Cardinal Ratzinger v. Catholic Encyclopedia: Did humanity owe a debt?

[grannymh]

Maybe you could interpret it since it sounds consistent with what I wrote near as I can tell. Aside from that the fact that all must be baptized, except for certain circumstances, means that the debt must be owed by all humanity, not Adam alone. He sinned and fell for all of us; we all fell with him.

As long as you judge that paragraphs 402-409 sound consistent with what you wrote, there is no need for my interpretation of these paragraphs. The point of this thread is that the more differences there are … the more the merrier.

However, some people may not realize that in ordinary Catholic language, Original Sin can be both the action of Adam and the contracted State of Original Sin. Some people may not realize that Adam, being a true human, could commit a personal sin. Some people may miss the information that Adam’s personal sin affected human nature so that we now deal with a deprivation of Adam’s original State of Original Holiness aka the State of Sanctifying Grace. (Information source. *CCC *402-409)

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, wmw!

I’ve been pretty buried in work lately, but I had read this post before I signed out last week, so I had a chance to ponder it. I only have about 25 minutes to reply right now, so I’ll do my best.

I think we need the idea of debt to see the seriousness of sin to help us understand the tangible gravity of it. This capturing the real debt and need of repayment is so very important in order to reach true sorrow and therefore obtain a state of contrition and therefore do not return to the sin by taking it too lightly and repeatedly accepting forgiveness too conveniently. I just don’t think there is a word that transmits this concept better that the word debt; therefore, the Holy Spirit uses it in the Gospel of Mathew.

Thank you for the statement that truly reflects a spiritual perspective. What kind of dawned on me this weekend is the use of the words “God’s will” and “until” which sort of popped into my head upon reflection on the matter. There is something about explaining to someone my thinking that gives me some real clarification.

Here is goes (for what it’s worth):

It is God’s will that we see the idea of debt in order to see the seriousness of sin, to reach true sorrow and obtain a state of contrition and repentance until such a view is no longer necessary to reach true sorrow, obtain a state of contrition, and repentance.

If there is a debt, there is a creditor. If a person needs the sense of a creditor in order to keep our behaviors in line, then such a view is exactly the way that God is calling us to see Him. On the other hand, if we have come to the point that our behavior is not guided by resolving a debt, but out of pure love for those we harm, coupled with honest discovery that we are not of malicious intent (immediate self-awareness) then it is not guilt that is the main driver of our behavior, but a desire to add to the well-being of all those around us. (I meant to finish this paragraph, but I ran out of time.)

In the microcosm of the sin-resentment-forgiveness event, from the victim’s view, here is where this is manifest, “thinking aloud” here.

Step 1: Someone wrongs us, we feel offended, our resentment is triggered. God created us in a way such that we have a sense of debt being owed us by the sinner, and that some sort of reciprocity is due against sinner unless there is a repentance or the debt is paid. It is our nature, God’s will that we see the situation this way.

Step 2: Either the debt is somehow paid, or the debt is never paid. If the debt is paid, our sense of credit is satisfied. All is well, the behaviors are held in check to some degree. It is *God’s will * that we let go of our sense of debt. Generally speaking, people do, it is our nature to do so.

Shucks, I ran out of time. I’m going to get back to this. God bless your day!

 

[God_I_Love]

Hello, fellow forum-visitors:

Okay, did the “v.” grab you? This thread is not for those who prefer one-liners, for things meaningful sometimes involves more explanation.

The “v.” is a challenge, not to determine what view is the “right” one, but instead to investigate with this in mind:

“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”

Pope Benedict

First, from an article in a Catholic Encyclopedia (bolds mine):

catholic.com/encyclopedia/doctrine-of-the-atonement

We cannot stay to examine these new systems in detail. But it may be observed that the truth which they contain is really found in the Catholic theology of the Atonement. That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from mans laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom; or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down His life for His friends, that Christ ** paid the debt to justice**, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that he wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, “making peace through the blood of His Cross.”.

W.H. KENT

Next, from Cardinal Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity (bolds mine):

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

To many Christians, and especially to those who only know the faith from a fair distance, it looks as if the cross is to be understood as part of a mechanism of injured and restored right. It is the form, so it seems, in which the infinitely offended righteousness of God was propitiated again by means of an infinite expiation. It thus appears to people as the expression of an attitude which insists on a precise balance between debit and credit; at the same time one gets the feeling that this balance is based on a fiction. One gives first secretly with the left hand what one takes back again ceremonially with the right. The `infinite expiation’ on which God seems to insist thus moves into a doubly sinister light. Many devotional texts actually force one to think that Christian faith in the cross visualizes a God whose unrelenting righteousness demanded a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son, sinister wrath makes the message of love incredible.

This picture is as false as it is widespread.”

So, here is a question central to our faith. Why did Jesus come? Was there an “injured and restored right”? Did Jesus pay a “debt to justice”? There are obviously a variety of opinions, and the theology has evolved over the centuries. As much as Cardinal Ratzinger described the error in Anselm’s view, Anselm’s was (IMO) a huge step in the right direction.

Once we get into the discussion, for awhile, I am going to offer something from an unusual source that may shed some light on the topic. I am sure that it will surprise you, it did me!

Thanks, up front, for your replies!

If this has already been stated then I apologize… I only read a few pages… But in regard for this debt it is best to understand it thusly.

The ‘‘debt of transgressions’’ was being held against us. The angelic powers had a list of transgressions that they held against us. But Christ came to remove the debt. He took the debt against us and turned it against the angelic powers by holding a debt against them; namely Himself; the Lamb slain to reconcile the powers to God and reconcile the angelic powers with man and God. So instead of a debt we owe, it is rather a debt that was levied against us. This is why in rev satan is called the ‘‘accuser of our brethren’’.

 

[grannymh]

This is the link presented in post 1.
robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

I cannot verify the transcription because I do not have the book with me.

Returning to the questions OneSheep presented in the opening post.
From Post 1.
"So, here is a question central to our faith. Why did Jesus come? Was there an “injured and restored right”? Did Jesus pay a “debt to justice”? There are obviously a variety of opinions, and the theology has evolved over the centuries. As much as Cardinal Ratzinger described the error in Anselm’s view, Anselm’s was (IMO) a huge step in the right direction.

“Once we get into the discussion, for awhile, I am going to offer something from an unusual source that may shed some light on the topic. I am sure that it will surprise you, it did me!”
I just now printed out the link and compared it to the excerpt in post 1. I did not find that Cardinal Ratzinger was directly describing an “error” in Anselm’s view. The Cardinal is reporting on what is seen by “those who only know the faith from a far distance,” (bottom of page 2, top of page 3) “from a far distance” is a valuable key when studying the link.

What the Cardinal does say is that the “perfectly logical divine-cum-human legal system erected by Anselm distorts the perspectives …” (middle of page 2)

The bottom of page 3 and page 4 are a marvelous reference to the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Obviously Cardinal Ratzinger is teaching us that there is an extremely important additional top-down perspective to the reparation for the real, not metaphorical, Adam’s Original Sin. This discovery in the post 1 link means that the answers to the questions in post 1 are more than a prime time sound bite.

It is now obvious, in this link --thank you-- that people can no longer deny the historical reality of Adam and the historical realty of Adam’s actual, freely chosen action.

 

[ynotzap]

Are you saying at baptism we are set free from debt, but a sin after baptism incurs a debt unless it’s a mortal sin because that’s too high a price also?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “before we sinned”. You could also mean before Adam sinned, but then what debt are you talking about that was before the Original Sin?

No, again this looks quite apart from any orthodoxy I’ve heard. Maybe if you could quote a reputable source for this it would have some legs to move further. I’m not into chasing hand waved theology. I think that is what grannymh is getting at. Wondering about in the weeds on our own hand waving of theology is only going to get us further lost.

Salvation was planned before the creation of time, the Cause was prior to the effect meaning God is prior to His creation, or plan. God created time and is not part of it nor subjected to it Salvation was a plan made in eternity, even before man existed Time is change’, potency and act. God’s plans are not subject to the acts of men, meaning that God’s plan is not the result of man’s action, but one of Love, free, and Pure. These statement are consistent with the teachings of St.Thomas to the best of my knowledge. Again I repeat Salvation was freely given, not merited by mankind, but by the God-man Jesus. Salvation is accomplished by the Holy Spirit and transforms the person into another Christ. There was no debt incurred in eternity, before time was made, God knew that we were made fallible, and limited and totally dependent on Him (I stated this before in another post) I quoted Original Sin and its effects from the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. I explained in some detail about Adams’ fall, and consequences. Man lost communication, or friendship with God, and on a human level sinned, and OWED God what every creature created by God owes, His due, that is adoration, gratitude, and love and obedience. God needs none of this, but it is right and just for man to give it.

By Baptism we are made by divine adoption, children of God, Original sin , was removed, but not its consequences ( as explained in my former post) In Baptism we are spiritual infants, born again, the Theological virtues are infused, and through the co-operation with grace we grow in virtue, and holiness and become spiritual adults. Since original sin was removed, we still can commit PERSONAL SIN and lose our state of grace, but we never lose our divine adoption, we still remain “an adopted sons of God” in need of reconciliation, this is where debt is incurred by our sin, and this is where debt is paid, through the merits of Jesus Christ who provided a Sacrament that guaranteed our forgiveness and reinstatement in grace. the consequence of sin is we punish ourselves, because sin is a turning from God, to a lesser good. We were created to be united to God, so we deprive ourselves of the greatest Good, our eternal and greatest happiness and condemn ourselves when we sin mortally.(continued next post)

 

[ynotzap]

The best analogy I can think of is expressed by the Mater Himself, in the parable of the Prodigal son. The prodigal son blew his inheritance living a dissipated life style. When he desired to return to his father’s home, he thought to himself, coming to his senses, that even my father’s servants eat better than I do. I will tell him that I sinned against heaven and him, and I no longer deserved to be his son, and treat me as you would your servants…you know the rest of the story. But can you tell me where in the story did his father treat the wayward son as if the son owed him a debt to be repaid? The father had compassion and rejoiced to have his son back. But did his prodigal son think he owed his father something? He confessed that he offended heaven and his father, why did he do this if he thought he didn’t owe his father an apology for his behavior? And why would he be just satisfied being a servant and not a son? He was humbled, and isn’t that what we do when we confess our sins? Yet the son no matter what he did, or said remained a son, just like the indelible mark made by Baptism, no matter how much we sin. But for our sakes, and not God’s, for He needs nothing, we, because it is right and just give God His due we are the complete beneficiaries of God’s love no matter how you look at it. The son owed the acknowledgement of what he did with contrition, humility, and love

 

[ynotzap]

To illustrate the Theological delicacy and to show the splitting of hairs, even if we never heard of it from a theological source I quote from the The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. It may or may not cover the problems discussed on this thread, but it will give us an appreciation of how deep one can go even in theological speculation I tried in different ways to harmonize the concept of debt, and no debt incurred. But it is one of those problems that can be looked at in different ways. These problems occur when considering the teaching of Scotus, Swarez, and St. Thomas but they are delicate. Good hunting!

An analogous illustration to illustrate theological delicacy such as one experience on the thread.

Quote: obediential potency. The capacity of a creature to be elevated by God to a state and action above it’s natural potency. According to Thomists (who claim to express faithfully St. Thomas’ mind), it is reducible to a sort of nonimpossibility (nonrepugnantia). According to the Scotists and the Suaresians, it includes also a disposition and a tendency although such tendency can not reach its object without an intervention of God. the question is delicate, because on its solution depends the gratuitous nature of the supernatural order (see supernatural). If the Scotists opinion is pushed too far, the supernatural order becomes the term of a natural tendency and hence is no longer undue, as Catholic doctrine teaches it to be. If the Thomists’ position is stressed, the supernatural may appear too extraneous to nature, and one does not easily understand how it can be inserted in nature and bring nature to perfection. Blondel’s philosophy harks back to Scotistic position, putting in human nature a call to the supernatural. Baianism and modernism are a degeneration of the same immanentistic tendency

Even though it is another analogy , it illustrates the the depth and diversity of thought expessed by the Scotists, and Thomists, and the delicacy of the problems, it requires much thought and study to understand their meaning, which is far beyond the scope of most, and not necessary for all the faithful to know. the Church covers very well what is needed, and St. Thomas is her choice of philosophers, including others

 

[ynotzap]

The best analogy I can think of is expressed by the Master Himself, in the parable of the Prodigal son. The prodigal son blew his inheritance living a dissipated life style. When he desired to return to his father’s home, he thought to himself, coming to his senses, that even my father’s servants eat better than I do. I will tell him that I sinned against heaven and him, and I no longer deserved to be his son, and treat me as you would your servants…you know the rest of the story. But can you tell me where in the story did his father treat the wayward son as if the son owed him a debt to be repaid? The father had compassion and rejoiced to have his son back. But did his prodigal son think he owed his father something? He confessed that he offended heaven and his father, why did he do this if he thought he didn’t owe his father an apology for his behavior? And why would he be just satisfied being a servant and not a son? He was humbled, and isn’t that what we do when we confess our sins? Yet the son no matter what he did, or said remained a son, just like the indelible mark made by Baptism, no matter how much we sin. But for our sakes, and not God’s, for He needs nothing, we, because it is right and just give God His due we are the complete beneficiaries of God’s love no matter how you look at it. The son owed the acknowledgement of what he did with contrition, humility, and love

 

[ynotzap]

To illustrate the Theological delicacy and to show the splitting of hairs, even if we never heard of it from a theological source I quote from the The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. It may or may not cover the problems discussed on this thread, but it will give us an appreciation of how deep one can go even in theological speculation I tried in different ways to harmonize the concept of debt, and no debt incurred. But it is one of those problems that can be looked at in different ways. These problems occur when considering the teaching of Scotus, Swarez, and St. Thomas but they are delicate. Good hunting!

An analogous illustration to illustrate theological delicacy such as one experience on the thread.

Quote: obediential potency. The capacity of a creature to be elevated by God to a state and action above it’s natural potency. According to Thomists (who claim to express faithfully St. Thomas’ mind), it is reducible to a sort of nonimpossibility (nonrepugnantia). According to the Scotists and the Suaresians, it includes also a disposition and a tendency although such tendency can not reach its object without an intervention of God. the question is delicate, because on its solution depends the gratuitous nature of the supernatural order (see supernatural). If the Scotists opinion is pushed too far, the supernatural order becomes the term of a natural tendency and hence is no longer undue, as Catholic doctrine teaches it to be. If the Thomists’ position is stressed, the supernatural may appear too extraneous to nature, and one does not easily understand how it can be inserted in nature and bring nature to perfection. Blondel’s philosophy harks back to Scotistic position, putting in human nature a call to the supernatural. Baianism and modernism are a degeneration of the same immanentistic tendency

Even though it is another analogy , it illustrates the the depth and diversity of thought expessed by the Scotists, and Thomists, and the delicacy of the problems, it requires much thought and study to understand their meaning, which is far beyond the scope of most, and not necessary for all the faithful to know. the Church covers very well what is needed, and St. Thomas is her choice of philosophers, including others

 

[ynotzap]

Forgive me for reposting, I tried to correct some spelling errors and messed up, thank you

 

[OneSheep]

I was listening to a christian radio station the other night. It did express that talks etc on the station did not reflect the views of all Christians. (We know there are many views about God, the Bible, Jesus etc.)

There was a preacher talking about forgiveness, and the use of words when angry…the harm words can actually cause a person. Then he went on to speak about God’s anger, the wrath of God we read about, because God was angry with his creation, and that is why Jesus had to die for our sinful ways.

This (below) I find very interesting and encouraging : (from the link in the above post)

This very issue is an example of two telling patterns: Catholicism was once more broad-minded. It allowed for alternative interpretations of doctrine more often before the Reformation than it does today. Second, the Protestant Reformation often either reacted to–or continued with-popular Catholicism much more than it realized.

Hi Simpleas!

Yes, debt begins with wrath, or at least a sense of debt, in my view, is coincidental with wrath (indignation, resentment, disgust, disappointment, all of the negative feelings). Since we see God as someone we can relate to, and since it is in our nature to experience both wrath and sense of debt, it is natural that we view that God has all of the same characteristics.

It seems to me that human forgiveness of those who repent, apologize, and pay their debts (in the eyes of the forgiver) is also very natural.

What is supernatural is forgiveness of enemies, forgiving those who do not say they are sorry, forgiving the unrepentant, and responding to oppression with love. It is supernatural (not in our default nature) to forgive people’s debts without some kind of satisfaction. Jesus forgiveness of the unrepentant, from the cross, was supernatural.

So, would our Church dismiss a view that comes from our own God-given nature? That would be silly, unproductive, and not pastoral, period. On the other hand, would our Church do anything but promote the supernatural, as She does by spreading the Good News?

What do you think?

Thanks, Simpleas!

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, wmw!

I am continuing to reply to your thoughtful post here.

I think we need the idea of debt to see the seriousness of sin to help us understand the tangible gravity of it. This capturing the real debt and need of repayment is so very important in order to reach true sorrow and therefore obtain a state of contrition and therefore do not return to the sin by taking it too lightly and repeatedly accepting forgiveness too conveniently. I just don’t think there is a word that transmits this concept better that the word debt; therefore, the Holy Spirit uses it in the Gospel of Mathew.

On the importance and at times difficulty of really reaching a state of contrition:

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on the Master of the Sentences explains contrition’s peculiar use:

“Since it is requisite for the remission of sin that a man cast away entirely the liking for sin which implies a sort of continuity and solidity in his mind, the act which obtains forgiveness is termed by a figure of speech ‘contrition’” (In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvii; cf. Supplem. III, Q. i, a. 1). This sorrow of soul is not merely speculative sorrow for wrong done, remorse of conscience, or a resolve to amend; it is a real pain and bitterness of soul together with a hatred and horror for sin committed; and this hatred for sin leads to the resolve to sin no more.

So, here is one avenue in terms of “harmony”: St. Thomas accurately points out (through use of “real pain and bitterness of soul”) that it is guilt, a real, experienced guilt, that leads to a “hatred and horror”. This guilt, and the subsequent hatred and horror seem to be aspect and function of our natural conscience. We not only hate the sin, but we hate whatever part of our own self it was that motivates us to sin. “Thou shalt not want” addresses not the sin itself, (the act) but addresses the part of ourselves that leads to sin, as desire blinds our empathy and compassion. Thus the development of what Jung termed our “shadow”.

However, do we forever “need” guilt, sense of debt, etc. in order to behave in loving ways? Or, instead, does our love of others grow to the extent that the “carrot and stick” functionality of our conscience is no longer necessary? (I had not mentioned the “carrot”, but it is there. When we behave well, our mind rewards us with a sense of righteousness.) What I am theorizing is that though the sense of debt cannot be disposed (as it is part of our nature), and has its place in the development of human spirituality, that sense of debt can eventually come to inhibit spiritual growth. When human love is inhibited by the feeling that others “owe us” for the sins that they have committed against us, and we are down on ourselves for sins that we have committed against others, and are not able to fully forgive, then we stagnate in a slavery to the natural conscience itself.

Through self-awareness, then, we can watch our resentments and all of the “debts” our natural minds incur. Do we wait until a debt is “satisfied”, or do we forgive without such satisfaction? The question does call for a definition of forgiveness, which I believe includes understanding the other to the point that I can say “I could have done that, given that person’s blindness and/or ignorance, of which I am also quite capable.” and I no longer hold any negative feelings against the other.

One can eventually forgive his/her “shadow”.

We do not “force” those feelings out. The feelings, and the sense of debt simply disappear.

So, since it is through awarness and forgiveness that the sense of debt disappear, and God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, a no-debt view acknowledges that God does not have the sense of debt that we humans do.

Yes, I think there is a proper fear that this is not transmitted in a message that ONLY says “just be one with me and all is forgotten” in the communication of the faith.
Also there is a sense that God is all Justice and is making reparations to the victims of our sins in the treasures of heaven and we have personally incurred those debts. They just don’t hurt God and He doesn’t respond as an injured person or jilted creditor might.

There are just too many ways that this concept conveys the correct understanding including the other previous posts on pre-payment of the debt in Christ, but it is short in the aspect that Christ turns our sins into Love and does this in a participatory, inclusive way. Thus; both have to be included in the whole of the teaching of the faith.

Well stated. The fear is indeed understandable, and even “proper” for those who fear that their own behavior and/or the behaviors of others would go into chaos with the teaching of unconditional forgiveness. However, when we are one with God, all fear is cast away. So, I could say, without fear, that the fear is unfounded, unnecessary, etc., but that would be ridiculous. If it is fear that keeps people’s behaviors in check, then that fear is indeed necessary! When we are one with Abba, (and I am not saying this as some sort of “on/off” switch, it is a development, I think) gone is the fear, and gone is the need for the wrath perception (sense of debt, self-condemnation, etc.) to guide us.

So, sure, we can include a “prepayment” view of debt, a “payment” view of debt, and a “no debt incurred” view of debt. And yes, I agree that the “just be one with me and all is forgotten” cannot be the “ONLY” message. Being one with God involves, among many other things, avoiding hurtful behaviors. God has given us, in our nature, a means of dealing with those behaviors, including a sense of debt to God Himself. This is one way, I think, of harmonizing the views.

Thanks, again, wmw!

 

[OneSheep]

I think that because God had the plan of Salvation before we sinned was because He has infinite love for us, this love could never be merited by us. It was out of the Love and Goodness of His divine will, not debt owed,that He initiated Salvation. But out of the love and gratitude of our wills, and heart for what He had done it was only right and just that we in our own mortal way reciprocated in thanksgiving,and love We owe Him as we owe our parents for bringing us into the world and caring for us, a debt of love and thanksgiving. Pure love never demands, it pours out with no return, and never ceases if there is no return. Purification is for our sake, we don’t want to be and neither does God want us to be embarrassed with dirty clothes when we stand before Him( remember the White garment the Master required at the Banquet)We could never repay God for His infinite love for us, and He did love us while we were in sin, it was freely given, no debt required by Him, He forgives and removes all sin, if we are contrite, showing good will. I can see both views and they do harmonize each other in the Wills of God and Humans. God gives in Love, and we reciprocate in love. Don’t feel alone God bless you.

Hi Ynotzap!

I respect your views.

I would like to add that if “He forgives and removes all sin, if we are contrite, showing good will.” means that such contrition is a condition for such sin “removal”, then we are still talking about a debt, and that is okay.

There is a psychological approach to those words, though, that involves no debt at all, once explained to us by a priest in a Bible study. I can explain what he said, but I have run out of time again.

BTW: Do you use the “edit” button but run out of time? One thing I do is transfer the quoted reply to a word doc, and then post it afterwards.

Thanks, Ynotzap! (that is such an interesting name! I want to ask, “well, why zap?”

 

[ynotzap]

Hi Ynotzap!

I respect your views.

I would like to add that if “He forgives and removes all sin, if we are contrite, showing good will.” means that such contrition is a condition for such sin “removal”, then we are still talking about a debt, and that is okay.

There is a psychological approach to those words, though, that involves no debt at all, once explained to us by a priest in a Bible study. I can explain what he said, but I have run out of time again.

BTW: Do you use the “edit” button but run out of time? One thing I do is transfer the quoted reply to a word doc, and then post it afterwards.

Thanks, Ynotzap! (that is such an interesting name! I want to ask, “well, why zap?”

The user’s name contains a secret, When we pray over a person to receive the Holy Spirit and then he does, he gets zapped, so why not get zapped!

In the act of contrition: Oh my God, I am heartly sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell, but MOST OF ALL because I have offended thee myGod. who are ALL GOOD, AND DESERVING OF ALL MY LOVE, (an act of perfect contrition, out of fear is an imperfect contrition) Forgiveness is given in love, and we respond in love, man’s will is in harmony with God’s will Have a good, and holy and happy weekend!

 

[wmw]

Good morning, wmw!

However, when we are one with God, all fear is cast away. So, I could say, without fear, that the fear is unfounded, unnecessary, etc., but that would be ridiculous. If it is fear that keeps people’s behaviors in check, then that fear is indeed necessary! When we are one with Abba, (and I am not saying this as some sort of “on/off” switch, it is a development, I think) gone is the fear, and gone is the need for the wrath perception (sense of debt, self-condemnation, etc.) to guide us.

“Fear” is another fun word. My sense from Ecclesiastes is that it is the fullness of wisdom and long lasting, not as you imply a mere stepping stone to greater enlightenment:

20 To fear God is the fulness of wisdom, and fulness is from the fruits thereof.
21 She shall fill all her house with her increase, and the storehouses with her treasures.
22 The fear of the Lord is a crown of wisdom, filling up peace and the fruit of salvation:

 

[wmw]

If there MUST be a Creditor I can’t reconcile it to God, but rather to the “great accuser”, Satan and as said previously the other Angelic Powers of his.

On forgiveness - I think we can and need to forgive even when we know we could never do whatever has been done to us.

 

[ynotzap]

“Fear” is another fun word. My sense from Ecclesiastes is that it is the fullness of wisdom and long lasting, not as you imply a mere stepping stone to greater enlightenment:

Fear , a gift of the Holy Spirit, a diposition infused by God by which the sanctified soul is made docile and ready for the impulses of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of salutary activity (conducive to salvation) (Encyclical: Devinum illud Leo Xlll, doctrine developed from the principles of St. Thomas (***. 29,654)

I have to agree, and disagree with wmw.and agree also with One Sheep.
Fear is a gift infused by God which makes a sanctified soul docile and ready for the impulses of the Holy Spirit One sheep if he did imply that it is merely a stepping stone is wrong because there is more included, but right that it is a stepping stone to greater enlightenment which is “grace”, following the impulses to greater sanctification.

I agree with wmw quotation of Ecclesiastes that it is the fullnes of wisdoms

St. Thomas states (llla,q.85,a.5.c.) that Penance as a habit is immediately infused by God, without any principal operation on our part:nt, however, without our cooperation in disposing ourselves by certain acts. (here we go again) From another standpoint, we may speak of penance as it consists of acts in which we cooperate toward the penance which produces; the first and principal of these acts is the operation of God converting our hearts, according to Lam.5:2l “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted” The second act is the movement of faith; the third is the movement of SERVILE FEAR, whereby a person is drawn away from his sins through fear of punishment. The fourth act is a movement of hope, by which he resolves to amend in the hope of obtaining pardon. The fifth is a movement of charity whereby sin becomes displeasing on its own account and no longer for fear of punishment (love banishes fear) The sixth is a movement of filial fear which voluntarily offers some amendment to God OUT OF REVERENCE FOR HIM

Wis: l: l4 Fear of the Lord is wisdom’s full measure, this fear I believe is the fear to offend God out of love, and reverence , movements 5, and 6 especially, but fear incorporates all 6 movements, which includes One sheep’s statements, so you are both right.

 

[wmw]

Well sure if you cut my words up by taking “mere” out. You can make it appear I said something completely different. Of course, Fear of the Lord leading to wisdom would lead to grace.

We just should not leave fear behind any more than we should leave wisdom behind no matter how great the graces given to us. This gathering as we grow is a great part of what separates us from the angels and being more spiritual for humans means being more human the way Christ is human.

We should not aspire to be as the angles, but admire them the way they are and we the way we continue to be grown into a likeness of Christ.

This is quite a side track from debt, so let me bring this around to the topic. I don’t think we really realize the depths of our sinfulness and our debts. Even our best days are as filthy as rags and deeply in the wrong. Our unconsciousness of it is part of why it’s not so sinful. Grace actually gives us eyes to see more and repent ever further of our debts and again know the Fear of the Lord, wisdom, and further graces.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

Yes, debt begins with wrath, or at least a sense of debt, in my view, is coincidental with wrath (indignation, resentment, disgust, disappointment, all of the negative feelings). Since we see God as someone we can relate to, and since it is in our nature to experience both wrath and sense of debt, it is natural that we view that God has all of the same characteristics.

It seems to me that human forgiveness of those who repent, apologize, and pay their debts (in the eyes of the forgiver) is also very natural.

What is supernatural is forgiveness of enemies, forgiving those who do not say they are sorry, forgiving the unrepentant, and responding to oppression with love. It is supernatural (not in our default nature) to forgive people’s debts without some kind of satisfaction. Jesus forgiveness of the unrepentant, from the cross, was supernatural.

So, would our Church dismiss a view that comes from our own God-given nature? That would be silly, unproductive, and not pastoral, period. On the other hand, would our Church do anything but promote the supernatural, as She does by spreading the Good News?

What do you think?

Thanks, Simpleas!

A God given nature that was not intended to be as it became, IE, Adam breaking the Human relationship with the supernatural creator.

Yes our Church can’t dismiss that it’s in our natures to want a debt to be paid, forgiveness can be very hard for some people, but I have seen others forgive as if its in their nature to be that way, without the need to be “taught” it.

 

[simpleas]

Well sure if you cut my words up by taking “mere” out. You can make it appear I said something completely different. Of course, Fear of the Lord leading to wisdom would lead to grace.

We just should not leave fear behind any more than we should leave wisdom behind no matter how great the graces given to us. This gathering as we grow is a great part of what separates us from the angels and being more spiritual for humans means being more human the way Christ is human.

We should not aspire to be as the angles, but admire them the way they are and we the way we continue to be grown into a likeness of Christ.

This is quite a side track from debt, so let me bring this around to the topic. I don’t think we really realize the depths of our sinfulness and our debts. Even our best days are as filthy as rags and deeply in the wrong. Our unconsciousness of it is part of why it’s not so sinful. Grace actually gives us eyes to see more and repent ever further of our debts and again know the Fear of the Lord, wisdom, and further graces.

This is quite a side track from debt, so let me bring this around to the topic. I don’t think we really realize the depths of our sinfulness and our debts. Even our best days are as filthy as rags and deeply in the wrong. Our unconsciousness of it is part of why it’s not so sinful. Grace actually gives us eyes to see more and repent ever further of our debts and again know the Fear of the Lord, wisdom, and further graces.

The first part of your sentence I was pondering, while I don’t believe any of us at all perfect, I’m hoping that during our spiritual maturing we become less as “filthy rags and deeply in the wrong” The second part, can this be said of a person taught our faith? If we have been taught the rights and wrongs but are still unconscious to what harms another person then the teaching fails? I suppose the teaching can’t kick start a persons conscious, Gods grace does the work.