Does God have to punish all sin for God to be Just

Here is one view on this found in comment 381 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/ :

So, to summarize, the reasoning goes:
(1) If God is perfectly Holy and just, then He cannot “clear the guilty” without the debt due to justice being satisfied.
(2) Catholics hold that God could have “cleared the guilty” (by forgiving their sin) without the debt due to justice being satisfied (e.g. through penal substitution or substitutionary gift).
(3) So, the Catholic view posits a God that is not perfectly Holy and just.

Does that reasoning misrepresent the Catholic position?

Well, yes. The Catholic rejects (1) and (3). But the argument begs the question, because (1) presupposes precisely what is in question.

But, it seems that something is necessary to satisfy for sin,

You would need more than a “seems” to demonstrate the truth of that assertion.

I mentioned this in #220 above. The notion that God is unable to forgive sin without punishing it or without receiving satisfaction, treats God as subordinate to [impersonal] Justice, and thus reduces God to something less than God (because nothing is greater than God). But sin is not against something higher than God (i.e. Justice), such that God must punish or receive payment in order to cancel the debt. Sin is against God Himself. Because sin is against God Himself, and because God is free, God can freely choose to forgive that sin, period. Just as you can forgive a debt owed to you, without violating justice, so God, without punishment or payment, can forgive the debt of sin without violating justice, because sin is against Him, not against something higher than Himself to which He is subordinate.

end of quote

Romans 3 speaks about this:  21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This wasto demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

      27Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

also  Romans 4: 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. {and}....... 20yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 23Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, 24but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

Romans 5   18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Why does Christ's blood atone?

from comment127 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

"... why does Christ’s blood atone. The blood represents the very life. To give one’s possessions (e.g. house, property, clothes, money) is to give something external to oneself. But to pour out one’s blood unto death, is to give one’s very self. Hence Jesus says, “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (Jn. 15:13) This is why His blood is so precious, and St. Peter explains that we “were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” (1 Pet. 1:18-19) Christ redeemed us by giving the greatest gift of love, namely, His very life, letting it be poured out for our salvation. By His blood, He offered Himself without blemish to God (Heb 9:14), and by means of this sacrifice made peace with God for us (Col 1:20) and purchased the Church (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9). Christ’s blood sanctifies us (and the NT frequently alludes to the OT practice of cleansing things by the sprinkling of blood) because through this perfect offering to God, Christ won for us the sanctifying grace and agape by which we are sanctified."

from comment 423

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us

St. Thomas says, “Christ freed us from punishment by enduring our punishment and our death which came upon us from the very curse of sin. Therefore, inasmuch as He endured this curse of sin by dying for us, He is said to have been made a curse for us.” And additionally, “But with respect to the evil of punishment, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree is explained thus: The punishment itself is a curse, namely, that He should die in this way. Explained in this way, He was truly cursed by God, because God decreed that He endure this punishment in order to set us free.”

what does it mean that Christ died? how can God die?

from comment 36  here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/aquinas-and-trent-part-6/

In a post titled “Did God Die on the Cross?” and dated “March 25, 2013,” Ligonier posted the following by R.C. Sproul:

Some say, “It was the second person of the Trinity Who died.” That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being. Death is something that would involve a change in one’s being.

We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.

Sproul is here rightly concerned to protect the doctrine of the immutability of the divine nature. But he thinks that in order to protect this doctrine, it cannot be the case that the Second Person of the Trinity died on the cross. Therefore Sproul claims that the atonement “was made by the human nature of Christ.” This would entail either (a) that no Person suffered, died, and made atonement for our sins, but only some impersonal, created thing did all that for us, or (b) that a non-divine person suffered, died, and made atonement for us. The latter position is a form of the heresy of Nestorianism, condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in AD 431. The former position would nullify the efficacy of the atonement for our sins for the same reason that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins (Heb. 10:4); the sacrifice of Christ by which He made satisfaction for our sins is of such great value and worth precisely because the Lamb who was slain for our sins is God, not a mere creature.

Sproul adds that “It’s the God-man Who dies.” But this just raises the following dilemma. Either the “God-man” is the same Person as the Second Person of the Trinity, or the “God-man” is not the same Person as “Second Person of the Trinity.” If the former horn of the dilemma, then if the “God-man” died, then the “Second Person of the Trinity” died, and Sproul is here contradicting what he said in the first excerpted paragraph. But if the latter horn of the dilemma, then [either (a) or (b)], or (c) the First or Third Person of the Trinity suffered, died, and made atonement for us. The consequence of both horns of that dilemma are deeply problematic, for obvious reasons.

By contrast, the Catholic Church teaches that it was not a nature that suffered, died and made atonement, but the Second Person of the Trinity who suffered, died, and made atonement for us in His human nature. We say in the Nicene Creed:

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,

The same Person who “came down from heaven” and “was incarnate of the Virgin Mary” is the same Person who “was crucified under Pontius Pilate” and “suffered death and was buried.” That Person is the Second Person of the Trinity, not an impersonal nature or created thing. When we say that Christ suffered death, we do not mean that there was a change in the divine nature, but that He endured the separation of His soul from His body. Canon 12 of the Council of Ephesus (which condemned Nestorianism) reads: “If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and was made the firstborn from the dead [Col. 1:18] according to which as God He is both the life and the life-giver, let him be anathema.”

So what lies behind the reason for Sproul’s claims that the Second Person of the Trinity did not die, and that a mere human nature suffered, died, and made atonement for us? It seems to me that denying that the Second Person of the Trinity suffered and died for us on the cross is the result of multiple factors. One factor, I think, is Protestantism’s denial (or general unwillingness to affirm) that Mary is the Theotokos (Mother of God). If she gave birth only to a human nature, then only a human nature suffered and died on the cross. But if she gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, then the Second Person of the Trinity suffered, died, and made atonement for us. Another factor is Protestant adherence to sola scriptura, according to which councils, including the Council of Ephesus, have no authority, and are ultimately unnecessary: “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” (Westminster Confession of Faith I.6)

[later in comment 48

It is possible, as you say, that Sproul meant to say that in His divine nature the Second Person of the Trinity cannot die. It is possible that he meant to say that Christ made atonement for us in His human nature. But that’s not what he actually said, and philosopher-theologians with his training have the necessary skill (and responsibility) to say what they mean and not say what they don’t mean. My criticism is not of his motives, or even of his [personal] Christology, but of what he actually said in this document he published in 2007, posted online in 2012, and reposted again in 2013 after it was criticized widely in 2012. If he has expressed Chalcedonian Christology elsewhere, then I’m very glad for that. But that doesn’t make true what he says here, even if the error is due to sloppiness; nor does it justify posting and reposting an excerpt that is Christologically heterodox. (See James 3:1)

from an article here Nick's Catholic blog Wed April 2, 2014:

Trent confirms this in the Lesson on Article IV of the Apostles Creed (where the Creed says Christ was "crucified, died, and buried"): 

The pastor should explain that these words present for our belief that Jesus Christ, after He was crucified, really died and was buried. It is not without just reason that this is proposed to the faithful as a separate object of belief, since there were some who denied His death upon the cross. The Apostles, therefore, were justly of opinion that to such an error should be opposed the doctrine of faith contained in this Article, the truth of which is placed beyond the possibility of doubt by the united testimony of all the Evangelists, who record that Jesus yielded up the ghost. . . .When, therefore, we say that Jesus died, we mean that His soul was disunited from His body.

Notice that spiritual death, which is more important in the Protestant scheme, is strikingly absent! Again, it is plain that when the Church speaks of Christ suffering death, the only thing meant is a physical death, not a spiritual death. [4] By this fact alone, the Church dogma doesn't allow Penal Substitution, since He didn't suffer the right type of punishment the Protestant view requires (i.e. spiritual death by the breaking of communion with the Father). [5] But there's more!

Second of all, it's theologically impossible for Christ to undergo spiritual death. BasicChristology, which was confirmed in the Ecumenical Councils, is reiterated plainly throughout Catholic tradition, and particularly clear many places in the Catechism, withparagraph 650 being the most helpful: 

The Fathers contemplate the Resurrection from the perspective of the divine person of Christ who remained united to his soul and body, even when these were separated from each other by death: [Gregory of Nyssa says] "By the unity of the divine nature, which remains present in each of the two components of man, these are reunited. For as death is produced by the separation of the human components, so Resurrection is achieved by the union of the two."

 Again, this is basic Christology, and Catholics have always been careful to not violate Christology in any sense. [6] Unfortunately, Protestants often eschew advanced theology and philosophy, so they run right into Christological heresy when they insist that Jesus underwent a spiritual death. This weak theological foundation is why you have big name Reformed Protestants saying Jesus was cut-off from the Father, that the Father broke fellowship with the Son, that the Son was "damned," etc. But this is plainly impossible once you realize Jesus is a Divine Person with a Divine Nature and human nature permanently united. How could Jesus spiritually die (the soul losing the indwelling of the Holy Trinity) when the union was so permanent that His Divinity remained united to his body and soul even after the two separated? And even more problematic is that "spiritual death" means it was the Divine Person of Son who would be cut-off from the Divine Person of Father, not merely the Son being cut off from human nature. In other words, it's heresy (Nestorianism) to suggest the Divine Son (a Person) could only suffer broken communion in His humanity, since it is Persons who form communion with other Persons, not natures (alone) in communion with natures. So "cutting off" the Son would, by definition, destroy the Trinity, since it severs Christ'svery Sonship. 

Even though Protestants are insistent that the Trinity was not destroyed, they lack the theological foundation to realize that is in fact what Penal Substitution amounts to. And since the Catholic Church affirms basic Christology, clearly affirmed in the above quotes regarding Christ's death (the very thing under consideration now), this makes itimpossible for any Catholic to affirm Penal Substitution

(4) How is physical suffering and death for a mere few hours sufficient to atone for an infinite offense against God? Catholic theology has a good explanation for this, and it's been consistently taught by all the great minds of the Church, especially by Aquinas (ST 3:48:2.3): "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." And in Ott's Fundamentals we read:

The intrinsic reason of the adequacy of Christ's atonement lies in the Hypostatic Union. Christ's actions possess an intrinsic infinite value, because the [person doing the action acting] is the Divine Person of the Logos. Thus Christ's atonement was, through its intrinsic value, sufficient to counterbalance the infinite insult offered to God.

....................................................... . As Ott explains: 

The act of sacrifice consisted in the fact that Christ, in a disposition of the most perfect self-surrender, voluntarily gave up His life to God by permitting His enemies to kill Him, although He had the power of preventing it.
(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Bk3:Pt2:Ch2:Sec8)

And St Thomas confirms: 

"Christ's Passion was indeed a malefice on His slayers' part; but on His own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of charity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice, and not the executioners" (ST 3:48:3.3)

 So Christ, acting as High Priest, offered up his life by refusing to hate his enemies in the midst of persecution. [7] This is precisely what St Peter meant when he interpreted Isaiah 53 for us in his First Epistle (I wrote about this HERE). I don't really see how Protestants can affirm Christ as High Priest because in the Penal Substitution view it is God inflicting the "punishment" on the sacrifice, which effectively strips the High Priesthood from Jesus and gives it to the one Person who cannot be High Priest, God the Father (Who is on the receiving end of the Sacrifice)! (I wrote about this inANOTHER ARTICLE). So, yet another reason why the Catholic understanding of Atonement isn't compatible with Penal Substitution. 

(6) Why do Catholic documents state that Jesus endured the worst sufferings humanly possible, particularly in His soul, if not to indicate He suffered the (equivalent) pains of hellfire itself? This is a good question and requires some explanation, as well as sufficiently understanding all of what has been said up to this point in the article. 

The Catechism of Trent explains in Article IV of the Creed (quoted freely): 

It cannot be a matter of doubt that His soul as to its inferior part was sensible of these torments; for as He really assumed human nature it is a necessary consequence that He really, and in His soul, experienced a most acute sense of pain. Hence these words of the Savior: My soul is sorrowful even unto death. ... Although human nature was united to the Divine Person, He felt the bitterness of His Passion as acutely as if no such union had existed. 

That Christ our Lord suffered the most excruciating torments of mind and body is certain. In the first place, there was no part of His body that did not experience the most agonizing torture. His hands and feet were fastened with nails to the cross; His head was pierced with thorns and smitten with a reed; His face was befouled with spittle and buffeted with blows; His whole body was covered with stripes.

His agony was increased by the very constitution and frame of His body. Formed by the power of the Holy Ghost, it was more perfect and better organized than the bodies of other men can be, and was therefore endowed with a superior susceptibility and a keener sense of all the torments which it endured. . . . Christ our Lord tempered with no admixture of sweetness the bitter chalice of His Passion butpermitted His human nature to feel as acutely every species of torment as if He were only man, and not also God.

It is important to distinguish between Christ suffering divine spiritual torments (i.e. the Father's wrath, spiritual death) versus suffering human emotional torments. This is why the Catechism speaks of Christ suffering in the "inferior part" of His soul, meaning the emotions and mental anguish. Aquinas elaborates on what this mental anguish consisted of in ST 3:46:5,

For Christ suffered from friends abandoning Him; in His reputation, from the blasphemies hurled at Him; in His honor and glory, from the mockeries and the insults heaped upon Him; in things, for He wasdespoiled of His garments; in His soul, from sadness, weariness, and fear; in His body, from wounds and scourgings.

Note that none of this suffering of Christ's soul is said to be of the divine type, God's anger, etc, as Protestants teach. In that link, Aquinas specifically rules out the idea Jesus suffered every type of suffering, because Jesus didn't endure every type of suffering, most especially not being cut-off from the Father. And that's the key. Even though Jesus was made capable of suffering worse than anyone ever suffered, this wasn't due to suffering certain types of pains. And thus there's no actual basis to say that Jesus suffered the equivalent of hellfire or anything similar, because intensity of suffering isn't the same as type of suffering. Christ's sufferings of body and soul were of the 'temporal' ('physical') type only.

Such distinctions show that in Catholic teaching, Jesus did not (and earlier it was shown He could not) suffer the pains of being spiritually cut-off from the Father, as Penal Substitution requires, despite affirming that Jesus did in fact endure the worst suffering a person has ever suffered, including in His soul. 

(7) A Reformed Protestant presented a few quotes (which I'll share below) from John Paul II commenting on Jesus' words "My God, why have you forsaken me" that seem to be compatible with the  Protestants understanding of those words. What did John Paul II mean in those quotes? 

First off, I've covered this verse numerous times, so please just search my blog if you want to know more. Briefly, the Reformed interpretation is that Jesus was spiritually cut-off from the Father when He uttered these words, as the Father's wrath poured down upon Him while on the Cross. The Reformed insist that if you fail to affirm their interpretation of Jesus' words, then you've missed the very heart of Jesus' suffering on the Cross. But Catholic tradition is clear how these words are to be understood, with St Thomas Aquinas in his survey of ancient Christian commentary giving us the understood meaning: "God is said to have forsaken Him in death because He exposed Him to the power of His persecutors; He withdrew His protection, but did not break the union." [8] No Catholic document I've ever seen permits reading Christ's words as signifying Jesus enduring spiritual cutting-off, broken fellowship, the Father's wrath, etc. In fact, such talk is the furthest thing from the orthodox Catholic mind, as I've shown throughout this article thus far.

Now the two quotes from Blessed John Paul II are as follows, which I'll comment upon as I present them:

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.
(Apostolic Letter: Beginning the New Millennium, paragraph 26)

From this quote, the Protestant made the claim that John Paul is saying here that Jesus could, in some mysterious manner, experience both perfect communion with the Father while simultaneously experience cutting-off from the Father. It would seem two polar-opposite ideas are being affirmed, and thus the Reformed are free to say Jesus was simultaneously suffering eternal damnation while at the same time enjoying perfect Heavenly bliss. 

With all that I've said thus far, it shouldn't be hard to see the fallacy and error in this Protestant's claim. First of all, this Protestant is assuming John Paul is actually talking about Jesus being spiritually cut-off from the Father. But that's not correct (which I'll further demonstrate in a bit). Second of all, John Paul is clear that the great theological minds have asked and addressed this question, meaning it is not an open question that Catholics can just believe as they please on. The great theological minds have demonstrated what is true and what is false on many facets of the Mystery of Salvation. As I've already shown, there's no basis whatsoever to think the great Catholic minds ever saw Jesus suffering God's wrath as an option. Thirdly, it's absurd to think that John Paul (or any great Catholic theologian) was asserting a blatant contradiction, as if Jesus could be simultaneously in communion and not-in-communion with the Father. That's ridiculous. 

Now for John Paul's explanation in his very next paragraph:

Faced with this mystery, we are greatly helped not only by theological investigation but also by that great heritage which is the "lived theology" of the saints. The saints offer us precious insights which enable us to understand more easily the intuition of faith, thanks to the special enlightenment which some of them have received from the Holy Spirit... Not infrequently the saints have undergone something akin to Jesus' experience on the Cross in the paradoxical blending of bliss and pain. In the Dialogue of Divine Providence, God the Father shows Catherine of Siena how joy and suffering can be present together in holy souls: "Thus the soul is blissful and afflicted: afflicted on account of the sins of its neighbor, blissful on account of the union and the affection of charity which it has inwardly received. These souls imitate the spotless Lamb, my Only-begotten Son, who on the Cross was both blissful and afflicted".13 In the same way, Thérèse of Lisieux lived her agony in communion with the agony of Jesus, "experiencing" in herself the very paradox of Jesus's own bliss and anguish: "In the Garden of Olives our Lord was blessed with all the joys of the Trinity, yet his dying was no less harsh. It is a mystery, but I assure you that, on the basis of what I myself am feeling, I can understand something of it".14 What an illuminating testimony!

So what John Paul was talking about is simply this: How can a person who is so closely in communion with God also suffer 'negative' feelings like sadness, affliction, loneliness, etc? Well, since it's not a contradictory proposal, it's not impossible. But it certainly is mysterious, because you'd think that being in such intimate communion with God would include a certain comfort and safety that precludes feelings of sadness and such. Clearly, John Paul was not suggesting Jesus was enduring spiritual torments by God's angry wrath upon Him! Instead, Jesus' 'cry of final abandonment' is to be understood more along the lines of (but infinitely more acute than) the sadness that we all feel when in the midst of major suffering we ask ourselves "Why is God letting this happen to me?"

The second quote this Protestant provided was from John Paul's General Audience lecture from November 30, 1998, where the topic of that day was Christ's words of abandonment.

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 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.

Everything seems to be perfectly easy to understand and right in accord with the traditional Catholic interpretation of that verse. But then John Paul seems to throw a curve ball at the last sentence. This Protestant claims that in this last sentence, John Paul is indeed saying that Jesus did in fact suffer the equivalent pains of a lost soul in hellfire suffers. My response simply is that this is reading too much into the text. The context gives no reason to think this abandonment is that of a cut-off soul, and in fact the context already shows the type of abandonment. Jesus did experience the worst sufferings imaginable, and if the Father permitted all this to happen, then yes it's a profound mystery a loving God would allow that to happen to anyone, particularly His Son. And the fact that Jesus was still alive when He said "Father, into your hands I commend my Spirit" is in no way compatible with the idea that the Father was spiritually cut-off from Jesus.

In the end, these quotes this Protestant provided are simply pure desperation, scraping for whatever scraps Protestants can get their hands on to salvage a horribly blasphemous and unbiblical teaching. 

end of quote---- and then from some notes on the article:

 But Catholic tradition has always been clear that Jesus didn't endure hellfire, and rather this clause is talking about Jesus "descending into Hades" to rescue the Old Testament Saints on Holy Saturday, which is also why the Creed puts this clause after mentioning Christ's death and burial (signifying it's not part of His suffering). The Catechism of Trent speaks directly on this clause, explicitly saying that this was not the hell of the damned where Jesus went, but rather that "To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell," and "Christ the Lord descended, on the contrary, not to suffer, but to liberate the holy and the just from their painful captivity." The Catechism says on this point that "he descended there as Savior" (See also CCC 632-633; Compendium Sec 125). So this "descent" of Christ had nothing to do with divine punishments.

see also http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/04/does-catholic-view-of-christs-atonement.html

Why does Christ's blood atone?

from comment127 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

"... why does Christ’s blood atone. The blood represents the very life. To give one’s possessions (e.g. house, property, clothes, money) is to give something external to oneself. But to pour out one’s blood unto death, is to give one’s very self. Hence Jesus says, “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (Jn. 15:13) This is why His blood is so precious, and St. Peter explains that we “were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” (1 Pet. 1:18-19) Christ redeemed us by giving the greatest gift of love, namely, His very life, letting it be poured out for our salvation. By His blood, He offered Himself without blemish to God (Heb 9:14), and by means of this sacrifice made peace with God for us (Col 1:20) and purchased the Church (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9). Christ’s blood sanctifies us (and the NT frequently alludes to the OT practice of cleansing things by the sprinkling of blood) because through this perfect offering to God, Christ won for us the sanctifying grace and agape by which we are sanctified."

Was Christ damned on the Cross?

An interesting article on this is found here  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

from comment 18

Let me add something as a point of clarification and qualification. To be damned is to be without hope, and without charity. It is to know that one is eternally separated from God, with no hope, not even the possibility of there being hope. That is utter despair. To be damned is to hate God, and to hate His justice. To be damned is to hate oneself with never-ending hatred that knows itself to be never-ending. But Christ endured the cross for the joy set before Him; He always retained hope and charity. He did not despair (that would have been a mortal sin). Nor did He hate God. Thus He never hated Himself. Nor did He ever lose sanctifying grace; otherwise His human will would have been against His divine will. So, for these reasons, if we say that He experienced what it is like to be damned, we must include some very important qualifications. He experienced the external loss of divine protection, and the interior loss of spiritual consolation. The damned also experience that, so in those two respects Christ experienced what it is like to be damned. But Christ didn’t experience the despair, self-loathing, hatred for God and deprivation of grace that the damned experience. So in those respects Christ didn’t experience what it is like to be damned.

see also this link where Thomas Aquinus' s view of Christ descending into hell in the creed is explained: http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2013/05/christ-descended-into-hell-meaning.html

from comment 26 on the first link above:

 All three of the [synoptic] Gospel writers refer to the darkness that fell over the whole land from the sixth hour (i.e. noon) until the ninth hour (i.e. 3 pm). (Cf. Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44.) But so far as I know, none of the Church Fathers interpret this as an indication that God the Father ‘turned His back’ on the Son. This was a sign to those who had called “crucify him, crucify him,” just as darkness was one of the plagues of Egypt before the Passover, a sign that they were opposing God, and that they should repent. This was creation groaning over what was being done to its Creator.

As for the meaning of Christ’s cry “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” we should not understand that as meaning that the Son (in His divine nature) was cut off from the Trinity or separated from the perfect happiness of the divine life. But in His human nature He experienced what it is like to be handed over to His enemies and to suffer and die. In those respects He was forsaken. Likewise, in His human nature he experienced the absence of spiritual consolation, and in that respect too He was forsaken, even though He (in His human nature) did not cease to behold the Father. He spoke these words as man, that is, according to His human nature. But the Father never ceased to love Him, nor did the Father’s love for the Son ever diminish in the least. Everything the Son experienced on the cross, He Himself willed to experience, including these ways of being forsaken in His human nature. I recommend listening to the talk at this link.

also Newman's discourse on the death of Christ is helpful:[there is more at the link http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse16.html :

Our Lord said, when His agony was commencing, "My soul is sorrowful unto death"; now you may ask, my brethren, whether He had not certain consolations peculiar to Himself, impossible in any other, which diminished or impeded the distress of His soul, and caused Him to feel, not more, but less than an ordinary man. For instance, He had a sense of innocence which no other sufferer could have; even His persecutors, even the false apostle who betrayed Him, the judge who sentenced Him, and the soldiers who conducted the execution, testified His innocence. "I have condemned the innocent blood," said Judas; "I am clear from the blood of this just Person," said Pilate; "Truly this was a just Man," cried the centurion. And if even they, sinners, bore witness to His sinlessness, how much more did His own soul! And we know well that even in our own case, sinners as we are, on the consciousness of innocence or of guilt mainly turns our power of enduring opposition and calumny; how much more, you will say, in the case of our Lord, did the sense of inward sanctity compensate for the suffering and annihilate the shame! Again, you may say that He knew that His sufferings would be short, and that their issue would be joyful, whereas uncertainty of the future is the keenest element of human distress; but He could not have anxiety, for He was not in suspense; nor despondency or despair, for He never was deserted. {333} And in confirmation you may refer to St. Paul, who expressly tells us that, "for the joy set before Him," our Lord "despised the shame". And certainly there is a marvellous calm and self-possession in all He does: consider His warning to the Apostles, "Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak"; or His words to Judas, "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" and, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" or to Peter, "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword"; or to the man who struck Him, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me?" or to His Mother, "Woman, behold thy Son".

All this is true and much to be insisted on; but it quite agrees with, or rather illustrates, what I have been observing. My brethren, you have only said (to use a human phrase) that He was always Himself. His mind was its own centre, and was never in the slightest degree thrown off its heavenly and most perfect balance. What He suffered, He suffered because He put Himself under suffering, and that deliberately and calmly. As He said to the leper, "I will, be thou clean"; and to the paralytic, "Thy sins be forgiven thee"; and to the centurion, "I will come and heal him"; and of Lazarus, "I go to wake him out of sleep"; so He said, "Now I will begin to suffer," and He did begin. His composure is but the proof how entirely He governed His own mind. He drew back, at the proper moment, the bolts and fastenings, and opened the gates, and the floods fell right {334} upon His soul in all their fulness. That is what St. Mark tells us of Him; and he is said to have written his Gospels from the very mouth of St. Peter, who was one of three witnesses present at the time. "They came," he says, "to the place which is called Gethsemani; and He saith to His disciples, Sit you here while I pray. And He taketh with Him Peter and James and John, and He began to be frightened and to be very heavy." You see how deliberately He acts; He comes to a certain spot; and then, giving the word of command, and withdrawing the support of the God-head from His soul, distress, terror, and dejection at once rush in upon it. Thus He walks forth into a mental agony with as definite an action as if it were some bodily torture, the fire or the wheel.

This being the case, you will see at once, my brethren, that it is nothing to the purpose to say that He would be supported under His trial by the consciousness of innocence and the anticipation of triumph; for His trial consisted in the withdrawal, as of other causes of consolation, so of that very consciousness and anticipation. The same act of the will which admitted the influence upon His soul of any distress at all, admitted all distresses at once. It was not the contest between antagonist impulses and views, coming from without, but the operation of an inward resolution. As men of self-command can turn from one thought to another at their will, so much more did He deliberately deny Himself the comfort, and satiate Himself with the woe. In that moment His soul thought not of the future, He thought only of the {335} present burden which was upon Him, and which He had come upon earth to sustain.

from comment 157 here  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

 what St. Thomas is speaking of when he writes of the interior suffering (suffering in soul) of Christ for the sins of the whole human race. According to St. Thomas, because Christ in His Passion retains the beatific vision, He sees each sin ever committed and to be committed, and sees perfectly the way it wrongs God by failing to give Him the love, obedience, honor and glory that is due to God. Hence St. Thomas says in Summa Theologica III Q.46 a.6, when he writes:

The cause of the interior pain was, first of all, all the sins of the human race, for which He made satisfaction by suffering; hence He ascribes them, so to speak, to Himself, saying (Psalm 21:2): “The words of my sins.”

According to St. Thomas, the interior pain was not one of His conscience tormenting Him for wrongdoing, since He had never sinned. Nor was the Father angry with Him, and pouring out an angry tirade within Christ’s soul for our sins, while Christ ‘took it like a man.’ Rather, Christ was sorrowed, grieving in His soul over our sins. In Catholic language, as our High Priest He was making an act of contrition for all our sins, in solidarity with us. His solidarity with us, in His heart grieving over our sins and their offense against God, this was the source of His internal suffering. This is the way He ‘stood in the gap,’ not by receiving a stream of wrath from the Father, but by making the perfect act of contrition to the Father on our behalf as both intercessor (High Priest), and victim (i.e. sacrifice).

Peter / councils

Interesting comment here at 115 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/#comment-79299

I would like to challenge your assessment of the canonical evidence. Especially as it pertains to the book of Acts. It seems that you would like to use Acts 15 as evidence of the early Church operating under the same governing principles as today’s confessional reformed. you cite that 1. James made the decision 2. The decision of the council was not presented as James’ but as a group decision and 3. the council consisted of a plurality of presbyters and elders. I want to first show that the Council itself is a perfect example of the RC conception of conciliar infallibility and then also refute the idea that it was James and not Peter presiding over the council.

Acts 15:28-29: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.”

Do reformed protestants today cite the Holy Spirit when delivering decisions reached by a plurality of elders and presbyters? If so, how is it that the PCA can justify its schism from the PCUSA? I have heard people say before that this council was governed by apostles and so inspired in a way that future councils could not be but this response seems to simplistic in that it assumes the truth of reformed views on cessationism a priori. Scripture is our model for everything, including Church government, and all parties appeal to it for their own views (including yourself in this very post). If Scripture teaches that a council of the Church is authoritative and binding, then it is implausible and unreasonable to assert that no future council can be so simply because it is not conducted by apostles. In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and

“. . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached
by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.” (Acts 16:4)

This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding — with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself! This would seem to insinuate infallibility and a irrevocable decision not up for further discussion or dissent. No one was at liberty to disobey these decrees on the grounds of “conscience,” or to declare by “private judgment” that they were in error (per Luther). Far from being evidence for reformed church government I think that we have a prime example of RC (or at least EO) infallible conciliar authority.

Scripture wasn’t written in a vacuum and when one considers the way the ECFs considered future Councils (as infallible and protected by the Holy Spirit) this line of reasoning is only strengthened. Eminent reformed historian Phillip Schaff writes that

The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final.

Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis. Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command; a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: “What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever.” The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken through them. The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: “The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council.” Pope Leo speaks of an “irretractabilis consensus” of the council of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels. In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons by the side of laws of the realm.

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, 340-342; available online: see this particular portion online: § 65. The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils)

Thus, Tradition stands firmly on the side of the Roman Catholic Church’s view of Acts 15 and its perpetuity as an example for future councils than that of the reformed and their conception of fallible councils and majority opinion.

I would also object to James as “being the one who made the decision”. Carl Olsen supplies evidence that it was actually Peter who presided over the Council of Jerusalem when he writes…

As for Acts 15, a number of factors point to Peter actually being both the leader at the council and the leader of the early Church. First, there is the manner in which his speech begins and ends. By standing up to speak after the debate had subsided, Peter made an emphatic physical gesture affirming his authority and centrality. The silence afterwards indicated the finality of what Peter had just said; no one disputes either his speech or his right to make it. In fact, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, along with James’s speech, only reinforce and agree with what Peter says.

Secondly, few non-Catholic commentators seem to notice the striking wording Peter used in his speech. If he was only a witness, wouldn’t he have appealed only to his experience? But while Peter did focus on his experience, the main object of his speech was God: “God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech.

As mentioned, Paul, Barnabas, and James all reinforced and agreed with Peter’s declaration, albeit in different ways. The first two related “the signs and wonders God” had been working “among the Gentiles” (v. 12). James pointed first to the words of Peter and then to the Prophets (vs. 14-15). Those who claim James’s speech was the definitive one point to the language in verse 19 (“Therefore it is my judgement . . .”) as evidence for James’s primacy. Yet James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed. “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church,” state Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “He formulates a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21)”

He then follows this up with 10 other scriptural evidences of Petrine primacy including…

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13), except Galatians 2. Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2).

2. Peter alone receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42, Mt 16:18).

3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28, 1 Pt 5:2).

4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

7. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

8. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

9. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-36), led the replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age (3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter’s name appears at least 54 times in Acts; James appears a total of four times.

When one weighs these evidences against Peter “referring to himself as a fellow elder” there doesn’t seem to be much of a controversy. In summary then I find that Acts 15 if used as an example for Church government is a fatal blow to the reformed conception of conciliar fallibility and sola scriptura. Tradition also sides with the RC view of Acts 15 and the idea that the Holy Spirits protection and authoritative stamp would be with all christian councils in perpetuity and not just confined to the pages of the book of Acts. I defy the idea that James presided over the Council of Jerusalem and that Peters self reference as a “fellow presbyter” undoes the mountain of scriptural evidence we have for petrine primacy and the role of binding and loosing given to Peter when he alone obtained the Keys to the Kingdom.

exegesis and eisegesis what does this prove?

from comment 69 here  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/

You complain that Catholic interpretations of the text exclude any exegesis which you believe contradicts Catholic dogma. You then accuse the Catholic side of just being involved with ‘eisegesis’ to prop up Catholic dogma.

However, Reformed theologians have their exegesis which interprets things in a Reformed way. Meanwhile, there exists an abundance of exegesis that contradicts Reformed exegesis in every imaginable way. Yet, Reformed Churches don’t turn around and change their dogmas to conform to the varying exegesis at every turn. But this is what you are asking the Catholic Church to do. You want the Catholic Church to conform to exegesis that you agree with but we could just as easily complain that the Reformed Churches exclude exegesis that contradicts Reformed exegesis and so Reformed exegesis is really just ‘eisegesis’ used to support Reformed dogma.

If we all did what you are asking, we’d be Universalist Unitarians in two weeks’ time.

How do we get past this? Putting aside the option of becoming Unitarians we are left with two options.

1) We go on throwing each other’s exegesis at each other in a question begging manner like you do with 1 Tim 3:15
2) We find a way to address the differences in interpretation in a non-question begging way.

Option # 2 is what Called to Communion is all about. To that end, we have been putting forth the argument that the only non-question begging way to address the mountains of differing exegesis is to locate the Church that Christ founded by finding the successors to the apostles. Once we find the successors to the apostles, we approach that Church and conform our understanding to the exegesis and dogmas that the apostolic Church preaches.

In summary, our approach is exactly the approach that Irenaues used and other early fathers used when fighting against the Gnostics. Their answer to the Gnostic exegesis was not to embrace the Gnostic exegesis but to say, “No, we are the Church that Christ founded. We are the Church of the apostles. We have the succession of the apostles and the Church says that Gnosticism is false…”

There are many such examples. Here is one:

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. …To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic… Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).

Source

(Of course the debates with the Gnostics went further/deeper than that but this is why the early Church looked to her succession in the first place. )