Reparations for sin and insults to God

[jeffinjapan]

God's Holy, Rightous, Justice requires that mans rebellion and rejection of God be paid for.
God required a penalty to be paid and God paid it in the vform of God the Son.
Yes this is penal substution.

And penal substitution is anti-biblical and scandalous.

 

[Light of the East]

God's Holy, Righteous, Justice requires that mans rebellion and rejection of God be paid for.

You really don't understand what justice is. What you have described is revenge. It is the idea that all the pagans, in the darkness of their minds, came up with when they began creating their "gods." It is imprinting upon God the passions of mankind, while we know that God is passionless (impassible).

Justice is giving to someone what is due to them. What is due to mankind? The Roman concept of legal justice, based on Augustine's wretched view of mankind as a "massa damnata" of nothing but evil sinners, is that we deserve a beating. But total depravity is a wretched lie from hell. We are children of God and made in His image. Therefore, what is just and right for us is redemption, not condemnation.

Justice therefore is giving us what is due us in light of our innate dignity as children of God, no matter how wretchedly we may act from moment to moment.

 

[AMM]

I'm still learning the Orthodox faith and have a long way to go. i would say that the best answer on this question might be a priest or one of the other posters here. My thought however is that as long as it doesn't imply forensic justification (i.e., legal forgiveness) there is nothing wrong with using this metaphor. The problem comes in when you have people who don't see that there needs to be an inner change and who simply regard salvation as a debt to be paid rather than a change to be made in us.

Okay.

My point was the imputed righteousness, or forensic justification, violates covenant principles of a relationship. It treats our relationship with God more as a contract. "You do this, (repent) I do that (save your miserable hide) and it's a done deal." That's not a relationship - it's a contract.

A relationship grows. It is never finished. When I entered the Eastern Catholic Church, my godparents told me that eternity is where we will ever be learning of God, deepening our relationship and love, yet never exhausting it.

That's a very Calvinistic understanding of it, and not quite in line with the Lutheran teaching. To begin with, we don't view it as "If I do this, then I will be saved" - that's exactly what we protested in 16th century roman catholicism. Here's one of Luther's hymns to provide a good picture:

1. Dear Christians, one and all, rejoice,
With exultation springing,
And, with united heart and voice
And holy rapture singing,
Proclaim the wonders God hath done,
How His right arm the victory won;
Right dearly it hath cost Him.

2. Fast bound in Satan's chains I lay,
Death brooded darkly o'er me,
Sin was my torment night and day,
In sin my mother bore me;
Yea, deep and deeper still I fell,
Life had become a living hell,
So firmly sin possessed me.

3. My own good works availed me naught,
No merit they attaining;
Free will against God's judgment fought,
Dead to all good remaining.
My fears increased till sheer despair
Left naught but death to be my share;
The pangs of hell I suffered.

4. But God beheld my wretched state
Before the world's foundation,
And, mindful of His mercies great,
He planned my soul's salvation.
A father's heart He turned to me,
Sought my redemption fervently:
He gave His dearest Treasure.

5. He spoke to His beloved Son:
'Tis time to have compassion.
Then go, bright Jewel of My crown,
And bring to man salvation;
From sin and sorrow set him free,
Slay bitter death for him that he
May live with Thee forever.

6. This Son obeyed His Father's will,
Was born of virgin mother,
And God's good pleasure to fulfill,
He came to be my Brother.
No garb of pomp or power He wore,
A servant's form, like mine, He bore,
To lead the devil captive.

7.To me He spake: Hold fast to Me,
I am thy Rock and Castle;
Thy Ransom I Myself will be,
For thee I strive and wrestle;
For I am with thee, I am thine,
And evermore thou shalt be Mine;
The Foe shall not divide us.

8. The Foe shall shed My precious blood,
Me of My life bereaving.
All this I suffer for thy good;
Be steadfast and believing.
Life shall from death the victory win,
My innocence shall bear thy sin;
So art thou blest forever.

9. Now to My Father I depart,
The Holy Spirit sending
And, heavenly wisdom to impart,
My help to thee extending.
He shall in trouble comfort thee,
Teach thee to know and follow Me,
And in all truth shall guide thee.

10. What I have done and taught, teach thou,
My ways forsake thou never;
So shall My kingdom flourish now
And God be praised forever.
Take heed lest men with base alloy
The heavenly treasure should destroy;
This counsel I bequeath thee.

So it's very much of a "God loved us while we were yet sinners and sent his son to save us through his incarnation, baptism, temptation, death, and resurrection, freeing us from sin, death, and the power of the devil"

There's also this hymn which is a slightly different perspective (not Luther himself, but still Lutheran). Although the previous hymn definitely conveys the Christus Victor rather than a contract the most.

1. Salvation unto us has come
By God's free grace and favor;
Good works cannot avert our doom,
They help and save us never.
Faith looks to Jesus Christ alone,
Who did for all the world atone;
He is our one Redeemer.

2. What God did in His Law demand
And none to Him could render
Caused wrath and woe on every hand
For man, the vile offender.
Our flesh has not those pure desires
The spirit of the Law requires,
And lost is our condition.

3. It was a false, misleading dream
That God His Law had given
That sinners should themselves redeem
And by their works gain heaven.
The Law is but a mirror bright
To bring the inbred sin to light
That lurks within our nature.

4. From sin our flesh could not abstain,
Sin held its sway unceasing;
The task was useless and in vain,
Our gilt was e'er increasing.
None can remove sin's poisoned dart
Or purify our guileful heart,-
So deep is our corruption.

5. Yet as the Law must be fulfilled
Or we must die despairing,
Christ came and hath God's anger stilled,
Our human nature sharing.
He hath for us the Law obeyed
And thus the Father's vengeance stayed
Which over us impended.

6. Since Christ hath full atonement made
And brought to us salvation,
Each Christian therefore may be glad
And build on this foundation.
Thy grace alone, dear Lord, I plead,
Thy death is now my life indeed,
For Thou hast paid my ransom.

7. Let me not doubt, but trust in Thee,
Thy Word cannot be broken;
Thy call rings out, "Come unto Me!"
No falsehood hast Thou spoken.
Baptized into Thy precious name,
My faith cannot be put to shame,
And I shall never perish.

8. The Law reveals the guilt of sin
And makes men conscience-stricken;
The Gospel then doth enter in
The sinful soul to quicken.
Come to the cross, trust Christ, and live;
The Law no peace can ever give,
No comfort and no blessing.

9. Faith clings to Jesus' cross alone
And rests in Him unceasing;
And by its fruits true faith is known,
With love and hope increasing.
Yet faith alone doth justify,
Works serve thy neighbor and supply
The proof that faith is living.

10. All blessing, honor, thanks, and praise
To Father, Son, and Spirit,
The God that saved us by His grace,-
All glory to His merit!
O Triune God in heaven above,
Who hast revealed Thy saving love,
Thy blessed name be hallowed.

I know the EO prefer to use hymns and prayers to convey what we believe in rather than dogmatic statements. I quite like that approach, actually, since doctrinal statements, while great in many situations, often rely on the definition of terms that may not be clarified in a given situation.

He has eaten something poisonous to him at this stage of his development. He has a knowledge he cannot handle, probably to do with his being vs God's being and the fact that he has disobeyed. I would say also that perhaps the evil one was there making him fear God, for that is what the evil one continues to do throughout history. Look at the picture of God that is painted into the minds of the pagans - fierce, angry, demanding even human sacrifice. Someone to be totally feared, and certainly not forgiving love.

You say that he is afraid because he disobeyed. I don't disagree. But why is this a reason to be afraid, in the EO understanding? Fear because he disobeyed seems to support the western emphasis of justice more than the eastern emphasis of mercy.

Remember what blood stand for in the Bible - life. A life is given for a life. Scott Hahn has an interesting take on what transpired in the Garden. He postulates that Adam was right there during the temptation, and instead of facing down the serpent, being even willing to die for his bride, he knuckled under in fear.

A life is given for a life. How is that not substitutionary atonement? (I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just to understand.) I agree with Hahn on that matter - I've heard the same argument made from other theologians as well.

What makes this a possibility in my mind is that what Adam failed to do - die for his bride - Christ did do. And perhaps since Adam (this is just speculation now) was not willing to die, then God accepts a substitute death. Take that where you will, I just thought of it and it is interesting to me.

Your phrasing: "God accepts a substitute death" sounds non-Orthodox and very satisfaction-theory-esque. I know you said you were still a catechumen, but it's throwin' me off

Not being Lutheran, I will not debate this point, but my understanding is that Luther's "faith alone" is the whole basis of forensic justification.

To an extent. That'd be a whole 'nother conversation to get into his nuances of what that meant. Because we also have statements in our confessions like "faith makes Sons of God" and "we receive remission of sins...for Christ's sake, by faith alone" etc. I.e. yes, but not to the exclusion of being actually made righteous, having our sins truly forgiven, and truly being given life eternal through the Blood and the Bath.

I'm kind of working on this myself, inasmuch as you point out in the end that the language of Scripture seems to indicate that there are "places" in the next life, yet the Psalmist declares "if I make my bed in hell, thou art there..." Where is that place that God is not?

Saying that God's presence is in hell doesn't mean that it's the same place as heaven though. Additionally should we not distinguish between Hades/Sheol and Gehenna, both of which are translated "hell" in English? Christ descended into Sheol/Hades, but not Gehenna. Since Gehenna hasn't been made yet, I think (could be wrong about this distinction. I'm not too familiar with it but I've heard it a few times before).

No. Look up the Greek word "logizomai" and the definition. This is the word which is translated "imputed" in Romans and upon which the Calvinists hang the entire doctrine of "forensic justification." And that is NOT what it means. Logizomai is an accounting term and it is used to describe what is really there. What I am saying is that God doesn't deal in fabrication - He deals in truth, and if you are righteous, you are righteous.

Yeah... and doesn't Romans say that, to the one who does not work, his faith is logizomai to him as righteousness? (I'm guessing on the greek there since my Greek NT isn't with me rn)
In other words, God sees faith as righteousness. Not because it's some sort of fabrication, but because it simply is righteousness. The faith of Christ saves us, because he is righteous.
I don't disagree. Again, like I said earlier, I think you're arguing against the calvinist understanding, not the Lutheran one. We believe, teach, and confess, that through faith (alone) sins are forgiven and we are made righteous.

This is what confuses most Protestants because whether they realize it or not, they are deeply influenced by Augustine's declaration of "massa damnata" and the false idea of total depravity which has come from that. We are not totally depraved, and Scripture speaks of many souls, such as Abel, who were righteous. It calls Abel "righteous Abel" in Hebrews and not "depraved Abel."

Because of his faith: Hebrews 11.
Regarding depravity, are we not "dead in trespasses and sins...and by nature children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:1-3)?
"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Are we not "brought forth in iniquity" and conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5)?
Isn't it true that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5)?
"As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." (Romans 3:10-11)
"For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out." (Romans 7:18)

"Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

And so forth. I'll stop proof-texting now since that's annoying lol. But how do you interpret those if you reject depravity? (Also note: again, calvinist total depravity =/= lutheran total depravity, although they're similar, I guess)

This requires more study of me. Is the Lake of Fire a separate place where God is not? How is that to be? Where can there be that God is not, for nothing at all can exist without Him. Therefore, I have to think that the Lake of Fire is God's passionate love which acts exactly as you have described.

I'm not convinced but I'm not saying you're wrong either. Not an area I know much about, admittedly.

Remember, the Egyptians saw a pillar of darkness while the Israelites saw a pillar of light.

No, I don't remember that, actually. I don't recall ever hearing this before. Where can I find that?

Nice talking with you.

Blessings!

And you as well! Thank you for taking the time to answer all my silly questions and objections. Peace!

Justice is giving to someone what is due to them. What is due to mankind? The Roman concept of legal justice, based on Augustine's wretched view of mankind as a "massa damnata" of nothing but evil sinners, is that we deserve a beating. But total depravity is a wretched lie from hell. We are children of God and made in His image. Therefore, what is just and right for us is redemption, not condemnation.

Justice therefore is giving us what is due us in light of our innate dignity as children of God, no matter how wretchedly we may act from moment to moment.

I'm gonna be honest - as a Western Christian who undoubtedly has been influenced by western christian thought, this sounds like heresy and pride. Are you saying that we do not deserve punishment for our sins? What about these types of verses:

Romans 12:19 "Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”"

Jude 14-16 "14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage."

Doesn't Scripture speak of salvation as a gift? And by definition, a gift is not something that we deserve.

 

[Tolworth John]

Justice is giving to someone what is due to them. What is due to mankind? The Roman concept of legal justice, based on Augustine's wretched view of mankind as a "massa damnata" of nothing but evil sinners, is that we deserve a beating. But total depravity is a wretched lie from hell. We are children of God and made in His image. Therefore, what is just and right for us is redemption, not condemnation

And the bible say, 'All have sinned ' and that Jesus came to save sinners.

Yes we are made in Gods image, but that image is defaced by our sin.
Yes justice means giving what is due to someone. But what if the offended part pays what is due?

Do you really understand just how wonderful salvation is?

We don;t get what we deserve, we get what we don't deserve, because God pays our penalty himself.

 

[Tolworth John]

And penal substitution is anti-biblical and scandalous

Yet it is what one finds in the bible.

Scandalous, yes to those who are not saved or who don't understand it.

 

[jeffinjapan]

Yet it is what one finds in the bible.

Scandalous, yes to those who are not saved or who don't understand it.

Did you understand the anti-biblical part? Christians who claim that the God who is love would require his own son to be murdered in order to appease his anger is so bizarre and hateful. Your God, not the God as revealed by Christ, is a despicable monster and thankfully does not exist.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yet it is what one finds in the bible.

Scandalous, yes to those who are not saved or who don't understand it.

please, where is penal substitution shown in the Scripture?

 

[Mary of Bethany]

You say that he is afraid because he disobeyed. I don't disagree. But why is this a reason to be afraid, in the EO understanding? Fear because he disobeyed seems to support the western emphasis of justice more than the eastern emphasis of mercy.

I'd like to address this one thing. Our priest spoke about this so I hope I convey it correctly. Adam and Eve were, of course, in full Communion with God before the Fall. As soon as they sinned, they knew that the Communion had been broken. That is why he was afraid. Not because he feared punishment, but because he immediately knew he had lost communion with God and his very existence had forever changed.

 

[AMM]

Did you understand the anti-biblical part? Christians who claim that the God who is love would require his on son to be murdered in order to appease his anger is so bizarre and hateful. Your God, not the God as revealed by Christ, is a despicable monster and thankfully does not exist.

please, where is penal substitution shown in the Scripture?

To make sure I'm understanding correctly, is the problem (as you see it) with PSA that God is doing the punishing? I.e. God is angry so he sent his son knowing that someone needed to be punished, and punishing Christ would save us. (the penal aspect)

OR is the problem that Christ dies for us, on our behalf, in our place, etc. (the substitutionary aspect)

Is substitutionary atonement acceptable as long as the punishment language is left out of it? It's hard to tell sometimes because I've gotten unclear answers.

I'd like to address this one thing. Our priest spoke about this so I hope I convey it correctly. Adam and Eve were, of course, in full Communion with God before the Fall. As soon as they sinned, they knew that the Communion had been broken. That is why he was afraid. Not because he feared punishment, but because he immediately knew he had lost communion with God and his very existence had forever changed.

So it's like a general "fear of the unknown" type of thing? What's going to happen next because [insert 4-letter word here] hit the fan and the world is no longer very good like it was before?

 

[ArmyMatt]

To make sure I'm understanding correctly, is the problem (as you see it) with PSA that God is doing the punishing? I.e. God is angry so he sent his son knowing that someone needed to be punished, and punishing Christ would save us. (the penal aspect)

OR is the problem that Christ dies for us, on our behalf, in our place, etc. (the substitutionary aspect)

Is substitutionary atonement acceptable as long as the punishment language is left out of it? It's hard to tell sometimes because I've gotten unclear answers.

the bad part is it compels God to satisfy His Divine Justice (God cannot be compelled to do anything), God is one with His Son so He cannot turn His back on His Son or pour out His wrath upon Him, etc.

it basically gives you a schizophrenic God, Who is divided against Himself.

 

[narnia59]

Yes, Catholicism is a bit confused, they see things like penance as form of punishment to placate God's anger. The idea that the Crucifixion should cover everything is partly what started the Reformation, especially in response to indulgences.

The Orthodox see Christ's Passion and Resurrection done to reconcile man to God, not the other way around.

That is not an accurate representation of Catholic teaching. You will find nothing in Church teaching about the purpose of penance is to placate God's anger. That would indicate that God is capable of both change and experiencing a human emotion like 'anger', neither of which are compatible with Catholic teaching.

Per the Catechism, the purpose of penance is to "repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a disciple of Christ" (CCC1494), 'to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."" (CCC1473), as well as what is taught in this passage:

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

Penal substitution atonement theology is also rejected by the Catholic Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That is not an accurate representation of Catholic teaching. You will find nothing in Church teaching about the purpose of penance is to placate God's anger. That would indicate that God is capable of both change and experiencing a human emotion like 'anger', neither of which are compatible with Catholic teaching.

Per the Catechism, the purpose of penance is to "repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a disciple of Christ" (CCC1494), 'to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."" (CCC1473), as well as what is taught in this passage:

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

Penal substitution atonement theology is also rejected by the Catholic Church.

actually, penal substitution has it's origin I am pretty sure in Anselm of Caterbury, an RC and NOT Orthodox saint.

 

[Light of the East]

That is not an accurate representation of Catholic teaching. You will find nothing in Church teaching about the purpose of penance is to placate God's anger. That would indicate that God is capable of both change and experiencing a human emotion like 'anger', neither of which are compatible with Catholic teaching.

Per the Catechism, the purpose of penance is to "repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a disciple of Christ" (CCC1494), 'to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."" (CCC1473), as well as what is taught in this passage:

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

Penal substitution atonement theology is also rejected by the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, but everything I seem to be hearing and reading lately in Roman works has to do with punishment and God's terrible wrath rather than restitution of the person and the healing of the sick soul.
You say (or infer) that penance "repairs the harm." So how does a penance of three Our Fathers and three Hail Mary's do anything to repair the harm to another person? Honestly, if I have stolen something, it would seem that the best penance would be to go to that person, admit the sin, and pay back with interest. Prayers don't accomplish that, and the thing I see in them is that God is angry and we must placate His anger.

The term "satisfaction" has legal overtones to it also.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would also add, Rome has had a recent habit of saying that whatever current Popes have said is what they have always believed. even their own Ecumenical Councils after the Schism that are harsh towards us they now try to downplay.

 

[narnia59]

actually, penal substitution has it's origin I am pretty sure in Anselm of Caterbury, an RC and NOT Orthodox saint.

The concept of the atonement as being 'satisfaction' for our sins to God is rooted in Anselm. He directly takes on the false notion of 'ransom' atonement whereby the crucifixion is in some form a payment to Satan. Satan is owed nothing by God to redeem us. He took what was not his in the first place and there is no justice in 'paying' him to redeem it.

It is the Protestants who take the concept of satisfaction and develop the concept that the crucifixion is Christ being punished by God in our place (penal substitution).

In Catholic theology, Christ is indeed our substitute, but not to receive the punishment of the Father. He is our substitute because he gives the Father what Adam denied him -- obedience. Obedience that would cost him his life at the hands of sinful man. Romans 5:19 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

Anselm's work is not easy to read because it is written as a question/answer conversation. It's easy to take the words of the 'questioner' as the answer. But consider this exchange:

Boso: It is plain that, if man had not sinned, God ought not to compel him to die.

Anselm: God did not, therefore, compel Christ to die; but he suffered death of his own will, not yielding up his life as an act of obedience, but on account of his obedience in maintaining holiness; for he held out so firmly in this obedience that he met death on account of it.

In other words, the Father did not require the death of Christ to satisfy anything. He asked of Christ be obedient to the truth and to holiness, just as he asked of Adam. Adam failed Eve his bride; Christ was willing to die for his bride, the Church. But his death comes at the hands of sinful men, not the Father. Christ is crucified by sinful men because he holds firmly to the truth and to holiness. The Father accepts his death as the perfect, self-sacrificial offering, one made out of love for his bride.

That is Catholic atonement theology. The Protestants took off with the concept of 'satisfaction' and morphed it into something that is not only not Catholic, it's not Scriptural.

 

[narnia59]

I'm sorry, but everything I seem to be hearing and reading lately in Roman works has to do with punishment and God's terrible wrath rather than restitution of the person and the healing of the sick soul.
You say (or infer) that penance "repairs the harm." So how does a penance of three Our Fathers and three Hail Mary's do anything to repair the harm to another person? Honestly, if I have stolen something, it would seem that the best penance would be to go to that person, admit the sin, and pay back with interest. Prayers don't accomplish that, and the thing I see in them is that God is angry and we must placate His anger.

The term "satisfaction" has legal overtones to it also.

What are you reading? I would like to know because you won't even find the word 'wrath' in the Catechism in relation to God, so you are not consulting the definitive teaching of the Church at all. I would suggest you use it as your source for what the Catholic church teaches.

And of course we must do what you suggest to repair the harm. As the Catechism clearly teaches:

CCC 1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

It's not an either/or proposition. Praying 3 Hail Mary's can't be a satisfactory penance if there is no attempt to repair the actual damage to the injured party. But sincere prayer from a contrite heart can absolutely help to recover our spiritual health -- "heal the soul" as you say.

EDITED to ADD -- the term 'satisfaction' is not one of my favorites either. You have to remember it's a translation, and those are never perfect at conveying the original intent. The other word that is used along with that by the Catechism is 'reparation'. I do much prefer that word because it gets to the heart of what penance is about -- repairing the damage caused by sin.

 

[LizaMarie]

I did a search and didn't find exactly the answer I was looking for (the thread I found kind of wandered off the subject) so here is my question
From a Roman Catholic site, analyse this please:

According to Thomas Slater, reparation is a theological concept closely connected with those of atonement and satisfaction, and is considered a sacred mystery in Roman Catholicism. It is the teaching of that faith that man is a creature who has fallen from an original state of grace in which he was created, and that through the incarnation, Passion, and death of Jesus Christ, he has been redeemed and restored again in a certain degree to the original condition. Although God might have condoned men's offences gratuitously if He had chosen to do so, yet in divine providence He did not do this; He judged it better to demand satisfaction for the injuries which man had done Him. It is better for man's education that wrongdoing on his part should entail the necessity of making satisfaction. This satisfaction was made adequately to God by the suffering, passion, and death of Jesus Christ, made Man for us. By voluntary submission to His passion and death on the cross, Jesus Christ atoned for man's disobedience and sin. He thus made reparation to the offended majesty of God for the outrages which the Creator so constantly suffers at the hands of His creatures.

That part in red is what is bothering/puzzling me. Does the Roman Church somehow think that the meritorious offering of Christ is devoid of complete merit for the sins of all mankind?

And is God offended so that His wounded pride demands satisfaction. This REEKS of Medieval Scholastic Penal Substitution to me. Do you think I am right in this?

And the part in blue seems to contradict the part in red.

Comments?

This is very much why, when I came to the realization that I needed an Apostolic Faith, one with bishops that could be traced back to the Apostles, and started studying Roman Catholism, and read the CCC, I was seriously thinking of becoming Catholic. But then, I read a book, (a RC)that made me despair, that I was going to hell, despite the fact that I loved Jesus. In short, their view of justification did not match up with what I had been taught all my life. Now I do believe, as Matthew 7 says, there are those who will call themselves "Christians" whom Christ will say, "Depart from me, ye who work iniquity, I never knew ye." But I have trouble with perfect and imperfect contrition, ect. So I remained a Lutheran, but I'm still reading. And have been looking East.

 

[narnia59]

I did a search and didn't find exactly the answer I was looking for (the thread I found kind of wandered off the subject) so here is my question
From a Roman Catholic site, analyse this please:

According to Thomas Slater, reparation is a theological concept closely connected with those of atonement and satisfaction, and is considered a sacred mystery in Roman Catholicism. It is the teaching of that faith that man is a creature who has fallen from an original state of grace in which he was created, and that through the incarnation, Passion, and death of Jesus Christ, he has been redeemed and restored again in a certain degree to the original condition. Although God might have condoned men's offences gratuitously if He had chosen to do so, yet in divine providence He did not do this; He judged it better to demand satisfaction for the injuries which man had done Him. It is better for man's education that wrongdoing on his part should entail the necessity of making satisfaction. This satisfaction was made adequately to God by the suffering, passion, and death of Jesus Christ, made Man for us. By voluntary submission to His passion and death on the cross, Jesus Christ atoned for man's disobedience and sin. He thus made reparation to the offended majesty of God for the outrages which the Creator so constantly suffers at the hands of His creatures.

That part in red is what is bothering/puzzling me. Does the Roman Church somehow think that the meritorious offering of Christ is devoid of complete merit for the sins of all mankind?

And is God offended so that His wounded pride demands satisfaction. This REEKS of Medieval Scholastic Penal Substitution to me. Do you think I am right in this?

And the part in blue seems to contradict the part in red.

Comments?

I think the part you are overlooking is this line "It is better for man's education that wrongdoing on his part should entail the necessity of making satisfaction."

Reparation has nothing to do with satisfying God's wounded pride. It has everything to do with growing us in spiritual maturity. This is the reason the Church teaches God requires 'satisfaction'.

The meritorious offering of Christ completely atones for the sins of all mankind.

Consider the small child who even though he was instructed to not throw the ball in the house, breaks something of value. He has no means of his own to 'atone' for what he has done. Someone else (his parents) are going to have to restore the thing of value because he is not capable of doing that. That does not mean however it is in the best interest of the child for there to be no consequence. It is better for the child that his wrongdoing requires him to 'make satisfaction'. Not to appease his wrathful parents. It would be much easier for them to just 'let it go'. But in order for the child to better understand the seriousness of his actions, to learn and mature, good parents would require this.

Likewise, we cannot repair the damage that sin has done. Christ does this on our behalf. But a loving Father would not allow nothing to be required of us. Would He?

 

[ArmyMatt]

The concept of the atonement as being 'satisfaction' for our sins to God is rooted in Anselm. He directly takes on the false notion of 'ransom' atonement whereby the crucifixion is in some form a payment to Satan. Satan is owed nothing by God to redeem us. He took what was not his in the first place and there is no justice in 'paying' him to redeem it.

It is the Protestants who take the concept of satisfaction and develop the concept that the crucifixion is Christ being punished by God in our place (penal substitution).

In Catholic theology, Christ is indeed our substitute, but not to receive the punishment of the Father. He is our substitute because he gives the Father what Adam denied him -- obedience. Obedience that would cost him his life at the hands of sinful man. Romans 5:19 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

Anselm's work is not easy to read because it is written as a question/answer conversation. It's easy to take the words of the 'questioner' as the answer. But consider this exchange:

Boso: It is plain that, if man had not sinned, God ought not to compel him to die.

Anselm: God did not, therefore, compel Christ to die; but he suffered death of his own will, not yielding up his life as an act of obedience, but on account of his obedience in maintaining holiness; for he held out so firmly in this obedience that he met death on account of it.

In other words, the Father did not require the death of Christ to satisfy anything. He asked of Christ be obedient to the truth and to holiness, just as he asked of Adam. Adam failed Eve his bride; Christ was willing to die for his bride, the Church. But his death comes at the hands of sinful men, not the Father. Christ is crucified by sinful men because he holds firmly to the truth and to holiness. The Father accepts his death as the perfect, self-sacrificial offering, one made out of love for his bride.

That is Catholic atonement theology. The Protestants took off with the concept of 'satisfaction' and morphed it into something that is not only not Catholic, it's not Scriptural.

well, Christ freely taking our place vs being compelled is not the issue, but that He took our place because of an offense to God, so only one equal could rectify that. Anselm found that in Germanic feudal law, which is also not Biblical.

so while the Protestants may have morphed substitutionary atonement, they started with something that already was an aberration

 

[anna ~ grace]

So, the way I see reparations made to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that they're about love.

As the One who died for us, it us kind of inconceivable that our Savior would not feel pained by our prideful, stubborn unwillingness to give our lives to Someone who has already given His for us. As one whose heart was pierced at the foot of her Son's Cross, and who wants us to know and follow Christ, it seems inconceivable to me that Mary's heart is not grieved by unbelief and by sin.

Making reparations is in part about offering a gift of love back to Christ in response to mankind's (and our own) blatant and mournful failure to love Him. In a sense, we are also identifying with sinful and unloving mankind as we, too, apart from divine mercy, pretty much do the exact same thing.