How can the catholic encyclopedia claim truth in that Jesus took on our punishment but not so vicariously?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Odell

Guest
From the catholic encyclopedia
The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins. :confused:
 
Odell said:
From the catholic encyclopedia
The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins. :confused:
Click to expand...
They’re trying to refute the Protestant understanding of Penal Satisfaction/Vicarious Atonement, which is the view that the Father took out His wrath on Jesus in our place. In Catholic understanding, which is known as Substitutionary Atonement, Jesus lovingly paid the Father back for our debt but was NOT punished directly by Him.

In other words, our view has Jesus willingly giving the Father a gift to appease Him, and the Protestant view has Jesus let God take it out on Him. I think you can see the problems with that view, considering how unjust it would be.
 
I think woundedicon answered it for me. Here Is the link newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

I always taought that Jesus did not pay the price but that it appeased Gods wrath. Now I’m learning I may be a little of both but that we don’t go as far as saying the Father punished Jesus in our place.
 
Odell said:
I think woundedicon answered it for me. Here Is the link newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

I always taught that Jesus did not pay the price but that it appeased Gods wrath. Now I’m learning I may be a little of both but that we don’t go as far as saying the Father punished Jesus in our place.
Click to expand...
It is absurd to believe the sacrifice of Jesus appeased God’s wrath because He and the Father are One! Jesus chose to sacrifice Himself for our sake because there is no greater **love **than to lay down one’s life for others. He liberated us from our ignorance, weakness and selfishness by giving us the example, power and strength of His wisdom, courage and unselfishness. He gave Himself to us so that we can give ourselves to Him…
 
tonyrey said:
It is absurd to believe the sacrifice of Jesus appeased God’s wrath because He and the Father are One! Jesus chose to sacrifice Himself for our sake because there is no greater **love **than to lay down one’s life for others. He liberated us from our ignorance, weakness and selfishness by giving us the example, power and strength of His wisdom, courage and unselfishness. He gave Himself to us so that we can give ourselves to Him…
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand appeasement it’s not the same as taking on wrath. Christ’s sacrifice propotiated the Father because it pleased Him more than He hated mans sins.

Main Entry: ap·pease
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpēz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ap·peased; ap·peas·ing
Etymology: Middle English appesen, from Anglo-French apeser, apaiser, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace — more at peace
Date: 14th century
1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : calm
2 : to cause to subside : allay
3 : pacify, conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles
synonyms see pacify
— ap·peas·able -ˈpē-zə-bəl\ adjective
— ap·pease·ment -ˈpēz-mənt\ noun
— ap·peas·er noun
 
user "WoundedIcon":
In other words, our view has Jesus willingly giving the Father a gift to appease Him, and the Protestant view has Jesus let God take it out on Him. I think you can see the problems with that view, considering how unjust it would be.
Click to expand...
did God cause Jesus’s death? I don’t know but it seems possible, since he seems to cause many involuntary physical evils; so much more would he cause voluntarily choosen physical evils?
 
fakename said:
did God cause Jesus’s death? I don’t know but it seems possible, since he seems to cause many involuntary physical evils; so much more would he cause voluntarily choosen physical evils?
Click to expand...
Traditionally, God is seen as only being capable of willing physical and natural evils, and sickness. Moral evil is without His direct will, but is foreseen and used to bring about good. Since Jesus’ death involves moral evils, He can’t be seen as causing Jesus’ death directly. Rather He knew it would happen and took advantage of it. Consider it the difference between controlling something, and being in control of it.
 
WoundedIcon said:
Traditionally, God is seen as only being capable of willing physical and natural evils, and sickness. Moral evil is without His direct will, but is foreseen and used to bring about good. Since Jesus’ death involves moral evils, He can’t be seen as causing Jesus’ death directly. Rather He knew it would happen and took advantage of it. Consider it the difference between controlling something, and being in control of it.
Click to expand...
But it’s said that Jesus took the punishments of our sins. So if God did not punish him, then who did or who could?

Also, does that imply that God can allow moral evils to happen w/o stopping them? And if so, then is this a case of double-effect or something?
 
Odell said:
I don’t think you understand appeasement it’s not the same as taking on wrath. Christ’s sacrifice propitiated the Father because it pleased Him more than He hated mans sins.

Main Entry: ap·pease
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpēz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ap·peased; ap·peas·ing
Etymology: Middle English appesen, from Anglo-French apeser, apaiser, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace — more at peace
Date: 14th century
1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : calm
2 : to cause to subside : allay
3 : pacify, conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles
synonyms see pacify
— ap·peas·able -ˈpē-zə-bəl\ adjective
— ap·pease·ment -ˈpēz-mənt\ noun
— ap·peas·er noun
Click to expand...
It seems anthropomorphic to regard Christ’s sacrifice as a pacification of divine wrath. It seems more reasonable to interpret His voluntary submission to unjust torture and execution as an expression of His love for us which **liberates us from evil **and unites us to Him forever - if we are prepared to love Him by following His example, loving others as He has loved us and if necessary dying for His sake.
 
fakename said:
But it’s said that Jesus took the punishments of our sins. So if God did not punish him, then who did or who could?

Also, does that imply that God can allow moral evils to happen w/o stopping them? And if so, then is this a case of double-effect or something?
Click to expand...
Sins **incur **their own punishment…
 
Is it fair to say that the Catholic view of this is that Jesus’s death was not a punishment and was really a positive, not negative, good deed that satisfied God’s justice and mercy and made him reconciled to mankind?

Because a punishment per se, is for someone who did something bad?
 
  1. A punishment is just if it is the inevitable consequence of deliberate wrongdoing
  2. A punishment is unjust if it is inflicted on a person who has done no wrong
  3. An unjust punishment should not normally be permitted - or accepted by the victim
  4. An unjust punishment should be accepted by the victim if it is the lesser of two evils
  5. Jesus accepted unjust punishment because He believed it was the lesser evil.
  6. His punishment was not inflicted by God but by human beings
  7. God permitted the unjust punishment of Jesus because He knew it was necessary
  8. God’s infinite love transcends our concept of justice
  9. God’s infinite love transforms evil into a means of liberating us from evil!
Evil is destructive whereas love is creative. That is why Jesus told us to follow His example and love God, ourselves and others…

.
 
user "tonyrey":
  1. God permitted the unjust punishment of Jesus because He knew it was necessary
Click to expand...
Is this the traditional teaching?

If not, then isn’t this a sin of omission on God’s part?
 
fakename said:
God permitted the unjust punishment of Jesus because He knew it was necessary
Click to expand...
It is an implication of the fact that God permitted the unjust punishment of Jesus. If He couldn’t prevent it He is not omnipotent. If it wasn’t necessary why did He permit it?
If not, then isn’t this a sin of omission on God’s part?
Click to expand...
It is not a sin of omission on God’s part for the reason I have given:

God’s infinite love transforms evil into a means of liberating us from evil.
Click to expand...
 
user "tonyrey":
It is an implication of the fact that God permitted the unjust punishment of Jesus. If He couldn’t prevent it He is not omnipotent. If it wasn’t necessary why did He permit it?
Click to expand...
so I suspect that it is traditional? or no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top