Catholic perspective on atonement

The New Dictionary of Theology (Liturgical Press), a Catholic resource, for its entry on ATONEMENT refers the reader to the entry on REDEMPTION. There's quite a lengthy article there, so I think it would be improper for me to copy the whole thing here. The book is only available as a part of the Collegeville Catholic Reference Library.

Here is a pertinent article from Aquinas's Summa Theologica (Third Part, Question XLVIII, Second Article [STh., III q.48 a.2]):  Note that he takes up the potential objections to the affirmative answer to the question first, and then argues the contrary.

Whether christ’s passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement?

We proceed thus to the Second Article:—

Objection 1. It seems that Christ’s Passion did not bring about our salvation by way of atonement. For it seems that to make the atonement devolves on him who commits the sin; as is clear in the other parts of penance, because he who has done the wrong must grieve over it and confess it. But Christ never sinned, according to 1 Pet. 2:22: Who did no sin. Therefore He made no atonement by His personal suffering.

Obj. 2. Further, no atonement is made to another by committing a graver offence. But in Christ’s Passion the gravest of all offences was perpetrated, because those who slew Him sinned most grievously, as stated above (Q. XLVII., A. 6). Consequently it seems that atonement could not be made to God by Christ’s Passion.

Obj. 3. Further, atonement implies equality with the trespass, since it is an act of justice. But Christ’s Passion does not appear equal to all the sins of the human race, because Christ did not suffer in His Godhead, but in His flesh, according to 1 Pet. 4:1: Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh. Now the soul, which is the subject of sin, “is of greater account” than the flesh. Therefore Christ did not atone for our sins by His Passion.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 68:5) in Christ’s person: Then did I pay that which I took not away. But he has not paid who has not fully atoned. Therefore it appears that Christ by His suffering has fully atoned for our sins.

I answer that, He properly atones for an offence who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offence. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offence of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of One Who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Q. XLVI., A. 6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Reply Obj. 1. The head and members are as one mystic person; and therefore Christ’s satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His members. Also, in so far as any two men are one in charity, the one can atone for the other, as shall be shown later (Supplement, Q. XIII., A. 2). But the same reason does not hold good of confession and contrition, because atonement consists in an outward action, for which helps may be used, among which friends are to be computed.

Reply Obj. 2. Christ’s love was greater than His slayers’ malice: and therefore the value of His Passion in atoning surpassed the murderous guilt of those who crucified Him: so much so that Christ’s suffering was sufficient and superabundant atonement for His murderers’ crime.

Reply Obj. 3. The dignity of Christ’s flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh, but also from the Person assuming it—namely, inasmuch as it was God’s flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth.

Blair Laird said:

Thanks guys.. Is there anyone that can explain this statement

"Then did I pay that which I took not away. But he has not paid who has not fully atoned. Therefore it appears that Christ by His suffering has fully atoned for our sins"

I am having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind the atonement of Christ.. So far my understanding is Christ did not come to pay for all sin, but to become a payment for sin.. Am I interpreting Catholic Theology properly?

I can't explain the theology behind it. First, I'd need to leave it to someone better versed in Catholic theology. But second, it could get into territory beyond which these forums are meant for (since anything where there are theological misunderstandings or disagreements could be contentious).

But I can help decipher the text a little bit. The citation for that text ("Then did I pay that which I took not away") is Ps 68:5. But that verse in most of my Bibles says something else, so you might have been confused. However the versification and "chapterification" is different in some versions. I'm guessing Aquinas was referring to the Latin Vulgate. Anyway, if you look one chapter in either direction and one verse in either direction, you can often find the verse that's being referred to. That's what I did and I think it's what most of my Bibles call Psalm 69:4. The quote is only the last part of the verse. The Catholic Bibles I have in my Library translate the full verse variously as:

The New Jerusalem Bible (Ps 69:4): "More numerous than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without reason. Those who seek to get rid of me are powerful, my treacherous enemies. (Must I give back what I have never stolen?)"

The New American Bible (Ps 69:5): "More numerous than the hairs of my head / are those who hate me without cause. / Too many for my strength /  are my treacherous enemies. / Must I now restore / what I did not steal?"

New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (Ps 69:4): "More in number than the hairs of my head / are those who hate me without cause; / many are those who would destroy me, / my enemies who accuse me falsely. / What I did not steal / must I now restore?"

Aquinas is using a syllogism:

Premise 1: A person who has not fully atoned cannot have paid back.

Premise 2: Jesus paid back (what he did not steal).  [the price for our sins]

Conclusion (implied by premise 1 & premise 2): Therefore, Jesus fully atoned for our sins.

That's how Aquinas argues it. I'm not defending his logic nor his conclusion, nor am I disagreeing with it, just explaining what I think he's getting at.

Hope that helps you.

Blair Laird said:

EDIT: for those interested here is a little clearer copy of the book mj recommended

We don't have access to that Google Books copy. It says "No preview" for me. Did you get to that from a university library website that gave you access to it? Not that I'm looking to read that book, just pointing out that your link is not available to all.

I"m guessing that the Catechism is NOT available in Logos.....shame....I would buy it for it's search capabilities....

nicky crane said:

 I do agree that the same language may mean very different things to different people, and not only between the denominations...

I can easily agree with a lot of people's "Statement of Faith" if I do not discuss the semantics at length. I attended political candidate school a few decades back and was instructed by Tom Cole (later RNC chairman and presently US Representative) "Do not state every specific issue you hold to, otherwise you alienate everyone else from your camp." So if ecumenical-ism works in the political realm, it should help matters among the religious camps to keep the semantics cloudy. [:D]

Blair Laird said:

That is weird because I had a catholic tell me that Christ was not crucified to pay for sins but to become a ransom so that he could pay for the sins of those that believe. This was in context of there not being a double payment for sin, his point was that if Christ paid for all mens sins, then there is no legal reason why all men cannot go to heaven. I was looking for some official catholic resources that said this

Hi Blair, I would say that in Catholic teaching the word "ransom" doesn't fit because it is inconsistent with the vicarious nature of Jesus' atonement that I referred to above. If you read the Augustine reference I mentioned above, I would say that a ransom is more in line with the angry Father demanding retribution from Jesus which in Augustine's writings was illogical and inconsistent with his notion of the always-loving God.

It is true Christ atoned for everyone's sins. However, the Catholic Church also teaches that every human has free will to accept or reject God, and by not turning to God, confessing our sinfulness and asking for his forgiveness we cannot be forgiven. From a common sense perspective, does someone forgive unsolicited, or does someone forgive in response to a request for forgiveness? Also, believing that we are all saved no matter what we do or not do implies we have no free will.  While we have no merit in our salvation, we can accept or reject God. This is also biblical; at least one example I can think of is David - Nathan the prophet told him God said he would die for his sins of the murder of Uriah and adultery, when David asked for forgiveness, God then said he would live. God does not forgive without us asking for forgiveness.

Lastly, the Catholic Church teaches that we must acknowledge that hell exists, but we can pray that no one has ever gone there. Only God knows.

As a postscript, like any religious belief, it's important to look at authoritative sources, as any individual can clearly steer you wrong - Catholics or other. That's why I always try and post resources for people to read and discern on your own. The Council of Trent documents I cited are the most authoritative of those references.

Hope that helps!

MJ. Smith said:

As I said earlier, there are several images of sin/atonement  - ransom in the sense of paying for another's debt (usually family) was a common understanding in Judaism at the time of Christ. But it's not the only Biblical understanding.

As I quoted above, I don't think you will find Catholic teaching advocating a ransom motive in atonement, per Augustine's writings in the book I cited above. It flies in the face of the always loving God, and portrays a God who must be appeased.  But don't argue with me, read Augustine if you have an issue with that :-)

Blair Laird said:

Rosie Perera said:

Oh, I see why. This is a Google eBook, and they're not available in Canada, even the free ones. Phooey!

Here is the pdf format of the book. If you would rather have e-pub I can upload it for you in that format also

0882.Catholic_dogma.pdf

Thanks. As I mentioned I'm not interested in reading this book, just was curious why it wasn't available to everyone, and now I've got my answer. And I learned something new (about the existence of Google eBooks) in the process. I'm always glad for more ways to get eBook content, but for now these aren't available to us up in Canada. Hope they find a way to fix that soon.