Catholic view of Atonemnt?

[brb3]

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…

Wow …u took this beyond my expectations

U should start a thread on this topic, so as to give this topic adequate discussion…as to exactly what the Eucharist provides a Catholic .

I once claimed here on CAF that we receive the literal body/blood of the Saviour & the Spirit of Christ ( his TRUE PRESENCE ). But, some informed Catholic elders told me its only his Spiritual presence…and claimed Council Trent backed them up.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Aquinas is a “good Catholic”!

Jesus’ sacrifice is more than sufficient to pay for all.

Protestants say that the catholic Jesus did not atone and or pay the debt for any sins but only made salvation possible.

Yeah, I don’t know how they come up with such things. The New Testament is a Catholic document, written by, for, and about Catholics. How can anyone read it and not realize that Jesus atoned for our sins, and paid our debt?

 

[guanophore]

So far no one has told me how exactly Jesus paid the debt for our sins according to Catholic Belief.

This is because we really don’t know. It is one of the mysteries of our faith.

How does it differ exactly from Penal substitution?

The penal substitution model requires that Jesus paid the debt we owe by suffering an eternity in hell, which we all agree, He did not!

It also requires a slaughtering of the doctrine of the Trinity.

What is the alternative theory of redemption that the Catholic Church put out?

We don’t have an “alternative theory of redemption”. We have what was taught to the apostles by Jesus, and handed down once for all to the Church. It is the revelation of God, and not a “theory” of man, such as the penal substitutionary theory is. We espouse what has been handed down to us.
whoknows?:

"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?

Yes. The penal substitution theory requires that Jesus suffered our penalty in our place. It purports that the Father “poured out His wrath” on Christ for our sins, and turned HIs back on Jesus.

Vinny, please use the quote button at the bottom of the post, or take the tutorial on using quotes so you will include a link back to the post to which you are responding.

 

[brb3]

This is because we really don’t know. It is one of the mysteries of our faith.

The penal substitution model requires that Jesus paid the debt we owe by suffering an eternity in hell, which we all agree, He did not!

It also requires a slaughtering of the doctrine of the Trinity.

We don’t have an “alternative theory of redemption”. We have what was taught to the apostles by Jesus, and handed down once for all to the Church. It is the revelation of God, and not a “theory” of man, such as the penal substitutionary theory is. We espouse what has been handed down to us.

Yes. The penal substitution theory requires that Jesus suffered our penalty in our place. It purports that the Father “poured out His wrath” on Christ for our sins, and turned HIs back on Jesus.

Vinny, please use the quote button at the bottom of the post, or take the tutorial on using quotes so you will include a link back to the post to which you are responding.

Guanophore…

I never caught that Penal Sub., REQUIRED Christ to spend ETERNITY in Hell. Just that one day of suffering, a short death in flesh/tomb, but with His spirit BRIEFLY visiting Hell to PREACH to the OT dead, then His Resurrection to eternal Glory. Also, that Christ’s pain was never a punishment from the Father, no Wrath from him, but, simply a Penance- debt to be pain by US to God, which we couldn’t, and Christ WILLINGLY paid for all sinners, which the Father approved and had total admiration/love for His Son …never Wrath. And, the Father turned away briefly, only because it was too horrific to watch his own Son suffer.
At least that the way Penal-Sub was explained to us Southern Baptists.

 

[Vinny213]

Aquinas is a “good Catholic”!

Jesus’ sacrifice is more than sufficient to pay for all.

Yeah, I don’t know how they come up with such things. The New Testament is a Catholic document, written by, for, and about Catholics. How can anyone read it and not realize that Jesus atoned for our sins, and paid our debt?

But then why must we expiate the guilt due to our temporal punishment after baptism? Did Jesus only fully atone for sins commited before baptism and the ones after must be atoned by us?

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore..

I never caught that Penal Sub., REQUIRED Christ to spend ETERNITY in Hell. Just that one day of suffering, a short death in flesh/tomb, but with His spirit BRIEFLY visiting Hell to PREACH to the OT dead, then His Resurrection to eternal Glory.

Creating some artificial amount of time in hell is one way of forcing the principle to make it fit. But I think we would all be in agreement that the penalty of sin is death (eternal separation) so no matter whether you put an artificial length of time such as an hour or a day, the result is the same - he does not really substitute for our penalty. If someone could really just pay for a mortal sin by a short stint in hell, a lot more people would consider it well worth the price. I work with a lot of felons, and I can bear personal witness.

 And, the Father turned away briefly, only because it was too horrific to watch his own Son suffer.

At least that the way Penal-Sub was explained to us Southern Baptists.

And this is the main rub, because of course, if God wanted to pay our penalty by a brief separation He could do so, but this concept defies the doctrine of the Trinity handed down to us from the Apostles.

267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

But then why must we expiate the guilt due to our temporal punishment after baptism? Did Jesus only fully atone for sins commited before baptism and the ones after must be atoned by us?

No, Jesus atoned for all of our sins, and the punishment of our sins, eternal and temporal. There is no way for humanity to atone for the eternal consequences of any of his sins, other than separation from God for eternity.

2 Thess 1:9
9 These (sinners) will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

AT times He allows us to suffer the temporal consequences of our sins, because it is necessary for the perfection of our souls, such as the thief on the cross.

There is not “must be atoned by us” anywhere. Sins have consequences, and it is incumbent upon us to make reparation for our sins. However we are able to make reparation for the sins of others through penances, and all of us, both in the Church suffering and the Church militant, can have the temporary consequences of our sins set aside. This is what an indulgence does.

Sometimes we are not required to pay the temporal consequences of our sins. This can happen because Jesus already paid the price for them. Sometimes we join with Him in suffering these, other times we don’t.

But then why must we expiate the guilt due to our temporal punishment after baptism? Did Jesus only fully atone for sins commited before baptism and the ones after must be atoned by us?

Sometimes the participation in the consequences of our sins is necessary for out purification.

The ONLY way we can participate in our sanctification is BECAUSE Jesus fully atoned for our sins. The Apostle explains this:

Colossians 1:24
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh and I complete what is lacking in Christ’s affliction for the sake of his body, that is, the church”

He is suffering from the sake of others, and is able to participate in teh suffering of Christ to beneift the Church.

 

[tskrobacz]

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.

Yes, my sense is the atonement mentality or theology puts us on guard for what “not to do” that might be sinful instead of “what to do” in the service of love.

 

[Vinny213]

So Christ paid the debt for both temporal and eternal punishment before baptism and eternal punishment after baptism.

 

[brb3]

So Christ paid the debt for both temporal and eternal punishment before baptism and eternal punishment after baptism.

Yes, …provided we stay in the Church, where resides the Sacraments…that help us persevere, and provides us the proper venue for confession/penance of any post-baptismal mortal sins …and the Eucharist, for forgiveness of Venial sins.

 

[JEJL]

There is not “must be atoned by us” anywhere. … However we are able to make reparation for the sins of others through penances, and all of us, both in the Church suffering and the Church militant, can have the temporary consequences of our sins set aside. This is what an indulgence does.

Thank you for all your thorough explanations. I suppose much of it still is very much a mystery. However, there is one thing I don’t understand with the above statement.

In the writings of the saints, their texts are littered with the words “expiate”, “atone”, etc., clearly in the context of their own sufferings as being offered as a sacrifice for their sins and the sins of the world. I don’t have the time to look up any right now, so you’ll just have to take my word on it. If this is merely another question of semantics, I don’t know. But what I understood was (just as our Lord said to St. Catherine of Sienna), these personal atonements are only effective inasmuch as they are united with Jesus’ One Sacrifice on the Cross, the best way to unite to this being in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

(I am assuming that the writings of the saints can be trusted as reflective of true Catholic thought throughout the ages, though by no means authoritative sources; nevertheless, they are the “truest” Catholics in the history of the Church. More than “dry” doctrine (doctrine is not dry, it is beautiful and full of life), theirs comes from true experience of God.)

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?

When God is punishing sinners in the Old Testament, this is divine justice. When God will come back at the End of Time and unrepentant sinners will be thrown with the fallen angels into the lake of fire, this will be divine justice. (Eph. 2:3; Heb. 9:22). Jesus told St. Faustyna, “Tell sinners that no one shall escape My hand; if they run away from My Merciful Heart, they will fall into My Just Hands” (cf. chastitysf.com/q_mercy.htm). Jesus’ death and resurrection averts God’s wrath from us… but not because Jesus took the wrath of God on Himself, but because He annihilated sin when He died as a sin offering. The believer who through faith unites to Him, now risen forever, in the New Covenant through Baptism and the Sacraments is redeemed, then is sanctified throughout his lifetime.
Yet God is not “putting His justice aside” in order to be merciful to us; 1 John 1:9 says it is from His very justice that He is forgiving us. Otherwise, He would be unjust.

This is my current understanding, and I sincerely don’t believe PS to be true; if there is any semblance to it, it is unintentional. As you rightly say, the New Testament is a Catholic document; I must do it justice as well and it is very clear that the death of Christ is God’s justice (Ps 84:11: Justice and peace embrace; Catholic liturgy has often used this Psalm to describe Jesus’ atonement on the Cross). Hm, in this sense you are right then, because “justice” here does not mean “pouring out wrath” (even though in other instances, God clearly is acting on His anger—divine anger, which is always just, not capricious or out of control like human anger), but a right relationship.
Jesus paid our debt. But like was rightly said, this means His blood acted as “payment” for our sins, not as an innocent dying in our place to take wrath upon Himself. That would only make sense if God were like the Nazi Commandant who has a lust for blood and wants to see someone suffer, who cares who it is. We have already touched upon this. God is not like that. His wrath is perfect and good: meaning that it hates evil. But Jesus didn’t take this upon Himself, because that would mean God the Father hated Jesus, which is impossible.

The reason why there can still be temporal punishment to sin is for all the reasons the other members of this thread have accurately said, I believe you and guanophore and brb3. We are “new creature” as St Paul says, and so when we sin we “grieve the Holy Spirit” and it puts a stain on our soul. (I am merely talking about the spiritual effects; the human effects can be plain to everyone, since if you steal money you obviously have to pay it back, even if the victim has forgiven you—that is, refuses to press charges.) The sin itself, God forgives when we go to Confession or make sincere acts of contrition for venial sins. But the “stain” on our soul remains, and so to repair it we must do penance. Penance is healing, it’s like the medicine the doctor gives you when you go for a checkup; the stain of sin is the malady. Penance is only effective insomuch as it “taps” into the “life-force” as we have said, that is the Blood of Christ, made perfectly and readily available to us by His atoning death on the Cross. This is why for example if you say a Rosary or do an act of mercy or whatever the priest gives you for a Penance, you are applying that Blood of Christ as a balm on your wounded soul for the sin you have committed. It is not forgiveness; God already forgave you when you repented (and the reason you asked for forgiveness is because the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, was already at work in you; the Goodness of God draws us to Him). The Penance is the medicine. This is why indulgences do not “forgive” sin either; they deal with temporal punishment in the same way.

Jesus’ death on the Cross covers over all sin in the sense that it is an infinite fount of mercy readily available for all of time to everyone; for this reason Universal, not Limited, Atonement is true.

I hope this is a good understanding…

 

[JEJL]

Also, someone asked for clarification about what was the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement. While I am not an authoritative source, I did learn a little bit about Calvinism when I was a non-denominational Christian.

Limited Atonement assumes the Penal Substitution view; in this view Jesus bore all the punishment of the sins of men, but only of the elect, i.e. those who would inherit eternal life in the end. Since all sins were punished, but not all men are saved, the conclusion Calvin came to must be that the sacrifice on the Cross was not for all men, but only the elect.

Calvinism leans heavily on predestination. In this way, in fact, the believer who comes to saving faith in the first place is first called by God, without the believer realizing it at first. Salvation, in this sense, is right described as not a mere human initiative, just like Catholics believe. However, Calvinism goes further. God calls each person, and through His Providence, all these elect will at some point in their life, even if it is at the last moment, come to believe in Christ and be saved, since He died for them. This is perfect and there is no exception to this rule, since it is from God.

While Catholicism admits there is a hidden reality of predestination, it is not for us to know who the elect are. Catholic theology seems to speak little of this, but I believe it is there as well. Protestants don’t purport to know who the elect are either, but they do say there can be signs in the believer’s life showing that they are among the predestinate.
Predestination should not be completely tossed aside, since if you read the writings of the very early Church it is very present. I just read, for example, the other day, the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Of course, I believe St. Polycarp was a Catholic Christian and believed the same things the Catholic Church does today, though certainly in a less intellectually-developed way and expressed differently (normal, since it has been nearly 2000 years). For Catholics, anyway, the assurance of salvation should come from what St John says in his first letter—that they believe in Jesus Christ (i.e., they believe everything the Church teaches, “He who listens to you listens to Me, etc.”) and that they love their brethren, i.e., that they practice charity, good works. The Sacrament of Confession and Penance also gives pretty good assurance of salvation provided the believer has not willingly hidden grave sins.

 

[JEJL]

Calvinism hinges on five points: TULIP. Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.

All these work around complete dependence on Predestination. Total depravity exaggerates the effects of original sin and states that man is completely evil, and only God’s pervenient grace keeps man from tearing himself apart and eating his own children. Catholicism says that man is fundamentally good, but wounded (severely) by original sin. For this reason he distances himself from and refuses the grace of God, unless the Holy Spirit draws him to God and he receives the gift of faith. Yet there is a cooperation with man’s free will that is emphasized much more than in Calvinism.
Unconditional election says that God chooses who He will for eternal life (not everyone), regardless of who they are or what they’ve done. Those whom He chooses will repent and believe, at one point or another, and be healed of their total depravity by faith and receiving thus the effects of Jesus’ Limited Atonement sacrifice. I also have problems with this doctrine since I believe that God does see ahead each and every one of our lives, knowing what sins we will commit before we commit them; but He wants all men to be saved and offers each person salvation, as the Catholic Church teaches; each individual receives it or refuses, and in the end He knows each person and is a just judge.

Irresistible grace says that once God chooses to save a person he or she cannot resist His grace. St. Augustine did teach that man is only truly “free” when he loves God and does what He commands, ironically. Anything else is, as Jesus said, slavery to sin. Yet I don’t believe God imposes Himself so radically… I think He gives us free choice… St. Augustine is right: true freedom is to love God and do His will. Again, this Calvinist doctrine depends on Total Depravity: if man is totally depraved, then He is utterly incapable of choosing good, including the ultimate Good, God. Therefore grace in Calvinism must be irresistible, because humanity is utterly helpless.

Finally, Perseverance of the saints ties in with all the other doctrines in that the saints, or the elect, will by the same grace of God, persevere in faith (and good works, but as a fruit of faith—accepting as true Luther’s doctrine of “salvation by faith alone”) until the end of their lives and enter paradise. So again, it is Predestination. The Catholic doctrine has taught of final perseverance, but the burden rests partly on us, at least to receive the Sacraments for our whole life to give us the strength to persevere unto the end, so again placing more emphasis on free will (though not, as Protestants have said, reducing our salvation to mere “good works”—that would be heretical indeed. We need the grace of God).

I don’t believe Calvinism is true. I want to be closer and closer to the true (and historical) Catholic teaching.

 

[guanophore]

So Christ paid the debt for both temporal and eternal punishment before baptism and eternal punishment after baptism.

No, Vinny. Jesus paid ALL the debt. At times He enables us to participate in HIs sufferings, so that our souls may be purified for His purpose.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for all your thorough explanations. I suppose much of it still is very much a mystery. However, there is one thing I don't understand with the above statement.

In the writings of the saints, their texts are littered with the words “expiate”, “atone”, etc., clearly in the context of their own sufferings as being offered as a sacrifice for their sins and the sins of the world. I don’t have the time to look up any right now, so you’ll just have to take my word on it. If this is merely another question of semantics, I don’t know. But what I understood was (just as our Lord said to St. Catherine of Sienna), these personal atonements are only effective inasmuch as they are united with Jesus’ One Sacrifice on the Cross, the best way to unite to this being in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Yes. These terms present difficulties for our separated brethren, but what you say is accurate. Jesus enables us to participate in His sufferings, and when we do so, our suffering can help to heal the wounds that have been caused in our selves, and in others, by sins.

(I am assuming that the writings of the saints can be trusted as reflective of true Catholic thought throughout the ages, though by no means authoritative sources; nevertheless, they are the “truest” Catholics in the history of the Church.

I think that, especially for those who are Doctors of the Church, their writings should most certainly be considered authoritative.

But Jesus didn’t take this upon Himself, because that would mean God the Father hated Jesus, which is impossible.

This is the central objection to the PS idea. It is a violation of the doctrine of compenetrating persons in the Trinity, called circumsession in Latin, and the Divine perichoresis in Gk. Those who invented the Penal Substitution model probably never heard of this doctrine.

Jesus’ death on the Cross covers over all sin in the sense that it is an infinite fount of mercy readily available for all of time to everyone; for this reason Universal, not Limited, Atonement is true.

I hope this is a good understanding…

I just listened to the Mass readings for today before I came home and read this.

Titus 2:11-14

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all, 12 training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 14 He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Christ’s sacrifice brings salvation to all, but we know that not all will renounce impiety and worldly passions in order to take advantage of it.

Part of our redemption from iniqity, and our purification, is participating in Christ’s sufferings for our sins.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In the writings of the saints, their texts are littered with the words “expiate”, “atone”, etc., clearly in the context of their own sufferings as being offered as a sacrifice for their sins and the sins of the world.

Yes, and it’s true; Jesus said “I am the Vine, and You are the branches”; and St. Paul, I think, speaks of it as grafted in olive branches on a tree.
But, the purpose of tree branches is to produce food – for the tree, as well as for those who eat from the tree.

As blood is life in a person, sap is life in a tree. Jesus’ analogies point us to something about our role in the life of the tree (or body of Christ.); What we produce, is placed in the sap (or blood), and distributed to the rest of the body.

When part of a vine or tree is damaged; the sap from the immediately joining parts provide the materials for repair – and the vine itself at the root – provides the water and minerals; as Jesus said – you can do nothing without me.

(just as our Lord said to St. Catherine of Sienna), these personal atonements are only effective inasmuch as they are united with Jesus’ One Sacrifice on the Cross, the best way to unite to this being in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Bingo – without the vine you can do nothing. It must be united with his one sacrifice. We must, offer ourselves, as a living sacrifice – a sacrifice of thanking(GK:charis) well(GK:eu) (eu-charist). Jesus eucharisted many times during his life in the scriptures; The last supper being the summit of such acts.

Charis means two things; a gift and a thanking. It is a reciprocal relationship.
St Paul uses it during his greetings and during his conclusions; both to say “I thank god for you”, and “I wish to give you spiritual gifts.”; Often in the old testament, the saying between close friends will be found “If I have found Grace in your eyes… then xxx”; Thus, when the angel Gabriel says to Mary, Ke-CHARIS-tomene; he is speaking not only of her title, but her perfect relationship to God. The absolute epitome of “Justice”.

(I am assuming that the writings of the saints can be trusted as reflective of true Catholic thought throughout the ages, though by no means authoritative sources;

of course, but watch out – many of these writings are foreign; and the translators of them into English often inject their imperfect understanding. The saints do not always have a very developed vocabulary, either – but it is the consensus of the saints that you should diligently look for;

I think you are doing well.
There is more to say, but it will be in another post.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, and it’s true; Jesus said “I am the Vine, and You are the branches”; and St. Paul, I think, speaks of it as grafted in olive branches on a tree.
But, the purpose of tree branches is to produce food – for the tree, as well as for those who eat from the tree.

As blood is life in a person, sap is life in a tree. Jesus’ analogies point us to something about our role in the life of the tree (or body of Christ.); What we produce, is placed in the sap (or blood), and distributed to the rest of the body.

When part of a vine or tree is damaged; the sap from the immediately joining parts provide the materials for repair – and the vine itself at the root – provides the water and minerals; as Jesus said – you can do nothing without me.

Bingo – without the vine you can do nothing. It must be united with his one sacrifice. We must, offer ourselves, as a living sacrifice – a sacrifice of thanking(GK:charis) well(GK:eu) (eu-charist). Jesus eucharisted many times during his life in the scriptures; The last supper being the summit of such acts.

Charis means two things; a gift and a thanking. It is a reciprocal relationship.
St Paul uses it during his greetings and during his conclusions; both to say “I thank god for you”, and “I wish to give you spiritual gifts.”; Often in the old testament, the saying between close friends will be found “If I have found Grace in your eyes… then xxx”; Thus, when the angel Gabriel says to Mary, Ke-CHARIS-tomene; he is speaking not only of her title, but her perfect relationship to God. The absolute epitome of “Justice”.

of course, but watch out – many of these writings are foreign; and the translators of them into English often inject their imperfect understanding. The saints do not always have a very developed vocabulary, either – but it is the consensus of the saints that you should diligently look for;

I think you are doing well.
There is more to say, but it will be in another post.

Great Post!

 

[JEJL]

Thank you sincerely for all your help and allowing me to intrude in your postings, and reading my concerns with care.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

When God is punishing sinners in the Old Testament, this is divine justice. When … unrepentant sinners will be thrown with the fallen angels into the lake of fire, this will be divine justice.

The virtue of Justice; CCC 1807:

Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and the common good.

Note, there is nothing specific to punishment or wrath in the definition.
But, more importantly, Jesus as the God-Man, and our Judge – has the virtue of Justice in its fullness. His work, Justice, is to establish harmony in human relationships.

Much of the OT is divine justice as a target, and not as a present reality.
Nor do I see every sin as worthy of God’s wrath; eg: I’m not a Thomist that I should think that a sin against God is infinite, merely because God is infinite. I read things like:

Job 6:17-21; usccb.org/bible/job/7
Psalm 8:5; usccb.org/bible/ps/8:5

And I recognize that God’s forgiveness can be obtained by those who really were incapable of harming him in the first place. (There are clearer passages than I quoted…)

Hate does not have to be malicious; although that’s the English connotation of the word. Biblicly, it often means simply to drive away, or forcibly separate.
A perpetual sinner has a destructive relationship (hence un-just) with their neighbors; It is for this reason, that justice requires a separation – and hence, hell.

(Eph. 2:3; Heb. 9:22).

Although Paul is correct, those who walked according to the lusts in the flesh – are by nature children of wrath: notice that passage actually says nothing about justice. It is speaking about God’s great forbearance so sinners may repent.

Looking at-- Hebrew 9:22-- I’m seeing a very technical treatise.
He’s writing about Jewish law in particular; and doesn’t explain the basis of the law, but assumes it; (Hebrews = people under Moses’ Law; not Gentiles).
It does apply, but the questions are why and to what degree.

Jesus told St. Faustyna, “Tell sinners that no one shall escape My hand; if they run away from My Merciful Heart, they will fall into My Just Hands” (cf. chastitysf.com/q_mercy.htm).

Faustina is a wonderful mystic & saint.
The saying she has here is difficult; I am not sure if it is translational (she was polish?) or not.

Also: Faustina’s devotion promises the ability to send anyone to heaven (period). Just complete the devotion for them applying Jesus’ cross to them.

If this doesn’t make the TULIP radar go ping! nothing will.

But; It follows along St. Paul’s line of thinking when he said, (paraphr.) "for I wish that I were anathema, cut off from the Christ far-beyond my brothers…
Roman 9:3 usccb.org/bible/romans/9

People think that Anathema=curse… but biblical usage indicates trophies of war, usually golden, taken from an enemy in battle, run through a purging fire to clean them, and then hung up on the temple in Jerusalem as decoration.
ana=again/another, thema=theme; anathema=another theme. (The outer decorations.)

In St. Paul, the irony is supreme when we realize he killed Christians at first, and then played the lawyer in Roman 9:3 – only to get burned by Jesus’ saying: (Paraph). “He who loves … brother … more than me, is not worthy of me.”

Ahhh… WORTHY anathema can be cleaned up by expurgation w/ fire; but not unworthy… I sometimes wonder when St. Paul would have had to account to Jesus for what he said in Romans 9:3. But, Somehow, I’m sure he was destined to loose his head once the cross examination began. (Puns intended.)

Jesus’ death and resurrection averts God’s wrath from us… but not because Jesus took the wrath of God on Himself, but because He annihilated sin when He died as a sin offering.

I like the semantics of your later idea better – eg: that he opened up a wellspring of grace; I think of it as: The emptiness of sin can always be filled with the grace of the cross; no matter what the size of the emptiness. ( Annihilation goes to nothing… )

Yet God is not “putting His justice aside” in order to be merciful to us; 1 John 1:9 says it is from His very justice that He is forgiving us. Otherwise, He would be unjust.

I missed something there… How did you come to that conclusion based on 1John 1:9; I’m wondering if that’s a misquote?

I do see a few line later that if we do sin, we have an advocate (paraclete); and that is the only nearby sentence talking about justice (dikaion)

usccb.org/bible/1john/2
In the original Greek its:
1John 2:1 τεκνια μου ταυτα γραφω υμιν ινα μη αμαρτητε και εαν τις αμαρτη παρακλητον(Paraclete) εχομεν προς τον πατερα ιησουν χριστον δικαιον (Just).

The sentence is grammatically awkward; But I would translate it “…if we sin, we-have [a/the] Paraclete to the Father, Jesus christened just”

It’s not entirely clear how the christening is meant.
Since this is St. John, I would point you here:

See also particularly John 16:7 – 8
usccb.org/bible/john/16

The word Paraclete means the Holy Spirit; and as you can see in John 16:7-8; without Jesus taking the cross-road exodus – the Spirit would never come to us.

Spirit means life; it is breath, it is the blood carrying breath, and it is the sign Water: Faustina calls attention to two, blood and water. On Pentecost, angels under the sign of flame are driven by wind. The cross opened a fountain.

Anyway, I’m guessing too much — what was that you were saying?

 

[Vinny213]

Is it RC teaching that Christ bore the punishment, weight and guilt due to our sins? Did he take care of and atone of all different degrees of sins?