In What Way Can Catholicism Speak of a Substitution of Christ and Us

I have a (formerly Lutheran, now Driscollite / neo-neo-calvinist) friend who said to me one night with much frustration across a kitchen table: "what do you believe the Cross even did?". I think I honestly and jokingly answered 'nothing' but I might've used a quasi-arminian "potentiality" explanation.

The problem seems to be, with all of our anti-Protestant theology we Catholics rapidly lost the ability to speak of God's efficacious grace and the salvation won on the cross as a solid theology. Rather now it seems to be a theology based on human will and potential salvation rather than divine will and efficient salvation.

As far as I can see, Catholicism objects to the notion that the Father punishes the Son for atonement of the sins of the elect, and that they instead stick with St. Anselm who phrased it more along the lines of: Christ did something good for God which we couldn't do, but which we were obligated to do. Thus somehow through baptism, penance, etc, we get that goodness (Merit?) applied to us.

Correct me if I'm wrong there.

I really want to get as close to Penal Substitution as possible within Catholic orthodoxy, because it makes me feel at ease and allows me to rest from trying to frantically accumulate merit.

It's so hard to distinguish between St. Anselm and Calvin for me. There is such a fine line when discussing what Christ did in a substitutionary manner, and what he didn't do. Like I think it's Morally, and Meritoriously proper to say Christ acted on our behalf, but not legally.... Aquinas' scholasticism confuses me at times, at least Augustine's neo-platonism was easy to get.

Then you have Hans Urs Von Balthasar who basically made Penal Substitution Catholic by saying that a finite amount of sin was placed between the infinite distance of the Father and the Son and burned up completely by their love. This is my favourite of all atonement models, and while it was taught by a fairly orthodox and highly respected Catholic theologian, many traditionalists probably dislike it because they'd say it tends towards universalism and is too similar to Penal Substitution, even though it technicaly avoids the anathemas.

If it's possible to hold Von Balthasar's Christology/Soteriology while remaining within Roman orthodoxy, then I'd like to hold it, I just don't know enough.

Casual thoughts on Substitutionary Atonement

I was listening to a Sufjan Stevens song today and he mentioned the Substitutionary Atonement, the great dogma of Western Christianity. But I realized today that the doctrine of Penal Substitution - the central key to my lifelong faith - is not compatible with Catholicism... I think this is pretty stupid, as John Calvin pretty much just does a better job than Anselm at explaining the Atonement. I always saw Penal Substitution merely as a further improvement or development of Aquinas, which was a development of Anselm which was a development of Augustine and Athanasius.

I read Isaiah 53 today and Romans 5. There can be nothing clearer than the fact that Christ died in our place, was punished for our sins. St. Anselm just based his theory on some Regal understanding of God's kingship and the need for honour. But this is obviously outdated. Ugh and I found this page that made me feel sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Reparation_to_Jesus_Christ ... "Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ" - I've not heard such a blasphemous title in my life. How on earth could any human pay Christ for anything. Penance is a legal fiction.

Yep... well maybe I should just stop reading my bible, as even when doctrines are clearly outlined I'm not allowed to believe them unless someone said something about it in the 3rd or 4th century affirming them.. . stupid church fathers.... gah. I hate my religion. (but of course sola scriptura makes no sense, and protestant ecclesiology is untraditional and bankrupt, and the Orthodox are racist shut ins). I'm also obligated to believe that Christ established the Church, but on days like today I really wish he established a better Church, because his is annoying me.

On a better note I talked with the Monsignor today and he said that Baptist baptisms are valid. So that's cool, because I wouldn't have wanted to affront God's honour by using the wrong water or words or intent.

So in the end the substitutionary atonement makes sense to me and was a pillar in my faith but at the same time I understand Catholic attacks on it:

1. Giving pardon does not square with taking satisfaction;
2. There is nothing that conforms with justice about punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free;
3. The temporary death of one is not a substitute for the eternal death of many;
4. Perfect substitutionary satisfaction would confer on its beneficiaries an unlimited permission to sin.

So I guess number 3 kinda proves it, but at the same time as i will say that I will stick with what the Church teaches and try to figure out Anselm's formulation, I just feel rather attached to Penal Substitution. It makes so much sense, and it makes me happier, just like sola fide and Lutheran anti-nomianism...

I prophesy that one day I will become an Anglican and indulge myself in all these wonderful biblical heresies and finally be at peace.

this is just me venting, don't bother taking anything too seriously written above.