really confused on a theological topic...

[MarysLittleFlower]

Having been Catholic for 6 years I really feel I should know this... and it's something so basic to our faith. Yet I get confused about it every time. Then people explain it to me and it sort of makes sense again, and then later I forget or something and get confused again. Lol! Basically I just don't understand what IS the Catholic position on how Jesus redeemed us.

I read that the Protestant view of "penal substitution" is rejected. Catholic Encyclopedia seems to say that the points that are not accepted are that: it's all based on God's anger rather than love, and interpreting the punishments very literally.

However, I keep coming across the idea in Catholic books about our sins being laid upon Jesus. So is THAT point Catholic? How is it different from penal substitution? I thought the Catholic view was that Jesus offered Himself as a Sacrifice and that sacrifice was more than our sins, so it satisfied God's justice. So is it also true that our sins were somehow placed upon Him? Again how is that different from the Protestant view that I was told isn't accepted? soo confused  

I want to figure this out because it's something that's so important, it's like the most basic aspect of our faith!

The books where I read this idea are all very orthodox approved books. For example: St Alphonsus' "Incarnation Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ", a sermon by Cardinal Newman, and Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'd be very grateful for any help so I could finally understand!! thank you

[Amppax]

I don't have a ton of time to respond, but I'd suggest checking out some of the articles on Called to Communion. I've found the writers, who are for the most part academics and converts from the Reformed tradition, do an excellent job talking about penal substitution and the atonement. Here are two articles that may help: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/ and http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/john-calvins-worst-heresy-that-christ-suffered-in-hell/. The comments on the articles may actually be the most helpful part (which seems so strange, helpful comments on an article on the internet). 

I'm blanking at the moment, but there are probably a couple books or articles that I have that say something about this from a historical perspective. I want to say either a journal article I read, or a chapter from a book addressed Catholic positions on this following the Reformation, and seemed to imply some sort of confusion during the period. Don't quote me on that though, because I'm not sure where I'm getting that from. 

Also, I've found that it's the most basic elements that tend to be the most puzzling (or paradoxical, as Chesterton would say). I'm now in my 5th year of formally studying theology, finishing up my masters, and I still don't get any of it. 

[Peace]

I don't think there is a dogmatic Catholic teaching concerning the theory of atonement. It seems that we know what we have to do (believe, love God and love our neighbors, follow the commandments). But as for God's own reasons for why/how he effects salvation through Jesus's death on the cross, as opposed to effecting our salvation another way, I don't think we know the answer to that.

But maybe the Summa Third Part Questions 46 to 49 might be helpful.

[Peace]

My own stumbling block has to do with the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice.

It does seem to conflict with Hebrews 10. I have trouble reconciling them.

[Seven77]

52 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I don't have a ton of time to respond, but I'd suggest checking out some of the articles on Called to Communion. I've found the writers, who are for the most part academics and converts from the Reformed tradition, do an excellent job talking about penal substitution and the atonement. Here are two articles that may help: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/ and http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/john-calvins-worst-heresy-that-christ-suffered-in-hell/. The comments on the articles may actually be the most helpful part (which seems so strange, helpful comments on an article on the internet). 

That article about the Catholic and Reformed conceptions of the atonement was really helpful for me. The way that I understand it is this: Jesus freely, out of love, took upon himself sin and death (which is collectively the “curse") in order to do away with it so that we might have life and have it in abundance. He wasn't punished in our place, God didn't exact his wrath upon Christ on the cross, like the Calvinists would say-- that's a heresy that makes  God into some kind of vengeful deity! He substituted his obedience in place of our disobedience, doing what Adam failed to do so that he could be the head of a new humanity.  By sharing in our humanity, we can share in his divinity. Jesus took the sting out of death, experiencing it in order to destroy it, enabling us to transcend it. He lived our life and made it redemptive.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Seven77

[MarysLittleFlower]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

My own stumbling block has to do with the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice.

It does seem to conflict with Hebrews 10. I have trouble reconciling them.

It might help to see it as a participation in the Cross at Calvary in which the graces of it get applied... It is a sacrifice but an unbloody sacrifice... It is a complicated concept too

4 hours ago, Seven77 said:

That article about the Catholic and Reformed conceptions of the atonement was really helpful for me. The way that I understand it is this: Jesus freely, out of love, took upon himself sin and death (which is collectively the “curse") in order to do away with it so that we might have life and have it in abundance. He wasn't punished in our place, God didn't exact his wrath upon Christ on the cross, like the Calvinists would say-- that's a heresy that makes  God into some kind of vengeful deity! He substituted his obedience in place of our disobedience, doing what Adam failed to do so that he could be the head of a new humanity.  By sharing in our humanity, we can share in his divinity. Jesus took the sting out of death, experiencing it in order to destroy it, enabling us to transcend it. He lived our life and made it redemptive.

I think what I have a question on is taking on sin. Is that idea different than penal substitution? The books I mentioned talk about taking on sin 

[Seven77]

56 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

It might help to see it as a participation in the Cross at Calvary in which the graces of it get applied... It is a sacrifice but an unbloody sacrifice... It is a complicated concept too

I think what I have a question on is taking on sin. Is that idea different than penal substitution? The books I mentioned talk about taking on sin 

  Jesus took on sin but not in the way that somehow made him guilty of the sin… he wasn't punished in our place, which is what penal substitution is.

[MarysLittleFlower]

3 hours ago, Seven77 said:

  Jesus took on sin but not in the way that somehow made him guilty of the sin… he wasn't punished in our place, which is what penal substitution is.

What other way is there to take on sin? Sorry I still don't get it :S

[Peace]

Read the Bible? That is so 1st Century. I am going with the Summa instead, but do let me know when you get to the 10th Chapter of Hebrews.

[Peace]

Oops. I toadally posted that in the wrong thread. How embarrassing.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Peace

[Credo in Deum]

On 1/7/2016, 9:50:31, Peace said:

My own stumbling block has to do with the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice.

It does seem to conflict with Hebrews 10. I have trouble reconciling them.

Have you read Hebrews 10 with the Haydock commentary?  It may help clear up some questions. 

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id254.html

[Credo in Deum]

Ver. 15-18. The Holy Ghost also doth testify to us, and assures us of this, by the prophet Jeremias, (Chap. xxxi. 33.) in the words above cited, (Chap. viii. ver. 8.) when he promises to give a new testament, and that he will remember no more their sins. --- Now where there is remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin.That is, there is no need of any other oblation to redeem us from sin, after the price of our redemption from sin is paid. There is no need of any other different oblation; all that is wanting, is the application of the merits and satisfactions of Christ. No need of those sacrifices, which were ordered in the law of Moses. To convince them of this, is the main design of St. Paul in this place. The pretended reformers, from several expressions of St. Paul in this chapter, think they have clear proofs that no sacrifice at all ought to be offered after Christ's one sacrifice on the cross; and that so many sacrifices and oblations of masses, are both needless and against the doctrine of the apostle, who says, that Christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (ver. 14.) And again, that where there is a remission of sins, now there is no more an oblation for sin. This objection, which is obvious enough, was not first invented by the Calvinists against them they nickname Papists: the same is found in the ancient Fathers; and by their answers, and what they have witnessed concerning the daily sacrifice of the mass, they may find their doctrine of a religion without a continued sacrifice evidently against the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church from the first ages[centuries] of the Christian religion, till they came to be reformers, not of manners, but of the Catholic belief. Hear St. Chrysostom (hom. xvii.) in his commentary on this very chapter: "What then, saith he, do not we offer up (or make an oblation) every day? We offer up indeed, but with a remembrance of his death. And this oblation is one, and not many. How is it one, and not many? ...because, as he that is offered many times, and in many places, is the same body, not many and different bodies, so is it one sacrifice. He (Christ) is our high priest, who offered this sacrifice, by which we are cleansed: we now offer up the same....He said: Do this in remembrance of me. We do not offer a different sacrifice, but the very same, as then our high priest." St. Chrysostom here says, and repeats it over and over again, that we offer upa sacrifice. 2. That we offer it up every day. 3. That the sacrifice which we daily offer is one and the same oblation, one and the same sacrifice,which our high priest, Christ, offered. 4. That in offering this sacrifice, which in all places, and at all times, is the same body of Christ, and the same sacrifice, we do, and offer it, as he commanded us at his last supper, with a remembrance of him. Is this the practice, and is this the doctrine of our dear countrymen, the English Protestants? But at least it is the constant doctrine, as well as practice, of the whole Catholic Church. The council of Trent, as we have already cited the words, (chap. vii.) teacheth the very same as St. Chrysostom who never says, as some one of late hath pretended, that what we offer is aremembrance only.  As the sacrament of the Eucharist, according to the words of Christ in the gospel, is to be taken with a remembrance of him, and yet is not a remembrance only,but is his body and blood, so the sacrifice is to be performed with a remembrance of his benefits and sufferings, by his priests and ministers, but at the same time is a true and propitiatory sacrifice, the priests daily sacrifice, and offer up the same sacrifice, the manner only being different. The sacrifice and mass offered by Peter, is not different in the notion of a sacrifice or oblation from that of Paul, though the priests and their particular actions be different: the same sacrifice was offered by the apostles, and in all Christian ages; and the same sacrifice, according to the prophecy of Malachias, (chap. i. ver. 11.) shall be offered in all nations to the end of the world. This doctrine and practice is not only witnessed by St. Chrysostom but generally by the ancient Fathers and interpreters, as we have taken notice in short in the annotations on St. Matthew. See St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the people of Smyrna; St. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Tryphon; St. Irenæus, lib. 4. chap. xxxii. and xxxiv.; Tertullian, lib. de Velandis Virg.; Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst. Evang. chap. ult.[last]; St. Jerome, ep. ad Evangelu,; St. Ambrose, in Psalm xxxviii. and on 1 chap. of St. Luke; St. Augustine, lib. 16. de civ. Dei. chap. xxii. lib. cont. Advers. legis chap. 22. and lib. ix. Confess. chap. xii.; St. Chrysostom, hom. lx. ad Pop. Antiochenum. et hom. lxxii. in Matt.; The first general council ofNice[Nicaea]. --- But from this one oblation on the cross and remission of sins, obtained by our Saviour Christ, will our adversaries pretend insisting on the bare letter, that Christ has done all for us, and that we need do nothing, unless perhaps endeavour to catch hold of the justifying cloak of Christ's justice by faith only? At this rate the love of God and of our neighbour, a life of self-denials, such as Christ preached to every one in the gospel, the practices of prayer, fastings, almsdeeds, and all good works, the sacraments instituted by our Saviour Christ may be all safely laid aside; and we may conclude from hence, that all men's sins are remitted before they are committed. Into what extravagances do men run, when their private spirit pretends to follow the letter of the Holy Scriptures, and when they make their private judgment the supreme guide in matter of divine faith? It is very true, that Christ hath paid the ransom of all our sins, and his satisfactions are infinite; but to partake of the benefit of this general redemption, the merits and satisfaction of Christ are to be applied to our souls, and this by the order of Providence is to be done not only by faith but by other virtues, by good works, by the sacraments, and by repeating the oblation and the same sacrifice, the manner only being different, according to the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church from the apostle's time. (Witham) --- Where there is a full remission of sins, as in baptism, there is no more occasion for a sin-offeringto be made for such sins already remitted; and as for sins committed afterwards, they can only be remitted in virtue of the one oblation of Christ's death. (Challoner)

[Peace]

On 1/9/2016, 8:02:24, Credo in Deum said:

Have you read Hebrews 10 with the Haydock commentary?  It may help clear up some questions. 

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id254.html

Thanks. I will check it out.