Interesting.
Clearly His Excellency is wrong on this point. However, he may be confused with the finer point that, “God, being infinitely powerful, is in no way intrinsically HARMED by any action of Man, therefore, in a technical sense, Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t to somehow ‘make up’ for something Man did to God, but rather to enable Man to once again come to God fully.”
That is, the sin sacrifice was necessary to restore MAN to his intended state (a state of full and complete friendship with God). It was not, nor could it ever be considered some kind of “repayment” to God, because again God being infinite in all respects cannot “loose” anything.
Just to clarify. I do believe the above is Catholic teaching.
That's not quite correct. Man cannot rob God of intrinsic glory, but man can rob of extrinsic glory. Christ made satisfaction for the sins of men; see here.
- A8