Pages

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Penal Substitution is the key to understanding Protestant Evangelicalism.

Over at the CCC Blog I recently posted "Understanding Christ's Cry of Abandonment" and I began by 'predicting' that by Good Friday we'd see a flood of posts from well-educated Protestants (mostly Calvinist/Reformed) who were going to completely botch the meaning of "My God, Why have you abandoned me?" And it turned out, a number of Protestant outlets posted on precisely this.

As you read the following quotes, take note of how the Protestant understanding of the Cross (Penal Substitution), in which they openly speak of "Christ being damned to hell in our place," is directly linked to Justification by Faith Alone and is the heart of the Gospel as Protestants understand it. So if you want to improve your apologetics and dialogue with Protestants, you should be ready to talk about this issue. Even the average Evangelical you run into believes this stuff, they just don't realize this is what they're espousing with their "Just say the Sinner's Prayer" theology.

And now the quotes from famous conservative Protestant ministry blogs (with my highlights). Since it's about 2.5 pages of quotes, I have trimmed them only to cut down on size:

How much did prayer cost God?
March 30, 2015 by Justin Taylor [The Gospel Coalition blog network],

[Quoting Reformed Pastor Tim Keller:] The only time in all the gospels that Jesus Christ prays to God and doesn’t call him Father is on the cross, when he says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus lost his relationship with the Father so that we could have a relationship with God as father. Jesus Christ bore all the eternal punishment that our sins deserve. That is the cost of prayer. Jesus paid the price so God could be our father.
“My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?”  
Mar 30, 2015 by Dr. Pastor Joel Beeke [Ligonier Ministries],
Experiencing the full brunt of His Father’s wrath, Jesus cannot stay silent. He cries out: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Here Jesus descends into the essence of hell, the most extreme suffering ever experienced. It is a time so compacted, so infinite, so horrendous as to be incomprehensible and, seemingly, unsustainable. All the sins of the elect, and the hell that they deserve for eternity, are laid upon Him. With Jesus as our substitute, God’s wrath is satisfied and God can justify those who believe in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). You are immune to condemnation (Rom. 8:1) and to God’s anathema (Gal. 3:13) because Christ bore it for you in that outer darkness. 
This is a beautiful summary of the Protestant understanding of the Gospel. Jesus died in our place, we accept this by Faith Alone, and we can never lose our salvation.

Maundy Thursday Meditation: The Propitiation for Our Sins
April 2, 2015 by Dr Matthew Barrett

It is only when we realize that we, as sinners, stand condemned before God and therefore deserve his eternal, unending wrath that we can even begin to comprehend and appreciate the depth of the riches of God’s grace in Christ Jesus, the one who bore the wrath we deserve on the cross. Yes, God is a God of wrath, and, yes, his wrath burns hot against our sin. But the very fact that God poured out his wrath on Christ instead of us was itself an act of love, mercy, and grace. Listen to all of v.10 again: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Here we come to the very essence of the gospel. We, as children of Adam, deserve his wrath for all eternity. But God, out of his unfathomably love, sent his own Son to substitute himself and take the wrath that was ours.
Gathered Up Godforsakenness
April 3, 2015 by Pastor Doug Wilson [well respected Protestant blogger],

The blow finally fell, and when it did Jesus cried out in a holy despair, quoting Scripture, and it is still “my God, my God.” So Jesus was deserted in that moment, so that you could come home. He was forsaken by His Father, so that you—born forsaken—might be adopted by His Father. Jesus stepped, obediently and willingly, into the abyss of godlessness so that you and I could step, obediently and willingly, into the arms of the Father.
If Christ is not Raised
April 3, 2015 by Jeff Robinson [The Gospel Coalition blog network],

It is beyond comprehension: Jesus died in our place. He took upon himself the Father’s wrath, which we richly deserved to bear. He kept the law of God perfectly and laid down his life voluntarily, the innocent man serving the death sentence of the criminals. By faith in the Christ who hung on that judgment tree we are declared righteous.
Why Have You Forsaken Me?
April 3, 2015 by Donald Macleod [John Piper's official blog],

Like Abraham and Isaac going up to Mount Moriah, he and the Father had gone up to Calvary together. But now Abba is not there. Only El is there: God All-mighty, God All-holy. And he [Jesus] is before El, not now as his Beloved Son, but as the Sin of the World. That is his identity: the character in which he stands before Absolute Integrity. His mind could not be focused on all the facts at the same time, and for the moment the pain, the divine anger and the fear of eternal perdition occupy all his thoughts. Never before had anything come between him and his Father, but now the sin of the whole world has come between them, and he is caught in this dreadful vortex of the curse. Now, Jesus’s mind is near the limits of its endurance. We, sitting in the gallery of history, are sure of the outcome. He, suffering in human nature the fury of Hell, is not.
This is outrageous: Macleod is saying that the Father wasn't "father" to Jesus, but rather only related to Jesus as "El" (the Hebrew name of God Almighty), so that Jesus could be treated not as a Beloved Son, but rather something else. And this was because 'sin came between them'. This is pure Trinitarian/Christological error.

6 Ways Jesus Experienced Hell When He Was on the Cross
March 27, 2015 by Colin Smith [on the Crosswalk.com Bible Study website],

Artists and poets have speculated over the centuries about hell, but the clearest revelation of hell is given at the cross. The Apostle’s Creed affirms that Christ descended into hell. While this has often been taken to refer to a journey Christ made after his death, the Reformers understood it to refer to what Christ experienced in the hours of darkness when he bore our sins and became our sacrifice. 
Hell is a place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Luke 13:28; Matthew 13:50), and Jesus entered into all of its pains and torments when he was suffering on the cross.  “From the sixth hour until the ninth hour, darkness came over all the land” (Matthew 27:45). The sudden darkness tells us that something entirely new was happening. Up to this point it had all been about physical suffering. Now Jesus was entering into the heart of his atoning work as our sin-bearer, drinking the cup of God’s wrath. To be our sin-bearer, Christ received in himself the hell that our sins deserve. Jesus endured hell on the cross because hell is the punishment for sin. All that hell is, he experienced right there during these hours of darkness in which he bore our sin and endured our punishment.  
He was separated from the knowledge of God’s love of God. This abandoning of Christ meant that the love the Son had enjoyed with his Father for all eternity was now beyond his reach. It also meant that the terrors of the Father’s judgment were poured out on the Savior. 
When people talk about hell, the discussion is often about whether or not it is real. Hell is as real as the cross. Jesus entered all of hell’s dimensions on the cross, and he endured them so that you would never know what hell is like. If someone should say, “There is no hell,” I ask, “Then what was the cross about? Why did Christ have to suffer? Why the darkness? Why the forsakenness? These things happened because there is there is Divine wrath, there is judgment and there is hell. All of this was poured out on Jesus, and he absorbed it in himself to save us from it. But as Richard Sibbes says, “Whatsoever was done to Christ shall be done to all that are outside of him.” That is as plain a statement as you can get, and it is faithful to the Scriptures.
This is a good summary of how, in the Protestant mind, "the Gospel" is about being saved from hell. It's not about being reconciled to God, but rather a cold business transaction, where X is owed, so X is paid by a substitute.

A Petition to the Father
March 30, 2015 by John MacArthur,

As Christ hung there, He was bearing the sins of the world. He was dying as a substitute for others. To Him was imputed the guilt of their sins, and He was suffering the punishment for those sins on their behalf. And the very essence of that punishment was the outpouring of God’s wrath against sinners. In some mysterious way during those awful hours on the cross, the Father poured out the full measure of His wrath against sin, and the recipient of that wrath was God’s own beloved Son! In this lies the true meaning of the cross. Here’s what was happening on the cross: God was punishing His own Son as if He had committed every wicked deed done by every sinner who would ever believe. And He did it so that He could forgive and treat those redeemed ones as if they had lived Christ’s perfect life of righteousness. Scripture teaches this explicitly: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ died in our place and in our stead—and He received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal man could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ’s sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion—dreadful as they were—were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him.
Dark Calvary
April 2015 by John D. Morris, Ph.D.,

Remarkably, even God the Father “despised” Him as He hung on the cross, for God is holy, and for our sakes had “made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). The apex of Christ’s suffering came, as we see in our text, when God the Father separated Himself from His beloved Son, “forsaking” Christ to suffer for three hours the awful pangs of hell which we deserved. So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross.
Did Jesus Suffer the Wrath of the Father for All Sinners?
Apr 04, 2015 by R.C. Sproul Junior.,

There is a third serious problem with the notion that Jesus died for all sins of all people. Hell. If Jesus atoned for all sins, just for what are the sinners in hell suffering? Those who seek to “protect” God’s integrity by arguing He must treat us all the same end up, accidentally, affirming that God punishes the same sins twice, once on Calvary and again in hell.
This is why so many Protestants believe salvation can never be lost: because if Jesus already suffered the punishment in hell you deserved, then God can't send you there to punish the same sin twice. And since not everyone is saved, this is where Calvinists get the notion that Jesus didn't die for everyone, only a select few, otherwise everyone would be saved if Jesus took the punishment of every single person. 

Christ's Death: His Willingness
April 2, 2015 by Mark Jones [Reformation 21 Blog],

The charge of cosmic child abuse to those who hold to penal substitution is a gross misunderstanding of what Reformed theologians have actually taught. Child abuse has in view a child who is unwilling to receive excessive and brutal punishment. But in the life of Christ, we see perfect willingness to obey the command of the Father, and so remain in his love by offering himself up.
I'm sure it wasn't his intention to convey this, but this comes across as saying child abuse is acceptable if the child is willing to accept it.

178 comments:

Wesley Rostoll said...

I grew up a Protestant and was taught the Penal substitution view of atonement which I rejected about six or so years ago. I am pleased to discover that Catholics do not teach what is a gross misrepresentation of our Father. These days I understand atonement as it is explained through the Christus Victor model. I am curious as to what the Catholic position is on atonement?

Mark T said...

WOW!! How un-scriptural their beliefs are.

Thanks for posting!

Nick said...

Wesley,

The Catholic View of Atonement is according to the Biblical Definition of Atonement, which this article talks about:

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/atonement-according-to-scripture-more.html

And once you read that, this is a more in-depth article:

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/04/does-catholic-view-of-christs-atonement.html

Nick said...

Thanks for your comments!

E.J. Cassidy said...

Hi Nick,

I just read your post on CCC.

As Michael has stated, your interpretation of the cry of abandonment is strictly speculative.

Rather than engage in personal interpretation, don't you think you should check to see if there is any official intepretation of the cry of abandonement of Jesus on the Cross?

There is.

From the Catechism, paragraph 603:

Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.405 But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".

(Merriam-Webster defines reprobation as “the state of being condemned strongly as unworthy, unacceptable or evil, or foreordained to damnation.”)
The paragraph does not state that Jesus did NOT experience reprobation. If it wanted to say that, all the author had to write was, “Jesus did not suffer reprobation.”
The Catechism is qualifying the reprobation that our Lord experienced:
• It was not for any sins of His own because He was sinless
• He remained in union with the Father
• The motivation was love not wrath
• His cry of “My God, My God…” was said in our name because of His assumption of our sins

I am not out of line in suggesting this interpretation of paragraph 603. In defense I will quote Pope St. John Paul II from his letter Salvific Doloris:

Even more than this description of the passion, what strikes us in the words of the prophet is the depth of Christ's sacrifice. Behold, He, though innocent, takes upon Himself the sufferings of all people, because He takes upon Himself the sins of all. "The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all": all human sin in its breadth and depth becomes the true cause of the Redeemer's suffering. If the suffering "is measured" by the evil suffered, then the words of the prophet enable us to understand the extent of this evil and suffering with which Christ burdened Himself. It can be said that this is "substitutive" suffering; but above all it is "redemptive." The Man of Sorrows of that prophecy is truly that "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."[42] In His suffering, sins are canceled out precisely because He alone as the only-begotten Son could take them upon Himself, accept them with that love for the Father which overcomes the evil of every sin; in a certain sense He annihilates this evil in the spiritual space of the relationship between God and humanity, and fills this space with good.

After the words in Gethsemane come the words uttered on Golgotha, words which bear witness to this depth unique in the history of the world--of the evil of the suffering experienced. When Christ says: "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?", His words are not only an expression of that abandonment which many times found expression in the Old Testament, especially in the psalms and in particular in that Psalm 22(21) from which come the words quoted. One can say that these words on abandonment are born at the level of that inseparable union of the Son with the Father, and are born because the Father "laid on him the iniquity of us all." They also foreshadow the words of St. Paul: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin." Together with this horrible weight, encompassing the "entire" evil of the turning away from God which is contained in sin, Christ, through the divine depth of His filial union with the Father, perceives in a humanly inexpressible way this suffering which us the separation, the rejection by the Father, the estrangement from God. But precisely through this suffering He accomplishes the Redemption, and can say as He breathes His last: "It is finished."

Keith Watson said...

Wesley,

I am also a Protestant who has abandoned Penal Substitution. In my efforts to learn the Gospel I tried to prove Penal Substitution as it was being explained by people I listened to and read. This is the analogy I found. If you look at 100 verses, if 5 of them sound like payment of debt, and 95 of the contradict payment of debt, then maybe "payment of debt" in our place (penal substitution) is not the right theory.

(I still hold to the doctrines of Grace and to imputed righteousness.)

If you have read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor then the Catholic position is Satisfaction, as Nick states in the first link he mentioned to you.

Keith Watson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Keith Watson said...

Nick,

Once I no longer follow Penal Substitution it is amazing to see all of these quotations gathered together. It shows what happens when people approach the Bible with preconceived ideas of what God's Word says.

Joey Henry said...

The RC Church did not canonize a single view of the atonement. This is because it is a fact. Vatican II came so close to canonizing one view, Psub was the most likely candidate rather than the Ransom Theory. Bishop Robert Murray, SJ wrote:

“Together with this text the commission slipped in another, ‘On Guarding the Deposit of Faith in its Purity’ which aimed to raise to the level of dogmatic anathemas some criticisms of theological trends expressed in the encyclical Humani generis of Pius XII (1950), and to define as dogma a ‘penal substitution’ theory of the Atonement, a mystery on which Catholic tradition has always declined to canonize one theory.” (Symposium at the Fortieth Anniversary of Vaticall II, Vatican II and the Bible, accessed online)

Currently, Psub has not been formally condemned as a heresy. It co-exist with earlier patristic theory such as the Ransom theory and Satisfaction theory of Anselm. An RC is not condemned for holding these theories although modern RC theologians would say these are deficient theories. This is the reason why there are RC writers who espouse such view as Psub. It exist side by side with other theories.

Unlike your opinion that it's heresy, these works have Imprimatur. For example:

“The Eternal Father had already determined to save man who had fallen through sin, and to deliver him from eternal death. At the same time He willed that Divine Justice should not be deprived of a worthy and fitting satisfaction. And so He did not spare the life of His Son who had already become man to redeem men, but willed that He should pay with the utmost rigor the penalty which all men deserved. He who has not spared even His own Son, but has delivered Him for us all [Romans 8:32].” (Alphonso Ligouri, Glories of Mary, accessed online)

“It seems impossible for God to solve the dilemma of justice versus mercy, but we know from the Gospel account how he does it. The problem is that he cannot, it seems, do both; he must either exact the just penalty for sin – death – or not. Mercy seems a relaxation of justice, and justice a refusal of mercy. Either you punish or you don’t. The laws of logic seem to prevent God from being both just and merciful at the same time… God solves this dilemma on Calvary. Full justice is done: sinis punished with the very punishment of hell itself – being forsaken of God (Mt 27:46). But Mercy and forgiveness are also enacted.” (Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics).

Now, there are faithful Catholics who also shares the view I have such as the website AskACatholic.com. In a question that Joe Mark asks whether Kreeft and Tacelli’s Psub theory is condemned by the Church, the lay apologist answered:

“I do not think the Church has every officially accepted some explanations while rejecting others… but I don’t think, properly understood, the Church has ever condemned it” (www.askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2012JanlsThisTeachingRejected.cfm)

Joey Henry said...

Thomas Aquinas in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed regarding Christ Descent into Hell, he wrote:

“There are four reasons why Christ together with His soul descended to the underworld. First, He wished to take upon Himself the entire punishment for our sin, and thus atone for its entire guilt. The punishment for the sin of man was not alone death of the body, but there was also a punishment of the soul, since the soul had its share in sin; and it was punished by being deprived of the beatific vision; and as yet no atonement had been offered whereby this punishment would be taken away. Therefore, before the coming of Christ all men, even the holy fathers after their death, descended into the underworld. Accordingly in order to take upon Himself most perfectly the punishment due to sinners, Christ not only suffered death, but also His soul descended to the underworld. He, however, descended for a different cause than did the fathers; for they did so out of necessity and were of necessity taken there and detained, but Christ descended there of His own power and free will: “I am counted among them that go down to the pit; I am become as a man without help, free among the dead” [Ps 87:5 Vulgate]. The others were there as captives, but Christ was freely there.” (Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, translated by Joseph Collins).

Now, I have already quoted Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in the previous post who shared also Aquinas’ insight. Actually, these two theologians also would emphasize that Christ descent was triumphalistic in nature but did not shy away in saying that part of the process is Christ taking upon himself the punishment of sin which is not only limited to the death of the body. These are two pre reformation theologians.

Now let’s go to three theologians, two Popes and a Swiss RC theologian who also have some insight on the nature of the suffering of Christ. Hans Ur Balthasar is a very influential theologian in the 20th century. Yet, it is well known that his insights regarding the descent of Christ in Hell sparked some intramural debates among RC theologians. Balthasar followed Nicholas of Cusa and Aquinas in his view of Christ suffering in Hell in which he experienced what it means to be abandoned by God in the sinners behalf. He notes that:

“Maximus the Confessor, taking up the ideas of Diadochusand Evagrius, lists four kinds of God-abandonment: first, that found in Christ, in the context of the economy of salvation; where ‘by apparent abandonment the abandoned imposed as a test; thirdly, that which is sent for the purposes of purification; fourthly, the kind of abandonment with constitutes a punishment, on the grounds of turning away from God, as with the Jews. All four types serve the work of salvation.” (Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter, accessed online).

He then parallel these experiences to common people and saints then concludes,

“But all experiences of night in both Old and New Testaments are at best approaches, distant allusions to the inaccessible mystery of the Cross – so unique is the Son of God, so unique is his abandonment by the Father.” (Ibid).

Joey Henry said...

Now, you might think that this kind of tradition is scant but two Popes, Benedict and John Paul II, also expresses the same theme that the suffering of Christ is not merely physical. Pope John Paul II also expresses the theme that the God-abandonment event is not only limited to physical death but to Christ suffering of his soul in solidarity with sinful men.

“In the sphere of feelings and affection this sense of the absence and abandonment by God was the most acute pain for the soul of Jesus who drew his strength and joy from union with the Father. This pain rendered all the other sufferings more intense. That lack of interior consolation was Jesus' greatest agony.

“However, Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the intimate core of his being, he completed the work of reparation which was the purpose of his sacrifice for the expiation of sins. If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.” (My God, My God Why Have you Foresaken Me, General Audience, November 30, 1988)

Ratzinger also views the Descent of Christ in Hell as a suffering of emptiness. He wrote:

“Christ descends into hell and suffers it in all its emptiness... That Cross throws light upon our theme from two directions. First, it teaches that God himself suffered and died. Evil is not, then, something unreal for him. For the God who is love, hatred is not nothing. He overcomes evil, but not by some dialectic of universal reason which can transform all negations into affirmations. God overcomes evil not in a “speculative Godd Friday,” to use the language of Hegel, but on a Good Friday which was most real. He himself entered into the distinctive freedom of sinners but went beyond it in theat freedom of his own love which descended willingly into the Abyss... Jesus’ descent into Sheol, in the night of the soul which suffered, a night which no one can observe except by entering this darkness in suffering faith.” (Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, p. 216-217).

Joey Henry said...

With this in mind, the atonement in Catholic tradition is not only limited to physical pain and death. After Jesus died, there are pious opinions which is accepted and not declared as heresy that the soul of Christ suffered in a place they call “hell” in solidarity with sinful man. John Paul II writing in one of his apostolic letters:

“The intensity of the episode of the agony in the Garden of Olives passes before our eyes. Oppressed by foreknowledge of the trials that await him, and alone before the Father, Jesus cries out to him in his habitual and affectionate expression of trust: "Abba, Father". He asks him to take away, if possible, the cup of suffering (cf. Mk 14:36). But the Father seems not to want to heed the Son's cry. In order to bring man back to the Father's face, Jesus not only had to take on the face of man, but he had to burden himself with the "face" of sin. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). .. Jesus' cry on the Cross, dear Brothers and Sisters, is not the cry of anguish of a man without hope, but the prayer of the Son who offers his life to the Father in love, for the salvation of all. At the very moment when he identifies with our sin, "abandoned" by the Father, he "abandons" himself into the hands of the Father. His eyes remain fixed on the Father. Precisely because of the knowledge and experience of the Father which he alone has, even at this moment of darkness he sees clearly the gravity of sin and suffers because of it. He alone, who sees the Father and rejoices fully in him, can understand completely what it means to resist the Father's love by sin. More than an experience of physical pain, his Passion is an agonizing suffering of the soul. Theological tradition has not failed to ask how Jesus could possibly experience at one and the same time his profound unity with the Father, by its very nature a source of joy and happiness, and an agony that goes all the way to his final cry of abandonment. The simultaneous presence of these two seemingly irreconcilable aspects is rooted in the fathomless depths of the hypostatic union.” (NOVO MILLENNIO INEUNTE, accessed online)

Joey Henry said...

In conclusion, Nick always gave the idea that the reformed teaches that Christ was the recepient of God's wrath toward sin at the cross. Indeed we do teach it unapologetically. What he forgets is the other side of the coin. We also teach that although Christ bore our sin and that God's wrath fell on him as the sin bearer, that no union or love between the Son and the Father was ever destroyed or diminished. The perfection of their union was never assailed or defeated at the cry of forsakeness but evermore defended and upheld. God judged sin in Christ but at the same time defended Christ. God forsakes Christ as the sin bearer but at the same time united himself in Christ such that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. This is the ultimate mystery of the cross... two irreconcilable proposition affirmed together in Christ's being the Holy God and being the Lamb of God who bears the iniquity of us all. John Piper whom ypu often times quoted also said this:

"But I think another part of the answer must also be that the depth of the Son’s suffering was the measure of his love for the Father’s glory. It was the Father’s righteous allegiance to his own name that made recompense for sin necessary. And so when the Son willingly took the suffering of that recompense on himself, every footfall on the way to Calvary echoed through the universe with this message: the glory of God is of infinite value!

And so when the Father forsook the Son and handed him over to the curse of the cross and lifted not a finger to spare him pain, he had not ceased to love the Son. In that very moment when the Son was taking upon himself everything that God hates in us, and God was forsaking him to death, even then the Father knew that the measure of his Son’s suffering was the depth of his Son’s love for the Father’s glory, and in that love the Father took deepest pleasure.

Jesus said in John 10:15, 17, “I lay down my life for the sheep . . . For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.” And he prayed in John 17:4, “Father, I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do.”

No reformed will ever affirm that the Son and the Father's love or union was ever destroyed or diminished for they are the very power that allowed Christ to bear the penalty of sin -- Hell itself -- separation from God. No mortal can experience Hell and yet remain united with the Father. Only the God-man can... Jesus Christ!

E.J. Cassidy said...

Good work, Joey, I'm a deacon candidate and will be ordained next month. We were taught in Soteriology that Penal Substitution is one aspect of the Atonement, along with Satisfaction, Ransom and Sacrifice.

If one reads the section of the Catechism dealing with the death of our Lord in light of John Paul II's teaching, it becomes very clear that Penal Substitution is a legitimate aspect of the Atonement.

Joey Henry said...

God bless you and may you follow the Lord in your local church faithful to his Word. The catechism indeed does not eliminate Psub. In fact, it is advocating it.

602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: “You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.” Man’s sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God “made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, so that we might be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son”.

In these two statements, it is clear that Christ assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin. It also says that God established Christ in solidarity (or in unity) with us sinners. These acts, according to the catechism, allowed the Son to say IN OUR NAME from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – the reprobation we deserve as sinners.

Joey Henry said...

God bless you and may you follow the Lord in your local church faithful to his Word. The catechism indeed does not eliminate Psub. In fact, it is advocating it.

602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: “You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.” Man’s sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God “made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, so that we might be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son”.

In these two statements, it is clear that Christ assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin. It also says that God established Christ in solidarity (or in unity) with us sinners. These acts, according to the catechism, allowed the Son to say IN OUR NAME from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – the reprobation we deserve as sinners.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Joey, it was o good, you had to say it twice!.....Peace to you, E.J.

Nick said...

EJ,

I have addressed your post here:

http://www.creedcodecult.com/part-ii-understanding-christs-cry-of-abandonment/

Nick said...

Other comments will have to wait till tomorrow, I'm too busy tonight.

Joey Henry said...

Here is a complete article of Psub also found in Rcism:

http://thessalonians516.blogspot.co.nz/2015/04/penal-substitution-and-roman-catholicism.html

De Maria said...

Joey Henry said...
Thomas Aquinas in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed regarding Christ Descent into Hell, he wrote:

“There are four reasons why Christ together with His soul descended to the underworld. First, He wished to take upon Himself the entire punishment for our sin, and thus atone for its entire guilt. The punishment for the sin of man was not alone death of the body, but there was also a punishment of the soul, since the soul had its share in sin; and it was punished by being deprived of the beatific vision; and as yet no atonement had been offered whereby this punishment would be taken away. Therefore, before the coming of Christ all men, even the holy fathers after their death, descended into the underworld. Accordingly in order to take upon Himself most perfectly the punishment due to sinners, Christ not only suffered death, but also His soul descended to the underworld. He, however, descended for a different cause than did the fathers; for they did so out of necessity and were of necessity taken there and detained, but Christ descended there of His own power and free will: “I am counted among them that go down to the pit; I am become as a man without help, free among the dead” [Ps 87:5 Vulgate]. The others were there as captives, but Christ was freely there.” (Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, translated by Joseph Collins).


OK. Let's start with this one.

Where does that say that God the Father poured out His wrath upon the Son?

That is a necessary part of P. Sub, isn't it?

The fact that the Son took upon Himself our punishment is Catholic Doctrine. The objectionable part of P. Sub is that you have the Father punishing His innocent Son for sins He did not commit.

So, show me where St. Thomas Aquinas said that the Father poured out His wrath upon His innocent Son.

Joey Henry said...

De Maria, I answered your question in my blog. See link above. Thanks.

Nick said...

Joey,

You might have missed it, but I actually did address all your claims on my post from a year ago where I addressed "Does the Catholic view permit Penal Substitution?"

I specifically addressed the Christ descending into Hell as taught by Nicholas of Cusa and Aquinas in the Comment Box on that post.

Nick said...

Joey,

Here are my brief thoughts to the multiple posts you have made here and the blog post you made from them. As noted above, I have basically addressed all these issues, so that’s why I’ll be brief.

(1) It is misleading, even erroneous, to say the Catholic Church doesn’t have a single view of the atonement. It gives the impression there is wishy-washyness in the Catholic view, which there isn’t. The **Protestant notion** of Penal Substitution is not endorsed at all by any Catholic, especially any Magisterial or Patristic source. Your quote from Bishop Murray is too brief to know precisely what he was talking about, since I doubt he was using the phrase “penal substitution” in the way it’s understood by Protestants.

You *must* understand that out level of discussion must go beyond the semantic level, otherwise we are talking past each other. For example, when Catholic sources speak of Christ suffering our ‘punishment’, this does not at all necessitate Psub in the Protestant sense (of Christ receiving the Father’s wrath in our place).

(2) Most, if not all, of the Catholic sources you cite do nothing for your case. Your Peter Kreeft and AskACatholic sources are quite weak, because these men (while good Catholics), were clearly not up to speed with the Church’s teachings and traditions on this matter. Kreeft was originally a Protestant, so certain vestiges of Protestant thought still carried over.

(3) I have addressed your Nicholas of Cusa and Aquinas quotes last year, as noted in my prior post above. They are strictly speaking of the line in the Creed where it says Christ descended into hell, which *strictly* refers to Christ’s soul descending to *Hades*, and this taking place *after* Christ died. This is abundantly clear if you know what to look for. So nothing to do with Jesus being “damned in our place” as Protestants teach. One of the punishments of original sin was physical death, the separation of soul and body, which meant that after someone died, their soul separated and went somewhere. One place was Hades, which included the Saints and Sinners of Old Testament times. Jesus only went there on Holy Saturday and only for the Saints. He was not suffering hellfire there. Jesus underwent the humiliation/punishment of having to go to Hades (not hellfire).

So it is a **huge error** to read Cusa/Aquinas as advocating Christ was “damned in our place,” since they meant something **very different** when they spoke of Christ “descending into hell/Hades”.

(4) Regarding your Papal quotes, I have dealt with these as well, see my most recent post at Creed Code Cult, which I also linked to earlier in response to EJCassidy. I tracked down many quotes where JP2 and B16 talk about Christ’s Cry of Abandonment and how they explain it. It has nothing to do with suffering the Father’s wrath. Your quotes suffer from the fallacy of equivocation, in which you see a word and assume it means one thing, when in fact the Catholic theologian is using it in an entirely different manner.

So, really, you have not even scratched the surface of the Atonement issue. You have misunderstood all the Magisterial sources you quoted.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Nick,

I am a deacon candidate and will be ordained next month. As a candidate, I have taken formal studies in theology. Penal Substitution is one aspect of the Atonement. It is NOT in opposition to Satisfaction. We were taught this in our formal studies.

Ludwig Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that Jesus took our sins upon Himself on the Cross as the Lamb of God, a fact which you deny and which you stated to me that you weren't aware of Ott's quote.

The Catechism states that Jesus cry from the Cross was said in our name, after He had assumed our sins on the Cross.

I quoted a noted Catechism expert from Fordham University, a Jesuit priest with a national radio show on the Catechism, that Jesus exactly did take our sins upon Himself on the Cross and He did experience an abandonment, and that the Catechism states this as such.

But, you ignore these. You seem to be on one track.

You may be able to convince some Catholics that there is only ONE view of the Atonement that is acceptable to the Church, but I know that this is not so, and it seems Joey knows this, too.

Nick said...

Hello EJ,

May I ask you what your 'textbooks' are? I'm curious as to where you've heard PSub is taught/allowed.

Also, maybe this is a terminology problem, maybe the term "penal substitution" is causing confusion here. What I'm most especially out to show is not Catholic is the idea that Jesus underwent the Father's Divine Wrath, especially in a spiritual sense and one in which leads Protestants to say Jesus was "damned in our place".

Do you know of any Catholic theologians or sources who have come anywhere close to speaking with the "Jesus was damned to hell" frankness of these Protestant theologians?

Joey Henry said...

Hello,

Nick I know of Hans Ur Balthazar whose work is endorsed by Jospeh Ratzinger and have the Imprimatur of the church. The Theo Drama IV of Hans Ur Balthazar. Kreeft book has the Imprimatur of the church and he wrote the book as a Catholic. I would assume that if these works have greater weight than you.

You raise the equivocation argument as if the term Psub is not a well established defined theory in theology. But this isn't the case.

Your oft repeated taken out of context argument that the RCC does not teach that the Son poured out his wrath on him is obviously correct and incorrect at the same time. Context on how these statement are made is key as I've explained in this blog and my blog in responding to De Maria who parroted your arguments here.

Your main argument in interpreting the teaching of JPII, B16 and the CCC on the Psub as merely a participatory in nature and for a Role Model purpose in dealing with suffering is surely deficient. Psub theorists do not deny the participatory nature of his suffering nor his role model purpose at the cross. They are rather complementary. To argue that since JPII, B16 teaches these two aspects to the denial of Psub is simply illogical.

There is indeed a clear teaching of the Magisterium regarding the atonement. It is not the exclusion of Psub. Rather the Magisterium allowed all views to be discussed and incorporated in pondering the depth of the atonement... Ransom Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Christus Victor and Psub. No one theory can explain the atonement. All are needed and that is the reason why V2 declined to canonized one view.

Regards,
Joey


Nick said...

Joey,

Your "case" is not very convincing and seems more driven by desperation than genuine openness to understand the Catholic position.

Appealing to an imprimatur is really the lowest level of appeal you can make in Catholic theology. An imprimatur is basically the local bishop saying nothing in the book is blatantly contrary to the faith, which is a far cry from a detailed Magisterial pronouncement on a work. In fact, as publishing as increased, the imprimatur has lost its prestige as the Bishop has had to delegate more of the work out.

You've got to realize that Balthazar and especially Kreeft are really at the bottom of the totem pole of Catholic theological authority. This isn't Protestantism where you and the plowboy are just as good as Calvin and Luther.

Further, it seems that Balthazar is simply speaking of Christ's Descent into Hades as it has always been taught by the Catholic Church, though he might have used more colorful language. The separation of body and soul was indeed a punishment due to Adam's sin, which included the post-mortem humiliation of sending of the soul to Hades. Jesus didn't suffer this as "God's Wrath" in the Protestant sense, nor did Jesus decend into Hades *in our place* sincethe OT Saints were in fact sent there.

Kreeft is laity and was not writing a theological treatise in that comment, but rather making a brief claim which clearly lacked the knowledge/precision of mature Catholic thought on this matter.

You have nowhere provided a compelling case, and indeed you seem to brush off any case I make (and I do in fact use lots of compelling evidence).

Nick said...

Joey,

If you cannot make the simple distinction between:

(1) Jesus' soul descending into Hades after His death.

AND

(2) The Father pouring out His eternal Wrath upon Jesus while still alive on the Cross.

Then you've completely misunderstood the Catholic position and have projected Protestant assumptions onto Catholic theology. Those are two different issues.

The Catholic tradition has spoken a lot of #1, including those quotes from Cusa and Aquinas, while saying nothing on #2.

You have given no indication you acknowledge there is a distinction between #1 and #2.

Joey Henry said...

Nick,

I think it is not helpful if you engage in ad hominem attacks against Kreeft and Balthasar. To be frank these are not sideline theologians. They are well respected theologians of top calibre. They have ecclesiastical backing on them while you don't have any of their credentials.

Your challenge was originally to provide any catholic that holds to Psub. I gave two. Not just ordinary catholics but theologians with doctorate degrees and ecclesiastical positions. Rather than speculate what Balthasar believed in the descent of Christ in Hell, why don't you read Theo Drama IV? The book is endorsed by Joseph Ratzinger by the way. You'll see in p. 345 to 349 that Balthasar believes that Christ did suffer divine wrath on account of his being the Sin Bearer.

Finally, I do understand your two statements. They are not the same of course but related. Thomas argued that Christ has to descend locally in sheol (Ratzinger's term) to take the full punishment of sin. The saints in Sheol lack beatific vision on account of sin. Christ has to descend there to liberate them triumphantly. But in doing so, he also took their punishment as he experienced also their state as the Second Adam. Having assumed their state, the debt was paid and there is no reason why they will not be granted beatific vision. This is a case of selective substitution as it is only for the saints who still lack beatific vision. Balthasar would argue that the suffering of Christ is not only selective but even for the damned. Thus, the substance of his descent includes all that hell deserves inclusive of divine wrath for the reprobates sins not just the saints sins

What's the point here? Thomas argued the necessity of punishment of sin. That punishment is borne out of God's righteous wrath against sin. Christ took our punishment. If so, he experienced in our behalf God's righteous indignation of sin. Christ is not the direct object of God's wrath and never will be. Bit as Christ is the sin bearer, he experienced what sinners experienced on account of their sin. There is no one on one correspondence of course of Christ's experience. Thomas argued for the substance only of that punishment. JPII explained it well like this:

“In the sphere of feelings and affection this sense of the absence and abandonment by God was the most acute pain for the soul of Jesus who drew his strength and joy from union with the Father. This pain rendered all the other sufferings more intense. That lack of interior consolation was Jesus' greatest agony.

“However, Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the intimate core of his being, he completed the work of reparation which was the purpose of his sacrifice for the expiation of sins. If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.” (My God, My God Why Have you Foresaken Me, General Audience, November 30, 1988)

The last sentence should be the main point.

Regards,
Joey

E.J. Cassidy said...

Joey,

I have that General Audience of JPII but it is only available in Italian and Spanish on the Vatican Web site. When you run it through a translator, it doesn't come out in "perfect" English. Do you happen to have the whole Audience in English, or is this just a snippet?

"If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.”

That line certainly is devastating to Nick's thesis, isn't it?

EJ

Nick said...

Joey,

It is not ad hominem for me to say a Catholic theologian is in error, even if I include possible motives of why they were wrong. Kreeft is virtually alone in what he said, with no major theologian I know of endorsing such views. This fact itself indicates that what he is saying is not a traditionally accepted understanding of the atonement. As I noted, he is on the bottom of the authority totem-pole for Catholic theology, so any further appeals to him are more a sign of desperation than anything. And if you think they are of top caliber, then you clearly have no idea of the wealth of knowledge the Canonized Saints and Doctors of the Church offer us. This level of argumentation is not something I'm interested in, since it's akin to me finding a Reformed pastor with dubious claims and using his PhD credentials to 'refute' you.

As for Balthasar's Theo Drama IV, I'm not going to spend $35 on a book I'm not really interested in, especially when I have no reason to doubt Balthasar substantially deviates from the traditional/orthodox understanding of Christ Descending into Hades.

As for the Catholic understanding of the Descent, you still don't seem to be understanding it properly. The only sense in which it was a punishment and wrath is in the broad sense that as a consequence for Adam's sin, God allowed the human body to be subject to suffering, decay and especially separation of body and soul. So when Aquinas and such speak of Jesus taking our full punishment, it merely means that in descending into Hades, Jesus suffered the worst of the natural consequences of Adam's sin. But clearly this was not 'taking the punishment we deserved in our place', since the OT Saints were indeed sent to Hades. You don't seem to realize this. Furthermore, Aquinas is clear that Christ's atoning work *ended* upon death and did not continue into Hades. Christ was not making atonement in Hades in any sense; so it's nonsense to think Christ was substituting Himself in Hades for us in some judicial sense.

The JP2 quote you give is a distorted understanding of what JP2 was saying. Nowhere is God's wrath mentioned or any of the typical Protestant descriptions of PSub mentioned here. Rather, we read:

If Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, he knew however that that was not really so. Speaking of his future passion he said, "I am not alone, for the Father is with me" (Jn 16:32). Jesus had the clear vision of God and the certainty of his union with the Father dominant in his mind. But in the sphere bordering on the senses, and therefore more subject to the impressions, emotions and influences of the internal and external experiences of pain, Jesus' human soul was reduced to a wasteland. He no longer felt the presence of the Father, but he underwent the tragic experience of the most complete desolation.

Here one can sketch a summary of Jesus' psychological situation in relationship to God. The external events seemed to manifest the absence of the Father who permitted the crucifixion of his Son, though having at his disposal "legions of angels" (cf. Mt 26:53), without intervening to prevent his condemnation to death and execution. In the praetorium Pilate had repeatedly tried wily maneuvers to save him (cf. Jn 18:31, 38 f.; 19:4-6, 12-15); but the Father was silent. That silence of God weighed on the dying Jesus as the heaviest pain of all, so much so that his enemies interpreted that silence as a sign of his reprobation: "He trusted in God; let God deliver him now" (Mt 27:43).


The abandonment is described in terms of "the silence of God," which is the theme elsewhere as well in JP2's comments on this matter. This is nothing like Jesus being "damned in our place" or suffering the full wrath of hell. None of that.

Nick said...


And while JP2 was giving that same series on Christ’s work, a few weeks later he spoke on Christ’s Descent into Hell, and here is what he said:

“It should also be mentioned that the word "hell" does not mean the hell of eternal damnation, but the abode of the dead which is sheol in Hebrew and hades in Greek (cf. Acts 2:31). The formula is derived from numerous New Testament texts. The first is found in the Apostle Peter's discourse on Pentecost. Referring to Psalm 16 to confirm the announcement of Christ's resurrection which it contains, Peter stated that the prophet David "foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption" (Acts 2:31). The Apostle Paul's question in the Letter to the Romans has a similar meaning: "'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)" (Rom 10:7).
With the entrance of Christ's soul into the beatific vision in the bosom of the Trinity, the "freeing from imprisonment" of the just who had descended to the realm of the dead before Christ, finds its point of reference and explanation. Through Christ and in Christ there opens up before them the definitive freedom of the life of the Spirit, as a participation in the life of God (cf. Summa Theol., III, q. 52, a. 6). This is the truth that can be drawn from the biblical texts quoted and which is expressed in the article of the creed which speaks of the "descent into hell."


Nothing in that whole homily had even the slightest mention of God’s wrath and Jesus suffering in our place regarding the Decent into Hades.

Nick said...

EJ,

The links for those JP2 General Audience quotes are embedded in my two prior comments.

The only sense in which they speak of Jesus sharing in our sufferings in in the sense that Jesus shared in our fallen human condition...NOTHING about sin/guilt being imputed to Jesus and NOTHING about Jesus being seen as a sinnner/guilty in our place, and NOTHING about the Father's wrath.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Nick,

Let’s start with what you chose not to respond to in my post, my comment about Ludwig Ott. You have stated in the past that Jesus did not take on Himself the sins of all humanity. I believe you stated quite dogmatically that Jesus only “bore” our sins as High Priest, but not as the Lamb of God, the Lamb of Sacrifice. He did not bear our sins as the Lamb of Sacrifice and atone for them.

But, I found this quite in Ott’s classic, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, under the De Fide statement, Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a true and proper sacrifice.

“St. John the Baptist, the last of the Prophets, following Isaias, sees in Christ the Lamb of Sacrifice, who took on Himself the sins of all mankind, in order to atone for them. John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.”

Remember that you stated in the past that Ott, along with Aquinas, did all the “heavy lifting” when it comes to defining the atonement. Well, just how did Jesus atone for our sins by taking them onto Himself as the Lamb of Sacrifice?

John Paul II’s tells us in his General Audience of 11/30/88: "If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.” Hence the cry, “My God, My God, why have You abandoned Me?” The late Pontiff goes way beyond what you claim the cry means.

Merriam-Webster defines damnation this way: the state of being in hell as punishment after death.

Merriam-Webster defines wrath this way: strong vengeful anger, or retributory punishment for an offense or a crime, or divine chastisement.

The Catechism in Paragraph 1057 states, “Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

So eternal damnation is eternal separation from God. To experience the wrath of God would be to experience being separated from Him, which is the punishment of hell. Being damned to hell is being damned to eternal separation from God.

JPII clearly states that Jesus experienced this separation while on the Cross and that it is a mystery, a mystery related to the Hypostatic Union. When he made this statement, he went way beyond……read it again, way beyond….just taking on our fallen condition.

"If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.”

It is so clear and so devastating to your stated interpretative opinion.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Nick,

You said: “May I ask you what your 'textbooks' are? I'm curious as to where you've heard PSub is taught/allowed.”

ME: It is taught in my diocesan formation program. Does that shock you?

You said: “Also, maybe this is a terminology problem, maybe the term "penal substitution" is causing confusion here. What I'm most especially out to show is not Catholic is the idea that Jesus underwent the Father's Divine Wrath, especially in a spiritual sense and one in which leads Protestants to say Jesus was "damned in our place".

ME: Nick, I’m not the one who’s confused here. I know what penal substitution means.

But let’s define it. Penal means relating to punishment, substitution means taking one’s place, to put it very simply.

Without using the term “penal substitution,” the Catechism very clearly states that Jesus took our sins upon Himself as the Lamb of Sacrifice, as our substitute, and suffered the penalty for those sins. The penalty is physical death, and eternal separation from God.

Jesus died physically. Jesus experienced separation from God on the Cross. He experienced this separation while still remaining in union with the Father. Again, JPII called this a mystery.

You continue to state that there is only one Catholic position on the atonement and this is just not true. I know it’s not true.

And I think Joey Henry knows it, too.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Nick,

I also find your statement to Joey about Kreeft being laity and that somehwo invalidates his theological opinion as laughable, considering that you are also laity, are you not? At least Kreeft has been published. Have you?

EJ

Joey Henry said...

Hi Nick,

I don't believe you have the ecclesiastical authority to declare Kreeft and Balthazar in error on their views. Of course we can go through Thomas or Augustine or even Athanasius but it seems like it doesn't matter because whenever we explain how their theories ties up to Psub you will just brush it off.

For example, I explained above the different regions of Hell as Thomas believed it being a medieval theologian. I used the term Sheol as this was influential of development in current church teaching to eliminate limbo as being part of it (contra Thomas). The real of the reprobate and the saints are included in my explanation above with the caveat of how Thomas and Balthazar differ in their understanding of Christ descent. Both these realms lack one thing: Beatific Vision. That's because no sin can enter heaven per these thrologians. Being in Sheol is part of the punishment that sin deserve. Christ took that punisment by assuming the state of the saints (per Thomas) in his descent to hell.

I even noted that there is no one to one correspondence between what a sinner deserve to suffer and what ghe substitute need to suffer in their behalf to rescue them. Psub theorists does not hold to a one on one correspondence view. Thus, JPII is right when he said Christ did not experience eternal damnation otherwise he won't be able to liberate the saints in their lack of beatific vision. The key here is substance or proporgionate suffering considering the dignity of the substitute which you couldn't grasp at his moment.

Even when you say that punishment and wrath is understood in a "broad sense", the fact that Christ experienced it is already akin to saying that he experienced the wrath of God on sin as the Sin Bearer. For where does this punishment came from and of it's necessity but only in the righteous indignation of God against sin. But I guess you don't have the capacity to connect this dots at this point.

Have a nice day!

Keith Watson said...

E.J. Cassidy,

"Without using the term “penal substitution,” the Catechism very clearly states that Jesus took our sins upon Himself as the Lamb of Sacrifice, as our substitute, and suffered the penalty for those sins. The penalty is physical death, and eternal separation from God."

I am a Protestant so I don't know the Catholic Catechism. Are you possibly referring to 615 where the word substitution is used?

Or could you point out which paragraphs in the Catholic Encyclopedia under "Doctrine of the Atonement" explain that the Catholic belief includes penal substitution theory?

Joey Henry said...

Keith go to my blog:

http://thessalonians516.blogspot.co.nz/2015/04/penal-substitution-and-roman-catholicism.html

Under catechism.

Joey Henry said...

Keith go to my blog:

http://thessalonians516.blogspot.co.nz/2015/04/penal-substitution-and-roman-catholicism.html

Under catechism.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Keith,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an official document of the Vatican, while the Catholic Encyclopedia is not.

The paragraph you quote is one that I had in mind.

In the past, the Church has dogmatically stated that the death of our Lord on the Cross is: Sacrifice; Ransom; and Satisfaction.

It has never dogmatically stated that the death of our Lord is also Penal Substitution, but it has never ruled it out, or officially condemned it.

By Penal Substitution, I mean that by dying on the Cross, our Lord took upon Himself as the Lamb of God the sins of all humanity and paid the penalty due to our sins.

EJ

Nick said...

EJ,

I'm still curious on what source in your diocesan formation program you're reading that teaches PSub. If you can't give me some sort of textbook name, then I can only conclude you are being taught 'off the cuff' by the personal opinions of professors, which is not how the Catholic Faith is to be taught.

Furthermore, I would like to get a direct response from your theology teacher about this claim of yours: "Being damned to hell is being damned to eternal separation from God. JPII clearly states that Jesus experienced this separation while on the Cross" I'm curious if your formation program is being this explicit or if you're just coming to your own conclusions.

If you would, I would like to know his email so that I can contact your theology professor(s) and hear directly from him. Perhaps he/they can help me.

Nick said...

Joey,

You still have not answered my question as to how Jesus Descended into Hades in a PSub manner when the OT Saints were already suffering the punishment of Hades. In other words, if I'm already suffering punishment X, then how can Jesus be suffering punishment X in my place?

You claim Aquinas held Christ decended in a PSub manner, so then why were the OT saints in Hades in the first place? The only options I can see is that either Aquinas was being blatantly inconsistent, or Aquinas wasn't really teaching the Descent was of a PSub nature.


Nick said...

Joey,

You appear to be saying that under Thomas' view, Christ took the punishment of being cut off from the Beatific Vision by the very fact he went to Hades. If this is what you're suggesting, WHERE in Aquinas are you getting this idea?

HERE is a link to Summa III:52 where Aquinas addresses Christ's Descent into Hades. Nowhere do I see him suggest Christ lost the Beatific Vision by descending to Hades...just the opposite in fact! Aquinas says that Jesus brought the Beatific Vision to Hades! Note the following:

[Article 2] On the contrary...Christ, who is "the light," did not descend into the hell of the lost. I answer that...upon the holy Fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin, He shed the light of glory everlasting.

[Article 4] Reply to Objection 1. When Christ descended into hell He delivered the saints who were there, not by leading them out at once from the confines of hell, but by enlightening them with the light of glory in hell itself.

Reply to Objection 2. By the expression "bars of hell" are understood the obstacles which kept the holy Fathers from quitting hell, through the guilt of our first parent's sin; and these bars Christ burst asunder by the power of His Passion on descending into hell.

Reply to Objection 3. Our Lord's expression ["Though shall be with me in Paradise"] is not to be understood of the earthly corporeal paradise, but of a spiritual one, in which all are said to be who enjoy the Divine glory. Accordingly, the thief descended locally into hell with Christ, because it was said to him: "This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise"; still as to reward he was in paradise, because he enjoyed Christ's Godhead just as the other saints did.

[Article 5]On the contrary, Augustine says in the sermon on the Passion already quoted that when Christ descended into hell 'He broke down the gate and iron bars of hell, setting at liberty all the righteous who were held fast through original sin.

Reply to Objection 3. Directly Christ died His soul went down into hell, and bestowed the fruits of His Passion on the saints detained there; although they did not go out as long as Christ remained in hell, because His presence was part of the fulness of their glory.

[Article 8]I answer that, As we have stated more than once (4, ad 2, 5,6,7), Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance in virtue of His Passion.


Aquinas is very clear that Christ's *Passion* is where the Saving Work was accomplished, not after His Death. AT NO POINT does Aquinas ever insinuate that Christ didn't have the Beatific Vision. Rather, Christ was ALWAYS "the light" and bestowed glory upon the OT Saints IMMEDIATELY upon Descending. There is no mention from Aquinas of Christ suffering in Hades in the slightest.


Joey Henry said...

“There are four reasons why Christ together with His soul descended to the underworld. First, He wished to take upon Himself the entire punishment for our sin, and thus atone for its entire guilt. The punishment for the sin of man was not alone death of the body, but there was also a punishment of the soul, since the soul had its share in sin; and it was punished by being deprived of the beatific vision; and as yet no atonement had been offered whereby this punishment would be taken away. Therefore, before the coming of Christ all men, even the holy fathers after their death, descended into the underworld. Accordingly in order to take upon Himself most perfectly the punishment due to sinners, Christ not only suffered death, but also His soul descended to the underworld. He, however, descended for a different cause than did the fathers; for they did so out of necessity and were of necessity taken there and detained, but Christ descended there of His own power and free will: “I am counted among them that go down to the pit; I am become as a man without help, free among the dead” [Ps 87:5 Vulgate]. The others were there as captives, but Christ was freely there.” (Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, translated by Joseph Collins).

ick,

Didn't I already quoted your demand above? The purpose of Christ descent has two effects on it due to the hypostatic. As man, he bore vicariously the punishment of the saints who lack the beagific vision. As God, he liberated them from their punishment. So they are complementary not either or statements:

E.J. Cassidy said...

Nick,

I'm leaving for pre-ordination retreat. If I can't get back to you today, then it will be Monday.

EJ

E.J. Cassidy said...

Nick,

You said: “I'm still curious on what source in your diocesan formation program you're reading that teaches PSub. If you can't give me some sort of textbook name, then I can only conclude you are being taught 'off the cuff' by the personal opinions of professors, which is not how the Catholic Faith is to be taught.”

ME: It’s funny that you make the “off the cuff” remark because that is exactly what you’ve been doing here on your blog. All you’ve done is given your personal interpretations of Scripture passages and you ignore contrary interpretations that don’t fit your narrative. You are giving us your personal opinions of Scripture. I can assure you that the way you got about this is certainly NOT how the Catholic Faith is to be taught.

Funny that you question the credentials of a priest who is also a theology instructor while you are just a layman.

Why don’t you give us the dogmatic statement(s) that condemn Penal Substitution? You can’t because there are one. The Church allows contrary interpretative opinions on certain topics that have not been narrowly defined. One such is predestination.

Archbishop Sheen taught that Jesus was our sinbearer, that He took our sins upon Himself on the Cross and suffered the separation that sin causes. I think you know what he believed and taught. He taught what is contrary to your opinion on the matter. Are you going to claim he was wrong?

You said: “Furthermore, I would like to get a direct response from your theology teacher about this claim of yours: "Being damned to hell is being damned to eternal separation from God. JPII clearly states that Jesus experienced this separation while on the Cross" I'm curious if your formation program is being this explicit or if you're just coming to your own conclusions.”

ME: Again, funny, because you’ve come to your own conclusions and then claim that your conclusions are THE Catholic view of the Atonement, which is absolutely false.

You said: “If you would, I would like to know his email so that I can contact your theology professor(s) and hear directly from him. Perhaps he/they can help me.”

ME: I doubt that he can help you at this point in your life regarding your own personal opinions that you’ve elevated to dogma. You don’t seem open at this point to views contrary to your own.

Now, I’ve answered your questions. How about answering this?

Ludwig Ott stated that Jesus took our sins upon Himself as the Lamb of God and atoned for them. You’ve stated in the past that you don’t believe this. Who’s wrong? You or Ott?

What are your academic credentials in the field of theology? You challenged me. Now, I challenge you. Are you just a layman? Have you published your theories on any academic Web sites for peer review and not just on social media sites?

E.J. Cassidy said...

Nick,

The way to study the Catholic faith is to find out first what the Church teaches dogmatically and what it leaves open to varying interpretations. There are a lot of gray areas.

You've elevated your opinion in one of these gray areas to dogma. Penal Substitution has not been formally condemned. Various theologians and saints have held it as an aspect of the Atonement.

The way to teach the Catholic faith is to proclaim what the Church taaches as dogma, that must be held by the faithful. And then state what the gray areas are where various opinions and intepretations have been allowed. Penal Substitution is one of these areas.

You have no right to claim that there is only one single view of the Atonement that is THE Catholic view.

I challenge you to put your theories to the test. Father Joseph Koterski, S.J., of Fordham University teaches the Catechism one hour a week on Radio Maria on Sunday nights. The time is 10pm Eastern time. Why don't you find the Radio Maria site on the Web and call in? Let a real academic theologian test your theories.

Father Koterski's curriculum vitae is 46 pages long. I think he would know what the Church teaches and doesn't teach regarding the Atonement.

Nick said...

Joey,

You are reading foreign ideas into Aquinas. You said most recently:

"As man, he bore vicariously the punishment of the saints who lack the beagific vision. As God, he liberated them from their punishment. So they are complementary not either or statements:"

Where does Aquinas speak of the Descent as a vicarious punishment in your Aquinas quote (or any other Aquinas quote)? Nowhere that I can see.

Christ didn't Descend *in place of* those already in Hades, nor did Christ ever have the Beatific Vision for Himself cut off. Until you can recognize this, you've completely botched Aquinas. OT Saints were already in Hades, their own descents were thus not taken by Christ in their place.

Aquinas says the OT saints were deprived Heaven since "as yet no atonement had been offered whereby this punishment would be taken away." Hence, Christ was making atonement, not a vicarious punishment in the PSub sense.

Aquinas is clear that the Descent was not part of the Atonement proper, but rather a by-product of the atoning death. A verse he frequently quotes in his Descent comments is Zech 9:11,

"Reply to Objection 2. Christ's Passion was a kind of universal cause of men's salvation, both of the living and of the dead. But a general cause is applied to particular effects by means of something special. Hence, as the power of the Passion is applied to the living through the sacraments which make us like unto Christ's Passion, so likewise it is applied to the dead through His descent into hell. On which account it is written (Zechariah 9:11) that "He sent forth prisoners out of the pit, in the blood of His testament," that is, by the power of His Passion. "

Just as Baptism applies the Power of the Passion to the believer, Christ's descent is the instrument by which the Power of the Passion was applied to the OT Saints.

Your comments of "as man" and "as God" border on Nestorianism, for it was the Divine Person of the Son who both bore the punishments and liberated. It is Nestorian to frame it in such a way that 'only as man' did Jesus lose the Beatific Vision and 'only as God' did Jesus liberate.

Aquinas is clear: "Christ, who is 'the light,' did not descend into the hell of the lost."

If that's the punishment the OT saints deserve, then why did Jesus not Descend to the Hell of the Lost? By Protestant logic, He should have. But not by Catholic logic.

Nick said...

EJ,

I try to back up all my claims from sources, such that at the end of the day it's not me speaking, but rather me passing on what Catholic authorities have said. So where is the textbook for your seminary training by which you're explicitly being taught Penal Substitution? If all you are doing is *personally* digging for sources, then it isn't the seminary teaching you this, but rather you doing personal study, which isn't bad in itself, it's just not the seminary teaching it.

I have not been giving my personal interpretations of Scripture in any sense other than what has been explicitly said in Catholic sources or indirectly by what is permitted within the realm of orthodoxy. In other words, when I present a text of Scripture, I either give an interpretation a Catholic authority has given, or if they haven't commented upon it, I try hard to make sure my interpretation does not violate any dogmas.

Please provide me with the contact information for your seminary. I would say it's a moral duty for you to do so, as every Catholic is entitled to know credentials.

Now if you are going to simply argue that Penal Substitution is a "grey area," that's a huge step back from what we're arguing here, namely the Protestant *dogma* of Penal Substitution, in which PSub is *the very essence of the Protestant understanding of the Cross*.

No Protestant would allow you to say PSub is a 'grey area' and not dogmatic. The moment you say 'grey area' you have put it on the peripherals of the clearly defined aspects of Catholic view of the Atonement.

Why do all these Protestants say the Father poured out His Wrath upon Jesus in very explicit terms, and yet you have to hunt for Catholics here and there to find scraps that sound sorta similar?

Joey Henry said...

Nick,

Really? You did not read the first sentence then?

Thanks,
Joey

Joey Henry said...

And the second one.

Joey Henry said...

“There are four reasons why Christ together with His soul descended to the underworld. First, He wished to take upon Himself the entire punishment for our sin, and thus atone for its entire guilt. The punishment for the sin of man was not alone death of the body, but there was also a punishment of the soul, since the soul had its share in sin; and it was punished by being deprived of the beatific vision; and as yet no atonement had been offered whereby this punishment would be taken away. Therefore, before the coming of Christ all men, even the holy fathers after their death, descended into the underworld. Accordingly in order to take upon Himself most perfectly the punishment due to sinners, Christ not only suffered death, but also His soul descended to the underworld. He, however, descended for a different cause than did the fathers; for they did so out of necessity and were of necessity taken there and detained, but Christ descended there of His own power and free will: “I am counted among them that go down to the pit; I am become as a man without help, free among the dead” [Ps 87:5 Vulgate]. The others were there as captives, but Christ was freely there.” (Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, translated by Joseph Collins).

Keith Watson said...

E.J.,

Thank you for responding.

From the Cathelic Catechism the number you refer to states,

615 "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.

When penal substitution is defined as Jesus in our place paying the penalty due to our sins, I do not see that plainly stated in this section of the catechism. Bear with me a moment. There is a phrase, "accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant", but this phrasing is left unexamplained as to what "substitution" means. This is where the typical Protestant theologian gets lazy by assuming that anyone who has ever use the word "substitute" meant the entire doctrine of penal substitution. This assumption many times is false. What is stated in 615 is Jesus was obedient unto death, His suffering, His being a servant, being a sin offering, bearing our sins and iniquities, making atonement, and making satisfaction. Aside from the last part, all of these ideas are directly from Scripture and also exist outside of the realm of penal substitution.

I checked all occurrences of "suffering Servant" (440, 536, 601, 608, 615, 623) and none of those places speak of substitution.

guy fawkes said...

Nick,

I am glad t see you are as disturbed about E.J.'s theology as I am. It is incredible to see someone who boasts of his soon-to-be-ordination to the diaconate espousing the view that justified the Reformers in rejecting the Mass, purgatory and the Sacraments.

By the way, here is a video showing Peter Kreet retracting certain views not in sync with the Faith.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

Where do you stand on Limited Atonement?
How about the possibility of a justified person falling away?

How did Mary participate, in a subordinate way, with her Son on Calvary? Was she also a penal substitute? Did she feel abandoned? Was wrath poured out on her?

If you want to sign on to Joey Henry's views, you need to explain why you don't sign on to Limited Atonement, denial of purgatory, rejection of the Mass, etc. etc. in order to be consistent.

guy fawkes said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geuTVWetlzw

OOPS! Here is the video I mentioned.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

Pope JPII said we can look to the saints to see how they understood how Jesus could enjoy the Beatific Vision and suffer as He did.
I immediately think of Sister Lucia's vision of the Father hovering over the Son during the crucifixion.
http://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/apparitions/fatima/fatima_lucia_later_apparitions.html

Scroll down to see what I am talking about.

You can also check out the visions of Venerable Catherine Emmerich of Christ's agony in the Garden to see what caused Him to sweat blood ( it was NOT terror of His own damnation as Calvin said ).

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
I really don't mean to stack up comments, it is the next days after my last one.

As I am not able to phone in to Fr. Koteriski's program, could you ask him for me how Penal Substitution fits with the Church's system of Indulgences?
How about Masses of propitiation for the dead? After all, PS was behind Luther's rejection of Masses for the dead as the Father's wrath was spent once for all on Calvary.

In Baptism the guilt and the debt of punishment are wiped taken away. How does post-Baptismal forgiveness work in a system that uses PS? How many times can PS be applied?

Back to indulgences; the Church says the Treasury of Merit includes the merits of Mary and the saints. Besides Christ's satisfaction, the Treasury is made up of the excess satisfactions of those who did more than enough in this life. Perhaps Father k could explain this Treasury of Merit business in a system that says Christ suffered, not as head of the Mystical Body held together by Charity, but a substitute who acted in our stead.

We should talk about how Christ could be in complete control on Calvary and establish Mary as Mother of the Church if suffering abandonment by the Father too.

You also weighed in on Creed Code Cult recently, yes? On the side of lapsed Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian named Michael if I am not mistaken. Like yourself, Michael is an ordained deacon. Unlike you, he has moved on to Calvinism.
Moral of the story; deacons are not above falling away.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

If you are going to say the lynchpin of Calvinist soteriology can be shoehorned into our system, what about the concomitant doctrine of imputation?

You and/or Fr.K have some 'splainin' to do!

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
Monday morning my time.
I do hope you respond to my several postings ( you skipped out on Creed Code Cult after a quick appearance in which you championed PS as orthodox Catholic teaching ).

I need to ask one more question; how is PS applied to the individual? Through the Mass? If so, could you direct me to any sources that say in each Mass the Father really or just symbolically pours out wrath on Jesus?
I know there are non-Calvinist Protestants who believe in PS without buying into Limited Atonement (but that just points to how illogical they are.) But even those Protestants say Christ's death in our stead is appropriated by Faith Alone.

What say you? Is it by Faith Alone or are the benefits of PS meted out via the Sacraments?

Joey Henry said...

http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=6258

Another RC Scholar who believes Psub is legit theory.

guy fawkes said...

Joey Henry,

"Jesus does not actually take away from us the necessity of eventual bodily death (we die bodily anyway) and on the Cross He did not actually experience "spiritual death" ("the complete separation from God as experienced by the damned")."

Thanks for posting this.

As for Simone Weil, she was never a Baptized Catholic so she is not a "Catholic scholar' by definition.

guy fawkes said...

Joey Henry,

As for Fulton Sheen's,
"Moreover, it was fitting as a work of atonement by "penal substitution," because a spiritual experience of alienation from God is what damned souls have induced in themselves, by their abandonment and betrayal of God's merciful love. *Taken into the Sacred Heart, and offered up in love for us to the Father,* this "spiritual crucifixion" of the Son of God fully compensates Divine Justice, pays the penalty we deserve, remits our mortal sins, and wins our pardon."

"Taken in to the Sacred heart and offered up in love to the Father".

Is that what the damned experience?

Joey Henry said...

Guy,

The author of the article is an RC scholar. Sheen is an archbishop. If you care to read what Dr. Robert quoted at the last part of the article, then you might be convinced to reconsider your position. Bit maube not. Have a nice day!

Joey

E.J. Cassidy said...

Nick, guy, Keith, Joey,

I have not "skipped out." I am busy. I'll be back, as Arnold said.

Guy, did you read what the Archbishop wrote? I haven't seen this quote but it is interesting as regards your position.

"Moreover, it was fitting as a work of atonement by "penal substitution," because a spiritual experience of alienation from God is what damned souls have induced in themselves, by their abandonment and betrayal of God's merciful love. *Taken into the Sacred Heart, and offered up in love for us to the Father,* this "spiritual crucifixion" of the Son of God fully compensates Divine Justice, pays the penalty we deserve, remits our mortal sins, and wins our pardon."

The Archbishop believed in penal substitution but did not fall for the Calvinist errors regarding this doctrine.

Here is my first question to you, guy:

Was Archbishop wrong in his belief in penal substitution as an aspect of the Atonement?

I'll be back.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
"The Archbishop believed in penal substitution but did not fall for the Calvinist errors regarding this doctrine."

HUH?!? Calvinist errors? What "Calvinist errors"? So far, you have been trashing only the Catholic position. This is the first mention of any Calvinist errors you have made.
It would be a nice change to have you wax on about those Calvinist errors for a while.

As for Fulton Sheen, too bad we can't resurrect the Archbishop to ask him if he knew his words were going to be used to support Calvinism a few decades after his death. ( He just might have worded his comments a bit differently.)

On the other blog you deigned to pop in just long enough to champion the Calvinist viewpoint on ( Creed Code Cult ) before moving on to other matters, I posted a list of at least a dozen high powered Catholic theologian who misstated the Catholic position with language that implied Christ underwent the terrors of the damned, underwent the wrath of the Father, or descended into hell for any reason other than to proclaim his victory and take captivity captive.

Now, I will be anxiously waiting for the day when your schedule allows you to respond to a few of the questions I asked you over the weekend before answering any of yours.

guy fawkes said...

Joey,
Fulton Sheen was not as much of a scholar as Robert Stackpole?

guy fawkes said...

Joey,

Here is a short piece taken from the Homiletic and Pastoral Review I grabbed at random from among others that say the same thing about Christ and the Beatific Vision . Please notice that it was the very fact that Christ did indeed have the Beatific Vision that he could suffer as he did on Calvary.
http://www.hprweb.com/2012/01/the-ignorance-of-christ/

guy fawkes said...

Here's another one ( of many ).

http://www.stpeterslist.com/10821/the-agony-of-the-cross-2-thoughts-on-how-christ-can-suffer-grief-and-have-the-beatific-vision/

guy fawkes said...

JPII said to look to the saints. Here is a meditation on the agony in the garden. It doesn't mention anything about the terrors of the damned as Calvin does.http://opusdei.ie/en-ie/dailytext/the-agony-in-the-garden/

guy fawkes said...

Guys,
That one was from St. Jose Maria. This one is from Padre Pio.
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-480.shtml

This one reminds me of Catherine Emmerich's vision in which Jesus agonizes over that fact men do not avail themselves of the Blessed Sacrament.

Guys, I'm not saying I am an expert on just what Christ suffered. Personally, as someone who delights in sin, I can't even relate to Christ suffering on account of it. I don't have the Beatific Vision. I don't even have control of my imagination as Christ, free from concupiscence, did. What I can say is, you had better stay within certain parameters when pontificating on the subject.

I have been a Catholic all my life and can say, as an ordinary pew warmer, I have never heard PS put forth from the pulpit in a homily, as a meditation at a retreat or expressed in any adult religious formation lecture.
IOW, it ain't traditional.

As for Fulton Sheen or any other Catholic you trot out to make your case, neither he nor anyone else, ever derived the same conclusions as Protestants do from pondering Christ's Passion ( Sheen didn't leave the Catholic priesthood, or stop offering the sacrifice of the Mass ).

guy fawkes said...

Joey,

One final shot before heading for my weekly Holy Hour of Reparation ( a practice not compatible with Reformed soteriology ).
Whatever Robert Stackpole has to say, it really should jive with this link as his ministry has something to do with Sister Faustina and Divine Mercy Devotion.
http://www.divinemercy.org/3-oclock-prayer/87-3-oclock-prayer.html

As a Calvinist, can you get on board with this 3:00 o'clock prayer?
I bet Stackpole can.

Joey Henry said...

Guy,

From what I read about Dr. Robert on Archbishop Sheen and your quote, it is clear to me that he believed in Psub.

The outworking of Psub might differ between Reformed and RC theology. It is not logical to dismiss Psub simply because it can work out differently between Reformed and RC theology.

Lastly, you've made your experience the standard to determine what is and what is not traditional RC theology. I reckon that is not an catholic attitude.

Have nice day.

Regards,
Joey

guy fawkes said...

Joey,
During last night's Holy Hour I had plenty of time to rummage through a basket of booklets and pamphlets on meditations before the Blessed Sacrament. One that caught my eye was " JPII's Divine Mercy Stations of the Cross Before the Eucharist". Divine Mercy is Stackpole's outfit, isn't it?

Everyone of the meditations on the various Stations included something about me carrying my cross in union with His to save, not only myself, but others.
And every Station ended with a prayers about " Jesus' Passion and Mary's Compassion".

I notice that here on this blog and CCC, Michael and E.J. ( and maybe you too? ) want to say PS is but one aspect of the Atonement. They also that myself and others are guilty of caricaturing PS.

Please, don't move the goal post. PS says, "Jesus did it all, there is nothing left for me to do" and any mixing of my efforts ( or Mary's ) robs Jesus of glory. Don't redefine PS and mix in concepts that make it seem not as bad as it is.

The PS I am attacking may not be the one you believe in but it sure is the one R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur subscribe to.

Neither Sheen nor Stackpole are here to defend what they mean by the term. They certainly cannot mean what you and the popularizers of Calvinism mean. Not if they pray in a manner that says our efforts and sufferings are to be incorporated into Christ's.

And thanks, I do have a nice day. They air on my street is heavy with jasmine, the ocean along my morning commute is blue. I hope your days as as nice.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
I am sure I have seen your initials on "Called to Communion" asking questions of Bryan Cross so you know about it and have wisely assumed the learner's position there.
Please avail yourself of the articles on that blog titled, "Catholic and Protestant Views of the Atonement" and "Aquinas and Trent #6 ". You should also check out the article by Taylor Marshal on "Calvin's Worst Heresy" ( a.k.a. Christ's descent into hell.)

And do plod through the hundreds of comments by both Calvinists and former Calvinists under those articles.

After doing your homework, you may not be so quick to barge into discussions on PS and immediately come out swinging against your fellow Catholics.

guy fawkes said...

Michael, Joey and E.J.*,
PS ( or the version in the cross hairs here )says Jesus was punished in my STEAD. It does not say satisfaction in the Anselmian sense was made on my behalf. Not even close.
Nor does it fit with what Aquinas said on the four aspects of the Atonement; merit, satisfaction, ransom and sacrifice.

There is no way to smuggle in a system that says Jesus was punished (not made satisfaction/atonement for or carried my debt of punishment ) in my stead any of my own cross carrying, efforts or sufferings. IN MY STEAD does not mean "as my corporate head" or "as my example". It means just what it says.

"As my substitute" and "in my stead", according to the myriad of Calvinist writers and speakers on the internet, means something totally at loggerheads with Catholic doctrine, devotion and practice.

If you don't agree with those other proponents of PS, please say so. Don't concoct some hybrid system of your own and call it PS.

* It saddens me to have to include a Catholic deacon in with men dedicated to opposing the Church.

Joey Henry said...

Guy,

Maybe you should be the one to rethink your position. I have written an article regarding PS in RC theology. Dr. Robert also wrote three articles on it. I am sure you can find other Catholic professors opposing Psub. The thing is that the magisterium rightly allowed for this to be discussed and not condemned as heresy. As the atonement is a very deep theological theme, we need all insights. Surely, many in RC found valuable insight in pondering Psub even Popes. So my unsolicited advise to you is that follow the magisterium as a good catholic. Where she has not defined as heresy don't proclaim as heresy.

Now, the application of Psub surely have differences in reformed and RC theology. You mention Calvin and some modern Reformed Theologians as espousing heretical views using RC dogmatic standards. That's fine. You should understand that the development of Psub in reformed thought does not take into account the RC dogmas and what we believe as extra or anti Scriptural. Thus, the conclusion we derive from Psub is largely different from the conclusions that RC arrive at. The point is that, the differences of conclusions because of different sets ultimate authorities used does not mean that Psub should be exclusive from both sides.

Perhaps the difficulty you face is that you've listened too much of the other side without actually giving a proportional hearing from the other side. For example, you argued that Psub means Jesus dis it all there is nothing left fir me to do -- you've showed how diatorted your understanding is. In Catholic Theology, the reason why you have fulfil the divine law as a baptized christian is simply because justification has been paid by Christ for all men. Thus, this payment is the atonement which includes the view that the punishment of sin has been borne by Christ and therefor affords the baptized of the deserve beatific vision by the means of the sacraments available through the Church. In other words, Psub is one of the pieces to explain why the sacraments can get you full beatific vision after death and not just end up in Sheol or Hades.

The reformed, of course, has a different thought on how Psub applies itself to justification and sanctification. I will not discuss it here. We can discusa it my blog if you want reformed theology discussed.

Regards,
Joey

guy fawkes said...

So my unsolicited advise to you is that follow the magisterium as a good catholic. Where she has not defined as heresy don't proclaim as heresy.

Thanks, but what qualifies you to instruct Catholics on Catholicism?

I am unaware of any statement by the magisterium directly addressing PS. If you know of one, please tell me. Statements by Catholics, regardless of being ordained or not, on the Passion or Psalm 22 or whatever not directly focusing on the argument we are having don't really matter. It's akin to the way Protestants quote statements by Augustine on Pelagianism against Catholics. If A. had known how his words were going to be used centuries later, he surely would have qualified himself.


"you've showed how distorted your understanding is."

Really, Joey? Who is to blame for my distorted view? Need I copy and paste links to what some of your major kingpins have to say on the issue? That might be redundant as Nick seems to have already done that.

Thanks for the invite. I may check out your website.

guy fawkes said...

By the way Joey,

Do you think you could be any more condescending? I mean, sending me to the magisterium for direction, the same magisterium you have no need of yourself.

Sheesh!

E.J. Cassidy said...

Hi “guy,”

You said to Joey: “Do you think you could be any more condescending? I mean, sending me to the magisterium for direction, the same magisterium you have no need of yourself. Sheesh!”

ME: Joey has not been condescending at all. He simply told you to do what we are bound as Catholics to do: Refer to the Magisterium of the Church when we are determining what is doctrinal dogma and what is not. Why should that offend you?

In fact, you are the one who has been condescending, all through this “dialogue.”

Merriam-Webster definition of condescend: To show that you believe you are more intelligent or better than other people.

You said to Nick: “It is incredible to see someone who boasts of his soon-to-be-ordination to the diaconate espousing the view that justified the Reformers in rejecting the Mass, purgatory and the Sacraments.”

ME: Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of boast: A statement in which you express too much pride in yourself or in something you have, have done, or are connected to in some way.

Here is my original statement: “I'm a deacon candidate and will be ordained next month. We were taught in Soteriology that Penal Substitution is one aspect of the Atonement, along with Satisfaction, Ransom and Sacrifice.”

Where do you see boasting? I simply stated that I am a deacon candidate. The purpose was not to “boast” but to state that in my diocese, in the diaconate formation program, we were taught that Penal Substitution is a legitimate aspect of the death of our Lord on the Cross,

Our instructor even gave us a textbook where the author did not favor Penal Substitution. How could that be? He was trying to give us both sides of the argument because, in fact, the Magisterium of the Church has NEVER condemned Penal Substitution. We can legitimately argue over it. But what we are not free to do is to declare it as heresy when the Church has not.

I say it is legitimate. You say no. Fine. But don’t belittle those who hold to it.

As for my instructor, he is a priest, a pastor in the diocese, the academic dean of the diaconate formation program, an instructor in the theology department of a local Catholic university, and a former instructor in systematic theology in a local seminary. Quite frankly, I think he has more credentials than either you or I, or Nick, to state what is and is not the teaching of the Church. I’ll take his word before I take yours, or Nick’s.

I’m trying to determine how you can see boasting in my statement. Could it be the old adage that when you point a finger at someone, there are always three fingers pointing back at you?

You said: “You also weighed in on Creed Code Cult recently, yes?”

ME: Yes.

You said: “On the side of lapsed Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian named Michael if I am not mistaken.”

ME: No, I am not on “his side,” as you put it.

You said: “Like yourself, Michael is an ordained deacon. Unlike you, he has moved on to Calvinism. Moral of the story; deacons are not above falling away.”

ME: I am not an ordained deacon. Yet. Where do you read in any of my statements that I said I was ordained? If you are getting simple information like this wrong, shouldn’t you be concerned about more weightier matters that you could be getting wrong?

“…deacons are not above falling away.” Wow! Here is a big example of condescension on your part. Because I don’t agree with you as to what is official Church teaching and what is not, I’m in danger of apostasy.

(To be continued)

E.J. Cassidy said...

Hi “guy,”

You said to Joey: “Do you think you could be any more condescending? I mean, sending me to the magisterium for direction, the same magisterium you have no need of yourself. Sheesh!”

ME: Joey has not been condescending at all. He simply told you to do what we are bound as Catholics to do: Refer to the Magisterium of the Church when we are determining what is doctrinal dogma and what is not. Why should that offend you?

In fact, you are the one who has been condescending, all through this “dialogue.”

Merriam-Webster definition of condescend: To show that you believe you are more intelligent or better than other people.

You said to Nick: “It is incredible to see someone who boasts of his soon-to-be-ordination to the diaconate espousing the view that justified the Reformers in rejecting the Mass, purgatory and the Sacraments.”

ME: Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of boast: A statement in which you express too much pride in yourself or in something you have, have done, or are connected to in some way.

Here is my original statement: “I'm a deacon candidate and will be ordained next month. We were taught in Soteriology that Penal Substitution is one aspect of the Atonement, along with Satisfaction, Ransom and Sacrifice.”

Where do you see boasting? I simply stated that I am a deacon candidate. The purpose was not to “boast” but to state that in my diocese, in the diaconate formation program, we were taught that Penal Substitution is a legitimate aspect of the death of our Lord on the Cross,

Our instructor even gave us a textbook where the author did not favor Penal Substitution. How could that be? He was trying to give us both sides of the argument because, in fact, the Magisterium of the Church has NEVER condemned Penal Substitution. We can legitimately argue over it. But what we are not free to do is to declare it as heresy when the Church has not.

I say it is legitimate. You say no. Fine. But don’t belittle those who hold to it.

As for my instructor, he is a priest, a pastor in the diocese, the academic dean of the diaconate formation program, an instructor in the theology department of a local Catholic university, and a former instructor in systematic theology in a local seminary. Quite frankly, I think he has more credentials than either you or I, or Nick, to state what is and is not the teaching of the Church. I’ll take his word before I take yours, or Nick’s.

I’m trying to determine how you can see boasting in my statement. Could it be the old adage that when you point a finger at someone, there are always three fingers pointing back at you?

You said: “You also weighed in on Creed Code Cult recently, yes?”

ME: Yes.

You said: “On the side of lapsed Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian named Michael if I am not mistaken.”

ME: No, I am not on “his side,” as you put it.

You said: “Like yourself, Michael is an ordained deacon. Unlike you, he has moved on to Calvinism. Moral of the story; deacons are not above falling away.”

ME: I am not an ordained deacon. Yet. Where do you read in any of my statements that I said I was ordained? If you are getting simple information like this wrong, shouldn’t you be concerned about more weightier matters that you could be getting wrong?

“…deacons are not above falling away.” Wow! Here is a big example of condescension on your part. Because I don’t agree with you as to what is official Church teaching and what is not, I’m in danger of apostasy.

(To be continued)

E.J. Cassidy said...

Oops! Sorry about that double post.

E.J. Cassidy said...

(Continued)

You said: “I do hope you respond to my several postings ( you skipped out on Creed Code Cult after a quick appearance in which you championed PS as orthodox Catholic teaching ).”

ME: “Skipped out”? You seem to know what my inner motivations are without ever having met me face-to-face. Another condescension.

Creed Code Cult is not conducive to discussions free of animus, hubris and personal attacks. I chose not to respond there because it is a combat zone and I’ve had enough of combat zones. I chose to respond to Nick on his own blog where we could discuss one-to-one, or close to it.

You said: “HUH?!? Calvinist errors? What "Calvinist errors"? So far, you have been trashing only the Catholic position. This is the first mention of any Calvinist errors you have made. It would be a nice change to have you wax on about those Calvinist errors for a while.”

ME: Show me where I have “trashed” the Catholic position? I have not trashed any position. Penal Substitution is a legitimate aspect of the Atonement, but not the only aspect. But we’ll get to this later. Right now, I am discussing your condescension.

By using the word “trashing,” you are implying that I attack what you think is THE Catholic position. I’ve done no such thing. You are seeing that in my words but it….trashing….is not there. Again, if you are misreading the simple statements I have made, you have to ask yourself what else you’ve misread.

I trash the Catholic position but you don’t’. Condescension.

You said: “On the other blog you deigned to pop in just long enough to champion the Calvinist viewpoint on ( Creed Code Cult ) before moving on to other matters,”

ME: Deigned? Back to Merriam. Deign - to do something that you think you should not have to do because you are too important.

Again, you make statements about my inner motivation without knowing me personally. Condescension. I did not think myself “too important.” I consider that site to be too much of a combat zone. It seemed much “quieter” over here at Nick’s.

You said: “I am sure I have seen your initials on "Called to Communion" asking questions of Bryan Cross so you know about it…”

ME: Yes.

You said: “…and have wisely assumed the learner's position there.”

ME: Yes, I did. Isn’t that what it means to be a disciple? But why is it that I have to assume the position but you don’t? You assume that your opinions on what is and is not official Church teaching is the correct and only view. This is just another proof of your own condescension on this blog.

You said: “Please avail yourself of the articles on that blog titled, "Catholic and Protestant Views of the Atonement" and "Aquinas and Trent #6 ". You should also check out the article by Taylor Marshal on "Calvin's Worst Heresy" ( a.k.a. Christ's descent into hell.) And do plod through the hundreds of comments by both Calvinists and former Calvinists under those articles.”

ME: I have. Those who are against Penal Substitution as a legitimate aspect of the Atonement have a right to believe that way. They don’t have a right to attack those who hold to it (as one aspect, as I contend), which you are doing here on Nick’s blog.

You said: “After doing your homework, you may not be so quick to barge into discussions on PS and immediately come out swinging against your fellow Catholics.”

ME: You need to read your statement very slowly. Do you see the condescension in between the words? You think you are above myself and Joey because we believe something that you don’t. Again, the Church has NOT condemned Penal Substitution as a legit aspect of the Atonement. But you seem to be doing just that. And attacking us for saying what we believe.

Barge in? As far as I know, anyone is free to comment. One does not have to “barge” in.

Come out swinging? I did no such thing. You’ve got combat on the brain. We’re discussing. You seem to be attacking.

E.J. Cassidy said...

(Continued)

You said: “It saddens me to have to include a Catholic deacon in with men dedicated to opposing the Church.”

ME: Again, I am not yet a deacon. The fact that you keep saying I am only shows that you haven’t read my posts too closely. Or you’ve forgotten what I stated.

And again, the condescension. I am opposing the Church because I hold to a belief that you oppose.

You said: “Michael, Joey and E.J.*,”

ME: What? Michael’s here. Where? Did I miss him? Did he “pop in” and then “skip out”?

You said: “So my unsolicited advise to you is that follow the magisterium as a good catholic. Where she has not defined as heresy don't proclaim as heresy.”

ME: Physician, heal thyself.

You said: “Thanks, but what qualifies you to instruct Catholics on Catholicism?”

ME: What qualifies YOU? What are YOUR credentials in Catholic theology? Do you have any?

You really need to read your posts through if you are not doing it already. You need to edit out anything that could be construed as an ad hominem attack, or that smacks of condescension. We need to have civil discussions and not engage in attacks, subtle or otherwise.

I am taking a break for now but I am going to answer your direct questions on theology. I had to get to what I perceive to be condescension on your part. Hopefully, we can now have a civil theological discussion.

Joey Henry said...

Sure Guy. If you are open to discuss reformed theology I could show you the other side of the story. Nick surely copy amd pasted things but imported his own paradigm in interpreting them. I can show you even with the theologians he's quoted how he is wrong on his conclusions about the role of Psub in reformed theology.

Regarding giving general advise... you don't need a qualification to give one. That is why it is unsolicited.

If you approach this issue with an open mind, then our discussion might progress.

Joey Henry said...

If I appear to be condscending, forgive me. It was not my intention. I sent you to the magisterium because it's stance on the theories of the atonement is something I find very agreeable. That does not mean all of the statements of the magisterium is agreeable to me. I rejoice that the RC theology has not put a rigid line on which atonement theories are dogmas or not. There is much to talk about yet on this very issue, there ecumenical and united understanding that the atonement is so rich and deep that every theory is needed to understand it.

I can understand your "sheesh"... I've been there. I will not take that against you. But I hope we can progress our discussion on a more gentlemanly manner.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
"in fact, the Magisterium of the Church has NEVER condemned Penal Substitution."

Does it take a formal condemnation for you to realize it is not the mainline Catholic position?

E.J. Cassidy said...

guy,

So, you admit that Penal Substitution is not a heresy. Good. That's a start.

Now, why don't you tell us what the "mainline Catholic position" is. And give authoritative sources to back up your claim.

guy fawkes said...

Joey,

Okay, let's start fresh.
You said,
"Perhaps the difficulty you face is that you've listened too much of the other side without actually giving a proportional hearing from the other side. For example, you argued that Psub means Jesus dis it all there is nothing left fir me to do -- you've showed how diatorted your understanding is."

Most of my understanding of Calvinism proper is from Calvinists, including those who blog. All my life I have heard Protestants accuse Catholics of trying to add to the finished work of Christ, done once for all on Calvary's cross. Now you say this is a distortion which causes me to ask who determines what is orthodox Calvinism and what is a distortion.

You continued with,



In Catholic Theology, the reason why you have fulfil the divine law as a baptized christian is simply because justification has been paid by Christ for all men. Thus, this payment is the atonement which includes the view that the punishment of sin has been borne by Christ and therefor affords the baptized of the deserve beatific vision..."

"The punishment has been borne" does not mean Christ lost the Beatific Vision, suffered the terrors of the damned or the Father poured out wrath on the Son, does it?


"by the means of the sacraments of the Church... In other words, Psub is one of the pieces to explain why the sacraments..."

God is not bound by the sacraments. He can give grace outside of them. The purpose of the sacraments is to give grace IN CHRIST.
I am sure you know that people can be regenerated outside of the Sacrament by Baptism of Desire. So why the bother with the Sacrament?
You already answered that question yourself. The Sacrament of Baptism is what puts us in the Church, in the Body of Christ. We can lose the grace of regeneration and yet remain in the Church because of the Baptismal Character.
I will stop here on Baptism by saying, the Incarnation connects Christ to the entire race made up of beings who share a human nature with Him. He desires the salvation of all of them and wants all of them united in the Body, the Church. He redeemed them ALL.
Does that jive with Limited Atonement? Penal Substitution?

As for the sacrifice of the Eucharist, it is just that, a sacrifice. You know full well we Catholics do not believe sacrifice=penal substitution, not in the OT or the New.
In Holy Communion we increase in that incorporation in the Body of Christ given in Baptism.

Penal Substitution does not allow for "super abundance". Punishment cannot be excessive and be just. PS says Christ suffered for specific people only, right? No excess, no wasted suffering.
Our system doesn't say anything is wasted either but it does say Christ suffered enough to merit for a million worlds.
What did He merit? Sanctifying grace. There is an organic connection between that grace and the Beatific Vision you speak of.

Is there such an organic relationship between PS and the B.V./heaven? Doesn't your system bifurcate justification and sanctification?

Lots more to say, but it's late here.
Ciao for now.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
Did I concede PS is not heretical? Hmm?
To say Christ lost the Beatific Vision is far from orthodox, isn't it?

Yeah, I would love to tell you the mainline understanding of Salvation in 4 easy steps;
Merit
Satisfaction,
Sacrifice
Ransom

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

One of those four facets I mentioned is Satisfaction.
The way I am using the word ( and I think it jives with Anselm and Aquinas ) is to say satisfaction is offered in lieu of punishment.
The form of "satisfaction" made by Penal Substitution is BY punishment, not in lieu of it. That punishment may be transferred to another party, but it is still punishment, pure and simple.

I am not making this up. Right here by my computer is a book titled "What Is Redemption" by Philipe de La Trinite. It is a classic debunking of PS and it goes into great detail on these four facets of Christ's work.

On my coffee table sits a new book titled "True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church" by Fr. Dominic De Dominico O.P. ( what else would he be but a Dominican with a name like that? )
He has a chapter dealing with Christ ransoming, meriting, making satisfaction and offering sacrifice. He has another chapter dealing with Mary's participation in her Son's merit, satisfaction, sacrifice and redemption.

Upstairs I have an out of print book called "A Complete Mariology" in which the author dedicates a complete chapter to each one of these four aspects and Mary's participation.

Go to any Catholic university library that hasn't been gutted of its pre-Vatican books and you will find lots of books that list these four means of our Salvation.

Or you can click back onto Bryan Cross' "Aquinas and Trent #6 " for a short work up on each one of these four concepts.

E.J., it would be redundant of me to repeat what Nick has already said, I cannot do better than he has done so I won't try.

There are tons of stuff at your finger tips dealing with Psalm 22, the Agony in the Garden, the impossibility of losing the Beatific Vision etc. etc. by solid Catholic writers.
There are also plenty of Calvinist videos and articles by Piper, James White, MacArthur, Sproul, etc. that you can avail yourself of with a click of the mouse.

Penal Substitution, as put forth by those same Calvinists, is NOT compatible with those Catholic websites.
Remember, it is satisfaction OR punishment, not satisfaction BY punishment.
"Nuff said. Here I stand stand, I can do no more!

Ciao

E.J. Cassidy said...

guy,

You said: "Remember, it is satisfaction OR punishment, not satisfaction BY punishment."

ME: No, it is NOT.

Just because Anselm made that statement doesn't make it true. That was his opinion. You've adopted it. Well, that is your right. It is also your right to be wrong.



E.J. Cassidy said...

guy,

You said: “Yeah, I would love to tell you the mainline understanding of Salvation in 4 easy steps; Merit…Satisfaction…Sacrifice…Ransom”

ME: Agreed, except that these are not “steps.” They are aspects of the Atonement.

Earlier, you accused me of trying to “shoehorn” Penal Substitution into “our system.” If I added PS as a fifth category to the four you’ve stated, you might have a case. But I don’t have to add it as a fifth category. It fits under Satisfaction. I’m not making this up so don’t get all twisted up about what I’ve just said. PS is a subset, so to speak, of the Satisfaction aspect of the Atonement.

What Anselm wrote in Why God Became Man, and PS, are both forms of Satisfaction theory. They both try to explain how the death of our Lord was satisfactory. But they differ in how, obviously.

Anselm’s original theory of Satisfaction was expanded and fine-tuned by Aquinas. There is a legitimate debate among Catholic scholars as to whether Aquinas’ formulation of Satisfaction opened the door for the later development of Penal Substitution. I think he did. So does Brandon Peterson, the author of “Paving the Way? Penalty and Atonement in Thomas Aquinas’ Soteriology.” You can easily find it on the Web, if you’re interested.

You said: “Did I concede PS is not heretical? Hmm? To say Christ lost the Beatific Vision is far from orthodox, isn't it?”

ME: Hmm, of course it is.

But when I stated that "in fact, the Magisterium of the Church has NEVER condemned Penal Substitution,” you replied, “Does it take a formal condemnation for you to realize it is not the mainline Catholic position?”

The implication of your statement is a concession that there has never been a formal condemnation, which, as far as I know, is necessary for something to be declared heresy.

Penal Substitution refers to our Lord taking the sins of all humanity onto Himself and suffering the punishment which these sins deserve. It is not necessary for our Lord to lose the Beatific Vision. (He didn’t.) What is necessary? Let JPII tell you:

“In the sphere of feelings and affection this sense of the absence and abandonment by God was the most acute pain for the soul of Jesus who drew his strength and joy from union with the Father. This pain rendered all the other sufferings more intense. That lack of interior consolation was Jesus' greatest agony.

“However, Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the intimate core of his being, he completed the work of reparation which was the purpose of his sacrifice for the expiation of sins. If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.” (My God, My God Why Have you Foresaken Me, General Audience, November 30, 1988)

Read that last sentence again: “If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.”

Remember that the Catechism states that separation from God is the eternal punishment of sin. JPII is stating that Jesus experienced a suffering that was proportionate to this separation. And JPII stated in another document that He experienced this while still holding the Beatific Vision. How? He said it was a “mystery.”

guy fawkes said...

E;J,
Over on CCC Nick does a great job of explaining what JPII said on this issue. I am not going to copy and paste what you can do for yourself.

PS can't be a 5th way as it dismantles two of those four aspects ( I didn't mean to call them "steps" ) namely, satisfaction and sacrifice.
( Now way am I going to back pedal on PS and the OT sacrificial system! Dave Anders speaks to this at least once a week on his show. )

A great book you should be able to find easily is " Our Father's Plan" by the late Fr. Wm Most. He details how Christ saves us and how we appropriate that salvation.
He also has a smaller pocket size piece called "Vatican II< Marian Council". You want doctrinal statements, do you? Fr. Most gives 'em to you from both Pius XII and Vat II on Mary's role by her obedience in her sons' work.
Please, I have asked you previously, show me Mary's participation in PS.

As Nick has tried to explain, ( Bryan Cross too ), Christ's sacrifice goes up. PS says wrath comes down.
Show me where that wrath came down on Mary in ANY doctrinal statement.

On second thought, please don't even try as the thought is so repugnant to Catholic sensibilities.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
" “If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.”

Indeed! "Proportionate to".

You also quoted the Pope on just what the punishment for sin is. That punishment is 1. Guilt/corruption of sou/separation from God, loss of grace and Beatific Vision and 2. Debt of punishment.

Do read Nick's articles on CCC for what JPII said that you are passing over. Please pay attention to what Christ did not/could not experience due to his being the Second Person of the Trinity Incarnate namely loss of grace and Beatific Vision.

I posted links here to articles explaining how suffering and the Beatific Vision can co-exist. Over on CCC, right after Nick's first article on this business, Jonathan has a link to Garrigou LaGrange's commentary. Check it out.

And do find Fr. Most's book in which he explains that Adam's ( and Eve's ) sin was one of disobedience. The knot they tied was untied by obedience. Obedience=Love.
Jesus ( and Mary's ) sacrifice was obedience going up to the Father. Not wrath coming down.
Fr. Most stresses that the sacrifice did not move the Father to love us. He already did that.
Rather, it gives us titles to grace, grace that transforms us and restores our relationship with God by sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace wipes out what requires punishment in our souls, namely the corruption of our wills turned away from God.

Anyway, I've got a train to catch.

Joey Henry said...

Guy!

What doew Mary have to do with Psub? If you accept that Mary is co-redemptrix which is not dogma btw, it does not mean that Mary has to have the same role as Jesus. This is not a good argument.

Secondly, you can find scores of theologians opposing Psub. You might be surprised that even on reformed theology some would oppose it! The point is that, this is a theory that can be discussed and not condemned as heresy bu the RCC. The fact that there are pros and con all the more prove E.J. and my point on the matter.

Lastly, you keep on referring Bryan Cross and Nick's article. I don't know what is persuasive about it. But these guys works on either or concepts. Bryan woild say Psub is wrath coming down not satisfaction going up driven by supreme love. But this is just gross misrepresentation. Nick would argue all that the Pope is saying is that he participates in our punishment and suffering but not as a substitute. But Psub is both participatory, instructive to dealing with pain and suffering and most of all an objective historical fact where Christ bore our sins. The error of these guys is simple: an either-or paradigm to the point that they misrepresent Psub (unintentionally, I hope).

Regards,
Joey

Joey Henry said...

Guy!

What doew Mary have to do with Psub? If you accept that Mary is co-redemptrix which is not dogma btw, it does not mean that Mary has to have the same role as Jesus. This is not a good argument.

Secondly, you can find scores of theologians opposing Psub. You might be surprised that even on reformed theology some would oppose it! The point is that, this is a theory that can be discussed and not condemned as heresy bu the RCC. The fact that there are pros and con all the more prove E.J. and my point on the matter.

Lastly, you keep on referring Bryan Cross and Nick's article. I don't know what is persuasive about it. But these guys works on either or concepts. Bryan woild say Psub is wrath coming down not satisfaction going up driven by supreme love. But this is just gross misrepresentation. Nick would argue all that the Pope is saying is that he participates in our punishment and suffering but not as a substitute. But Psub is both participatory, instructive to dealing with pain and suffering and most of all an objective historical fact where Christ bore our sins. The error of these guys is simple: an either-or paradigm to the point that they misrepresent Psub (unintentionally, I hope).

Regards,
Joey

guy fawkes said...

Joey,
Mary and Jesus did indeed play vastly different roles on Calvary. For one thing, Mary did not have the Beatific Vision but only the virtue of Faith.


Although a trip to an art museum will show you paintings ( painted before the Council of Trent ) of the Crucifixion with Mary swooning at the foot of the cross, the Magisterium decided to suppress this form of art known as "De Spasisimo" because Mary stood at the foot of the cross according to scripture, participating in the sacrifice.

The idea of Christ, hysterical with fear for his own salvation is even worse. The image of him descending to the nether world to do anything other than bind the devil and release the Fathers, is also repugnant.


I keep referring to Nick and Bryan's articles because I believe they have it right.

Joey, you keep accusing me of distortion. Just this morning I read a piece on line about Anselm, Aquinas and Calvin. I can scrounge it up for you and E.J. later if you like.
The author says that Calvin opted for PS specifically because he didn't like the idea of penance. ( Or something to that effect ).
"Everybody knows" Luther dumped all penitential and superorogatory works because of his concept of PS too.

PS is NOT in sync with what the Church teaches on purgatory, Masses for the dead, indulgences, etc. Only you and E.J. seem not to notice what Luther and Calvin did.

Sorry Joey, but you and Michael seem to be at loggerheads with most of your confreres when it comes to this. You two make Calvinism sound almost Catholic.

guy fawkes said...

Nick,

Is this you?
http://jaysanalysis.com/2010/04/12/quotes-from-calvinist-theologians-proving-ariannestorianism/

guy fawkes said...

Joey, Joey, Joey,
You are so quick to say what is or isn't defined Catholic doctrine!

"What doew Mary have to do with Psub? If you accept that Mary is co-redemptrix which is not dogma btw, it does not mean that Mary has to have the same role as Jesus. This is not a good argument."

Mary has absolutely ZERO to do with PSub. That means PSub is not a legitimate Catholic view as Mary did indeed participate in her Son's redemption of the human race. ( I would love to bury you under quotes from Fathers, Saints and Popes but that would take us off topic. ).

Ask E.J. if I am right on this.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
Hey, I have an idea. Let's you and Joey fight.

Tell him about those Calvinist errors you mentioned.

Hey Joooooeeeey!

E.J. says Calvinism is erroneous. Are you gonna take that from him?

Yoo-hoo, E.J.,

Joey been talkin' bad 'about yo Momma. He been sayin' she din't help out in yo redemption.

C'mon Guys, stop being pals and represent your belief systems. Stop making nice with each other against Nick. Even if you agree that PS is kosher, you have a lot to fight about when it comes to how PS works itself out.

guy fawkes said...

Joey and E.J,

What say ye to this
https://reformedbaptistdaily.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/why-penal-substitutionary-atonement-is-limited-atonement/

E.J. Cassidy said...

Hi "guy,"

It is obvious that you are not at all interested in a serious civil discussion about this matter. Now you are trying to put Joey against me. How childish.

And it seems that you yearn for the pre-Vatican II days. That says a lot about where you are coming from.

Do you accept The Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by JPII, as a legitimate resource for Church teaching?

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
Just a bit of whimsy. Don't take offense at my temporary lapse into silliness.
But do realize that PS is all about IMPUTATION, our sin to Christ and Christ's righteousness to us. That is one of those "Calvinist errors" associated with PS you need to put to Joey.
PS was not concocted in isolation. It is part, nay, the lynchpin, of a whole host of errors you should be addressing to.

I don't answer leading questions.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
"And it seems that you yearn for the pre-Vatican II days. That says a lot about where you are coming from."

Huh? Where is this coming from? I thought I referred you to a book titled, "Vatican II, Marian Council" by Fr. Wm Most.
Your comment says more about you and your attitude towards the pre-Vatican II says than it does about me.

Anyway, back to PSub.
Perhaps we need to define our terms as you are producing Catholics who have use that term, namely Fulton Sheen and Robert Stackpole.

I am sure there is a legitimate use of the term but that is not what the Catholics on this blog are attacking. What is under fire is a specific understanding of the term as espoused by the Reformers in order to deny the Mass, purgatory, indulgences, penance, and works of superorogation.
That understanding of the term does not exist in a vacuum but is part of a panoply of heresies; Eternal Security, Limited Atonement, Irresistible grace, etc.

To date, you have denounced none the errors you say exist in Calvinism. You sole argument is to say there is no explicit condemnation of the term, a term that can be as open to orthodox or heterodox interpretations as "Vicarious Atonement" or "Substitutionary Atonement" and that certain Catholic spokesmen have used that same expression without qualifying their exact meaning.

So, until you actually tell us what you mean or don't mean, I can only assume you have thrown your hat in with Joey Henry's.

I don't want you and Joey to fight. I just need to know where you part company with him. ( You did Hi-Five him and his comment contra our Catholic host. )

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you or Joey vis-avis. I don't know you. All that I can say about you is that you are a Catholic candidate for the diaconate who weighs in on the side of Calvinists on various blogs.
As for our friend Joey, I have seen his blog comments for some time and can say he is probably a sincere, zealous, and committed non/anti Catholic.
I have met Nick face to face and can vouch for him. I know the very orthodox priests at the church where he attends Mass. I know the authors he reads. I know where he is coming from.

You, well, you are a bit of a mystery. Your demands for/quoting of doctrinal statements and Catholic scholars are no more comforting to me than are Joey's demands for/quoting of those same doctrinal statements and Catholic scholars.

Please, define yourself.

And please, if in defining yourself you step on Joey's toes, I am sure he can take it. I suspect he is probably as befuddled by your ( apparent )defense of a major Calvinist doctrine as I am.

So, don't bother asking me leading questions until you establish where you are coming from.
(Psssst! Of course I believe the Catechism. Do you? )



guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
Let me make it easy for you.

Do you believe Jesus never lost the Beatific Vision or forgot He was God while on the cross? Do you believe He never despaired?

Do you believe Jesus never suffered hell either on the cross or on Holy Saturday?

Do you affirm the Father never abandoned or turned His Back on Jesus?

Do you agree that Jesus was never imputed as guilty of sin?

Do you believe the Hypostatic Union was never suspended?

Do you agree that Jesus never feared for his own salvation, either in the garden of Gethsemanee or on Calvary?

Do you affirm there never was a split in the Trinity? Do you affirm the Father did not pour out His wrath on Jesus?

Do you believe Jesus died for all men?

E.J. Cassidy said...

Again with the condescending attitude: "Let me make it easy for you."

You don't have to "make it easy." Do you think you are the only one able to understand complex issues?

Why don't you answer this question?

Did our Lord, while He was on the Cross, take onto Himself all the personal sins of humanity and atone for them?

E.J. Cassidy said...

Nick, I haven't forgotten our discussion. I'll get back to you.

And Keith, too.

Joey Henry said...

Guy,

I'm a bit frustrated at how you talk to E.J. The argument really you are putting into the table is profoundly fallacious. You are sayinb that to believe in Psub as a premises will definitely lead to a Reformed understanding of the atonement. But surely, this isn't the case because premises and conclusions are exclusive. Further, E.J. and I holds to additional premises in order to reach our conclusions. Psub might be a common factor, but not the only factor in order for us to conclude its effect on the mass, treausry of merits, the extent and purpose of the atonement.

You were responding to our explanations a long time now. I was surprised, you asked for a definition of Psub at this point in time. You should have done that earlier to avoid wasting time. Put simply, there two components of Psub:

1. Sin's punishment was satisfied by Christ by taking upon himself that punishment in his incarnate life culminating on the cross.
2. He took sin's punishment, though he is not a sinner and subject to sin, because he is our substitute, the Second Adam.

These components can be affirmed by an RC in understanding the atonement. Now, in understanding concept 1, are there RC theologians who believed that part of taking the punishment of is to experience the a proportionate abandonment by God? Yes. We've shown you this. Are there RC theologians who believed that Christ descended in Hell (hell has multi faceted regions as Aquinas believed) and in this descent was taking the punishment of sin? Yes we've shown you this.

The phrase were it says that the Father pours his wrath on the Son. Can an RCsm hold to this? Without context NO. But if that phrase is understood within a context YES. If one says that the wrath of God on sin is shown by punishing sin, then we know that Chrisg is not te direct object of God's righteous indignation. He experiences the wrath of God toward sinnot because he was a sinnner but because he was the sin bearer. In experiencing this, the Fathers love to the Son is never diminishef nor the Son to the Father. Their unity is never assailed. The point is, there are a thousand qualifications that can be made regarding that phrase. Even reformed theologians have made a thousan qualifications. Nick hasn't showed those qualifications in his quotes because he has an agenda.

Have a nice day.

Regards,
Joey





guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
Jesus had the Beatific Vision every moment of His life. That is why He could suffer as he did. In the garden, he saw everyone of us in the Beatific Vision. He saw who would and who would not avail themselves of His sacrifice. According to the saints all the way back to the Fathers, He sweat blood because of what He saw. The PS folks who say He sweat blood out of fear of ending up in hell Himself.
St. Paul says Jesus died for "me".
Joey is promoting the Divine Mercy website as he thinks it is about PS. He doesn't know that the Divine Mercy devotion to the Sacred Heart is about making reparation to comfort Jesus in the garden, something totally impossible if you believe in PS.
Does that answer your question? ( PS, Calvinism/Jamsenism was defeated in France by the Jesuit devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus ).

Here is PS applied.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXtHb3pb0uw

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PONpkOXsF6M

Up to now, I have forgotten to mention another feature of PS namely the denial of the distinction between mortal and venial sin.
This Tony Miano guy is an ex, now anti, Catholic. Check out some of his videos to see him evangelize Catholics with his PS message.

guy fawkes said...

Joey,
Gosh, I guess it has all been one big misunderstanding for the past 500 years. Catholics and Calvinists believe the same thing after all on the Atonement,right?
Will I be seeing you in Mass this Sunday then?

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

This check list I sent you was not condescending. I was giving you a chance to get out of the corner you have painted yourself into.

You burst in on the scene on two Catholic blogs espousing ( seeming to espouse ) PS, siding with anti-Catholic Michael and Joey against your fellow Catholics by rashly accusing them of preaching mere opinion as defined doctrine.

Perhaps you are innocent of espousing Calvinism. Maybe you honestly don't know the subtle distinctions between punishment and satisfaction. Maybe the terms "Vicarious atonement, Substitutionary atonement or Substitutionary or Vicarious redemption, etc." and what Calvinists mean by Penal Susbstitution.

Do you or don't you renounce those points of Calvinism on that list? Yes or no? I am sure you do.
I am not condescending to you. I am giving you a chance to get out of the predicament you are in without ( too much ) egg on your face.

Moving on;
Over on Called 2 Communion is an article on Calvin's denial of venial and mortal sin being different.
Watch the videos I have sent you.
The PS System says fibbing makes one a liar. Anger makes one a murderer. Giving a girl the double-take makes on an adulterer. All deserve damnation.
PS says Jesus took that damnation in the stead of some ( not all ). No double jeopardy, they are imputed as innocent ( although they aren't ).

Calvin and this Tony Miano fellow and other Protestants say we are law breakers deserving whipping and crucifixion. Whether jaywalker or serial killer, sin is sin, we all deserve the worst.
( Where does the OT Law say such an absurdity? )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7C6OCpmiY

PS says all have sinned and all deserve punishment.
PS says all sins are damnable. It also says says there is no temporal punishment after forgiveness as "Jesus did it all, all to Him I go/ nothing in my hand I bring, to the cross I cling".

PS does not fit with the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
And it says all men deserve crucifixion because all are law breakers.
Is that in the Bible?
I deserve it but I know plenty of people who do not deserve scourging and crucifixion.

Swipinging a cookie out of mom's cookie jar does not earn eternal hell fire for a kid or an adult.
It does not earn scourging and crucifixion. PS fits with a system that says it does. Renounce it!
Ciao

guy fawkes said...

PS,

And like I said earlier,
this Tony character was once a Catholic.

guy fawkes said...

EJ,
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheLawman104

Get a load of this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IapqqQ45Q4w

PS is all about imputed sin and imputed righteousness. Ask Joey if you think I am making it up.

As for what I said about PS (the term, that is ) not necessarily being heretical, I am reminded of a statement made by Pope Benedict, ( maybe before he was pope ), that a Catholic can subscribe to "Justification by Faith". He can even endorse, " Faith Alone".

What? Was the Pope a crypto-Lutheran?
Of course not. He was merely saying that if one defines "Faith" as a synechdoche for "Faith formed by Love", the phrase is totally orthodox.
However, "Faith Alone", just like "Penal Substitution", carries a lot of negative baggage. One had better define what the mean and don't mean if they are going to toss it about.

guy fawkes said...

E.J. and Joey,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQfm5qsZtjo

This is number 3 of 4. You may want to listen to the last few minutes of #2 to get it all.

Yes, Joey, I am aware of the Reformed believing in sanctification as a follow up to the passive and active obedience of Christ being imputed.

I just need you to affirm for E.J. that PS/imputation is, as these guys say, "the heart of the Gospel".

The heart of the Protestant gospel, that is.

guy fawkes said...

Joey,
This will be my last post until you guys get around to addressing my long list of comments.

You said,
" He experiences the wrath of God toward sinnot because he was a sinnner but because he was the sin bearer. In experiencing this, the Fathers love to the Son is never diminishef nor the Son to the Father. Their unity is never assailed."

Okay, the Father was still loving the Son while reckoning Him to be sin.

Sin bearer means that, like the OT priest, Christ bore sin away or reckoned with it.

In a couple of my previous posts I bring out the connection between PS and imputation. I supply videos from C.U.R.E. and Tony Miano to prove I am not caricaturing the Reformed position.

I maintain that the Bible does not say our sins or guilt were imputed to or transferred onto Jesus in order for Him to be punished in our stead by the Father.

Your turn.
Have a nice weekend.

guy fawkes said...

Guys,

I have never heard a Catholic priest phttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Rbo3_TpK8reach this.

or like this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqTWLut6lcg

guy fawkes said...

People,

Here is how Jesus suffered.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/heart-jesus13.htm

Rmemember, this devotion saved France from Jansenism and Calvinism,

E.J. Cassidy said...

From "Divine Mercy in My Soul" by Saint Faustina

The Trial of Trials

Complete Abandonment – Despair

98 When the soul comes out victorious from the preceding trials, even though it may stumble here and there, it fights on valiantly, humbly calling upon God, “Save me, I am perishing!”

And it is still able to fight on.
At this point, however, the soul is engulfed in a horrible night. It sees within itself only sin.

It feels terrible. It sees itself completely abandoned by God. It feels itself to be the object of His hatred. It is but one step away from despair. The soul does its best to defend itself; it tries to stir up its confidence; but prayer is an even greater torment for it, as this
prayer seems to arouse God to an even greater anger. The soul finds itself poised on the summit of a lofty mountain on the very brink of a precipice.

The soul is drawn to God, but feels repulsed. All other sufferings and tortures in the world are as nothing compared with this sensation into which it has been plunged; namely, that of being rejected by God. No one can bring it any relief; it finds itself completely alone; there is no one to defend it.

It raises its eyes to heaven, but is convinced that this is not for her – for her all is lost. It falls deeper and deeper from darkness to darkness, and it seems to it that it has lost forever the God it used to love so dearly. This thought is torture beyond all description.

But the soul does not agree to it and tries to lift its gaze toward heaven, but in vain! And this makes the torture even more intense.

END OF QUOTE

Question: Could this be what hell is like?

E.J. Cassidy said...

The words of our Lord to Saint Faustina:

“At three o‟clock, implore My mercy, especially for sinners; and, if only for a brief moment, immerse yourself in My Passion, particularly in My abandonment at the moment of agony. This is the hour of great mercy for the whole world. I will allow you to enter into My mortal sorrow. In this hour, I will refuse nothing to the soul that makes a request of me in virtue of My Passion…….”

Mark 15:33-34

When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

From Salvifici Doloris by Pope St. John Paul II

After the words in Gethsemane come the words uttered on Golgotha, words which bear witness to this depth unique in the history of the world--of the evil of the suffering experienced. When Christ says: "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?," His words are not only an expression of that abandonment which many times found expression in the Old Testament, especially in the psalms and in particular in that Psalm 22 from which come the words quoted.

ME: In other words, the abandonment that Jesus experienced is not just at the level of what the saints in the OT experienced when they felt God was not with them in their trials. It goes deeper than that.

One can say that these words on abandonment are born at the level of that inseparable union of the Son with the Father, and are born because the Father "laid on him the iniquity of us all." They also foreshadow the words of St. Paul: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin."

ME: At the moment of agony at 3 o’clock, the Father laid on Jesus the sins of all humanity. Our Lord became our sin-bearer. Can anything be clearer? There is no ambiguity in the words of our late Pontiff. The abandonment He experienced is the result of having “the iniquity of us all” laid upon Him. It is also clear that John Paul II believed that the Scriptural phrase quoted…”he made him to be sin”….refers to this bearing of sin by our Lord as the Lamb of Sacrifice at the moment of agony, and not just as the High Priest offering the sacrifice.

Together with this horrible weight, encompassing the "entire" evil of the turning away from God which is contained in sin, Christ, through the divine depth of His filial union with the Father, perceives in a humanly inexpressible way this suffering which is the separation, the rejection by the Father, the estrangement from God. But precisely through this suffering He accomplishes the Redemption, and can say as He breathes His last: "It is finished."

ME: Our Lord experienced at the moment of agony on the Cross at 3 o’clock when the Father laid on Him all of our sins, the separation, the rejection by the Father that these sins cause. Could anything be clearer as to what our late Pontiff believed regarding the Atonement?

And it was in the experience of this agony that our Lord “accomplishes the Redemption.”

E.J. Cassidy said...

Just in case the preceding thoughts of JPII are not enough to convince you…

"My God my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Catechesis by Pope John Paul II on Jesus Christ

General Audience, Wednesday 30 November 1988

Here one can sketch a summary of Jesus' psychological situation in relationship to God.

The external events seemed to manifest the absence of the Father who permitted the crucifixion of his Son, though having at his disposal "legions of angels" (cf. Mt 26:53), without intervening to prevent his condemnation to death and execution. In Gethsemane Simon Peter had drawn a sword in Jesus' defense, but was immediately blocked by Jesus himself (cf. Jn 18:10 f.). In the praetorium Pilate had repeatedly tried wily maneuvers to save him (cf. Jn 18:31, 38 f.; 19:4-6, 12-15); but the Father was silent. That silence of God weighed on the dying Jesus as the heaviest pain of all, so much so that his enemies interpreted that silence as a sign of his reprobation: "He trusted in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, 'I am the Son of God'" (Mt 27:43).

In the sphere of feelings and affection this sense of the absence and abandonment by God was the most acute pain for the soul of Jesus who drew his strength and joy from union with the Father. This pain rendered all the other sufferings more intense. That lack of interior consolation was Jesus' greatest agony.

6. But Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the intimate core of his being, he completed the work of reparation which was the purpose of his sacrifice for the expiation of sins. If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.

END OF QUOTE

ME: “If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.”

Remember what JPII wrote in Salvifici Doloris. The Father laid on Jesus the “iniquity of us all.” And our Lord suffered the separation which these sins cause. But in actuality, He never lost His intimate union with the Father. This is why JPII called this a mystery.

E.J. Cassidy said...

It’s not an either/or situation. Either the abandonment our Lord experienced was the external events seemed to manifest the absence of the Father who permitted the crucifixion of his Son or our Lord experienced abandonment due to bearing the iniquity of us all as the Lamb of Sacrifice. It’s both.

But read the late Pontiff’s word carefully again. After stating what the external events were that seemed to manifest the absence of the Father, he goes deeper.

“But Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the intimate core of his being, he completed the work of reparation which was the purpose of his sacrifice for the expiation of sins. If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.”

As you read these words, remember that our late Pontiff believed that the Father laid on His Son the “iniquity of us all.” And it was in this realm of suffering that Jesus experienced the separation from God that sin causes. And this was necessary in order to affect our redemption.

This is crystal clear.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Keith, this one is for you. I apologize for taking so long.

This is from the General Audience of Pope John Paul II given on Wednesday, October 36, 1988. It is titled The Redemptive Value of Christ’s Sacrifice.

JPII: When Jesus said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45), he summed up in these words the essential purpose of his messianic mission: "to give his life as a ransom." It is a redemptive mission for all humanity, because the expression, "as a ransom for many," according to the Semitic mode of thought, does not exclude anyone.

ME: No comment necessary.

JPII: The Messiah's mission had already been seen in the light of this redemptive value in the book of the prophet Isaiah, and particularly in the servant of the Lord oracles: "Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, while we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed" (Is 53:4-5).

ME: He’s setting the table for what is to come. He will give us a commentary on Isaiah 53:4-5.

JPII: These prophetic words make us understand better what Jesus meant when he spoke of the Son of Man who had come "to give his life as a ransom for many." He meant that he gave his life "in the name of" and in substitution for all humanity, to free all from sin.

ME: Here we have the first use of the word substitution. Christ’s death on the Cross is substitutionary. But that is not the only aspect. Christ’s death is also “in the name of.” It is important to note here that he is NOT defining substitution as “in the name of.” He is saying that His death is done BOTH in the name of AND in substitution for all humanity. You are not going to be able to define substitution as “in the name of.” It’s not an either/or situation.

JPII: This "substitution" excludes any participation whatsoever in sin on the part of the Redeemer. He was absolutely innocent and holy. You alone are the Holy One!

ME: We all agree here, I think.

JPII: To say that a person was chastised in place of another implies obviously that he did not commit the fault.

ME: Here we have a further definition of substitution. It means “in place of.” AND he uses a word that has huge implications: chastised.

Merriam-Webster defines chastise this way: To inflict punishment on (as by whipping), to censure severely. It is also related to the word chasten, which also carries the meaning of punishment.

We haven’t gone too far into the catechesis and we can come to this basic conclusion: Jesus’ death on the Cross was done in the name of and in the place of all humanity. Jesus was chastised/punished in the name of and in the place of all humanity. He did not deserve this chastisement/punishment because He was not a sinner. He was not being chastised/punishment for any sin of His own because He had no sin. We were the ones who sinned. He was innocent and holy.

JPII is stating that Jesus was chastised/punished in place of another, namely all of humanity.

And we’ve seen from his other teachings that I posed that JPII believed that the Father laid on His Son the sins of humanity, and that He suffered the separation that sin causes, yet without losing his union with the Father. This is what JPII called a mystery. If it was any simpler than this, as Nick has tried to posit, the term mystery would be unnecessary.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

Don't forget, S. Faustina's message is just an extension of M.M. Alacoques.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/heart-jesus13.htm

Who loaded Him down with opprobrium?

Have you even read any of what I posted above on the errors logically flowing out of PS such as eternal justification, OSAS, JBFA, and the denial of the distinction between mortal and venial sin?

How does one make reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the context of a system that embraces PS?

guy fawkes said...

Oh, I almost forgot, please square PS with anything but Limited Atonement.

By the way, how many times can PS be applied in the life of a sinner?

ONCE! And that is when all past, present and FUTURE sins are forgiven.

E.J. Cassidy said...

The teaching of Pope St. John Paul II is crystal clear. The Father laid on the Son the sins of all humanity. And the Son suffered the penalty of sin, which is separation from God, all the while maintaining union with the Father. And he called it a mystery.

I notice that you completely ignore his teaching. Why? Do you believe he is in error?

E.J. Cassidy said...

I spent 30-plus years in the Protestant world and am familiar with all the various shades of their theology.

I was a member of a Calvinist denomination.

I don't need you to tell me what is and isn't wrong with their theology.

You buy into the errors of Calvinism, believing them to be the real fruit of the Penal Substitutionary aspect of the Atonement. They are not.

The Church teaches otherwise. Pope St. John Paul II taught otherwise. You need to get in line with Church teaching.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Dr. Robert Stackpole is the Executive Director of the John Paul II Institute for Divine Mercy, a ministry of the Marians of the Immaculate Conception in Stockbridge, MA. They carry the torch of the Message of Divine Mercy.

Dr. Stackpole is a noted Catholic scholar. JPII commissioned the Institute to carry on the message of Divine Mercy through theological study and research.

Dr. Stackpole has written a 15-part series on the Atonement and Divine Mercy and Penal Substitution. Have YOU read them?

Dr. Stackpole doctoral thesis was on the Sacred Heart devotion and reparation.

Here is what Monsignor Arther Calkins has to say about this work:

" I believe that it is entirely possible to illustrate that our present Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, has continued to affirm, to build upon and to develop the doctrine of his predecessor Pope Pius XI. I have felt myself challenged to undertake this study particularly by the very informative and fascinating doctoral thesis of Robert A. Stackpole, Consoling the Heart of Jesus: A History of the Notion and its Practice, especially as found in the Ascetical and Mystical Tradition of the Church.[4] While I remain genuinely grateful to Dr. Stackpole for the vast amount of material which he has assembled, assimilated and made available to researchers, I believe that some of his tentative conclusions and positions, specifically those regarding the foundational value of the teaching of Miserentissimus Redemptor and of the contribution of Pope John Paul II to the theology of reparation, may be further reassessed and supplemented. I intend to do this explicitly in the course of this study."

You don't really understand how the fact that Jesus took on Himself the sins of all humanity and paid the penalty due for those sins fits in with the Atonement. Instead of fighting it, instead of fighting JPII and his teaching, why don't you take a stop back and do some futher research?



E.J. Cassidy said...

Oops...that should read...

"...why don't you take a step back and do some further research?

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
To whom are you addressing your comments? If to me, please deign to address me by name.

If you believe in PS and yet say Christ died for all men, you have some major problems.
I am not telling you, a guy who revels in having been a Protestant, James White is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqA3tyBpN4E

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

You said,

"You buy into the errors of Calvinism, believing them to be the real fruit of the Penal Substitutionary aspect of the Atonement. They are not."

If Christ was punished in the stead of every single man or woman who has ever/will ever live, then you should embrace universalism. James White is just one of the Calvinists who say so. Refute him. Why is he wrong?


Please, stop with the tooting the horn Stackpole or Koterinski. Actually defend your position with something other than name dropping. Explain yourself.

E.J. Cassidy said...

"guy fawkes"

How laughable.

You don't like that I quote noted Catholic scholars. You call it "name dropping."

Yet you "drop" the name of James White, a Calvinist to try and make your point.

Really laughable.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

Do you need a list of scholars, Catholic and Protestant, who say otherwise than you?

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

Okay, no more name dropping form either of us. Agreed?
PS says Christ was already punished in our stead. We cannot be subjected to double jeopardy. Either all sinners have been punished or they haven't.

Please, don't refute me. Refute the Calvinist system you keep saying you rejected ( although I am starting to wonder ).

E.J. Cassidy said...

The Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that God is infinitely just. There is no such thing as God, and then a standard of justice outside of God. God IS Justice itself.

God decides what is just and unjust, not you, or me, or James White, or any other human being.

If Jesus took onto Himself all the sins of humanity (which is what JPII believed and taught, a point you keep avoiding, I wonder why) and paid the penalty, the punishment due to those sins, where does it naturally follow that God cannot punish those who die in a state of mortal sin?

There is no correlation between the two.

Each person MUST avail themselves of the salvation offered through the Atonement, or else they perish and suffer the punishment due their sins themselves.

Why do you insist on believing James White? He's wrong.

Jesus is not just another human being taking our punishment. He is the Word-Incarnate, the God-Man, truly God and truly man, without sin.

JPII taught that an innocent being punished in place of a guilty person would be a grave injustice, but that is NOT what happened in the Atonement. Jesus is the God-Man Who took our sins voluntarily.

Again, was Pope St. John Paul II wrong in his belief? Was he in error?

Oops, sorry, I'm "name-dropping" again.

Seriously, I'll go with JPII, you can go with James White.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

Do we celebrate Christ's punishment in our stead at Mass?
Yes/no?

(Notice; no conjuring up any theologians. )

Did Mary feel the punishment of the Father by suffering in/with her Son?Could you drop some names for me? How about in the Stabat Mater, do we see Mary, along with her Son, experiencing the terrors of the damned? Does Stackpole say she did? Pope JP II? Please, feel free to drop some names.

guy fawkes said...

As for JPII,
Nick has already shown you that you are not looking at his entire quote.

E.J. Cassidy said...

"guy fawkes"

Relying on the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II is NOT name-dropping and you will not stop me from quoting him.

Refute him.

E.J. Cassidy said...

"guy fawkes"

You rely on a layman's interpretations of Scripture and papal teaching.

I realy on noted Catholic scholars.

Nick is wrong in his opinionb of JPII.

Nick makes it an either/or situation but it is not. It's right there in black and white.

Nick admitted that he did not know that Ludwig Ott, a Catholic scholar he quotes to prove his points, believed that our Lord took on Himself all the sins of humanity as the Lamb of Sacrifice, the exact opposite view that he espouses.

I'll stick with the scholars.

Now, YOU refute JPII instead of relying on Nick.

Or else, admit you are wrong.

guy fawkes said...

EJ,

"Each person MUST avail themselves of the salvation offered through the Atonement, or else they perish and suffer the punishment due their sins themselves."

How may times? PS can be applied only once, right?
Do you understand that PS says all past, present and FUTURE sins were punished, once and for all on the cross.
Take yourself over to C2C and read about PS and the Lord's Prayer. Those ex-Calvinist-turned Catholics ALL see what you don't. (Notice, I did not drop James White's name. Only other converts with the same or better qualifications that you boast of. ).

guy fawkes said...

I agree with Nick who said,

"he links for those JP2 General Audience quotes are embedded in my two prior comments.

The only sense in which they speak of Jesus sharing in our sufferings in in the sense that Jesus shared in our fallen human condition...NOTHING about sin/guilt being imputed to Jesus and NOTHING about Jesus being seen as a sinnner/guilty in our place, and NOTHING about the Father's wrath."

You want me to say it in my own words? I have been waiting for you to address the 10 or so links I sent you with something other than, "The all powerful, all knowing Robert Stackpole says...".

guy fawkes said...

The Pope said,

"If Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, he knew however that that was not really so"

I rest my case.

E.J. Cassidy said...

"guy fawkes"

So, I guess your line is, "The all-powerful, all-knowing Nick says....."

It seems you haven't read JPII's teaching for yourself. Have you? Or are you only relying on what Nick says?

If you had really read JPII, you wouldn't be making such statements as:

"The only sense in which they speak of Jesus sharing in our sufferings in in the sense that Jesus shared in our fallen human condition."

JPII believed an taught this AND he believed and taught that Jesus took our personal sins onto Himself, suffered, and redeemed us through that suffering.

It's right there in his words.

Really, I don't see how you can make such statements.

It's not an either/or thing. Jesus shared in our fallen humanity AND he took our sins onto Himself.

This is the teaching of the late Pontiff.

Oops, name dropping again.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

I am stepping out for about an hour and a half to go to Mass. The Sacrifice of the Mass, that is.
While I am out, do google around and see for yourself that Sacrifice, in the biblical sense, is NOT PS.
Maybe start by reading up a bit on the Passover lamb. Or how the scapegoat was NOT sacrificed, the other goat was.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

Do I detect a personal animus against Nick on your part?

Strange. You practically "suck up" to Joey.

Hmmm?
Off to Mass.

E.J. Cassidy said...

"guy fawkes"

Yes, I've done some reading.

On the scapegoat.

Guess what? It died! It was pushed over a cliff.

And each of the goats represents a different aspect of the Atonement.

It's not an either/or thing. It's both/and.

One goat was sacrificed. It died.

The other goat had the sins of the people imputed to it and then it was let go, but it, too, died. Haven't you read that? It's in the Jewish tradition. They pushed the poor thing off a cliff.

So death was involved in both. And each reps what Jesus did for us on the Cross.

Read up on JPII for yourself and stop relying on what others say about him.

You should meditate on the late Pontiff's words regarding our Redemption.

I know what is in his teaching. I don't need you or Nick to tell me what he says or means. He's very clear.

And, by the way, do you have animus against Protestants?

E.J. Cassidy said...

During the bloody sacrifice of our Lord on Calvary, He suffered physically and emotionally, and then after taking our sins onto Himself, as JPII taught us, He suffered in the realm of his senses the separation from God that sin entails, all the while remaining in union with the Father. JPII called this a mystery. If it was just suffering from the physical and emotional aspects of the Cross and our fallen human nature that He took on, there would be no need to call it a mystery.

But JPII wrote that this is a mystery that goes to the depths of the Hypostatic Union.

And by this suffering, Jesus redeemed everyone in the world, all of humanity.

And there there is the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus is NOT crucified again the in Mass. He does not die again in the Mass.

But it is the same sacrifice in that Jesus continually offers Himself to the Father in the Mass, just as He did on Calvary.

And that is why PS does NOT negate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Jesus suffered and died once on Calvary in the bloody sacrifice.

We receive the benefits in the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

During Mass, during the Consecration, I thought about this topic of Christ being punished for our sins.

Who did the punishing? The Father?

You mentioned that the Pope talked about how Christ could have the Beatific Vision yet suffer as He did for our sins. You drew attention to the fact he called it a "mystery".
I seriously doubt if the Calvinist theory of PS is a mystery to anybody. They embrace it because it is so simplistic.

Anyway, you are dead wrong on the scapegoat. He was tossed over the cliff because goats have a nasty habit of following people home. That is the only reason it was killed. In the OT there is a similar account of two doves, one being sacrificed and the other released. It wasn't killed as doves fly away for keeps. ( Lots of goats and turtle doves where I live. I happened to raise one and released it to never see it again. Pigeons come back, doves don't ).

I have never, NEVER, heard anyone say in the Mass we commemorate or re-present, the punishment of Christ by the Father.
Christ does indeed have the same dispositions now that He had at the Supper, in the Garden and on Calvary. That is why He is still a theothyte, a perpetual,glorified Victim. Those dispositions do not include what the protestants on the proffered links say he experienced in His passion.
In the Mass we do NOT celebrate the Father refusing to look upon sin, turning His back on the Son, or any such blasphemy.

Do I have an animus for Protestants? Just the virulently anti-Catholic ones like Michael, the guy whose side you weighed in on over on CCC. But judging from your tone, both here and on CCC, you sure have a bone to pick with Nick. It's palpable.
You came on that blog with both pistols blazing and aligned your self with men who have only contempt for the Catholic Church. That is what is called, "guilt by association". If you don't think you did, please go back and read your comments. You set the nasty tone, not me, Deacon Cassidy.
To date, you have implied I agree with James White on PS when you are the one who believes in PS, not me. That is dishonest, wouldn't you say?

Just to clarify something; while I have met Nick to discuss PS with him face to face, I knew about PS long before I ever stumbled upon his blog. I make no apologies for asking him to help me with some particular passages of the Bible used by Protestants as proof texts for PS. ( I bet you know the exact ones ). But as for the theory, I knew it was wrong long before meeting Nick or finding his blog. in fact, I bet I knew PS was wrong long before Nick did as I am way older than he is.

E.J. Cassidy said...

“guy fawkes”

You said: “During Mass, during the Consecration, I thought about this topic of Christ being punished for our sins. Who did the punishing? The Father?”

ME: From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

ME: This paragraph is set within the section on Indulgences, but it tells us something about our sins.

“These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.”

It is in the very nature of sin, and speaking now of mortal sin, to cause one to lose communion with God. This is not God punishing us from without, it is sin itself that causes this “punishment.”

As St. Thomas, Ludwig Ott, Pope St. John Paul II and many others have taught, our Lord took on Himself the sins of all humanity. And then He suffered the consequences of these sins.

E.J. Cassidy said...

“guy fawkes”

You said: “You mentioned that the Pope talked about how Christ could have the Beatific Vision yet suffer as He did for our sins. You drew attention to the fact he called it a "mystery". I seriously doubt if the Calvinist theory of PS is a mystery to anybody. They embrace it because it is so simplistic.”

ME: JPII said the mystery was in the fact that Jesus maintained Communion with the Father AND suffered the punishment that sins brings, which is separation from God. It’s right there in his writings. You don’t need anybody to interpret it for you. Read it for yourself. The mystery, he wrote, was in the depths of His filial union with the Father. At one and the same time, He was in union with the Father AND He experienced the separation. He stated that it was in the realm of His human senses that He experienced this suffering. Again, read it for yourself.

E.J. Cassidy said...

“guy fawkes”

You said: “Anyway, you are dead wrong on the scapegoat.”

ME: No, I am not. The scapegoat died, as you will state in your next sentence. How can I be wrong when you agree with me that the scapegoat died?

You said: “He was tossed over the cliff because goats have a nasty habit of following people home. That is the only reason it was killed.”

ME: EXACTLY!!! You’re almost there. The point was to show that the sins of the people were truly taken away and would not return. Yes, yes, yes. Don’t you see it?

You said: “In the OT there is a similar account of two doves, one being sacrificed and the other released. It wasn't killed as doves fly away for keeps. ( Lots of goats and turtle doves where I live. I happened to raise one and released it to never see it again. Pigeons come back, doves don't ).”

ME: The big difference is that the high priest did NOT offer doves on the Day of Atonement. He offered the goats. And each goat reps an aspect of the Atonement.

E.J. Cassidy said...

“guy fawkes”

You said: “I have never, NEVER, heard anyone say in the Mass we commemorate or re-present, the punishment of Christ by the Father. Christ does indeed have the same dispositions now that He had at the Supper, in the Garden and on Calvary. That is why He is still a theothyte, a perpetual,glorified Victim. Those dispositions do not include what the protestants on the proffered links say he experienced in His passion. In the Mass we do NOT celebrate the Father refusing to look upon sin, turning His back on the Son, or any such blasphemy.”

ME: Again, EXACTLY!!! Did you read what I wrote about the bloody sacrifice of Calvary and the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass? Jesus is not re-crucified in the Mass. He suffered once for all on Calvary. And that included the suffering of the penalty of sin. It is not repeated.

The prayers of the Mass mention His suffering, His Passion, which includes ALL of His suffering, not just the physical and the emotional suffering. It includes the suffering of taking on Himself the sins of all humanity, and suffering the penalty.

Penal substitution is a subset of Satisfaction. It is NOT the only aspect of the Atonement. It is one aspect of Satisfaction. This is the Catholic view. Protestants almost make it the sum total of the Atonement, but it is one aspect. Again, it is a subset of Satisfaction, along with Sacrifice, Ransom and Merit. The Atonement is a deep mystery.

The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of God the Son offering Himself to the Father, as He has always done.

You’re so close. If you would just stop being so argumentative and slow down, you would see that we have much more agreement than you care to admit. And if you read JPII’s teachings for yourself you would see that he believed that our Lord took on our frail humanity AND he took on our sins. Both. Not either/or. And he suffered, not just the consequences of our frail humanity but also the consequences of sin. It’s right there in his teaching, clear as day, no need for anyone to interpret, or tell you any different.

E.J. Cassidy said...

“guy fawkes”

You said: “Do I have an animus for Protestants? Just the virulently anti-Catholic ones…”

ME: Animus means a strong dislike or hatred. Aren’t we supposed to speak the truth in love? Why would you want to be just like those you disagree with? Show some mercy.

You said: “…like Michael, the guy whose side you weighed in on over on CCC”

ME: Hardly.

You said: “But judging from your tone, both here and on CCC, you sure have a bone to pick with Nick. It's palpable.”

ME: Yes, I have a “bone” to pick with Nick. But it’s not personal. It’s only business. Theological business. It’s not personal, I don’t know Nick, he’s probably a fine young man. But I think he’s dead wrong in his view on this subject.

You said: “You came on that blog with both pistols blazing and aligned your self with men who have only contempt for the Catholic Church. That is what is called, "guilt by association".

ME: Hardly. You use such a violent metaphor, maybe indicative of your own personal animus. Why be so angry?

And “guilt by association”? Hardly. You can’t see the forest for the trees. Relax, take a step back.

You said: “ If you don't think you did, please go back and read your comments. You set the nasty tone, not me Deacon Cassidy.”

ME: Now, there you go again. I didn’t say I was a deacon. I said I was a deacon candidate. Do you understand the difference? I am still a layman at this point. And if you are confused about this, when I have been clear about my status, you have to ask yourself what else you are mistaken about.

And I didn’t set a nasty tone. You did.

You said: “To date, you have implied I agree with James White on PS when you are the one who believes in PS, not me. That is dishonest, wouldn't you say?”

ME: No. You are just not understanding what I am saying. Maybe it’s the animus that’s getting in your way. I said that you agree with White’s implications of PS. Just because he says that PS leads to LA, that doesn’t make it true. It doesn’t make him correct in his assertions. He’s wrong. But you accept him as an authority on PS.

You said: “Just to clarify something; while I have met Nick to discuss PS with him face to face, I knew about PS long before I ever stumbled upon his blog. I make no apologies for asking him to help me with some particular passages of the Bible used by Protestants as proof texts for PS. ( I bet you know the exact ones ). But as for the theory, I knew it was wrong long before meeting Nick or finding his blog. in fact, I bet I knew PS was wrong long before Nick did as I am way older than he is.”

ME: You rely on Nick. I’ll rely on Father Koterski, and Dr. Stackpole, two noted Catholic scholars.

And I’ll rely on the clear meaning of the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II.

Good night.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,
You wrote,
" This is not God punishing us from without, it is sin itself that causes this “punishment.”

Elsewhere, Aquinas says that sin is one of the punishments for sin. He meant that each sin leaves a tendency to repeat it that punishes us.

Please click on some of supplied links. PS does not agree with either you or Aquinas.

The PS I ( and I believe Nick )am/are opposed to is the PS of Sproul and MacArthur.
PS says the Father pours out his hot angry on the Son and that Christ experienced the terror and separation of the damned.
PS says our sins were imputed to Christ and his righteousness is IMPUTED to us.

Sorry, but I don't see that in JPII.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

Christ merited grace for us. Not just to be considered righteous by the Father via imputation but to actually become righteous.
A transaction between the Father and the Son that leaves man unjust in his soul is no atonement at all. ( By the way, the purpose of those OT sacrifices was to restore the sinner to God, the community and himself ).

From the first instant of the Incarnation, Christ merited more than enough grace to restore us to friendship/sonship. Anything beyond that was over the top.
Punishment, an eye for an eye, or any form of satisfaction, especially if transferred to a third party, can be set aside altogether if sufficient Charity is involved. Christ had it.
PS says ,"NO!. The law has been transgressed and someone, anyone, must die".

PS is part of a scheme that says our sins are imputed and Christ's righteousness is imputed. It the " Great Exchange" as the Calvinists call it.
Imputation does not change the heart of the sinner. As long as the sinner's heart is not transformed, atonement hasn't happened because that wicked heart is demanding punishment.

Again, the four facets of the atonement are, Merit, Satisfaction, sacrifice and Ransom. PS is not the fifth.




guy fawkes said...

EJ,

"JPII believed an taught this AND he believed and taught that Jesus took our personal sins onto Himself, suffered, and redeemed us through that suffering."

You had better qualify this so you are not saying the Father punished Jesus.

Have you misunderstood me all along? Do you think I have been denying Christ paid for our sins?
Please, it is HOW he paid for our sins that we are discussing, isn't it?

I am not disputing the Popes words. I am disputing the Calvinist spin you are foisting on him.

guy fawkes said...

"E.J."

Was Jesus inflicted with a sinful disposition to commit sin? Or just imputed as such by the Father?
Did he have guilt? Or just considered as such by his Father.
Was he under bondage to the devil? PS denies the "harrowing of Hell" in no uncertain terms.
Just what do you mean by PS? You say the Calvinists have drawn faulty conclusions from the doctrine.

Please, don't just keep repeating the Pope's words. Tell me why and how the Pope isn't the Calvinist you seem to think he is.

guy fawkes said...

"EJ",

JPII was big on Divine Mercy and Fatima too. One of Lucia's visions was of all three Persons of the Trinity with the Father supporting Jesus crucified.
http://orbis-catholicus.blogspot.pt/2007/03/fatima-last-great-vision-1929-in-tuy.html

guy fawkes said...

EJ

Jesus did not make satisfaction for Mary as she had no sin. Nor did He ransom her back from the devil as she was never under his dominion. IOW, he was not her Penal Substitute.
He merited for her, though. He merited the grace by which she could cooperate with him in ransoming and making satisfaction for us.
PS does not fit.

Back to the Great Exchange where our sins are imputed to Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us. In heaven there will be no faith to apprehend that imputed righteousness. There won't even be any imputation of anything. Only Charity will remain. Charity is never imputed.
PS is all about imputation.

guy fawkes said...

EJ,
Since Mary satisfied and ransomed us with Jesus ( in a subordinate way of course ), was she a penal substitute?

According to the Fathers, Jesus ( and Mary ) untied the know tied by Adam and Eve's disobedience. We the Father's believers in PS?

guy fawkes said...

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/author/fr-cornelis-freithoff/

Read it and weep EJ.

Merit,satisfaction,ransom and atonement. NO PS!

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

After clicking on the link, scroll down and read the 4 chapters dealing with Mary's merit, atonement, satisfaction and ransom.

You, my friend, are trying to shoehorn a Calvinist construct into a Catholic system and it doesn't work.

guy fawkes said...

EJ,

By the way, if Christ was punished in our stead for our failure to keep the Law, he would have been stoned, not crucified.
And under no circumstances would he have been sacrificed. Remember, there was no sacrifice for high handed or mortal sin. Only stoning.
His Body might have been hung on a tree, but only after stoning.

S Maliyekal said...

Through Mother Mary to Lord Jesus.

Whoever goes on this route will definitely reach the destination.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Christ suffered the punishment due to us for our sins. He experienced in the realm of his senses what separation from God because of sin entails. So says Pope St. John Paul II.

I'll stick with him.

It is not "shoehorning" a "construct." It is the clear teaching of the late Pontiff. You just don't like it because you have some type of agenda.

You would also have to accuse Archbishop Sheen of shoehorning because he also believed that our Lord suffered the punishment due to our sins on the Cross.

guy fawkes said...

E.J.,

Did the Pope or Bishop Sheen say anything about the Father unleashing his fury on the Son?

Imputation of active and passive obedience?

Limited atonement?

No?
Then you ain't talking about Penal Substitution. You should stop defending it until you understand just what it is we Catholics are objecting to.
And you have not gotten yourself untangled from all of the heresies that accompany this heresy just because you say you don't believe them yourself.

guy fawkes said...

EJ,

"He suffered in the realm of his senses..."?

Do you think I don't know that? Do you even know what my position is?

You seem to think I deny that Christ suffered. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
I quit. There is no point arguing with a Calvinist sympathizer interested only in making a name for himself by taking down fellow Catholics in order to appear fair and open minded in front of Protestant bloggers.
End of discussion. Adios Amigo.

E.J. Cassidy said...

No more Creed Code Cult "discussions."

E.J. Cassidy said...

From the Morning Prayer of the Liturgy of the Hours for today, the psalm-prayer:

"Lord Jesus, you have revealed your justice to all nations. We stood condemned and you came to be judged in our place. Send your saving power on us and when you come in glory bring your mercy to those for whom you were condemned."

ME: Sounds penal and substitutionary to me.

Unknown said...

Hi,

Sorry if this question has already been asked. I went through as many of the comments as time permitted.

2 Cor 5:21 states that Jesus became Sin. I understand that Paul, as 2nd temple Jew is referring to the Sin Offering. My Protestant friends use this verse to claim Jesus became Sin judicially, wth actual Sin.

I've explained that Jesus was that Paul at no time says Jesus was Made Sin as to be a guilty sinner. I believe this is impossible because Jesus in both his human nature and his devine nature would not be sin or actual sin. Jesus had NO sin. My explaination included that Jesus on the Cross is still under the Old Covenant sacrifical system. According to the right of atoning sacrifices in Lev 4:24, 5:9, Num 19:9, Mic 6:7 and Ps 40:7, the word "Sin" refersto the actual sacrifice of the victim being offered. So the ter became SIN, would be understood "He made him a victim for sin or a sacrifice for sin.

If Jesus became Actual Sin, then God has fractured the Hypostatic Union. So my question is this: If Jesus becomes Sin, in any way, shape or form, He would have to become Sin and his nature would be Sinful. He would thus assume the nature of Sin. The way I see it, if Jesus does assume the Nature of Sin, the has assumed the nature of satan. Can this be possible?

I say this because the only person in the New Testament to assume the nature of satan is Judas at the account of the Last Supper in Johns gospel. Jesus dips bread and when Judas accepts this symbolic bread of denial of his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, Judas assumes the nature of satan and they abide one in the other.

Is this a valid argument?

Thanks, in advance,

Ron Sr.

E.J. Cassidy said...

Mass at Santa Marta - On the path of humility

2015-09-14 L’Osservatore Romano

When contemplating Jesus on the cross, we ought not to look at those paintings that are far too beautiful and do not represent the harsh reality of the harrowing ordeal. Pope Francis used these words, as well as the image of an “ugly serpent” to make his meditation more dynamic and incisive. The cross and the serpent were the central theme of the Pope’s homily at Mass on Monday morning, September 14, the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, which was celebrated in the chapel of Santa Marta and attended by the cardinal advisers.

“It seems that the protagonist of today’s readings is the serpent, and there is a message here”, Pope Francis immediately pointed out. Yes, “there is a profound prophecy in this presentation of the serpent”, which, he explained, “was the first animal to be presented to man, the first of which the Bible mentions” and defines as the smartest of the wild animals God created. The Pope said that “the serpent’s figure is not beautiful, it always arouses fear”. Even if “the snake’s skin is beautiful, the fact remains that the snake’s behavior is scary.”

Referring to today’s first reading from the book of Numbers (21:4-9), Francis said that “to save them from the serpent’s venom, the Lord told Moses to make a bronze serpent, and that whoever looked at that serpent would be saved.” The Pope went on to say that “this is an illustration, a prophecy, and a promise. It is a promise that is not easy to understand.” Today's Gospel (John 3:13-17) tells us that “Jesus himself explained Moses’ act a bit further to Nicodemus”: that just as he had “lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” The Pope said that “the bronze serpent was a figure of Jesus raised up on the Cross.”

For what reason, Pope Francis asked, would “the Lord choose this bad, ugly figure?”. He responded that it was simply “because Jesus came to take all our sins upon himself”, becoming “the greatest sinner without having ever committed a sin.” This is why Paul tells us that Jesus became sin for us. Using this figure, then, Christ became a serpent. “It's an ugly figure!” the Pontiff said, but He really did “become sin to save us. This is the message in today’s liturgy.” This is precisely “Jesus’ path: God became man and bore his sin.”

In the second reading from the Letter to the Philippians (2:6-11), Paul explains this mystery, and the Pope noted that he did so out of love: “Though he was in the form of God, Jesus did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men; And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.” Pope Francis repeated that Jesus “emptied himself: He became sin for us, he who knew no sin.” This, therefore, “is the mystery”, and “we can say that he became like a serpent, so to speak, which is ugly and disgusting.”

“This is also the Christian’s path”, the Pope added. Indeed, “if a Christian wants to make progress on the path of the Christian life, he must lower himself, as Jesus lowered himself: this is the path of humility”, which means “bringing humiliations upon yourself, as Jesus did.” The Pope said that this is precisely the message given to us in “today's liturgy on this feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross”. He concluded by saying that the Lord “gives us the grace that we ask of Our Lady who was under the Cross: the grace to cry, to cry out of love, to cry out of gratitude, because our God loved us so much that He sent His Son to lower himself and allow himself to be crushed in order to save us.”

E.J. Cassidy said...

Hi Ron,

Notice this passage from the article I posted:

For what reason, Pope Francis asked, would “the Lord choose this bad, ugly figure?”. He responded that it was simply “because Jesus came to take all our sins upon himself”, becoming “the greatest sinner without having ever committed a sin.” This is why Paul tells us that Jesus became sin for us. Using this figure, then, Christ became a serpent. “It's an ugly figure!” the Pontiff said, but He really did “become sin to save us. This is the message in today’s liturgy.” This is precisely “Jesus’ path: God became man and bore his sin.”

Apparently, our Holy Father Pope Francis believes the opposite of what is posted on this blog, that Jesus became sin by taking our sins upon Himself.

I hope this helps.

Peace,
EJ

E.J. Cassidy said...

Ron,

One more thing. Pope St. John Paul II also believed that our Lord took the sins of humanity upon Himself and suffered the punishment due our sins, all the while maintaining His loving union with the Father. He called this a mystery, how Jesus could experience the separation caused by sin and at the same time experience the separation that sin causes. This belief of the late Pontiff is apparent throughout his teaching.

Peace,
EJ

Catholicus said...

Thanks, you've helped me understand the difference between Catholic and Calvinist faith.

Calvinism is that God became man to pour out his wrath upon the world; the Catholic faith is that God became man to pour out his love upon the world.

Catholicus said...

I think the Catholic and Protestant theologies of atonement both have the notion of God's wrath being appeased. It's just that the Catholic notion of God's appeasement is that the sweet odour of Christ's sacrifice totally takes away the stench of man's sins in God's nostrils, whereas the Protestant notion is that all that stench is gathered into one place in Christ so that God can let out all his anger once and for all. The thing about the Protestant notion is that it implies God the Father was looking down upon God the Son, dying on the cross, with hatred, rather than with love and compassion. This has awful consequences for Christian spirituality, because it becomes impossible to feel united to God's love whenever you are suffering, and you take your suffering as a sign of God's wrath towards you. The Protestant notion also fails to explain how the mere pouring out of God's wrath can cause God to love men MORE than he loved them prior to the Fall; this is what leads Protestants to think that the blessed in heaven aren't actually holy and blessed in themselves.