St Alphonsus and penal substitution

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm trying to figure out how what St Alphonsus wrote here is different from the Protestant view of penal substitution. I'm getting sort of confused and wondering if anyone has any thoughts... Thanks! I read on Catholic Encyclopedia that the problem with penal substitution as the Protestants believe is that 1) it makes it about God's anger and not His love and 2) it goes into the types of suffering very literally. 

"Consider that the Divine Word, in becoming man, chose not only to take the form of a sinner, but also to bear all the sins of men, and to satisfy for them as if they were His own..  Father Cornelius adds, "as if He had committed them Himself". Let us here reflect what an oppression and anguish the heart of the Infant Jesus must have felt, who had already charged Himself with the sins of the whole world, in finding that the divine justice insisted on His making a full satisfaction for them".

For some reason whenever I read about this I can't remember what the Catholic view is and how its different from the Protestant view!

Any thoughts? 

[Peace]

Your quote above seems to be pretty consistent with penal substitution, at least as far as I read it.

I don't think that the Church has an official view of atonement. I don't think that She completely understands how it works. My impression is that She endorses certain aspects of the various atonement theories (including some aspects of penal substitution) without totally endorsing any of the theories.

Penal substitution does not make complete sense to me for, among other reasons, that it seemingly makes Jesus's death and resurrection irrelevant. If you are just transferring a debt - then one lash on the wrist would have been sufficient to substitute for all of the punishment that man deserves (that is because God is infinitely good and undeserving of any form of punishment). There is no need for Jesus to die and be resurrected under that theory.

But in a certain sense I think that penal substitution might be as valid as any of the other atonement theories - they all seem to have problems.

How do you understand atonement?

[Selah]

It, along with the satisfaction atonement belief, are more reformed protestant than they are Catholic. I do realize that St. Anselm was the one to write the most about the satisfaction belief, but to be perfetly honest, I could never see a difference. If anyone wants to explain that here, please feel free to do so.

 It's tied with the imputation of righteousness, where the Father pours his wrath on Christ, and finally has his wrath satisfied. He then declares us "righteous" even though we are not, and declares Christ "unrighteous" even though he is not. 

With infusion of righteousness, you have Christ conquering death and hell, and opening up the way for us to be saved and to become holy, not because we are just declared holy, but because we actually are holy. I believe Christus Victor would be a better way of looking at the atonement for sins, rather than penal substitution, or the satisfaction atonement belief. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

My understanding is that penal substitution was condemned? That's why I though St Alphonsus was describing something else. Maybe the parts that are condemned are the parts about merely imputed righteousness, God's anger as the main component, and taking the whole thing too literally ? 

[Not A Real Name]

What sermon or work of Saint Al did you take this from?

[MarysLittleFlower]

2 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

What sermon or work of Saint Al did you take this from?

The Incarnation Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, Advent meditations 

Its only that one paragraph so I'm not sure what he meant because the topic changes after that slightly 

[Seven77]

Well, it may be helpful to remember that St. Alphonsus wrote in Italian… I wonder if maybe something got lost or confused in translation. Anyway, the way I understand the Calvinistic, Protestant idea--a heretical idea--that is penal substitution, is that the Father supposedly poured out all of his  wrath on Jesus in such a way that he no longer even recognized his Son--- he only saw sin and lashed out, hence the words of Christ on the cross,  (the quote from Psalm 22)  as if he was literally forsaken. It is what @Selah explained.

 A Catholic idea would be that Christ freely, in love, took sin upon himself, “becoming sin," to do away with it. He wasn't punished in our place--- it would be completely unjust of God if he were!  That's a pagan idea more descriptive of Odin or something.

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ freely and willingly offered himself up to the Father out of love and obedience, as a sacrifice to redeem all humanity from the sin and its consquences, death. This self-sacrificing love was more pleasing to God than the combined weight of our sins was displeasing to God. As the New Adam, Jesus substituted his humility in place of our pride, his obedience in place of our disobedience, and his love in the place of our selfishness. In the Incarnation, Jesus became man and shared in our humanity in order to communicate his Divinity to us. “He came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10). Jesus came to repair the breach and brokenness (sin and death) caused by the Fall. He rebooted humanity in himself, he recapitulates humanity—that is, he becomes the new head of humanity, making it whole.

The Son did not become the object of the Father’s displeasure or hatred when he hung from the Cross, rather, he became even more lovable in the Father’s sight for his sacrifice. It was because of our sinfulness that Jesus chose to suffer the torment of the Cross. When we sin, we crucify him anew, because he is in us. By becoming fully human, Jesus could experience solidarity with us and take upon our sins. Because he remained fully divine, Jesus’ sacrifice could have infinite merit and make what's called satisfaction for sin. His sacrifice is what makes possible the expulsion of sins.

 

 this was helpful to me to understand it:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

 

[Selah]

I had an Orthodox priest explain the quoting of that Psalm by Jesus. Around the hour he was on the cross, in the temple, they would recite that psalm. Jesus started it because he knew that the Jewish leaders would be reciting it in their hearts and thus condemn themselves. It was supposed to be a holy time, and yet, they killed an innocent man. It had nothing to do with God the Father turning his back on his son, or lashing out in wrath at him. That is, from what I have gathered thus far, an invention of the protestant reformers.