Non Catholics--any purpose for penance?

[fbl9]

is penance a form of chatisement?what father who loving his children would not chastise them?

 

[MarcoPolo]

i understand paul’s statement in light of the entire chapter in which that one statement appears. if you read the whole chapter, you will see that paul repeatedly talks about the sufficiency of Christ and His sacrifice. so then what does he mean by “lacking”? i see it as paul saying the only thing Christ’s death didn’t accomplish was that the whole world knows about it. that is the job He left to His followers (the whole great commission thing ). so, paul suffers (but rejoices in it) so the sake of this one task that we have been given to do by God. and paul did suffer for it. he was beheaded for it eventually. that is how i understand what paul is saying and i think that is interpretation consistent with the context of the letter.

i would maintain that penance has no use as punishment.

Ah, see that’s why I like you, bengal…you actually try to explain a passage instead of explaining it “away.” But!..

See we see “punishment” as simply a term in the sense of this issue as disciplinary (Heb 11), and efficacious because it is a participation in the Cross (cf. Phil 3:10 or 1 Pet 4:13, e.g.). To therefore say it denies the sufficiency of the Cross is not proper…it is the opposite. It is only through the Cross that penance has any value whatsoever! It is a suffering with Him. When applied to the person, this suffering is purifying and yields holiness and righteousness (Heb 11) and strengthens us (eg. Rm 5:3). The penance is not separate from the Cross…it is a joining to it, which of course is filled with all the power and value we need.

Also, as to the Colossians I think Paul is referring to a suffering not only related to his preaching, which toils him, but he is specific to point out that the suffering is in his “flesh” (1:24). And we know from 2 Cor 12:7, that Paul identified a specific suffering in his flesh of “a thorn” that was given him to conform him more to Christ, which is certainly to me a more disciplinary action for the sake of purification! He also told the Corinthians that his suffering was the same as theirs, so I don’t know that it can be limited to his suffering in preaching only. Partly, yes his suffering is his toiling in preaching, but certainly it is more than that…a participation in the Cross. Anyway semantically, I see the Catholic use of “punishment” as “discipline” as God used it. Penance is also called “satisfaction” in the Catechism, and can be seen in this sense, for example, in Mt 5:25-26.

 

[fbl9]

Ah, see that’s why I like you, bengal…you actually try to explain a passage instead of explaining it “away.” But!..

See we see “punishment” as simply a term in the sense of this issue as disciplinary (Heb 11), and efficacious because it is a participation in the Cross (cf. Phil 3:10 or 1 Pet 4:13, e.g.). To therefore say it denies the sufficiency of the Cross is not proper…it is the opposite. It is only through the Cross that penance has any value whatsoever! It is a suffering with Him. When applied to the person, this suffering is purifying and yields holiness and righteousness (Heb 11) and strengthens us (eg. Rm 5:3). The penance is not separate from the Cross…it is a joining to it, which of course is filled with all the power and value we need.

Also, as to the Colossians I think Paul is referring to a suffering not only related to his preaching, which toils him, but he is specific to point out that the suffering is in his “flesh” (1:24). And we know from 2 Cor 12:7, that Paul identified a specific suffering in his flesh of “a thorn” that was given him to conform him more to Christ, which is certainly to me a more disciplinary action for the sake of purification! He also told the Corinthians that his suffering was the same as theirs, so I don’t know that it can be limited to his suffering in preaching only. Partly, yes his suffering is his toiling in preaching, but certainly it is more than that…a participation in the Cross. Anyway semantically, I see the Catholic use of “punishment” as “discipline” as God used it. Penance is also called “satisfaction” in the Catechism, and can be seen in this sense, for example, in Mt 5:25-26.

exactly!! in what ever we do we unite it(our actions) to the cross that is the only way any thing we may do can have any merit in God’s eyes.would God reject one’s prayers done as penance?

 

[Singinbeauty]

Here is how I see it:

If we claim to follow Christ then we have to FOLLOW Him. There’s no way around it. We are instructed to make things right when we sin and if by confessing it and working to turn it around makes it right then that is what we have to do. To know who is in Christ you will see it by their actions.

Remember, if we do not forgive then we are not forgiven. That is just one example of how we are accountable for our relationship with Christ.

 

[bengal_fan]

marco,
great post! the way you chose to explain it, i don’t have a problem with it. the only thing i have a problem with is when we use language that seems to say we actually make restitution to God for our sins. that is what i disagree with holeheartedly. if it is about growing in our faith (through discipline and suffering) then i am all for it. i thought that’s what i had communicated, but you said it better.

Here is how I see it:

If we claim to follow Christ then we have to FOLLOW Him. There’s no way around it.** We are instructed to make things right when we sin **and if by confessing it and working to turn it around makes it right then that is what we have to do. To know who is in Christ you will see it by their actions.
.

i disagree with the bolded part of this because it still sounds too close to US making things right. we cannot do that. all we can do is live in the truth of what God has done for us. He does the rest. part of living in that truth is repentance and replacing sin in our lives with spiritual disciplines and service to others. it is hard to do at first and can feel like punishment, but it works to perfect our faith and purify it (to quote marco’s post).

overall, i do think we are saying many of the same things… it’s just that different words mean different things to different people (because we are all different ). i have a problem with the words “punishment” and “payment” because i understand Christ having taken our punishment and made our payment. others might take those words to mean discipline and repentance. those are words i take great pleasure in God doing to me and demanding from me (even though it sucks in the process).

 

[MarcoPolo]

marco,
great post! the way you chose to explain it, i don’t have a problem with it. the only thing i have a problem with is when we use language that seems to say we actually make restitution to God for our sins. that is what i disagree with holeheartedly. if it is about growing in our faith (through discipline and suffering) then i am all for it. i thought that’s what i had communicated, but you said it better.

It could indeed be just a semantic issue! There is the discipline/suffering aspect indeed…Just remember when a Catholic says “punishment” or “restitution” it is in the vein of “paying the last penny” as Mt. 5 says. Or how like how Zaccheus had to repay the consequences of his sins beyond an internal repentance in Lk 19, etc… That’s all! Of course there may be Catholics who explain this incorrectly, but I think I provided you with authentic teaching as my links showed. It sounds like we are on the same page.