St Alphonsus and penal substitution
#1
I'm trying to figure out how what St Alphonsus wrote here is different from the Protestant view of penal substitution. I'm getting sort of confused and wondering if anyone has any thoughts... Thanks!

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

For some reason whenever I read about this I can't remember what the Catholic view is and how its different from the Protestant view!
Reply
#2
I found this quote... Is that the difference? I don't know to be honest... Just putting this out there to ask about

"t. Alphonsus[21] does not speak of the Father inflicting punishment on his son as a substitute for us. He does not hold a theory of penal substitution; rather, he puts it in psychological terms. The Son cannot endure to see the Father offended and so freely chooses to make satisfaction for the offence." http://www.redemptoristspirituality.net/eng2/index.php?option=com_content&id=100%3Ajesus-christ-the-redeemer&Itemid=106&showall=1

Reply
#3
Catholic encyclopaedia mentions two errors of the Protestant view... So its true that Our Lord took the punishment of our sins, and that we can say that as a way to express Him making a sacrifice, but we just shouldn't think it was from God's anger rather than love, and not take it too literally with specific punishments?? Its kind of sad that I'm confused about this because this is basic to our faith but I keep getting confused on it. I believe that Jesus died for me and offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father for my sins, but I always forget the Catholic view of how this happened. The article says its true that Jesus took on our sins - is that the Catholic view then together with the St Anselm sacrifice view??.

"The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.
The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins."
Reply
#4
It is entirely repellant to even ordinary human sensibility of goodness that Redemption is the result of a wrathful vengeance against Humanity. And it is impossible that an omniscient eternal (therefore unchangeable) Being could "revise His plan" to exact a revengeful punishment on a creation that "mucked it up" for Him.

All of Creation only exists because it is the nature of goodness to do good. Creation is the expression of God's goodness and Redemption is the fullest expression of the goodness of Justice and Mercy... purest Love.

This topic naturally raises questions about Heaven, Hell, Predestination... all of which can be logically reconciled with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator... and nothing else, in my opinion.
Reply
#5
Don't be be troubled  little_flower. You are right St Alphonsus (as stated here) and the Protestant understanding of penal substitution are the same. Your conflict comes from trying to make them diffrent.
Reply
#6
(12-10-2015, 10:10 PM)Might_4_Right Wrote: Don't be be troubled  little_flower. You are right St Alphonsus (as stated here) and the Protestant understanding of penal substitution are the same. Your conflict comes from trying to make them diffrent.

I don't understand that because isn't the Protestant view not allowed by the Church? So I think St Alphonsus said not the parts that are untrue. That's why I quoted from Catholic Encyclopaedia about what is incorrect in the Protestant view - and St Alphonsus didn't say those parts..
Reply
#7
(12-10-2015, 11:05 PM)little_flower10 Wrote:
(12-10-2015, 10:10 PM)Might_4_Right Wrote: Don't be be troubled  little_flower. You are right St Alphonsus (as stated here) and the Protestant understanding of penal substitution are the same. Your conflict comes from trying to make them diffrent.

I don't understand that because isn't the Protestant view not allowed by the Church? So I think St Alphonsus said not the parts that are untrue. That's why I quoted from Catholic Encyclopaedia about what is incorrect in the Protestant view - and St Alphonsus didn't say those parts..

There's basicly 3 theoiers of the atonment. The Ransom theory, the Moral influence theory and Saint Anselms Satisfaction theory. The  Protestants just used Saint Anslem's theory and hashed it out a bit.

So don't worry about the view not being allowed by the Church because it comes from the Church.  Plus no one theory has been dogmaticly define so your free to have peace of mind on this one little_flower .
:tiphat:
Reply
#8
Any diligent searcher can find and quote out of context something that someone said sometime that can be made to support any prejudice.

What we should be promoting is the things that can be certainly known from Revelation and observation (reason/logic).

The Old Israel of heredity has given up its primacy to the new Israel of Baptism.

If anyone would like to try and argue that the Goyim are prey for the "chosen" and that they can be an appropriate sacrificial lamb to atone for the sins of the self-appointed "chosen" then I have 5 smooth stones in my pouch that can fit my sling.
Reply
#9
(12-11-2015, 01:00 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Any diligent searcher can find and quote out of context something that someone said sometime that can be made to support any prejudice.

This is true. A a lot of people do such things. But I don't think it is true in this case.

(12-11-2015, 01:00 AM)Oldavid Wrote: What we should be promoting is the things that can be certainly known from Revelation and observation (reason/logic).

Obviously.  What do you consider unreasonable about St. Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement?

(12-11-2015, 01:00 AM)Oldavid Wrote: The Old Israel of heredity has given up its primacy to the new Israel of Baptism.

I believe that G-d still has big plans for the faithful Jews, those who believe in G-d, study and live Torah, and look forward to the coming of the Messiah. How can anybody not be awed by the miracle of thier survival and the rebirth of Israel. This is nothing short of amazing, its a miracle, it is G-d’s work.

(12-11-2015, 01:00 AM)Oldavid Wrote: If anyone would like to try and argue that the Goyim are prey for the "chosen" and that they can be an appropriate sacrificial lamb to atone for the sins of the self-appointed "chosen" then I have 5 smooth stones in my pouch that can fit my sling.

This is just is just stupid. Who would argue such an asinine thing. ???
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)