Atonement/forgiveness/Mass/salvation/temporal punishment

Quote below from here. http://bfhu.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/atonement-salvation-temporal-punishment-for-sin/

" I would like to ask you about the Atonement and forgiveness, the Mass, Salvation and temporal punishment.

The Catholic view of the Atonement is that when Jesus died on the cross of Calvary he died for the Eternal puinishment of Sin. So when A Catholic sins either Mortally or Venially and then repents and goes to a Catholic priest for the sacrament of penance and gets Absolution he is let off the Eternal puinishment of his Sins BUT he has to work off OR Expiate the Temporal Punishment of his sins by Prayers and indulgences and if he does not work the temporal punishment off in his/her lifetime then he/she will have to expiate them in Purgatory.

I have described these Catholic beliefs to Protestants, Anglicans and Eastern orthodox Christians and they think that it is a Load of HOG WASH.

They do not believe in temporal puinishment or in a Fire-Purgatory where sins that have been absolved in confession are punished and paid for in Purgatory or in this life.

BFHU: It may not be actual fire but something signified by the pain of fire.

They all believe that when jesus died on the Cross he died for ALL OUR SINS and all the punishment due for them.

Catholicism seems to them a SAD RELIGION because you have to spend most of your life avoiding sin and then when you sin you have to worry about expiating or working off the temporal punishment for your sins and if you do not do it during your lifetime then YOU GET NAILED IN PURGATORY!!!!

BFHU: All a very small price to pay for an Eternity in Heaven. This life is very short by comparison. We can have an easy life for 80 years but then as Jesus said, “you will have received your reward” I’ll take my reward in Heaven. Thank you very much.

Then there is Salvation. Most evangelical protestant believe in ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED. JUSTIFICATION is a once for all declaration of forgiveness FOLLOWED BY SANCTIFICATION and then INSTANTANEOUS GLORIFICATION AFTER DEATH.

Catholics on the other hand believe that Salvation is a process begun in Baptism and strengthened by the GRACES OF THE SACRAMENTS, prayer, holiness and good works as well as ongoing repentance.
Then at death there is the PARTICULAR JUDGEMENT and then either heaven, Purgatory or Hell.

The Mass also plays an important role in the Salvation of the living and the dead in the intermediate state of Purgatory.
It is a true, proper real and PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE ( I.E. SIN FORGIVING SACRIFICE ) Which benefits the living and the dead.

Each mass is getting the Catholic closer to Heaven and then there will be many Masses said after his/her death also for his/her eternal salvation.

To Protestants this all complicates things as they believe that all their sins are forgiven by Christ once for all sacrifice and that they are SAVED and will go to Heaven when they die.

BFHU: Many of them don’t even think it is important to examine their consciences either.

Traditional Catholicism would say that Salvation has different tenses in the New testament in that WE WERE SAVED when Christ died for us on the cross PAST TENSE. Then we are also being saved, PRESENT TENSE, OR in a state of Salvation by being members of his body the Church. We were called to this state of salvation when we were baptised and we will be saved FUTURE TENSE after the final judgement IF WE HAVE WALKED WORTHY OF OUR CALLING."

then here  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences  ---

 Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven

When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery: 

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.) 

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car. 

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2)."

[another example of temporal punishment 

Dt. 27:12-14:

12: The LORD said to Moses, "Go up into this mountain of Ab'arim, and see the land which I have given to the people of Israel. 13: And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was gathered, 14: because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin during the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the waters before their eyes." (These are the waters of Mer'ibah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.)]

More from Catholic.com  from the source linked above: 

Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making "expiation" for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word "expiation" means or how indulgences work. 

 Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word "expiate": "[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime" (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: "The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty." 

Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done. 

 An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: "By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness. 

Protestants--do they believe in temporal punishment? or why do Christians die if Christ's righteousness has been imputed?

here  http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/why-do-christians-die/

In question and answer 42, the Heidelberg Catechism considers why Christians die. It is a logical place to address the issue because questions 37–41 deal with Christ’s death for His people in order to bear the wrath of God in their place (Rom. 3:21–26; 1 Peter 2:24–25). Those for whom Jesus did not suffer — those who remain impenitent — endure physical death as one part of the divine wrath they must suffer for their sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). This cannot be the case for believers, for Christ has been cursed in our place (Gal. 3:10–14). Why, then, do believers die?

There are many answers to this question. First, while the penalty for the sin of Christians has been paid, the Lord has not yet removed the presence and effects of sin from creation. Creation is groaning, waiting for the adoption of God’s children, which will be plain to all when our bodies are raised from the grave (Rom. 8:18–23). The full benefits of Christ’s work will not be consummated until He returns to bring the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21). We will suffer the results of sin until then, but we should be glad God did not wrap up His plan two thousand years ago. If He had done so, you and I would never have existed or seen His glorious grace.

Our deaths, as the Heidelberg Catechism states, do not pay the debt for our sins. Instead, they mark the point at which we enter directly into the presence of Christ (Phil. 1:21–23). The death of Christians is holy and precious to God. When we die, He receives us into heaven, where we rest before Him until the final resurrection."

Westminster:

"Q. 85. Death being the wages of sin, why are not the righteous delivered from death, seeing all their sins are forgiven in Christ?
A. The righteous shall be delivered from death itself at the last day, and even in death are delivered from the sting and curse of it; so that, although they die, yet it is out of God’s love, to free them perfectly from sin and misery, and to make them capable of further communion with Christ in glory, which they then enter upon." end of quote.

Perhaps another example of Temporal  punishment:

Hebrews 12:5-17:

5 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? --"My son,do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished [ ἐλέγχω elegchō ]by him. 6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." 7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. 12 Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, 13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. 14 Strive for peace with all men, and for theholiness [ἁγιασμός hagiasmos ] without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled; 16 that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

meaning of ἐλέγχω elegchō
to chasten, to punish

meaning of ἁγιασμός hagiasmos
1) consecration, purification
2) the effect of consecration
a) sanctification of heart and life

  [found this here:http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4476611&postcount=35

also here from comment 16  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/#twofold

Temporal punishment for sin is not the same thing as the temporal consequences of sin. Temporal punishment is the temporal punishment due to oneself for one’s own sins. But the temporal consequences of sin are the result of Adam’s sin, not one’s own sins. Hence in John 9, when Jesus’s disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” His being born blind was a temporal consequence of sin (i.e. the loss to mankind of the preternatural gifts, including the gift of impassibility), but it was not temporal punishment for his own sins. Nevertheless, by offering our sufferings to God in a state of grace, we can reduce the debt of temporal punishment we owe for the sins we have committed after our baptism.

Monergism/yes or no?

Monergism this is from a comment 52 here : http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/how-the-church-won-an-interview-with-jason-stellman/#comment-39984 ----

I had asserted that your criticism of Catholic soteriology assumes “monergism,” and thus begs the question. To that, you replied: “That also assumes that monergism and “effectivity” leaves anyone with no choice but final salvation.” That reply misses the mark.

My assertion was not an assumption, but an inference from (a) what you say and (b) the definition of monergism. The Wikipedia definition is pretty good: “Monergism describes the position in Christian theology of those who believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, works to bring about effectually the salvation of individuals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual.” So if you hold that God “effectively” saves us without the cooperation of our free will–and that is what you hold–you’re a monergist. Nor, I notice, do you deny you’re a monergist.

In fact, you reaffirm monergism. As a Catholic, I had written that our salvation comes about when:

…our own power of free choice is enabled, by God’s unmerited communication of his own nature, to choose as God wills within us, and thus to partake of the divine nature. Being finally saved, therefore, does not displace our freedom but restores it–if we would but have it so.

To that, you reply:

We coaxed the system with so many words but in the final analysis -IF WE WOULD BUT HAVE IT SO-the grace of God is ineffective and does not save anyone.

You seem to take for granted that it is not God who saves us if we have any choice in the matter. Salvation must therefore be monergistic if it is to be salvation at all. But that assumption is unwarranted.

God saved humanity through Jesus’ death and resurrection. If those had not happened, none of us would be able to please God by any means, including free choices, because everybody would remain enslaved to sin. But because it has happened, we all have the opportunity to be grafted, as it were, onto Christ, and thus be liberated from sin to participate in his divine goodness. That it remains up to us to stay in Christ or not, that we can grow in holiness or fall away if we choose, does nothing to change that. When a person chooses to stay in Christ, it is God who continues transforming them into a sharer in his nature, which is supremely free. So, while it is God who does the work of salvation all the way through, that work does not displace our freedom, or our activity in general, but transforms and strengthens them.

and there is this post here that has over 400 comments that discuss the subject http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/04/thought-experiment-for-monergists/

also some aspects about God' s glory:  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/draft-soli-deo-gloria-a-catholic-perspective/

an interesting comment 21 from the post http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/04/thought-experiment-for-monergists/

John Thayer Jensen: Maybe what is bothering me is the idea of synergism itself. Maybe I’m just a pantheist in theist’s clothing :-)

It seems to me that either one is saying that God can do it all, but I am allowedactually to do a little bit, or else that God can’t do it all and needs my help.

Whereas in fact it seems to me that what I do I do and if I didn’t – it wouldn’t be done. At the same time, it seems to me that I cannot do anything except in God.

How about a third possibility? God can’t do it all, and God doesn’t need our help, since God is in need of nothing.

First, why do I say God can’t do it all? I say this because God cannot contradict God. God, by a sovereign act of his will, has deigned to make human beings as creatures with free will. Our free will isessential to our nature, and without it, we can’t be human beings. If God were to “save” us by forcing upon us some kind of “irresistible” grace that destroyed our free will, then we would cease to be creatures with free will. That kind of “irresistible” grace would utterly annihilate the human being that God created, and what was “saved” after the annihilation wrought by irresistible grace would not be a human being at all, but merely the shell of a human being. Therefore, God can’t force a human to choose union with God without destroying what he has chosen to create. It isn’t that the omnipotent God lacks the power to force us to choose union with God, rather, it is that such an exercise of that omnipotent power would create a contradiction within God that is irreconcilable with what God has chosen to do, namely, God chooses to save human beings as beings as human beings. And that means an adult that has reached the age of reason has to exercise his free will to choose union with God over alienation from God in order to be saved. But how can a man that is born in bondage to sin, make a free choice for union with God? IOW, how does the Catholic Church avoid the heresy of semi-Pelagianism? If the fallen man could make a choice for God out of his will power alone, then he isn’t really in any sort of bondage to sin. The Catholic Church avoids the heresy of semi-Pelagianism by rejecting the false either/or false dichotomy of either monergism or synergism. Salvation is a both/and process, both monergism and synergism.

The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V directly addresses the question of the actual graces that must be received by an adult before he chooses to become justified through the Sacrament of Baptism:

“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.”

The Council here is teaching that there are two kinds of actual grace that must be received by fallen man before he can make a free choice for reconciliation with God through the Sacraments of Initiation. First, he must receive the actual grace of prevenient grace that enlightens his understanding, and that grace is received without any merit on the part of man. This is a monergistic movement by God – God deigns, by a sovereign act of his will, to give fallen man enlightenment, an enlightenment that allows man to understand that he is in need of justification and conversion. After the man has been enlightened by prevenient grace, he receives the actual grace of quickening and assisting grace, and this actual grace gives enough healing to man’s wounded nature that he can now cooperate with God in his conversion and movement towards justification. Quickening and assisting grace can be resisted, and, ultimately, it can be rejected – or – this actual grace can be accepted, and by cooperation with this grace, a man can move towards reception of the sanctifying grace bestowed by the Sacraments of Initiation. This is cooperation with quickening and assisting grace is synergistic – the man can’t move in this grace unless he has this grace, yet at the same time, this grace is not irresistible, since he can exercise his free will to reject this grace.

judgement/and works a relationship

from comment 48 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/how-the-church-won-an-interview-with-jason-stellman/#comment-39984

If you like, I could adduce dozens of NT passages that draw an explicitly causal connection between our Spirit-wrought works and our receiving the eternal kingdom on the last day. Can you think of a single one that says that on the day of judgment God will receive us irrespective of our works, but because of the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience?

(And no fair listing passages that any Catholic would heartily embrace without also showing that they necessitate the Reformed understanding of imputation.)

from comment 15 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/trent-and-the-gospel-a-reply-to-tim-challies/#comment-87566

I’m still a little fuzzy on how the Catholic position accounts for the eschatological weight that Paul puts on justification while also maintaining distinctions between initial and final justification. For the Reformed, justification is eschatological in the sense that is an intrusion of judgment day into history, pronouncing that the believer will be found just on the Final Day. Clearly the Catholic position is different! Would you mind explaining the points of difference as it relates to justification and eschatology in RC thought?

I’ve explained the problem with the proleptic declaration position in comment #161 of the “From Calvin to the Barque of Peter” thread, in comment #687 of the “How John Calvin Made Me Catholic” thread, and in comment #32 of the “St. Augustine on Faith Without Love” thread.

As for the Catholic doctrine, the Catholic position differs, in part, from the proleptic declaration position in the way I described in comment #691 of the “How John Calvin Made Me Catholic” thread. One’s present justification status depends on whether one is presently in a state of grace; one’s present justification is not a proleptic declaration by God already giving the final verdict that will be pronounced on Judgment Day. That would be presumption, because then, as soon as we came to know that we are presently justified, we would immediately know that we are elect-for-glory. But apart from a special (private) revelation, we do not know that we are elect-for-glory, because the apostolic deposit does not include a list of the names of those elect-for-glory. (See Canon 16 of Trent VI.) For those having lived and died in a state of grace, final justification is not based on extra nos imputation, but on the truth concerning our actual lives (thoughts, words, deeds), as St. Paul says:

we know that the judgment of God is according to the truth” [κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν]. (Romans 2:2)

He is referring there to the Day of Judgment, when God sees the heart of every man, and nothing is hidden from His sight, and every man receives his reward from God, according to what he has done in the flesh, whether good or evil. Jesus spoke of this uncovering of all that is hidden, in Matt 10:26, and in Mark 4:22, and in Luke 8:17 and 12:2. And St. Paul himself says, in a passage that is remarkably parallel to Romans 2:

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God. (1 Cor 4:5)

And again:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. (2 Cor 5:10)

The one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. (Gal 6:8-9)

The author of the letter to the Hebrews says something quite similar:

And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. (Heb 4:13)

And John writes in Revelation:

Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. (Rev. 22:12)

This is the meaning of the judgment of God on the Day of Judgment, to which St. Paul refers in Romans 2:2. St. Paul says that God will give to each man according to works, those who persevere in doing good will receive the reward of “eternal life:”

For He will render to every man according to his works, to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life. (Romans 2:6-7)

He refers to the Judgment again in Rom 2:11, where he says that there is no partiality [προσωπολημψία] with God. He is saying that on that Day, God will show no partiality. But He will judge according to the truth, according to what we truly are, what we have thought, and said (Matt 12:37), and done. Being a Jew will not allow anyone to hide any sins on that Day. That is what he is saying in Rom 2:12, when he says:

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law.”

He is saying that we will be judged according to the standard we know. The Gentiles, who have the moral law given to them by conscience, will be judged according to that law, not according to the Mosaic Law. The Jew, however, who has (in addition to the moral law known by reason) the divine Law that was given specially to Moses, will be judged by that [Mosaic] Law.

In Rom 2:13, St. Paul is still speaking about Judgment Day, explaining that it will be of no use on that Day of Judgment to have received the Law of Moses, if one only hears it and does not do it. That’s what he means when he says:

“for it is not the hearers of the law who are just before God [δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ], but the doers of the Law will be justified [δικαιωθήσονται.].” (Rom 2:13)

This is what Jesus Himself said in John 5:29, when He said, “those who did the good deeds [will be raised] to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” Similarly, St. Paul here in Romans 2 says that on that Day, it will be the doers of the law (not those who hear but do not do) who will be “just before God,” and so will be found by God to be just. The God who is Truth, and who judges only according to the truth (Rom 2:2), will disclose the hearts of men, bring everything to light, and judge those persons to be actually righteous who have actually fulfilled the law. Truth Himself will reveal the doers of the law to be doers of the law, to be law-keepers, and not law-breakers. He will, by uncovering everything, show them to be actually righteous.

It was this fact about the gospel, that we will stand before the Judgment seat of Christ, and all that we have thought, said, and done will be revealed, and those found to be righteous will enter into eternal life, and those found to be unrighteous into eternal damnation, that frightened Felix and caused him to send St. Paul away, when St. Paul was preaching the gospel to him. (Acts 24:25) The gospel is not a way to avoid Judgment, or hide behind an extra nos imputed righteousness, as though the Creator and Judge is not the same God as the Savior (ala Marcion). The gospel is that by which through the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape, we are actually and truly made righteous, such that should we persevere in grace, then on Judgment Day, our thoughts, words, and deeds truly will be deserving of eternal life, and of Christ’s “well done, good and faithful servant.”

Many more such passages can be found in the “V. Scripture on Merit” section of our “The Doctrine of Merit” article.

end of quote.

Also here:
"Certainly it is of faith that there is a particular judgment, and that every man, at the instant of his soul’s departure from the body, appears before the tribunal of God to hear his eternal sentence pronounced. Yet this judgment cannot suffice, and it is essential that it should be followed by another public judgment, in which God will not examine the actions in isolation and taken in themselves, but will examine them in their effects upon other men, in the good or evil deriving from them for families and peoples—in a word, in the consequences they produced and which those who perpetrated them ought to have foreseen." Fr. Charles Arminjon, p. 94  from the book The End of the Present World

grace and effort?

from comment 48 here:  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/how-the-church-won-an-interview-with-jason-stellman/#comment-39984

“What hope do you have when the effectiveness of God’s saving grace is dependent on how much you extend effort and cooperate with that, meriting the righteousness needed, avoiding mortal sin, doing penance and atoning for temporatl guilt of your sins in purgatory so that finally you will be deserving of the beatific vision?”

You could have asked Paul a similar question when he told the Corinthians that God’s grace toward him was “not in vain” since he “labored more than anyone else.” In fact, I would venture to guess that every prominent NT figure—Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and John—made at least one or two statements that could give rise to the very question you’re asking me. Jesus said that unless we hear his words and do them, our house is built on sand and will collapse on judgment day. “OK, but how much obedience, Jesus? And how perfect must that obedience be?” John said that God gives us what we ask “because we keep his commandments.” Well, couldn’t you just ask John, “But since it is impossible to obey the law perfectly, then why are you making answered prayer hinge on something we cannot do?”

I could go on and on. My point is that your paradigm makes no sense out of these passages and others. And it is ironic that the very objections you’re offering against the Catholic gospel could be made to statements found all over the NT, especially statements from Jesus. So until your problems with the Catholic message don’t also apply to the biblical one, you’ll have to forgive me for thinking they sound pretty hollow.

below from here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-law-and-grace/ :

Overview of the Reformed and Catholic positions on Law and Grace

Before turning to St. Augustine, consider briefly the Reformed and Catholic doctrines concerning the relation of law and grace. According to Reformed theology, justification is by an extra nos (i.e. outside of us) imputation of the obedience of Christ. In other words, God justifies us by counting us as righteous not because of any righteousness infused into us, but by crediting Christ’s righteousness to our account, and crediting Him with our sins. God counts Christ’s suffering and death as punishment for our sins, and God counts Christ’s perfect obedience as our obedience. By this double imputation, nothing we do can bring us into condemnation.¹ That is what it means, in Reformed theology, to be no longer under law, but under grace. The law remains normative and binding on believers as a guide to living correctly, but no one who has been justified by grace through faith can be condemned by the law, nor justified by law-keeping. Believers are not under the law for justification or condemnation; they are under grace. Grace and law are, in that respect, mutually exclusive.

According to Catholic doctrine, justification is by an infusion of sanctifying grace and agape. God does not count-us-as-righteous-even-though-internally-we-are-unrighteous; by infusing grace and agape into our hearts at the moment of regeneration He instantly makes us righteous. God does not count (or impute) our sins against us (Rom 4:8), not by leaving us with a wicked sinful heart and merely overlooking our sins, but by mercifully transforming our heart through the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape such that there is no mortal sin to overlook. The person with agape in his heart is in friendship with God, and thus is righteous before God. When Abraham chose to believe God’s promise (Rom 4:3), this act not only showed that Abraham had a faith working through agape and thus was in friendship with God, but it also deepened that friendship, and so God counted it to him as righteousness. Agape fulfills the law (Rom 10:8-10), because agape is the spirit of the law. Withoutagape, no one is righteous in His sight. But through Christ agape is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). By this agape in our hearts, we walk in newness of life; this infused grace and agape produces the “obedience of faith” of which St. Paul speaks (Rom 1:5, 16:26). This infused grace and agape is the gift of righteousness (Rom 5:17) by which we have been “freed from sin and made slaves of righteousness” (Rom 6:18,22). By this gift we are made “doers of the Law” (Rom 2:13), such that the requirement of the Law is “fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit,” (Rom 8:4). By this gift we subject ourselves to the law of God (Rom 8:7). By this gift of infused sanctifying grace and agape, our spirit is made alive (Rom 8:10) and the law is written on our hearts (cf. Rom 2:28-29), truly in our hearts (Rom 10:8, 10), as the prophet Jeremiah prophesied long ago concerning the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33-34). So according to the Catholic doctrine regarding law and grace, by the infusion of sanctifying grace we receive the gift of agape by which we truly fulfill the law. Here, grace and law are not mutually exclusive; grace orients us to God in divine love such that we fulfill the law, and are truly justified in our hearts.

Incarnation--things relating to this

from comment 24 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/horton-on-being-made-one-flesh-with-christ/

 The incarnation is not Jesus possessing a human being or possessing a human body or possessing a human soul. The incarnation is the Logos becoming human, not through a change in the Logos, but by taking taking up a body and rational soul into His very act of existence, as I explained above. Union is not necessarily Leibnizian identity. A human being (with body and rational soul) is ipso facto a human person. The only way (if it could be) for God to make a zombie is either not to make a body, or not to make a rational soul. As soon as God joins a rational soul to a body, there is a human person; that existing being is ipso facto a human person.

from comment 30:

 Chrysostom teaches at one point (before Ephesus, of course) the following:“For by union and by conjunction God the Word and the flesh are one, not in any confused way, nor by an obliteration of the senses, but by a certain union that is indescribable and beyond understanding. . . . There was no possibility of raising [our fallen nature] again, unless He that fashioned it in the beginning should stretch His hand to it and remold it anew, by rebirth through water and the Spirit.”

Compline ( Night Prayer )Breviarium Monasticum

for some reason you may have to go to the you tube site to play this/ 

why go to mass?

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/do-you-want-to-go-to-heaven/   here

God is love and has wrath

• Found an explanation of sorts Here: http://www.challies.com/christian-living/wrath-is-loves-response-to-sin

  
  

  Wittmer (a Protestant who has written a book called, Don’t Stop Believing , explains [says Tim Challies]'' how we can (and must) reconcile God’s wrath with his love. “Scripture says that God is love and that he has wrath. This means that love lies deeper than wrath in the character of God. Love is his essential perfection, without which he would not be who he is. Wrath is love’s response to sin. It is God’s voluntary gag reflex at anything that destroys his good creation. God is against sin because he is for us, and he will vent his fury on everything that damages us.”

  
  
• 
  Tim also makes a good point here:" Love is at God’s very core. 1 John 4:8 says, “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” Through all of eternity, God has been love; he has existed in a state of love of Father to Son, Son to Spirit, Spirit to Father. There has never been a time that God has not been expressing love; nor will there ever be. But God’s wrath is far different. God has not always been wrathful. He has not always had to express anger. His anger is a reaction to a lack of love—a lack of love for him or a lack of love to others. Wrath is a response to sin. Therefore wrath did not exist until sin began to exist. And as sin came to be, God had to respond to it in a way that is consistent with his holy character. God’s response to sin is wrath. How could it be otherwise? Sin is cosmic treason against the Creator of the universe. He must respond."
  His conclusion:  “Every act of God flows from his love, even—and especially—those that demonstrate his wrath.”

  Is he a God of love or of wrath? God expresses both love and wrath, but where wrath is demonstrated, love is personified. God is love.   

  a few seconds ago · Edited · Like

In Scott Hahn's NT comments from Rom 1:18--"the wrath of God:  Not a surge of anger and emotion that overcomes God, but a fixed response or reflex of divine holiness toward sin."

also from comment 33 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement


Welcome to Called To Communion. Nothing in my post presupposes that God’s love and God’s punishment are mutually exclusive. When God punishes a person for sin, He does not cease to love the person being punished, but He does not love that person’s sin. And it is precisely because of the person’s sin that he is punished. Also, God disciplines those He loves, to bring them to repentance, and even to lead them away from temptation. So in either punishment or discipline, God continues to love the recipient. But in both punishment and discipline, God does not love the person’s sin. Eternal punishment, separates those who receive it from fellowship with God.

from comment 53

(1) Would you say that Jesus’ death quenched God’s wrath, even if for different reasons than Protestants say this?

To answer that question, we should first clarify exactly what we mean by “God’s wrath.” (See what I wrote in the section titled “Does God hate sinners?“) When we humans speak of wrath, based on our experience of ourselves and other humans, we are referring to a movement in our sensible appetite. (cf. ST I q. 81 a.3) But there is no movement or change in God. The Church has infallibly taught (at the Fourth Lateran Council and at Vatican I) that God is immutable. So wrath predicated of God should not be conceived as a movement of passion or emotion in God. St. Thomas raises an objection to divine immutability, based on passages of Scripture which seem to speak of God drawing near to us. “Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you” (James 4:8). In his reply to this objection, St. Thomas explains:

These things are said of God in Scripture metaphorically. For as the sun is said to enter a house, or to go out, according as its rays reach the house, so God is said to approach to us, or to recede from us, when we receive the influx of His goodness, or decline from Him. (ST I q.9 a.1)

That we can offend God the Father by our sin does not mean that our sin in any way changes Him, or elicits any emotion or sensation in Him. It means rather that our sin changes us in relation to God, such that we cannot be united to Him, but are separated from communion with Him. So, to answer your question, the gift of love Christ (in His human nature) gave to the Father through His obedience unto death, “quenched God’s wrath” in the sense that it made a way through justice for us to draw near to the Father, through union with Christ. Man (mankind), by sin, stood in a relation of infinite debt to God, because of our sin against God, by which we failed to give to God the love and obedience and honor that is due to Him. Christ, however, gave to God a superabundant gift by which mankind no longer stands in that relation of debt. Yet, if we (as individuals) refuse this gift, we remain separated from God eternally, and in that sense remain under the wrath of God.

Commenting on Eph 2.3 http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/2-3.htm Meyer's

As to the wrath of God,—which here, too, is not to be understood merely of that of the future judgment (Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 17),—the holy emotion of absolute displeasure at evil, which is necessarily posited by absolute love to the good, and is thus the necessary principle of temporal and eternal punishment on the part of God (not the punishment itself), comp. on Romans 1:18.

from the same link only from the Expositors Greek commentary

 It is the Divine wrath that is in view here; as it is, indeed, in thirteen out of twenty occurrences in the Pauline writings, and that, too, whether with or without the definite article or the defining Θεοῦ (cf. Moule, in loc). This holy displeasure of God with sin is not inconsistent with His love, but is the reaction of that love against the denial of its sovereign rights of responsive love. 

Old Covenant/New Covenant

From an old sermon[ an online translation of Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa’s work from the 1400s which addresses the nature of Christ’s suffering in our stead.]:http://jasper-hopkins.info/SermonsCCLXXVI-CCXCIII.pdf  Who by the Holy Spirit Offered Himself (around page 201 or so)

The Apostle says that Christ is the Mediator of a New Testament The Law of Moses and the sayings of the Prophets are said to be the Old Testament, i.e., to be a befiguring of the New[Testament]. Lactantius said that the Testament is called Old because it was a closed testament until the death of the Testator. Hence, before the death of the Lawgiver, namely, the Incarnate Word, it remained concealed; but by means of the death, that which was hidden was revealed. And so, the veil of the temple was rent when Christ died.It is as if someone were to bequeath to someone else an almond with an outer-hull and a nut-shell. The whole [almond] is as the testament, or bequest, of a testator. But in the outer-hull there is bitterness;in the nut-shell, hardness. [13] But when the outer-hull is removed and the nut-shell broken open, there is found the new bequest, previously unknown; and it is the fruit of life. Similarly, there is a word hidden within the outer-hull of the written form ......................

It seems to me that the [New Testament] is called a testament because it contains the decree of the adoption of sons, who are to obtain the inheritance so that they are true co-heirs of the Son. And of such a thing it is written-about in the book which no one can read except Christ, who through His voluntary death was made worthy to open the book and to loose its seven seals.Therefore, the Son opens the book, because He explains the hidden meaning and declares that He is the true Heir and that by means of His death He has many brothers and co-heirs. ........ .

For those who were imprisoned because of transgressions, [and] who have been sent forth by grace, came to the inheritance of God. Now, the New Testament is that which God proclaimed for our sake, that which Christ foretold, that which the Holy Spirit wrote in the hearts of His believers, that which renews us by means of true sacraments, of just precepts, and of eternal promises. Augustine in his book of Eighty Three Questions, Chapter 16, marks the difference between the two Testaments.For in the Old [Testament] there are the burdens of servants; in the New [Testament] there is the glory of children. In the former the prefiguring of our possession is known; in the latter that possession is contained. In the former there is fear; in the latter, love. The former pertains to the old man; the latter, to the new man.In the former rigorousness restricts; in the latter love delights.Nevertheless, by the most merciful dispensation of the one God [the New Testament] was set forth and confirmed.-

But as the CCC states:

 218     In the course of its history, Israel was able to discover that God had only one reason to reveal himself to them, a single motive for choosing them from among all peoples as his special possession: his sheer gratuitous love. And thanks to the prophets Israel understood that it was again out of love that God never stopped saving them and pardoning their unfaithfulness and sins.

219     God's love for Israel is compared to a father's love for his son. His love for his people is stronger than a mother's for her children. God loves his people more than a bridegroom his beloved; his love will be victorious over even the worst infidelities and will extend to his most precious gift: "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son."

220     God's love is "everlasting": "For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you." Through Jeremiah, God declares to his people, "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."

221     But St. John goes even further when he affirms that "God is love": God's very being is love. By sending his only Son and the Spirit of Love in the fullness of time, God has revealed his innermost secret: God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange.

from comment 33 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/a-response-to-darrin-patrick-on-the-indicatives-and-the-imperatives/#comment-50476

Jesus’ whole public ministry is framed around the proclamation that “the kingdom of God has come.” To that end, many of his acts (and words) stand as a sort of New Covenant analog to some old covenant reality. Thus, the calling of the 12 figures the 12 tribes, the sermon on the mount recalls the giving of the law on sinai, the cleansing of the temple and the prophecy of the new temple . . . etc. With, preeminently, the sacrifice of himself as the New Passover Lamb – and the institution of the Lord’s Supper as “the cup of the new covenant in his blood” recalling the blood of the covenant that Moses sprinkled on the people. Even John the baptist participated in this typology/fulfillment by acting as s sort of new Joshua, leading the new covenant people into the new promised land – across the Jordan again – as it were, through baptism.

But, the good news represented here is precisely the message that “God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones,” the new covenant reality is the one in which God writes his law on the heart, and on the mind – by the ministry of the spirit.

So the sermon on the mount is not just upping the ante on legalism. It is rather the charter of the new covenant people – it depicts the reality of new covenant living in the power of the Spirit. And the message “Don’t care about what you eat or wear, for God cares for you more than for birds” is very much a message of Good news – and not just a moral exhortation. Certainly, that is how someone like St. Francis saw it.

see also http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/covenant.pdf

a quote from the document :

The new covenant with its new obligations, instituted by Jesus the Christ, is also new because of its unique renewal practice. No longer is it necessary to sacrifice an animal every time the covenant is renewed; the ritual now joins us with the original sacrifice that began in the Upper Room and was completed on Calvary and is continually being presented to God the Father by His Son, the New High Priest and Sacrificial Lamb. In keeping with covenant ritual, the sacrifice is now eaten by the family of Jesus; his Church. This renewal is known as the Liturgy of the Eucharist

and:

 s. Going back now to Hebrews 9:6-10, we are given a description of the
priestly tabernacle duties; especially those of the High Priest. What does the High
Priest do in the Holy of Holies? He offers sacrifice, not without blood, for the sins of
the people. Revelation 5 tells us of a lamb that looks as if it has been slain standing
on the throne in the Holy of Holies. Scholars all agree that this is the Lamb of God,
the new High Priest. What sacrifice does the new High Priest offer? Himself; He
entered the Holy of Holies through the shedding of His own blood on the altar of the
cross and has never left. He does not continue to suffer, bleed, and die; He did that
once for all persons for all times so that He could enter heaven and present His
offering. What John is witnessing and relating to us all is that Jesus, in the Eternal
Now of Heaven, is continually offering His most perfect sacrifice in our behalf
(Romans 9:24); this is the perfect offering to God which only He can make. It is an
eternal offering because in heaven there is no past or future, only an eternal now

In order for us to gain the eternal life and Kingdom of God which are the blessings
promised by the covenant, we must individually accept and renew God's covenant
with us; we must accept His invitation to join His family. Just like the original
Passover meal, if we don't eat the Lamb, death will result. For the original Passover
this was a physical death and in this New Covenant it is the curse of the loss of the
Kingdom of God and everlasting life; spiritual death.

........................................

n Saint Paul tells us that if anyone eats and drinks without recognizing the Body
of the Lord eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1 Corinthians 11:29). They will
be guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:27). In
other words, anyone who takes Holy Communion without believing and affirming
that it truly is the Real Presence (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) of Jesus that they
are receiving, makes Jesus' sacrifice on the cross meaningless for them because they
are excluding themselves from the renewal of the covenant.

...........................
The beautiful aspect of this covenant is that we can renew it any time we wish or
need to (provided of course, a priest has consecrated the offering); we can represent, as opposed to represent, the sacrifice that ritually and actually seals our
covenant with God the Father. A sacrifice that does not involve the shedding of
blood; Jesus died once for all persons for all times on Calvary. He does not suffer,
bleed and die again; he simply continually offers His sacrifice in Heaven. It is
through His love for us that He has given His priests the gift of making Him present;
Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine so we may
renew the covenant and thus gain the grace of God that is so necessary to enable us
to keep this covenant.

http://www.readability.com/articles/yl3jecf7

 The Master Key: Pope Benedict XVI's Theology of Covenant

"What is a covenant?

In the biblical conception, a covenant is not a contract or mutual agreement between God and man, but an unsought gift of God to man. "The covenant then is not a pact built on reciprocity, but rather a gift, a creative act of God's love."³ In their concrete historical realizations, the covenants of God take multiple forms. The Apostle Paul uses "covenants" in the plural to describe God's dealings with Israel (cf. Rom. 9:4). Ratzinger notes, in particular, that the Old Testament distinguishes the Noahite, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants.''

and

By declaring the cup to be the "blood of the covenant," Jesus is stating that his blood, poured out in his Passion and made really present in the Eucharist, will reestablish the bond of kinship between God and man. In this way, "the words of Sinai are intensified to an overwhelming realism." The Last Supper was fundamentally the "sealing of the covenant," and the Eucharist is now "an ongoing reenactment of this covenant renewal." The Letter to the Hebrews describes the institution of the Eucharist, in which the blood of Jesus is really offered to the Father, as "a cosmic Day of Atonement" (cf. Heb. 9:11-14, 24-26).⁹ In sacramental communion, the disciple is united both physically and spiritually with Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16).<sup>10

and
The transitory nature of the Mosaic Law does not imply that the new covenant lacks a law of its own, for Paul also speaks of "the Torah of Christ" (Gal. 6:2), namely, "the dual commandment of love."19 Thus, the new covenant calls all who accept it to "their own faithful conduct" (cf. Heb. 3:13),20 for Christ "imposes duties upon us and challenges us to obedience."2

For Paul, "the promise of Abraham guarantees from the beginning the inner continuity of salvation history, from the patriarchs of Israel to the coming of Christ and the Church of Jews and Gentiles."22 Scripture presents salvation history not as a dichotomy between the new covenant and those of the Old Testament but rather as a "dynamic unity of the entire history." Indeed, from the perspective of eternity, there is only "one covenant," the "eternally valid" covenant of Abraham now perfectly fulfilled in Christ.23

http://www.readability.com/articles/t1pkicwo Covenantal theology

from this above link:
Covenantal theology is a distinctive approach to Catholic biblical theology stemming from the mid-twentieth century recovery of Patristic methods of interpreting Scripture by scholars such as Henri de Lubac. This recovery was given further impetus by Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council's "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation", and consolidated in the section on ScriptureCatechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 101-141). These developments gave rise to an approach that emphasizes the "four senses" of Scripture within a framework that structures salvation history via the biblical covenants, in combination with the techniques of modern biblical scholarship.

and</sup>

Covenantal theology is distinctive in its emphasis of the following tenets:

• The biblical covenants (Edenic, Adamic, Noahite, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New or Messianic) are taken to be the chief structural framework for salvation history.
• The Abrahamic covenant (as distinct from the Mosaic) is taken to be the central Old Testament covenant that is fulfilled in the New Testament, in accordance with Pauline theology (Galatians 3:6-29).
• The Old and New Testaments are taken to be integrally related through the sequence of covenants, with prophetic fulfillment understood chiefly in terms of covenantal correspondence.
• Scripture is interpreted via the four senses, with an emphasis on describing the correspondence between covenants via the allegorical sense.
• Jesus' prophecy in the Olivet Discourse is understood to have been fulfilled by the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD.
• Old Testament prophecy of a restoration of Israel in which Jews and Gentiles are united is understood to have been fulfilled in the Church, cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 781 drawing on Lumen Gentium 9.
• Jesus is understood to have inaugurated the Kingdom of God, which advances throughout history from the Ascension to the Last Judgment, cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 669-670.
• The advance of the Kingdom of God throughout history is interpreted in terms of the Augustinian concepts of the City of God and the City of Man.

Covenantal theology is reflected, with varying emphases, in the works of contemporary authors such as Scott Hahn (1998, 1999), Timothy Gray (1998), Edward Sri (1999, 2005), Michael Barber (2001, 2005), Stephen Pimentel (2002, 2005, 2007), and Brant Pitre (2005, 2006).

see also http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040715.htm for discussion on the word testament