"Jesus atoned for our faults" - No, Christ did not atone for our "faults" which means a weakness of character. He atoned for our sins which means our transgressions or rebellion.
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.
Doesn't this statement makes you even the tisy-wesy nervous? If our Lord Jesus was not the most holiest man (besides being the Son of God) then what was He. Didn't He die in His humanity? If there is any statement that fully support what I'm saying it is this remark. Doesn't the author consider Jesus fully man? Wow, there went some church violations or something.
Christ took upon himself the whole weight of evil ....
No, Christ did not take the whole weight of "evil". He took on the whole weight of sin. There is a significant difference.
...and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
And here we come round about as to what the meaning of atonement is. The "blood has become the instrument of atonement". Wrong. We are atoned of our sin through our Lord Jesus. The shedding of the blood is the price for that atonement-the remissions of our sins.
I'd suggest Catholics are trying to read into this that grace is imparted through the Eucharist. Sorry but that is not what the scriptures teaches.
Don't believe me. I'd suggest you believe the scriptures instead of some goofy catechism.
You’re trying to judge the Catholic Church based on what is missing from a few paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church but is nonetheless present throughout the rest of that Catechism.
Excellent points, imho.
reparation means to repair. Christ did not "repair" anything. He "replace" us.
Oh my goodness. I guess in your book Jesus is a one-trick pony. Specifically he cannot repair the relationship between God and Man because he atoned it. No possibility that atonement might be a kind of repair.
Further, in our language when we want to say "repair" we say, um "repair." In contrast to that, when Germany lost WWI we insisted that they pay "reparations." That does not mean that we asked them to 'repair" buildings and stuff. It means we exacted a penalty proportionate (we thought) to the damage they had done and the criminal motivation and nature of the war.
There was (and is) a penalty for disobedience. Jesus paid it. That's how we use the word reparation. We do not take our cars to the auto-reparation shop. It sounds ridiculous, it looks ridiculous, most people, seeing the little switch from the first complaint to a quibble about language will note the implicit admission that your first ridiculous accusation is weak, as anyone who looks in the CCC for more than 5 minutes could have seen without this waste of time.
When you see see clear and convincing proof that you are wrong, you just redefine the words. It's embarrassing to watch.
And the same with faults.
Your reading of the "No, man, not even the holiest ..." passage is frankly incredible, and just as embarrassing. The NEXT SENTENCE is:
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. Remember, You said we do not teach that IHS takes on himself the sins of the world. This asserts that because of his divine Nature Jesus WAS able to take on himself the sins of all men, the very thing you said we do NOT teach. So you are mistaken. And so you changed the subject to the union of two natures in one Christ. Embarrassing again.
There is NO denial in this statement of Jesus' humanity. Once again you are taking the impossibility of expressing everything in one sentence or even one paragraph as a pathetic excuse to trump up a bogus criticism of the Catechism. A person who REALLY WANTED to KNOW what the catechism said, who preferred knowledge to falsehoods and slander, would find out what we say about Christ's humanity, BEFORE he claimed we deny it.
No, Christ did not take the whole weight of "evil". He took on the whole weight of sin. There is a significant difference.
Of course there's a difference but the conclusion you draw is .... Nonsense again AND another attempt to change of subject! Sin is a subset of evil; non-sinful evil is a consequence of Adam's sin. IF Jesus took on the whole weight of evil, then he took on the whole weight of sin. It was the underlined part that you said we didn't teach. Now the objective observer will see that the CCC DOES teach it, and that this is an evasiionm of the point you brought up.
Is there some uncertainty about what an "instrument" is? Jesus makes atonement. An instrument with which he does so is His blood. You claimed we do not say Jesus makes atonement. This shows that statement to be wrong. The passage says he does so with the instrument of his blood.
So the unnecessary quote from Romans is not contradicted but rather confirmed by the quote you criticize.
YOu made some simple and simply false assertions about what the catechism said. They were a shade imprecise, but that's okay, precision takes time.
Now when it is obvious that the only way one could say the things you said is by avoiding reading the text, now we are picking nits about the relationship between evil and good. It won't do. And it's embarrassing to see such evasive arguments.
If you read the Catechism you would know that it is a manifestation of the Word of God in exactly the same manner and Apostolic Tradition, by the same process guided by the same Holy Spirit, and the same organization that brought the compendium you call the bible. Only ignorance and hubris would characterize a document you have never read as "silly".
I just noticed that there are two very similar conversations going along two different lines. To Harley and Petronski, I was asking that if Catholics believe Jesus atoned for our sins then why is confession necessary to get into Heaven? In 6168 Alex began his answer by saying that Catholicism holds that Jesus did in fact die for all of our sins everywhen, but that this atonement does not attach to the individual soul on a go-forward basis after baptism unless there is penance:
Alex: Christ has fully and completely atoned for any sin anyone has committed or will commit, big or small, confessed and absolved or not, cleansed in Purgatory or not. ....... Any penitential action one can do does not add to the atonement worked by Christ. That includes simple inward sorrow for a sin, outward sorrow expressed to others in words, restitution of material harm done, physical self-punishment or self-humiliation, prayers, pilgrimages and Bible studies, sacramental confession, reception of absolution, purgatorial cleansing, -- none of that makes the sin in question any better atoned for than it was atoned at Golgotha near 2,000 years ago. What these acts of penance do is apply the atonement to your soul.
My response got into justification by faith, etc.