Penance discrepancies?

[jaytadly]

meat of the question:

my friend wants to start with penance, and he found these “discrepancies” in the catechism (1459 & 1460):

In those 2 paragraphs, you get these two contradictory sentences (exact quotes):

1. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfactions for” or “expiate” his sins.
2. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all.

let me know a good way to explain this one. thanks!

in Christ,

tad

background of the question:

i have a friend who is an ex-catholic and now a rabid anti-catholic trying to get me to read McCarthy’s, “The Gospel According to Rome”. i quickly looked it over, could see right off the bat that much was taken out of context, and then he compares this to his own personal interpretation of scripture (as well as his own personal interp of the catechism as well!). anyway, he also had a smaller pamphlet based on the same book that purports to compare the catechism with the bible. wow. so many holes and misinterpretations, i didn’t know where to begin, but my friend wants to start with penance, and he found these “discrepancies” in the catechism (1459 & 1460):

In those 2 paragraphs, you get these two contradictory sentences (exact quotes):

1. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfactions for” or “expiate” his sins.
2. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all.

let me know a good way to explain this one. thanks!

 

[Della]

jaytadly:

meat of the question:

my friend wants to start with penance, and he found these “discrepancies” in the catechism (1459 & 1460):

In those 2 paragraphs, you get these two contradictory sentences (exact quotes):

1. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfactions for” or “expiate” his sins.
2. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all.

let me know a good way to explain this one. thanks!

in Christ,

tad

background of the question:

i have a friend who is an ex-catholic and now a rabid anti-catholic trying to get me to read McCarthy’s, “The Gospel According to Rome”. i quickly looked it over, could see right off the bat that much was taken out of context, and then he compares this to his own personal interpretation of scripture (as well as his own personal interp of the catechism as well!). anyway, he also had a smaller pamphlet based on the same book that purports to compare the catechism with the bible. wow. so many holes and misinterpretations, i didn’t know where to begin, but my friend wants to start with penance, and he found these “discrepancies” in the catechism (1459 & 1460):

In those 2 paragraphs, you get these two contradictory sentences (exact quotes):

1. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfactions for” or “expiate” his sins.
2. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all.

let me know a good way to explain this one. thanks!

The key is in the phrase in #1: “…the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health.” The expiation Christ made was once for all, the expiation made by individual sinners is for his particular sin, in order to return him to “full spiritual health” not to gain forgiveness for his sin, which he already has received in the sacrament of reconciliation.

People like McCarthy seemingly cannot or will not make these distinctions, especially if they can make it seem that the Church has contradicted itself when in fact, they don’t understand/want to obscure the context of the statements and what is meant by them.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I think I have this right…

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) speaks of the *double consequence *of sin. Each sin carries with it an *eternal punishment *and a temporal punishment. The eternal punishment concerns our relationship with God and temporal punishment concerns our relationship with creatures. Jesus’ death on the cross expiates the eternal punishment of the sin; the sinner’s penance “expiates” the temporal punishment of the sin. (CCC 1472, 1473)

 

[jaytadly]

Della:

The key is in the phrase in #1: “…the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health.” The expiation Christ made was once for all, the expiation made by individual sinners is for his particular sin, in order to return him to “full spiritual health” not to gain forgiveness for his sin, which he already has received in the sacrament of reconciliation.

People like McCarthy seemingly cannot or will not make these distinctions, especially if they can make it seem that the Church has contradicted itself when in fact, they don’t understand/want to obscure the context of the statements and what is meant by them.

Thanks, Della. That makes a lot of sense, as does most of Catholicism when you really dig for (and are open to) the answers…

in Christ,

tad

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

If your friend is such a devotee of McCarthy, I suggest you get him a copy of _ The Gospel According to N. McCarthy_ (I can’t remember the first name.) It’s basically written as a chapter by chapter refutation of the errors in The Gospel According to Rome. You can purchase it on the Catholic Answers website.

Disclaimer: I have no financial relationship with CA. I just happened to have bought that book myself about a year ago.

 

[GodSoldier]

Just in case anyone was wondering:
Expiate comes from Latin expiare, from ex-, here used intensively, + piare, to seek to appease by an offering, to make good, to atone for, from pius, dutiful.

The act of expiating is expiation; that which serves to expiate is expiatory.

The key is in the phrase in #1: “…the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health.” The expiation Christ made was once for all, the expiation made by individual sinners is for his particular sin, in order to return him to “full spiritual health” not to gain forgiveness for his sin, which he already has received in the sacrament of reconciliation.

I think I have this right…

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) speaks of the *double consequence *of sin. Each sin carries with it an *eternal punishment *and a temporal punishment. The eternal punishment concerns our relationship with God and temporal punishment concerns our relationship with creatures. Jesus’ death on the cross expiates the eternal punishment of the sin; the sinner’s penance “expiates” the temporal punishment of the sin. (CCC 1472, 1473)

I’m trying to reconcile the two highlighted portions of text.

The Green I understand.

The Red, not so much- it might just be a nuance.

My understanding is:

Jesus’ death on the cross expiated (atoned, payed the price for) the eternal punishment for our sins. But sinning leaves a “blemish” on our soul that we have to make up for in this life or purgatory, to be clean in God’s eyes. The Sacrament of Reconciliation then, is the rite by which we prove that we are sorry for our sin and receive the Holy Spirit to help us expiate the temporal remains of our sin.

In the confessional we are not receiving atonement for our sins, because that came to us, once for all, on the cross. We are in fact receiving forgiveness, and the chance to expiate the temporal “blemish” left on our soul, that remains even after the sins eternal punishment is taken away.

Is this right?