Did Jesus Have To Die?

[Lily_Bernans]

Catholic Catechism
To state that Jesus was not a sacrifice nor He did not die for our sins goes against what Jesus taught and what the Church teaches.
I remember the sisters stating that Jesus could have swept the floor. The answer is that Jesus did not have to die but He chose to. His life wasn’t taken from Him but He laid it down

That is penal substitution, which has been condemned by the Church:

patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2014/11/thoughts-against-penal-substitutionary-atonement/

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-so-many-catholics-believe-in.html

“Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.”

Penal substitution is actually a very Protestant theory of Atonement, but some Catholics latch onto it like a dog with a bone.

If Jesus died for our sins, why the continual punishment of mankind? When a debt is paid, the debtor is freed.

Jesus sacrificed his life to show humanity how to live, but to call him a sacrifice is to do him a disservice. His sacrifice continues today because humanity still has not learned how to live. Most still do not follow Jesus’ one great commandment: “Love others as I have loved you.”

 

[Lily_Bernans]

“Some Reformed Protestants have commented to me that the Catholic Church doesn’t have an official view of the Atonement and that the Catholic Church even permits the Reformed view of “Penal Substitution”. The problem with these kinds of claims is that they don’t understand what the Catholic Church means when the Church uses terms like “atonement” and “sacrifice” (and similar terms), so these Protestants end up reading foreign ideas into Catholic teaching. The fact of the matter is, the Catholic Church doesn’t have to condemn every single error that comes up in history, especially if those errors are already condemned in other forms. So while you won’t find any Church teaching that says “Penal Substitution is heresy,” you will find the Church teaching things directly contrary to what Penal Substitution espouses. Typically, the Church lays out parameters for orthodoxy, and while one is free to work within those parameters, one is not free to transgress those parameters. For this post I’ll be giving some examples of Catholic teaching that go against the concept of Penal Substitution, showing that a Catholic cannot embrace that view of the Cross and be within the parameters of orthodoxy and Catholic thought.”

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/04/does-catholic-view-of-christs-atonement.html

I’m not saying that Christ, himself, did not make a sacrifice of the highest order, just saying that he, himself, was not a sacrifice.

 

[adrift]

That is penal substitution, which has been condemned by the Church:

patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2014/11/thoughts-against-penal-substitutionary-atonement/

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-so-many-catholics-believe-in.html

“Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.”

Penal substitution is actually a very Protestant theory of Atonement, but some Catholics latch onto it like a dog with a bone.

If Jesus died for our sins, why the continual punishment of mankind? When a debt is paid, the debtor is freed.

Jesus sacrificed his life to show humanity how to live, but to call him a sacrifice is to do him a disservice. His sacrifice continues today because humanity still has not learned how to live. Most still do not follow Jesus’ one great commandment: “Love others as I have loved you.”

No dear what I am stating is what the Church teaches which is ATONEMENT

The satisfaction of a legitimate demand. In a more restricted sense it is the reparation of an offense. This occurs through a voluntary performance that outweighs the injustice done. If the performance fully counterbalances the gravity of the guilt, the atonement is adequate. And if the atonement is done by someone other than the actual offender, but in his stead, it is vicarious. Applied to Christ the Redeemer, through his suffering and death he rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of the whole human race. His atonement is fully adequate because it was performed by a divine person. In fact, it is superabundant because the positive value of Christ’s expiation is actually greater than the negative value of human sin. (Etym. Middle English at one, to set at one, to reconcile; of one mind, in accord.) - See more at: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32009#sthash.QB6GNdXD.dpuf

Neither of your links are to Church documents. You ignored the Catechism
which states

“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”

This is not my opinion but what the Catechism of the Catholic Church States. Jesus died for our sins.

 

[adrift]

I’m not saying that Christ, himself, did not make a sacrifice of the highest order, just saying that he, himself, was not a sacrifice.

That’s right it is what you are saying not what the Church teaches.

 

[adrift]

That is penal substitution, which has been condemned by the Church:

I don’t agree with penal substitution but where does the Church condemn it? Not a blog but a church document?

patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2014/11/thoughts-against-penal-substitutionary-atonement/
Did you read this? did you see the part that says Yes, Christ “bore our sins” and was killed “for our sins.” …

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-so-many-catholics-believe-in.html
This blog assumes that you know what Catholic atonement is and gives two good sources in case you don’t.

“Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.”

Penal substitution is actually a very Protestant theory of Atonement, but some Catholics latch onto it like a dog with a bone.

If Jesus died for our sins, why the continual punishment of mankind? When a debt is paid, the debtor is freed.

Jesus sacrificed his life to show humanity how to live, but to call him a sacrifice is to do him a disservice. His sacrifice continues today because humanity still has not learned how to live. Most still do not follow Jesus’ one great commandment: “Love others as I have loved you.”

Penal substitution is not the same as Catholic Atonement. Jesus dying for sin is not the same as Jesus substituting for sinners.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia

The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb “atone”, from the adverbial phrase “at one” (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make “at one”; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. “For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of Mosaic Law the Council continues:

Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2).

 

[adrift]

That is penal substitution, which has been condemned by the Church:

I don’t agree with penal substitution but where does the Church condemn it? Not a blog but a church document?

patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2014/11/thoughts-against-penal-substitutionary-atonement/
Did you read this? did you see the part that says Yes, Christ “bore our sins” and was killed “for our sins.” …

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-so-many-catholics-believe-in.html
This blog assumes that you know what Catholic atonement is and gives two good sources in case you don’t.

“Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.”

Penal substitution is actually a very Protestant theory of Atonement, but some Catholics latch onto it like a dog with a bone.

If Jesus died for our sins, why the continual punishment of mankind? When a debt is paid, the debtor is freed.

Jesus sacrificed his life to show humanity how to live, but to call him a sacrifice is to do him a disservice. His sacrifice continues today because humanity still has not learned how to live. Most still do not follow Jesus’ one great commandment: “Love others as I have loved you.”

Penal substitution is not the same as Catholic Atonement. Jesus dying for sin is not the same as Jesus substituting for sinners.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia

The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb “atone”, from the adverbial phrase “at one” (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make “at one”; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. “For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of Mosaic Law the Council continues:

Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2).

 

[adrift]

More from the Catechism

Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross

616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. the existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ’s sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."450 and the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."451

Our participation in Christ’s sacrifice

618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”.452 But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men.453 He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow (him)”,454 for "Christ also suffered for (us), leaving (us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps."455 In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.456 This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.457 Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.458
446 ⇒ Jn 13:1.
447 Cf. ⇒ Gal 2:20; ⇒ Eph 5:2, ⇒ 25.
448 ⇒ 2 Cor 5:14.
449 ⇒ Heb 5:9.
450 Council of Trent: DS 1529.
451 LH, Lent, Holy Week, Evening Prayer, Hymn Vexilla Regis.
452 1 Tim 2:5.
453 GS 22 # 5; cf. # 2.
454 ⇒ Mt 16:24.
455 I Pt 2:21.
456 Cf ⇒ Mk 10:39; ⇒ Jn 21:18-19; ⇒ Col 1:24.
457 Cf. ⇒ Lk 2:35.
458 St. Rose of Lima: cf. P. Hansen, Vita mirabilis (Louvain, 1668).
IN BRIEF

619 “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (⇒ I Cor 15:3).

620 Our salvation flows from God’s initiative of love for us, because “he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (⇒ I Jn 4:10). “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (⇒ 2 Cor 5:19).

621 Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: “This is my body which is given for you” (⇒ Lk 22:19).

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (⇒ Mt 20:28), that is, he “loved [his own] to the end” (⇒ Jn 13:1), so that they might be “ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers” (⇒ I Pt 1:18).

623 By his loving obedience to the Father, “unto death, even death on a cross” (⇒ Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfils the atoning mission (cf ⇒ Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will “make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities” (⇒ Is 53:11; cf. ⇒ Rom 5:19).

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m not going to read all that. I don’t have time. One of the forum rules is to keep posts short. You didn’t answer my question: If Jesus died “for” our sins, the debt is paid, so why the ongoing punishment? Or do you believe Jesus’ death cannot satisfy a debt? Fact: He didn’t die “for” our sins; he died “because” of them. For a thinking person, there is a world of difference.

"So while you won’t find any Church teaching that says “Penal Substitution is heresy,” you will find the Church teaching things directly contrary to what Penal Substitution espouses. Typically, the Church lays out parameters for orthodoxy, and while one is free to work within those parameters, one is not free to transgress those parameters…a Catholic cannot embrace that view [penal substitution] of the Cross and be within the parameters of orthodoxy and Catholic thought."

I’m not going to get into some long back-and-forth with you. I’m not interested in that. Just accept that I think you are wrong, and I will do likewise.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race?

I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are several acceptations of the word “necessary.” In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end–namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God’s part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ’s own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): “The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” Secondly, on Christ’s part, who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Luke 24:26: “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?” Thirdly, on God’s part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): “The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined”; and (Luke 24:44-46): “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead.”

newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article1

 

[fisherman_carl]

Whether there was any more suitable way of delivering the human race than by Christ’s Passion?

I answer that, Among means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ’s Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man’s salvation. In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Romans 5:8): “God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us.” Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man’s salvation. Hence it is written (1 Peter 2:21): “Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps.” Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later (48, 1; 49, 1, 5). Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Corinthians 6:20: “You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body.” Fifthly, because it redounded to man’s greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:57): “Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ’s Passion than simply by God’s good-will.

newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article2

 

[Lily_Bernans]

newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article1

I agree with that, Carl and with Aquinas. What you posted is not penal substitution.

I do believe “Christ died for us,” not a substitute for us, or we would not now ever have to suffer, but to show us the way to live is in perfect obedience to the will of the Father.

 

[adrift]

I’m not going to read all that. I don’t have time. One of the forum rules is to keep posts short. You didn’t answer my question: If Jesus died “for” our sins, the debt is paid, so why the ongoing punishment? Or do you believe Jesus’ death cannot satisfy a debt? Fact: He didn’t die “for” our sins; he died “because” of them. For a thinking person, there is a world of difference.

"So while you won’t find any Church teaching that says “Penal Substitution is heresy,” you will find the Church teaching things directly contrary to what Penal Substitution espouses. Typically, the Church lays out parameters for orthodoxy, and while one is free to work within those parameters, one is not free to transgress those parameters…a Catholic cannot embrace that view [penal substitution] of the Cross and be within the parameters of orthodoxy and Catholic thought."

I’m not going to get into some long back-and-forth with you. I’m not interested in that. Just accept that I think you are wrong, and I will do likewise.

Lets make it simple you believe the Church is wrong. The Church states that Jesus died for our sins.
Penal substitution is not the same as Catholic Atonement. Jesus dying for sin is not the same as Jesus substituting for sinners.
You are obviously unfamiliar with Catholic Atonement.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lets make it simple you believe the Church is wrong. The Church states that Jesus died for our sins.
Penal substitution is not the same as Catholic Atonement. Jesus dying for sin is not the same as Jesus substituting for sinners.
You are obviously unfamiliar with Catholic Atonement.

No, I’m not unfamiliar with the Catholic theory of atonement, and I don’t believe the Church is wrong. I believe you are mistaken in your interpretation of the catechism. I believe what Carl posted is correct. I agree with the theory of atonement, which is one of reconciliation, not punishment.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

catholiccourier.com/commentary/other-columnists/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-our-sins/

Written by a Catholic priest:

“What seems to me a reasonable explanation is this: God decided to send Jesus to live among us, to be fully human so that he could teach us and show us the ways of the Lord. Once he became human, death was inevitable; and because his teaching challenged both the religious and secular authorities of his day, a violent death was likely.”

I take issue with the word “decided” and that is all. God doesn’t “decide,” but I will say, it’s difficult even for a priest to write about God without anthropormorphizing him.

 

[adrift]

No, I’m not unfamiliar with the Catholic theory of atonement, and I don’t believe the Church is wrong. I believe you are mistaken in your interpretation of the catechism. I believe what Carl posted is correct. I agree with the theory of atonement, which is one of reconciliation, not punishment.

Your statement here demonstrates that you have no knowledge of what Catholic Atonement is. It is not a theory but a doctrine. I made no interpretation but directly quoted the Catechism. Carl’s posting had nothing to do with atonement. What he posted was very good and something which is very informative. It agrees with what I have been saying to you “Christ died for us”
Your statement of Atonement is a straw man. No where did I say that atonement was a punishment. What I said was that Jesus died for our sins what Carl posted says the same thing. That Jesus sacrificed Himself on the cross. If you knew the theology of the Mass you would know that is true. You don’t want to read what I post so be it. I don’t post for you anyway but for those who are lurkers who may be confused by your postings that are at odds with the Church. They read what I write even if you don’t.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Not getting involved in a contentious back-and-forth. I’m not even going to read your posts. I agree with Carl and Aquinas.

 

[adrift]

catholiccourier.com/commentary/other-columnists/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-our-sins/

Written by a Catholic priest:

“What seems to me a reasonable explanation is this: God decided to send Jesus to live among us, to be fully human so that he could teach us and show us the ways of the Lord. Once he became human, death was inevitable; and because his teaching challenged both the religious and secular authorities of his day, a violent death was likely.”

I take issue with the word “decided” and that is all. God doesn’t “decide,” but I will say, it’s difficult even for a priest to write about God without anthropormorphizing him.

Father Kenneth Doyle

Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Q. I have been a Catholic all my life, but I have never really understood why Jesus had to die for our sins. Couldn’t God have just forgiven us? (Eagan, Minnesota) A. Your question is one that has occupied theologians over the entire history of Christianity. I side with your position: God is God, and he could have done anything he wanted. What is clearly the church’s teaching (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 615) is that “Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.” But whether that atonement had to occur in the way that it did has been a matter of theological debate. One theory, sometimes referred to as “substitution,” “satisfaction” or “ransom” theology, was championed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. He believed that Christ’s sacrificial death was necessary in order to liberate humanity from sin and restore communion with the Father, that the blood of Jesus was “payment” to God for human sin. (The manner of Christ’s death reflected Old Testament sacrifices, where a lamb was burnt in offering and then later consumed by the worshippers.) Anselm’s theology prevailed, even though it was challenged by scholars such as Peter Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm, who insisted that Christ’s death on the cross had been an act of love, not payment. Even St. Augustine, 700 years before, had reservations and asked in his De Trinitate: “Is it necessary to think that being God, the Father was angry with us, saw his son die for us and thus abated his anger against us?” A fair number of modern-day scholars, too, find the satisfaction theology bothersome because of the way it images God. What kind of loving God, they argue, would demand such horrific suffering from his own Son in order to secure divine justice? What seems to me a reasonable explanation is this: God decided to send Jesus to live among us, to be fully human so that he could teach us and show us the ways of the Lord. Once he became human, death was inevitable; and because his teaching challenged both the religious and secular authorities of his day, a violent death was likely. So we are, in fact, redeemed by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, but we are not compelled to believe that God deliberately willed the suffering of his Son. Jesus asked at Emmaus (Lk 24:26): “Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” Yes, it was necessary – but not because God willed it to happen exactly in that way. - See more at: catholiccourier.com/commentary/other-columnists/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-our-sins/#sthash.fnGme9q7.dpuf

 

[Anony_Mous]

Yes. The first will be last, and the last will be first.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

adrift:
Thank you for making my point! Did you not see both quotes you posted are from the same article? The same Catholic priest, who agrees with me, by the way, wrote both.:You even bolded the part I posted!

And even Fr. Doyle says theologians are at odds about why Jesus died. If very learned theologians can’t agree, we cannot, that is certain.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yes. The first will be last, and the last will be first.

Welcome to our thread Anony Mous! Glad to have you!

Yes, what you wrote is certainly true.