Lero 1

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG
Home
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Penal Substitution is the key to understanding Protestant Evangelicalism.
Over at the CCC Blog I recently posted "Understanding Christ's Cry of Abandonment"
and I began by 'predicting' that by Good Friday we'd see a flood of posts from
well-educated Protestants (mostly Calvinist/Reformed) who were going to completely
botch the meaning of "My God, Why have you abandoned me?" And it turned out, a
number of Protestant outlets posted on precisely this.
As you read the following quotes, take note of how the Protestant understanding of
the Cross (Penal Substitution), in which they openly speak of "Christ being damned
to hell in our place," is directly linked to Justification by Faith Alone and is
the heart of the Gospel as Protestants understand it. So if you want to improve
your apologetics and dialogue with Protestants, you should be ready to talk about
this issue. Even the average Evangelical you run into believes this stuff, they
just don't realize this is what they're espousing with their "Just say the Sinner's
Prayer" theology.
And now the quotes from famous conservative Protestant ministry blogs (with my
highlights). Since it's about 2.5 pages of quotes, I have trimmed them only to cut
down on size:
How much did prayer cost God?

March 30, 2015 by Justin Taylor [The Gospel Coalition blog network],
[Quoting Reformed Pastor Tim Keller:] The only time in all the gospels that Jesus
Christ prays to God and doesn�t call him Father is on the cross, when he says, �My
God, my God, why have you forsaken me?� Jesus lost his relationship with the Father
so that we could have a relationship with God as father. Jesus Christ bore all the
eternal punishment that our sins deserve. That is the cost of prayer. Jesus paid
the price so God could be our father.
�My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?�
Mar 30, 2015 by Dr. Pastor Joel Beeke [Ligonier Ministries],
Experiencing the full brunt of His Father�s wrath, Jesus cannot stay silent. He
cries out: �My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?� Here Jesus descends into
the essence of hell, the most extreme suffering ever experienced. It is a time so
compacted, so infinite, so horrendous as to be incomprehensible and, seemingly,
unsustainable. All the sins of the elect, and the hell that they deserve for
eternity, are laid upon Him. With Jesus as our substitute, God�s wrath is satisfied
and God can justify those who believe in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). You are immune to
condemnation (Rom. 8:1) and to God�s anathema (Gal. 3:13) because Christ bore it
for you in that outer darkness.
This is a beautiful summary of the Protestant understanding of the Gospel. Jesus
died in our place, we accept this by Faith Alone, and we can never lose our
salvation.
Maundy Thursday Meditation: The Propitiation for Our Sins

April 2, 2015 by Dr Matthew Barrett
It is only when we realize that we, as sinners, stand condemned before God and
therefore deserve his eternal, unending wrath that we can even begin to comprehend
and appreciate the depth of the riches of God�s grace in Christ Jesus, the one who
bore the wrath we deserve on the cross. Yes, God is a God of wrath, and, yes, his
wrath burns hot against our sin. But the very fact that God poured out his wrath on
Christ instead of us was itself an act of love, mercy, and grace. Listen to all of
v.10 again: �In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.� Here we come to the very essence
of the gospel. We, as children of Adam, deserve his wrath for all eternity. But
God, out of his unfathomably love, sent his own Son to substitute himself and take
the wrath that was ours.
Gathered Up Godforsakenness
April 3, 2015 by Pastor Doug Wilson [well respected Protestant blogger],
The blow finally fell, and when it did Jesus cried out in a holy despair, quoting
Scripture, and it is still �my God, my God.� So Jesus was deserted in that moment,
so that you could come home. He was forsaken by His Father, so that you�born
forsaken�might be adopted by His Father. Jesus stepped, obediently and willingly,
into the abyss of godlessness so that you and I could step, obediently and
willingly, into the arms of the Father.
If Christ is not Raised
April 3, 2015 by Jeff Robinson [The Gospel Coalition blog network],
It is beyond comprehension: Jesus died in our place. He took upon himself the
Father�s wrath, which we richly deserved to bear. He kept the law of God perfectly
and laid down his life voluntarily, the innocent man serving the death sentence of
the criminals. By faith in the Christ who hung on that judgment tree we are
declared righteous.
Why Have You Forsaken Me?
April 3, 2015 by Donald Macleod [John Piper's official blog],
Like Abraham and Isaac going up to Mount Moriah, he and the Father had gone up to
Calvary together. But now Abba is not there. Only El is there: God All-mighty, God
All-holy. And he [Jesus] is before El, not now as his Beloved Son, but as the Sin
of the World. That is his identity: the character in which he stands before
Absolute Integrity. His mind could not be focused on all the facts at the same
time, and for the moment the pain, the divine anger and the fear of eternal
perdition occupy all his thoughts. Never before had anything come between him and
his Father, but now the sin of the whole world has come between them, and he is
caught in this dreadful vortex of the curse. Now, Jesus�s mind is near the limits
of its endurance. We, sitting in the gallery of history, are sure of the outcome.
He, suffering in human nature the fury of Hell, is not.
This is outrageous: Macleod is saying that the Father wasn't "father" to Jesus, but
rather only related to Jesus as "El" (the Hebrew name of God Almighty), so that
Jesus could be treated not as a Beloved Son, but rather something else. And this
was because 'sin came between them'. This is pure Trinitarian/Christological error.
6 Ways Jesus Experienced Hell When He Was on the Cross

March 27, 2015 by Colin Smith [on the Crosswalk.com Bible Study website],
Artists and poets have speculated over the centuries about hell, but the clearest
revelation of hell is given at the cross. The Apostle�s Creed affirms that Christ
descended into hell. While this has often been taken to refer to a journey Christ
made after his death, the Reformers understood it to refer to what Christ
experienced in the hours of darkness when he bore our sins and became our
sacrifice.
Hell is a place of �weeping and gnashing of teeth� (Luke 13:28; Matthew 13:50), and
Jesus entered into all of its pains and torments when he was suffering on the
cross. �From the sixth hour until the ninth hour, darkness came over all the land�
(Matthew 27:45). The sudden darkness tells us that something entirely new was
happening. Up to this point it had all been about physical suffering. Now Jesus was
entering into the heart of his atoning work as our sin-bearer, drinking the cup of
God�s wrath. To be our sin-bearer, Christ received in himself the hell that our
sins deserve. Jesus endured hell on the cross because hell is the punishment for
sin. All that hell is, he experienced right there during these hours of darkness in
which he bore our sin and endured our punishment.
He was separated from the knowledge of God�s love of God. This abandoning of Christ
meant that the love the Son had enjoyed with his Father for all eternity was now
beyond his reach. It also meant that the terrors of the Father�s judgment were
poured out on the Savior.
When people talk about hell, the discussion is often about whether or not it is
real. Hell is as real as the cross. Jesus entered all of hell�s dimensions on the
cross, and he endured them so that you would never know what hell is like. If
someone should say, �There is no hell,� I ask, �Then what was the cross about? Why
did Christ have to suffer? Why the darkness? Why the forsakenness? These things
happened because there is there is Divine wrath, there is judgment and there is
hell. All of this was poured out on Jesus, and he absorbed it in himself to save us
from it. But as Richard Sibbes says, �Whatsoever was done to Christ shall be done
to all that are outside of him.� That is as plain a statement as you can get, and
it is faithful to the Scriptures.
This is a good summary of how, in the Protestant mind, "the Gospel" is about being
saved from hell. It's not about being reconciled to God, but rather a cold business
transaction, where X is owed, so X is paid by a substitute.
A Petition to the Father

March 30, 2015 by John MacArthur,
As Christ hung there, He was bearing the sins of the world. He was dying as a
substitute for others. To Him was imputed the guilt of their sins, and He was
suffering the punishment for those sins on their behalf. And the very essence of
that punishment was the outpouring of God�s wrath against sinners. In some
mysterious way during those awful hours on the cross, the Father poured out the
full measure of His wrath against sin, and the recipient of that wrath was God�s
own beloved Son! In this lies the true meaning of the cross. Here�s what was
happening on the cross: God was punishing His own Son as if He had committed every
wicked deed done by every sinner who would ever believe. And He did it so that He
could forgive and treat those redeemed ones as if they had lived Christ�s perfect
life of righteousness. Scripture teaches this explicitly: �He made Him who knew no
sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in
Him� (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ died in our place and in our stead�and He
received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved
for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal man could spend all
eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the
divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of
Christ�s sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion�dreadful as
they were�were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him.
Dark Calvary
April 2015 by John D. Morris, Ph.D.,
Remarkably, even God the Father �despised� Him as He hung on the cross, for God is
holy, and for our sakes had �made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him� (2 Corinthians 5:21). The apex of
Christ�s suffering came, as we see in our text, when God the Father separated
Himself from His beloved Son, �forsaking� Christ to suffer for three hours the
awful pangs of hell which we deserved. So I�ll cherish the old rugged cross.
Did Jesus Suffer the Wrath of the Father for All Sinners?
Apr 04, 2015 by R.C. Sproul Junior.,
There is a third serious problem with the notion that Jesus died for all sins of
all people. Hell. If Jesus atoned for all sins, just for what are the sinners in
hell suffering? Those who seek to �protect� God�s integrity by arguing He must
treat us all the same end up, accidentally, affirming that God punishes the same
sins twice, once on Calvary and again in hell.
This is why so many Protestants believe salvation can never be lost: because if
Jesus already suffered the punishment in hell you deserved, then God can't send you
there to punish the same sin twice. And since not everyone is saved, this is where
Calvinists get the notion that Jesus didn't die for everyone, only a select few,
otherwise everyone would be saved if Jesus took the punishment of every single
person.
Christ's Death: His Willingness

April 2, 2015 by Mark Jones [Reformation 21 Blog],
The charge of cosmic child abuse to those who hold to penal substitution is a gross
misunderstanding of what Reformed theologians have actually taught. Child abuse has
in view a child who is unwilling to receive excessive and brutal punishment. But in
the life of Christ, we see perfect willingness to obey the command of the Father,
and so remain in his love by offering himself up.
I'm sure it wasn't his intention to convey this, but this comes across as saying
child abuse is acceptable if the child is willing to accept it.
Posted by Nick at 3:08 PM
Labels: Apologetics, Imputation, Justification, Passive Obedience, Penal
Substitution, Protestantism, Reformed, Sola Fide
179 comments:
Wesley Rostoll said...
I grew up a Protestant and was taught the Penal substitution view of atonement
which I rejected about six or so years ago. I am pleased to discover that Catholics
do not teach what is a gross misrepresentation of our Father. These days I
understand atonement as it is explained through the Christus Victor model. I am
curious as to what the Catholic position is on atonement?
April 5, 2015 at 2:06 AM

Mark T said...
WOW!! How un-scriptural their beliefs are.
Thanks for posting!
April 5, 2015 at 8:31 AM

Nick said...
Wesley,
The Catholic View of Atonement is according to the Biblical Definition of

Atonement, which this article talks about:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/atonement-according-to-scripture-more.html
And once you read that, this is a more in-depth article:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/04/does-catholic-view-of-christs-
atonement.html
April 5, 2015 at 2:45 PM

Nick said...
Thanks for your comments!
April 5, 2015 at 2:48 PM

E.J. Cassidy said...
Hi Nick,
I just read your post on CCC.
As Michael has stated, your interpretation of the cry of abandonment is strictly

speculative.
Rather than engage in personal interpretation, don't you think you should check to
see if there is any official intepretation of the cry of abandonement of Jesus on
the Cross?
There is.
From the Catechism, paragraph 603:
Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.405 But in the
redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of
our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in
solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us
all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".
(Merriam-Webster defines reprobation as �the state of being condemned strongly as

unworthy, unacceptable or evil, or foreordained to damnation.�)
The paragraph does not state that Jesus did NOT experience reprobation. If it
wanted to say that, all the author had to write was, �Jesus did not suffer
reprobation.�
The Catechism is qualifying the reprobation that our Lord experienced:
� It was not for any sins of His own because He was sinless
� He remained in union with the Father
� The motivation was love not wrath
� His cry of �My God, My God�� was said in our name because of His assumption of
our sins
I am not out of line in suggesting this interpretation of paragraph 603. In defense

I will quote Pope St. John Paul II from his letter Salvific Doloris:
Even more than this description of the passion, what strikes us in the words of the
prophet is the depth of Christ's sacrifice. Behold, He, though innocent, takes upon
Himself the sufferings of all people, because He takes upon Himself the sins of
all. "The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all": all human sin in its
breadth and depth becomes the true cause of the Redeemer's suffering. If the
suffering "is measured" by the evil suffered, then the words of the prophet enable
us to understand the extent of this evil and suffering with which Christ burdened
Himself. It can be said that this is "substitutive" suffering; but above all it is
"redemptive." The Man of Sorrows of that prophecy is truly that "Lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the world."[42] In His suffering, sins are canceled out
precisely because He alone as the only-begotten Son could take them upon Himself,
accept them with that love for the Father which overcomes the evil of every sin; in
a certain sense He annihilates this evil in the spiritual space of the relationship
between God and humanity, and fills this space with good.
After the words in Gethsemane come the words uttered on Golgotha, words which bear
witness to this depth unique in the history of the world--of the evil of the
suffering experienced. When Christ says: "My God, my God, why have you abandoned
me?", His words are not only an expression of that abandonment which many times
found expression in the Old Testament, especially in the psalms and in particular
in that Psalm 22(21) from which come the words quoted. One can say that these words
on abandonment are born at the level of that inseparable union of the Son with the
Father, and are born because the Father "laid on him the iniquity of us all." They
also foreshadow the words of St. Paul: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew
no sin." Together with this horrible weight, encompassing the "entire" evil of the
turning away from God which is contained in sin, Christ, through the divine depth
of His filial union with the Father, perceives in a humanly inexpressible way this
suffering which us the separation, the rejection by the Father, the estrangement
from God. But precisely through this suffering He accomplishes the Redemption, and
can say as He breathes His last: "It is finished."
April 6, 2015 at 10:33 AM
Keith Watson said...
Wesley,
I am also a Protestant who has abandoned Penal Substitution. In my efforts to learn

the Gospel I tried to prove Penal Substitution as it was being explained by people
I listened to and read. This is the analogy I found. If you look at 100 verses, if
5 of them sound like payment of debt, and 95 of the contradict payment of debt,
then maybe "payment of debt" in our place (penal substitution) is not the right
theory.
(I still hold to the doctrines of Grace and to imputed righteousness.)
If you have read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor then the Catholic position is
Satisfaction, as Nick states in the first link he mentioned to you.
April 6, 2015 at 12:16 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
April 6, 2015 at 12:19 PM
Nick,
Once I no longer follow Penal Substitution it is amazing to see all of these

quotations gathered together. It shows what happens when people approach the Bible
with preconceived ideas of what God's Word says.
April 6, 2015 at 12:20 PM

Joey Henry said...
The RC Church did not canonize a single view of the atonement. This is because it
is a fact. Vatican II came so close to canonizing one view, Psub was the most
likely candidate rather than the Ransom Theory. Bishop Robert Murray, SJ wrote:
�Together with this text the commission slipped in another, �On Guarding the
Deposit of Faith in its Purity� which aimed to raise to the level of dogmatic
anathemas some criticisms of theological trends expressed in the encyclical Humani
generis of Pius XII (1950), and to define as dogma a �penal substitution� theory of
the Atonement, a mystery on which Catholic tradition has always declined to
canonize one theory.� (Symposium at the Fortieth Anniversary of Vaticall II,
Vatican II and the Bible, accessed online)
Currently, Psub has not been formally condemned as a heresy. It co-exist with
earlier patristic theory such as the Ransom theory and Satisfaction theory of
Anselm. An RC is not condemned for holding these theories although modern RC
theologians would say these are deficient theories. This is the reason why there
are RC writers who espouse such view as Psub. It exist side by side with other
theories.
Unlike your opinion that it's heresy, these works have Imprimatur. For example:
�The Eternal Father had already determined to save man who had fallen through sin,
and to deliver him from eternal death. At the same time He willed that Divine
Justice should not be deprived of a worthy and fitting satisfaction. And so He did
not spare the life of His Son who had already become man to redeem men, but willed
that He should pay with the utmost rigor the penalty which all men deserved. He who
has not spared even His own Son, but has delivered Him for us all [Romans 8:32].�
(Alphonso Ligouri, Glories of Mary, accessed online)
�It seems impossible for God to solve the dilemma of justice versus mercy, but we
know from the Gospel account how he does it. The problem is that he cannot, it
seems, do both; he must either exact the just penalty for sin � death � or not.
Mercy seems a relaxation of justice, and justice a refusal of mercy. Either you
punish or you don�t. The laws of logic seem to prevent God from being both just and
merciful at the same time� God solves this dilemma on Calvary. Full justice is
done: sinis punished with the very punishment of hell itself � being forsaken of
God (Mt 27:46). But Mercy and forgiveness are also enacted.� (Peter Kreeft and
Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics).
Now, there are faithful Catholics who also shares the view I have such as the
website AskACatholic.com. In a question that Joe Mark asks whether Kreeft and
Tacelli�s Psub theory is condemned by the Church, the lay apologist answered:
�I do not think the Church has every officially accepted some explanations while
rejecting others� but I don�t think, properly understood, the Church has ever
condemned it�
(www.askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2012JanlsThisTeachingRejected.cfm)
April 7, 2015 at 3:38 AM

Joey Henry said...
Thomas Aquinas in his exposition of the Apostle�s Creed regarding Christ Descent
into Hell, he wrote:
�There are four reasons why Christ together with His soul descended to the
underworld. First, He wished to take upon Himself the entire punishment for our
sin, and thus atone for its entire guilt. The punishment for the sin of man was not
alone death of the body, but there was also a punishment of the soul, since the
soul had its share in sin; and it was punished by being deprived of the beatific
vision; and as yet no atonement had been offered whereby this punishment would be
taken away. Therefore, before the coming of Christ all men, even the holy fathers
after their death, descended into the underworld. Accordingly in order to take upon
Himself most perfectly the punishment due to sinners, Christ not only suffered
death, but also His soul descended to the underworld. He, however, descended for a
different cause than did the fathers; for they did so out of necessity and were of
necessity taken there and detained, but Christ descended there of His own power and
free will: �I am counted among them that go down to the pit; I am become as a man
without help, free among the dead� [Ps 87:5 Vulgate]. The others were there as
captives, but Christ was freely there.� (Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum,
translated by Joseph Collins).
Now, I have already quoted Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in the previous post who
shared also Aquinas� insight. Actually, these two theologians also would emphasize
that Christ descent was triumphalistic in nature but did not shy away in saying
that part of the process is Christ taking upon himself the punishment of sin which
is not only limited to the death of the body. These are two pre reformation
theologians.
Now let�s go to three theologians, two Popes and a Swiss RC theologian who also
have some insight on the nature of the suffering of Christ. Hans Ur Balthasar is a
very influential theologian in the 20th century. Yet, it is well known that his
insights regarding the descent of Christ in Hell sparked some intramural debates
among RC theologians. Balthasar followed Nicholas of Cusa and Aquinas in his view
of Christ suffering in Hell in which he experienced what it means to be abandoned
by God in the sinners behalf. He notes that:
�Maximus the Confessor, taking up the ideas of Diadochusand Evagrius, lists four
kinds of God-abandonment: first, that found in Christ, in the context of the
economy of salvation; where �by apparent abandonment the abandoned imposed as a
test; thirdly, that which is sent for the purposes of purification; fourthly, the
kind of abandonment with constitutes a punishment, on the grounds of turning away
from God, as with the Jews. All four types serve the work of salvation.� (Mysterium
Paschale: The Mystery of Easter, accessed online).
He then parallel these experiences to common people and saints then concludes,
�But all experiences of night in both Old and New Testaments are at best
approaches, distant allusions to the inaccessible mystery of the Cross � so unique
is the Son of God, so unique is his abandonment by the Father.� (Ibid).
April 7, 2015 at 3:40 AM

Joey Henry said...
Now, you might think that this kind of tradition is scant but two Popes, Benedict
and John Paul II, also expresses the same theme that the suffering of Christ is not
merely physical. Pope John Paul II also expresses the theme that the God-
abandonment event is not only limited to physical death but to Christ suffering of
his soul in solidarity with sinful men.
�In the sphere of feelings and affection this sense of the absence and abandonment
by God was the most acute pain for the soul of Jesus who drew his strength and joy
from union with the Father. This pain rendered all the other sufferings more
intense. That lack of interior consolation was Jesus' greatest agony.
�However, Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the
intimate core of his being, he completed the work of reparation which was the
purpose of his sacrifice for the expiation of sins. If sin is separation from God,
Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering
proportionate to that separation.� (My God, My God Why Have you Foresaken Me,
General Audience, November 30, 1988)
Ratzinger also views the Descent of Christ in Hell as a suffering of emptiness. He

wrote:
�Christ descends into hell and suffers it in all its emptiness... That Cross throws
light upon our theme from two directions. First, it teaches that God himself
suffered and died. Evil is not, then, something unreal for him. For the God who is
love, hatred is not nothing. He overcomes evil, but not by some dialectic of
universal reason which can transform all negations into affirmations. God overcomes
evil not in a �speculative Godd Friday,� to use the language of Hegel, but on a
Good Friday which was most real. He himself entered into the distinctive freedom of
sinners but went beyond it in theat freedom of his own love which descended
willingly into the Abyss... Jesus� descent into Sheol, in the night of the soul
which suffered, a night which no one can observe except by entering this darkness
in suffering faith.� (Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, p. 216-217).
April 7, 2015 at 3:42 AM
Joey Henry said...
With this in mind, the atonement in Catholic tradition is not only limited to
physical pain and death. After Jesus died, there are pious opinions which is
accepted and not declared as heresy that the soul of Christ suffered in a place
they call �hell� in solidarity with sinful man. John Paul II writing in one of his
apostolic letters:
�The intensity of the episode of the agony in the Garden of Olives passes before
our eyes. Oppressed by foreknowledge of the trials that await him, and alone before
the Father, Jesus cries out to him in his habitual and affectionate expression of
trust: "Abba, Father". He asks him to take away, if possible, the cup of suffering
(cf. Mk 14:36). But the Father seems not to want to heed the Son's cry. In order to
bring man back to the Father's face, Jesus not only had to take on the face of man,
but he had to burden himself with the "face" of sin. "For our sake he made him to
be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2
Cor 5:21). .. Jesus' cry on the Cross, dear Brothers and Sisters, is not the cry of
anguish of a man without hope, but the prayer of the Son who offers his life to the
Father in love, for the salvation of all. At the very moment when he identifies
with our sin, "abandoned" by the Father, he "abandons" himself into the hands of
the Father. His eyes remain fixed on the Father. Precisely because of the knowledge
and experience of the Father which he alone has, even at this moment of darkness he
sees clearly the gravity of sin and suffers because of it. He alone, who sees the
Father and rejoices fully in him, can understand completely what it means to resist
the Father's love by sin. More than an experience of physical pain, his Passion is
an agonizing suffering of the soul. Theological tradition has not failed to ask how
Jesus could possibly experience at one and the same time his profound unity with
the Father, by its very nature a source of joy and happiness, and an agony that
goes all the way to his final cry of abandonment. The simultaneous presence of
these two seemingly irreconcilable aspects is rooted in the fathomless depths of
the hypostatic union.� (NOVO MILLENNIO INEUNTE, accessed online)
April 7, 2015 at 3:43 AM

Joey Henry said...
In conclusion, Nick always gave the idea that the reformed teaches that Christ was
the recepient of God's wrath toward sin at the cross. Indeed we do teach it
unapologetically. What he forgets is the other side of the coin. We also teach that
although Christ bore our sin and that God's wrath fell on him as the sin bearer,
that no union or love between the Son and the Father was ever destroyed or
diminished. The perfection of their union was never assailed or defeated at the cry
of forsakeness but evermore defended and upheld. God judged sin in Christ but at
the same time defended Christ. God forsakes Christ as the sin bearer but at the
same time united himself in Christ such that God was in Christ reconciling the
world to himself. This is the ultimate mystery of the cross... two irreconcilable
proposition affirmed together in Christ's being the Holy God and being the Lamb of
God who bears the iniquity of us all. John Piper whom ypu often times quoted also
said this:
"But I think another part of the answer must also be that the depth of the Son�s
suffering was the measure of his love for the Father�s glory. It was the Father�s
righteous allegiance to his own name that made recompense for sin necessary. And so
when the Son willingly took the suffering of that recompense on himself, every
footfall on the way to Calvary echoed through the universe with this message: the
glory of God is of infinite value!
And so when the Father forsook the Son and handed him over to the curse of the
cross and lifted not a finger to spare him pain, he had not ceased to love the Son.
In that very moment when the Son was taking upon himself everything that God hates
in us, and God was forsaking him to death, even then the Father knew that the
measure of his Son�s suffering was the depth of his Son�s love for the Father�s
glory, and in that love the Father took deepest pleasure.
Jesus said in John 10:15, 17, �I lay down my life for the sheep . . . For this
reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.�
And he prayed in John 17:4, �Father, I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished
the work which thou gavest me to do.�
No reformed will ever affirm that the Son and the Father's love or union was ever
destroyed or diminished for they are the very power that allowed Christ to bear the
penalty of sin -- Hell itself -- separation from God. No mortal can experience Hell
and yet remain united with the Father. Only the God-man can... Jesus Christ!
April 7, 2015 at 4:33 AM

Good work, Joey, I'm a deacon candidate and will be ordained next month. We were
taught in Soteriology that Penal Substitution is one aspect of the Atonement, along
with Satisfaction, Ransom and Sacrifice.
If one reads the section of the Catechism dealing with the death of our Lord in
light of John Paul II's teaching, it becomes very clear that Penal Substitution is
a legitimate aspect of the Atonement.
April 7, 2015 at 10:21 AM
Joey Henry said...
God bless you and may you follow the Lord in your local church faithful to his
Word. The catechism indeed does not eliminate Psub. In fact, it is advocating it.
602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of
salvation in this way: �You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your
fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish
or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest
at the end of the times for your sake.� Man�s sins, following on original sin, are
punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of
a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God �made him to be sin who knew no sin, so
that in him we might become the righteousness of God.�
603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the
�My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?� Having thus established him in
solidarity with us sinners, God �did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us
all�, so that we might be �reconciled to God by the death of his Son�.
In these two statements, it is clear that Christ assumed us in the state of our
waywardness of sin. It also says that God established Christ in solidarity (or in
unity) with us sinners. These acts, according to the catechism, allowed the Son to
say IN OUR NAME from the cross: �My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?� � the
reprobation we deserve as sinners.
April 7, 2015 at 5:39 PM

Joey Henry said...
God bless you and may you follow the Lord in your local church faithful to his
Word. The catechism indeed does not eliminate Psub. In fact, it is advocating it.
602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of
salvation in this way: �You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your
fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish
or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest
at the end of the times for your sake.� Man�s sins, following on original sin, are
punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of
a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God �made him to be sin who knew no sin, so
that in him we might become the righteousness of God.�
603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the
�My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?� Having thus established him in
solidarity with us sinners, God �did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us
all�, so that we might be �reconciled to God by the death of his Son�.
In these two statements, it is clear that Christ assumed us in the state of our
waywardness of sin. It also says that God established Christ in solidarity (or in
unity) with us sinners. These acts, according to the catechism, allowed the Son to
say IN OUR NAME from the cross: �My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?� � the
reprobation we deserve as sinners.
April 7, 2015 at 5:40 PM

Joey, it was o good, you had to say it twice!.....Peace to you, E.J.
April 7, 2015 at 7:43 PM

Nick said...
EJ,
I have addressed your post here:
http://www.creedcodecult.com/part-ii-understanding-christs-cry-of-abandonment/
April 8, 2015 at 6:21 PM

Nick said...
Other comments will have to wait till tomorrow, I'm too busy tonight.
April 8, 2015 at 6:22 PM

Joey Henry said...
Here is a complete article of Psub also found in Rcism:
http://thessalonians516.blogspot.co.nz/2015/04/penal-substitution-and-roman-
catholicism.html
April 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM

De Maria said...
Joey Henry said...
Thomas Aquinas in his exposition of the Apostle�s Creed regarding Christ Descent
into Hell, he wrote:
OK. Let's start with this one.
Where does that say that God the Father poured out His wrath upon the Son?
That is a necessary part of P. Sub, isn't it?
The fact that the Son took upon Himself our punishment is Catholic Doctrine. The
objectionable part of P. Sub is that you have the Father punishing His innocent Son
for sins He did not commit.
So, show me where St. Thomas Aquinas said that the Father poured out His wrath upon
His innocent Son.
April 12, 2015 at 2:33 PM

Joey Henry said...
De Maria, I answered your question in my blog. See link above. Thanks.
April 13, 2015 at 1:42 PM

Nick said...
Joey,
You might have missed it, but I actually did address all your claims on my post
from a year ago where I addressed "Does the Catholic view permit Penal
Substitution?"
I specifically addressed the Christ descending into Hell as taught by Nicholas of

Cusa and Aquinas in the Comment Box on that post.
April 14, 2015 at 8:54 AM
Nick said...
Joey,
Here are my brief thoughts to the multiple posts you have made here and the blog
post you made from them. As noted above, I have basically addressed all these
issues, so that�s why I�ll be brief.
(1) It is misleading, even erroneous, to say the Catholic Church doesn�t have a
single view of the atonement. It gives the impression there is wishy-washyness in
the Catholic view, which there isn�t. The **Protestant notion** of Penal
Substitution is not endorsed at all by any Catholic, especially any Magisterial or
Patristic source. Your quote from Bishop Murray is too brief to know precisely what
he was talking about, since I doubt he was using the phrase �penal substitution� in
the way it�s understood by Protestants.
You *must* understand that out level of discussion must go beyond the semantic
level, otherwise we are talking past each other. For example, when Catholic sources
speak of Christ suffering our �punishment�, this does not at all necessitate Psub
in the Protestant sense (of Christ receiving the Father�s wrath in our place).
(2) Most, if not all, of the Catholic sources you cite do nothing for your case.
Your Peter Kreeft and AskACatholic sources are quite weak, because these men (while
good Catholics), were clearly not up to speed with the Church�s teachings and
traditions on this matter. Kreeft was originally a Protestant, so certain vestiges
of Protestant thought still carried over.
(3) I have addressed your Nicholas of Cusa and Aquinas quotes last year, as noted
in my prior post above. They are strictly speaking of the line in the Creed where
it says Christ descended into hell, which *strictly* refers to Christ�s soul
descending to *Hades*, and this taking place *after* Christ died. This is
abundantly clear if you know what to look for. So nothing to do with Jesus being
�damned in our place� as Protestants teach. One of the punishments of original sin
was physical death, the separation of soul and body, which meant that after someone
died, their soul separated and went somewhere. One place was Hades, which included
the Saints and Sinners of Old Testament times. Jesus only went there on Holy
Saturday and only for the Saints. He was not suffering hellfire there. Jesus
underwent the humiliation/punishment of having to go to Hades (not hellfire).
So it is a **huge error** to read Cusa/Aquinas as advocating Christ was �damned in

our place,� since they meant something **very different** when they spoke of Christ
�descending into hell/Hades�.
(4) Regarding your Papal quotes, I have dealt with these as well, see my most
recent post at Creed Code Cult, which I also linked to earlier in response to
EJCassidy. I tracked down many quotes where JP2 and B16 talk about Christ�s Cry of
Abandonment and how they explain it. It has nothing to do with suffering the
Father�s wrath. Your quotes suffer from the fallacy of equivocation, in which you
see a word and assume it means one thing, when in fact the Catholic theologian is
using it in an entirely different manner.
So, really, you have not even scratched the surface of the Atonement issue. You
have misunderstood all the Magisterial sources you quoted.
April 14, 2015 at 9:35 AM

Nick,
I am a deacon candidate and will be ordained next month. As a candidate, I have

taken formal studies in theology. Penal Substitution is one aspect of the
Atonement. It is NOT in opposition to Satisfaction. We were taught this in our
formal studies.
Ludwig Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that Jesus took our sins
upon Himself on the Cross as the Lamb of God, a fact which you deny and which you
stated to me that you weren't aware of Ott's quote.
The Catechism states that Jesus cry from the Cross was said in our name, after He
had assumed our sins on the Cross.
I quoted a noted Catechism expert from Fordham University, a Jesuit priest with a
national radio show on the Catechism, that Jesus exactly did take our sins upon
Himself on the Cross and He did experience an abandonment, and that the Catechism
states this as such.
But, you ignore these. You seem to be on one track.
You may be able to convince some Catholics that there is only ONE view of the
Atonement that is acceptable to the Church, but I know that this is not so, and it
seems Joey knows this, too.
April 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM

Nick said...
Hello EJ,
May I ask you what your 'textbooks' are? I'm curious as to where you've heard PSub
is taught/allowed.
Also, maybe this is a terminology problem, maybe the term "penal substitution" is
causing confusion here. What I'm most especially out to show is not Catholic is the
idea that Jesus underwent the Father's Divine Wrath, especially in a spiritual
sense and one in which leads Protestants to say Jesus was "damned in our place".
Do you know of any Catholic theologians or sources who have come anywhere close to
speaking with the "Jesus was damned to hell" frankness of these Protestant
theologians?
April 14, 2015 at 11:54 AM

Joey Henry said...
Hello,
Nick I know of Hans Ur Balthazar whose work is endorsed by Jospeh Ratzinger and
have the Imprimatur of the church. The Theo Drama IV of Hans Ur Balthazar. Kreeft
book has the Imprimatur of the church and he wrote the book as a Catholic. I would
assume that if these works have greater weight than you.
You raise the equivocation argument as if the term Psub is not a well established
defined theory in theology. But this isn't the case.
Your oft repeated taken out of context argument that the RCC does not teach that
the Son poured out his wrath on him is obviously correct and incorrect at the same
time. Context on how these statement are made is key as I've explained in this blog
and my blog in responding to De Maria who parroted your arguments here.
Your main argument in interpreting the teaching of JPII, B16 and the CCC on the
Psub as merely a participatory in nature and for a Role Model purpose in dealing
with suffering is surely deficient. Psub theorists do not deny the participatory
nature of his suffering nor his role model purpose at the cross. They are rather
complementary. To argue that since JPII, B16 teaches these two aspects to the
denial of Psub is simply illogical.
There is indeed a clear teaching of the Magisterium regarding the atonement. It is

not the exclusion of Psub. Rather the Magisterium allowed all views to be discussed
and incorporated in pondering the depth of the atonement... Ransom Theory,
Satisfaction Theory, Christus Victor and Psub. No one theory can explain the
atonement. All are needed and that is the reason why V2 declined to canonized one
view.
Regards,
Joey
April 14, 2015 at 3:10 PM

Nick said...
Joey,
Your "case" is not very convincing and seems more driven by desperation than
genuine openness to understand the Catholic position.
Appealing to an imprimatur is really the lowest level of appeal you can make in
Catholic theology. An imprimatur is basically the local bishop saying nothing in
the book is blatantly contrary to the faith, which is a far cry from a detailed
Magisterial pronouncement on a work. In fact, as publishing as increased, the
imprimatur has lost its prestige as the Bishop has had to delegate more of the work
out.
You've got to realize that Balthazar and especially Kreeft are really at the bottom
of the totem pole of Catholic theological authority. This isn't Protestantism where
you and the plowboy are just as good as Calvin and Luther.
Further, it seems that Balthazar is simply speaking of Christ's Descent into Hades
as it has always been taught by the Catholic Church, though he might have used more
colorful language. The separation of body and soul was indeed a punishment due to
Adam's sin, which included the post-mortem humiliation of sending of the soul to
Hades. Jesus didn't suffer this as "God's Wrath" in the Protestant sense, nor did
Jesus decend into Hades *in our place* sincethe OT Saints were in fact sent there.
Kreeft is laity and was not writing a theological treatise in that comment, but
rather making a brief claim which clearly lacked the knowledge/precision of mature
Catholic thought on this matter.
You have nowhere provided a compelling case, and indeed you seem to brush off any
case I make (and I do in fact use lots of compelling evidence).
April 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM

Nick said...
Joey,
If you cannot make the simple distinction between:
(1) Jesus' soul descending into Hades after His death.
AND
(2) The Father pouring out His eternal Wrath upon Jesus while still alive on the
Cross.
Then you've completely misunderstood the Catholic position and have projected
Protestant assumptions onto Catholic theology. Those are two different issues.
The Catholic tradition has spoken a lot of #1, including those quotes from Cusa and
Aquinas, while saying nothing on #2.
You have given no indication you acknowledge there is a distinction between #1 and
#2.
April 15, 2015 at 10:31 AM

Joey Henry said...
Nick,
I think it is not helpful if you engage in ad hominem attacks against Kreeft and
Balthasar. To be frank these are not sideline theologians. They are well respected
theologians of top calibre. They have ecclesiastical backing on them while you
don't have any of their credentials.
Your challenge was originally to provide any catholic that holds to Psub. I gave
two. Not just ordinary catholics but theologians with doctorate degrees and
ecclesiastical positions. Rather than speculate what Balthasar believed in the
descent of Christ in Hell, why don't you read Theo Drama IV? The book is endorsed
by Joseph Ratzinger by the way. You'll see in p. 345 to 349 that Balthasar believes
that Christ did suffer divine wrath on account of his being the Sin Bearer.
Finally, I do understand your two statements. They are not the same of course but
related. Thomas argued that Christ has to descend locally in sheol (Ratzinger's
term) to take the full punishment of sin. The saints in Sheol lack beatific vision
on account of sin. Christ has to descend there to liberate them triumphantly. But
in doing so, he also took their punishment as he experienced also their state as
the Second Adam. Having assumed their state, the debt was paid and there is no
reason why they will not be granted beatific vision. This is a case of selective
substitution as it is only for the saints who still lack beatific vision. Balthasar
would argue that the suffering of Christ is not only selective but even for the
damned. Thus, the substance of his descent includes all that hell deserves
inclusive of divine wrath for the reprobates sins not just the saints sins
What's the point here? Thomas argued the necessity of punishment of sin. That
punishment is borne out of God's righteous wrath against sin. Christ took our
punishment. If so, he experienced in our behalf God's righteous indignation of sin.
Christ is not the direct object of God's wrath and never will be. Bit as Christ is
the sin bearer, he experienced what sinners experienced on account of their sin.
There is no one on one correspondence of course of Christ's experience. Thomas
argued for the substance only of that punishment. JPII explained it well like this:
The last sentence should be the main point.
Regards,
Joey
April 15, 2015 at 3:20 PM

Joey,
I have that General Audience of JPII but it is only available in Italian and
Spanish on the Vatican Web site. When you run it through a translator, it doesn't
come out in "perfect" English. Do you happen to have the whole Audience in English,
or is this just a snippet?
"If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union
with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.�
That line certainly is devastating to Nick's thesis, isn't it?
EJ
April 16, 2015 at 8:41 AM

Nick said...
Joey,
It is not ad hominem for me to say a Catholic theologian is in error, even if I

include possible motives of why they were wrong. Kreeft is virtually alone in what
he said, with no major theologian I know of endorsing such views. This fact itself
indicates that what he is saying is not a traditionally accepted understanding of
the atonement. As I noted, he is on the bottom of the authority totem-pole for
Catholic theology, so any further appeals to him are more a sign of desperation
than anything. And if you think they are of top caliber, then you clearly have no
idea of the wealth of knowledge the Canonized Saints and Doctors of the Church
offer us. This level of argumentation is not something I'm interested in, since
it's akin to me finding a Reformed pastor with dubious claims and using his PhD
credentials to 'refute' you.
As for Balthasar's Theo Drama IV, I'm not going to spend $35 on a book I'm not
really interested in, especially when I have no reason to doubt Balthasar
substantially deviates from the traditional/orthodox understanding of Christ
Descending into Hades.
As for the Catholic understanding of the Descent, you still don't seem to be
understanding it properly. The only sense in which it was a punishment and wrath is
in the broad sense that as a consequence for Adam's sin, God allowed the human body
to be subject to suffering, decay and especially separation of body and soul. So
when Aquinas and such speak of Jesus taking our full punishment, it merely means
that in descending into Hades, Jesus suffered the worst of the natural consequences
of Adam's sin. But clearly this was not 'taking the punishment we deserved in our
place', since the OT Saints were indeed sent to Hades. You don't seem to realize
this. Furthermore, Aquinas is clear that Christ's atoning work *ended* upon death
and did not continue into Hades. Christ was not making atonement in Hades in any
sense; so it's nonsense to think Christ was substituting Himself in Hades for us in
some judicial sense.
The JP2 quote you give is a distorted understanding of what JP2 was saying. Nowhere
is God's wrath mentioned or any of the typical Protestant descriptions of PSub
mentioned here. Rather, we read:
If Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, he knew however that that was not really so.
Speaking of his future passion he said, "I am not alone, for the Father is with me"
(Jn 16:32). Jesus had the clear vision of God and the certainty of his union with
the Father dominant in his mind. But in the sphere bordering on the senses, and
therefore more subject to the impressions, emotions and influences of the internal
and external experiences of pain, Jesus' human soul was reduced to a wasteland. He
no longer felt the presence of the Father, but he underwent the tragic experience
of the most complete desolation.
Here one can sketch a summary of Jesus' psychological situation in relationship to

God. The external events seemed to manifest the absence of the Father who permitted
the crucifixion of his Son, though having at his disposal "legions of angels" (cf.
Mt 26:53), without intervening to prevent his condemnation to death and execution.
In the praetorium Pilate had repeatedly tried wily maneuvers to save him (cf. Jn
18:31, 38 f.; 19:4-6, 12-15); but the Father was silent. That silence of God
weighed on the dying Jesus as the heaviest pain of all, so much so that his enemies
interpreted that silence as a sign of his reprobation: "He trusted in God; let God
deliver him now" (Mt 27:43).
The abandonment is described in terms of "the silence of God," which is the theme
elsewhere as well in JP2's comments on this matter. This is nothing like Jesus
being "damned in our place" or suffering the full wrath of hell. None of that.
April 16, 2015 at 8:57 AM
Nick said...
And while JP2 was giving that same series on Christ�s work, a few weeks later he
spoke on Christ�s Descent into Hell, and here is what he said:
�It should also be mentioned that the word "hell" does not mean the hell of eternal
damnation, but the abode of the dead which is sheol in Hebrew and hades in Greek
(cf. Acts 2:31). The formula is derived from numerous New Testament texts. The
first is found in the Apostle Peter's discourse on Pentecost. Referring to Psalm 16
to confirm the announcement of Christ's resurrection which it contains, Peter
stated that the prophet David "foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,
that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption" (Acts 2:31).
The Apostle Paul's question in the Letter to the Romans has a similar meaning:
"'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)"
(Rom 10:7).
With the entrance of Christ's soul into the beatific vision in the bosom of the
Trinity, the "freeing from imprisonment" of the just who had descended to the realm
of the dead before Christ, finds its point of reference and explanation. Through
Christ and in Christ there opens up before them the definitive freedom of the life
of the Spirit, as a participation in the life of God (cf. Summa Theol., III, q. 52,
a. 6). This is the truth that can be drawn from the biblical texts quoted and which
is expressed in the article of the creed which speaks of the "descent into hell."
Nothing in that whole homily had even the slightest mention of God�s wrath and
Jesus suffering in our place regarding the Decent into Hades.
April 16, 2015 at 8:57 AM
Nick said...
EJ,
The links for those JP2 General Audience quotes are embedded in my two prior
comments.
The only sense in which they speak of Jesus sharing in our sufferings in in the
sense that Jesus shared in our fallen human condition...NOTHING about sin/guilt
being imputed to Jesus and NOTHING about Jesus being seen as a sinnner/guilty in
our place, and NOTHING about the Father's wrath.
April 16, 2015 at 9:01 AM
Nick,
Let�s start with what you chose not to respond to in my post, my comment about
Ludwig Ott. You have stated in the past that Jesus did not take on Himself the sins
of all humanity. I believe you stated quite dogmatically that Jesus only �bore� our
sins as High Priest, but not as the Lamb of God, the Lamb of Sacrifice. He did not
bear our sins as the Lamb of Sacrifice and atone for them.
But, I found this quite in Ott�s classic, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, under the
De Fide statement, Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a true and proper
sacrifice.
�St. John the Baptist, the last of the Prophets, following Isaias, sees in Christ
the Lamb of Sacrifice, who took on Himself the sins of all mankind, in order to
atone for them. John 1:29: �Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the
world.�
Remember that you stated in the past that Ott, along with Aquinas, did all the
�heavy lifting� when it comes to defining the atonement. Well, just how did Jesus
atone for our sins by taking them onto Himself as the Lamb of Sacrifice?
John Paul II�s tells us in his General Audience of 11/30/88: "If sin is separation
from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a
suffering proportionate to that separation.� Hence the cry, �My God, My God, why
have You abandoned Me?� The late Pontiff goes way beyond what you claim the cry
means.
Merriam-Webster defines damnation this way: the state of being in hell as

punishment after death.
Merriam-Webster defines wrath this way: strong vengeful anger, or retributory

punishment for an offense or a crime, or divine chastisement.
The Catechism in Paragraph 1057 states, �Hell's principal punishment consists of

eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for
which he was created and for which he longs.�
So eternal damnation is eternal separation from God. To experience the wrath of God
would be to experience being separated from Him, which is the punishment of hell.
Being damned to hell is being damned to eternal separation from God.
JPII clearly states that Jesus experienced this separation while on the Cross and
that it is a mystery, a mystery related to the Hypostatic Union. When he made this
statement, he went way beyond��read it again, way beyond�.just taking on our fallen
condition.
"If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union
with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.�
It is so clear and so devastating to your stated interpretative opinion.

April 16, 2015 at 11:53 AM
Nick,
You said: �May I ask you what your 'textbooks' are? I'm curious as to where you've
heard PSub is taught/allowed.�
ME: It is taught in my diocesan formation program. Does that shock you?
You said: �Also, maybe this is a terminology problem, maybe the term "penal
substitution" is causing confusion here. What I'm most especially out to show is
not Catholic is the idea that Jesus underwent the Father's Divine Wrath, especially
in a spiritual sense and one in which leads Protestants to say Jesus was "damned in
our place".
ME: Nick, I�m not the one who�s confused here. I know what penal substitution
means.
But let�s define it. Penal means relating to punishment, substitution means taking
one�s place, to put it very simply.
Without using the term �penal substitution,� the Catechism very clearly states that
Jesus took our sins upon Himself as the Lamb of Sacrifice, as our substitute, and
suffered the penalty for those sins. The penalty is physical death, and eternal
separation from God.
Jesus died physically. Jesus experienced separation from God on the Cross. He
experienced this separation while still remaining in union with the Father. Again,
JPII called this a mystery.
You continue to state that there is only one Catholic position on the atonement and
this is just not true. I know it�s not true.
And I think Joey Henry knows it, too.

April 16, 2015 at 12:06 PM
Nick,
I also find your statement to Joey about Kreeft being laity and that somehwo
invalidates his theological opinion as laughable, considering that you are also
laity, are you not? At least Kreeft has been published. Have you?
EJ
April 16, 2015 at 12:09 PM
Joey Henry said...
Hi Nick,
I don't believe you have the ecclesiastical authority to declare Kreeft and
Balthazar in error on their views. Of course we can go through Thomas or Augustine
or even Athanasius but it seems like it doesn't matter because whenever we explain
how their theories ties up to Psub you will just brush it off.
For example, I explained above the different regions of Hell as Thomas believed it
being a medieval theologian. I used the term Sheol as this was influential of
development in current church teaching to eliminate limbo as being part of it
(contra Thomas). The real of the reprobate and the saints are included in my
explanation above with the caveat of how Thomas and Balthazar differ in their
understanding of Christ descent. Both these realms lack one thing: Beatific Vision.
That's because no sin can enter heaven per these thrologians. Being in Sheol is
part of the punishment that sin deserve. Christ took that punisment by assuming the
state of the saints (per Thomas) in his descent to hell.
I even noted that there is no one to one correspondence between what a sinner
deserve to suffer and what ghe substitute need to suffer in their behalf to rescue
them. Psub theorists does not hold to a one on one correspondence view. Thus, JPII
is right when he said Christ did not experience eternal damnation otherwise he
won't be able to liberate the saints in their lack of beatific vision. The key here
is substance or proporgionate suffering considering the dignity of the substitute
which you couldn't grasp at his moment.
Even when you say that punishment and wrath is understood in a "broad sense", the
fact that Christ experienced it is already akin to saying that he experienced the
wrath of God on sin as the Sin Bearer. For where does this punishment came from and
of it's necessity but only in the righteous indignation of God against sin. But I
guess you don't have the capacity to connect this dots at this point.
Have a nice day!
April 16, 2015 at 2:19 PM

E.J. Cassidy,
"Without using the term �penal substitution,� the Catechism very clearly states
that Jesus took our sins upon Himself as the Lamb of Sacrifice, as our substitute,
and suffered the penalty for those sins. The penalty is physical death, and eternal
separation from God."
I am a Protestant so I don't know the Catholic Catechism. Are you possibly

referring to 615 where the word substitution is used?
Or could you point out which paragraphs in the Catholic Encyclopedia under
"Doctrine of the Atonement" explain that the Catholic belief includes penal
substitution theory?
April 16, 2015 at 10:18 PM

Joey Henry said...
Keith go to my blog:
catholicism.html
Under catechism.
April 16, 2015 at 10:55 PM

Joey Henry said...
Keith go to my blog:
catholicism.html
Under catechism.
April 16, 2015 at 10:57 PM

Keith,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an official document of the Vatican, while
the Catholic Encyclopedia is not.
The paragraph you quote is one that I had in mind.
In the past, the Church has dogmatically stated that the death of our Lord on the
Cross is: Sacrifice; Ransom; and Satisfaction.
It has never dogmatically stated that the death of our Lord is also Penal
Substitution, but it has never ruled it out, or officially condemned it.
By Penal Substitution, I mean that by dying on the Cross, our Lord took upon
Himself as the Lamb of God the sins of all humanity and paid the penalty due to our
sins.
EJ
April 17, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Nick said...
EJ,
I'm still curious on what source in your diocesan formation program you're reading
that teaches PSub. If you can't give me some sort of textbook name, then I can only
conclude you are being taught 'off the cuff' by the personal opinions of
professors, which is not how the Catholic Faith is to be taught.
Furthermore, I would like to get a direct response from your theology teacher about
this claim of yours: "Being damned to hell is being damned to eternal separation
from God. JPII clearly states that Jesus experienced this separation while on the
Cross" I'm curious if your formation program is being this explicit or if you're
just coming to your own conclusions.
If you would, I would like to know his email so that I can contact your theology
professor(s) and hear directly from him. Perhaps he/they can help me.
April 17, 2015 at 9:11 AM

Nick said...
Joey,
You still have not answered my question as to how Jesus Descended into Hades in a
PSub manner when the OT Saints were already suffering the punishment of Hades. In
other words, if I'm already suffering punishment X, then how can Jesus be suffering
punishment X in my place?
You claim Aquinas held Christ decended in a PSub manner, so then why were the OT
saints in Hades in the first place? The only options I can see is that either
Aquinas was being blatantly inconsistent, or Aquinas wasn't really teaching the
Descent was of a PSub nature.
April 17, 2015 at 9:18 AM

Nick said...
Joey,
You appear to be saying that under Thomas' view, Christ took the punishment of
being cut off from the Beatific Vision by the very fact he went to Hades. If this
is what you're suggesting, WHERE in Aquinas are you getting this idea?
HERE is a link to Summa III:52 where Aquinas addresses Christ's Descent into Hades.
Nowhere do I see him suggest Christ lost the Beatific Vision by descending to
Hades...just the opposite in fact! Aquinas says that Jesus brought the Beatific
Vision to Hades! Note the following:
[Article 2] On the contrary...Christ, who is "the light," did not descend into the
hell of the lost. I answer that...upon the holy Fathers detained in hell solely on
account of original sin, He shed the light of glory everlasting.
[Article 4] Reply to Objection 1. When Christ descended into hell He delivered the
saints who were there, not by leading them out at once from the confines of hell,
but by enlightening them with the light of glory in hell itself.
Reply to Objection 2. By the expression "bars of hell" are understood the obstacles
which kept the holy Fathers from quitting hell, through the guilt of our first
parent's sin; and these bars Christ burst asunder by the power of His Passion on
descending into hell.
Reply to Objection 3. Our Lord's expression ["Though shall be with me in Paradise"]

is not to be understood of the earthly corporeal paradise, but of a spiritual one,
in which all are said to be who enjoy the Divine glory. Accordingly, the thief
descended locally into hell with Christ, because it was said to him: "This day thou
shalt be with Me in paradise"; still as to reward he was in paradise, because he
enjoyed Christ's Godhead just as the other saints did.
[Article 5]On the contrary, Augustine says in the sermon on the Passion already
quoted that when Christ descended into hell 'He broke down the gate and iron bars
of hell, setting at liberty all the righteous who were held fast through original
sin.
Reply to Objection 3. Directly Christ died His soul went down into hell, and
bestowed the fruits of His Passion on the saints detained there; although they did
not go out as long as Christ remained in hell, because His presence was part of the
fulness of their glory.
[Article 8]I answer that, As we have stated more than once (4, ad 2, 5,6,7),
Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance in virtue of His Passion.
Aquinas is very clear that Christ's *Passion* is where the Saving Work was
accomplished, not after His Death. AT NO POINT does Aquinas ever insinuate that
Christ didn't have the Beatific Vision. Rather, Christ was ALWAYS "the light" and
bestowed glory upon the OT Saints IMMEDIATELY upon Descending. There is no mention
from Aquinas of Christ suffering in Hades in the slightest.
April 17, 2015 at 9:55 AM

Joey Henry said...
ick,
Didn't I already quoted your demand above? The purpose of Christ descent has two
effects on it due to the hypostatic. As man, he bore vicariously the punishment of
the saints who lack the beagific vision. As God, he liberated them from their
punishment. So they are complementary not either or statements:
April 17, 2015 at 12:12 PM

Nick,
I'm leaving for pre-ordination retreat. If I can't get back to you today, then it
will be Monday.
EJ
April 17, 2015 at 1:55 PM

Nick,
You said: �I'm still curious on what source in your diocesan formation program
you're reading that teaches PSub. If you can't give me some sort of textbook name,
then I can only conclude you are being taught 'off the cuff' by the personal
opinions of professors, which is not how the Catholic Faith is to be taught.�
ME: It�s funny that you make the �off the cuff� remark because that is exactly what
you�ve been doing here on your blog. All you�ve done is given your personal
interpretations of Scripture passages and you ignore contrary interpretations that
don�t fit your narrative. You are giving us your personal opinions of Scripture. I
can assure you that the way you got about this is certainly NOT how the Catholic
Faith is to be taught.
Funny that you question the credentials of a priest who is also a theology
instructor while you are just a layman.
Why don�t you give us the dogmatic statement(s) that condemn Penal Substitution?
You can�t because there are one. The Church allows contrary interpretative opinions
on certain topics that have not been narrowly defined. One such is predestination.
Archbishop Sheen taught that Jesus was our sinbearer, that He took our sins upon
Himself on the Cross and suffered the separation that sin causes. I think you know
what he believed and taught. He taught what is contrary to your opinion on the
matter. Are you going to claim he was wrong?
You said: �Furthermore, I would like to get a direct response from your theology
teacher about this claim of yours: "Being damned to hell is being damned to eternal
separation from God. JPII clearly states that Jesus experienced this separation
while on the Cross" I'm curious if your formation program is being this explicit or
if you're just coming to your own conclusions.�
ME: Again, funny, because you�ve come to your own conclusions and then claim that
your conclusions are THE Catholic view of the Atonement, which is absolutely false.
You said: �If you would, I would like to know his email so that I can contact your
theology professor(s) and hear directly from him. Perhaps he/they can help me.�
ME: I doubt that he can help you at this point in your life regarding your own
personal opinions that you�ve elevated to dogma. You don�t seem open at this point
to views contrary to your own.
Now, I�ve answered your questions. How about answering this?
Ludwig Ott stated that Jesus took our sins upon Himself as the Lamb of God and
atoned for them. You�ve stated in the past that you don�t believe this. Who�s
wrong? You or Ott?
What are your academic credentials in the field of theology? You challenged me.
Now, I challenge you. Are you just a layman? Have you published your theories on
any academic Web sites for peer review and not just on social media sites?
April 17, 2015 at 3:44 PM

Nick,
The way to study the Catholic faith is to find out first what the Church teaches
dogmatically and what it leaves open to varying interpretations. There are a lot of
gray areas.
You've elevated your opinion in one of these gray areas to dogma. Penal
Substitution has not been formally condemned. Various theologians and saints have
held it as an aspect of the Atonement.
The way to teach the Catholic faith is to proclaim what the Church taaches as
dogma, that must be held by the faithful. And then state what the gray areas are
where various opinions and intepretations have been allowed. Penal Substitution is
one of these areas.
You have no right to claim that there is only one single view of the Atonement that
is THE Catholic view.
I challenge you to put your theories to the test. Father Joseph Koterski, S.J., of
Fordham University teaches the Catechism one hour a week on Radio Maria on Sunday
nights. The time is 10pm Eastern time. Why don't you find the Radio Maria site on
the Web and call in? Let a real academic theologian test your theories.
Father Koterski's curriculum vitae is 46 pages long. I think he would know what the
Church teaches and doesn't teach regarding the Atonement.
April 17, 2015 at 4:04 PM

Nick said...
Joey,
You are reading foreign ideas into Aquinas. You said most recently:
"As man, he bore vicariously the punishment of the saints who lack the beagific
vision. As God, he liberated them from their punishment. So they are complementary
not either or statements:"
Where does Aquinas speak of the Descent as a vicarious punishment in your Aquinas
quote (or any other Aquinas quote)? Nowhere that I can see.
Christ didn't Descend *in place of* those already in Hades, nor did Christ ever
have the Beatific Vision for Himself cut off. Until you can recognize this, you've
completely botched Aquinas. OT Saints were already in Hades, their own descents
were thus not taken by Christ in their place.
Aquinas says the OT saints were deprived Heaven since "as yet no atonement had been
offered whereby this punishment would be taken away." Hence, Christ was making
atonement, not a vicarious punishment in the PSub sense.
Aquinas is clear that the Descent was not part of the Atonement proper, but rather
a by-product of the atoning death. A verse he frequently quotes in his Descent
comments is Zech 9:11,
"Reply to Objection 2. Christ's Passion was a kind of universal cause of men's

salvation, both of the living and of the dead. But a general cause is applied to
particular effects by means of something special. Hence, as the power of the
Passion is applied to the living through the sacraments which make us like unto
Christ's Passion, so likewise it is applied to the dead through His descent into
hell. On which account it is written (Zechariah 9:11) that "He sent forth prisoners
out of the pit, in the blood of His testament," that is, by the power of His
Passion. "
Just as Baptism applies the Power of the Passion to the believer, Christ's descent
is the instrument by which the Power of the Passion was applied to the OT Saints.
Your comments of "as man" and "as God" border on Nestorianism, for it was the
Divine Person of the Son who both bore the punishments and liberated. It is
Nestorian to frame it in such a way that 'only as man' did Jesus lose the Beatific
Vision and 'only as God' did Jesus liberate.
Aquinas is clear: "Christ, who is 'the light,' did not descend into the hell of the
lost."
If that's the punishment the OT saints deserve, then why did Jesus not Descend to
the Hell of the Lost? By Protestant logic, He should have. But not by Catholic
logic.
April 17, 2015 at 5:45 PM

Nick said...
EJ,
I try to back up all my claims from sources, such that at the end of the day it's
not me speaking, but rather me passing on what Catholic authorities have said. So
where is the textbook for your seminary training by which you're explicitly being
taught Penal Substitution? If all you are doing is *personally* digging for
sources, then it isn't the seminary teaching you this, but rather you doing
personal study, which isn't bad in itself, it's just not the seminary teaching it.
I have not been giving my personal interpretations of Scripture in any sense other
than what has been explicitly said in Catholic sources or indirectly by what is
permitted within the realm of orthodoxy. In other words, when I present a text of
Scripture, I either give an interpretation a Catholic authority has given, or if
they haven't commented upon it, I try hard to make sure my interpretation does not
violate any dogmas.
Please provide me with the contact information for your seminary. I would say it's
a moral duty for you to do so, as every Catholic is entitled to know credentials.
Now if you are going to simply argue that Penal Substitution is a "grey area,"
that's a huge step back from what we're arguing here, namely the Protestant *dogma*
of Penal Substitution, in which PSub is *the very essence of the Protestant
understanding of the Cross*.
No Protestant would allow you to say PSub is a 'grey area' and not dogmatic. The
moment you say 'grey area' you have put it on the peripherals of the clearly
defined aspects of Catholic view of the Atonement.
Why do all these Protestants say the Father poured out His Wrath upon Jesus in very
explicit terms, and yet you have to hunt for Catholics here and there to find
scraps that sound sorta similar?
April 17, 2015 at 5:59 PM

Joey Henry said...
Nick,
Really? You did not read the first sentence then?
Thanks,
Joey
April 17, 2015 at 6:21 PM

Joey Henry said...
And the second one.
April 17, 2015 at 6:23 PM

Joey Henry said...
April 17, 2015 at 6:27 PM

E.J.,
Thank you for responding.
From the Cathelic Catechism the number you refer to states,
615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's
obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus
accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an
offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be
accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our
faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.
When penal substitution is defined as Jesus in our place paying the penalty due to
our sins, I do not see that plainly stated in this section of the catechism. Bear
with me a moment. There is a phrase, "accomplished the substitution of the
suffering Servant", but this phrasing is left unexamplained as to what
"substitution" means. This is where the typical Protestant theologian gets lazy by
assuming that anyone who has ever use the word "substitute" meant the entire
doctrine of penal substitution. This assumption many times is false. What is stated
in 615 is Jesus was obedient unto death, His suffering, His being a servant, being
a sin offering, bearing our sins and iniquities, making atonement, and making
satisfaction. Aside from the last part, all of these ideas are directly from
Scripture and also exist outside of the realm of penal substitution.
I checked all occurrences of "suffering Servant" (440, 536, 601, 608, 615, 623) and
none of those places speak of substitution.
April 17, 2015 at 8:44 PM

guy fawkes said...
Nick,
I am glad t see you are as disturbed about E.J.'s theology as I am. It is

incredible to see someone who boasts of his soon-to-be-ordination to the diaconate
espousing the view that justified the Reformers in rejecting the Mass, purgatory
and the Sacraments.
By the way, here is a video showing Peter Kreet retracting certain views not in
sync with the Faith.
April 18, 2015 at 10:41 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Where do you stand on Limited Atonement?

How about the possibility of a justified person falling away?
How did Mary participate, in a subordinate way, with her Son on Calvary? Was she
also a penal substitute? Did she feel abandoned? Was wrath poured out on her?
If you want to sign on to Joey Henry's views, you need to explain why you don't
sign on to Limited Atonement, denial of purgatory, rejection of the Mass, etc. etc.
in order to be consistent.
April 18, 2015 at 10:47 AM

guy fawkes said...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geuTVWetlzw
OOPS! Here is the video I mentioned.
April 18, 2015 at 10:50 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Pope JPII said we can look to the saints to see how they understood how Jesus could
enjoy the Beatific Vision and suffer as He did.
I immediately think of Sister Lucia's vision of the Father hovering over the Son
during the crucifixion.
http://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/apparitions/fatima/fatima_lucia_late
r_apparitions.html
Scroll down to see what I am talking about.
You can also check out the visions of Venerable Catherine Emmerich of Christ's
agony in the Garden to see what caused Him to sweat blood ( it was NOT terror of
His own damnation as Calvin said ).
April 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
I really don't mean to stack up comments, it is the next days after my last one.
As I am not able to phone in to Fr. Koteriski's program, could you ask him for me
how Penal Substitution fits with the Church's system of Indulgences?
How about Masses of propitiation for the dead? After all, PS was behind Luther's
rejection of Masses for the dead as the Father's wrath was spent once for all on
Calvary.
In Baptism the guilt and the debt of punishment are wiped taken away. How does
post-Baptismal forgiveness work in a system that uses PS? How many times can PS be
applied?
Back to indulgences; the Church says the Treasury of Merit includes the merits of
Mary and the saints. Besides Christ's satisfaction, the Treasury is made up of the
excess satisfactions of those who did more than enough in this life. Perhaps Father
k could explain this Treasury of Merit business in a system that says Christ
suffered, not as head of the Mystical Body held together by Charity, but a
substitute who acted in our stead.
We should talk about how Christ could be in complete control on Calvary and
establish Mary as Mother of the Church if suffering abandonment by the Father too.
You also weighed in on Creed Code Cult recently, yes? On the side of lapsed
Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian named Michael if I am not mistaken. Like
yourself, Michael is an ordained deacon. Unlike you, he has moved on to Calvinism.
Moral of the story; deacons are not above falling away.
April 19, 2015 at 3:56 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
If you are going to say the lynchpin of Calvinist soteriology can be shoehorned
into our system, what about the concomitant doctrine of imputation?
You and/or Fr.K have some 'splainin' to do!
April 19, 2015 at 9:53 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Monday morning my time.
I do hope you respond to my several postings ( you skipped out on Creed Code Cult
after a quick appearance in which you championed PS as orthodox Catholic
teaching ).
I need to ask one more question; how is PS applied to the individual? Through the
Mass? If so, could you direct me to any sources that say in each Mass the Father
really or just symbolically pours out wrath on Jesus?
I know there are non-Calvinist Protestants who believe in PS without buying into
Limited Atonement (but that just points to how illogical they are.) But even those
Protestants say Christ's death in our stead is appropriated by Faith Alone.
What say you? Is it by Faith Alone or are the benefits of PS meted out via the
Sacraments?
April 20, 2015 at 12:09 AM

Joey Henry said...
http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=6258
Another RC Scholar who believes Psub is legit theory.
April 20, 2015 at 12:50 AM

guy fawkes said...
Joey Henry,
"Jesus does not actually take away from us the necessity of eventual bodily death
(we die bodily anyway) and on the Cross He did not actually experience "spiritual
death" ("the complete separation from God as experienced by the damned")."
Thanks for posting this.
As for Simone Weil, she was never a Baptized Catholic so she is not a "Catholic
scholar' by definition.
April 20, 2015 at 4:07 AM

guy fawkes said...
Joey Henry,
As for Fulton Sheen's,

"Moreover, it was fitting as a work of atonement by "penal substitution," because a
spiritual experience of alienation from God is what damned souls have induced in
themselves, by their abandonment and betrayal of God's merciful love. *Taken into
the Sacred Heart, and offered up in love for us to the Father,* this "spiritual
crucifixion" of the Son of God fully compensates Divine Justice, pays the penalty
we deserve, remits our mortal sins, and wins our pardon."
"Taken in to the Sacred heart and offered up in love to the Father".
Is that what the damned experience?
April 20, 2015 at 4:22 AM

Joey Henry said...
Guy,
The author of the article is an RC scholar. Sheen is an archbishop. If you care to

read what Dr. Robert quoted at the last part of the article, then you might be
convinced to reconsider your position. Bit maube not. Have a nice day!
Joey
April 20, 2015 at 5:21 AM

Nick, guy, Keith, Joey,
I have not "skipped out." I am busy. I'll be back, as Arnold said.
Guy, did you read what the Archbishop wrote? I haven't seen this quote but it is
interesting as regards your position.
"Moreover, it was fitting as a work of atonement by "penal substitution," because a

spiritual experience of alienation from God is what damned souls have induced in
themselves, by their abandonment and betrayal of God's merciful love. *Taken into
the Sacred Heart, and offered up in love for us to the Father,* this "spiritual
crucifixion" of the Son of God fully compensates Divine Justice, pays the penalty
we deserve, remits our mortal sins, and wins our pardon."
The Archbishop believed in penal substitution but did not fall for the Calvinist
errors regarding this doctrine.
Here is my first question to you, guy:
Was Archbishop wrong in his belief in penal substitution as an aspect of the

Atonement?
I'll be back.
April 20, 2015 at 7:24 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
"The Archbishop believed in penal substitution but did not fall for the Calvinist
errors regarding this doctrine."
HUH?!? Calvinist errors? What "Calvinist errors"? So far, you have been trashing
only the Catholic position. This is the first mention of any Calvinist errors you
have made.
It would be a nice change to have you wax on about those Calvinist errors for a
while.
As for Fulton Sheen, too bad we can't resurrect the Archbishop to ask him if he
knew his words were going to be used to support Calvinism a few decades after his
death. ( He just might have worded his comments a bit differently.)
On the other blog you deigned to pop in just long enough to champion the Calvinist
viewpoint on ( Creed Code Cult ) before moving on to other matters, I posted a list
of at least a dozen high powered Catholic theologian who misstated the Catholic
position with language that implied Christ underwent the terrors of the damned,
underwent the wrath of the Father, or descended into hell for any reason other than
to proclaim his victory and take captivity captive.
Now, I will be anxiously waiting for the day when your schedule allows you to
respond to a few of the questions I asked you over the weekend before answering any
of yours.
April 20, 2015 at 8:38 AM

guy fawkes said...
Joey,
Fulton Sheen was not as much of a scholar as Robert Stackpole?
April 20, 2015 at 8:39 AM

guy fawkes said...
Joey,
Here is a short piece taken from the Homiletic and Pastoral Review I grabbed at
random from among others that say the same thing about Christ and the Beatific
Vision . Please notice that it was the very fact that Christ did indeed have the
Beatific Vision that he could suffer as he did on Calvary.
http://www.hprweb.com/2012/01/the-ignorance-of-christ/
April 20, 2015 at 9:43 AM

guy fawkes said...
Here's another one ( of many ).
http://www.stpeterslist.com/10821/the-agony-of-the-cross-2-thoughts-on-how-christ-
can-suffer-grief-and-have-the-beatific-vision/
April 20, 2015 at 9:53 AM

guy fawkes said...
JPII said to look to the saints. Here is a meditation on the agony in the garden.
It doesn't mention anything about the terrors of the damned as Calvin
does.http://opusdei.ie/en-ie/dailytext/the-agony-in-the-garden/
April 20, 2015 at 11:35 AM

guy fawkes said...
Guys,
That one was from St. Jose Maria. This one is from Padre Pio.
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-480.shtml
This one reminds me of Catherine Emmerich's vision in which Jesus agonizes over
that fact men do not avail themselves of the Blessed Sacrament.
Guys, I'm not saying I am an expert on just what Christ suffered. Personally, as
someone who delights in sin, I can't even relate to Christ suffering on account of
it. I don't have the Beatific Vision. I don't even have control of my imagination
as Christ, free from concupiscence, did. What I can say is, you had better stay
within certain parameters when pontificating on the subject.
I have been a Catholic all my life and can say, as an ordinary pew warmer, I have
never heard PS put forth from the pulpit in a homily, as a meditation at a retreat
or expressed in any adult religious formation lecture.
IOW, it ain't traditional.
As for Fulton Sheen or any other Catholic you trot out to make your case, neither
he nor anyone else, ever derived the same conclusions as Protestants do from
pondering Christ's Passion ( Sheen didn't leave the Catholic priesthood, or stop
offering the sacrifice of the Mass ).
April 20, 2015 at 11:55 AM

guy fawkes said...
Joey,
One final shot before heading for my weekly Holy Hour of Reparation ( a practice
not compatible with Reformed soteriology ).
Whatever Robert Stackpole has to say, it really should jive with this link as his
ministry has something to do with Sister Faustina and Divine Mercy Devotion.
http://www.divinemercy.org/3-oclock-prayer/87-3-oclock-prayer.html
As a Calvinist, can you get on board with this 3:00 o'clock prayer?
I bet Stackpole can.
April 20, 2015 at 12:09 PM

Joey Henry said...
Guy,
From what I read about Dr. Robert on Archbishop Sheen and your quote, it is clear
to me that he believed in Psub.
The outworking of Psub might differ between Reformed and RC theology. It is not
logical to dismiss Psub simply because it can work out differently between Reformed
and RC theology.
Lastly, you've made your experience the standard to determine what is and what is
not traditional RC theology. I reckon that is not an catholic attitude.
Have nice day.

Regards,
Joey
April 20, 2015 at 12:14 PM

guy fawkes said...
Joey,
During last night's Holy Hour I had plenty of time to rummage through a basket of
booklets and pamphlets on meditations before the Blessed Sacrament. One that caught
my eye was " JPII's Divine Mercy Stations of the Cross Before the Eucharist".
Divine Mercy is Stackpole's outfit, isn't it?
Everyone of the meditations on the various Stations included something about me

carrying my cross in union with His to save, not only myself, but others.
And every Station ended with a prayers about " Jesus' Passion and Mary's
Compassion".
I notice that here on this blog and CCC, Michael and E.J. ( and maybe you too? )
want to say PS is but one aspect of the Atonement. They also that myself and others
are guilty of caricaturing PS.
Please, don't move the goal post. PS says, "Jesus did it all, there is nothing left
for me to do" and any mixing of my efforts ( or Mary's ) robs Jesus of glory. Don't
redefine PS and mix in concepts that make it seem not as bad as it is.
The PS I am attacking may not be the one you believe in but it sure is the one R.C.
Sproul and John MacArthur subscribe to.
Neither Sheen nor Stackpole are here to defend what they mean by the term. They
certainly cannot mean what you and the popularizers of Calvinism mean. Not if they
pray in a manner that says our efforts and sufferings are to be incorporated into
Christ's.
And thanks, I do have a nice day. They air on my street is heavy with jasmine, the
ocean along my morning commute is blue. I hope your days as as nice.
April 20, 2015 at 8:24 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
I am sure I have seen your initials on "Called to Communion" asking questions of
Bryan Cross so you know about it and have wisely assumed the learner's position
there.
Please avail yourself of the articles on that blog titled, "Catholic and Protestant
Views of the Atonement" and "Aquinas and Trent #6 ". You should also check out the
article by Taylor Marshal on "Calvin's Worst Heresy" ( a.k.a. Christ's descent into
hell.)
And do plod through the hundreds of comments by both Calvinists and former
Calvinists under those articles.
After doing your homework, you may not be so quick to barge into discussions on PS
and immediately come out swinging against your fellow Catholics.
April 20, 2015 at 9:09 PM

guy fawkes said...
Michael, Joey and E.J.*,
PS ( or the version in the cross hairs here )says Jesus was punished in my STEAD.
It does not say satisfaction in the Anselmian sense was made on my behalf. Not even
close.
Nor does it fit with what Aquinas said on the four aspects of the Atonement; merit,
satisfaction, ransom and sacrifice.
There is no way to smuggle in a system that says Jesus was punished (not made
satisfaction/atonement for or carried my debt of punishment ) in my stead any of my
own cross carrying, efforts or sufferings. IN MY STEAD does not mean "as my
corporate head" or "as my example". It means just what it says.
"As my substitute" and "in my stead", according to the myriad of Calvinist writers
and speakers on the internet, means something totally at loggerheads with Catholic
doctrine, devotion and practice.
If you don't agree with those other proponents of PS, please say so. Don't concoct
some hybrid system of your own and call it PS.
* It saddens me to have to include a Catholic deacon in with men dedicated to

opposing the Church.
April 20, 2015 at 9:34 PM

Joey Henry said...
Guy,
Maybe you should be the one to rethink your position. I have written an article
regarding PS in RC theology. Dr. Robert also wrote three articles on it. I am sure
you can find other Catholic professors opposing Psub. The thing is that the
magisterium rightly allowed for this to be discussed and not condemned as heresy.
As the atonement is a very deep theological theme, we need all insights. Surely,
many in RC found valuable insight in pondering Psub even Popes. So my unsolicited
advise to you is that follow the magisterium as a good catholic. Where she has not
defined as heresy don't proclaim as heresy.
Now, the application of Psub surely have differences in reformed and RC theology.
You mention Calvin and some modern Reformed Theologians as espousing heretical
views using RC dogmatic standards. That's fine. You should understand that the
development of Psub in reformed thought does not take into account the RC dogmas
and what we believe as extra or anti Scriptural. Thus, the conclusion we derive
from Psub is largely different from the conclusions that RC arrive at. The point is
that, the differences of conclusions because of different sets ultimate authorities
used does not mean that Psub should be exclusive from both sides.
Perhaps the difficulty you face is that you've listened too much of the other side
without actually giving a proportional hearing from the other side. For example,
you argued that Psub means Jesus dis it all there is nothing left fir me to do --
you've showed how diatorted your understanding is. In Catholic Theology, the reason
why you have fulfil the divine law as a baptized christian is simply because
justification has been paid by Christ for all men. Thus, this payment is the
atonement which includes the view that the punishment of sin has been borne by
Christ and therefor affords the baptized of the deserve beatific vision by the
means of the sacraments available through the Church. In other words, Psub is one
of the pieces to explain why the sacraments can get you full beatific vision after
death and not just end up in Sheol or Hades.
The reformed, of course, has a different thought on how Psub applies itself to
justification and sanctification. I will not discuss it here. We can discusa it my
blog if you want reformed theology discussed.
Regards,
Joey
April 21, 2015 at 12:27 AM

guy fawkes said...
So my unsolicited advise to you is that follow the magisterium as a good catholic.
Where she has not defined as heresy don't proclaim as heresy.
Thanks, but what qualifies you to instruct Catholics on Catholicism?
I am unaware of any statement by the magisterium directly addressing PS. If you

know of one, please tell me. Statements by Catholics, regardless of being ordained
or not, on the Passion or Psalm 22 or whatever not directly focusing on the
argument we are having don't really matter. It's akin to the way Protestants quote
statements by Augustine on Pelagianism against Catholics. If A. had known how his
words were going to be used centuries later, he surely would have qualified
himself.
"you've showed how distorted your understanding is."
Really, Joey? Who is to blame for my distorted view? Need I copy and paste links to
what some of your major kingpins have to say on the issue? That might be redundant
as Nick seems to have already done that.
Thanks for the invite. I may check out your website.
April 21, 2015 at 4:01 AM

guy fawkes said...
By the way Joey,
Do you think you could be any more condescending? I mean, sending me to the
magisterium for direction, the same magisterium you have no need of yourself.
Sheesh!
April 21, 2015 at 4:14 AM

Hi �guy,�
You said to Joey: �Do you think you could be any more condescending? I mean,
sending me to the magisterium for direction, the same magisterium you have no need
of yourself. Sheesh!�
ME: Joey has not been condescending at all. He simply told you to do what we are
bound as Catholics to do: Refer to the Magisterium of the Church when we are
determining what is doctrinal dogma and what is not. Why should that offend you?
In fact, you are the one who has been condescending, all through this �dialogue.�
Merriam-Webster definition of condescend: To show that you believe you are more
intelligent or better than other people.
You said to Nick: �It is incredible to see someone who boasts of his soon-to-be-
ordination to the diaconate espousing the view that justified the Reformers in
rejecting the Mass, purgatory and the Sacraments.�
ME: Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of boast: A statement in which you

express too much pride in yourself or in something you have, have done, or are
connected to in some way.
Here is my original statement: �I'm a deacon candidate and will be ordained next
month. We were taught in Soteriology that Penal Substitution is one aspect of the
Atonement, along with Satisfaction, Ransom and Sacrifice.�
Where do you see boasting? I simply stated that I am a deacon candidate. The
purpose was not to �boast� but to state that in my diocese, in the diaconate
formation program, we were taught that Penal Substitution is a legitimate aspect of
the death of our Lord on the Cross,
Our instructor even gave us a textbook where the author did not favor Penal
Substitution. How could that be? He was trying to give us both sides of the
argument because, in fact, the Magisterium of the Church has NEVER condemned Penal
Substitution. We can legitimately argue over it. But what we are not free to do is
to declare it as heresy when the Church has not.
I say it is legitimate. You say no. Fine. But don�t belittle those who hold to it.
As for my instructor, he is a priest, a pastor in the diocese, the academic dean of

the diaconate formation program, an instructor in the theology department of a
local Catholic university, and a former instructor in systematic theology in a
local seminary. Quite frankly, I think he has more credentials than either you or
I, or Nick, to state what is and is not the teaching of the Church. I�ll take his
word before I take yours, or Nick�s.
I�m trying to determine how you can see boasting in my statement. Could it be the
old adage that when you point a finger at someone, there are always three fingers
pointing back at you?
You said: �You also weighed in on Creed Code Cult recently, yes?�
ME: Yes.
You said: �On the side of lapsed Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian named
Michael if I am not mistaken.�
ME: No, I am not on �his side,� as you put it.
You said: �Like yourself, Michael is an ordained deacon. Unlike you, he has moved
on to Calvinism. Moral of the story; deacons are not above falling away.�
ME: I am not an ordained deacon. Yet. Where do you read in any of my statements
that I said I was ordained? If you are getting simple information like this wrong,
shouldn�t you be concerned about more weightier matters that you could be getting
wrong?
��deacons are not above falling away.� Wow! Here is a big example of condescension
on your part. Because I don�t agree with you as to what is official Church teaching
and what is not, I�m in danger of apostasy.
(To be continued)
April 21, 2015 at 11:24 AM

Hi �guy,�
You said to Joey: �Do you think you could be any more condescending? I mean,
sending me to the magisterium for direction, the same magisterium you have no need
of yourself. Sheesh!�
ME: Joey has not been condescending at all. He simply told you to do what we are
bound as Catholics to do: Refer to the Magisterium of the Church when we are
determining what is doctrinal dogma and what is not. Why should that offend you?
In fact, you are the one who has been condescending, all through this �dialogue.�
Merriam-Webster definition of condescend: To show that you believe you are more
intelligent or better than other people.
You said to Nick: �It is incredible to see someone who boasts of his soon-to-be-
ordination to the diaconate espousing the view that justified the Reformers in
rejecting the Mass, purgatory and the Sacraments.�
ME: Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of boast: A statement in which you

express too much pride in yourself or in something you have, have done, or are
connected to in some way.
Here is my original statement: �I'm a deacon candidate and will be ordained next
month. We were taught in Soteriology that Penal Substitution is one aspect of the
Atonement, along with Satisfaction, Ransom and Sacrifice.�
Where do you see boasting? I simply stated that I am a deacon candidate. The
purpose was not to �boast� but to state that in my diocese, in the diaconate
formation program, we were taught that Penal Substitution is a legitimate aspect of
the death of our Lord on the Cross,
Our instructor even gave us a textbook where the author did not favor Penal
Substitution. How could that be? He was trying to give us both sides of the
argument because, in fact, the Magisterium of the Church has NEVER condemned Penal
Substitution. We can legitimately argue over it. But what we are not free to do is
to declare it as heresy when the Church has not.
I say it is legitimate. You say no. Fine. But don�t belittle those who hold to it.
As for my instructor, he is a priest, a pastor in the diocese, the academic dean of

the diaconate formation program, an instructor in the theology department of a
local Catholic university, and a former instructor in systematic theology in a
local seminary. Quite frankly, I think he has more credentials than either you or
I, or Nick, to state what is and is not the teaching of the Church. I�ll take his
word before I take yours, or Nick�s.
I�m trying to determine how you can see boasting in my statement. Could it be the
old adage that when you point a finger at someone, there are always three fingers
pointing back at you?
You said: �You also weighed in on Creed Code Cult recently, yes?�
ME: Yes.
You said: �On the side of lapsed Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian named
Michael if I am not mistaken.�
ME: No, I am not on �his side,� as you put it.
You said: �Like yourself, Michael is an ordained deacon. Unlike you, he has moved
on to Calvinism. Moral of the story; deacons are not above falling away.�
ME: I am not an ordained deacon. Yet. Where do you read in any of my statements
that I said I was ordained? If you are getting simple information like this wrong,
shouldn�t you be concerned about more weightier matters that you could be getting
wrong?
��deacons are not above falling away.� Wow! Here is a big example of condescension
on your part. Because I don�t agree with you as to what is official Church teaching
and what is not, I�m in danger of apostasy.
(To be continued)
April 21, 2015 at 11:24 AM

Oops! Sorry about that double post.
April 21, 2015 at 11:25 AM

(Continued)
You said: �I do hope you respond to my several postings ( you skipped out on Creed
Code Cult after a quick appearance in which you championed PS as orthodox Catholic
teaching ).�
ME: �Skipped out�? You seem to know what my inner motivations are without ever
having met me face-to-face. Another condescension.
Creed Code Cult is not conducive to discussions free of animus, hubris and personal
attacks. I chose not to respond there because it is a combat zone and I�ve had
enough of combat zones. I chose to respond to Nick on his own blog where we could
discuss one-to-one, or close to it.
You said: �HUH?!? Calvinist errors? What "Calvinist errors"? So far, you have been
trashing only the Catholic position. This is the first mention of any Calvinist
errors you have made. It would be a nice change to have you wax on about those
Calvinist errors for a while.�
ME: Show me where I have �trashed� the Catholic position? I have not trashed any
position. Penal Substitution is a legitimate aspect of the Atonement, but not the
only aspect. But we�ll get to this later. Right now, I am discussing your
condescension.
By using the word �trashing,� you are implying that I attack what you think is THE
Catholic position. I�ve done no such thing. You are seeing that in my words but
it�.trashing�.is not there. Again, if you are misreading the simple statements I
have made, you have to ask yourself what else you�ve misread.
I trash the Catholic position but you don�t�. Condescension.
You said: �On the other blog you deigned to pop in just long enough to champion the
Calvinist viewpoint on ( Creed Code Cult ) before moving on to other matters,�
ME: Deigned? Back to Merriam. Deign - to do something that you think you should not
have to do because you are too important.
Again, you make statements about my inner motivation without knowing me personally.
Condescension. I did not think myself �too important.� I consider that site to be
too much of a combat zone. It seemed much �quieter� over here at Nick�s.
You said: �I am sure I have seen your initials on "Called to Communion" asking
questions of Bryan Cross so you know about it��
ME: Yes.
You said: ��and have wisely assumed the learner's position there.�
ME: Yes, I did. Isn�t that what it means to be a disciple? But why is it that I
have to assume the position but you don�t? You assume that your opinions on what is
and is not official Church teaching is the correct and only view. This is just
another proof of your own condescension on this blog.
You said: �Please avail yourself of the articles on that blog titled, "Catholic and
Protestant Views of the Atonement" and "Aquinas and Trent #6 ". You should also
check out the article by Taylor Marshal on "Calvin's Worst Heresy" ( a.k.a.
Christ's descent into hell.) And do plod through the hundreds of comments by both
Calvinists and former Calvinists under those articles.�
ME: I have. Those who are against Penal Substitution as a legitimate aspect of the
Atonement have a right to believe that way. They don�t have a right to attack those
who hold to it (as one aspect, as I contend), which you are doing here on Nick�s
blog.
You said: �After doing your homework, you may not be so quick to barge into
discussions on PS and immediately come out swinging against your fellow Catholics.�
ME: You need to read your statement very slowly. Do you see the condescension in
between the words? You think you are above myself and Joey because we believe
something that you don�t. Again, the Church has NOT condemned Penal Substitution as
a legit aspect of the Atonement. But you seem to be doing just that. And attacking
us for saying what we believe.
Barge in? As far as I know, anyone is free to comment. One does not have to �barge�
in.
Come out swinging? I did no such thing. You�ve got combat on the brain. We�re
discussing. You seem to be attacking.
April 21, 2015 at 11:28 AM
(Continued)
You said: �It saddens me to have to include a Catholic deacon in with men dedicated
to opposing the Church.�
ME: Again, I am not yet a deacon. The fact that you keep saying I am only shows
that you haven�t read my posts too closely. Or you�ve forgotten what I stated.
And again, the condescension. I am opposing the Church because I hold to a belief
that you oppose.
You said: �Michael, Joey and E.J.*,�
ME: What? Michael�s here. Where? Did I miss him? Did he �pop in� and then �skip
out�?
You said: �So my unsolicited advise to you is that follow the magisterium as a good
catholic. Where she has not defined as heresy don't proclaim as heresy.�
ME: Physician, heal thyself.
You said: �Thanks, but what qualifies you to instruct Catholics on Catholicism?�
ME: What qualifies YOU? What are YOUR credentials in Catholic theology? Do you have
any?
You really need to read your posts through if you are not doing it already. You
need to edit out anything that could be construed as an ad hominem attack, or that
smacks of condescension. We need to have civil discussions and not engage in
attacks, subtle or otherwise.
I am taking a break for now but I am going to answer your direct questions on
theology. I had to get to what I perceive to be condescension on your part.
Hopefully, we can now have a civil theological discussion.
April 21, 2015 at 11:29 AM

Joey Henry said...
Sure Guy. If you are open to discuss reformed theology I could show you the other
side of the story. Nick surely copy amd pasted things but imported his own paradigm
in interpreting them. I can show you even with the theologians he's quoted how he
is wrong on his conclusions about the role of Psub in reformed theology.
Regarding giving general advise... you don't need a qualification to give one. That
is why it is unsolicited.
If you approach this issue with an open mind, then our discussion might progress.
April 21, 2015 at 11:53 AM

Joey Henry said...
If I appear to be condscending, forgive me. It was not my intention. I sent you to
the magisterium because it's stance on the theories of the atonement is something I
find very agreeable. That does not mean all of the statements of the magisterium is
agreeable to me. I rejoice that the RC theology has not put a rigid line on which
atonement theories are dogmas or not. There is much to talk about yet on this very
issue, there ecumenical and united understanding that the atonement is so rich and
deep that every theory is needed to understand it.
I can understand your "sheesh"... I've been there. I will not take that against
you. But I hope we can progress our discussion on a more gentlemanly manner.
April 21, 2015 at 12:01 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
"in fact, the Magisterium of the Church has NEVER condemned Penal Substitution."
Does it take a formal condemnation for you to realize it is not the mainline
Catholic position?
April 21, 2015 at 12:55 PM

guy,
So, you admit that Penal Substitution is not a heresy. Good. That's a start.
Now, why don't you tell us what the "mainline Catholic position" is. And give
authoritative sources to back up your claim.
April 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM
guy fawkes said...
Joey,
Okay, let's start fresh.

You said,
"Perhaps the difficulty you face is that you've listened too much of the other side
without actually giving a proportional hearing from the other side. For example,
you argued that Psub means Jesus dis it all there is nothing left fir me to do --
you've showed how diatorted your understanding is."
Most of my understanding of Calvinism proper is from Calvinists, including those

who blog. All my life I have heard Protestants accuse Catholics of trying to add to
the finished work of Christ, done once for all on Calvary's cross. Now you say this
is a distortion which causes me to ask who determines what is orthodox Calvinism
and what is a distortion.
You continued with,
In Catholic Theology, the reason why you have fulfil the divine law as a baptized
christian is simply because justification has been paid by Christ for all men.
Thus, this payment is the atonement which includes the view that the punishment of
sin has been borne by Christ and therefor affords the baptized of the deserve
beatific vision..."
"The punishment has been borne" does not mean Christ lost the Beatific Vision,
suffered the terrors of the damned or the Father poured out wrath on the Son, does
it?
"by the means of the sacraments of the Church... In other words, Psub is one of the
pieces to explain why the sacraments..."
God is not bound by the sacraments. He can give grace outside of them. The purpose
of the sacraments is to give grace IN CHRIST.
I am sure you know that people can be regenerated outside of the Sacrament by
Baptism of Desire. So why the bother with the Sacrament?
You already answered that question yourself. The Sacrament of Baptism is what puts
us in the Church, in the Body of Christ. We can lose the grace of regeneration and
yet remain in the Church because of the Baptismal Character.
I will stop here on Baptism by saying, the Incarnation connects Christ to the
entire race made up of beings who share a human nature with Him. He desires the
salvation of all of them and wants all of them united in the Body, the Church. He
redeemed them ALL.
Does that jive with Limited Atonement? Penal Substitution?
As for the sacrifice of the Eucharist, it is just that, a sacrifice. You know full
well we Catholics do not believe sacrifice=penal substitution, not in the OT or the
New.
In Holy Communion we increase in that incorporation in the Body of Christ given in
Baptism.
Penal Substitution does not allow for "super abundance". Punishment cannot be
excessive and be just. PS says Christ suffered for specific people only, right? No
excess, no wasted suffering.
Our system doesn't say anything is wasted either but it does say Christ suffered
enough to merit for a million worlds.
What did He merit? Sanctifying grace. There is an organic connection between that
grace and the Beatific Vision you speak of.
Is there such an organic relationship between PS and the B.V./heaven? Doesn't your
system bifurcate justification and sanctification?
Lots more to say, but it's late here.

Ciao for now.
April 21, 2015 at 2:03 PM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Did I concede PS is not heretical? Hmm?
To say Christ lost the Beatific Vision is far from orthodox, isn't it?
Yeah, I would love to tell you the mainline understanding of Salvation in 4 easy
steps;
Merit
Satisfaction,
Sacrifice
Ransom
April 21, 2015 at 2:08 PM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
One of those four facets I mentioned is Satisfaction.

The way I am using the word ( and I think it jives with Anselm and Aquinas ) is to
say satisfaction is offered in lieu of punishment.
The form of "satisfaction" made by Penal Substitution is BY punishment, not in lieu
of it. That punishment may be transferred to another party, but it is still
punishment, pure and simple.
I am not making this up. Right here by my computer is a book titled "What Is
Redemption" by Philipe de La Trinite. It is a classic debunking of PS and it goes
into great detail on these four facets of Christ's work.
On my coffee table sits a new book titled "True Devotion to St. Joseph and the
Church" by Fr. Dominic De Dominico O.P. ( what else would he be but a Dominican
with a name like that? )
He has a chapter dealing with Christ ransoming, meriting, making satisfaction and
offering sacrifice. He has another chapter dealing with Mary's participation in her
Son's merit, satisfaction, sacrifice and redemption.
Upstairs I have an out of print book called "A Complete Mariology" in which the
author dedicates a complete chapter to each one of these four aspects and Mary's
participation.
Go to any Catholic university library that hasn't been gutted of its pre-Vatican
books and you will find lots of books that list these four means of our Salvation.
Or you can click back onto Bryan Cross' "Aquinas and Trent #6 " for a short work up
on each one of these four concepts.
E.J., it would be redundant of me to repeat what Nick has already said, I cannot do
better than he has done so I won't try.
There are tons of stuff at your finger tips dealing with Psalm 22, the Agony in the
Garden, the impossibility of losing the Beatific Vision etc. etc. by solid Catholic
writers.
There are also plenty of Calvinist videos and articles by Piper, James White,
MacArthur, Sproul, etc. that you can avail yourself of with a click of the mouse.
Penal Substitution, as put forth by those same Calvinists, is NOT compatible with
those Catholic websites.
Remember, it is satisfaction OR punishment, not satisfaction BY punishment.
"Nuff said. Here I stand stand, I can do no more!
Ciao
April 21, 2015 at 10:22 PM
guy,
You said: "Remember, it is satisfaction OR punishment, not satisfaction BY

punishment."
ME: No, it is NOT.
Just because Anselm made that statement doesn't make it true. That was his opinion.
You've adopted it. Well, that is your right. It is also your right to be wrong.
April 21, 2015 at 10:29 PM

guy,
You said: �Yeah, I would love to tell you the mainline understanding of Salvation
in 4 easy steps; Merit�Satisfaction�Sacrifice�Ransom�
ME: Agreed, except that these are not �steps.� They are aspects of the Atonement.
Earlier, you accused me of trying to �shoehorn� Penal Substitution into �our

system.� If I added PS as a fifth category to the four you�ve stated, you might
have a case. But I don�t have to add it as a fifth category. It fits under
Satisfaction. I�m not making this up so don�t get all twisted up about what I�ve
just said. PS is a subset, so to speak, of the Satisfaction aspect of the
Atonement.
What Anselm wrote in Why God Became Man, and PS, are both forms of Satisfaction
theory. They both try to explain how the death of our Lord was satisfactory. But
they differ in how, obviously.
Anselm�s original theory of Satisfaction was expanded and fine-tuned by Aquinas.

There is a legitimate debate among Catholic scholars as to whether Aquinas�
formulation of Satisfaction opened the door for the later development of Penal
Substitution. I think he did. So does Brandon Peterson, the author of �Paving the
Way? Penalty and Atonement in Thomas Aquinas� Soteriology.� You can easily find it
on the Web, if you�re interested.
You said: �Did I concede PS is not heretical? Hmm? To say Christ lost the Beatific
Vision is far from orthodox, isn't it?�
ME: Hmm, of course it is.
But when I stated that "in fact, the Magisterium of the Church has NEVER condemned
Penal Substitution,� you replied, �Does it take a formal condemnation for you to
realize it is not the mainline Catholic position?�
The implication of your statement is a concession that there has never been a
formal condemnation, which, as far as I know, is necessary for something to be
declared heresy.
Penal Substitution refers to our Lord taking the sins of all humanity onto Himself
and suffering the punishment which these sins deserve. It is not necessary for our
Lord to lose the Beatific Vision. (He didn�t.) What is necessary? Let JPII tell
you:
Read that last sentence again: �If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to
experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to
that separation.�
Remember that the Catechism states that separation from God is the eternal
punishment of sin. JPII is stating that Jesus experienced a suffering that was
proportionate to this separation. And JPII stated in another document that He
experienced this while still holding the Beatific Vision. How? He said it was a
�mystery.�
April 21, 2015 at 10:35 PM

guy fawkes said...
E;J,
Over on CCC Nick does a great job of explaining what JPII said on this issue. I am
not going to copy and paste what you can do for yourself.
PS can't be a 5th way as it dismantles two of those four aspects ( I didn't mean to
call them "steps" ) namely, satisfaction and sacrifice.
( Now way am I going to back pedal on PS and the OT sacrificial system! Dave Anders
speaks to this at least once a week on his show. )
A great book you should be able to find easily is " Our Father's Plan" by the late
Fr. Wm Most. He details how Christ saves us and how we appropriate that salvation.
He also has a smaller pocket size piece called "Vatican II< Marian Council". You
want doctrinal statements, do you? Fr. Most gives 'em to you from both Pius XII and
Vat II on Mary's role by her obedience in her sons' work.
Please, I have asked you previously, show me Mary's participation in PS.
As Nick has tried to explain, ( Bryan Cross too ), Christ's sacrifice goes up. PS
says wrath comes down.
Show me where that wrath came down on Mary in ANY doctrinal statement.
On second thought, please don't even try as the thought is so repugnant to Catholic
sensibilities.
April 21, 2015 at 10:50 PM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
" �If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his
union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.�
Indeed! "Proportionate to".
You also quoted the Pope on just what the punishment for sin is. That punishment is
1. Guilt/corruption of sou/separation from God, loss of grace and Beatific Vision
and 2. Debt of punishment.
Do read Nick's articles on CCC for what JPII said that you are passing over. Please
pay attention to what Christ did not/could not experience due to his being the
Second Person of the Trinity Incarnate namely loss of grace and Beatific Vision.
I posted links here to articles explaining how suffering and the Beatific Vision
can co-exist. Over on CCC, right after Nick's first article on this business,
Jonathan has a link to Garrigou LaGrange's commentary. Check it out.
And do find Fr. Most's book in which he explains that Adam's ( and Eve's ) sin was
one of disobedience. The knot they tied was untied by obedience. Obedience=Love.
Jesus ( and Mary's ) sacrifice was obedience going up to the Father. Not wrath
coming down.
Fr. Most stresses that the sacrifice did not move the Father to love us. He already
did that.
Rather, it gives us titles to grace, grace that transforms us and restores our
relationship with God by sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace wipes out what
requires punishment in our souls, namely the corruption of our wills turned away
from God.
Anyway, I've got a train to catch.
April 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM

Joey Henry said...
Guy!
What doew Mary have to do with Psub? If you accept that Mary is co-redemptrix which
is not dogma btw, it does not mean that Mary has to have the same role as Jesus.
This is not a good argument.
Secondly, you can find scores of theologians opposing Psub. You might be surprised
that even on reformed theology some would oppose it! The point is that, this is a
theory that can be discussed and not condemned as heresy bu the RCC. The fact that
there are pros and con all the more prove E.J. and my point on the matter.
Lastly, you keep on referring Bryan Cross and Nick's article. I don't know what is
persuasive about it. But these guys works on either or concepts. Bryan woild say
Psub is wrath coming down not satisfaction going up driven by supreme love. But
this is just gross misrepresentation. Nick would argue all that the Pope is saying
is that he participates in our punishment and suffering but not as a substitute.
But Psub is both participatory, instructive to dealing with pain and suffering and
most of all an objective historical fact where Christ bore our sins. The error of
these guys is simple: an either-or paradigm to the point that they misrepresent
Psub (unintentionally, I hope).
Regards,
Joey
April 22, 2015 at 12:03 AM

Joey Henry said...
Guy!
What doew Mary have to do with Psub? If you accept that Mary is co-redemptrix which
is not dogma btw, it does not mean that Mary has to have the same role as Jesus.
This is not a good argument.
Secondly, you can find scores of theologians opposing Psub. You might be surprised
that even on reformed theology some would oppose it! The point is that, this is a
theory that can be discussed and not condemned as heresy bu the RCC. The fact that
there are pros and con all the more prove E.J. and my point on the matter.
Lastly, you keep on referring Bryan Cross and Nick's article. I don't know what is
persuasive about it. But these guys works on either or concepts. Bryan woild say
Psub is wrath coming down not satisfaction going up driven by supreme love. But
this is just gross misrepresentation. Nick would argue all that the Pope is saying
is that he participates in our punishment and suffering but not as a substitute.
But Psub is both participatory, instructive to dealing with pain and suffering and
most of all an objective historical fact where Christ bore our sins. The error of
these guys is simple: an either-or paradigm to the point that they misrepresent
Psub (unintentionally, I hope).
Regards,
Joey
April 22, 2015 at 12:05 AM

guy fawkes said...
Joey,
Mary and Jesus did indeed play vastly different roles on Calvary. For one thing,
Mary did not have the Beatific Vision but only the virtue of Faith.
Although a trip to an art museum will show you paintings ( painted before the
Council of Trent ) of the Crucifixion with Mary swooning at the foot of the cross,
the Magisterium decided to suppress this form of art known as "De Spasisimo"
because Mary stood at the foot of the cross according to scripture, participating
in the sacrifice.
The idea of Christ, hysterical with fear for his own salvation is even worse. The
image of him descending to the nether world to do anything other than bind the
devil and release the Fathers, is also repugnant.
I keep referring to Nick and Bryan's articles because I believe they have it right.
Joey, you keep accusing me of distortion. Just this morning I read a piece on line
about Anselm, Aquinas and Calvin. I can scrounge it up for you and E.J. later if
you like.
The author says that Calvin opted for PS specifically because he didn't like the
idea of penance. ( Or something to that effect ).
"Everybody knows" Luther dumped all penitential and superorogatory works because of
his concept of PS too.
PS is NOT in sync with what the Church teaches on purgatory, Masses for the dead,
indulgences, etc. Only you and E.J. seem not to notice what Luther and Calvin did.
Sorry Joey, but you and Michael seem to be at loggerheads with most of your
confreres when it comes to this. You two make Calvinism sound almost Catholic.
April 22, 2015 at 4:30 AM
guy fawkes said...
Nick,
Is this you?
http://jaysanalysis.com/2010/04/12/quotes-from-calvinist-theologians-proving-
ariannestorianism/
April 22, 2015 at 10:14 AM

guy fawkes said...
Joey, Joey, Joey,
You are so quick to say what is or isn't defined Catholic doctrine!
"What doew Mary have to do with Psub? If you accept that Mary is co-redemptrix
which is not dogma btw, it does not mean that Mary has to have the same role as
Jesus. This is not a good argument."
Mary has absolutely ZERO to do with PSub. That means PSub is not a legitimate
Catholic view as Mary did indeed participate in her Son's redemption of the human
race. ( I would love to bury you under quotes from Fathers, Saints and Popes but
that would take us off topic. ).
Ask E.J. if I am right on this.
April 22, 2015 at 12:29 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Hey, I have an idea. Let's you and Joey fight.
Tell him about those Calvinist errors you mentioned.
Hey Joooooeeeey!
E.J. says Calvinism is erroneous. Are you gonna take that from him?
Yoo-hoo, E.J.,
Joey been talkin' bad 'about yo Momma. He been sayin' she din't help out in yo
redemption.
C'mon Guys, stop being pals and represent your belief systems. Stop making nice
with each other against Nick. Even if you agree that PS is kosher, you have a lot
to fight about when it comes to how PS works itself out.
April 22, 2015 at 12:42 PM

guy fawkes said...
Joey and E.J,
What say ye to this

https://reformedbaptistdaily.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/why-penal-substitutionary-
atonement-is-limited-atonement/
April 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM

Hi "guy,"
It is obvious that you are not at all interested in a serious civil discussion
about this matter. Now you are trying to put Joey against me. How childish.
And it seems that you yearn for the pre-Vatican II days. That says a lot about
where you are coming from.
Do you accept The Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by JPII, as a

legitimate resource for Church teaching?
April 22, 2015 at 2:10 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Just a bit of whimsy. Don't take offense at my temporary lapse into silliness.
But do realize that PS is all about IMPUTATION, our sin to Christ and Christ's
righteousness to us. That is one of those "Calvinist errors" associated with PS you
need to put to Joey.
PS was not concocted in isolation. It is part, nay, the lynchpin, of a whole host
of errors you should be addressing to.
I don't answer leading questions.
April 22, 2015 at 11:44 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
"And it seems that you yearn for the pre-Vatican II days. That says a lot about
where you are coming from."
Huh? Where is this coming from? I thought I referred you to a book titled, "Vatican
II, Marian Council" by Fr. Wm Most.
Your comment says more about you and your attitude towards the pre-Vatican II says
than it does about me.
Anyway, back to PSub.

Perhaps we need to define our terms as you are producing Catholics who have use
that term, namely Fulton Sheen and Robert Stackpole.
I am sure there is a legitimate use of the term but that is not what the Catholics
on this blog are attacking. What is under fire is a specific understanding of the
term as espoused by the Reformers in order to deny the Mass, purgatory,
indulgences, penance, and works of superorogation.
That understanding of the term does not exist in a vacuum but is part of a panoply
of heresies; Eternal Security, Limited Atonement, Irresistible grace, etc.
To date, you have denounced none the errors you say exist in Calvinism. You sole
argument is to say there is no explicit condemnation of the term, a term that can
be as open to orthodox or heterodox interpretations as "Vicarious Atonement" or
"Substitutionary Atonement" and that certain Catholic spokesmen have used that same
expression without qualifying their exact meaning.
So, until you actually tell us what you mean or don't mean, I can only assume you
have thrown your hat in with Joey Henry's.
I don't want you and Joey to fight. I just need to know where you part company with
him. ( You did Hi-Five him and his comment contra our Catholic host. )
I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you or Joey vis-avis. I don't know you. All
that I can say about you is that you are a Catholic candidate for the diaconate who
weighs in on the side of Calvinists on various blogs.
As for our friend Joey, I have seen his blog comments for some time and can say he
is probably a sincere, zealous, and committed non/anti Catholic.
I have met Nick face to face and can vouch for him. I know the very orthodox
priests at the church where he attends Mass. I know the authors he reads. I know
where he is coming from.
You, well, you are a bit of a mystery. Your demands for/quoting of doctrinal
statements and Catholic scholars are no more comforting to me than are Joey's
demands for/quoting of those same doctrinal statements and Catholic scholars.
Please, define yourself.
And please, if in defining yourself you step on Joey's toes, I am sure he can take
it. I suspect he is probably as befuddled by your ( apparent )defense of a major
Calvinist doctrine as I am.
So, don't bother asking me leading questions until you establish where you are
coming from.
(Psssst! Of course I believe the Catechism. Do you? )
April 23, 2015 at 4:22 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Let me make it easy for you.
Do you believe Jesus never lost the Beatific Vision or forgot He was God while on
the cross? Do you believe He never despaired?
Do you believe Jesus never suffered hell either on the cross or on Holy Saturday?
Do you affirm the Father never abandoned or turned His Back on Jesus?
Do you agree that Jesus was never imputed as guilty of sin?
Do you believe the Hypostatic Union was never suspended?
Do you agree that Jesus never feared for his own salvation, either in the garden of
Gethsemanee or on Calvary?
Do you affirm there never was a split in the Trinity? Do you affirm the Father did
not pour out His wrath on Jesus?
Do you believe Jesus died for all men?
April 23, 2015 at 10:17 AM

Again with the condescending attitude: "Let me make it easy for you."
You don't have to "make it easy." Do you think you are the only one able to
understand complex issues?
Why don't you answer this question?
Did our Lord, while He was on the Cross, take onto Himself all the personal sins of
humanity and atone for them?
April 23, 2015 at 12:58 PM

Nick, I haven't forgotten our discussion. I'll get back to you.
And Keith, too.
April 23, 2015 at 1:03 PM

Joey Henry said...
Guy,
I'm a bit frustrated at how you talk to E.J. The argument really you are putting
into the table is profoundly fallacious. You are sayinb that to believe in Psub as
a premises will definitely lead to a Reformed understanding of the atonement. But
surely, this isn't the case because premises and conclusions are exclusive.
Further, E.J. and I holds to additional premises in order to reach our conclusions.
Psub might be a common factor, but not the only factor in order for us to conclude
its effect on the mass, treausry of merits, the extent and purpose of the
atonement.
You were responding to our explanations a long time now. I was surprised, you asked
for a definition of Psub at this point in time. You should have done that earlier
to avoid wasting time. Put simply, there two components of Psub:
1. Sin's punishment was satisfied by Christ by taking upon himself that punishment
in his incarnate life culminating on the cross.
2. He took sin's punishment, though he is not a sinner and subject to sin, because
he is our substitute, the Second Adam.
These components can be affirmed by an RC in understanding the atonement. Now, in

understanding concept 1, are there RC theologians who believed that part of taking
the punishment of is to experience the a proportionate abandonment by God? Yes.
We've shown you this. Are there RC theologians who believed that Christ descended
in Hell (hell has multi faceted regions as Aquinas believed) and in this descent
was taking the punishment of sin? Yes we've shown you this.
The phrase were it says that the Father pours his wrath on the Son. Can an RCsm
hold to this? Without context NO. But if that phrase is understood within a context
YES. If one says that the wrath of God on sin is shown by punishing sin, then we
know that Chrisg is not te direct object of God's righteous indignation. He
experiences the wrath of God toward sinnot because he was a sinnner but because he
was the sin bearer. In experiencing this, the Fathers love to the Son is never
diminishef nor the Son to the Father. Their unity is never assailed. The point is,
there are a thousand qualifications that can be made regarding that phrase. Even
reformed theologians have made a thousan qualifications. Nick hasn't showed those
qualifications in his quotes because he has an agenda.
Have a nice day.
Regards,
Joey
April 23, 2015 at 2:23 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Jesus had the Beatific Vision every moment of His life. That is why He could suffer
as he did. In the garden, he saw everyone of us in the Beatific Vision. He saw who
would and who would not avail themselves of His sacrifice. According to the saints
all the way back to the Fathers, He sweat blood because of what He saw. The PS
folks who say He sweat blood out of fear of ending up in hell Himself.
St. Paul says Jesus died for "me".
Joey is promoting the Divine Mercy website as he thinks it is about PS. He doesn't
know that the Divine Mercy devotion to the Sacred Heart is about making reparation
to comfort Jesus in the garden, something totally impossible if you believe in PS.
Does that answer your question? ( PS, Calvinism/Jamsenism was defeated in France by
the Jesuit devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus ).
Here is PS applied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXtHb3pb0uw
April 23, 2015 at 11:15 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PONpkOXsF6M
Up to now, I have forgotten to mention another feature of PS namely the denial of

the distinction between mortal and venial sin.
This Tony Miano guy is an ex, now anti, Catholic. Check out some of his videos to
see him evangelize Catholics with his PS message.
April 23, 2015 at 11:28 PM

guy fawkes said...
Joey,
Gosh, I guess it has all been one big misunderstanding for the past 500 years.
Catholics and Calvinists believe the same thing after all on the Atonement,right?
Will I be seeing you in Mass this Sunday then?
April 23, 2015 at 11:33 PM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
This check list I sent you was not condescending. I was giving you a chance to get
out of the corner you have painted yourself into.
You burst in on the scene on two Catholic blogs espousing ( seeming to espouse )
PS, siding with anti-Catholic Michael and Joey against your fellow Catholics by
rashly accusing them of preaching mere opinion as defined doctrine.
Perhaps you are innocent of espousing Calvinism. Maybe you honestly don't know the
subtle distinctions between punishment and satisfaction. Maybe the terms "Vicarious
atonement, Substitutionary atonement or Substitutionary or Vicarious redemption,
etc." and what Calvinists mean by Penal Susbstitution.
Do you or don't you renounce those points of Calvinism on that list? Yes or no? I
am sure you do.
I am not condescending to you. I am giving you a chance to get out of the
predicament you are in without ( too much ) egg on your face.
Moving on;
Over on Called 2 Communion is an article on Calvin's denial of venial and mortal
sin being different.
Watch the videos I have sent you.
The PS System says fibbing makes one a liar. Anger makes one a murderer. Giving a
girl the double-take makes on an adulterer. All deserve damnation.
PS says Jesus took that damnation in the stead of some ( not all ). No double
jeopardy, they are imputed as innocent ( although they aren't ).
Calvin and this Tony Miano fellow and other Protestants say we are law breakers
deserving whipping and crucifixion. Whether jaywalker or serial killer, sin is sin,
we all deserve the worst.
( Where does the OT Law say such an absurdity? )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7C6OCpmiY
PS says all have sinned and all deserve punishment.

PS says all sins are damnable. It also says says there is no temporal punishment
after forgiveness as "Jesus did it all, all to Him I go/ nothing in my hand I
bring, to the cross I cling".
PS does not fit with the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

And it says all men deserve crucifixion because all are law breakers.
Is that in the Bible?
I deserve it but I know plenty of people who do not deserve scourging and
crucifixion.
Swipinging a cookie out of mom's cookie jar does not earn eternal hell fire for a
kid or an adult.
It does not earn scourging and crucifixion. PS fits with a system that says it
does. Renounce it!
Ciao
April 24, 2015 at 4:56 AM

guy fawkes said...
PS,
And like I said earlier,

this Tony character was once a Catholic.
April 24, 2015 at 5:02 AM

guy fawkes said...
EJ,
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheLawman104
Get a load of this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IapqqQ45Q4w
PS is all about imputed sin and imputed righteousness. Ask Joey if you think I am
making it up.
As for what I said about PS (the term, that is ) not necessarily being heretical, I
am reminded of a statement made by Pope Benedict, ( maybe before he was pope ),
that a Catholic can subscribe to "Justification by Faith". He can even endorse, "
Faith Alone".
What? Was the Pope a crypto-Lutheran?

Of course not. He was merely saying that if one defines "Faith" as a synechdoche
for "Faith formed by Love", the phrase is totally orthodox.
However, "Faith Alone", just like "Penal Substitution", carries a lot of negative
baggage. One had better define what the mean and don't mean if they are going to
toss it about.
April 24, 2015 at 8:14 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J. and Joey,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQfm5qsZtjo
This is number 3 of 4. You may want to listen to the last few minutes of #2 to get
it all.
Yes, Joey, I am aware of the Reformed believing in sanctification as a follow up to

the passive and active obedience of Christ being imputed.
I just need you to affirm for E.J. that PS/imputation is, as these guys say, "the
heart of the Gospel".
The heart of the Protestant gospel, that is.
April 24, 2015 at 8:44 AM

guy fawkes said...
Joey,
This will be my last post until you guys get around to addressing my long list of
comments.
You said,
" He experiences the wrath of God toward sinnot because he was a sinnner but
because he was the sin bearer. In experiencing this, the Fathers love to the Son is
never diminishef nor the Son to the Father. Their unity is never assailed."
Okay, the Father was still loving the Son while reckoning Him to be sin.
Sin bearer means that, like the OT priest, Christ bore sin away or reckoned with
it.
In a couple of my previous posts I bring out the connection between PS and

imputation. I supply videos from C.U.R.E. and Tony Miano to prove I am not
caricaturing the Reformed position.
I maintain that the Bible does not say our sins or guilt were imputed to or
transferred onto Jesus in order for Him to be punished in our stead by the Father.
Your turn.
Have a nice weekend.
April 24, 2015 at 12:51 PM

guy fawkes said...
Guys,
I have never heard a Catholic priest phttps://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=t5Rbo3_TpK8reach this.
or like this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqTWLut6lcg
April 25, 2015 at 11:22 PM

guy fawkes said...
People,
Here is how Jesus suffered.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/heart-jesus13.htm
Rmemember, this devotion saved France from Jansenism and Calvinism,
May 2, 2015 at 10:45 PM

From "Divine Mercy in My Soul" by Saint Faustina
The Trial of Trials
Complete Abandonment � Despair
98 When the soul comes out victorious from the preceding trials, even though it may
stumble here and there, it fights on valiantly, humbly calling upon God, �Save me,
I am perishing!�
And it is still able to fight on.

At this point, however, the soul is engulfed in a horrible night. It sees within
itself only sin.
It feels terrible. It sees itself completely abandoned by God. It feels itself to
be the object of His hatred. It is but one step away from despair. The soul does
its best to defend itself; it tries to stir up its confidence; but prayer is an
even greater torment for it, as this
prayer seems to arouse God to an even greater anger. The soul finds itself poised
on the summit of a lofty mountain on the very brink of a precipice.
The soul is drawn to God, but feels repulsed. All other sufferings and tortures in
the world are as nothing compared with this sensation into which it has been
plunged; namely, that of being rejected by God. No one can bring it any relief; it
finds itself completely alone; there is no one to defend it.
It raises its eyes to heaven, but is convinced that this is not for her � for her
all is lost. It falls deeper and deeper from darkness to darkness, and it seems to
it that it has lost forever the God it used to love so dearly. This thought is
torture beyond all description.
But the soul does not agree to it and tries to lift its gaze toward heaven, but in
vain! And this makes the torture even more intense.
END OF QUOTE
Question: Could this be what hell is like?
May 6, 2015 at 7:24 AM

The words of our Lord to Saint Faustina:
�At three o?clock, implore My mercy, especially for sinners; and, if only for a
brief moment, immerse yourself in My Passion, particularly in My abandonment at the
moment of agony. This is the hour of great mercy for the whole world. I will allow
you to enter into My mortal sorrow. In this hour, I will refuse nothing to the soul
that makes a request of me in virtue of My Passion��.�
Mark 15:33-34
When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
At three o�clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, �Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?�
which means, �My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?�
From Salvifici Doloris by Pope St. John Paul II
After the words in Gethsemane come the words uttered on Golgotha, words which bear
witness to this depth unique in the history of the world--of the evil of the
suffering experienced. When Christ says: "My God, my God, why have you abandoned
me?," His words are not only an expression of that abandonment which many times
found expression in the Old Testament, especially in the psalms and in particular
in that Psalm 22 from which come the words quoted.
ME: In other words, the abandonment that Jesus experienced is not just at the level
of what the saints in the OT experienced when they felt God was not with them in
their trials. It goes deeper than that.
One can say that these words on abandonment are born at the level of that
inseparable union of the Son with the Father, and are born because the Father "laid
on him the iniquity of us all." They also foreshadow the words of St. Paul: "For
our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin."
ME: At the moment of agony at 3 o�clock, the Father laid on Jesus the sins of all
humanity. Our Lord became our sin-bearer. Can anything be clearer? There is no
ambiguity in the words of our late Pontiff. The abandonment He experienced is the
result of having �the iniquity of us all� laid upon Him. It is also clear that John
Paul II believed that the Scriptural phrase quoted��he made him to be sin��.refers
to this bearing of sin by our Lord as the Lamb of Sacrifice at the moment of agony,
and not just as the High Priest offering the sacrifice.
Together with this horrible weight, encompassing the "entire" evil of the turning
away from God which is contained in sin, Christ, through the divine depth of His
filial union with the Father, perceives in a humanly inexpressible way this
suffering which is the separation, the rejection by the Father, the estrangement
from God. But precisely through this suffering He accomplishes the Redemption, and
can say as He breathes His last: "It is finished."
ME: Our Lord experienced at the moment of agony on the Cross at 3 o�clock when the
Father laid on Him all of our sins, the separation, the rejection by the Father
that these sins cause. Could anything be clearer as to what our late Pontiff
believed regarding the Atonement?
And it was in the experience of this agony that our Lord �accomplishes the
Redemption.�
May 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM

Just in case the preceding thoughts of JPII are not enough to convince you�
"My God my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Catechesis by Pope John Paul II on Jesus Christ
General Audience, Wednesday 30 November 1988
Here one can sketch a summary of Jesus' psychological situation in relationship to

God.
The external events seemed to manifest the absence of the Father who permitted the
crucifixion of his Son, though having at his disposal "legions of angels" (cf. Mt
26:53), without intervening to prevent his condemnation to death and execution. In
Gethsemane Simon Peter had drawn a sword in Jesus' defense, but was immediately
blocked by Jesus himself (cf. Jn 18:10 f.). In the praetorium Pilate had repeatedly
tried wily maneuvers to save him (cf. Jn 18:31, 38 f.; 19:4-6, 12-15); but the
Father was silent. That silence of God weighed on the dying Jesus as the heaviest
pain of all, so much so that his enemies interpreted that silence as a sign of his
reprobation: "He trusted in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he
said, 'I am the Son of God'" (Mt 27:43).
In the sphere of feelings and affection this sense of the absence and abandonment
6. But Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the
proportionate to that separation.
END OF QUOTE
ME: �If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his
union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.�
Remember what JPII wrote in Salvifici Doloris. The Father laid on Jesus the
�iniquity of us all.� And our Lord suffered the separation which these sins cause.
But in actuality, He never lost His intimate union with the Father. This is why
JPII called this a mystery.
May 6, 2015 at 8:08 AM
It�s not an either/or situation. Either the abandonment our Lord experienced was
the external events seemed to manifest the absence of the Father who permitted the
crucifixion of his Son or our Lord experienced abandonment due to bearing the
iniquity of us all as the Lamb of Sacrifice. It�s both.
But read the late Pontiff�s word carefully again. After stating what the external
events were that seemed to manifest the absence of the Father, he goes deeper.
�But Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the intimate
core of his being, he completed the work of reparation which was the purpose of his
sacrifice for the expiation of sins. If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to
experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to
that separation.�
As you read these words, remember that our late Pontiff believed that the Father
laid on His Son the �iniquity of us all.� And it was in this realm of suffering
that Jesus experienced the separation from God that sin causes. And this was
necessary in order to affect our redemption.
This is crystal clear.

May 6, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Keith, this one is for you. I apologize for taking so long.
This is from the General Audience of Pope John Paul II given on Wednesday, October
36, 1988. It is titled The Redemptive Value of Christ�s Sacrifice.
JPII: When Jesus said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45), he summed up in these words the
essential purpose of his messianic mission: "to give his life as a ransom." It is a
redemptive mission for all humanity, because the expression, "as a ransom for
many," according to the Semitic mode of thought, does not exclude anyone.
ME: No comment necessary.
JPII: The Messiah's mission had already been seen in the light of this redemptive
value in the book of the prophet Isaiah, and particularly in the servant of the
Lord oracles: "Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he
endured, while we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, upon him was the
chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed" (Is 53:4-5).
ME: He�s setting the table for what is to come. He will give us a commentary on
Isaiah 53:4-5.
JPII: These prophetic words make us understand better what Jesus meant when he
spoke of the Son of Man who had come "to give his life as a ransom for many." He
meant that he gave his life "in the name of" and in substitution for all humanity,
to free all from sin.
ME: Here we have the first use of the word substitution. Christ�s death on the
Cross is substitutionary. But that is not the only aspect. Christ�s death is also
�in the name of.� It is important to note here that he is NOT defining substitution
as �in the name of.� He is saying that His death is done BOTH in the name of AND in
substitution for all humanity. You are not going to be able to define substitution
as �in the name of.� It�s not an either/or situation.
JPII: This "substitution" excludes any participation whatsoever in sin on the part
of the Redeemer. He was absolutely innocent and holy. You alone are the Holy One!
ME: We all agree here, I think.
JPII: To say that a person was chastised in place of another implies obviously that
he did not commit the fault.
ME: Here we have a further definition of substitution. It means �in place of.� AND
he uses a word that has huge implications: chastised.
Merriam-Webster defines chastise this way: To inflict punishment on (as by

whipping), to censure severely. It is also related to the word chasten, which also
carries the meaning of punishment.
We haven�t gone too far into the catechesis and we can come to this basic
conclusion: Jesus� death on the Cross was done in the name of and in the place of
all humanity. Jesus was chastised/punished in the name of and in the place of all
humanity. He did not deserve this chastisement/punishment because He was not a
sinner. He was not being chastised/punishment for any sin of His own because He had
no sin. We were the ones who sinned. He was innocent and holy.
JPII is stating that Jesus was chastised/punished in place of another, namely all
of humanity.
And we�ve seen from his other teachings that I posed that JPII believed that the
Father laid on His Son the sins of humanity, and that He suffered the separation
that sin causes, yet without losing his union with the Father. This is what JPII
called a mystery. If it was any simpler than this, as Nick has tried to posit, the
term mystery would be unnecessary.
May 6, 2015 at 11:08 AM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Don't forget, S. Faustina's message is just an extension of M.M. Alacoques.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/heart-jesus13.htm
Who loaded Him down with opprobrium?
Have you even read any of what I posted above on the errors logically flowing out
of PS such as eternal justification, OSAS, JBFA, and the denial of the distinction
between mortal and venial sin?
How does one make reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the context of a
system that embraces PS?
May 7, 2015 at 4:21 AM

guy fawkes said...
Oh, I almost forgot, please square PS with anything but Limited Atonement.
By the way, how many times can PS be applied in the life of a sinner?
ONCE! And that is when all past, present and FUTURE sins are forgiven.
May 7, 2015 at 4:23 AM

The teaching of Pope St. John Paul II is crystal clear. The Father laid on the Son
the sins of all humanity. And the Son suffered the penalty of sin, which is
separation from God, all the while maintaining union with the Father. And he called
it a mystery.
I notice that you completely ignore his teaching. Why? Do you believe he is in
error?
May 7, 2015 at 10:39 AM

I spent 30-plus years in the Protestant world and am familiar with all the various
shades of their theology.
I was a member of a Calvinist denomination.
I don't need you to tell me what is and isn't wrong with their theology.
You buy into the errors of Calvinism, believing them to be the real fruit of the
Penal Substitutionary aspect of the Atonement. They are not.
The Church teaches otherwise. Pope St. John Paul II taught otherwise. You need to
get in line with Church teaching.
May 7, 2015 at 10:42 AM
Dr. Robert Stackpole is the Executive Director of the John Paul II Institute for
Divine Mercy, a ministry of the Marians of the Immaculate Conception in
Stockbridge, MA. They carry the torch of the Message of Divine Mercy.
Dr. Stackpole is a noted Catholic scholar. JPII commissioned the Institute to carry
on the message of Divine Mercy through theological study and research.
Dr. Stackpole has written a 15-part series on the Atonement and Divine Mercy and
Penal Substitution. Have YOU read them?
Dr. Stackpole doctoral thesis was on the Sacred Heart devotion and reparation.
Here is what Monsignor Arther Calkins has to say about this work:
" I believe that it is entirely possible to illustrate that our present Holy
Father, Pope John Paul II, has continued to affirm, to build upon and to develop
the doctrine of his predecessor Pope Pius XI. I have felt myself challenged to
undertake this study particularly by the very informative and fascinating doctoral
thesis of Robert A. Stackpole, Consoling the Heart of Jesus: A History of the
Notion and its Practice, especially as found in the Ascetical and Mystical
Tradition of the Church.[4] While I remain genuinely grateful to Dr. Stackpole for
the vast amount of material which he has assembled, assimilated and made available
to researchers, I believe that some of his tentative conclusions and positions,
specifically those regarding the foundational value of the teaching of
Miserentissimus Redemptor and of the contribution of Pope John Paul II to the
theology of reparation, may be further reassessed and supplemented. I intend to do
this explicitly in the course of this study."
You don't really understand how the fact that Jesus took on Himself the sins of all
humanity and paid the penalty due for those sins fits in with the Atonement.
Instead of fighting it, instead of fighting JPII and his teaching, why don't you
take a stop back and do some futher research?
May 7, 2015 at 10:57 AM

Oops...that should read...
"...why don't you take a step back and do some further research?
May 7, 2015 at 10:59 AM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
To whom are you addressing your comments? If to me, please deign to address me by
name.
If you believe in PS and yet say Christ died for all men, you have some major
problems.
I am not telling you, a guy who revels in having been a Protestant, James White is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqA3tyBpN4E
May 8, 2015 at 4:22 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
You said,
"You buy into the errors of Calvinism, believing them to be the real fruit of the
Penal Substitutionary aspect of the Atonement. They are not."
If Christ was punished in the stead of every single man or woman who has ever/will
ever live, then you should embrace universalism. James White is just one of the
Calvinists who say so. Refute him. Why is he wrong?
Please, stop with the tooting the horn Stackpole or Koterinski. Actually defend
your position with something other than name dropping. Explain yourself.
May 8, 2015 at 9:49 AM
"guy fawkes"
How laughable.
You don't like that I quote noted Catholic scholars. You call it "name dropping."
Yet you "drop" the name of James White, a Calvinist to try and make your point.
Really laughable.
May 8, 2015 at 10:02 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Do you need a list of scholars, Catholic and Protestant, who say otherwise than
you?
May 8, 2015 at 10:04 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Okay, no more name dropping form either of us. Agreed?
PS says Christ was already punished in our stead. We cannot be subjected to double
jeopardy. Either all sinners have been punished or they haven't.
Please, don't refute me. Refute the Calvinist system you keep saying you rejected (
although I am starting to wonder ).
May 8, 2015 at 10:08 AM

The Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that God is infinitely just. There is no
such thing as God, and then a standard of justice outside of God. God IS Justice
itself.
God decides what is just and unjust, not you, or me, or James White, or any other
human being.
If Jesus took onto Himself all the sins of humanity (which is what JPII believed
and taught, a point you keep avoiding, I wonder why) and paid the penalty, the
punishment due to those sins, where does it naturally follow that God cannot punish
those who die in a state of mortal sin?
There is no correlation between the two.
Each person MUST avail themselves of the salvation offered through the Atonement,
or else they perish and suffer the punishment due their sins themselves.
Why do you insist on believing James White? He's wrong.
Jesus is not just another human being taking our punishment. He is the Word-
Incarnate, the God-Man, truly God and truly man, without sin.
JPII taught that an innocent being punished in place of a guilty person would be a
grave injustice, but that is NOT what happened in the Atonement. Jesus is the God-
Man Who took our sins voluntarily.
Again, was Pope St. John Paul II wrong in his belief? Was he in error?
Oops, sorry, I'm "name-dropping" again.
Seriously, I'll go with JPII, you can go with James White.

May 8, 2015 at 10:13 AM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Do we celebrate Christ's punishment in our stead at Mass?

Yes/no?
(Notice; no conjuring up any theologians. )
Did Mary feel the punishment of the Father by suffering in/with her Son?Could you
drop some names for me? How about in the Stabat Mater, do we see Mary, along with
her Son, experiencing the terrors of the damned? Does Stackpole say she did? Pope
JP II? Please, feel free to drop some names.
May 8, 2015 at 10:13 AM

guy fawkes said...
As for JPII,
Nick has already shown you that you are not looking at his entire quote.
May 8, 2015 at 10:15 AM
"guy fawkes"
Relying on the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II is NOT name-dropping and you will
not stop me from quoting him.
Refute him.
May 8, 2015 at 10:16 AM

"guy fawkes"
You rely on a layman's interpretations of Scripture and papal teaching.
I realy on noted Catholic scholars.
Nick is wrong in his opinionb of JPII.
Nick makes it an either/or situation but it is not. It's right there in black and
white.
Nick admitted that he did not know that Ludwig Ott, a Catholic scholar he quotes to
prove his points, believed that our Lord took on Himself all the sins of humanity
as the Lamb of Sacrifice, the exact opposite view that he espouses.
I'll stick with the scholars.
Now, YOU refute JPII instead of relying on Nick.
Or else, admit you are wrong.

May 8, 2015 at 10:20 AM
guy fawkes said...
EJ,
"Each person MUST avail themselves of the salvation offered through the Atonement,
or else they perish and suffer the punishment due their sins themselves."
How may times? PS can be applied only once, right?

Do you understand that PS says all past, present and FUTURE sins were punished,
once and for all on the cross.
Take yourself over to C2C and read about PS and the Lord's Prayer. Those ex-
Calvinist-turned Catholics ALL see what you don't. (Notice, I did not drop James
White's name. Only other converts with the same or better qualifications that you
boast of. ).
May 8, 2015 at 10:21 AM

guy fawkes said...
I agree with Nick who said,
"he links for those JP2 General Audience quotes are embedded in my two prior
comments.
The only sense in which they speak of Jesus sharing in our sufferings in in the
sense that Jesus shared in our fallen human condition...NOTHING about sin/guilt
being imputed to Jesus and NOTHING about Jesus being seen as a sinnner/guilty in
our place, and NOTHING about the Father's wrath."
You want me to say it in my own words? I have been waiting for you to address the
10 or so links I sent you with something other than, "The all powerful, all knowing
Robert Stackpole says...".
May 8, 2015 at 10:27 AM
guy fawkes said...
The Pope said,
"If Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, he knew however that that was not really
so"
I rest my case.
May 8, 2015 at 10:29 AM

"guy fawkes"
So, I guess your line is, "The all-powerful, all-knowing Nick says....."
It seems you haven't read JPII's teaching for yourself. Have you? Or are you only
relying on what Nick says?
If you had really read JPII, you wouldn't be making such statements as:
"The only sense in which they speak of Jesus sharing in our sufferings in in the
sense that Jesus shared in our fallen human condition."
JPII believed an taught this AND he believed and taught that Jesus took our
personal sins onto Himself, suffered, and redeemed us through that suffering.
It's right there in his words.
Really, I don't see how you can make such statements.
It's not an either/or thing. Jesus shared in our fallen humanity AND he took our
sins onto Himself.
This is the teaching of the late Pontiff.
Oops, name dropping again.

May 8, 2015 at 10:34 AM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
I am stepping out for about an hour and a half to go to Mass. The Sacrifice of the
Mass, that is.
While I am out, do google around and see for yourself that Sacrifice, in the
biblical sense, is NOT PS.
Maybe start by reading up a bit on the Passover lamb. Or how the scapegoat was NOT
sacrificed, the other goat was.
May 8, 2015 at 10:34 AM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Do I detect a personal animus against Nick on your part?
Strange. You practically "suck up" to Joey.
Hmmm?
Off to Mass.
May 8, 2015 at 10:36 AM
"guy fawkes"
Yes, I've done some reading.
On the scapegoat.
Guess what? It died! It was pushed over a cliff.
And each of the goats represents a different aspect of the Atonement.
It's not an either/or thing. It's both/and.
One goat was sacrificed. It died.
The other goat had the sins of the people imputed to it and then it was let go, but
it, too, died. Haven't you read that? It's in the Jewish tradition. They pushed the
poor thing off a cliff.
So death was involved in both. And each reps what Jesus did for us on the Cross.
Read up on JPII for yourself and stop relying on what others say about him.
You should meditate on the late Pontiff's words regarding our Redemption.
I know what is in his teaching. I don't need you or Nick to tell me what he says or
means. He's very clear.
And, by the way, do you have animus against Protestants?

May 8, 2015 at 12:23 PM
During the bloody sacrifice of our Lord on Calvary, He suffered physically and
emotionally, and then after taking our sins onto Himself, as JPII taught us, He
suffered in the realm of his senses the separation from God that sin entails, all
the while remaining in union with the Father. JPII called this a mystery. If it was
just suffering from the physical and emotional aspects of the Cross and our fallen
human nature that He took on, there would be no need to call it a mystery.
But JPII wrote that this is a mystery that goes to the depths of the Hypostatic
Union.
And by this suffering, Jesus redeemed everyone in the world, all of humanity.
And there there is the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus is NOT crucified again
the in Mass. He does not die again in the Mass.
But it is the same sacrifice in that Jesus continually offers Himself to the Father
in the Mass, just as He did on Calvary.
And that is why PS does NOT negate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Jesus suffered and died once on Calvary in the bloody sacrifice.
We receive the benefits in the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass.
May 8, 2015 at 12:31 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
During Mass, during the Consecration, I thought about this topic of Christ being
punished for our sins.
Who did the punishing? The Father?
You mentioned that the Pope talked about how Christ could have the Beatific Vision
yet suffer as He did for our sins. You drew attention to the fact he called it a
"mystery".
I seriously doubt if the Calvinist theory of PS is a mystery to anybody. They
embrace it because it is so simplistic.
Anyway, you are dead wrong on the scapegoat. He was tossed over the cliff because
goats have a nasty habit of following people home. That is the only reason it was
killed. In the OT there is a similar account of two doves, one being sacrificed and
the other released. It wasn't killed as doves fly away for keeps. ( Lots of goats
and turtle doves where I live. I happened to raise one and released it to never see
it again. Pigeons come back, doves don't ).
I have never, NEVER, heard anyone say in the Mass we commemorate or re-present, the
punishment of Christ by the Father.
Christ does indeed have the same dispositions now that He had at the Supper, in the
Garden and on Calvary. That is why He is still a theothyte, a perpetual,glorified
Victim. Those dispositions do not include what the protestants on the proffered
links say he experienced in His passion.
In the Mass we do NOT celebrate the Father refusing to look upon sin, turning His
back on the Son, or any such blasphemy.
Do I have an animus for Protestants? Just the virulently anti-Catholic ones like
Michael, the guy whose side you weighed in on over on CCC. But judging from your
tone, both here and on CCC, you sure have a bone to pick with Nick. It's palpable.
You came on that blog with both pistols blazing and aligned your self with men who
have only contempt for the Catholic Church. That is what is called, "guilt by
association". If you don't think you did, please go back and read your comments.
You set the nasty tone, not me, Deacon Cassidy.
To date, you have implied I agree with James White on PS when you are the one who
believes in PS, not me. That is dishonest, wouldn't you say?
Just to clarify something; while I have met Nick to discuss PS with him face to
face, I knew about PS long before I ever stumbled upon his blog. I make no
apologies for asking him to help me with some particular passages of the Bible used
by Protestants as proof texts for PS. ( I bet you know the exact ones ). But as for
the theory, I knew it was wrong long before meeting Nick or finding his blog. in
fact, I bet I knew PS was wrong long before Nick did as I am way older than he is.
May 8, 2015 at 1:26 PM

�guy fawkes�
You said: �During Mass, during the Consecration, I thought about this topic of
Christ being punished for our sins. Who did the punishing? The Father?�
ME: From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to

understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion
with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which
is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even
venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either
here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification
frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two
punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from
without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds
from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a
way that no punishment would remain.
ME: This paragraph is set within the section on Indulgences, but it tells us
something about our sins.
�These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by

God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.�
It is in the very nature of sin, and speaking now of mortal sin, to cause one to
lose communion with God. This is not God punishing us from without, it is sin
itself that causes this �punishment.�
As St. Thomas, Ludwig Ott, Pope St. John Paul II and many others have taught, our
Lord took on Himself the sins of all humanity. And then He suffered the
consequences of these sins.
May 9, 2015 at 10:51 PM

�guy fawkes�
You said: �You mentioned that the Pope talked about how Christ could have the
Beatific Vision yet suffer as He did for our sins. You drew attention to the fact
he called it a "mystery". I seriously doubt if the Calvinist theory of PS is a
mystery to anybody. They embrace it because it is so simplistic.�
ME: JPII said the mystery was in the fact that Jesus maintained Communion with the
Father AND suffered the punishment that sins brings, which is separation from God.
It�s right there in his writings. You don�t need anybody to interpret it for you.
Read it for yourself. The mystery, he wrote, was in the depths of His filial union
with the Father. At one and the same time, He was in union with the Father AND He
experienced the separation. He stated that it was in the realm of His human senses
that He experienced this suffering. Again, read it for yourself.
May 9, 2015 at 10:54 PM
�guy fawkes�
You said: �Anyway, you are dead wrong on the scapegoat.�
ME: No, I am not. The scapegoat died, as you will state in your next sentence. How
can I be wrong when you agree with me that the scapegoat died?
You said: �He was tossed over the cliff because goats have a nasty habit of
following people home. That is the only reason it was killed.�
ME: EXACTLY!!! You�re almost there. The point was to show that the sins of the
people were truly taken away and would not return. Yes, yes, yes. Don�t you see it?
You said: �In the OT there is a similar account of two doves, one being sacrificed
and the other released. It wasn't killed as doves fly away for keeps. ( Lots of
goats and turtle doves where I live. I happened to raise one and released it to
never see it again. Pigeons come back, doves don't ).�
ME: The big difference is that the high priest did NOT offer doves on the Day of
Atonement. He offered the goats. And each goat reps an aspect of the Atonement.
May 9, 2015 at 10:55 PM
�guy fawkes�
You said: �I have never, NEVER, heard anyone say in the Mass we commemorate or re-
present, the punishment of Christ by the Father. Christ does indeed have the same
dispositions now that He had at the Supper, in the Garden and on Calvary. That is
why He is still a theothyte, a perpetual,glorified Victim. Those dispositions do
not include what the protestants on the proffered links say he experienced in His
passion. In the Mass we do NOT celebrate the Father refusing to look upon sin,
turning His back on the Son, or any such blasphemy.�
ME: Again, EXACTLY!!! Did you read what I wrote about the bloody sacrifice of
Calvary and the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass? Jesus is not re-crucified in the
Mass. He suffered once for all on Calvary. And that included the suffering of the
penalty of sin. It is not repeated.
The prayers of the Mass mention His suffering, His Passion, which includes ALL of
His suffering, not just the physical and the emotional suffering. It includes the
suffering of taking on Himself the sins of all humanity, and suffering the penalty.
Penal substitution is a subset of Satisfaction. It is NOT the only aspect of the

Atonement. It is one aspect of Satisfaction. This is the Catholic view. Protestants
almost make it the sum total of the Atonement, but it is one aspect. Again, it is a
subset of Satisfaction, along with Sacrifice, Ransom and Merit. The Atonement is a
deep mystery.
The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of God the Son offering Himself to the Father,
as He has always done.
You�re so close. If you would just stop being so argumentative and slow down, you
would see that we have much more agreement than you care to admit. And if you read
JPII�s teachings for yourself you would see that he believed that our Lord took on
our frail humanity AND he took on our sins. Both. Not either/or. And he suffered,
not just the consequences of our frail humanity but also the consequences of sin.
It�s right there in his teaching, clear as day, no need for anyone to interpret, or
tell you any different.
May 9, 2015 at 11:00 PM
�guy fawkes�
You said: �Do I have an animus for Protestants? Just the virulently anti-Catholic
ones��
ME: Animus means a strong dislike or hatred. Aren�t we supposed to speak the truth
in love? Why would you want to be just like those you disagree with? Show some
mercy.
You said: ��like Michael, the guy whose side you weighed in on over on CCC�
ME: Hardly.
You said: �But judging from your tone, both here and on CCC, you sure have a bone
to pick with Nick. It's palpable.�
ME: Yes, I have a �bone� to pick with Nick. But it�s not personal. It�s only
business. Theological business. It�s not personal, I don�t know Nick, he�s probably
a fine young man. But I think he�s dead wrong in his view on this subject.
You said: �You came on that blog with both pistols blazing and aligned your self
with men who have only contempt for the Catholic Church. That is what is called,
"guilt by association".
ME: Hardly. You use such a violent metaphor, maybe indicative of your own personal
animus. Why be so angry?
And �guilt by association�? Hardly. You can�t see the forest for the trees. Relax,
take a step back.
You said: � If you don't think you did, please go back and read your comments. You
set the nasty tone, not me Deacon Cassidy.�
ME: Now, there you go again. I didn�t say I was a deacon. I said I was a deacon
candidate. Do you understand the difference? I am still a layman at this point. And
if you are confused about this, when I have been clear about my status, you have to
ask yourself what else you are mistaken about.
And I didn�t set a nasty tone. You did.
You said: �To date, you have implied I agree with James White on PS when you are
the one who believes in PS, not me. That is dishonest, wouldn't you say?�
ME: No. You are just not understanding what I am saying. Maybe it�s the animus
that�s getting in your way. I said that you agree with White�s implications of PS.
Just because he says that PS leads to LA, that doesn�t make it true. It doesn�t
make him correct in his assertions. He�s wrong. But you accept him as an authority
on PS.
You said: �Just to clarify something; while I have met Nick to discuss PS with him
face to face, I knew about PS long before I ever stumbled upon his blog. I make no
apologies for asking him to help me with some particular passages of the Bible used
by Protestants as proof texts for PS. ( I bet you know the exact ones ). But as for
the theory, I knew it was wrong long before meeting Nick or finding his blog. in
fact, I bet I knew PS was wrong long before Nick did as I am way older than he is.�
ME: You rely on Nick. I�ll rely on Father Koterski, and Dr. Stackpole, two noted
Catholic scholars.
And I�ll rely on the clear meaning of the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II.
Good night.
May 9, 2015 at 11:20 PM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
You wrote,
" This is not God punishing us from without, it is sin itself that causes this
�punishment.�
Elsewhere, Aquinas says that sin is one of the punishments for sin. He meant that
each sin leaves a tendency to repeat it that punishes us.
Please click on some of supplied links. PS does not agree with either you or
Aquinas.
The PS I ( and I believe Nick )am/are opposed to is the PS of Sproul and MacArthur.
PS says the Father pours out his hot angry on the Son and that Christ experienced
the terror and separation of the damned.
PS says our sins were imputed to Christ and his righteousness is IMPUTED to us.
Sorry, but I don't see that in JPII.

May 10, 2015 at 4:01 AM
guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Christ merited grace for us. Not just to be considered righteous by the Father via
imputation but to actually become righteous.
A transaction between the Father and the Son that leaves man unjust in his soul is
no atonement at all. ( By the way, the purpose of those OT sacrifices was to
restore the sinner to God, the community and himself ).
From the first instant of the Incarnation, Christ merited more than enough grace to
restore us to friendship/sonship. Anything beyond that was over the top.
Punishment, an eye for an eye, or any form of satisfaction, especially if
transferred to a third party, can be set aside altogether if sufficient Charity is
involved. Christ had it.
PS says ,"NO!. The law has been transgressed and someone, anyone, must die".
PS is part of a scheme that says our sins are imputed and Christ's righteousness is
imputed. It the " Great Exchange" as the Calvinists call it.
Imputation does not change the heart of the sinner. As long as the sinner's heart
is not transformed, atonement hasn't happened because that wicked heart is
demanding punishment.
Again, the four facets of the atonement are, Merit, Satisfaction, sacrifice and
Ransom. PS is not the fifth.
May 10, 2015 at 4:18 AM

guy fawkes said...
EJ,
"JPII believed an taught this AND he believed and taught that Jesus took our
personal sins onto Himself, suffered, and redeemed us through that suffering."
You had better qualify this so you are not saying the Father punished Jesus.
Have you misunderstood me all along? Do you think I have been denying Christ paid
for our sins?
Please, it is HOW he paid for our sins that we are discussing, isn't it?
I am not disputing the Popes words. I am disputing the Calvinist spin you are
foisting on him.
May 10, 2015 at 4:27 AM

guy fawkes said...
"E.J."
Was Jesus inflicted with a sinful disposition to commit sin? Or just imputed as
such by the Father?
Did he have guilt? Or just considered as such by his Father.
Was he under bondage to the devil? PS denies the "harrowing of Hell" in no
uncertain terms.
Just what do you mean by PS? You say the Calvinists have drawn faulty conclusions
from the doctrine.
Please, don't just keep repeating the Pope's words. Tell me why and how the Pope
isn't the Calvinist you seem to think he is.
May 10, 2015 at 5:19 AM

guy fawkes said...
"EJ",
JPII was big on Divine Mercy and Fatima too. One of Lucia's visions was of all
three Persons of the Trinity with the Father supporting Jesus crucified.
http://orbis-catholicus.blogspot.pt/2007/03/fatima-last-great-vision-1929-in-
tuy.html
May 10, 2015 at 10:07 AM

guy fawkes said...
EJ
Jesus did not make satisfaction for Mary as she had no sin. Nor did He ransom her
back from the devil as she was never under his dominion. IOW, he was not her Penal
Substitute.
He merited for her, though. He merited the grace by which she could cooperate with
him in ransoming and making satisfaction for us.
PS does not fit.
Back to the Great Exchange where our sins are imputed to Christ and his
righteousness is imputed to us. In heaven there will be no faith to apprehend that
imputed righteousness. There won't even be any imputation of anything. Only Charity
will remain. Charity is never imputed.
PS is all about imputation.
May 10, 2015 at 10:33 PM

guy fawkes said...
EJ,
Since Mary satisfied and ransomed us with Jesus ( in a subordinate way of course ),
was she a penal substitute?
According to the Fathers, Jesus ( and Mary ) untied the know tied by Adam and Eve's
disobedience. We the Father's believers in PS?
May 10, 2015 at 10:41 PM

guy fawkes said...
http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/author/fr-cornelis-freithoff/
Read it and weep EJ.
Merit,satisfaction,ransom and atonement. NO PS!
May 10, 2015 at 10:45 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
After clicking on the link, scroll down and read the 4 chapters dealing with Mary's
merit, atonement, satisfaction and ransom.
You, my friend, are trying to shoehorn a Calvinist construct into a Catholic system
and it doesn't work.
May 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM
guy fawkes said...
EJ,
By the way, if Christ was punished in our stead for our failure to keep the Law, he
would have been stoned, not crucified.
And under no circumstances would he have been sacrificed. Remember, there was no
sacrifice for high handed or mortal sin. Only stoning.
His Body might have been hung on a tree, but only after stoning.
May 17, 2015 at 1:28 AM

S Maliyekal said...
Through Mother Mary to Lord Jesus.
Whoever goes on this route will definitely reach the destination.
May 17, 2015 at 8:00 AM

Christ suffered the punishment due to us for our sins. He experienced in the realm
of his senses what separation from God because of sin entails. So says Pope St.
John Paul II.
I'll stick with him.
It is not "shoehorning" a "construct." It is the clear teaching of the late

Pontiff. You just don't like it because you have some type of agenda.
You would also have to accuse Archbishop Sheen of shoehorning because he also
believed that our Lord suffered the punishment due to our sins on the Cross.
May 17, 2015 at 12:03 PM

guy fawkes said...
E.J.,
Did the Pope or Bishop Sheen say anything about the Father unleashing his fury on
the Son?
Imputation of active and passive obedience?
Limited atonement?
No?
Then you ain't talking about Penal Substitution. You should stop defending it until
you understand just what it is we Catholics are objecting to.
And you have not gotten yourself untangled from all of the heresies that accompany
this heresy just because you say you don't believe them yourself.
May 19, 2015 at 10:28 PM
guy fawkes said...
EJ,
"He suffered in the realm of his senses..."?
Do you think I don't know that? Do you even know what my position is?
You seem to think I deny that Christ suffered. Are you trying to put words in my
mouth?
I quit. There is no point arguing with a Calvinist sympathizer interested only in
making a name for himself by taking down fellow Catholics in order to appear fair
and open minded in front of Protestant bloggers.
End of discussion. Adios Amigo.
May 19, 2015 at 10:34 PM

No more Creed Code Cult "discussions."
June 13, 2015 at 10:41 AM

From the Morning Prayer of the Liturgy of the Hours for today, the psalm-prayer:
"Lord Jesus, you have revealed your justice to all nations. We stood condemned and
you came to be judged in our place. Send your saving power on us and when you come
in glory bring your mercy to those for whom you were condemned."
ME: Sounds penal and substitutionary to me.
June 17, 2015 at 6:31 AM

Unknown said...
Hi,
Sorry if this question has already been asked. I went through as many of the
comments as time permitted.
2 Cor 5:21 states that Jesus became Sin. I understand that Paul, as 2nd temple Jew
is referring to the Sin Offering. My Protestant friends use this verse to claim
Jesus became Sin judicially, wth actual Sin.
I've explained that Jesus was that Paul at no time says Jesus was Made Sin as to be
a guilty sinner. I believe this is impossible because Jesus in both his human
nature and his devine nature would not be sin or actual sin. Jesus had NO sin. My
explaination included that Jesus on the Cross is still under the Old Covenant
sacrifical system. According to the right of atoning sacrifices in Lev 4:24, 5:9,
Num 19:9, Mic 6:7 and Ps 40:7, the word "Sin" refersto the actual sacrifice of the
victim being offered. So the ter became SIN, would be understood "He made him a
victim for sin or a sacrifice for sin.
If Jesus became Actual Sin, then God has fractured the Hypostatic Union. So my
question is this: If Jesus becomes Sin, in any way, shape or form, He would have to
become Sin and his nature would be Sinful. He would thus assume the nature of Sin.
The way I see it, if Jesus does assume the Nature of Sin, the has assumed the
nature of satan. Can this be possible?
I say this because the only person in the New Testament to assume the nature of
satan is Judas at the account of the Last Supper in Johns gospel. Jesus dips bread
and when Judas accepts this symbolic bread of denial of his Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity, Judas assumes the nature of satan and they abide one in the other.
Is this a valid argument?
Thanks, in advance,
Ron Sr.
August 18, 2015 at 4:57 PM
Mass at Santa Marta - On the path of humility
2015-09-14 L�Osservatore Romano
When contemplating Jesus on the cross, we ought not to look at those paintings that
are far too beautiful and do not represent the harsh reality of the harrowing
ordeal. Pope Francis used these words, as well as the image of an �ugly serpent� to
make his meditation more dynamic and incisive. The cross and the serpent were the
central theme of the Pope�s homily at Mass on Monday morning, September 14, the
feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, which was celebrated in the chapel of
Santa Marta and attended by the cardinal advisers.
�It seems that the protagonist of today�s readings is the serpent, and there is a
message here�, Pope Francis immediately pointed out. Yes, �there is a profound
prophecy in this presentation of the serpent�, which, he explained, �was the first
animal to be presented to man, the first of which the Bible mentions� and defines
as the smartest of the wild animals God created. The Pope said that �the serpent�s
figure is not beautiful, it always arouses fear�. Even if �the snake�s skin is
beautiful, the fact remains that the snake�s behavior is scary.�
Referring to today�s first reading from the book of Numbers (21:4-9), Francis said
that �to save them from the serpent�s venom, the Lord told Moses to make a bronze
serpent, and that whoever looked at that serpent would be saved.� The Pope went on
to say that �this is an illustration, a prophecy, and a promise. It is a promise
that is not easy to understand.� Today's Gospel (John 3:13-17) tells us that �Jesus
himself explained Moses� act a bit further to Nicodemus�: that just as he had
�lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that
whoever believes in him may have eternal life.� The Pope said that �the bronze
serpent was a figure of Jesus raised up on the Cross.�
For what reason, Pope Francis asked, would �the Lord choose this bad, ugly figure?
�. He responded that it was simply �because Jesus came to take all our sins upon
himself�, becoming �the greatest sinner without having ever committed a sin.� This
is why Paul tells us that Jesus became sin for us. Using this figure, then, Christ
became a serpent. �It's an ugly figure!� the Pontiff said, but He really did
�become sin to save us. This is the message in today�s liturgy.� This is precisely
�Jesus� path: God became man and bore his sin.�
In the second reading from the Letter to the Philippians (2:6-11), Paul explains
this mystery, and the Pope noted that he did so out of love: �Though he was in the
form of God, Jesus did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but
emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men;
And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even
death on a cross.� Pope Francis repeated that Jesus �emptied himself: He became sin
for us, he who knew no sin.� This, therefore, �is the mystery�, and �we can say
that he became like a serpent, so to speak, which is ugly and disgusting.�
�This is also the Christian�s path�, the Pope added. Indeed, �if a Christian wants
to make progress on the path of the Christian life, he must lower himself, as Jesus
lowered himself: this is the path of humility�, which means �bringing humiliations
upon yourself, as Jesus did.� The Pope said that this is precisely the message
given to us in �today's liturgy on this feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross�.
He concluded by saying that the Lord �gives us the grace that we ask of Our Lady
who was under the Cross: the grace to cry, to cry out of love, to cry out of
gratitude, because our God loved us so much that He sent His Son to lower himself
and allow himself to be crushed in order to save us.�
October 1, 2015 at 10:29 AM

Hi Ron,
Notice this passage from the article I posted:
For what reason, Pope Francis asked, would �the Lord choose this bad, ugly figure?
�. He responded that it was simply �because Jesus came to take all our sins upon
himself�, becoming �the greatest sinner without having ever committed a sin.� This
is why Paul tells us that Jesus became sin for us. Using this figure, then, Christ
became a serpent. �It's an ugly figure!� the Pontiff said, but He really did
�become sin to save us. This is the message in today�s liturgy.� This is precisely
�Jesus� path: God became man and bore his sin.�
Apparently, our Holy Father Pope Francis believes the opposite of what is posted on
this blog, that Jesus became sin by taking our sins upon Himself.
I hope this helps.
Peace,
EJ
Ron,
One more thing. Pope St. John Paul II also believed that our Lord took the sins of
humanity upon Himself and suffered the punishment due our sins, all the while
maintaining His loving union with the Father. He called this a mystery, how Jesus
could experience the separation caused by sin and at the same time experience the
separation that sin causes. This belief of the late Pontiff is apparent throughout
his teaching.
Peace,
EJ
Catholicus said...
Thanks, you've helped me understand the difference between Catholic and Calvinist
faith.
Calvinism is that God became man to pour out his wrath upon the world; the Catholic
faith is that God became man to pour out his love upon the world.
May 27, 2016 at 7:11 PM

Catholicus said...
I think the Catholic and Protestant theologies of atonement both have the notion of
God's wrath being appeased. It's just that the Catholic notion of God's appeasement
is that the sweet odour of Christ's sacrifice totally takes away the stench of
man's sins in God's nostrils, whereas the Protestant notion is that all that stench
is gathered into one place in Christ so that God can let out all his anger once and
for all. The thing about the Protestant notion is that it implies God the Father
was looking down upon God the Son, dying on the cross, with hatred, rather than
with love and compassion. This has awful consequences for Christian spirituality,
because it becomes impossible to feel united to God's love whenever you are
suffering, and you take your suffering as a sign of God's wrath towards you. The
Protestant notion also fails to explain how the mere pouring out of God's wrath can
cause God to love men MORE than he loved them prior to the Fall; this is what leads
Protestants to think that the blessed in heaven aren't actually holy and blessed in
themselves.
June 1, 2016 at 1:56 AM

Eucharist Angel said...
SO MANY (!) of your objections are confronted directly in this work:
https://smile.amazon.com/Pierced-Our-Transgressions-Rediscovering-
Substitution/dp/1433501082/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
April 12, 2017 at 6:28 AM

Post a Comment
Links to this post
Create a Link
Newer Post Older Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Pope Leo XIII - Pray for us!
Pope Leo XIII - Pray for us!
"Most desirable is it that the whole of Theology should be animated by the use of
the Word of God. This is what the Fathers and great theologians of all ages have
desired to practice. It was chiefly out of the Sacred Writings that they
endeavoured to establish the Articles of Faith, and it was in them, together with
divine Tradition, that they found the refutation of heretical error and the
reasonableness of the truths of Catholicism."
Labels
2 Tim 3:16 (26)
Active Obedience (44)
Apologetics (186)
Augustine (15)
Blessed Virgin Mary (7)
Catholic Social Teaching (19)
Church Fathers (25)
Debate (42)
Do Protestants really care about the Bible? (11)
Eastern Orthodoxy (11)
Eucharist (11)
Evolution (1)
Holy Trinity (13)
Imputation (96)
Interesting (73)
Islam (2)
Jehovah's Witnesses (11)
Judaism (5)
Justification (107)
Liturgy (20)
Losing Salvation (14)
Marian Devotion (3)
Mormonism (8)
Papacy (22)
Passive Obedience (64)
Penal Substitution (68)
Pro-Life (12)
Protestantism (197)
Quickie Apologetics (41)
Reformed (117)
Salvation History (23)
Seventh Day Adventists (2)
Sola Fide (104)
Sola Scriptura (59)
Tradition (36)
Traditionalism (26)
Vatican II (1)
Search This Blog
Search
My Favorite Posts
The ultimate argument to use against Protestants
Index of my Debates
Imputed Righteousnesss in the New Covenant?
A concise refutation of Sola Fide
James White's fails to defend Faith Alone
Atonement according to Scripture
Council of Nicea proves Papacy
Protestant "essentials" versus "non-essentials"
1914 A.D. and Jehovah's Witnesses
Sola Scriptura is Unscriptural
Divorce is forbidden in Scripture
Sola Scriptura is self-refuting
Was Jesus damned in your place?
Enter your email to receive notification of new posts
Email address...
Submit
Subscribe to this blog
Posts
Comments
About Me
My photo
Nick
If you have anything you'd like to discuss via email, don't hesitate to ask!
View my complete profile
Blog Archive
? 2019 (1)
? 2018 (21)
? 2017 (14)
? 2016 (9)
? 2015 (5)
? November (1)
? April (1)
Penal Substitution is the key to understanding Pro...
? March (1)
? February (1)
? January (1)
? 2014 (17)
? 2013 (76)
? 2012 (44)
? 2011 (35)
? 2010 (42)
? 2009 (16)
Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.

Lero 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lero 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG

How much did prayer cost God?

Maundy Thursday Meditation: The Propitiation for Our Sins

6 Ways Jesus Experienced Hell When He Was on the Cross

A Petition to the Father

Christ's Death: His Willingness

April 5, 2015 at 2:06 AM

Thanks for posting!

April 5, 2015 at 8:31 AM

The Catholic View of Atonement is according to the Biblical Definition of

And once you read that, this is a more in-depth article:

April 5, 2015 at 2:45 PM

April 5, 2015 at 2:48 PM

I just read your post on CCC.

As Michael has stated, your interpretation of the cry of abandonment is strictly

From the Catechism, paragraph 603:

(Merriam-Webster defines reprobation as �the state of being condemned strongly as

I am not out of line in suggesting this interpretation of paragraph 603. In defense

I am also a Protestant who has abandoned Penal Substitution. In my efforts to learn

(I still hold to the doctrines of Grace and to imputed righteousness.)

April 6, 2015 at 12:16 PM

Once I no longer follow Penal Substitution it is amazing to see all of these

April 6, 2015 at 12:20 PM

April 7, 2015 at 3:38 AM

April 7, 2015 at 3:40 AM

Ratzinger also views the Descent of Christ in Hell as a suffering of emptiness. He

April 7, 2015 at 3:43 AM

April 7, 2015 at 4:33 AM

April 7, 2015 at 5:39 PM

April 7, 2015 at 5:40 PM

April 7, 2015 at 7:43 PM

I have addressed your post here:

April 8, 2015 at 6:21 PM

April 8, 2015 at 6:22 PM

April 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM

OK. Let's start with this one.

That is a necessary part of P. Sub, isn't it?

April 12, 2015 at 2:33 PM

April 13, 2015 at 1:42 PM

I specifically addressed the Christ descending into Hell as taught by Nicholas of

So it is a **huge error** to read Cusa/Aquinas as advocating Christ was �damned in

April 14, 2015 at 9:35 AM

I am a deacon candidate and will be ordained next month. As a candidate, I have

But, you ignore these. You seem to be on one track.

April 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM

April 14, 2015 at 11:54 AM

There is indeed a clear teaching of the Magisterium regarding the atonement. It is

April 14, 2015 at 3:10 PM

April 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM

(1) Jesus' soul descending into Hades after His death.

April 15, 2015 at 10:31 AM

The last sentence should be the main point.

April 15, 2015 at 3:20 PM

That line certainly is devastating to Nick's thesis, isn't it?

April 16, 2015 at 8:41 AM

It is not ad hominem for me to say a Catholic theologian is in error, even if I

Here one can sketch a summary of Jesus' psychological situation in relationship to

Merriam-Webster defines damnation this way: the state of being in hell as

Merriam-Webster defines wrath this way: strong vengeful anger, or retributory

The Catechism in Paragraph 1057 states, �Hell's principal punishment consists of

It is so clear and so devastating to your stated interpretative opinion.

ME: It is taught in my diocesan formation program. Does that shock you?

And I think Joey Henry knows it, too.

So it is a huge error to read Cusa/Aquinas as advocating Christ was �damned in