How do Catholics view penal substitution theory of atonement?

[Windfish]

If this statement accurately represents the RCC view, then it is very clear that the RCC holds to the penal substitution doctrine (not mere theory) of atonement.

I’m not sure that I understand the caveat made at the beginning regarding the difference between, ‘instead of’ vs ‘on behalf of’, or ‘in the place of’. Don’t they mean essentially the same thing? If my wife says she’s going to the store and I say, ‘let me go instead of you’, wouldn’t that be the same as if I were to say, ‘let me go on your behalf’, or ‘in your place’?

Brendan had raised the argument that if there had been a Penal Substitution, then Christ would still be in eternal torments.This statement clearly answers that objection by pointing out Christ’s sufficiency as a sacrifice.

However, that last phrase doesn’t seem to fit in with Roman Catholic soteriology. As it says, ‘obtains propitiation and redemption for all mankind.’ is more Universalistic than anything else. And, it can’t read, ‘obtains possible propitiation and redemption for all mankind.’ That doesn’t seem to make sense. Nor can it read, ‘obtains propitiation and redemption only for those who believe.’ In that case it would be Calvinistic. The reason I say it doesn’t seem to fit is because, if Christ obtained it then there is no room for mankind to obtain it.

:yukonjoe:

Looks like I have a long ways to go before I understand all of this!

Thanks, JDaniel. I’ll see if I can get my hands on those books.

EDIT: Can anyone recommend a good Catholic book on Atonement/Redemption/the Cross???

 

[Cat_Herder]

If this statement accurately represents the RCC view, then it is very clear that the RCC holds to the penal substitution doctrine (not mere theory) of atonement.

I’m not sure that I understand the caveat made at the beginning regarding the difference between, ‘instead of’ vs ‘on behalf of’, or ‘in the place of’. Don’t they mean essentially the same thing? If my wife says she’s going to the store and I say, ‘let me go instead of you’, wouldn’t that be the same as if I were to say, ‘let me go on your behalf’, or ‘in your place’?

Your hypothetical involves a substitution of persons only. Either of you is going to the grocery store regardless of who goes. Calvary involved both a substitution of persons and of the destination. If you or I were the one crucified we would have gone to hell but for the grace of God. This is obviously not true of Jesus as God cannot be separated from Himself. Something more happened on Calvary than a mere substitution of persons.

However, that last phrase doesn’t seem to fit in with Roman Catholic soteriology. As it says, ‘obtains propitiation and redemption for all mankind.’ is more Universalistic than anything else. And, it can’t read, ‘obtains possible propitiation and redemption for all mankind.’ That doesn’t seem to make sense. Nor can it read, ‘obtains propitiation and redemption only for those who believe.’ In that case it would be Calvinistic. The reason I say it doesn’t seem to fit is because, if Christ obtained it then there is no room for mankind to obtain it.

Mankind does not obtain salvation. It is a gift. However it can be refused.

 

[geebob]

Something more happened on Calvary than a mere substitution of persons.

Yes, so far everybody agrees with this, and it doesn’t rule out penal substitution as a description of part of albeit not all of the significance of the atonement.

cap76 is right on the money. This fella while attempting to distance himself from protestants and penal substitution really doesn’t latch onto anything that is clearly a substantive distinction.