The Atonement

[winsome]

 This discussion arose from a question that Stucky asked Paulus in another thread.

Paulus, Do you believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for your sins?

Paulus agreed.

I disagreed, saying "I don't - not as it is phrased. I  think that is not Catholic teaching."


To which Paulus asked: "Winsome , how would you phrase it better to put it in line with Catholic teaching ?"
The thread deteriorated and has now been locked, and actually the following discussion was not on the topic of the thread, but I think important, so I have started this to continue the discussion.


Please note this discussion is intended to be primarily about what the Catholic understanding of the Atonement actually is, and NOT whether we are right or wrong on that understanding. winsome:

This is an edited version of something I wrote in a discussion a couple of months ago

My understanding of the Protestant position is that Jesus took on himself all the sin and guilt of mankind and therefore suffered all the punishment for that sin and guilt. Thus mankind was freed from punishment from sin because Jesus had been punished instead.

That is not my understanding of the Catholic position.
The Catechism says: "Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned" (CCC 603, Cf Jn 8:46)

But by his sinless life, by his perfect obedience to the Father, by his freely suffering and dying on the cross, he "gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:2).

The Catholic Church does use the word substitution in reference to Isaiah 53.
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father. (CCC 615)

However this is not a substitionary punishment as I suggest Protestants appear to mean but a "sin offering", a "propitiation". a propitiary sacrifice freely offered.

Thomas Aquinas says:
  He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. (Summa, Tertia Pars, Q48, Art 2)
 
I think this explains it well.
"In his mediatorial role, Christ, living a sinless life and dying a selfless death, obtains favour from God so that he can approach and beseech Him for mercy and forgiveness on behalf of sinful man. God is not required to offer forgiveness, yet Christ's sacrifice appeals to the intrinsic love and long suffering of God. Christ as the obedient son who sacrifices himself, intercedes to obtain the mercy of the Father for those who are to be adopted in God's family. From his paternal qualities of pity and love, the Father grants an avenue of forgiveness for mankind." (How Can I get To Heaven by Robert Sungenis)
 
I think it is not right to say that the Father punished Christ in the judicial sense. God is a just judge and in justice could not punish someone for something they are innocent of, and Christ did no wrong.
 
He did though suffer and die as a voluntary act and thus made satisfaction for our sins so that we could approach God as the Merciful Father, rather than the Just Judge.

Contd.......

[winsome]

 Paulus:

Thanks Winsome . I realise that this is not an easy matter to get our minds around because we are dealing with a profound mystery .

Taking into account what you have said , how do you relate it to the following words of St Paul ? :-

For our sake God made the sinless one into sin . ( 2 Cor 5:21 ) .

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by being cursed for our sake . ( Gal 3:13 ) .

God dealt with sin by sending his own Son in a body as physical as any sinful body , and in that body God condemned sin . ( Rom 8:3 ) .

winsome:

Hi Paulus,

It is indeed a profound mystery, and one I am still trying to understand better.

I've taken my understanding of this primarily from the book I quoted from – How Can I Get To Heaven by Robert Sungenis. He actually covers these three scriptures in one section. It's rather long to quote from so I will try and summarise, with just one quote.

He says God set up a principle at the beginning of representation whereby Adam represented the whole human race. Rom 5:18-19. When Adam sinned the whole human race was brought into condemnation. God used the same principle of representation to bring us out of condemnation by becoming man. By living a sinless life in perfect obedience Jesus allowed God to set aside the demands of law and install a system of grace (Eph 2:15 & Col2:14).
"In its place, Christ brings the system of grace whereby God can offer us salvation from sin and death based on a wholly different kind of relationship. Christ's atonement and resurrection provide the means by which God can fulfil his desire to save mankind while still remaining a just and honorable God who condemns sin. Christ's atonement and resurrection provided grace for the whole world whereas before there was only law which had to condemn. As John says in 1John 2:2 'He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the whole world'".

It seems to me that we have two ways of relating to God – either under law as the just Judge or under grace as our merciful Father. And that is the whole difference between works of the law that Paul says cannot save us and works (under grace) that James insists must accompany faith in our justification.

If we consider that Christ suffered the punishment for our sins then:
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God in hell. Jesus is not in hell.
2. The punishment has already been paid so there can be no condemnation of anyone in the whole world or God would be punishing twice for the same offence.

The section of the Catechism that deals with this is 599 – 618.and does not mention punishment or penalty but refers only to love, sacrifice and gift.

[winsome]

Paulus:

Thanks again , Winsome .

I am posting something that the late Father Ian Petit OSB wrote . Excuse the length of the quote but I don't want to miss anything out . I would appreciate your views on it .

" Jesus came to save all of us by removing the blockage of sin between us and God . In order to do this he needed to take the sins of humankind onto himself and pay the penalty himself ....."For our sake God made the sinless one into sin , so that in him we might become the goodness of God ." ( 2 Cor 5:21 ) .

" In order to heal human nature of its wounds from sin , God sent his beloved Son to take on that human nature .....But how can the sinless One assume a fallen nature ?

" For years I have wrestled with this question , and I was encouraged to think more about it when I came across the Good News Bible translation of Romans 8:3 . "God condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son , who came with a nature like man's sinful nature , to do away with sin ." It is as though Jesus is saying to us , " I have not only become one of the human family , I have also allowed myself to become vulnerable like you , to be tempted like you , to experience weakness like you and yet never to surrender to these attacks . I have so identified myself with you that your sins have become as though they were mine and I have made reparation for them . " For our sake God made the sinless one into sin , so that in him we might become the goodness of God ." ( 2 Cor 5:21 ) .

" Another great help in my thinking came when I was recommended to read "In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh" by Fr Thomas Weinandy OFM Cap. He shows how the Fathers of the Church wrestled with this whole question and indicates that one thing they all seemed to agree on was that if nature was to be redeemed , then it had to be done within that nature . St Augustine , for example , said , " Never would you have been freed from sinful flesh had he not taken on the likeness of sinful flesh . " ( Sermons 185 ) . He also said , " The Son of God assumed human nature and in it endured all that belonged to that condition . This is a remedy for mankind beyond our imagining . " ( De Agone Christiano 12 ) .

" It must be clearly understood there was no personal sin in Jesus . He took on wounded human nature so that he could live IN it but not OF it . When we say Jesus took on our fallen nature we mean he took on a nature destined to suffer , die and experience damnation , unless in some way it could be atoned for .

" God's rightful judgement on sin is to repel the sinner . This is not a question of God banishing the sinner from himself , but rather the sinner being quite unable to be in God's presence . Jesus did not simply pretend to be incapable of being in God's presence , rather he took our sins on himself at the crucifixion and actually experienced banishment .

" Putting it in blunt language , Jesus consented to stand in front of his beloved Father besmirched with our sins and receive from him our sentence . The consequence of sin is more than physical death , it is a wounding that separates us from the Father . The theologian Von Balthasar emphasizes that Jesus stood in the place of sinful humanity and therefore endured the curse of sin . The penalty of sin is , he says , is more than physical death , it is the "second death" and he argues that if Jesus died to pay for all sin he had to endure the complete horror of our sin . "Jesus does not only accept the mortal destiny of Adam , he also , quite expressly , carries the sin of the human race , and with these sins , the "second death" of God-abandonment ." ( Mysterium Paschale 90 ) .

" Because Jesus is God , anything he does will have infinite value ; therefore by taking the sins of the world upon himself he could make satisfaction for them by bearing their consequences . So , if Jesus is to atone for every human sin , he has to undergo the punishment  for every sin . He , God , bearing as human being all the sins of the human race , could make more than enough satisfaction .

" Because the consequence of all sin has been met , all sins , even future sins , have been paid for . This does not mean that all sinners have been pardoned , but it does mean forgiveness is available for all sinners who repent , confess and wish to reform .

" Also when Jesus died his Adam nature was put to death . On rising from the dead , he did not come back to life in the same way that Lazarus did , he rose to be the new Man . From him would come the new human family , restored to the favour of the Father .

" So two mighty things occurred on Calvary . Firstly all sins were paid for ; secondly the Adam nature was put to death , thus making way for the new Adam to rise from the dead and begin the new race of humans for God . This is the good news of the gospel and this is the message that the universal Church teaches . "

Contd.....

[winsome]

Hi Paulus,

I've been reading more about the development of theological thinking on the Atonement in the Catholic Encyclopaedia on the New Advent site. It was very interesting but I'm not sure how much it helps me.

What it does show, I think, is that we have to be careful in interpreting scripture passages literally. Because how the atonement works is mysterious, figures of speech are used that can lead to problems if taken literally.

For example in the early years there was speculation on what these texts implied: "you were bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:20) and "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God (Rev 5:0). Who was the price paid to & from whom were men redeemed? Does that mean that God had to buy man back from Satan?

I think then that we have to be aware that, in this area particularly, scripture uses metaphors or figures of speech and that should not be taken literally.

It also seems that the Church has not defined the how the Atonement works. So that explanations by Robert Sungenis or Fr. Ian Petit, or Von Balthasar, or others are speculative.

However I believe that the Protestant view of  "penal substitution" is wrong and not Church teaching such as we can find, and this would appear to be the view espoused by Von Balthasar, and by which Fr. Petit seems to have been influenced. How far Fr. Petit and Von Balthasar would go on this I do not know but the Reformed view seems to be that the Father poured out on Jesus the wrath that he had for the sins of mankind.

However the Catholic view seems to be that Jesus willingly sacrificed himself to suffering and death out of love. And that willing self sacrifice was accepted as an expiation of our sins.

"Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter II)


propitiate 
  verb win or regain the favour of; appease.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

"But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ's sake...."
God is merciful because of the self sacrificing love of Christ.

The problem with the Protestant view (& Fr. Petit's) is expressed by this:

"One problem with the Reformed conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.

A second problem with the Reformed conception is the following dilemma. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word. God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true. But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ's Passion. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus. Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son cannot be at odds. If Christ loves men, then so does the Father. Or, if the Father has wrath for men, then so does Christ. And, if the Father has wrath for the Son, then the Son must have no less wrath for Himself."
(http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/)

[mclees8]

Why are you guys trying to make the atonement some complicated thing. We have but to believe that this cursed mortal we are,  full of sin need a savior and that Jesus suffered for our sins that if we would believe on Him and His resurrection we will have eternal life.

This is not tit for tat. Only this mourning I was reading from my daily devotion. I read of his prayer for us and suddenly tears welled up in me because even now I still feel unworthy of his unconditional love for me. I know the Lord knows me and my every weakness and I call upon Him from my heart. He walks with me every day and I truly Love Him, and he has proven Himself to be with me in my every infirmaty and trial.
Jesus is my closest friend but more then that He is my Lord

Can you relate to this ? If you can then you will be truly blessed.

[Stucky]

Why are you guys trying to make the atonement some complicated thing. We have but to believe that this cursed mortal we are,  full of sin need a savior and that Jesus suffered for our sins that if we would believe on Him and His resurrection we will have eternal life.

This is not tit for tat. Only this mourning I was reading from my daily devotion. I read of his prayer for us and suddenly tears welled up in me because even now I still feel unworthy of his unconditional love for me. I know the Lord knows me and my every weakness and I call upon Him from my heart. He walks with me every day and I truly Love Him, and he has proven Himself to be with me in my every infirmaty and trial.
Jesus is my closest friend but more then that He is my Lord

Can you relate to this ? If you can then you will be truly blessed.

God bless you McLees, you actually made me feel the Holy Spirit move inside me when I read that.  That was very well stated in a concise manner.  I agree with you 1000%.  May God bless you and let you feel His love for you.

[Selene]

Why are you guys trying to make the atonement some complicated thing. We have but to believe that this cursed mortal we are,  full of sin need a savior and that Jesus suffered for our sins that if we would believe on Him and His resurrection we will have eternal life.

This is not tit for tat. Only this mourning I was reading from my daily devotion. I read of his prayer for us and suddenly tears welled up in me because even now I still feel unworthy of his unconditional love for me. I know the Lord knows me and my every weakness and I call upon Him from my heart. He walks with me every day and I truly Love Him, and he has proven Himself to be with me in my every infirmaty and trial.
Jesus is my closest friend but more then that He is my Lord

Can you relate to this ? If you can then you will be truly blessed.

We never said nor felt it was complicated. 

[Paulus]

Hi Paulus,

I've been reading more about the development of theological thinking on the Atonement in the Catholic Encyclopaedia on the New Advent site. It was very interesting but I'm not sure how much it helps me.

What it does show, I think, is that we have to be careful in interpreting scripture passages literally. Because how the atonement works is mysterious, figures of speech are used that can lead to problems if taken literally.

For example in the early years there was speculation on what these texts implied: "you were bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:20) and "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God (Rev 5:0). Who was the price paid to & from whom were men redeemed? Does that mean that God had to buy man back from Satan?

I think then that we have to be aware that, in this area particularly, scripture uses metaphors or figures of speech and that should not be taken literally.

It also seems that the Church has not defined the how the Atonement works. So that explanations by Robert Sungenis or Fr. Ian Petit, or Von Balthasar, or others are speculative.

However I believe that the Protestant view of  "penal substitution" is wrong and not Church teaching such as we can find, and this would appear to be the view espoused by Von Balthasar, and by which Fr. Petit seems to have been influenced. How far Fr. Petit and Von Balthasar would go on this I do not know but the Reformed view seems to be that the Father poured out on Jesus the wrath that he had for the sins of mankind.

However the Catholic view seems to be that Jesus willingly sacrificed himself to suffering and death out of love. And that willing self sacrifice was accepted as an expiation of our sins.

"Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter II)


propitiate 
  verb win or regain the favour of; appease.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

"But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ's sake...."
God is merciful because of the self sacrificing love of Christ.

The problem with the Protestant view (& Fr. Petit's) is expressed by this:

"One problem with the Reformed conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.

A second problem with the Reformed conception is the following dilemma. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word. God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true. But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ's Passion. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus. Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son cannot be at odds. If Christ loves men, then so does the Father. Or, if the Father has wrath for men, then so does Christ. And, if the Father has wrath for the Son, then the Son must have no less wrath for Himself."
(http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/)

Thanks Winsome for getting this thread going .

Because we are dealing with a profound mystery , "a remedy beyond our imagining" , I suggest that we approach it prayerfully , allowing the Holy Spirit to lead us to material , people , thoughts which may be in the depths of our subconscious etc. It will call for patience and respect for all the views put forward . If I don't give an immediate response , it is not because I am ignoring you but because I am struggling with the issue .

I would love to see theological jargon avoided wherever possible , as I would also love to see polemics avoided . I don't want to see this as a Protestant v Catholic thing . Both Catholics and Protestants have valid contributions to make , and we ought to accept them in love .

At the moment what I quoted from Father Petit is my position . As I read it it just makes sense , and rings true for me .

In my next post I hope to say something about the word "substitution" which you have used several times . I will be using "A Catholic Dictionary" for this . It is a book my parents got about 60 years ago . The copy I have is the fifteenth edition published in 1952 . The preface to the first edition dates back to 1883 . It is a sound book with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Vic. Gen. of the Westminster Diocese . It's not a book I use often , but when I do feel a need to consult it it always comes up trumps .

So I feel we are on a journey of discovery , at the end of which we will not have found the full solution , but that is the nature of mystery .

One last thing . You have called the thread "The Atonement" . To make it clear from the start would you please very simply and briefly say what you mean by the Atonement . I understand it to mean the reconciliation of God and humankind brought about by the redemptive work of Jesus .

[winsome]

Thanks Winsome for getting this thread going .

Because we are dealing with a profound mystery , "a remedy beyond our imagining" , I suggest that we approach it prayerfully , allowing the Holy Spirit to lead us to material , people , thoughts which may be in the depths of our subconscious etc. It will call for patience and respect for all the views put forward . If I don't give an immediate response , it is not because I am ignoring you but because I am struggling with the issue .

I would love to see theological jargon avoided wherever possible , as I would also love to see polemics avoided . I don't want to see this as a Protestant v Catholic thing . Both Catholics and Protestants have valid contributions to make , and we ought to accept them in love .

At the moment what I quoted from Father Petit is my position . As I read it it just makes sense , and rings true for me .

In my next post I hope to say something about the word "substitution" which you have used several times . I will be using "A Catholic Dictionary" for this . It is a book my parents got about 60 years ago . The copy I have is the fifteenth edition published in 1952 . The preface to the first edition dates back to 1883 . It is a sound book with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Vic. Gen. of the Westminster Diocese . It's not a book I use often , but when I do feel a need to consult it it always comes up trumps .

So I feel we are on a journey of discovery , at the end of which we will not have found the full solution , but that is the nature of mystery .

One last thing . You have called the thread "The Atonement" . To make it clear from the start would you please very simply and briefly say what you mean by the Atonement . I understand it to mean the reconciliation of God and humankind brought about by the redemptive work of Jesus .

Hi Paulus,

I think taking time to pray and ponder on this is a good thing to do. Your point "If I don't give an immediate response , it is not because I am ignoring you but because I am struggling with the issue" goes for me too.

As for the Atonement here is the definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"...the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one."


The only difference is that it uses satisfaction whereas you use redemptive work. Satisfaction is more specific than redemptive work but I'm happy to go with the latter as it doesn't pre-define what that redemptive work actually entails.

[Paulus]

Thanks Winsome for getting this thread going .

Because we are dealing with a profound mystery , "a remedy beyond our imagining" , I suggest that we approach it prayerfully , allowing the Holy Spirit to lead us to material , people , thoughts which may be in the depths of our subconscious etc. It will call for patience and respect for all the views put forward . If I don't give an immediate response , it is not because I am ignoring you but because I am struggling with the issue .

I would love to see theological jargon avoided wherever possible , as I would also love to see polemics avoided . I don't want to see this as a Protestant v Catholic thing . Both Catholics and Protestants have valid contributions to make , and we ought to accept them in love .

At the moment what I quoted from Father Petit is my position . As I read it it just makes sense , and rings true for me .

In my next post I hope to say something about the word "substitution" which you have used several times . I will be using "A Catholic Dictionary" for this . It is a book my parents got about 60 years ago . The copy I have is the fifteenth edition published in 1952 . The preface to the first edition dates back to 1883 . It is a sound book with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Vic. Gen. of the Westminster Diocese . It's not a book I use often , but when I do feel a need to consult it it always comes up trumps .

So I feel we are on a journey of discovery , at the end of which we will not have found the full solution , but that is the nature of mystery .

One last thing . You have called the thread "The Atonement" . To make it clear from the start would you please very simply and briefly say what you mean by the Atonement . I understand it to mean the reconciliation of God and humankind brought about by the redemptive work of Jesus .

Hi Paulus,

I think taking time to pray and ponder on this is a good thing to do. Your point "If I don't give an immediate response , it is not because I am ignoring you but because I am struggling with the issue" goes for me too.

As for the Atonement here is the definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"...the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one."


The only difference is that it uses satisfaction whereas you use redemptive work. Satisfaction is more specific than redemptive work but I'm happy to go with the latter as it doesn't pre-define what that redemptive work actually entails.

Winsome , the following is from the book I referred to , "A Catholic Dictionary" . I am quoting the parts that speak of substitution . The word "vicariously" is used a lot , from the Latin "vicarius" meaning substituted :-

God decreed the redemption through vicarious satisfaction and the Incarnation. The decree comprises the offer of God the Son to act , in a human nature , as representative of mankind and to satisfy for all its sins ( Heb 10:5 ff. ) , and on the other hand , the acceptance of this offer by God ( Gal 4:7 ; Jn 3:16,17 ) .

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand , and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

Only a Man-God was able to enter the world with a sinless human nature and to stand before God as the representative of His kin , without guilt , without the necessity of atoning for Himself .

The doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is universally taught in the Church , although no council has defined it .

The belief in Christ's atonement , or vicarious satisfaction , exactly reflects the doctrine of Holy Scripture on the work of redemption . Scripture calls the work of redemption a sacrifice , a sacrifice of propitiation , and generally applies to it the sacrificial terminology of the O.T. Christ is the High Priest of the N.T. , who offers Himself as victim , and His action is termed oblation . But the bloody sacrifices of the Old Law were certainly offered as vicarious satisfaction for sin . The sinner acknowledged that his life had been forfeited to God , and begged Him to accept as a substitution for his own , the blood ( in which is the life ) of the victim ( Lev 17:11 ) . The idea of substitution is especially clear in the imposition of hands on the head of the victim , by which rite the victim was made the bearer of the sin of the offerer ( Lev 16:21 ) . This atoning idea , of which the old sacrifices were but symbols , was truly realized in the sacrifice of Christ ( Heb 10:1ff. ) .

It is not easy to conceive how Christ died "on our behalf" if He did not die "instead of us" . The idea of vicarious sacrifice is also apparent in the testimony of the Baptist calling Christ the Lamb that bears or takes away the sins of the world ( with reference to Is 53 ) ; in 2 Cor 5;21 , " Christ who knew no sin , He (God) has made sin for us , " viz. treated Him as bearing our sins , and in Gal 3:13 , " Christ being made a curse for us , " viz. the object of Divine anger which we deserved ......The prophet Isaiah most distinctly shows the vicarious character of the Redeemer's work : " He has borne our infirmities.and carried our sorrows.....He was wounded for our iniquities , He was bruised for our sins ; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His bruises we are healed . The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all ." ( Is 53 ) .

The redemption wrought by Christ is universal , that is , sufficient and intended for all men . It is sufficient because infinite , and because its vicariousness makes it applicable to all who have the nature of man in common with the Redeemer .

[winsome]

Winsome , the following is from the book I referred to , "A Catholic Dictionary" . I am quoting the parts that speak of substitution . The word "vicariously" is used a lot , from the Latin "vicarius" meaning substituted :-

God decreed the redemption through vicarious satisfaction and the Incarnation. The decree comprises the offer of God the Son to act , in a human nature , as representative of mankind and to satisfy for all its sins ( Heb 10:5 ff. ) , and on the other hand , the acceptance of this offer by God ( Gal 4:7 ; Jn 3:16,17 ) .

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand , and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

Only a Man-God was able to enter the world with a sinless human nature and to stand before God as the representative of His kin , without guilt , without the necessity of atoning for Himself .

The doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is universally taught in the Church , although no council has defined it .

The belief in Christ's atonement , or vicarious satisfaction , exactly reflects the doctrine of Holy Scripture on the work of redemption . Scripture calls the work of redemption a sacrifice , a sacrifice of propitiation , and generally applies to it the sacrificial terminology of the O.T. Christ is the High Priest of the N.T. , who offers Himself as victim , and His action is termed oblation . But the bloody sacrifices of the Old Law were certainly offered as vicarious satisfaction for sin . The sinner acknowledged that his life had been forfeited to God , and begged Him to accept as a substitution for his own , the blood ( in which is the life ) of the victim ( Lev 17:11 ) . The idea of substitution is especially clear in the imposition of hands on the head of the victim , by which rite the victim was made the bearer of the sin of the offerer ( Lev 16:21 ) . This atoning idea , of which the old sacrifices were but symbols , was truly realized in the sacrifice of Christ ( Heb 10:1ff. ) .

It is not easy to conceive how Christ died "on our behalf" if He did not die "instead of us" . The idea of vicarious sacrifice is also apparent in the testimony of the Baptist calling Christ the Lamb that bears or takes away the sins of the world ( with reference to Is 53 ) ; in 2 Cor 5;21 , " Christ who knew no sin , He (God) has made sin for us , " viz. treated Him as bearing our sins , and in Gal 3:13 , " Christ being made a curse for us , " viz. the object of Divine anger which we deserved ......The prophet Isaiah most distinctly shows the vicarious character of the Redeemer's work : " He has borne our infirmities.and carried our sorrows.....He was wounded for our iniquities , He was bruised for our sins ; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His bruises we are healed . The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all ." ( Is 53 ) .

The redemption wrought by Christ is universal , that is , sufficient and intended for all men . It is sufficient because infinite , and because its vicariousness makes it applicable to all who have the nature of man in common with the Redeemer .

Paulus,

I agree with all you say except the part that I have emboldened in red - that Jesus was the the object of Divine anger. I think this paragraph is the key.

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

What I think needs to be answered is what that vicarious satisfaction implies, and how the compromise between "Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other" is reached.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this:

The first takes the legal stance that God's law demands punishment and death for sin (including eternal separation from God); that on the cross Jesus bore the wrath of God and was legally punished for the sins of all mankind. The demands of the law having been satisfied, mankind was no longer under condemnation because the legal debt had been paid.

The problem with this is four fold.
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God – but Jesus is not eternally separated from God.
2. God would be legally punishing an innocent person for the sins of another.
3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.
4. There is no need for God's mercy since the debt has been paid. Mercy implies reduction or "letting off" of some or all the debt of punishment.
This is a courtroom scenario with God as a dispassionate judge.

The second school of thought is that Jesus' suffering and death made satisfaction for mankind's sin and allowed God's justice to be satisfied because he became a "propitiation", a "sin offering", a "sacrifice".  The purpose of this was to please and appease God. There are several references to Jesus pleasing the Father (Mt 3:17, Jn 8:29, Mt 17:5).

Eph 5:2 states "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God". This allows the Father to be merciful; to look mercifully on his children and forgive them their sins. In this scenario God is like a loving Father who accepts his children with their faults when they are disobedient – as long as they repent and want to be reconciled – hence the parable of the Prodigal Son. By his perfect obedience, his freely offered suffering and death Jesus' is able to appease the Father's wrath, and can plead for us continually (Rom 8:34, Heb 8:25, 1Jn 2:1).
Would such intercession be necessary if Jesus had paid the (legal) penalty for our sins?

In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were intended as an offering to atone for sins, not because they paid a penalty for sins but to appease God's anger.

Under this scenario I cannot see how Jesus could be "the object of Divine anger". How could the Father be angry with his own Son? In the Old Testament when God is angry and someone intervenes to appease his anger God is not angry with that person.

Jesus became a substitute not by penal substitution (being punished instead of us) but by being an atoning substitute.
I quoted from Thomas Aquinas earlier:
He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. (Summa, Tertia Pars, Q48, Art 2).
We could offer God nothing worthy of atonement but Jesus could and did.


What of Gal 3:13?
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree".

Now there are two different curses here.

The first is the "curse of the law", a reference to Dt. 27:26 which is the final summing up curse on those who broke the law.

The second curse, the one that Paul says Jesus became, is the curse of hanging on a tree, a reference to Dt. 21:18-23 which is a curse of a man who dies a criminal's death, and specifically in this passage about a rebellious son who was a "glutton and a drunkard", something Jesus was charged with in Lk 7:34 & Mt 11:19. 
It is therefore reasonable I think to paraphrase this as Christ redeemed us from all the curses of the law by dying a criminal's death on a tree (i.e. on the cross), not that he took the curse of the law upon himself.

[mclees8]

Can i ask a

Winsome , the following is from the book I referred to , "A Catholic Dictionary" . I am quoting the parts that speak of substitution . The word "vicariously" is used a lot , from the Latin "vicarius" meaning substituted :-

God decreed the redemption through vicarious satisfaction and the Incarnation. The decree comprises the offer of God the Son to act , in a human nature , as representative of mankind and to satisfy for all its sins ( Heb 10:5 ff. ) , and on the other hand , the acceptance of this offer by God ( Gal 4:7 ; Jn 3:16,17 ) .

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand , and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

Only a Man-God was able to enter the world with a sinless human nature and to stand before God as the representative of His kin , without guilt , without the necessity of atoning for Himself .

The doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is universally taught in the Church , although no council has defined it .

The belief in Christ's atonement , or vicarious satisfaction , exactly reflects the doctrine of Holy Scripture on the work of redemption . Scripture calls the work of redemption a sacrifice , a sacrifice of propitiation , and generally applies to it the sacrificial terminology of the O.T. Christ is the High Priest of the N.T. , who offers Himself as victim , and His action is termed oblation . But the bloody sacrifices of the Old Law were certainly offered as vicarious satisfaction for sin . The sinner acknowledged that his life had been forfeited to God , and begged Him to accept as a substitution for his own , the blood ( in which is the life ) of the victim ( Lev 17:11 ) . The idea of substitution is especially clear in the imposition of hands on the head of the victim , by which rite the victim was made the bearer of the sin of the offerer ( Lev 16:21 ) . This atoning idea , of which the old sacrifices were but symbols , was truly realized in the sacrifice of Christ ( Heb 10:1ff. ) .

It is not easy to conceive how Christ died "on our behalf" if He did not die "instead of us" . The idea of vicarious sacrifice is also apparent in the testimony of the Baptist calling Christ the Lamb that bears or takes away the sins of the world ( with reference to Is 53 ) ; in 2 Cor 5;21 , " Christ who knew no sin , He (God) has made sin for us , " viz. treated Him as bearing our sins , and in Gal 3:13 , " Christ being made a curse for us , " viz. the object of Divine anger which we deserved ......The prophet Isaiah most distinctly shows the vicarious character of the Redeemer's work : " He has borne our infirmities.and carried our sorrows.....He was wounded for our iniquities , He was bruised for our sins ; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His bruises we are healed . The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all ." ( Is 53 ) .

The redemption wrought by Christ is universal , that is , sufficient and intended for all men . It is sufficient because infinite , and because its vicariousness makes it applicable to all who have the nature of man in common with the Redeemer .

Paulus,

I agree with all you say except the part that I have emboldened in red - that Jesus was the the object of Divine anger. I think this paragraph is the key.

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

What I think needs to be answered is what that vicarious satisfaction implies, and how the compromise between "Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other" is reached.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this:

The first takes the legal stance that God's law demands punishment and death for sin (including eternal separation from God); that on the cross Jesus bore the wrath of God and was legally punished for the sins of all mankind. The demands of the law having been satisfied, mankind was no longer under condemnation because the legal debt had been paid.

The problem with this is four fold.
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God – but Jesus is not eternally separated from God.
2. God would be legally punishing an innocent person for the sins of another.
3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.
4. There is no need for God's mercy since the debt has been paid. Mercy implies reduction or "letting off" of some or all the debt of punishment.
This is a courtroom scenario with God as a dispassionate judge.

The second school of thought is that Jesus' suffering and death made satisfaction for mankind's sin and allowed God's justice to be satisfied because he became a "propitiation", a "sin offering", a "sacrifice".  The purpose of this was to please and appease God. There are several references to Jesus pleasing the Father (Mt 3:17, Jn 8:29, Mt 17:5).

Eph 5:2 states "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God". This allows the Father to be merciful; to look mercifully on his children and forgive them their sins. In this scenario God is like a loving Father who accepts his children with their faults when they are disobedient – as long as they repent and want to be reconciled – hence the parable of the Prodigal Son. By his perfect obedience, his freely offered suffering and death Jesus' is able to appease the Father's wrath, and can plead for us continually (Rom 8:34, Heb 8:25, 1Jn 2:1).
Would such intercession be necessary if Jesus had paid the (legal) penalty for our sins?

In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were intended as an offering to atone for sins, not because they paid a penalty for sins but to appease God's anger.

Under this scenario I cannot see how Jesus could be "the object of Divine anger". How could the Father be angry with his own Son? In the Old Testament when God is angry and someone intervenes to appease his anger God is not angry with that person.

Jesus became a substitute not by penal substitution (being punished instead of us) but by being an atoning substitute.
I quoted from Thomas Aquinas earlier:
He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. (Summa, Tertia Pars, Q48, Art 2).
We could offer God nothing worthy of atonement but Jesus could and did.


What of Gal 3:13?
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree".

Now there are two different curses here.

The first is the "curse of the law", a reference to Dt. 27:26 which is the final summing up curse on those who broke the law.

The second curse, the one that Paul says Jesus became, is the curse of hanging on a tree, a reference to Dt. 21:18-23 which is a curse of a man who dies a criminal's death, and specifically in this passage about a rebellious son who was a "glutton and a drunkard", something Jesus was charged with in Lk 7:34 & Mt 11:19. 
It is therefore reasonable I think to paraphrase this as Christ redeemed us from all the curses of the law by dying a criminal's death on a tree (i.e. on the cross), not that he took the curse of the law upon himself.

Question?  Why don't you just cut all the scholarly book style definaitions and listen to what it means from your heart or do you ever consider that?  Maybe that  would make it  to simple.  Pondering Hmmm 

[Paulus]

Winsome , the following is from the book I referred to , "A Catholic Dictionary" . I am quoting the parts that speak of substitution . The word "vicariously" is used a lot , from the Latin "vicarius" meaning substituted :-

God decreed the redemption through vicarious satisfaction and the Incarnation. The decree comprises the offer of God the Son to act , in a human nature , as representative of mankind and to satisfy for all its sins ( Heb 10:5 ff. ) , and on the other hand , the acceptance of this offer by God ( Gal 4:7 ; Jn 3:16,17 ) .

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand , and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

Only a Man-God was able to enter the world with a sinless human nature and to stand before God as the representative of His kin , without guilt , without the necessity of atoning for Himself .

The doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is universally taught in the Church , although no council has defined it .

The belief in Christ's atonement , or vicarious satisfaction , exactly reflects the doctrine of Holy Scripture on the work of redemption . Scripture calls the work of redemption a sacrifice , a sacrifice of propitiation , and generally applies to it the sacrificial terminology of the O.T. Christ is the High Priest of the N.T. , who offers Himself as victim , and His action is termed oblation . But the bloody sacrifices of the Old Law were certainly offered as vicarious satisfaction for sin . The sinner acknowledged that his life had been forfeited to God , and begged Him to accept as a substitution for his own , the blood ( in which is the life ) of the victim ( Lev 17:11 ) . The idea of substitution is especially clear in the imposition of hands on the head of the victim , by which rite the victim was made the bearer of the sin of the offerer ( Lev 16:21 ) . This atoning idea , of which the old sacrifices were but symbols , was truly realized in the sacrifice of Christ ( Heb 10:1ff. ) .

It is not easy to conceive how Christ died "on our behalf" if He did not die "instead of us" . The idea of vicarious sacrifice is also apparent in the testimony of the Baptist calling Christ the Lamb that bears or takes away the sins of the world ( with reference to Is 53 ) ; in 2 Cor 5;21 , " Christ who knew no sin , He (God) has made sin for us , " viz. treated Him as bearing our sins , and in Gal 3:13 , " Christ being made a curse for us , " viz. the object of Divine anger which we deserved ......The prophet Isaiah most distinctly shows the vicarious character of the Redeemer's work : " He has borne our infirmities.and carried our sorrows.....He was wounded for our iniquities , He was bruised for our sins ; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His bruises we are healed . The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all ." ( Is 53 ) .

The redemption wrought by Christ is universal , that is , sufficient and intended for all men . It is sufficient because infinite , and because its vicariousness makes it applicable to all who have the nature of man in common with the Redeemer .

Paulus,

I agree with all you say except the part that I have emboldened in red - that Jesus was the the object of Divine anger. I think this paragraph is the key.

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

What I think needs to be answered is what that vicarious satisfaction implies, and how the compromise between "Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other" is reached.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this:

The first takes the legal stance that God's law demands punishment and death for sin (including eternal separation from God); that on the cross Jesus bore the wrath of God and was legally punished for the sins of all mankind. The demands of the law having been satisfied, mankind was no longer under condemnation because the legal debt had been paid.

The problem with this is four fold.
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God – but Jesus is not eternally separated from God.
2. God would be legally punishing an innocent person for the sins of another.
3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.
4. There is no need for God's mercy since the debt has been paid. Mercy implies reduction or "letting off" of some or all the debt of punishment.
This is a courtroom scenario with God as a dispassionate judge.

The second school of thought is that Jesus' suffering and death made satisfaction for mankind's sin and allowed God's justice to be satisfied because he became a "propitiation", a "sin offering", a "sacrifice".  The purpose of this was to please and appease God. There are several references to Jesus pleasing the Father (Mt 3:17, Jn 8:29, Mt 17:5).

Eph 5:2 states "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God". This allows the Father to be merciful; to look mercifully on his children and forgive them their sins. In this scenario God is like a loving Father who accepts his children with their faults when they are disobedient – as long as they repent and want to be reconciled – hence the parable of the Prodigal Son. By his perfect obedience, his freely offered suffering and death Jesus' is able to appease the Father's wrath, and can plead for us continually (Rom 8:34, Heb 8:25, 1Jn 2:1).
Would such intercession be necessary if Jesus had paid the (legal) penalty for our sins?

In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were intended as an offering to atone for sins, not because they paid a penalty for sins but to appease God's anger.

Under this scenario I cannot see how Jesus could be "the object of Divine anger". How could the Father be angry with his own Son? In the Old Testament when God is angry and someone intervenes to appease his anger God is not angry with that person.

Jesus became a substitute not by penal substitution (being punished instead of us) but by being an atoning substitute.
I quoted from Thomas Aquinas earlier:
He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. (Summa, Tertia Pars, Q48, Art 2).
We could offer God nothing worthy of atonement but Jesus could and did.


What of Gal 3:13?
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree".

Now there are two different curses here.

The first is the "curse of the law", a reference to Dt. 27:26 which is the final summing up curse on those who broke the law.

The second curse, the one that Paul says Jesus became, is the curse of hanging on a tree, a reference to Dt. 21:18-23 which is a curse of a man who dies a criminal's death, and specifically in this passage about a rebellious son who was a "glutton and a drunkard", something Jesus was charged with in Lk 7:34 & Mt 11:19. 
It is therefore reasonable I think to paraphrase this as Christ redeemed us from all the curses of the law by dying a criminal's death on a tree (i.e. on the cross), not that he took the curse of the law upon himself.

Thanks ,  Winsome . I am really struggling with all of this . I have been doing some reading but need to get my head around what I have read before I post anything . Time for a rest . This hymn has come to mind a few times in the last few days . Lets enjoy it .
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snf1FiBSLvY

[Paulus]

Winsome , the following is from the book I referred to , "A Catholic Dictionary" . I am quoting the parts that speak of substitution . The word "vicariously" is used a lot , from the Latin "vicarius" meaning substituted :-

God decreed the redemption through vicarious satisfaction and the Incarnation. The decree comprises the offer of God the Son to act , in a human nature , as representative of mankind and to satisfy for all its sins ( Heb 10:5 ff. ) , and on the other hand , the acceptance of this offer by God ( Gal 4:7 ; Jn 3:16,17 ) .

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand , and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

Only a Man-God was able to enter the world with a sinless human nature and to stand before God as the representative of His kin , without guilt , without the necessity of atoning for Himself .

The doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is universally taught in the Church , although no council has defined it .

The belief in Christ's atonement , or vicarious satisfaction , exactly reflects the doctrine of Holy Scripture on the work of redemption . Scripture calls the work of redemption a sacrifice , a sacrifice of propitiation , and generally applies to it the sacrificial terminology of the O.T. Christ is the High Priest of the N.T. , who offers Himself as victim , and His action is termed oblation . But the bloody sacrifices of the Old Law were certainly offered as vicarious satisfaction for sin . The sinner acknowledged that his life had been forfeited to God , and begged Him to accept as a substitution for his own , the blood ( in which is the life ) of the victim ( Lev 17:11 ) . The idea of substitution is especially clear in the imposition of hands on the head of the victim , by which rite the victim was made the bearer of the sin of the offerer ( Lev 16:21 ) . This atoning idea , of which the old sacrifices were but symbols , was truly realized in the sacrifice of Christ ( Heb 10:1ff. ) .

It is not easy to conceive how Christ died "on our behalf" if He did not die "instead of us" . The idea of vicarious sacrifice is also apparent in the testimony of the Baptist calling Christ the Lamb that bears or takes away the sins of the world ( with reference to Is 53 ) ; in 2 Cor 5;21 , " Christ who knew no sin , He (God) has made sin for us , " viz. treated Him as bearing our sins , and in Gal 3:13 , " Christ being made a curse for us , " viz. the object of Divine anger which we deserved ......The prophet Isaiah most distinctly shows the vicarious character of the Redeemer's work : " He has borne our infirmities.and carried our sorrows.....He was wounded for our iniquities , He was bruised for our sins ; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His bruises we are healed . The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all ." ( Is 53 ) .

The redemption wrought by Christ is universal , that is , sufficient and intended for all men . It is sufficient because infinite , and because its vicariousness makes it applicable to all who have the nature of man in common with the Redeemer .

Paulus,

I agree with all you say except the part that I have emboldened in red - that Jesus was the the object of Divine anger. I think this paragraph is the key.

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

What I think needs to be answered is what that vicarious satisfaction implies, and how the compromise between "Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other" is reached.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this:

The first takes the legal stance that God's law demands punishment and death for sin (including eternal separation from God); that on the cross Jesus bore the wrath of God and was legally punished for the sins of all mankind. The demands of the law having been satisfied, mankind was no longer under condemnation because the legal debt had been paid.

The problem with this is four fold.
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God – but Jesus is not eternally separated from God.
2. God would be legally punishing an innocent person for the sins of another.
3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.
4. There is no need for God's mercy since the debt has been paid. Mercy implies reduction or "letting off" of some or all the debt of punishment.
This is a courtroom scenario with God as a dispassionate judge.

The second school of thought is that Jesus' suffering and death made satisfaction for mankind's sin and allowed God's justice to be satisfied because he became a "propitiation", a "sin offering", a "sacrifice".  The purpose of this was to please and appease God. There are several references to Jesus pleasing the Father (Mt 3:17, Jn 8:29, Mt 17:5).

Eph 5:2 states "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God". This allows the Father to be merciful; to look mercifully on his children and forgive them their sins. In this scenario God is like a loving Father who accepts his children with their faults when they are disobedient – as long as they repent and want to be reconciled – hence the parable of the Prodigal Son. By his perfect obedience, his freely offered suffering and death Jesus' is able to appease the Father's wrath, and can plead for us continually (Rom 8:34, Heb 8:25, 1Jn 2:1).
Would such intercession be necessary if Jesus had paid the (legal) penalty for our sins?

In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were intended as an offering to atone for sins, not because they paid a penalty for sins but to appease God's anger.

Under this scenario I cannot see how Jesus could be "the object of Divine anger". How could the Father be angry with his own Son? In the Old Testament when God is angry and someone intervenes to appease his anger God is not angry with that person.

Jesus became a substitute not by penal substitution (being punished instead of us) but by being an atoning substitute.
I quoted from Thomas Aquinas earlier:
He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. (Summa, Tertia Pars, Q48, Art 2).
We could offer God nothing worthy of atonement but Jesus could and did.


What of Gal 3:13?
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree".

Now there are two different curses here.

The first is the "curse of the law", a reference to Dt. 27:26 which is the final summing up curse on those who broke the law.

The second curse, the one that Paul says Jesus became, is the curse of hanging on a tree, a reference to Dt. 21:18-23 which is a curse of a man who dies a criminal's death, and specifically in this passage about a rebellious son who was a "glutton and a drunkard", something Jesus was charged with in Lk 7:34 & Mt 11:19. 
It is therefore reasonable I think to paraphrase this as Christ redeemed us from all the curses of the law by dying a criminal's death on a tree (i.e. on the cross), not that he took the curse of the law upon himself.

Good morning , Winsome , and a happy feast of Our Lady of Lourdes .

You say that you agree with all I say except....

But that is part of the problem . I am not saying it , rather it is "A Catholic Dictionary" that is saying it .

There are words being used that are not part of the way I think or of how I express myself . Words like atonement , satisfaction ,  substitution , redemptive , expiation , propitiation etc. are not words I would use . I look up what words such as these mean and get definitions and explanations of them , but sometimes I am told that the definition is not necessarily what it means in theology . Then there are the theological definitions , often not clearly in agreement with each other , and so I become more confused . The words we use should be what they mean in everyday usage , and if they cannot be so then we ought to find ways of expression that are compatible with the language of the average person .

In her vision the Lady told Bernadette that she was the Immaculate Conception . Bernadette did not have a clue what she was on about . Today many , if not most people , equate Immaculate Conception with the virgin birth of Jesus .

On this thread I feel very strongly that we ought to be using words which Bernadette would have understood , otherwise the Good News is wrapped up in theological jargon and evangelisation becomes impossible because the way it is expressed is incomprehensible to the man or woman in the street .

Now having said that , I will be posting material which may not answer specific questions you have asked . I am not dodging them but attempting to answer some of the big questions that are coming across in the thread . Now when I have done that I will attempt to answer any questions you ask which my posts have not answered . Probably most of the answers will be " I do not know " .

[Paulus]

Winsome , the following is from the book I referred to , "A Catholic Dictionary" . I am quoting the parts that speak of substitution . The word "vicariously" is used a lot , from the Latin "vicarius" meaning substituted :-

God decreed the redemption through vicarious satisfaction and the Incarnation. The decree comprises the offer of God the Son to act , in a human nature , as representative of mankind and to satisfy for all its sins ( Heb 10:5 ff. ) , and on the other hand , the acceptance of this offer by God ( Gal 4:7 ; Jn 3:16,17 ) .

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand , and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

Only a Man-God was able to enter the world with a sinless human nature and to stand before God as the representative of His kin , without guilt , without the necessity of atoning for Himself .

The doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is universally taught in the Church , although no council has defined it .

The belief in Christ's atonement , or vicarious satisfaction , exactly reflects the doctrine of Holy Scripture on the work of redemption . Scripture calls the work of redemption a sacrifice , a sacrifice of propitiation , and generally applies to it the sacrificial terminology of the O.T. Christ is the High Priest of the N.T. , who offers Himself as victim , and His action is termed oblation . But the bloody sacrifices of the Old Law were certainly offered as vicarious satisfaction for sin . The sinner acknowledged that his life had been forfeited to God , and begged Him to accept as a substitution for his own , the blood ( in which is the life ) of the victim ( Lev 17:11 ) . The idea of substitution is especially clear in the imposition of hands on the head of the victim , by which rite the victim was made the bearer of the sin of the offerer ( Lev 16:21 ) . This atoning idea , of which the old sacrifices were but symbols , was truly realized in the sacrifice of Christ ( Heb 10:1ff. ) .

It is not easy to conceive how Christ died "on our behalf" if He did not die "instead of us" . The idea of vicarious sacrifice is also apparent in the testimony of the Baptist calling Christ the Lamb that bears or takes away the sins of the world ( with reference to Is 53 ) ; in 2 Cor 5;21 , " Christ who knew no sin , He (God) has made sin for us , " viz. treated Him as bearing our sins , and in Gal 3:13 , " Christ being made a curse for us , " viz. the object of Divine anger which we deserved ......The prophet Isaiah most distinctly shows the vicarious character of the Redeemer's work : " He has borne our infirmities.and carried our sorrows.....He was wounded for our iniquities , He was bruised for our sins ; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His bruises we are healed . The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all ." ( Is 53 ) .

The redemption wrought by Christ is universal , that is , sufficient and intended for all men . It is sufficient because infinite , and because its vicariousness makes it applicable to all who have the nature of man in common with the Redeemer .

Paulus,

I agree with all you say except the part that I have emboldened in red - that Jesus was the the object of Divine anger. I think this paragraph is the key.

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

What I think needs to be answered is what that vicarious satisfaction implies, and how the compromise between "Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other" is reached.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this:

The first takes the legal stance that God's law demands punishment and death for sin (including eternal separation from God); that on the cross Jesus bore the wrath of God and was legally punished for the sins of all mankind. The demands of the law having been satisfied, mankind was no longer under condemnation because the legal debt had been paid.

The problem with this is four fold.
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God – but Jesus is not eternally separated from God.
2. God would be legally punishing an innocent person for the sins of another.
3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.
4. There is no need for God's mercy since the debt has been paid. Mercy implies reduction or "letting off" of some or all the debt of punishment.
This is a courtroom scenario with God as a dispassionate judge.

The second school of thought is that Jesus' suffering and death made satisfaction for mankind's sin and allowed God's justice to be satisfied because he became a "propitiation", a "sin offering", a "sacrifice".  The purpose of this was to please and appease God. There are several references to Jesus pleasing the Father (Mt 3:17, Jn 8:29, Mt 17:5).

Eph 5:2 states "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God". This allows the Father to be merciful; to look mercifully on his children and forgive them their sins. In this scenario God is like a loving Father who accepts his children with their faults when they are disobedient – as long as they repent and want to be reconciled – hence the parable of the Prodigal Son. By his perfect obedience, his freely offered suffering and death Jesus' is able to appease the Father's wrath, and can plead for us continually (Rom 8:34, Heb 8:25, 1Jn 2:1).
Would such intercession be necessary if Jesus had paid the (legal) penalty for our sins?

In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were intended as an offering to atone for sins, not because they paid a penalty for sins but to appease God's anger.

Under this scenario I cannot see how Jesus could be "the object of Divine anger". How could the Father be angry with his own Son? In the Old Testament when God is angry and someone intervenes to appease his anger God is not angry with that person.

Jesus became a substitute not by penal substitution (being punished instead of us) but by being an atoning substitute.
I quoted from Thomas Aquinas earlier:
He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. (Summa, Tertia Pars, Q48, Art 2).
We could offer God nothing worthy of atonement but Jesus could and did.


What of Gal 3:13?
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree".

Now there are two different curses here.

The first is the "curse of the law", a reference to Dt. 27:26 which is the final summing up curse on those who broke the law.

The second curse, the one that Paul says Jesus became, is the curse of hanging on a tree, a reference to Dt. 21:18-23 which is a curse of a man who dies a criminal's death, and specifically in this passage about a rebellious son who was a "glutton and a drunkard", something Jesus was charged with in Lk 7:34 & Mt 11:19. 
It is therefore reasonable I think to paraphrase this as Christ redeemed us from all the curses of the law by dying a criminal's death on a tree (i.e. on the cross), not that he took the curse of the law upon himself.

Good morning , Winsome , and a happy feast of Our Lady of Lourdes .

You say that you agree with all I say except....

But that is part of the problem . I am not saying it , rather it is "A Catholic Dictionary" that is saying it .

There are words being used that are not part of the way I think or of how I express myself . Words like atonement , satisfaction ,  substitution , redemptive , expiation , propitiation etc. are not words I would use . I look up what words such as these mean and get definitions and explanations of them , but sometimes I am told that the definition is not necessarily what it means in theology . Then there are the theological definitions , often not clearly in agreement with each other , and so I become more confused . The words we use should be what they mean in everyday usage , and if they cannot be so then we ought to find ways of expression that are compatible with the language of the average person .

In her vision the Lady told Bernadette that she was the Immaculate Conception . Bernadette did not have a clue what she was on about . Today many , if not most people , equate Immaculate Conception with the virgin birth of Jesus .

On this thread I feel very strongly that we ought to be using words which Bernadette would have understood , otherwise the Good News is wrapped up in theological jargon and evangelisation becomes impossible because the way it is expressed is incomprehensible to the man or woman in the street .

Now having said that , I will be posting material which may not answer specific questions you have asked . I am not dodging them but attempting to answer some of the big questions that are coming across in the thread . Now when I have done that I will attempt to answer any questions you ask which my posts have not answered . Probably most of the answers will be " I do not know " .
[/quo

Winsome , the following is from the book I referred to , "A Catholic Dictionary" . I am quoting the parts that speak of substitution . The word "vicariously" is used a lot , from the Latin "vicarius" meaning substituted :-

God decreed the redemption through vicarious satisfaction and the Incarnation. The decree comprises the offer of God the Son to act , in a human nature , as representative of mankind and to satisfy for all its sins ( Heb 10:5 ff. ) , and on the other hand , the acceptance of this offer by God ( Gal 4:7 ; Jn 3:16,17 ) .

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand , and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

Only a Man-God was able to enter the world with a sinless human nature and to stand before God as the representative of His kin , without guilt , without the necessity of atoning for Himself .

The doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is universally taught in the Church , although no council has defined it .

The belief in Christ's atonement , or vicarious satisfaction , exactly reflects the doctrine of Holy Scripture on the work of redemption . Scripture calls the work of redemption a sacrifice , a sacrifice of propitiation , and generally applies to it the sacrificial terminology of the O.T. Christ is the High Priest of the N.T. , who offers Himself as victim , and His action is termed oblation . But the bloody sacrifices of the Old Law were certainly offered as vicarious satisfaction for sin . The sinner acknowledged that his life had been forfeited to God , and begged Him to accept as a substitution for his own , the blood ( in which is the life ) of the victim ( Lev 17:11 ) . The idea of substitution is especially clear in the imposition of hands on the head of the victim , by which rite the victim was made the bearer of the sin of the offerer ( Lev 16:21 ) . This atoning idea , of which the old sacrifices were but symbols , was truly realized in the sacrifice of Christ ( Heb 10:1ff. ) .

It is not easy to conceive how Christ died "on our behalf" if He did not die "instead of us" . The idea of vicarious sacrifice is also apparent in the testimony of the Baptist calling Christ the Lamb that bears or takes away the sins of the world ( with reference to Is 53 ) ; in 2 Cor 5;21 , " Christ who knew no sin , He (God) has made sin for us , " viz. treated Him as bearing our sins , and in Gal 3:13 , " Christ being made a curse for us , " viz. the object of Divine anger which we deserved ......The prophet Isaiah most distinctly shows the vicarious character of the Redeemer's work : " He has borne our infirmities.and carried our sorrows.....He was wounded for our iniquities , He was bruised for our sins ; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His bruises we are healed . The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all ." ( Is 53 ) .

The redemption wrought by Christ is universal , that is , sufficient and intended for all men . It is sufficient because infinite , and because its vicariousness makes it applicable to all who have the nature of man in common with the Redeemer .

Paulus,

I agree with all you say except the part that I have emboldened in red - that Jesus was the the object of Divine anger. I think this paragraph is the key.

A compromise is possible between Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other . It lies in the acceptance by God of a vicarious satisfaction . This kind of satisfaction takes place when some person substitutes himself for another and acts or suffers in his place and on his behalf .

What I think needs to be answered is what that vicarious satisfaction implies, and how the compromise between "Divine holiness and justice on the one hand, and Divine mercy and love on the other" is reached.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this:

The first takes the legal stance that God's law demands punishment and death for sin (including eternal separation from God); that on the cross Jesus bore the wrath of God and was legally punished for the sins of all mankind. The demands of the law having been satisfied, mankind was no longer under condemnation because the legal debt had been paid.

The problem with this is four fold.
1. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God – but Jesus is not eternally separated from God.
2. God would be legally punishing an innocent person for the sins of another.
3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.
4. There is no need for God's mercy since the debt has been paid. Mercy implies reduction or "letting off" of some or all the debt of punishment.
This is a courtroom scenario with God as a dispassionate judge.

The second school of thought is that Jesus' suffering and death made satisfaction for mankind's sin and allowed God's justice to be satisfied because he became a "propitiation", a "sin offering", a "sacrifice".  The purpose of this was to please and appease God. There are several references to Jesus pleasing the Father (Mt 3:17, Jn 8:29, Mt 17:5).

Eph 5:2 states "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God". This allows the Father to be merciful; to look mercifully on his children and forgive them their sins. In this scenario God is like a loving Father who accepts his children with their faults when they are disobedient – as long as they repent and want to be reconciled – hence the parable of the Prodigal Son. By his perfect obedience, his freely offered suffering and death Jesus' is able to appease the Father's wrath, and can plead for us continually (Rom 8:34, Heb 8:25, 1Jn 2:1).
Would such intercession be necessary if Jesus had paid the (legal) penalty for our sins?

In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were intended as an offering to atone for sins, not because they paid a penalty for sins but to appease God's anger.

Under this scenario I cannot see how Jesus could be "the object of Divine anger". How could the Father be angry with his own Son? In the Old Testament when God is angry and someone intervenes to appease his anger God is not angry with that person.

Jesus became a substitute not by penal substitution (being punished instead of us) but by being an atoning substitute.
I quoted from Thomas Aquinas earlier:
He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. (Summa, Tertia Pars, Q48, Art 2).
We could offer God nothing worthy of atonement but Jesus could and did.


What of Gal 3:13?
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree".

Now there are two different curses here.

The first is the "curse of the law", a reference to Dt. 27:26 which is the final summing up curse on those who broke the law.

The second curse, the one that Paul says Jesus became, is the curse of hanging on a tree, a reference to Dt. 21:18-23 which is a curse of a man who dies a criminal's death, and specifically in this passage about a rebellious son who was a "glutton and a drunkard", something Jesus was charged with in Lk 7:34 & Mt 11:19. 
It is therefore reasonable I think to paraphrase this as Christ redeemed us from all the curses of the law by dying a criminal's death on a tree (i.e. on the cross), not that he took the curse of the law upon himself.

Good morning , Winsome , and a happy feast of Our Lady of Lourdes .

You say that you agree with all I say except....

But that is part of the problem . I am not saying it , rather it is "A Catholic Dictionary" that is saying it .

There are words being used that are not part of the way I think or of how I express myself . Words like atonement , satisfaction ,  substitution , redemptive , expiation , propitiation etc. are not words I would use . I look up what words such as these mean and get definitions and explanations of them , but sometimes I am told that the definition is not necessarily what it means in theology . Then there are the theological definitions , often not clearly in agreement with each other , and so I become more confused . The words we use should be what they mean in everyday usage , and if they cannot be so then we ought to find ways of expression that are compatible with the language of the average person .

In her vision the Lady told Bernadette that she was the Immaculate Conception . Bernadette did not have a clue what she was on about . Today many , if not most people , equate Immaculate Conception with the virgin birth of Jesus .

On this thread I feel very strongly that we ought to be using words which Bernadette would have understood , otherwise the Good News is wrapped up in theological jargon and evangelisation becomes impossible because the way it is expressed is incomprehensible to the man or woman in the street .

Now having said that , I will be posting material which may not answer specific questions you have asked . I am not dodging them but attempting to answer some of the big questions that are coming across in the thread . Now when I have done that I will attempt to answer any questions you ask which my posts have not answered . Probably most of the answers will be " I do not know " .

One of the big questions underlying much of what has been posted is the role and attitude of the Father in all of this .

I am quoting from Father Raniero Cantalamessa's book Life in Christ which is a spiritual commentary on the Letter to the Romans .

What this Preacher to the Papal Household says may help to answer some of the other questions raised , and should be kept in mind whenever we are thinking of the Atonement .

The following is some of what he says .

In Rom 5:6-11 and again in Rom 8:32 the Apostle talks to us of God the Father's love for us as the ultimate source from which redemption springs . Let us carefully heed what he says : " God (the Father) shows his love for us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us , " and again : " God did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all . " ( Rom 8:32 ) . God the Father shows his love for us in causing his own Son to die ! Humanly speaking this is an unbelievable , even scandalous thought . The fact that Christ died does not show the Father's love , if anything it shows his cruelty , or , at least , his strict justice . In fact , knowledge of the Father is almost impeded in our present day culture by numerous prejudices . Jesus repeats with sadness what he said one day : " O righteous Father , the world has not known you . " ( Jn 17:25 ) .

This way of explaining things doesn't take sufficient account of a fundamental truth , namely the divine union of will the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit in virtue of which what the Father wants , the Son wants in the same way . If , therefore there was "cruelty" in God , this was not the Father's cruelty against the Son , but God's cruelty against himself . God was cruel with himself for love of man .

The Father was not absent , in heaven , while his Son went towards Calvary . On the contrary , he was with him . Jesus said to his disciples : " You will leave me alone ; yet I am not alone for the Father is with me . " ( Jn 16:32 ) .....The Father and Son are together in the Passion . The moment when Jesus feels the Father most distant and cries out : " Why have you abandoned me ? "is , in fact , the moment in which the Father is closest to him because at that moment the human will of the Son is most closely united to the divine will .

The earliest theology of the Church spoke of God's suffering in Christ with the greatest simplicity and certainty . Tertullian reports the words of a witness of this archaic theology which flourished above all in Asia Minor : " If the Son suffered , the Father suffered with him , " and again , " How could the Son have suffered without the Father suffering with him ! "

The Father's suffering was certainly different than that of the Son made man ; it was a reflex suffering or a suffering of compassion . As the first theologians rightly said , " If the Son suffered because of his passion , the Father suffered because of his com-passion . "

We must now face the most delicate point which gave rise to the image of the Father who is "implacable" towards his Son Jesu Christ . Why did the Father "give" him up to die and how can this be reconciled with his "compassion" ? In John's Gospel Jesus says : " For this reason the Father loves me , because I lay down my life , that I may take it up again . No one takes it from me , but I lay it down of my own accord . I have power to lay it down , and I have power to take it up again ; this charge I have received from my Father . " ( Jn 10:17-18 ) . Jesus speaks of "power" to lay down his life , of a "mandate" to do so , of a free act of obedience , and the key to the mystery lies in this paradox . How and when did the Father give his Son the "mandate" to freely lay down his life ? St Thomas Aquinas tells us that the Father gave his Son to death " insofar as he inspired him with the will to die for us , infusing him with love for us . " What a different image of the Father emerges from these words compared to the image evoked at the beginning ! The "mandate" the Son received from the Father is therefore first of all , a charge to love us . In transmitting his nature , which is love , to his Son , the Father transmitted his "passion of love" and this passion of love took Jesus to the Cross !

( My apologies for the small print. I must have clicked on the machine in the wrong place somewhere along the line .  )

[winsome]

 Hi Paulus,

I have been looking at what Pope Benedict had to say about the Atonement in his book Jesus of Nazareth, Part Two

The "Lamb of God" took upon the sins of the world and wiped them away. God's relationship to the world, formerly distorted by sin, was now renewed. Reconciliation had been accomplished.

Paul provides a synthesis of the Christ-event, the new message of Jesus Christ, in these words: "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. ...We beg you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" (2Cor 5:19-20).........

In Jesus' Passion, all the filth of the world touches the infinitely pure one, the soul of Jesus Christ and, hence, the Son of God himself. While it is usually the case that anything unclean touching something clean renders it unclean, here it is the other way round: when the world, with all its injustice and cruelty that makes it unclean, comes into contact with the infinitely pure one – then he, the pure one, is stronger. Through the contact, the filth of the world is truly absorbed, wiped out, and transformed in the pain of infinite love.......

God himself becomes the locus of reconciliation, and in the person of his Son takes the suffering upon himself. God himself grants his infinite purity to the world. God himself "drinks the cup" of every horror to the dregs and thereby restores justice through the greatness of his love which, through suffering , transforms the darkness.


Now how those ideas relate to Fr. Cantalamessa's or Robert Sungenis' ideas I cannot explain, but a common theme running through both of them (& my quote from St. Thomas Aquinas) is self sacrificing love.

Moreover there does not seem to me to be any hint of Jesus taking some sort of legal penalty/ punishment, nor of  Jesus bearing God's wrath. Indeed Fr. Cantalamessa seems to specifically rule out the notion from the Catholic Dictionary that Jesus was "the object of Divine anger" – when he said:

"If , therefore there was "cruelty" in God , this was not the Father's cruelty against the Son,, but God's cruelty against himself . God was cruel with himself for love of man...... The Father was not absent , in heaven , while his Son went towards Calvary ......The Father and Son are together in the Passion ."

[Paulus]

Hi Paulus,

I have been looking at what Pope Benedict had to say about the Atonement in his book Jesus of Nazareth, Part Two

The "Lamb of God" took upon the sins of the world and wiped them away. God's relationship to the world, formerly distorted by sin, was now renewed. Reconciliation had been accomplished.

Paul provides a synthesis of the Christ-event, the new message of Jesus Christ, in these words: "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. ...We beg you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" (2Cor 5:19-20).........

In Jesus' Passion, all the filth of the world touches the infinitely pure one, the soul of Jesus Christ and, hence, the Son of God himself. While it is usually the case that anything unclean touching something clean renders it unclean, here it is the other way round: when the world, with all its injustice and cruelty that makes it unclean, comes into contact with the infinitely pure one – then he, the pure one, is stronger. Through the contact, the filth of the world is truly absorbed, wiped out, and transformed in the pain of infinite love.......

God himself becomes the locus of reconciliation, and in the person of his Son takes the suffering upon himself. God himself grants his infinite purity to the world. God himself "drinks the cup" of every horror to the dregs and thereby restores justice through the greatness of his love which, through suffering , transforms the darkness.


Now how those ideas relate to Fr. Cantalamessa's or Robert Sungenis' ideas I cannot explain, but a common theme running through both of them (& my quote from St. Thomas Aquinas) is self sacrificing love.

Moreover there does not seem to me to be any hint of Jesus taking some sort of legal penalty/ punishment, nor of  Jesus bearing God's wrath. Indeed Fr. Cantalamessa seems to specifically rule out the notion from the Catholic Dictionary that Jesus was "the object of Divine anger" – when he said:

"If , therefore there was "cruelty" in God , this was not the Father's cruelty against the Son,, but God's cruelty against himself . God was cruel with himself for love of man...... The Father was not absent , in heaven , while his Son went towards Calvary ......The Father and Son are together in the Passion ."

Yes , Winsome , "love" has to be the core of the Atonement .

" Legal penalty/punishment " are juridical terms I would not use . However if there is truth in that concept there must be a non-juridical way of expressing it .

"Bearing God's wrath" and "Jesus being the object of Divine anger" are ways of thinking I would be reluctanct to use because they can be so easily misunderstood , but I perceive glimmers of light which may help to reach an understanding of the truth behind such terminology .

There is just one more piece of writing which I will be putting on the thread . In my last post I quoted Fr. Cantalamessa's words on the role and attitude of the Father . So I will quote what he says about the role of Jesus . After which I will have to get down to using my own words and dialoguing with you .

[Paulus]

Thoughts taken from Fr. Cantalamessa's "Life in Christ" :-

In Gethsemane came the cry : " Abba , Father , all things are possible to thee : remove this cup from me . " ( Mk 14:36 ) .

In the Bible the image of the cup always evokes the idea of God's wrath against sin . The "cup of staggering ," Isaiah calls it ( Is 51:22 ) ; it is said of it that the wicked " shall drain it down to the dregs " ( Ps 75:9 ) . Also Revelation talks of " the wine of God's wrath , poured unmixed into the cup of his anger " ( Rev 14:10 ) . At the beginning of his Letter to the Romans St Paul establishes a universal principle : " The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness " ( Rom 1:18 ) . Wherever sin exists , God's judgement cannot but be focussed on it , otherwise God would reach a compromise with sin and the very distinction itself between good and evil would no longer exist . Now , Jesus in Gethsemane is impiety , all the impiety of the world . He is man "made sin" . Christ , it is written , died "for sinners" ; he died in their place and not only in their favour . He accepted to answer for all men ; he is , therefore , "responsible" for all , the guilty one before God ! It is against him that God's wrath "is revealed" , and that is what "drinking the cup" means . A correct understanding of Christ's Passion is hindered by an extrinsic view of things according to which we have , on one side , man and his sin and on the other side , Jesus suffering and expiating those sins  , though he remains detached and untouched by sin . The relation of Jesus to sin is not distant or indirect , or even simply juridic , but real and close . Sin , in other words , was in him , he bore it because he had freely "taken it on himself" : " He himself bore our sins in his body " ( "body" meaning here his very person ) ( 1 Pet 2:24 ) . He felt that he was in some way the sin of the world .

In Jesus , at Gethsemane , the words of Isaiah are completely fulfilled : " Bruised for our iniquities , upon him was the chastisement that made us whole " ( Is 53:5 ) ..... The Lord has "laid" on him the iniquity of us all ( Is 53:6 ) ; he is the Lamb of God who takes "away" , or better "upon himself" the sins of the world ( Jn 1:29 ) . Sin was the real cross , that Jesus took upon his shoulders and which he carried all the way to Calvary and to which he was eventually nailed !

Because Jesus bears sin in himself , God is absent . God is the cause of his greatest torment , not in the sense that he is responsible , but in the sense that by simply existing he brings sin to light and makes it unbearable . The infinite attraction between the Father and the Son is now thwarted by an equally infinite repulsion . God's supreme holiness clashes with the supreme evil of sin , causing an indescribable upheaval in the Redeemer's soul . How can we then wonder at the cry that came from the lips of Jesus : " My soul is very sorrowful , even to death ! " and at his sweat of blood ? Jesus lived what we call today a "limit-situation" , but the "limit" he reached was not a relative one  , but the absolute limit of any possible human experience .

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law , having become a curse for us - for it is written , " Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree " ( Gal 3:13 ) . The word "curse" is synonymous , in the Bible , with abandonment , emptiness , solitude , separation from God and of being excluded by the people .....Jesus really became accursed and cut off from God for the sake of us all ! On the Cross he cried out : " My God , my God , why have you forsaken me ? " ( Mtt 27:46 ) .

On the Cross Jesus experienced the ultimate consequence of sin , which is the loss of God . He has become the godless one , the atheist . The word "atheist" can have either an active or a passive connotation . It can indicate someone who refuses God , but also someone who is refused by God . In this second significance the word applies to Jesus on the cross . His atheism was one of pain not of guilt . It expiated all the culpable atheism that exists in the world and in each one of us under the form of rebellion against God and indifference to God . Truly , "upon him was the chastisement that made us whole" ( Is 53:5 ) .

If Christ died "for me" and "for my sins" , this meams that "I" killed him . That is what Peter strongly proclaimed on the day of Pentecost : " You killed Jesus of Nazareth ! " ,  " You denied the holy and righteous one ! " ( cf. Acts 2:23 ; 3;14 ) .

[winsome]

Hi Paulus,
Firstly I apologise for the length of this post. I shall try and keep any future ones much shorter.

As much as I respect Fr. Cantalemessa, I do not agree that The Father abandoned Jesus. Indeed such as view seems to contradict what he said in an earlier post you made:
The Father was not absent , in heaven , while his Son went towards Calvary . On the contrary , he was with him . Jesus said to his disciples : " You will leave me alone ; yet I am not alone for the Father is with me . " ( Jn 16:32 ) .....The Father and Son are together in the Passion . The moment when Jesus feels the Father most distant and cries out : " Why have you abandoned me ? "is , in fact , the moment in which the Father is closest to him because at that moment the human will of the Son is most closely united to the divine will .

The earliest theology of the Church spoke of God's suffering in Christ with the greatest simplicity and certainty . Tertullian reports the words of a witness of this archaic theology which flourished above all in Asia Minor : " If the Son suffered , the Father suffered with him , " and again , " How could the Son have suffered without the Father suffering with him ! "

As regards Jesus' cry "My God, My God why have you abandoned me", commentators I have read, including Pope Benedict in Jesus of Nazareth, regard this as the opening lines of Psalm 22 and thus indicating the whole psalm which is about the crucifixion and final triumph.

The Psalm continues.....All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; "He committed his cause to the Lord; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!" (vs 7,8)..... they have pierced my hands and feet (vs 16) .....they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots (vs 18)

But the Psalm finishes in triumph. All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him. For dominion belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations. Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he who cannot keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it. (vs 27-31)

Jesus is drawing attention to his triumph even though it seems like a defeat (rather than declaring the Father has abandoned him).

I would like to quote a couple of exctracts I have found from St. Thomas Aquinas:

Tertia Pars, 49 Article 4
Whether we were reconciled to God through Christ's Passion?

I answer that, Christ's Passion is in two ways the cause of our reconciliation to God.

In the first way, inasmuch as it takes away sin by which men became God's enemies, according to Wisdom 14:9: "To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"; and Psalm 5:7: "Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity."

In another way, inasmuch as it is a most acceptable sacrifice to God. Now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence it is written (1 Samuel 26:19): "If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him accept of sacrifice." And in like fashion Christ's voluntary suffering was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offence of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner.

And

He delivered us as His members from our sins, as by the price of His Passion: in the same way as if a man by the good industry of his hands were to redeem himself from a sin committed with his feet. (Tertia Pars 49:1)

There is another very interesting article – Article 3 in the same section (Link: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4049.htm#article3) which deals with the question
Whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's Passion?
However it is too long to post here.

If I may summarise my view at the moment in my own words it is this:

By his love for us, living in full obedience to the Father's will, in freely enduring suffering, even to dying in the manner of a criminal, Christ made it possible for the Father to forgive our sins, without compromising his honour and justice. Yet that forgiveness must be merited (not earned) by us

We merit the Father's free gift of forgiveness by repentance, and in imitating Christ in obedience and freely accepting suffering (penances) – being "likened unto Him" as St. Thomas puts it - and by acts of love towards our neighbour.

[Paulus]

Hi Paulus,
Firstly I apologise for the length of this post. I shall try and keep any future ones much shorter.

As much as I respect Fr. Cantalemessa, I do not agree that The Father abandoned Jesus. Indeed such as view seems to contradict what he said in an earlier post you made:
The Father was not absent , in heaven , while his Son went towards Calvary . On the contrary , he was with him . Jesus said to his disciples : " You will leave me alone ; yet I am not alone for the Father is with me . " ( Jn 16:32 ) .....The Father and Son are together in the Passion . The moment when Jesus feels the Father most distant and cries out : " Why have you abandoned me ? "is , in fact , the moment in which the Father is closest to him because at that moment the human will of the Son is most closely united to the divine will .

The earliest theology of the Church spoke of God's suffering in Christ with the greatest simplicity and certainty . Tertullian reports the words of a witness of this archaic theology which flourished above all in Asia Minor : " If the Son suffered , the Father suffered with him , " and again , " How could the Son have suffered without the Father suffering with him ! "

As regards Jesus' cry "My God, My God why have you abandoned me", commentators I have read, including Pope Benedict in Jesus of Nazareth, regard this as the opening lines of Psalm 22 and thus indicating the whole psalm which is about the crucifixion and final triumph.

The Psalm continues.....All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; "He committed his cause to the Lord; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!" (vs 7,8)..... they have pierced my hands and feet (vs 16) .....they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots (vs 18)

But the Psalm finishes in triumph. All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him. For dominion belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations. Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he who cannot keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it. (vs 27-31)

Jesus is drawing attention to his triumph even though it seems like a defeat (rather than declaring the Father has abandoned him).

I would like to quote a couple of exctracts I have found from St. Thomas Aquinas:

Tertia Pars, 49 Article 4
Whether we were reconciled to God through Christ's Passion?

I answer that, Christ's Passion is in two ways the cause of our reconciliation to God.

In the first way, inasmuch as it takes away sin by which men became God's enemies, according to Wisdom 14:9: "To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"; and Psalm 5:7: "Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity."

In another way, inasmuch as it is a most acceptable sacrifice to God. Now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence it is written (1 Samuel 26:19): "If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him accept of sacrifice." And in like fashion Christ's voluntary suffering was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offence of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner.

And

He delivered us as His members from our sins, as by the price of His Passion: in the same way as if a man by the good industry of his hands were to redeem himself from a sin committed with his feet. (Tertia Pars 49:1)

There is another very interesting article – Article 3 in the same section (Link: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4049.htm#article3) which deals with the question
Whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's Passion?
However it is too long to post here.

If I may summarise my view at the moment in my own words it is this:

By his love for us, living in full obedience to the Father's will, in freely enduring suffering, even to dying in the manner of a criminal, Christ made it possible for the Father to forgive our sins, without compromising his honour and justice. Yet that forgiveness must be merited (not earned) by us

We merit the Father's free gift of forgiveness by repentance, and in imitating Christ in obedience and freely accepting suffering (penances) – being "likened unto Him" as St. Thomas puts it - and by acts of love towards our neighbour.

Thanks , Winsome .

Just a brief reply to two points you have made before I try to come to terms with all that has been said on the thread .

I am sure that Fr. Cantalamessa would be the first to agree with you that there appears to be a contradiction in what he says . There is a paradox here . And the paradox would seem to be , as Fr. Cantalamessa has said , that it is in the moment of his feeling this abandonment most intensely that Jesus is closest to the Father .

Regarding Ps 22 . I was taught many times that when a Jew recited the first line of a psalm he intended it as a reference to the whole psalm . I used to accept this , but in the back of my mind there was always a nagging feeling that in the case of Jesus speaking the first line of Ps 22 on the cross this explanation was just an easy way out of a very difficult mystery . I have not come across any actual evidence that when a Jew recited the first line of a psalm he was in a way reciting the whole psalm . So now my position is that until such evidence is produced I take Jesus' words just as they are without any addition implied .

[mclees8]

We merit the Father's free gift of forgiveness by repentance, and in imitating Christ in obedience and freely accepting suffering (penances) – being "likened unto Him" as St. Thomas puts it - and by acts of love towards our neighbour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know Im butting in on your conversation, but if I may I am astounded by your remark.  Jesus did say we would suffer for His sake but this is not penance. Jesus already suffered for us. Penance is when we impose a self punishmen or it is required of priest to do penance, which is unscriptural I might add. Jesus said in the world we will suffer tribulations and persecutions of the world. This suffering is not penance

[winsome]

We merit the Father's free gift of forgiveness by repentance, and in imitating Christ in obedience and freely accepting suffering (penances) – being "likened unto Him" as St. Thomas puts it - and by acts of love towards our neighbour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know Im butting in on your conversation, but if I may I am astounded by your remark.  Jesus did say we would suffer for His sake but this is not penance. Jesus already suffered for us. Penance is when we impose a self punishmen or it is required of priest to do penance, which is unscriptural I might add. Jesus said in the world we will suffer tribulations and persecutions of the world. This suffering is not penance

Penance is a type of suffering and I believe a valid part of Christian life.

[mclees8]

We merit the Father's free gift of forgiveness by repentance, and in imitating Christ in obedience and freely accepting suffering (penances) – being "likened unto Him" as St. Thomas puts it - and by acts of love towards our neighbour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know Im butting in on your conversation, but if I may I am astounded by your remark.  Jesus did say we would suffer for His sake but this is not penance. Jesus already suffered for us. Penance is when we impose a self punishmen or it is required of priest to do penance, which is unscriptural I might add. Jesus said in the world we will suffer tribulations and persecutions of the world. This suffering is not penance

Penance is a type of suffering and I believe a valid part of Christian life.

If it is valed than where is it in scripture ?  Is it valid because you just want it to be. Some how I do not believe Jesus said we should inflick our own punishments so we can suffer. 

[winsome]

We merit the Father's free gift of forgiveness by repentance, and in imitating Christ in obedience and freely accepting suffering (penances) – being "likened unto Him" as St. Thomas puts it - and by acts of love towards our neighbour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know Im butting in on your conversation, but if I may I am astounded by your remark.  Jesus did say we would suffer for His sake but this is not penance. Jesus already suffered for us. Penance is when we impose a self punishmen or it is required of priest to do penance, which is unscriptural I might add. Jesus said in the world we will suffer tribulations and persecutions of the world. This suffering is not penance

Penance is a type of suffering and I believe a valid part of Christian life.

If it is valed than where is it in scripture ?  Is it valid because you just want it to be. Some how I do not believe Jesus said we should inflick our own punishments so we can suffer. 

and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.(Mt 10:38)

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes.  (Mt 11:21)

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. (Mt 16:24)

But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day ( Mk 2:20)

if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him (Rom 8:17)

to know him and the power of his resurrection and (the) sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death, (Phil 3:10)

[Paulus]

Hello Winsome and other brothers in Christ who are sharing this thread .

Knowing how inadequate they will be , I am going to try to put my thoughts into words , and in the course of it say what I believe the Atonement to be .

The word "atonement" comes from the Old English "at one + ment" . In theological language it has come to refer to how humankind is made one with God , united with God , reconciled with God through Jesus Christ .

The whole of creation , and man in particular , was in a bad state of affairs . Man sinned , thus destroying his oneness with God and disrupting God's will for man and the rest of creation .

One of the most obvious and painful results of this sin was death ( Rom 5:12 ) , physical death which was the symbol of spiritual and eternal death . This death was the penalty , the punishment , the suffering , the loss brought about by sin .

Also , through sin man was under God's anger , God's wrath . ( Eph 2:3 ) . God banished man from Eden ( Gen 3:24 ) . We might say that man was abandoned by God , not because it was God's will to do so , but because man's abandonment of God left him with no other option . Man had , so to speak , tied the hands of God . God regretted having made man on the earth , and his heart grieved . ( Gen6:6 )

Now it is not nice to hear of God's anger , of God's wrath , but it is in his Word . Still , it should be seen within the context of his justice , love , mercy and holiness . I see it as that conflict which takes place when the majesty of God's holiness confronts the depravity of man's sin . And let us never underestimate either the majesty of God's holiness or the depravity of man's sin .

Throughout the centuries , and we are most familiar with O.T. examples , though many other religions used them , there have been atonement sacrifices . Because of this rupture of good relations between God and man , man has used sacrifices , offerings to propitiate , to render favourable so as to appease , to make peace with God and restore God's good favour . But all to no avail . They did not result in satisfying God's justice and recompensing for man's sin . Man was powerless to make the situation right .

Though it might have appeared that God had totally abandonded man whom he regretted having made , it was not the case . God is love and he had never stopped loving man . Out of this love of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit came the solution to man's dilemma , and the ingredients of the solution were to be all that made up the dilemma in the first place , namely God and man . On God's part there was love , justice , mercy , holiness , punishment and wrath . On man's part there was sin , death , suffering , loss , abandonment and sacrifice . In his wisdom God took all of these and made of them the Atonement .

Out of love , and with complete freedom and united wills , God sent his Son as God and man to make atonement . A man was to be the solution , a man who was sinless and God .

The whole of Jesus' life was one of love and obedience towards his Father for whom he was the Beloved Son , but this love and obedience was to be seen most intensely in the Passion where there was a total unity of wills between the Father and the Son and between the divine and human wills of Jesus . Christ was appointed by God as the means of reconciliation in his atoning blood . ( Rom 3:25 ) .

In his Passion Jesus freely took upon himself the sin of man in love and obedience to his Father , and for their love of man , to such an extent that St. Paul dared to say that the Father made him to be sin who knew no sin . And this was no sham , no make-believe . It was for real and it was for us . It was as if , when Jesus took our sin upon himself he was in love embracing not only the will of the Father , but we sinners who at the same moment of embrace were nailing those embracing arms  to the wood of the cross by our sins .

Not only did Jesus take upon himself our sins but also the consequences of our sins . In our place he suffered the wrath of God for our sins . In our place he suffered for our sins . In our place he was punished for our sins , and for a time experienced the horror of feeling abandoned by the Father.And this was not a consequence of any wrong in him , but the consequence of our sins . How his Father's heart must have grieved ! In our place and for our sins he experienced death .

Thanks be to God , because this atoning sacrifice of Jesus need be offered only once since it is totally effective . ( Heb 9:25-28 ) . It brings perfect forgiveness and holiness . ( Heb 10:5-18 ) .

GLORY TO THE FATHER , TO THE SON , TO THE HOLY SPIRIT !

So God has accomplished the Atonement , and at what a price to him !

God has offered me the solution . Now as I encounter God through grace it is for me through his gift of faith to accept what he has done for me . As I look around I will still see sin , suffering , death , and this may cause me to doubt . I will certainly see sin in myself . However , this is why I need his grace of hope . " For we must be content to hope that we shall be saved- our salvation is not in sight , we should not have to be hoping for it if it were - but , we must hope to be saved since we are not saved yet - it is something we must wait for with patience . " ( Rom 8:24-25 ). Finally there is the grace that is the greatest of these , love . My life of faith needs to be lived out through the grace of love to show that my faith is for real , and I see this attempt to live out my life in love as a response of thanksgiving for all that God has , is and will do for me . And there are so many ways by which God's grace comes to me , and in which I will need to persevere to remain at one with him , but that is perhaps the beginning of another story .

PRAISED BE JESUS CHRIST !

[winsome]

Thank you Paulus,

I think you have stated very clearly the problem that faced God (if I may put it that way). However I still fail to agree with you about the details of God's solution to that. I have stated most of them before so I won't go over the same ground.

I cannot find any magisterial statement about this. Moreover there seems to be disagreement amongst Catholic apologists.

I have been reading some of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" and according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia this formed the basis for later theological understandings of the Atonement. Anselm argues that by his freely given death Christ gave to God an infinite satisfaction since he was "one who is not necessarily subject to death on account of his omnipotence, and one who does not deserve death on account of his sin, but also one who can die of his own free will"

Later theologians did not think his death was necessary. However St. Thomas Aquinas gives five reasons why Christ's Passion and death was suitable.

Cur Deus Homo? is in the form of a dialogue between Anselm and a disciple. Early on Anselm says to his disciple "But if I am in any measure able to set your inquiry at rest, it should be concluded that a wiser than I will be able to do this more fully; nay, we must understand that for all that a man can say or know still deeper grounds of so great a truth lie concealed."

And perhaps I should leave it there too, except for a last point about Jesus cry from the cross: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

This site offers quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas, three early Father and the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII "Mystici Corporis" which explain this well.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/my-god-my-god-why-hast-thou-forsaken-me.html

[Paulus]

Thank you Paulus,

I think you have stated very clearly the problem that faced God (if I may put it that way). However I still fail to agree with you about the details of God's solution to that. I have stated most of them before so I won't go over the same ground.

I cannot find any magisterial statement about this. Moreover there seems to be disagreement amongst Catholic apologists.

I have been reading some of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" and according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia this formed the basis for later theological understandings of the Atonement. Anselm argues that by his freely given death Christ gave to God an infinite satisfaction since he was "one who is not necessarily subject to death on account of his omnipotence, and one who does not deserve death on account of his sin, but also one who can die of his own free will"

Later theologians did not think his death was necessary. However St. Thomas Aquinas gives five reasons why Christ's Passion and death was suitable.

Cur Deus Homo? is in the form of a dialogue between Anselm and a disciple. Early on Anselm says to his disciple "But if I am in any measure able to set your inquiry at rest, it should be concluded that a wiser than I will be able to do this more fully; nay, we must understand that for all that a man can say or know still deeper grounds of so great a truth lie concealed."

And perhaps I should leave it there too, except for a last point about Jesus cry from the cross: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

This site offers quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas, three early Father and the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII "Mystici Corporis" which explain this well.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/my-god-my-god-why-hast-thou-forsaken-me.html

Thanks , Winsome . So we have to join the ranks of "the great theologians" and agree to differ .

It has been interesting , and I must confess that there were moments when I was ready to throw in the towel .

I fully concur with Anselm's words to his "disciple" .

However , you have prompted me to look more into the Atonement . So I have just ordered a book on the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement . If I find anything in it that relates to what we have been saying I will let you know .

Meanwhile , God's blessings on you and your loved ones .

[winsome]

Thank you Paulus,

I think you have stated very clearly the problem that faced God (if I may put it that way). However I still fail to agree with you about the details of God's solution to that. I have stated most of them before so I won't go over the same ground.

I cannot find any magisterial statement about this. Moreover there seems to be disagreement amongst Catholic apologists.

I have been reading some of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" and according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia this formed the basis for later theological understandings of the Atonement. Anselm argues that by his freely given death Christ gave to God an infinite satisfaction since he was "one who is not necessarily subject to death on account of his omnipotence, and one who does not deserve death on account of his sin, but also one who can die of his own free will"

Later theologians did not think his death was necessary. However St. Thomas Aquinas gives five reasons why Christ's Passion and death was suitable.

Cur Deus Homo? is in the form of a dialogue between Anselm and a disciple. Early on Anselm says to his disciple "But if I am in any measure able to set your inquiry at rest, it should be concluded that a wiser than I will be able to do this more fully; nay, we must understand that for all that a man can say or know still deeper grounds of so great a truth lie concealed."

And perhaps I should leave it there too, except for a last point about Jesus cry from the cross: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

This site offers quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas, three early Father and the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII "Mystici Corporis" which explain this well.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/my-god-my-god-why-hast-thou-forsaken-me.html

Thanks , Winsome . So we have to join the ranks of "the great theologians" and agree to differ .

It has been interesting , and I must confess that there were moments when I was ready to throw in the towel .

I fully concur with Anselm's words to his "disciple" .

However , you have prompted me to look more into the Atonement . So I have just ordered a book on the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement . If I find anything in it that relates to what we have been saying I will let you know .

Meanwhile , God's blessings on you and your loved ones .

Hi Paulus,

There is this link which I haven't posted but you might find it interesting.

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/why-do-so-many-catholics-believe-in.html

Blessings to you and thank you for an interesting and constructive discussion.

[FireSword]

We merit the Father's free gift of forgiveness by repentance, and in imitating Christ in obedience and freely accepting suffering (penances) – being "likened unto Him" as St. Thomas puts it - and by acts of love towards our neighbour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know Im butting in on your conversation, but if I may I am astounded by your remark.  Jesus did say we would suffer for His sake but this is not penance. Jesus already suffered for us. Penance is when we impose a self punishmen or it is required of priest to do penance, which is unscriptural I might add. Jesus said in the world we will suffer tribulations and persecutions of the world. This suffering is not penance

I think penance can be good. Criminals etc can do community service and feel better, and forgiven, through volunteering hardship.

[Paulus]

Hello , Winsome .

I can't believe that it was last February since we discussed the Atonement .

Since last February I have read one book on the Atonement . Then I started another but gave up .

In March I started going through a period of what one might call "unknowing" . Concepts related to God and revelation became very blurred to say the least . My prayer became "if you are there" type of prayer .

So , sorry , I have nothing to offer regarding the Atonement , but I am glad that I am going through this experience . It seems that I am being stripped of all that was "second-hand religion" , so as to enter on a pilgrimage where I take to heart Truth because I have found it to be true and it fits in with reality as I perceive it and not because parents , teachers , priests etc said it was true .

I don't know if this makes sense . It is hard to put into words .

Have you found any gems on the Atonement ? 

[Catholica]

Hello , Winsome .

I can't believe that it was last February since we discussed the Atonement .

Since last February I have read one book on the Atonement . Then I started another but gave up .

In March I started going through a period of what one might call "unknowing" . Concepts related to God and revelation became very blurred to say the least . My prayer became "if you are there" type of prayer .

So , sorry , I have nothing to offer regarding the Atonement , but I am glad that I am going through this experience . It seems that I am being stripped of all that was "second-hand religion" , so as to enter on a pilgrimage where I take to heart Truth because I have found it to be true and it fits in with reality as I perceive it and not because parents , teachers , priests etc said it was true .

I don't know if this makes sense . It is hard to put into words .

Have you found any gems on the Atonement ? 

Good to see you again Paulus!  Sorry, carry on your thread.  :-)  Keep up the discernment.

[Paulus]

Hello , Winsome .

I can't believe that it was last February since we discussed the Atonement .

Since last February I have read one book on the Atonement . Then I started another but gave up .

In March I started going through a period of what one might call "unknowing" . Concepts related to God and revelation became very blurred to say the least . My prayer became "if you are there" type of prayer .

So , sorry , I have nothing to offer regarding the Atonement , but I am glad that I am going through this experience . It seems that I am being stripped of all that was "second-hand religion" , so as to enter on a pilgrimage where I take to heart Truth because I have found it to be true and it fits in with reality as I perceive it and not because parents , teachers , priests etc said it was true .

I don't know if this makes sense . It is hard to put into words .

Have you found any gems on the Atonement ? 

Good to see you again Paulus!  Sorry, carry on your thread.  :-)  Keep up the discernment.

Thanks Catholica .

I am trying to live Psalm 131 , a psalm for many years dear to me , but now I have to live it .

My heart is not proud, Lord,
    my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
    or things too wonderful for me.
But I have calmed and quieted myself,
    I am like a weaned child with its mother;
    like a weaned child I am content.

Israel, put your hope in the Lord
    both now and forevermore

[winsome]

Hello , Winsome .

I can't believe that it was last February since we discussed the Atonement .

Since last February I have read one book on the Atonement . Then I started another but gave up .

In March I started going through a period of what one might call "unknowing" . Concepts related to God and revelation became very blurred to say the least . My prayer became "if you are there" type of prayer .

So , sorry , I have nothing to offer regarding the Atonement , but I am glad that I am going through this experience . It seems that I am being stripped of all that was "second-hand religion" , so as to enter on a pilgrimage where I take to heart Truth because I have found it to be true and it fits in with reality as I perceive it and not because parents , teachers , priests etc said it was true .

I don't know if this makes sense . It is hard to put into words .

Have you found any gems on the Atonement ? 

Hi Paulus,

Great to see you back.

I haven't done any more on the Atonement. I have a (mental) list of things I mean to do more work on but this one slipped off the bottom.

I think I need to write a physical list and get more organised to do some proper study on various topics.

I have kept a record of some of the posts between us to go over them. I just haven't got round to it!! But I do appreciate your thoughts on it.

God bless

winsome

[Paulus]

Hello , Winsome .

I can't believe that it was last February since we discussed the Atonement .

Since last February I have read one book on the Atonement . Then I started another but gave up .

In March I started going through a period of what one might call "unknowing" . Concepts related to God and revelation became very blurred to say the least . My prayer became "if you are there" type of prayer .

So , sorry , I have nothing to offer regarding the Atonement , but I am glad that I am going through this experience . It seems that I am being stripped of all that was "second-hand religion" , so as to enter on a pilgrimage where I take to heart Truth because I have found it to be true and it fits in with reality as I perceive it and not because parents , teachers , priests etc said it was true .

I don't know if this makes sense . It is hard to put into words .

Have you found any gems on the Atonement ? 

Hi Paulus,

Great to see you back.

I haven't done any more on the Atonement. I have a (mental) list of things I mean to do more work on but this one slipped off the bottom.

I think I need to write a physical list and get more organised to do some proper study on various topics.

I have kept a record of some of the posts between us to go over them. I just haven't got round to it!! But I do appreciate your thoughts on it.

God bless

winsome

Thanks .

That is no problem . In fact it is probably a blessing in a way . It is a subject too lofty for me , or perhaps so simple I do not see it staring me in the face .