Israelis and those of many religions made bloody sacrifices of animals in order to appease God in some way.

Sorry for being so vague, I’m trying, but it is hard to avoid making that are obviously over-assumptions about how my post is read.

Thanks! If you have questions about what I am saying, then for sure other reader(s) do also.

 

[wmw]

Hi wmw!

I am a big fan of both/and solutions!

However, I am not averse to attempt to humanly find expression. It is interesting that the New Advent article is the same (essentially) as the link in my OP, signed by “W H Kent”:

catholic.com/encyclopedia/doctrine-of-the-atonement

So, let’s also look at a different part of the encyclopedia article:

But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge.....

Here, I find that an opposing legitimate view is not mentioned, that God does not get angry

…, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

Well, I think that to many people the “only” is lost in the sentiment that the “debt due” was an essential part of the whole picture, and that payment was also an essential part of the picture. This, IMO, is also legitimate. The question has to come back to: did God’s favor of man depend on the incarnation?.

It makes sense in light of a wrathful God that there was disfavor, and that satisfaction was essential to regain favor, whether or not the satisfaction was the cause or the result of God’s mercy. Some people certainly cannot believe that God is merciful at all toward those who do evil, it is beyond their comprehension, they find such a God unconscionable. What are we to say to those individuals about the “falsehood” of their view?

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

Again, it makes some sense that if God was angry about sin, that there would be the sentiment occurring among many that God would need to be appeased somehow, placated. Somebody would have to pay, and Jesus “paid” with His life. There is a lot of support for this view, especially in light of a God who “angers at the sight of sin” and does not immediately forgive unconditionally. Unconditional forgiveness, in itself, is very often seen as unconscionable and unacceptable. How would one explain that this view (Jesus died to appease an angry God) is not legitimate, if this is the way they see God?

To me, there is a means of harmonizing even those views that the encyclopedia describes as untrue or “mistaken tendencies”. Do you see such a means?

I am looking at a pastoral approach.

Thanks, wmw!

The Church wants to instruct away from these untrue and “mistaken tendencies”. The view of a debt is a true one, but the view of a wrathful God is a false one. The Church teaches BOTH that our sins including the Original must be redeemed and that God is Love. Teach what the Church teaches and stop mixing these mistaken ideas back into the truth. That is all this conjecture/seculation appears to be doing.

To your question of the knock down dead theological solution to a person that is locked into a wrathful God concept and to be pastoral about it. It is, be loving, teach them love, and show them that God must be Love.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas,

The question pertains to God-as-we-can-relate-to-Him. If you forgive someone, but still think that they owe you something, then you are going to relate to a Father who forgives and then still thinks you owe Him something. If you forgive someone, and after forgiving have no sense that “he owes me for this”, then you will relate to a Father who forgives in that way.

The “blood sacrifice” only makes the issue more gruesome, but the concept of “debt” is still the same. The ancient Israelis and those of many religions made bloody sacrifices of animals in order to appease God in some way.

Sorry for being so vague, I’m trying, but it is hard to avoid making that are obviously over-assumptions about how my post is read.

Thanks! If you have questions about what I am saying, then for sure other reader(s) do also.

Ok thanks for explaining

Yes I’m learning now how people do view God. Although I don’t think I’ve viewed God in way you explained. To me God is the only one being that wouldn’t treat us a worthless, nor condemn us, he is our creator after all.

I know of the animal sacrifices, and so Jesus is seen as the perfect human sacrifice to end all sacrifice.

What of when Jesus tells us that we must eat his body and drink his blood? If there was no sacrifice…blood shed for the sins of the world, why would Jesus tell us this. I believe he means spiritual food and drink, but if he hadn’t allowed himself to be sacrificed then we would not have a divine connection with God?

Thanks for your patience

 

[simpleas]

It shows God’s love for us. Aquinas I know listed a bunch of good reason why Christ died the way he did. By Christ enduring sin, man overcomes sin. Jesus’ infinite love is what enables him to overcome it.

Thanks.

Do you have a link to some of these reasons by Aquinas?

No worries if not.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Thanks.

Do you have a link to some of these reasons by Aquinas?

No worries if not.

newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article4

 

[simpleas]

newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article4

Thankyou