Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I don't have a catechism.
I state flatly that you are not reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church correctly.
THANKS THANKS.
I think I read it about 3-4 times way back when.
I rarely did that with a book.
Might have been 45 or more years ago.
You say: But you keep posting the same thing over and over. It just says that Christ "died for the sins of the world". This is not the same as atoning for our sins.
Well, why do you think we think he died, because He was upset?
Instead of playing 20 questions here, why don't you just lay out what you think we SHOULD say. I say that because the totality of your objection seems to be we do not use exactly the same vocabulary in exactly the same way as you would,. YOu say "it's different," but you don;'t say how, or what the difference means. Evidently, in your view there is the correct formula. Well tell us what it is. Then of course, we will try to say why we think it's wrong OR why we think our words convey the same thing.
But in the meantime this continues to look embarrassingly silly. We have shown you texts where the word atonement is used, and your response is This is not the same as atoning for our sins.
If you are consistent, then no writing on the atonement has been justified since whenever the Fathers stopped being the Fathers. Whoever did anything but quote was wrong. Is that right?
Any explanation of the state FROM which man was redeemed or the state TO WHICH he was redeemed, any attempt to describe different facets of the atonement would be wrong. Anselm was wrong to write, so were Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Rogers Williams, any of them. All that would be allowed would be quoting. That seems to be your position.
Development is a KIND of change, yes. But it's like this. Suppose someone were to come to me and ask me what I think about how a car goes. So I begin to describe the internal combustion engine. He protests "The Fathers just said it goes!" I talk about Archimedes and Newton and gears and laws of motion and such. "But the Fathers just said it goes, you are denying that it goes as the Fathers said it did."
That's what this is like to me.
Have you read "Cur Deus Homo?" It is an attempt to propose a way to understand the atonement. To say of it This is not the same as atoning for our sins, is just mind boggling. It is VERY like saying, "I don't want to hear about carburetors. I JUST want to talk about what makes the car go."
I would have to agree if it's looked at in terms of free will.
once-saved-always-saved sound combative,
Maybe that's why we always see those silly statements "that OSAS means you can go do whatever you want and it's okay".
Thanks so much, Judith Anne!
Just reading the excerpt they offer on that site was—again-—a great experience.
I'll tell you what is either disingenuous or downright stupid: to say that the New Advent article says the doctrine "changed" when the actual word CHANGE is not used. "Development" is discussed, yes, but that is QUITE a different thing from change.
The Pythagorean Theorem has not changed since Pythagoras, but more than one proof has been developed since those days, and as a result the fullness of the theorem is better expressed now than then.
Similarly the ideas of Exemplary, Dramatic, Expiatory, and Sacrificial Atonement do not CHANGE the doctrine that Christ made Atonement for our sins. They do, however look at the richness of that mystery.
“...but that is QUITE a different thing from change.”
Thanks, MD
You can read it for free here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16739
I’m gonna find my favorite part and put it up here.
Thank you, and please do ping me, when you post the part you like best?
The next ingredient is a very remarkable one: _Good temper._ "Love is not provoked." Nothing could be more striking than to find this here. We are inclined to look upon bad temper as a very harmless weakness. We speak of it as a mere infirmity of nature, a family failing, a matter of temperament, not a thing to take into very serious account in estimating a man's character. And yet here, right in the heart of this analysis of love, it finds a place; and the Bible again and again returns to condemn it as one of the most destructive elements in human nature.
The peculiarity of ill temper is that it is the vice of the virtuous. It is often the one blot on an otherwise noble character. You know men who are all but perfect, and women who would be entirely perfect, but for an easily ruffled, quick-tempered, or "touchy" disposition. This compatibility of ill temper with high moral character is one of the strangest and saddest problems of ethics. The truth is, there are two great classes of sins--sins of the _Body_ and sins of the _Disposition_. The Prodigal Son may be taken as a type of the first, the Elder Brother of the second. Now, society has no doubt whatever as to which of these is the worse. Its brand falls, without a challenge, upon the Prodigal. But are we right? We have no balance to weigh one another's sins, and coarser and finer are but human words; but faults in the higher nature may be less venal than those in the lower, and to the eye of Him who is Love, a sin against Love may seem a hundred times more base. No form of vice, not worldliness, not greed of gold, not drunkenness itself, does more to un-Christianize society than evil temper. For embittering life, for breaking up communities, for destroying the most sacred relationships, for devastating homes, for withering up men and women, for taking the bloom of childhood, in short, FOR SHEER GRATUITOUS MISERY-PRODUCING POWER
Look at the Elder Brother--moral, hard-working, patient, dutiful--let him get all credit for his virtues--look at this man, this baby, sulking outside his own father's door. "He was angry," we read, "and would not go in." Look at the effect upon the father, upon the servants, upon the happiness of the guests. Judge of the effect upon the Prodigal--and how many prodigals are kept out of the Kingdom of God by the unlovely character of those who profess to be inside. Analyze, as a study in Temper, the thunder-cloud itself as it gathers upon the Elder Brother's brow. What is it made of? Jealousy, anger, pride, uncharity, cruelty, self-righteousness, touchiness, doggedness, sullenness--these are the ingredients of this dark and loveless soul. In varying proportions, also, these are the ingredients of all ill temper. Judge if such sins of the disposition are not worse to live in, and for others to live with, than the sins of the body. Did Christ indeed not answer the question Himself when He said, "I say unto you that the publicans and the harlots go into the Kingdom of Heaven before you"? There is really no place in heaven for a disposition like this. A man with such a mood could only make heaven miserable for all the people in it. Except, therefore, such a man be BORN AGAIN, he cannot, simply _cannot_, enter the kingdom of heaven.
You will see then why Temper is significant. It is not in what it is alone, but in what it reveals. This is why I speak of it with such unusual plainness. It is a test for love, a symptom, a revelation of an unloving nature at bottom. It is the intermittent fever which bespeaks unintermittent disease within; the occasional bubble escaping to the surface which betrays some rottenness underneath; a sample of the most hidden products of the soul dropped involuntarily when off one's guard; in a word, the lightning form of a hundred hideous and un-Christian sins. A want of patience, a want of kindness, a want of generosity, a want of courtesy, a want of unselfishness, are all instantaneously symbolized in one flash of Temper.
I have just been reading at your link, and have just come to this part. Thank you so much! It could be titled, “The Soul, an Owner’s Manual”
This little book — !
I’ve bookmarked it, so that I can read it any time...
“Courtesy is love in little things.”
That's why you are not a Catholic.
I like that.
The phrase "the vice of the virtuous" sticks with me, because it really tweaks my conscience. Not that I consider myself virtuous, mind you; but it reminds me that each time I don't have love in my heart towards others in even the littlest of things, I have not kept the second great commandment.
Please ping me, as well.
I’ll post my favorite parts along the way, too.
See post 6530.
I’ll post my favorite parts along the way, too.
Please do.
GREAT.
THX THX.
Honestly, this is quite a treasure. Worth studying. I am so glad it’s on line, and you made the link for us...what a gift!
I missed bolding this line in my excerpt, so am going to highlight it now:
Judge of the effect upon the Prodigal--and how many prodigals are kept out of the Kingdom of God by the unlovely character of those who profess to be inside.
Imagine if this was cut out and taped at the top of the computer screen of every religion forum poster. :)
616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.
401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.
Plenty true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.