Replies

Is it at all possible that you might be misunderstanding some of these sources?

Here is another source: Reparation—Love–Atonement by Joseph K. Hogan. Please note this line of thinking:

Reparation is like paying a debt, a payback, a return of something that is owed to another. ...Atonement is much the same. In a certain spirituality, because Christ was mocked and made a fool of; men and women become fools for Christ to atone for the humiliation of Christ. We atone to Christ for sin by prayer, penance, and self-denial; we ‘make up’ for the disastrous effects of a sinful life.

I'm fairly confident that I'm accurate on this. If I was wrong I'm sure I would have a hundred Catholics pointing me to St. Fred or St. Bob's writings. Instead I have the Orthodox telling me the blood atonement is blasphamous and the Catholics rather quiet.

Personally, one would hope people would be more forthright with their doctrine.

The full quote, with the part you excerpted underlined and the parts I want to stress bolded is:

That is a fair observation and it's not my intention to be misleading. Space and time are limited and I can't post everything but I do try to post the reference so people can read it for themselves and make their own determination. If you think this cut-off is bad you should try Augustine or Calvin who goes on and on and on.

According to New Advent:

Although the high authority of St. Bernard was thus against them, the views of St. Anselm and Abelard, the two men who in different ways were the fathers of Scholasticism, shaped the course of later medieval theology. ....Anselm's doctrine of Satisfaction was adopted as the basis. But St. Thomas and the other medieval masters agree with Abelard in rejecting the notion that this full Satisfaction for sin was absolutely necessary.... But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard [not Anselm] remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. New Advent on Atonement

According to New Advent above, Anselm isn't the proponent of this view. There are others who came along later who used Anselm's writings. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to use his writings.

CATHOLICS! ORTHODOX FOLKS! We're talking about the ATONEMENT here. We've gotten through the name-calling part, now let's get down in the dirt and dig around some, please? BEsides, I may be doing a terrible job representing our POV.

Well, I'm beginning to think that I don't know what the details of the "blood atonement" argument are. It's like we are both coming to the same article from VERY different POVs, and so you say, "See THERE?" and I say, "Hmm, Yeah, so what?"

St. FRED? Did he publish?

Okay, let me struggle with your first quote one second, and amazingly, I'll argue that it's not representative of what we think about Atonement in general. Yeah, I know: Color you surprised. It's from an article about Spirituality. A big thing for us is identifying with Christ. And that gets us in almost as much trouble as "Mother of God", I guess. Note that what you underlined was about how "we atone to Christ" It presupposes the Atonement wrought in Christ. But we seek to participate in the work of Atonement -- and at least in my case I know that's preposterous of me, but what can I say, I like going overboard -- So we pray for others sins, fast for others' sins. In some other conversation about the Catholic view of works, I compared us to a very little child watching his father or her mother, and "helping". And you know how much "help" that can be. Mom bakes the cake, but Sissie licked the mixing spoon so she "helped". Jesus dies horribly for the world as the climax to the humiliation of the Incarnation. We skip dessert. I'm kind of hoping that God thinks that's cute.

Maybe I'm overstating our view of the uselessness of it all. Certainly when I'm fasting (something I do too rarely) I think I have real discomfort and I trust that God will use that the way he uses prayer, in a mysterious way, utterly incomprehensible to me, to do what HE does.

So that's about what I facetiously call spearchool atonement. It is built on Christ's "all sufficient merit".

Now, after our last exchange and as I began to get the idea that we are talking past each other - or at least I'm missing everything coming in my direction, I actually looked at that article fairly closely, not just looking for "See THERE?" quotes.

And what I got was what I expected: The Atonement is a HUGE mystery. The whole "work of Christ", but especially the Death on the Cross, accomplishes what can not be accomplished by any mere creature, the reconciliation of Creation and Creator. So the blood shed during the Crucifixion -- and the mysterious water and blood from His pierced side -- is central, critical, at the core of the Atoning work.

There is a problem with the idea that God needs to be propitiated (That word, hilasmos, is interesting.), but there is also a problem with what the Justice of God is if there is not to be some dreadful consequence to the dreadful act of disobedience which Sin is. It's all very well for me to say "Mercy is the perfection of justice" but sometimes trying to think about it is as useful (to me at any rate) as thinking about the sound of one hand. My response is, "Wha'?"

Certainly the notion of Satisfaction is not totally discarded in our thinking. But it's not currently the front runner either. And I think the Satisfactory doctrine is the one closest to what you may mean by "blood atonement".

The sentence we have been sparring over leaves out my favorite (Jesus stomps the devil) but, I think, makes conscious reference to the other theories I have mentioned. It's an effort, I think, at a summation of the thinking about the atonement.

Okay, darn it, I have to go get ready to go out. I hope I have moved this forward a little. I'll very much look forward to hearing from you, but I won't get back until late tonight or sometime tomorrow.