Catholic Answers says Christ didn't have to die for us?

[LilyM]

Not based on any profound scholarly analysis, I always felt God “must be Just” and anything other action never passes from thought/understanding to action on God’s part. While God is totally Sovereign, He is also completely Consistent.

The Father, Son & Spirit totally understood the exact scope of the sacrifice in advance, yet because the Son inherited a “human nature”, he emptied himself of a portion of that power or strength (hence his query to the Father in the Garden re the cup).

Because of that query (with acceptance of the Fathers will), we can know each and every act of the crucification saga was fully required. However, at the very second the scales were in balance, His suffering ended. A lesser scenario would not have sufficed.

I think something along these lines - the methods God chooses to achieve His ends surely correspond with what is best in terms of achieving those ends. Probably what He did was far more effective, in terms of impressing itself on the human consciousness and understanding, than achieving salvation merely by ‘saying the word’ or pricking His finger. And so was chosen for that reason.

Christ was so perfectly aligned to the will of His Father that I would say it WOULD be a moral impossibility for Him to go against the Father’s will. So perhaps the option of another method of salvation wasn’t ‘possible’ for Christ only because another method would have been inconsistent with the Father’s will. Not because it was LITERALLY not possible to achieve salvation by any other means. Surely at least other methods of torture and death would have been acceptable, when you think about it.

 

[alexaustralia]

Hi All,
It has been a long time since I have posted in these forums… I agree with Usagi; I also think that the atonement of sin did not require the death of Christ.

The reason why I believe this is because the just punishment for my sins is NOT physical suffering or physical death but a full separation of myself to God for all of eternity (i.e. If I am not an obedient believing Christian I am going to hell ). If Jesus was meant to pay the full measure of my sins then doesn’t that imply he too must be at this very moment separated from God the Father? Specially being that he took the punishment of all of humanity’s sins and not just my own.

This has been the main reason why I believe the crucifixion occurred to satisfy humanity in their need of a physical demonstration of God’s love and for God to demonstrate the ugliness of sin.

Well that’s what I think

Cheers and God bless

Alex

 

[fhansen]

Hi All,
This has been the main reason why I believe the crucifixion occurred to satisfy humanity in their need of a physical demonstration of God’s love and for God to demonstrate the ugliness of sin.

Yes, it can actually be* more* impressive to ponder the fact that He didn’t have to do things the way He did-but He did it that way anyway if that’s what it took to produce an image-the Crucifixion of God -that would endure as a witness to His undying love throughout all human history-remaining permanently in place as an option for us to navigate to if and when we become tired of all the other unworkable options this world has to offer.

 

[Zooey]

It’s my understanding Aquinas teaching indicate that Christ’s death was not a necessity from compulsion, as God is free to choose how redemption is handled, but a requirement due to supposition, as it was God’s will. As to why death is chosen, it is highly symbolic and the ultimate gift one can give as a human being. God and Christ had held of nothing back to see us gain salvation. Quite a demonstration of His love for us. Given this display of love, we now have a model on how much self sacrifice we are to exhibit to our fellow brothers and sisters.

I think something along these lines - the methods God chooses to achieve His ends surely correspond with what is best in terms of achieving those ends. Probably what He did was far more effective, in terms of impressing itself on the human consciousness and understanding, than achieving salvation merely by ‘saying the word’ or pricking His finger. And so was chosen for that reason.

Christ was so perfectly aligned to the will of His Father that I would say it WOULD be a moral impossibility for Him to go against the Father’s will. So perhaps the option of another method of salvation wasn’t ‘possible’ for Christ only because another method would have been inconsistent with the Father’s will. Not because it was LITERALLY not possible to achieve salvation by any other means. Surely at least other methods of torture and death would have been acceptable, when you think about it.

 

[ManOnFire]

Exactly. But what Catholic Answers said was that it didn’t have to be that particular way. They (as well as some medieval theologians) said that Christ’s suffering and death didn’t have be part of the atonement process at all. Is this the official position of the Church? And if so, does Christ’s willingly enduring unnecessary suffering and death still draw you to the cross, or does it repel you from it?

The possibility that he didn’t need to suffer and die on the cross still fits into the possibility of salvation, philosophically speaking, as I understand it. He simply showed us a better way. Otherwise, we might choose to be faith-filled selfish feelgooders instead of being compelled by His example to resist selfish temptations in favor of sacrificial love for our spouse and kids. The work He is asking us to do is far easier than being nailed to a cross to suffer and die at a young age. The work of the average person is far easier than Mother Teresa’s sacrifices in the slums of India. He is calling us to be faithful to love for spouse and kids, to give of ourselves, to hand our lives over to this greater love, to turn off the temptations in the pop culture media that break up families and create cycles of poverty, lost hope, and less true love. Our Call is far less sacrificial than being nailed to a cross and hung up to die, but nevertheless, much of society has chosen entertainment of the Self above sacrifice for others. I believe He felt it necessary to overstate the Way because We The People are a little slow.

 

[Senecus]

For what it’s worth, here is a brief summary of my evolving, imperfect opinion about this topic.​

God is completely Sovereign, that is, he is not constrained by anything “except” His own character, values, knowledge (He chooses what to know - even God likes surprises and newness) . . but, most importantly, He doesn’t break His own rules.

As He has explicitly stated He is completely Holy, and Just . . . hence the sacrifice of Jesus had to be of sufficient merit to offset the totality of Sin.

So, the specifics of the sacrafice (e.g., the Crown of Thorns, or the method of execution could have been different), but the degree of suffering, of degradation, etc. would still have been “required” to be the same . . . (until the scales of Justice were balanced).

What’s remarkable is, God knew all this in advance, and still opted to allow Man “Free-Will” . . . thereby resulting in Rebellion (in Heaven and on Earth) and necessitating the final reconciliation of the Earth (or as God calls it “this Age”).

 

[JimG]

I haven’t yet had enough coffee to think deep theological thoughts. But it occurs to me that a sacrificial gift made under compulsion would not be as edifying as one made freely and over generously. It would be like a husband saying, “there’s no point in taking my wife out to dinner and giving her flowers plus chocolates to demonstrate my love, when a simple card would do.”

 

[Senecus]

The sacrifice was only required because God chose to redeem mankind as a sign of his Love, . . . . and the nature of the sacrifice as prescribed by the requirement of Justice.

The Lord could have chosen to leave mankind to the same fate as the other high-mammals - - but even that is/was unlikely because for example, is there any creature beside man that understands Good & Evil, or has self-awareness, etc? In other words, man is really created in the image of God.

(although, like Will Rogers, I hope dogs somehow have a doorway into Heaven) . .

 

[WorkerPriest]

I haven’t yet had enough coffee to think deep theological thoughts. But it occurs to me that a sacrificial gift made under compulsion would not be as edifying as one made freely and over generously. It would be like a husband saying, “there’s no point in taking my wife out to dinner and giving her flowers plus chocolates to demonstrate my love, when a simple card would do.”

Perhaps so, friend, but we are magnitudes of order beyond this analogy.

The Cross is a divine act, far beyond merely signifying or demonstrating love. It is a reality, in which the salvation of mankind is achieved. It is the fountain from which the very real Sacraments flow, not as mere symbols, but as real divine power, bringing real salvific grace to the one upon whom they are bestowed.

I would hope that no catholic (Roman or otherwise) would argue that the Sacraments are neither necessary nor merely symbolic. What Christ has done for the salvation of the world, he has indeed chosen to do out of love. His act of love was necessary for our salvation, though He certainly was not constrained or obligated to save us… that’s grace. The Church is the means of this grace that Christ has established for us to be saved, and in which we are Baptised, Communed, Absolved, etc. We are not compelled to enter it, nor are we compelled to receive grace by faith, but such grace must necessarily be imparted/imputed to us for our salvation. Outside Christ there is no salvation, for there is no other name given under heaven, by which we must be saved.

St. Paul seems to make these arguments quite clearly in his letter to the Romans, and I would offer that it seems be obvious in St. John’s Gospel as well. I am content to remain within the understandings and ponderings of the Blessed Apostles, and to keep at arm’s distance the labyrinthine speculations of philosophers.

Easter blessings be with you.

 

[ManOnFire]

I haven’t yet had enough coffee to think deep theological thoughts. But it occurs to me that a sacrificial gift made under compulsion would not be as edifying as one made freely and over generously. It would be like a husband saying, “there’s no point in taking my wife out to dinner and giving her flowers plus chocolates to demonstrate my love, when a simple card would do.”

I always thought the human nature of Jesus served as a metaphor for our human free will. Jesus had a choice. We have choices. He could have chosen to run from his duty and responsibility, but he free willingly chose to fulfill scripture even though he knew it would be painful and sacrificial. His human nature shows us that we still have the free will choice to be selfish, but a greater love is found by dedicating one’s life to others. I may be way off on this but I always thought that he thought that God would save him from his sacrifice at the last minute “My Lord and My God, why have you abandoned me?” but then we wouldn’t have the ultimate sacrifice as an example of the sacrificial, responsible parenthood that is needed for the next generations. He could have chosen to run from his responsibility, like the soft culture is urging us to do, but then world history would be very different.

 

[JimG]

I always thought the human nature of Jesus served as a metaphor for our human free will. Jesus had a choice. We have choices. He could have chosen to run from his duty and responsibility, but he free willingly chose to fulfill scripture even though he knew it would be painful and sacrificial. His human nature shows us that we still have the free will choice to be selfish, but a greater love is found by dedicating one’s life to others. I may be way off on this but I always thought that he thought that God would save him from his sacrifice at the last minute “My Lord and My God, why have you abandoned me?” but then we wouldn’t have the ultimate sacrifice as an example of the sacrificial, responsible parenthood that is needed for the next generations. He could have chosen to run from his responsibility, like the soft culture is urging us to do, but then world history would be very different.

I would hardly call the human nature of Jesus a metaphor. He was fully human, and of course had a human mind and will.

Sin offends God who is infinitely good, thus the offense is infinitely grave. But sin is committed by man, so it is man who must make amends and set it right. The dilemma is that man is finite. No act done by a human person can make amends for an offense against an infinite God.

The incarnation is the solution. It is a man–a human being–who offers himself to make restitution for the sin of man. Yet because the Person who makes the restitution is a divine person, not a human person, the sacrifice can suffice for salvation.

It seems obvious to me that any act by a divine person must be of infinite value. Consequently any act accomplished by Jesus–a divine person using a human nature–must be of infinite value.

Every act of Jesus accomplished during his earthly life was of infinite value, because he was a divine Person.

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that in the events of the Holy Triduum, the Last Supper, the Passion, the Crucifixion, Jesus completed and finalized the last Passover sacrifice, making it effective for all time. It was not just a required act of sacrifice, but the culmination and completion of the Covenant. In early Christian iconography the Paschal Lamb is often seen, indicating that Jesus is the final Pasch.

 

[WorkerPriest]

I may be way off on this but I always thought that he thought that God would save him from his sacrifice at the last minute “My Lord and My God, why have you abandoned me?” but then we wouldn’t have the ultimate sacrifice as an example of the sacrificial, responsible parenthood that is needed for the next generations. He could have chosen to run from his responsibility, like the soft culture is urging us to do, but then world history would be very different.

Just a small correction here, friend. Jesus’ words from the Cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” are a direct quote of the title line of Psalm 22. The Psalms were not numbered in their day the way they are in ours, so when they were quoted, they were quoted by their opening line (kinda like we do with hymns like “Amazing Grace.”) Jesus was not despairing on the Cross, nor questiong the Father’s devotion to Him. He was pointing those who would hear him, to Psalm 22. It was a teaching moment.

If Psalm 22 was not among your Holy Week meditations, I recommend it to you now. For all the pain Christ endured to speak those words, the lesson He points us to is greatly to our benefit.

Peace to you.

 

[Zooey]

I haven’t yet had enough coffee to think deep theological thoughts. But it occurs to me that a sacrificial gift made under compulsion would not be as edifying as one made freely and over generously. It would be like a husband saying, “there’s no point in taking my wife out to dinner and giving her flowers plus chocolates to demonstrate my love, when a simple card would do.”

 

[mpartyka]

…the just punishment for my sins is NOT physical suffering or physical death but a full separation of myself to God for all of eternity (i.e. If I am not an obedient believing Christian I am going to hell ). If Jesus was meant to pay the full measure of my sins then doesn’t that imply he too must be at this very moment separated from God the Father? Specially being that he took the punishment of all of humanity’s sins and not just my own.

No, because it is the separation from God itself which is the punishment. The fact that the separation is eternal is a consequence of there being no way to heal that separation once we have entered into it through our deaths (or on the last day). So Christ was separated from God on the cross – that was the punishment he endured for our sakes. (And perhaps God levied all the spiritual torment that the Heavenbound would have suffered in Hell upon Christ on the Cross at the instant of his death – that much is speculative.) But because Christ perfectly obeyed the Law, and never sinned his whole life, for that reason God judged him righteous and awarded him eternal life, raising Christ from the dead and cancelling the state of separation that existed between them. (Note that Christ was only separated from the Father in His humanity, which could experience that separation – as God, Christ was inseparable from the Father, but as man Christ could experience separation.)

 

[mpartyka]

But it occurs to me that a sacrificial gift made under compulsion would not be as edifying as one made freely and over generously.

I disagree. If I’m chained to a bomb, and the key to the bomb is at the bottom of a vat of boiling water, I would be amazed and edified by whoever would reach into that vat of boiling water to get the key for my sake. But I would be horrified at someone who dived full-body into the vat of boiling water until all his skin sloughed off when reaching in his arm for a few seconds would have done fine. To me, that kind of over-the-top display would be an example of what not to do.

 

[mpartyka]

Sin offends God who is infinitely good, thus the offense is infinitely grave. But sin is committed by man, so it is man who must make amends and set it right. The dilemma is that man is finite. No act done by a human person can make amends for an offense against an infinite God.

The incarnation is the solution. It is a man–a human being–who offers himself to make restitution for the sin of man. Yet because the Person who makes the restitution is a divine person, not a human person, the sacrifice can suffice for salvation.

It seems obvious to me that any act by a divine person must be of infinite value. Consequently any act accomplished by Jesus–a divine person using a human nature–must be of infinite value.

Every act of Jesus accomplished during his earthly life was of infinite value, because he was a divine Person.

This is an excellent summation. But I have never accepted this “Christ’s infinite good deeds cancel out our infinite bad deeds” paradigm of salvation because it strikes me that good deeds do not cancel out bad deeds. For example, how many lives must a police officer save to merit our forgiving his molesting his child? It’s apples and oranges, right? The good he does shouldn’t cancel out the bad he does. So It’s always seemed to me that good deeds and bad deeds are apples and oranges, which is why we cannot redeem ourselves through good deeds – they don’t count against our bad deeds at all. So the paradigm of salvation that I’ve always understood is that the cross actually takes away the guilt of our bad deeds and places that guilt on Christ at the cross, leaving only the good on us. And because Christ takes the punishment for our bad deeds upon himself, we are left completely blameless before God, and this permits God to judge us righteous and worthy of eternal life when we die without violating his justice. God punishes our sin in Christ, and because of this we are set free. So without Christ’s experiencing the full punishment that God levied upon Adam and Eve (i.e., death and separation from God), we couldn’t be freed from having to experience that punishment ourselves, and the plan of salvation breaks down.

 

[Philthy]

Why does the idea that Christ didn’t have to die for us turn me off so?

Am I wrong about what the Church teaches here? Did Christ have to suffer and die for us? And if he didn’t, am I the only one who feels repelled by that notion?

Without delving into all the pure speculation that I am sure this thread will drift off into, could you specify why, exactly, you believe that the only way to accomplish our salvation was the means God chose? Is there a particular bible verse that says that the only way to accomplish the redemption of mankind was the means God chose?
In the end, it is a question that seems more of a distraction than anything else.
God did in fact become Man for our sakes out of love for us and in order to save us.

Blessings!

 

[mpartyka]

…could you specify why, exactly, you believe that the only way to accomplish our salvation was the means God chose? Is there a particular bible verse that says that the only way to accomplish the redemption of mankind was the means God chose?

Let’s be clear that by “the means God chose” I am talking about the Messiah’s experiencing death and separation from God. There are bible verses which define death and separation from God as the punishment that God has declared that man should undergo for sin. So if God has specified that death and separation from God is the particular punishment for sin, God cannot choose not to punish sin in that particular way, or else He is arbitrary and unjust. “The wages of sin is death,” so if someone sins, then someone has to receive the wages for that sin – someone has to die and be separated from God as the consequence for that sin. What God has done in the plan of salvation is provided that the Messiah rather than we ourselves should receive the wages of sin in our place – He experiences death and separation from God so that we don’t have to. So when someone says, “Jesus didn’t have to die on the cross to save us,” that person is unwittingly saying, “God doesn’t have to require a punishment for sin. God can just turn a blind eye to sin,” which renders God no more just than you or I, which renders our idea of the justice of God – and really any notion of justice at all – meaningless. Justice means that all deeds are appropriately recompensed. To deny that Christ had to die for our sins, then, denies justice.

Now, we can speculate that God did not have to specify death and separation from God as the punishment for sin, but all that would do is render whatever God did specify as the punishment for sin to be what the Messiah would necessarily have to experience to fulfill our atonement (including the Incarnation, for it takes a man to receive the wages of sin assigned to man). But we cannot (though some do) go so far as to say that God could have chosen not to assign mankind a punishment for sin at all, such that “He could have simply forgiven us” (as has been suggested here and there), for that would mean that God isn’t really offended by sin – whether we do good or bad matters not one bit to Him, since he can react the same way to both good and bad if He chooses. If this were the case, then we could not even reasonably call God good, and the terms “good” and “bad” would be rendered meaningless and arbitrary things. This is certainly not a position that is consistent with all the biblical verses exhorting mankind to choose good rather than bad, and life rather than death. The biblical position is that God is good, and He desires us to be like Him and do good.

Therefore, because God expressly desires us to do good rather than sin, we can infer that God must, to be consistent with His own expressed nature, punish sin rather than reward or ignore it, and because God must punish sin, then whatever punishment God has assigned to mankind for sin is what the Messiah would have had to experience on our behalf to procure Atonement for us, and because death and separation from God is that assigned punishment, the Messiah must have had to experience death and separation from God on our behalf to procure Atonement for us.

 

[jschutzm]

I think this post started off asking if what the CA Apologist said presented actual Catholic teaching.

And I think the answer to your Original Question is by now a definitive NO. That the Church doesn’t definitively teach that Christ’s sacrifice was not necessary.

As a Catholic, I’ve always been taught that his sacrifice was necessary. The teaching is that we are finite, the true measure of a crime is not the deed but whom is offended. God is infinite, so all offenses against him are therefore infinite in nature NOT because of us or what is done, but because that is who he is. – Infinite.

As finite beings, we can not atone for the offenses, let alone the sheer number of them. Or put anotherway, it would take us, alone, by ourselves, an eternity to atone for those infinite crimes.
Enter Jesus… who is infinite, but also human. I think you understand the rest yourself. In a nutshell, it took an infinite divine being to atone or take the punishment for infinite offenses against a divine being… himself.

BUT… because we are finite and don’t understand everything like God… I think most posters are trying to also keep the door open, and simply admit that we don’t know the mind of God… perhaps there ARE other ways and this was merely the best. Perhaps this was the only way. – Who are we to say? – We only know for SURE that this is what God chose and was necessary.
But by the same token, we should not limit God to our own limited understanding either. So at the very least we should in the back of our minds… leave the door ajar a bit, to allow for other possibilities.

So in light that you’ve heard probably like 20 variations and nuanced understandings of this concept, you should realize that there is room for your perspective within the large and broad shoulders of the Catholic faith.

Anotherwards, your belief fits in with Catholic understanding. I think the posters here are just trying to defend CAs and argue the outside possibilities. Taking up the other side of the argument.

 

[jschutzm]

to continue my response, since it was getting long…

We have to be careful not to get too hung up on the details and disparage over these Theological concepts which can be argued very affectively either way.

We are “Catholic” (those of us who are on this forum) NOT because we all see eye to eye and think with a Borg-like collective brain, but because we have the same core beliefs and work VERY HARD, at times, to remain in communion, DESPITE our differences.

Is Limbo contrary to the mercy of God? - we can debate it.
Was the Earth created in purely 6 24 hour periods or did God use a mixture of evolution and direct creation? – we can go round and round.

Was Christ’s bloody crucifixion the ONLY way in all the cosmos and in all the infiniteness of God? – Yes, but maybe not, we don’t know the mind of God.

I don’t mean to belittle any of these debates, especially the last one. But I hope the original poster doesn’t write off the Catholic church over this one issue, because no one here or on CA LIVE radio program, explained things in a way he wanted to hear.