Talk:Redemptive suffering

Christianity: Theology / Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Lede and definition

What is "redemptive?" Using that word as part of the definition is not a good idea. In fact, the first time I mentioned redemptive suffering to my Protestant friend, she asked that very thing, "what does redemptive mean?" MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a definition which I hope adequate. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 17:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See my recent edits. I think it clarifies the subject a little with a more comprehensive opening section. I'm not sure if I got the concept completely right, though. Please check. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I got the concept completely right either, but your opening section describes the subject as I have also understood it; the intervention of a more qualified user would be appreciable — I started the article to learn more about redemptive suffering, so I am not quite an expert. There seem to be many articles on the subject, though due to lack of time, I will have to go through them tomorrow. Thank you very much for your help, Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Greetings All. The opening section is fine and does capture the concept. The succeeding part with the scripture quotes gives me a bit of concern, though. The ideas are correct but need to be framed as responses to misperceptions so that they flow in meaningful paragraphs. Also, I an not convinced that the KJV is the best source for clear and understandable English. The primary scripture for the concept RS is the last one listed from Colossians. This translation almost complete obscures for the modern reader the very powerful (and perplexing for Protestants) text. Let me try my hand. Let me know what you think. --Vaquero100 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, please do excuse me for the following part with the scripture; I attempted to write an introduction of sorts which may lead to understanding Col 1:24. I am neither a theologian nor an apologist, — I am still learning about the faith which I found anew only three months ago, — so I would rather you handle an article describing a matter which I know not entirely myself, alas. I used the KJV because it is considered standard to do so and most trusted by other Christians, I understand. Please do try your hand. Thank you so very much for enabling me to learn more about this concept! Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

GrumpyTroll, welcome home! I am glad to hear of your coming to the Faith. Were you received at Easter? --Vaquero100 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warm welcome! I was baptised not at birth but at the later age of six or so, then had my first of communions a year later, I recall. My family moved from Jersey to France when I was eight and I still practiced with my mother and the younger of my older sisters; I no longer believed when I did my profession of faith (profession de foi — not sure of the ceremony's title in English) at the age of ten or eleven and I stopped practicing shortly after, my mother likewise sometime after me, — though she never declared herself an atheist, as I did. Some three months ago I felt compelled to read the Gospels, though I never read and thought of myself as a benchmark for atheism! I starting practicing once again a month or two ago and my mother has joined me for the last few weeks; God willing, my whole family will, — even my atheist father and oldest sister, I hope. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Second paragraph suggestion

This paragraph still needs work, but let me know what you all think:

This teaching which is based on scripture does not intend to portray God as vindictive or only wrathful in his relation to humanity. Rather, the Church understands human suffering as a just penalty for sin, a teaching most clearly presented in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 3. By virtue of his participation in Christ's body,

"I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him. For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." (Romans 12:1-5) (RSV)

a Christian may participate in Christ's self offering for the sake of humanity's redemption, Christians may join their sufferings to Christ's, as St. Paul says: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." (Col 1:24) (RSV)

--Vaquero100 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above paragraph I find clear and concise. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

What's uniquely Roman-Catholic about this topic?

Would someone clarify for me why "redemptive suffering" is defined in Wikipedia as something uniquely Roman Catholic? This theological concept is understood as such far beyond this one stream.

I agree. I don't have time to work on this at the moment, but it definitely needs to be expanded beyond Catholicism. 131.238.31.31 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forms

I have removed a paragraph from the section called forms. It was P.O.V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.214.73 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Version (which translation?)

If we are suggesting that the idea of "redemptive suffering" is a Catholic (and near Catholic) idea, why would we be using Bible translations that are typically Protestant translations? The New American Bible, for example, is authorized for liturgical use in English; perhaps it would be a superior choice here. 69.225.39.163 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! RSV-CE is also good for academic purposes since it uses formal equivalence, i.e. word-for-word translations. NAB uses dynamic equivalence. Avemaria81 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

I'm trying to add a section of quotes from Doctors of the Church and others who have written beautifully on this topic. I hope the section I add fits the framework and context. Avemaria81 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]