Catholic view of Atonemnt?

[JEJL]

OK, I think I have a better understanding of this now. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and reading… of course one can never come to a full understanding of the divine mystery of the Cross, and as soon as one says they understand it all, that’s when they will be humbled… and as C.S. Lewis said I don’t need to know how my stomach’s chemicals break down food into enzymes and the like, to benefit from food; I just need to eat… nevertheless God gave us reason and this is a serious issue which I think is the core point of contention between Protestants (specifically Calvinists) and Catholics.

Penal substitution says that God went to hell in our place and rose again as God ratifying the agreement. The Catholic view, if I understand it, is better yet and more coherent. As Huiou Theou rightly says, when did we ever see a human example of an innocent taking the place of a guilty person to suffer (assuming that the human world can give us an idea of God, since we are created in God’s image)? Wouldn’t it only be right in the case of a vengeful person who has a serious lust for blood (like St. Maximilian Kolbe who died in the place of the man he saved from the wrathful Nazi commandant)? This is not the image of the Christian God. But yet there is such a thing as divine justice and it must be appeased. This is the action of God Himself. Even the Calvinist theologian J.I. Packer says in his book Knowing God that it is wrong to look at the Cross as the Good, Kind Son diverting the wrath of the unkind, vengeful Father, for that would imply division in the will of God; the Son’s will is perfectly conformed and always has been, to the will of the Father. Yet the Penal Substitution argument says just that: that the Father’s wrath was poured out onto the Son. By this same token, nor is Jesus merely dying on the Cross simply interceding for us (He is doing this, but there is a deeper mystery going on as well), for if that were the principal thing going on, it would imply the same, that the kind Son has to appease the angry Father. God’s anger has been appeased before through prayer and supplication, but this has been from someone other than God; namely Moses in the desert with the people, and all the saints who pray in Jesus’ name (who pray according to the will of God in Christ). Jesus is God, so again, it is not as though God were divided in Himself.

The Catholic understanding is this: Jesus’ Blood is a treasure. By pouring it out, He allows all men access to the forgiveness and love of God. 1 Corinthians 5:21: “Him, who knew no sin, he has made sin for us: that we might be made the justice of God in him.” That is, He became a sin offering for us on the Cross. He became the perfect fulfillment of all the Levitical sacrifices, putting an end to them, or rather, better, in His own words, fulfilling them forever. Blood is life, and Jesus wanted to give us His life, and life in full. Becoming sin, or a sin offering, for us on the Cross, and dying, this means that sin is dead forever as well. That is, its power is done with forever. This does not mean that He took the wrath of God upon Himself. No indeed—sin was condemned in Him, not Jesus Himself! On the contrary, accomplishing the eternal will of the Father and bringing to fulfillment the Levitical Sacrifice, He was “never” closer to God than on the Cross (speaking from a human point of view). When He died, sin died with Him; rising again, He lives forevermore into eternity with the flesh He used to save us. In Baptism, we enter into that eternal life Covenant, the New Covenant, and in the Eucharist He gives Himself, life eternal, to our souls fully, or to the measure that we are disposed to receive Him. It is conditional upon our receiving it, receiving Him. This is why, incidentally, the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement logically follows from Penal Substitution—since, if Jesus died for all, and therefore took the punishment of sinful men upon Himself, forever annulling its power, and yet not all men are saved, this would mean that some of the Blood of Christ was wasted. Therefore He must have done this only for the elect. In the Catholic view, nothing is wasted at all, and yet we can fully affirm with St John that “he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1st letter, 2:2). Furthermore, the Resurrection is pivotal since His eternal life is the life we receive in the Eucharist, and if we were receiving the real Body and Blood of a dead Jesus (which is I very much agree with “Catholic Nick” as well here: catholicnick.blogspot.ca/2012/09/does-imputation-make-resurrection.html. In Penal Substitution, the Resurrection is glorious indeed, but not strictly necessary for the doctrine to be true; it is merely the “ratification” from God that it “worked”; in Catholicism, without the Resurrection, there is nothing, only death, as St Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19), we wouldn’t be entering into eternal life at all. Yet, “He who eats My Body and drinks My Blood has eternal life” (present tense! because we are receiving or rather being received into the eternal life He is living now). Since Jesus, the sin offering, the Lamb of God, died, we are as St Paul says, “dead to sin forever” (Romans 6:2), and so we should count ourselves as thus; since He rose again, we have His eternal life, as long as we are “in Him”. And this is the way we know we are in Him: we love one another and we believe in God’s only Son (1st letter of John). That is, in theological language, we have both faith and good works, good fruits, as Catholic doctrine affirms we must, and as Jesus said we had to have. Sacraments dispose us to good works/fruits, but they never force them upon us; there is always complete cooperation with the will when the children of God do good works.

 

[JEJL]

Also, I can see why with Penal Substitution thus ends the need for all Sacraments: if in the Calvinist view, all sins of the elect are effectively punished forever, where is the need for Confession? Indulgences? Where is Purgatory? What is the point of the Eucharist, if Jesus has already given everything He had to give? (Note: not that in the Catholic view Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was insufficient, as though the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass completes what was missing, but rather the Mass makes present the One and Completed Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The mystery of the Cross and the mystery of the Eucharist are one and the same.) Yet now I can see that with the Catholic view, all of these things make perfect sense. Jesus forgave us our sins and continues to. When we sin, we hurt the life of God in us. In Penal Substitution, there is no more satisfaction for sin to be done. But in the Catholic view, we do the satisfaction for our own sins which we commit after Baptism and the sins of others when we learn to love and make sacrifices for others; but these sacrifices are only effective insomuch as they are united to the perfect Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Again, the Blood of Christ is a Treasure, and we must tap into that Treasure and apply it to ourselves and to others. So it is not a “works” salvation system as Protestants say but one of works united to Christ in His perfect love. Christ’s Body is the New Temple of Sacrifice in the Heavenly Jerusalem (cf. CCC 593), but not a dead body, like in Calvinism; it is a living Body, of which we are the members, and whose life-giving force we tap into through the Sacraments.

When we enter into this divine life, becoming “partakers of the divine nature”, we can then go to heaven. Without it, without eating His Body and drinking His Blood, we have no life in us. This divine life given to us actually makes us righteous in and of ourselves, though of course a gift from God for which we are forever indebted to Him, but this is not the Protestant view of “imputed righteousness.” In this latter one, “when God looks at you He sees you covered in the Blood of His Son and He turns away His wrath”; in Catholicism, we are washed clean, not just putting on a cloak of righteousness from someone else, though He be God.

The Cross was at the centre of St Paul’s preaching. It is central. The notion that it was not necessary, or that it was merely a good example of love, or even that it makes us merely “saveable” but that we have to earn heaven through those good works done subsequently on the basis of that first justification (cf. Council of Trent, Canon II, Session VI on Justification: “If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema”), is heretical and evil. God loved us and wanted to give us His life. This is why the Eucharist and indeed all the Sacraments are relevant. Maybe some Catholics today are semi-Pelagian, but the Church declared that a heresy in the 5th century. Not believing in Penal Substitution does not necessarily make you a semi-Pelagian.

The cry, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” refers us to Psalm 22. This Psalm shows us the terrible ugliness of sin, “But I am a worm, and no man: the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people” (verse 7). If He was made sin for us, and that sin was to die, He had to live it fully. So it is right that He should sweat blood. I don’t believe it was only because He had been betrayed by a dear friend, though I think that was part of it.

He accomplished the Law to its fullest—something man never could—and suffered in the place of sinners, us—something He didn’t have to. It was voluntary. But this doesn’t mean He bore the divine hatred of the Father. He diverted it. He satisfied eternal justice by offering up His own blood—the most valuable treasure in the universe—Blood indeed, that is a physical and not only spiritual reality to save us men of flesh and bones. This eternal treasury of God was then for all men—not that all go to heaven, but that all can tap into it, freely, drink for free as in Isaiah 55. Limited atonement is false. No blood is “wasted” here—it comes to those who will choose it. But choosing it is not a mere human decision, it is of God. Let us not stray to either extreme, either heresy—the Calvinist heresy, or the Pelagian heresy. It is a mystery. It both God’s decision and ours.

 

[guanophore]

Welcome to the thread JEJL and congratulations on your return to the fullness of the faith.

Hello,

I am a recently converted/re-converted Catholic. I have believed Penal Substitution for a long time, ever since I learned it when with Protestants and even up to now since I came back to the Roman Catholic Church almost three years ago. Can anyone please show me an official Church document condemning this doctrine? Forgive me if it has been shown already in the thread,

It is a common subject here. You can search the threads for the topic, and will find a great many resources.

I didn’t seem to find any. If there is none, that’s okay, but I still don’t understand the difference between satisfaction and this Catholic view, and the Penal Substitution.

The most substantial Catholic document is the Scripture, which does not support the idea of Penal Substitution. The main element is the doctrine of the Trinity and the integrity of the Trinity. God the Father cannot “turn His back” on the Son, and the Son does not take on the penalty we deserve because He is not dwelling in Hell for eternity.

Seems to me that the accusation against Penal Substitution as being heretical because it would imply the Son of God is eternally in hell is a straw man; proponents of Penal Substitution have never argued this.

If He is a substitute and took our penalty, then there is no other outcome. This is the penalty for sin. If one carries the doctrine to the logical conclusion that is where it ends.

A split second in hell would be enough to satisfy the punishment for all sins ever committed, since He is God…

This is not scriptural either. who are you do decide what is “satisfactory”?

It is God’s redemption, He gets to decide how He wants to do it. Jesus did not go to hell, not even for a split second, because that is a state separated from God, and God cannot separate from Himself.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_09051897_divinum-illud-munus_en.html

The indivisiblity is the primary doctrine of the faith violated by the penal substitution idea.

but the doctrine just made so much sense to me. Rather than diminish God's love, I thought it augmented it. The Son was willing to break that eternal union of love even for but a brief moment for the sake of love; He gained it right back of course, so lost nothing in the end... this is what the doctrine teaches.

The fact that He bore our sins in His body on the cross is, indeed, the greatest act of love.

A preacher made a good point; why is it that Jesus was so afraid, humanly speaking, going as far as sweating blood before going to the Cross, while His followers later were pitched with tar and crucified under Nero while singing hymns full of joy? Well, one was to bear the sins of mankind; the others were mere imitators.

He did indeed bear the sins of mankind, and we will never understand the human experience of doing so. I would not call the martyrs “imitators” in the sense that their sacrifice was not frightening to them. Some were graced with joy, but it is normal for a human being to avoid and fear their own demise.

I am willing to change. I just don’t understand. This apparent difference between bearing punishment, versus simply redeeming or satisfying in part some of the guilt, all seems like semantics to me.

He did bear our punishment. He just did not do it the way that particular theory says He did. How it happened is a mystery, but we know that the Trinity has always been intact. If you go to the Vatican website and enter “indivisible” you will find many official documents referring to the Trinity this way. It has been a constant teaching of the Church.

Are we pelagians? Did Christ satisfy part of the debt, and we have to do the rest ourselves?

No, and NO.

That seems like a worse heresy than Penal Substitution, given how horribly weak humans are. St Louis de Montfort certainly taught how bad we are. I don’t believe in total depravity, but we are pretty bad all the same…

It is hard to say which heresies are worse than others. Butchering the Apostolic Teaching on the nature of the Trinity will result in more and more serious errors.

Those Catholics who changed "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me..." to "...that saved and strengthened me" because it sounded like total depravity sounds to me like a detestable lukewarm downplaying of what John Newton went through.

I agree, and I confess I like the original better. However, it is essential that hymns used during liturgy support the doctrine of the faith, and not mislead the faithful.

Any Catholic who severely struggles with sin knows how wretched one can feel sometimes because of sin. It's not a mere matter of "being strengthened"; one needs to be saved.

Yes.

Seems to me like I still think like a Protestant in many ways. I believe the Catholic Church is true. I want to submit and believe what she believes. But this is the greatest issue for me now.

The more you learn, the easier it gets.

Stay on CAF, and do not hesitate to bring up conflicts like this one.

 

[brb3]

Also, I can see why with Penal Substitution thus ends the need for all Sacraments: if in the Calvinist view, all sins of the elect are effectively punished forever, where is the need for Confession? Indulgences? Where is Purgatory? What is the point of the Eucharist, if Jesus has already given everything He had to give? (Note: not that in the Catholic view Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was insufficient, as though the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass completes what was missing, but rather the Mass makes present the One and Completed Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The mystery of the Cross and the mystery of the Eucharist are one and the same.) Yet now I can see that with the Catholic view, all of these things make perfect sense. Jesus forgave us our sins and continues to. When we sin, we hurt the life of God in us. In Penal Substitution, there is no more satisfaction for sin to be done. But in the Catholic view, we do the satisfaction for our own sins which we commit after Baptism and the sins of others when we learn to love and make sacrifices for others; but these sacrifices are only effective insomuch as they are united to the perfect Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Again, the Blood of Christ is a Treasure, and we must tap into that Treasure and apply it to ourselves and to others. So it is not a “works” salvation system as Protestants say but one of works united to Christ in His perfect love. Christ’s Body is the New Temple of Sacrifice in the Heavenly Jerusalem (cf. CCC 593), but not a dead body, like in Calvinism; it is a living Body, of which we are the members, and whose life-giving force we tap into through the Sacraments.

When we enter into this divine life, becoming “partakers of the divine nature”, we can then go to heaven. Without it, without eating His Body and drinking His Blood, we have no life in us. This divine life given to us actually makes us righteous in and of ourselves, though of course a gift from God for which we are forever indebted to Him, but this is not the Protestant view of “imputed righteousness.” In this latter one, “when God looks at you He sees you covered in the Blood of His Son and He turns away His wrath”; in Catholicism, we are washed clean, not just putting on a cloak of righteousness from someone else, though He be God.

The Cross was at the centre of St Paul’s preaching. It is central. The notion that it was not necessary, or that it was merely a good example of love, or even that it makes us merely “saveable” but that we have to earn heaven through those good works done subsequently on the basis of that first justification (cf. Council of Trent, Canon II, Session VI on Justification: “If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema”), is heretical and evil. God loved us and wanted to give us His life. This is why the Eucharist and indeed all the Sacraments are relevant. Maybe some Catholics today are semi-Pelagian, but the Church declared that a heresy in the 5th century. Not believing in Penal Substitution does not necessarily make you a semi-Pelagian.

The cry, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” refers us to Psalm 22. This Psalm shows us the terrible ugliness of sin, “But I am a worm, and no man: the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people” (verse 7). If He was made sin for us, and that sin was to die, He had to live it fully. So it is right that He should sweat blood. I don’t believe it was only because He had been betrayed by a dear friend, though I think that was part of it.

He accomplished the Law to its fullest—something man never could—and suffered in the place of sinners, us—something He didn’t have to. It was voluntary. But this doesn’t mean He bore the divine hatred of the Father. He diverted it. He satisfied eternal justice by offering up His own blood—the most valuable treasure in the universe—Blood indeed, that is a physical and not only spiritual reality to save us men of flesh and bones. This eternal treasury of God was then for all men—not that all go to heaven, but that all can tap into it, freely, drink for free as in Isaiah 55. Limited atonement is false. No blood is “wasted” here—it comes to those who will choose it. But choosing it is not a mere human decision, it is of God. Let us not stray to either extreme, either heresy—the Calvinist heresy, or the Pelagian heresy. It is a mystery. It both God’s decision and ours.

JEJL…

Very well expressed…

I think u are very close to the fullest humanly possible understanding …
…but, still not sure about that Limited Atonement explanation. Free Will needs to remain an option to all sinners …God desires that None should perish, thus, Christ died for all…ESPECIALLY THOSE MOST IN NEED OF HIS GRACE, even sinners on Crosses beside him, and as Paul said " I am the CHIEF of sinners".

 

[guanophore]

I understand & have shared your situation as described above, having come to Christ as adult, under Penal Substitution understandings. Now, whether it is exactly right or slightly wrong, … I do know that understanding of how Christ suffered for me and all, brought about remorse & contrition on my part like nothing ever had before.
Perhaps another explanation might not of convicted me to such a degree, but alls well that ends well, and that occasion got me to accept Christ as Lord, and to make a lifetime commitment to obedience.
So, I will never discredit it as an errant understanding that can’t convey justification graces to a lost sinner.

It must be discredited as an errant understanding, because we have a responsibility to defend the faith.

However, I agree with you that the HS can work even through such misunderstandings to bring the lost to repentance. Just like people misunderstanding “the sinners prayer” may not interfere at all with the sincerity of their repentance.

 

[guanophore]

Catholics believed Jesus only satisfied the debt due to our eternal punishment for sin, the temporal punishemnt has to be expiated by us.

No, this is not true. Jesus satisfied ALL of our debt, both eternal, and temporal. There are times when He allows us to suffer the temporal consequences of our sins because this experience perfects us in holiness. Two examples of this are the good thief on the cross, who He forgave, but did not take with Him, but left him to suffer the rest of the day and have his legs broken. Another is the “thorn in the flesh” given to Paul to keep him humble.

Temporal punishment can be remitted as well, which is what an indulgence is all about.

So yes Catholics are peligans since their view of the atonement denies that Christ died for our sins and bore our iniquities,

This is a false statement Vinny. It is disappointing that you have done so much reading and posting here, and yet still emerged believing a lie.

which is what all the church fathers taught including Thomas Aquinas who also held to a statisfaction theory of atonement.

Christ died for our sins, and bore our iniquities. At times we still suffer the temporal consequences of them.

A person who contracts an infection from engaging in immoral sexual acts may be forgiven his sin, but he may not have the infection taken away. He can unite his suffering to Christ, for the reparation of his own sins, and those of others.

 

[brb3]

It must be discredited as an errant understanding, because we have a responsibility to defend the faith.

However, I agree with you that the HS can work even through such misunderstandings to bring the lost to repentance. Just like people misunderstanding “the sinners prayer” may not interfere at all with the sincerity of their repentance.

I think ur right G-4.
God excused my ignorance regarding exactly how he atoned for me, … seeing my intentions and faith were sincere, and knowing one-day in future he would bring me to the fuller Catholic understanding, with Guanophore & CAF help

 

[guanophore]

I think ur right G-4.
God excused my ignorance regarding exactly how he atoned for me, … seeing my intentions and faith were sincere, and knowing one-day in future he would bring me to the fuller Catholic understanding, with Guanophore & CAF help

Indeed you have studied, and shown yourself approved!

:clapping:

 

[tskrobacz]

More than any other theme, Jesus taught the presence and availability of the Reign or “Kingdom” of God. All scholars seem to agree on this. He dared to say that you can live this full reality right now. Now that’s so extraordinary and counter intuitive, that most organized religion pushed the kingdom into the future and made it co-terminus with “heaven.” That is exactly what he is not saying! He is always saying it is indeed now, although not fully now (Luke 17:21, Matthew 4:17). Our only assurance for later is that we have begun to touch and taste it now. This is the peace and serenity of the saints, even under trial.

The word for living in this way, living in the in-between with trust and surrender, is called faith. Forget for the moment about believing in the Immaculate Conception, the role of the Papacy, any Atonement theory, or Biblical inerrancy. Those might be fine, but they’re not what Jesus is talking about.

Jesus is talking about the grace and the freedom to live God’s dream for the world now—while not rejecting the wounded world as it is. That’s a tension that is not easily resolved. It is the lovely, intimate, and spacious place that Jesus invites Thomas into when he tells Thomas to physically “touch” him in the very place of the wounds (John 20:27)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

OK, I think I have a better understanding of this now. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and reading… of course one can never come to a full understanding of the divine mystery of the Cross,

Unless God infuse the knowledge, I don’t have any way to figure it all out.

Penal substitution says that God went to hell in our place and rose again as God ratifying the agreement. The Catholic view, if I understand it, is better yet and more coherent. As Huiou Theou rightly says, when did we ever see a human example of an innocent taking the place of a guilty person to suffer (assuming that the human world can give us an idea of God, since we are created in God’s image)?

Very good point; but it it more concisely stated by saying: the Law of God is inscribed in our hearts; and St. Paul talks about even the Gentiles being a law unto themselves. Rom 2:14-16

The Subject at hand is why the Son had to die, and I would focus your attention on these words “he was born under the Law” (Galatians 4:4) and another “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree.” (Galatians 3:13).

And that means the Jewish Law (not any other); so it is a humanly executed law which requires that Jesus should die.

And finally, look at what Paul says about how we are saved: Roman 6:23-7:4.

There is nothing here about Jesus dying on account of an unwritten law; but everything points to the legal requirements of Mose’s law.

Also, I’d point something else out – if a man dies for his own sin (Theif on the cross) – has he not “paid” for his own sin? Are those not his words “we are only paying for what we have done”?

Wouldn’t it only be right in the case of a vengeful person who has a serious lust for blood (like St. Maximilian Kolbe who died in the place of the man he saved from the wrathful Nazi commandant)? This is not the image of the Christian God.

But Maximillian Kolbe is an icon of God; He is a figure of Jesus Christ.
Even more so in that he is a priest.
But in the hideousness of the Nazi Justice of punishing all of those suspected of guilt in letting a man “escape” (Who really died!!!) – there can be no figure of the Father; Certainly, the Nazi’s never loved Maximillian in the first place…

But yet there is such a thing as divine justice and it must be appeased.

Justice means a right relationship; it doesn’t mean retaliation; so – where do you get this idea that divine Justice must be appeased – I mean, what are it’s scriptural roots? or what is your experience with Law that leads you to believe it is necessary?

By this same token, nor is Jesus merely dying on the Cross simply interceding for us

Yes; His action on the cross is to donate part of his body so that we may have one; That’s why Adam died (entered a deep sleep) and his side was opened to bring forth a wife (Eve.) Upon the Cross, Jesus’ side was opened and the substances of life came forth – blood and water.

Blood is not found in all creatures that are alive; but – BUT: blood does carry life TO creatures where it is found; or more clearly, Blood carries the air – which is the Sprit (pneuma) that all creatures need.

Atonement is not completed at the slaying, but the blood containing life must be sprinkled on the one to whom the sin is being remitted. You do seem to recognize the point I’m making – so don’t take it as contradicting you.

The Catholic understanding is this: Jesus’ Blood is a treasure. … He became the perfect fulfillment of all the Levitical sacrifices, … fulfilling them forever. Blood is life, .and Jesus wanted to give us His life, and life in full. Becoming sin, or a sin offering, for us on the Cross, and dying, this means that sin is dead forever as well.

Yes to the first 90% – but not the last sentence: Sin is an absence, blood is the return of life – sin is dead is an oxymoron or a tautology… What we have is access to an inexhaustible wellspring of life; for as long as we receive it, we can not be emptied again.

This is also why, in likeness to the blood going back to a lung, that we offer ourselves in the mass in Union with Jesus Christ. The ALTAR sanctifies the blood in likeness to a lung removing CO2 and adding O2.

Note: The sacrifice of the mass, even without confession, is ordered to the forgiveness of venial sins. We Grow by it’s reception, it is the food to prevent starvation.

He lives forevermore into eternity with the flesh He used to save us. In Baptism, we enter into that eternal life Covenant, the New Covenant, and in the Eucharist He gives Himself, life eternal, to our souls fully, or to the measure that we are disposed to receive Him.

YES.

Your section on John Calvin’s limited atonement is difficult; but I don’t have the space to treat it adequately.

I don’t think it fully true to say “Jesus died for those who weren’t saved.” (The whole world, inclusive of the damned.)

St.John’s statement doesn’t entirely escape that point – for when John says “our sins only, but”… he may be distinguishing between personal sin, and external sins imputed to us by association; or there are many other possibilities for worldly induced sin that is not “ours”; For there is more than one covenant – and those of the past (Abraham) were not part of the Church, either. There is even more I can say – but it’s too much…

Regarding the blood in the Garden; I simply don’t know. I do know that after Judas’ betrayal we hear nothing more of it. The bleeding evidently stopped during Jesus’ arraignment and trial; The significance of the bleeding, then, is contextual and a very careful reading and reflection will be required to gain any insight.

There is much I would like to probe on that subject as well … so much thought, so small the answers…

 

[brb3]

More than any other theme, Jesus taught the presence and availability of the Reign or “Kingdom” of God. All scholars seem to agree on this. He dared to say that you can live this full reality right now. Now that’s so extraordinary and counter intuitive, that most organized religion pushed the kingdom into the future and made it co-terminus with “heaven.” That is exactly what he is not saying! He is always saying it is indeed now, although not fully now (Luke 17:21, Matthew 4:17). Our only assurance for later is that we have begun to touch and taste it now. This is the peace and serenity of the saints, even under trial.

The word for living in this way, living in the in-between with trust and surrender, is called faith. Forget for the moment about believing in the Immaculate Conception, the role of the Papacy, any Atonement theory, or Biblical inerrancy. Those might be fine, but they’re not what Jesus is talking about.

Jesus is talking about the grace and the freedom to live God’s dream for the world now—while not rejecting the wounded world as it is. That’s a tension that is not easily resolved. It is the lovely, intimate, and spacious place that Jesus invites Thomas into when he tells Thomas to physically “touch” him in the very place of the wounds (John 20:27)

Wow …so true !!! Christ wanted us to share in his glory (his agape love) IN THIS WORLD …not just later, some pie-in-sky, by & by understanding. When we read his final long prayer to the Father, about their ONENESS, and how we Christians are AT THE TABLE, at this very time, able to receive the EUCHARIST, and sharing in THAT ONENESS with The Father, …Christ making it all possible for us via the Holy Spirit counselor, thus enabling us to exist ’ IN CHRISTOS’…and we say at Mass, “in the unity of the HS” , we indeed realize that Christ spoke truly when teaching, THE KINGDOM HAS COME UPON YOU…

John’s Gospel Chap. 14-17, makes this Kingdom case of yours beyond dispute. Christ was sharing with the Apostles, before leaving them, the quenticential, highest truths on a person’s connections to/with the Godhead.

 

[brb3]

Unless God infuse the knowledge, I don’t have any way to figure it all out.

Very good point; but it it more concisely stated by saying: the Law of God is inscribed in our hearts; and St. Paul talks about even the Gentiles being a law unto themselves. Rom 2:14-16

The Subject at hand is why the Son had to die, and I would focus your attention on these words “he was born under the Law” (Galatians 4:4) and another “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree.” (Galatians 3:13).

And that means the Jewish Law (not any other); so it is a humanly executed law which requires that Jesus should die.

And finally, look at what Paul says about how we are saved: Roman 6:23-7:4.

There is nothing here about Jesus dying on account of an unwritten law; but everything points to the legal requirements of Mose’s law.

Also, I’d point something else out – if a man dies for his own sin (Theif on the cross) – has he not “paid” for his own sin? Are those not his words “we are only paying for what we have done”?

But Maximillian Kolbe is an icon of God; He is a figure of Jesus Christ.
Even more so in that he is a priest.
But in the hideousness of the Nazi Justice of punishing all of those suspected of guilt in letting a man “escape” (Who really died!!!) – there can be no figure of the Father; Certainly, the Nazi’s never loved Maximillian in the first place…

Justice means a right relationship; it doesn’t mean retaliation; so – where do you get this idea that divine Justice must be appeased – I mean, what are it’s scriptural roots? or what is your experience with Law that leads you to believe it is necessary?

Yes; His action on the cross is to donate part of his body so that we may have one; That’s why Adam died (entered a deep sleep) and his side was opened to bring forth a wife (Eve.) Upon the Cross, Jesus’ side was opened and the substances of life came forth – blood and water.

Blood is not found in all creatures that are alive; but – BUT: blood does carry life TO creatures where it is found; or more clearly, Blood carries the air – which is the Sprit (pneuma) that all creatures need.

Atonement is not completed at the slaying, but the blood containing life must be sprinkled on the one to whom the sin is being remitted. You do seem to recognize the point I’m making – so don’t take it as contradicting you.

Yes to the first 90% – but not the last sentence: Sin is an absence, blood is the return of life – sin is dead is an oxymoron or a tautology… What we have is access to an inexhaustible wellspring of life; for as long as we receive it, we can not be emptied again.

This is also why, in likeness to the blood going back to a lung, that we offer ourselves in the mass in Union with Jesus Christ. The ALTAR sanctifies the blood in likeness to a lung removing CO2 and adding O2.

Note: The sacrifice of the mass, even without confession, is ordered to the forgiveness of venial sins. We Grow by it’s reception, it is the food to prevent starvation.

YES.

Your section on John Calvin’s limited atonement is difficult; but I don’t have the space to treat it adequately.

I don’t think it fully true to say “Jesus died for those who weren’t saved.” (The whole world, inclusive of the damned.)

St.John’s statement doesn’t entirely escape that point – for when John says “our sins only, but”… he may be distinguishing between personal sin, and external sins imputed to us by association; or there are many other possibilities for worldly induced sin that is not “ours”; For there is more than one covenant – and those of the past (Abraham) were not part of the Church, either. There is even more I can say – but it’s too much…

Regarding the blood in the Garden; I simply don’t know. I do know that after Judas’ betrayal we hear nothing more of it. The bleeding evidently stopped during Jesus’ arraignment and trial; The significance of the bleeding, then, is contextual and a very careful reading and reflection will be required to gain any insight.

There is much I would like to probe on that subject as well … so much thought, so small the answers…

A long post, but very thoughtful. I particularly liked your ideas regarding Christ’s shed blood and the EUCHARIST. You suggest it brings growth, oxygen, nutritional benefits to us. Christ’s blood & body, the food/elixir of immortality to us ?

 

[Vinny213]

So it is Catholic teaching that Christ paid the debt for all our sins, both temporal and eternal? What do people think about the Aquinas quote, can a good Catholic agree with it? Protestants say that the catholic Jesus did not atone and or pay the debt for any sins but only made salvation possible.

 

[Vinny213]

Also, I can see why with Penal Substitution thus ends the need for all Sacraments: if in the Calvinist view, all sins of the elect are effectively punished forever, where is the need for Confession? Indulgences? Where is Purgatory? What is the point of the Eucharist, if Jesus has already given everything He had to give? (Note: not that in the Catholic view Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was insufficient, as though the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass completes what was missing, but rather the Mass makes present the One and Completed Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The mystery of the Cross and the mystery of the Eucharist are one and the same.) Yet now I can see that with the Catholic view, all of these things make perfect sense. Jesus forgave us our sins and continues to. When we sin, we hurt the life of God in us. In Penal Substitution, there is no more satisfaction for sin to be done. But in the Catholic view, we do the satisfaction for our own sins which we commit after Baptism and the sins of others when we learn to love and make sacrifices for others; but these sacrifices are only effective insomuch as they are united to the perfect Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Again, the Blood of Christ is a Treasure, and we must tap into that Treasure and apply it to ourselves and to others. So it is not a “works” salvation system as Protestants say but one of works united to Christ in His perfect love. Christ’s Body is the New Temple of Sacrifice in the Heavenly Jerusalem (cf. CCC 593), but not a dead body, like in Calvinism; it is a living Body, of which we are the members, and whose life-giving force we tap into through the Sacraments.

We can only satisfy the debt of temporal punsihemnt after baptism. But Christ paid and statisfied the debt for eternal punishment which cannot be expiated by mere man.

 

[brb3]

So it is Catholic teaching that Christ paid the debt for all our sins, both temporal and eternal? What do people think about the Aquinas quote, can a good Catholic agree with it? Protestants say that the catholic Jesus did not atone and or pay the debt for any sins but only made salvation possible.

We wouldn’t agree with them. Don’t you feel Protestants have misunderstood Catholicism’s true belief ?

 

[brb3]

Also, I can see why with Penal Substitution thus ends the need for all Sacraments: if in the Calvinist view, all sins of the elect are effectively punished forever, where is the need for Confession? Indulgences? Where is Purgatory? What is the point of the Eucharist, if Jesus has already given everything He had to give? (Note: not that in the Catholic view Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was insufficient, as though the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass completes what was missing, but rather the Mass makes present the One and Completed Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The mystery of the Cross and the mystery of the Eucharist are one and the same.) Yet now I can see that with the Catholic view, all of these things make perfect sense. Jesus forgave us our sins and continues to. When we sin, we hurt the life of God in us. In Penal Substitution, there is no more satisfaction for sin to be done. But in the Catholic view, we do the satisfaction for our own sins which we commit after Baptism and the sins of others when we learn to love and make sacrifices for others; but these sacrifices are only effective insomuch as they are united to the perfect Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Again, the Blood of Christ is a Treasure, and we must tap into that Treasure and apply it to ourselves and to others. So it is not a “works” salvation system as Protestants say but one of works united to Christ in His perfect love. Christ’s Body is the New Temple of Sacrifice in the Heavenly Jerusalem (cf. CCC 593), but not a dead body, like in Calvinism; it is a living Body, of which we are the members, and whose life-giving force we tap into through the Sacraments.

We can only satisfy the debt of temporal punsihemnt after baptism. But Christ paid and statisfied the debt for eternal punishment which cannot be expiated by mere man.

A pretty good summation ! I read quickly tho & may of missed a point or two. Others here will surely critique your summation & comment.

 

[Vinny213]

How would you say they are misrepresenting catholic beliefs. So far no one has told me how exactly Jesus paid the debt for our sins according to Catholic Belief. How does it differ exactly from Penal substitution? What is the alternative theory of redemption that the Catholic Church put out?

 

[Vinny213]

“He paid no ‘debt’ to God as though he was punished as a sinner. He died as a sin offering but was not someone who was charged with our sins. Instead, He was indeed perfect, but as a sin offering, made to cleanse us from all sin. What he accomplished on the cross was to redeem us from all iniquity, and to cleanse us (Tit. 2:11-14) so our works could be truly pleasing. His work on the cross and resurrection was finished, but the application of the benefits of that must be applied to us now. Catholics do not say that we surpass the perfect work of Christ, but believe what he said, when he said:”

I found the above qoute from a catholic apologetic website. Is the above qoute condeming penal substitution?

 

[brb3]

Vinny213 …

So much in scripture regarding sin and need to REPENT/CONFESS, is being addressed to those who are Christian already. Thus, it is clear that many Protestants have a badly mistaken idea of how POST-BAPTISMAL SINS are to be dealt with. And, there is an abundance of scripture, addressed to those Christians about their grave error & potential to forfeit Salvation status, if they fail to repent & recover back INTO CHRISTOS

 

[Huiou_Theou]

A long post, but very thoughtful. I particularly liked your ideas regarding Christ’s shed blood and the EUCHARIST. You suggest it brings growth, oxygen, nutritional benefits to us. Christ’s blood & body, the food/elixir of immortality to us ?

It’s strange, but yes; all of those things are possible AND in more way than one – although, the word Spirit means breath; so when I said Oxygen, I was referring to the metaphor that scripture uses between the physical air and the immaterial Spirit; in this case, it’s the Holy Spirit the “giver” of Life whom is meant, primarily.

But, yes – it’s true even at a physical level;
When Jesus says my flesh is true food, indeed – and my blood is true drink; he means it in every sense.

A body is merely matter which the spirit of a man forms; It’s not the flesh, nor even the DNA alone, which makes a person who they are – but rather, it’s the totality, wholistic, form of the body (the soul) which makes it what it is. In scientific terms, we would need to begin looking outside the body’s genetic code for some of what makes us human – and at present, the very first glimmers of that knowledge are called epigenetics.

What I am getting at, though, is understood historically as “spirit” – Spirit is the immaterial principle of life in human beings which also forms/informs the body. It is the shape(er) of the body.

All that the spirit shapes is human – and so, although not as profoundly obedient to the spirit as much of the rest of the body – even the bacteria in one’s gut – are part of a man’s body, and their location is determined by the shaping power of the body. etc.

With these points in mind (wholistic points), you can see that the spirit is what transforms external substances into one’s body. When you eat something, chew it, etc. a natural process (over time) transforms it ever more perfectly into one’s flesh.

Likewise, the spirit can trim the body – taking what is body, and getting rid of it in various ways; shed skin, hair, exhaling breath, etc.

The transformation of substance into body is a natural power; The transformation of bread into Jesus’ body could naturally have been done by him eating it, and digesting it, etc. But at the Eucharistic table, he chose a method of transformation which is supernatural. The form or shape of the Eucharist is no longer on account of the general power of God which holds all things in being, but rather his personal Spirit holds it in existence (as if he already had eaten and digested it) as a person from the moment of consecration onward.

Just so, the church teaches that he is present in a special way in the Eucharist for as long as the appearances (shape) of bread and wine remain. When Jesus held up the bread at the last supper and said “this IS my body” then the transformation had happened.

While these things remain, and even after we receive them, he nourishes us as his own body through his own spirit; and our spirit receives his Spirit and spiritual life. In Catechism, I recall that somewhere an estimate was given that he is with us after we have eaten the Eucharist, for about 15 minutes. (Of course, that varies…)

When that time has ended, most Catholics don’t think about what happens – but obviously the Eucharistic matter is released to us in its natural form, having already served it’s supernatural purpose – eg: the “atoms” etc. – and then then that too becomes food for us, plain old natural food. Hence, the Eucharist is food in every sense of the word – physical and spiritual.

It is very much the “elixer” of life; and I think that some of the early church fathers spoke of it in that way.

Today someone would probably say “It’s like SEX! but ONLY BETTER.”.
A very flamboyant kind of statement – but very true.

The church, being Jesus’ bride, is made his body through a union of bodies – but without sexual intercourse; ( Thankfully, its a Eucharistic intercourse: No polyGAMY nor adultery involved…)

OTOH: Original sin, (in a limited way) — is an STD; propagated by generation;

So God simply made “another” way that life can be transmitted, other than sexual intercourse…

anyhow, I digress…