Catholic view of Atonemnt?

[guanophore]

G4 …

Peter’s testimony in scripture supports Christ paying a ONCE FOR ALL, ONCE FOR ALL-TIME ‘death penance’ for us. Our sins necessitated his Torture & Death. As scripture teaches,----- w/o the shedding of blood …there is no remission of sin. If Christ had not suffered/ died … the Eucharist would be meaningless.

In my opinion, those who say St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t teach Penal Substitution…are trying to make distinctions/clarifications that aren’t necessary or an improvement upon what Aquinas wrote on the subject.

I agree, but “penal substitution” the way the Reformed (Calvanists) use the term is interlaced with many heresies.

Calvin redefined many terms used by Augustine and Aquinas, but since the terms now mean uncatholic things in a discussion with Reformed christians, it is necessary to clarify that the meaning is different.

 

[guanophore]

Funny that both of you are Catholics yet strongly disagree with each other on what Christ’s death accomplished and what his atonement was all about.

brb3 identifies himself as “catholic” with a small c, and espouses positions that are not consistent with the Catholic faith in unity with the successor of Peter in Rome.

That being said, I do not think we are in disagreement about what the death of Christ accomplished, and what atonement is all about.

We have a semantics problem.

 

[guanophore]

This explains a lot then, because this means you don’t properly understand Aquinas and how his view differs greatly from the Protestant view. Yes, Thomas did use terms like “Satisfactory Punishment,” but properly understood this does not translate into the Protestant doctrine of Penal Substitution. Consider these quotes from the Summa:

He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (46, 6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” (ST 3:48:2)

Now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence it is written (1 Samuel 26:19): “If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him accept of sacrifice.” And in like fashion Christ’s voluntary suffering was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner (ST 3:49:4)

There is no mention - not just here but anywhere - of Jesus enduring the Father’s wrath. No Catholic theologian or Church Father would ever have said the sufferings Christ endured was the outpouring of God’s wrath, where as Protestants are explicit that this was indeed the chief and central pain Christ felt.

Thank you for this wonderfully clear and well reference post.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Aquinas quotes all the key OT scriptures…on need for shedding of blood by Christ, as atonement for our sins.

But he doesn’t say what the shedding of blood accomplishes in detail.
Again, if one is dying from leukemia – then unless blood is shed, and more importantly returned to the dying patient cured of leukemia; the patient dies.

In all atonement rituals with animals of the O.T. the animals blood was not merely shed; it was touched to the altar, and then sprinkled using hysop on the person bringing the animal. It is this final sprinkling which is called atonement.

The purpose of killing the animal is not to hurt it, but to obtain blood which can be made holy by God and effect a forgiveness of sin. In fact, the priests of the O.T. took special care to NOT allow the animal to suffer during death.

Abraham / Isaac on mount …with God providing Lamb is Prooftext of need for Blood Sacrifice. Christ said he willingly gave up his life, to please the Father…and to purchase (pay penalty/do penance) for all men.

O.K. look up the bible verse so we can examine it a bit.

Then, his teaching BEFORE his death on the Eucharist. And, then his extreme torture/ death on cross …when scripture teaches that anyone that hangs from tree is cursed ( by our sins in this case). And finally, his cry to Father about being forsaken.

Christ knew all this was his fate, but willingly endured it …as a penal substitute for the children of Adam.
Yet, in his resurrection, he conquered death & hell, and won our victory, in the New Adam.

In the Eucharist, we still receive his blood and body; it is in the Eucharist that we find atonement. As the church has always said, the Eucharist is the remedy for venial sin.

Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabactani (Sp. probably wrong…) – but none the less, this is the start of a psalm. Upon the Cross Jesus recited several Psalms. Some of them actually contain CURSES of people who crucified him.

With respect to Judas, he too is listed in the psalms with sayings such as “let his house be desolate, and his children fatherless;” “let them be wiped out of the book of life”

So, some of what is said of the cross contradicts the idea that Jesus was taking on another’s punishment in the sense of wrath. The psalm you are quoting oscillates between the idea of abandonment, and the salvation from ones enemies. It is not clear, then, that God actually abandoned Jesus – or whether he is reciting the psalm to taunt his enemies at the foot of the cross about his coming victory.

Psalm 22:5 Our father’s trusted thee, and were delivered.

And: Is it not clear that spectators at the cross said these words to Jesus?!
Psalm 22:8 He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him.

And again, does not the psalm actually say Jesus Trusts God to deliver him?
Psalm 22:19 But you are NOT FAR FROM me, O Lord, my strength, haste to help me.
Psalm 22:24 For he has NOT DESPISED NOR ABHORRED the affliction of the one afflicted; neither HAS HE HIDDEN HIS FACE FROM HIM, but when he CRIED TO HIM, he heard.

Jesus’ last words on the Cross were Father into your hands I commend my spirit.

It is impossible to use psalm 22’s single opening sentence to say that God actually abandoned his son in wrath. The psalm actually contradicts that idea. Whatever the abandoment signifies, you can’t claim it to be God despising his son in wrathful punishment.

 

[guanophore]

It is impossible to use psalm 22’s single opening sentence to say that God actually abandoned his son in wrath. The psalm actually contradicts that idea. Whatever the abandoment signifies, you can’t claim it to be God despising his son in wrathful punishment.

Actually it turns out that brb3 can, and does, make quite a few anticatholic claims, and is in the process of doing that on another thread right now.

The Professed conversion from Protesatantism to Catholicsim appears to be just that - something professed that is not, in fact, true.

 

[brb3]

Actually it turns out that brb3 can, and does, make quite a few anticatholic claims, and is in the process of doing that on another thread right now.

The Professed conversion from Protesatantism to Catholicsim appears to be just that - something professed that is not, in fact, true.

Well, at least u agree with me on Atonement topic …just not my exact semantic explanation…

of course ive got St.Thomas to back me up on this . U cant quibble with the Saint !!!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well, at least u agree with me on Atonement topic …just not my exact semantic explanation…

of course ive got St.Thomas to back me up on this . U cant quibble with the Saint !!!

Of course we can quibble with him; he didn’t believe in the immaculate conception before it was defined as Dogma; hence, he was wrong.
He is not condemned because the church had not proclaimed definitively at his time what the verdict was;

However, there are many things Thomas has said that either are non-heretical, but still wrong, or at very least indefinite.

Thomas, as a debater, often has subtle qualifications on the way he uses words; it is easy to misunderstand him, or to over-apply a point he makes in a very narrow sense – to an area it simply doesn’t apply to.

I’m not a Thomast, because I find his writings are often confusing.

 

[brb3]

But he doesn’t say what the shedding of blood accomplishes in detail.
Again, if one is dying from leukemia – then unless blood is shed, and more importantly returned to the dying patient cured of leukemia; the patient dies.

In all atonement rituals with animals of the O.T. the animals blood was not merely shed; it was touched to the altar, and then sprinkled using hysop on the person bringing the animal. It is this final sprinkling which is called atonement.

The purpose of killing the animal is not to hurt it, but to obtain blood which can be made holy by God and effect a forgiveness of sin. In fact, the priests of the O.T. took special care to NOT allow the animal to suffer during death.

O.K. look up the bible verse so we can examine it a bit.

In the Eucharist, we still receive his blood and body; it is in the Eucharist that we find atonement. As the church has always said, the Eucharist is the remedy for venial sin.

Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabactani (Sp. probably wrong…) – but none the less, this is the start of a psalm. Upon the Cross Jesus recited several Psalms. Some of them actually contain CURSES of people who crucified him.

With respect to Judas, he too is listed in the psalms with sayings such as “let his house be desolate, and his children fatherless;” “let them be wiped out of the book of life”

So, some of what is said of the cross contradicts the idea that Jesus was taking on another’s punishment in the sense of wrath. The psalm you are quoting oscillates between the idea of abandonment, and the salvation from ones enemies. It is not clear, then, that God actually abandoned Jesus – or whether he is reciting the psalm to taunt his enemies at the foot of the cross about his coming victory.

Psalm 22:5 Our father’s trusted thee, and were delivered.

And: Is it not clear that spectators at the cross said these words to Jesus?!
Psalm 22:8 He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him.

And again, does not the psalm actually say Jesus Trusts God to deliver him?
Psalm 22:19 But you are NOT FAR FROM me, O Lord, my strength, haste to help me.
Psalm 22:24 For he has NOT DESPISED NOR ABHORRED the affliction of the one afflicted; neither HAS HE HIDDEN HIS FACE FROM HIM, but when he CRIED TO HIM, he heard.

Jesus’ last words on the Cross were Father into your hands I commend my spirit.

It is impossible to use psalm 22’s single opening sentence to say that God actually abandoned his son in wrath. The psalm actually contradicts that idea. Whatever the abandoment signifies, you can’t claim it to be God despising his son in wrathful punishment.

I would never think God despised the Son. It would be non-sensical to imagine it possible… because of their unity. But, if the Father looked away or seemed to abandon Jesus at Calvary…it would of been out of the the great pain of looking at the Son in pain / distress, even unto death. The Father’s love for the Son is infinite and ever unbroken.

I

 

[Vinny213]

Aquinas taught that Christ paid the debt due to our sin and made satisfaction for our sins on our behalf. Aquinas still taught that Christ had to go through some form of punishment and only his satisfaction was good enough to pay the eternal debt due to our original sin. Of course we could never make sufficient amends for the debt of eternal punishment; hence we needed Christ. I don’t know how much Catholic Dude knows about Aquinas but can he at least admit that what I have written here is accurate. It should be noted though that Aquinas did teach that man can make satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to our personal sin. If the modern RC church does not follow Aquinas on the atonement then who does it follow and where does it get its current teaching from? I am asking thus question specifically to Catholic Dude.

 

[Vinny213]

Well, at least u agree with me on Atonement topic …just not my exact semantic explanation…

of course ive got St.Thomas to back me up on this . U cant quibble with the Saint !!!

How do you think St. Thomas backs you up? Do you think he espoused penal substitution like Calvin did, because I assure he did not. I am in agreement with Catholic Dude on this point though, even though I would still like him to explain to me what the current catholic teaching on the atonement is and how it compares to Aquinas teaching.
Here are some good links on the subject matter:
calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/aquinas-and-trent-part-6/
calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/

 

[brb3]

Well, at least u agree with me on Atonement topic …just not my exact semantic explanation…

of course ive got St.Thomas to back me up on this . U cant quibble with the Saint !!!

How do you think St. Thomas backs you up? Do you think he espoused penal substitution like Calvin did, because I assure he did not. I am in agreement with Catholic Dude on this point though, even though I would still like him to explain to me what the current catholic teaching on the atonement is and how it compares to Aquinas teaching.
Here are some good links on the subject matter:
calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/aquinas-and-trent-part-6/
calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/

Read my earlier comments my friend. I specifically said I don’t support thr Protestant views on penal substitution… but, that I did favor the Saint’s explanations. I don’t view God as wrathful or vengeful towards Christ, God is Love …and the Son lovingly/mercifully paid our debts, in our stead. That is the Epitome of Love.

 

[Vinny213]

U do realize that Aquinas only thought Christ paid the eternal punishment due to our original sin. Man can make satisfaction for temporal punishment. I suggest you checkout those links. Are you a RC Catholic? You prefer Aquinas explanation over who? The catechism? Trent? I am still waiting from a response from Catholic Dude.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I would never think God despised the Son. It would be non-sensical to imagine it possible… because of their unity. But, if the Father looked away or seemed to abandon Jesus at Calvary…it would of been out of the the great pain of looking at the Son in pain / distress, even unto death. The Father’s love for the Son is infinite and ever unbroken.

Check out this absolutely blasphemous and misguided article by a popular conservative Reformed/Calvinist pastor from last year, here is what he said:
At 3 o’clock that dark Friday afternoon, the Father turned His face away and the ancient, eternal fellowship between Father and Son was broken as divine wrath rained down like a million Soddoms and Gomorrah’s. In the terror and agony of it all, Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
There is ONE REASON Protestants will unashamedly make these claims, so that Sola Fide may remain intact.

Aquinas taught that Christ paid the debt due to our sin and made satisfaction for our sins on our behalf. Aquinas still taught that Christ had to go through some form of punishment and only his satisfaction was good enough to pay the eternal debt due to our original sin. Of course we could never make sufficient amends for the debt of eternal punishment; hence we needed Christ. I don’t know how much Catholic Dude knows about Aquinas but can he at least admit that what I have written here is accurate. It should be noted though that Aquinas did teach that man can make satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to our personal sin. If the modern RC church does not follow Aquinas on the atonement then who does it follow and where does it get its current teaching from? I am asking thus question specifically to Catholic Dude.

The Catholic Church follows Aquinas’ model, which precedes Aquinas because the Mass has always been viewed as a Sacrifice, and in the PSub view the Mass cannot be a Sacrifice (which is why the Pretend Reformers said the Mass was an abomination). But look at what St Cyril of Alexandria said in the official document at the Third Ecumenical Council in 420AD:
“Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.viii.html

We know the Mass is Sacrifice, this shows PSub cannot be true. Also, PSub means salvation cannot be lost, but Christians have always taught salvation can be lost, so Psub is false. And we know the Trinity can never be broken, nor the Hypostatic Union, and yet PSub demands this. So Catholic teaching has not changed on this matter, Aquinas merely spelled it out more clearly.

There is an article Is Job the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53? which shows how PSub is nowhere to be found in the text, including how Protestants have had to change the wording of verse 5 to say “punishment” when the Hebrew does not say this.

I can try to clear up any other questions you have.

 

[brb3]

U do realize that Aquinas only thought Christ paid the eternal punishment due to our original sin. Man can make satisfaction for temporal punishment. I suggest you checkout those links. Are you a RC Catholic? You prefer Aquinas explanation over who? The catechism? Trent? I am still waiting from a response from Catholic Dude.

Actually, Christ’s blood atonement on Cross covers ALL our sins…provided we Receive Baptism, Confession, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.

And I must add Pennance…for our post-baptismal, ongoing sins.

 

[brb3]

Check out this absolutely blasphemous and misguided article by a popular conservative Reformed/Calvinist pastor from last year, here is what he said:
At 3 o’clock that dark Friday afternoon, the Father turned His face away and the ancient, eternal fellowship between Father and Son was broken as divine wrath rained down like a million Soddoms and Gomorrah’s. In the terror and agony of it all, Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
There is ONE REASON Protestants will unashamedly make these claims, so that Sola Fide may remain intact.

The Catholic Church follows Aquinas’ model, which precedes Aquinas because the Mass has always been viewed as a Sacrifice, and in the PSub view the Mass cannot be a Sacrifice (which is why the Pretend Reformers said the Mass was an abomination). But look at what St Cyril of Alexandria said in the official document at the Third Ecumenical Council in 420AD:
“Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.viii.html

We know the Mass is Sacrifice, this shows PSub cannot be true. Also, PSub means salvation cannot be lost, but Christians have always taught salvation can be lost, so Psub is false. And we know the Trinity can never be broken, nor the Hypostatic Union, and yet PSub demands this. So Catholic teaching has not changed on this matter, Aquinas merely spelled it out more clearly.

There is an article Is Job the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53? which shows how PSub is nowhere to be found in the text, including how Protestants have had to change the wording of verse 5 to say “punishment” when the Hebrew does not say this.

I can try to clear up any other questions you have.

:tiphat::tiphat::tipha
Outstanding answer/ explanation. !!! Amazing insight Cath.Dude !

 

[grannymh]

U do realize that Aquinas only thought Christ paid the eternal punishment due to our original sin. Man can make satisfaction for temporal punishment. I suggest you checkout those links. Are you a RC Catholic? You prefer Aquinas explanation over who? The catechism? Trent? I am still waiting from a response from Catholic Dude.

Common sense would say that Aquinas would connect the necessity of Christ to Original Sin. This is because Original Sin shattered Adam’s relationship with his Creator. Only a person who is both True Man and True God could reconcile humanity with divinity.

For further clarification, please check the Index of the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* for Atonement and Expiation. Check the listed paragraphs and then check the paragraphs cross-referenced in the margins.

 

[guanophore]

U do realize that Aquinas only thought Christ paid the eternal punishment due to our original sin.

No.

Where did you get this idea?

Man can make satisfaction for temporal punishment.

Sometimes, but not always.

Aquinas is Catholic, which means he believed that mortal sin separates us from the grace of God. There is no amount of reparation that will pay the eternal penalty for mortal sins.

I suggest you checkout those links. Are you a RC Catholic? You prefer Aquinas explanation over who? The catechism? Trent? I am still waiting from a response from Catholic Dude.

You seem to think these sources are in competition with one another?

 

[Vinny213]

Sometimes, but not always.

Aquinas is Catholic, which means he believed that mortal sin separates us from the grace of God. There is no amount of reparation that will pay the eternal penalty for mortal sins.

Which is exactly the reason why Christ paid that eternal penalty for us, since we can never make sufficient satisfaction or expiation ourselves for the eternal debt. This is the atonement theory of Aquinas. However Aquinas believes man can expiate and atone for temporal punishment due to venial sins. I recommend checking the link below.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/aquinas-and-trent-part-6/

 

[Vinny213]

Catholic Dude you have not really engaged with my questions to you. You are going on about the mass which is irrelevant to this topic. What is Aquinas’s view of the atonement exactly at least compared to Trent. All the catechism says is that Christ became a sin-offering and appeased God’s anger, but it is still very vague. Aquinas talked about Christ paying eternal debts and satisfying our sins. The following comes from this link.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement

Aquinas sees penance as having two functions. First to pay a debt, and second “to serve as a remedy for the avoidance of sin”. In this later case he says that “as a remedy against future sin, the satisfaction of one does not profit another, for the flesh of one man is not tamed by another’s fast” and again “one man is not freed from guilt by another’s contrition.”[17] According to Aquinas “Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His, but for our sins.”[18] The penance Christ did has its effect in paying the “debt of punishment” incurred by our sin.

This is a concept similar to Anselm’s that we owe a debt of honor to God, with a critical difference: While Anselm said we could never pay this because any good we could do was owed to God anyway, Aquinas says that in addition to our due of obedience we can make up for our debt through acts of penance “man owes God all that he is able to give him…over and above which he can offer something by way of satisfaction”. Unlike Anselm, Aquinas claims that we can make satisfaction for our own sin, and that our problem is not our personal sin, but original sin “original sin… is an infection of human nature itself, so that, unlike actual sin, it could not be expiated by the satisfaction of a mere man.”[16] Thus Christ, as the “second Adam,” does penance in our place – paying the debt of our original sin.

Does the above comport with the Roman Catholic understanding of the atonement?

 

[guanophore]

Which is exactly the reason why Christ paid that eternal penalty for us, since we can never make sufficient satisfaction or expiation ourselves for the eternal debt. This is the atonement theory of Aquinas. However Aquinas believes man can expiate and atone for temporal punishment due to venial sins. I recommend checking the link below.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/aquinas-and-trent-part-6/

Vinny it would be very helpful if you could learn how to use the quote function, or at least use the “quote” button at the bottom of the post. It is very difficult sometimes to tell which parts of your posts are yours, and which are others.

You stated that Aquinas believed Jesus atoned eternally for our original sins.

Now you are saying that He paid the “eternal penalty” for us (meaning our own personal sins). This is Catholic.

Yes, we can make some reparation for our sins in this life through penance, but this does not always happen.

In this context (temporal effect), atonement and expiation refer only to the consequences of our sins, after the eternal debt has been paid by Jesus.