Is this an official Roman Catholic Position?"

[AndOne]

Just curious. From the RCC apologist Tim Staples:

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific."​

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Wouldn't it be better to ask in OBOB?

Forgive me...

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

If it is, it's pure heresy.

 

[lighthouse_hope]

If it is, it's pure heresy.

You'd do good with learning Catholic theology before you say something like that

 

[Secundulus]

A link to put the quote in context would be useful.

However, this is what the Church says about Christ's death.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 2

 

[Albion]

Just curious. From the RCC apologist Tim Staples:

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific."
​

It does appear to be in accord with official RC teaching, yes. If you have taken the quotation from a book, and it has in the front an "Imprimatur" by a church official, that would indicate that it's been approved as not saying anything contrary to church teaching. The absence of such an indicator wouldn't prove anything, however, and I realize that we get much of our information these days in newspapers or online.

 

[lighthouse_hope]

It does appear to be in accord with official RC teaching, yes. If you have taken the quotation from a book, and it has in the front an "Imprimatur" by a church official, that would indicate that it's been approved as not saying anything contrary to church teaching. But I know that we get much of our information these day online.

The imprimatur is not a seal of officialism. I have read a few books by "very very liberal" Jesuit theologians with an imprimatur.

 

[Albion]

The imprimatur is not a seal of officialism. I have read a few books by "very very liberal" Jesuit theologians with an imprimatur.

Then their liberalism was considered to be within limits. The imprimatur doesn't say that what's contained therein is official Catholic teaching, just that it doesn't conflict with anything official.

 

[narnia59]

I too would like to see the quote in context. But his first premise -- "Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to" would seem to be only logical, since we do indeed still suffer and die.

Theologically I think he is probably pointing to the difference in atonement theology between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics view of infused grace (we are actually made holy and perfected by the grace Christ merited for us by his passion and death) vs. Luther's understanding of imputed grace (Christ is a shield between us and the wrath of the Father's punishment).

The concept of our own suffering as being salvific for others is also part of Catholic theology and rooted in the understanding St. Paul presents in Scripture of the value of suffering and its participatory nature. Our suffering which has no value without Christ is indeed of value when united with His.

 

[lighthouse_hope]

Then their liberalism was considered to be within limits.

By the guy who gave it, who wasn't the pope, most probably.

 

[winslow]

.

 

[Albion]

I too would like to see the quote in context. But his first premise -- "Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to" would seem to be only logical, since we do indeed still suffer and die.

Right. There's nothing to get worked up about when it comes to this part of the quote.

Now for the second part...

The concept of our own suffering as being salvific for others is also part of Catholic theology

Correct.

It doesn't appear that there's anything in the quote that is unusual from a Roman Catholic perspective.

 

[AndOne]

This is the link I saw the quote from: Why I am Not a Roman Catholic

Since it is indeed vague - is the reason I asked the question. Despite my own disagreements with Rome in regards to justification I had never seen such a statement made by an RC before. So I was curious about it and was hoping for an RC perspective from the RC folks here.

 

[PaladinValer]

Again, I'll echo a previous poster: why not ask this in OBOB or in Specific Denomination-Theology?

 

[lighthouse_hope]

Again, I'll echo a previous poster: why not ask this in OBOB or in Specific Denomination-Theology?

QFT

 

[MrPolo]

Without full context, it sounds to me like Tim may be denying "subsitutionary" atonement, which he would be correct to deny as far as I understand it to be God transplanting the sum total of "wrath" on Jesus that we cumulatively deserve for sin.

But as another poster pointed out, who can deny what Tim said---after all, we still suffer and die.

 

[Secundulus]

Without full context, it sounds to me like Tim may be denying "subsitutionary" atonement, which he would be correct to deny as far as I understand it to be God transplanting the sum total of "wrath" on Jesus that we cumulatively deserve for sin.

He is the propitiation for our sins, not the substitute.

 

[narnia59]

Without full context, it sounds to me like Tim may be denying "subsitutionary" atonement, which he would be correct to deny as far as I understand it to be God transplanting the sum total of "wrath" on Jesus that we cumulatively deserve for sin.

But as another poster pointed out, who can deny what Tim said---after all, we still suffer and die.

That site uses Tim's quote to explain why they are not Catholic. Once I understood atonement theology and the differences in beliefs a little better, the Catholic view was one reason I was extremely grateful I was Catholic. The image of the Father is not distorted and He and Christ are truly "one in being" in purpose.

 

[Yarddog]

Who here is guaranteed that they will not suffer and die?

 

[AndOne]

Again, I'll echo a previous poster: why not ask this in OBOB or in Specific Denomination-Theology?

Because if it is going to go into a debate - which I admit it could - I want to be in nuetral territory.