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

[CrossofChrist]

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.

I think what the poster meant was in reference to venial faults, things we do but don’t recognize. Certainly not for someone who knows something is gravely wrong and does it. That would be a mortal sin. A person can be knowledgeable of the sinfulness or benevolence of an act by the natural light of reason, without grace. And someone can know it is gravely wrong to, say, desecrate the Sacrament of sacraments, without believing in the faith, if they know (have been told) it is a grave sin (of course they should know even before that stealing is wrong, etc.)

 

[ynotzap]

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.

In charity I did not try to make it appear that you said something completely different. In all fairness I thought One Sheep needs to clarify if he did imply to use fear as a mere stepping stone to greater enlightenment, sorry if I gave you that impression.

To gain further insight I think we need to look at l Jn 4:l8
quote: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love. If anyone says he loves God but hates his brother, he is a liar: for whoever does not love his brother whom he has seen, can not love God whom he has not seen. We love because He loved us first.”

So how do we reconcile this with " Fear is the fullness of Wisdom" ?

 

[wmw]

As I feared, we are going to stay off topic and into “Fear” and why I think it’s a part of the reason for the debt description of atonement it’s a smaller one. Let’s not continue to chase that topic. Can we just say the use of the Biblical word “fear” is a deeply difficult and varied across the many books and/or styles of writing of the Bible and leave it for some other forum thread. Likely there have been others on it.

 

[wmw]

I don’t think I’m overstating our sinfulness much if at all in comparison to this teaching of the faith. I’m supported by the Church’s teaching such as from:
catholic.com/encyclopedia/grace

Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xxiii), with much more precision than the Synod of Mileve (416), answered this monstrosity [a lack of clarity following the debates over the heresy of Pelagianism] with the definition of faith: “Si quis hominem semel justificatum dixerit … posse in totae vitae peccata omnia etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beatae Virgine tenet ecclesia, anathema sit” (If anyone shall say that a man once justified…can, throughout his life, avoid all sins, even venial ones, unless by a special privilege of God, as the Church believes of the Bl. Virgin Mary, let him be anathema).

In its gist it is an affirmation that not even the justified, much less the sinner and infidel, can avoid all sins, especially venial ones, through his whole life except by special privilege such as was granted to the Mother of God. The canon does not assert that besides Mary other saints, as St. Joseph or St. John the Baptist, possessed this privilege. Almost all theologians rightly consider this to be the sole exception, justified only by the dignity of the Divine maternity. Justice is done to the wording of the canon, if by totae vita we understand a long period, about a generation, and by peccata venialia chiefly the semi-deliberate venial sins due to surprise or precipitancy. It is in no way declared that a great saint is unable to keep free from all sin during a short interval, as the interval of a day; nor that he is incapable of avoiding for a long time with ordinary grace and without special privilege all venial sins committed with full deliberation or complete liberty.

You see the church says it’s not impossible for a great saint, but likely the average justified Catholic continues to sin and on or more often as on a daily basis.

 

[simpleas]

I think what the poster meant was in reference to venial faults, things we do but don’t recognize. Certainly not for someone who knows something is gravely wrong and does it. That would be a mortal sin. A person can be knowledgeable of the sinfulness or benevolence of an act by the natural light of reason, without grace. And someone can know it is gravely wrong to, say, desecrate the Sacrament of sacraments, without believing in the faith, if they know (have been told) it is a grave sin (of course they should know even before that stealing is wrong, etc.)

Thanks.
Yes maybe that is what was meant.
Wouldn’t the natural light of reason be grace from God, as everything comes from God? Sorry going off topic…

I think this is a good read. The writer doesn’t see Christ owing a debt, but rather all humanity owes the debt of self sacrifice.

vox-nova.com/2011/02/23/the-cross-and-human-sacrifice-learning-from-the-prophets/

 

[CrossofChrist]

Thanks.
Yes maybe that is what was meant.
Wouldn’t the natural light of reason be grace from God, as everything comes from God?l]

In a sense it is “grace” because even our existence is a gift. But grace also presupposes nature (Catholic teaching). It takes something “above nature” to heal our sin: grace.

And this can lead us into the classic nature/grace debate.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Afternoon, CrossofChrist!

Sorry for the delay, I have been very busy, but today we have a big storm, so I cannot be out working much.

Indeed. I’m pushing you on to explain how it wouldn’t be a rejection.

Here we were discussing the definition of sin. If we start with the definition that sin is an act, we can see that the two views are not far apart.

But where does this leave us? How is Jesus in anyway the cause of our salvation?

So, in the view that either Abba demanded a debt be paid or any variation of this (such as God disfavoring us until Jesus came), Jesus paid the debt, and thus renewed our favor in God’s eyes, as well as showing us how much God loves us in a number of ways. Jesus guides us to an “eternal life”, which starts here and now, and such a life involves discipline to love one another, repentance, forgiveness, etc.

In the view that God did not demand a debt be paid, Jesus came to show us that Abba loves us very much, so much that nothing can stop or alter His love, even murdering Him on a cross. Jesus saves us from our fears, not the least of which is death, by His rising. Jesus saves us from enslavement from our resentment and hatred by encouraging us to forgive, as well as guiding us to an “eternal life” described above. This is far, far, from giving either view the full extent of “salvation”, but it is a start.

So would all humans have the love of God, or not? Do we already have the fullness of our humanity?

True, the debt happened in time. But to reject debt wholesale would, in my estimation, be the equivalent of rejecting the Tradition. Christ is our Redeemer–a dogma.

God forgave us in his love, true as well (of course!). But I want to know how you can put a causal significance to Christ’s life if the whole problem of sin was already taken care of previously, or if it is just an illusion on our part.

To me, in either view we have the love of God. Is “fullness of our humanity” defined somewhere? Are we ever “full”? Just taking a stab here - “fullness” in the “debt” view would be a renewal of relationship with Abba through debt payment, and “fullness” in a no-debt view would be a matter of awareness of God-in-All, Love-in-All. Does anyone have that “fullness”? Even if I thought I did, I could in no way make the statement that I am “fully human” if such meant being fully aware of God.

In that respect, all of us are seeing God as a bit of illusion, do ya think? I have kind of an idea of what love is, but do I really know everything? I know enough to know that if I make such a statement, I am doing so out of ignorance!

So yes, Christ is our redeemer and savior, no matter what the specifics are on “debt”. Remember, many variations on “debt” are part of our tradition.

Are you aware of the issue of the nature of the photon in particle physics? Do one experiment, and it is a wave, not a particle, but do the other experiment, and it is a particle, not a wave. Both experimental results are legitimate in the scientific community, but the results are totally contradictory. The results indicate that there is a much deeper reality, beyond the grasp of physics at this point in history.

You gave me a lot to think about in your following post too. I hope to address it soon.

Thanks again!

 

[CrossofChrist]

I’m not so much concerned about the actuality of love being present…]

Ahhhhh!!! Just noticed this. Of course God’s love is actually present…just that its presence is through Christ…not apart from him.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi again!

Here was the quote you offered this thread:

Pope Francis: God’s forgiveness is not a matter of canceling a debt we have with him.

Or does that mean the forgiveness we receive personally is about accepting the love offered for us, because Christ already took care of the debt?

Unfortunately I don’t have more of a context to offer. But I don’t think Francis is rejecting debt at all.

Well, let’s put the above quote next to this one from your last post:

“With a certain irony, the Gospel says that everyone went away, one by one, beginning with the elders: it is evident that they had a big debt against them in the bank of heaven!”…

Since it was the elders themselves that “went away”, then the debt was that which was perceived by the elders themselves. Is God the creditor, though? It seems to me that the elders would think so, but Pope Francis said pretty clearly that Jesus did not come to cancel a debt. So, we get back to the question, was there a debt, or not? But since the faithful appear to have both views, the pastoral approach is one that harmonizes.

I’m not so much concerned about the actuality of love being present–although I think in the end this becomes incomprehensible and is part of why I personally reject Suarezian philosophy (as I understand it–no real distinction, only intellectual, between essence/existence). I’m more concerned about how you can give causal significance to Christ.

I’m not a philosopher, and I am not familiar with Suarez. I hope you can see causal significance in both views.

Can you accept the possibility of the debt and forgiveness being simultaneous, rather than a distinction of time?

I can accept the possibility of debt with or without the distinction of time. If I couldn’t see the legitimacy, then this thread would be a bit of a waste of time. We got into this section because we were discerning when a debt view is a debt view and when it is not. It’s harmony, not elimination, remember?

I’m thinking, if God’s love is a gift for us, doesn’t that mean there is something for us to receive? If it is already present so that we don’t actually have to receive it, but merely “look” at it, doesn’t that do away with or at least certainly take the sting out of the Christian doctrine?

I certainly extrapolated, since Rahner is talking about the offer itself. Later he brings up the point that God’s offer to man is through Christ, so we have the causal significance of Christ’s life and being.

I’m saying the fact that our debt is eliminated in Christ for all time (and therefore there is no debt anymore), and the fact that sin incurs a debt to God–an infinite offense–is essentially the paradox.

But does Ratzinger really deny the existence of a debt?

And by himself, on his own, man is unable to extricate himself from this situation, on his own he cannot redeem himself; only the Creator himself can right relationships. Only if he from who we distanced ourselves comes to us and lovingly holds out his hand can proper relationships be restored. This happens through Jesus Christ, who goes in exactly the opposite direction to Adam, as is described by the hymn in the second chapter of St Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (2:5-11): whereas Adam did not acknowledge his creatural being and wanted to put himself in God’s place, Jesus, the Son of God, was in a perfect filial relationship with the Father, he emptied himself and became the servant, he took the path of love, humbling himself even to death on a cross, to set right our relations with God.

I don’t know. “Setting right our relations with God.” can certainly be stated as “paying a debt”, CrossofChrist, I will grant you that. And given that the word “debt” is used in SO MANY ways I am going to definitely have to back away from the description of the two views as “debt vs. no debt”.

If nothing else, recently I sent a note to someone (someone you know) apologizing for not keeping up on my responses, and that person responded with “no worries” (Is that Australian?) Anyway, in that case I sensed that I OWED A DEBT to the person, and their response, in my view, reflected a loving, benevolent, non-judgmental Abba. I had not sensed that the person would hold my lack of response against me, but no, I was more concerned with being as generous with my time as he was with his!

Therefore, the sense of debt on my part came not from an anxiety connected with fear of negative reciprocation or certainly not “wrath” on the part of the “creditor”! Instead, the sense of debt came from a feeling of gratitude; indeed it is in our nature to return kindness and generosity with the same, as Rene Girard (and many others) so accurately observe.

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

To CrossofChrist: (continued meandering)

Is it more accurate, then, to describe the paradox as God-as-creditor vs. God-as-freely-giving? Indeed, since we all know that God loves us, and He would therefore feel compelled to save us, is the debt a matter of removing a roadblock before such salvation is offered? If so, then this is God-as-creditor.

If, instead:

… in the New Testament the Cross appears primarily as a movement from above to below. It does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about. With this twist in the idea of expiation, and thus in the whole axis of religion, worship too, man’s whole existence, acquires in Christianity a new direction.

Cardinal Ratzinger (from the link in the OP)

Then it is His approach to us, a gift given freely, no strings attached.

The story of Adam, taken literally, is a story about a God who gives with strings attached, a God who gives and then takes away, a God who favors and then disfavors. That is the Creditor view, which I still insist is legitimate.

The Liturgy of the Hours (Benedict XVI speaking):

“Christ is baptized and the whole world is made holy”, sings today’s liturgy; “he wipes out the debt of our sins; we will all be purified by water and the Holy Spirit” (Antiphon to the Benedictus, Office of Lauds).

See what I am saying? The distinction to be made (again, not for the purpose of elimination) is probably not between “debt and no debt” though it comes into play as an effect. It is probably more accurate to do as Cardinal Ratzinger did, addressing directly the “image of God”. Such an image can be “sinister”, “justice”, “unconditionally loving”, “wrathful” or however distinguished in that manner.

Note: it does seem to me that the use of “sinister”, though, would not likely be a characteristic that any person would give to his or her own creator, right? The word “sinister” would more likely come from a disapproving observer, I am speaking from the position of if I were to say “sinister”, I would be expressing disapproval). Again, I am referring to the link to the Introduction in the OP.

And Pope Francis also said the following:
“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”. In these words from the Our Father, there is a plan for life, based on mercy. Mercy, kindness, forgiveness of debts, is not only a thing of devotion, of intimacy, of spiritual healing, a sort of oil which helps us be kinder, better, no. It is the prophecy of a new world…

Yes, there is no debating that we sense that others owe us a debt when they have wronged us in some way, and it is our calling to forgive all of those from who we demand some kind of compensation (spiritually speaking).

Doesn’t this all beg the question of why we humans sense debt in the first place? I am still dying to share the really cool thing I read, but nobody is biting on the importance of the question… I’m beginning to feel like the little kid who comes to “show-and-tell” and nobody cares…

Suggestion: Perhaps the more accurate distinction is between “God who disfavors” and "God who never disfavors.:? What distinction do you glean from the Introduction?

Have a great day! See, this is my problem, brief responses don’t come easy to me…

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hi Granny!

As you can see, I am a bit behind in my responses. I hope you are feeling okay today.

From Cardinal Ratzinger’s* Introduction* addressing Anselm:

Now it cannot be denied that this theory takes account of crucial biblical and human perceptions; anyone who studies it with a little patience will have no difficulty in seeing this. To that extent it will always command respect as an attempt to synthesize the individual elements in the biblical evidence in one great all embracing system. Is not hard to see that in spite of all the philosophical and juridical terminology employed, the guiding thread remains that truth which the Bible expresses in the little word For,’ in which it makes clear that we as men live not only directly from God but from one another, and in the last analysis from the One who lived for all. And who could fail to see that thus in the schematization of the satisfaction’ theory the breath of the biblical idea of election remains clear, the idea that makes election not a privilege of the elected but the call to live for others? It is the call to that `For’ in which man confidently lets himself fall, ceases to cling to himself and ventures on the leap away from himself into the infinite, the leap through which alone he can come to himself. But even if all this is admitted it cannot be denied on the other hand that the perfectly logical divine-cum-human legal system erected by Anselm distorts the perspectives and with its rigid logic can make the image of God appear in a sinister light.

So, how does the “logical divine-cum-human legal system” distort the perspective? “We as men live not only directly from God but from one another, and in the last analysis from the One who lived for all…” says the Cardinal. What does it mean when man “lets himself fall, ceases to cling to himself and ventures on the leap away from himself into the infinite, the leap through which alone he can come to himself.”?

When I hold others to a debt, when I hold something against people, Granny, it is about me. When I let go of those inhibitions, I leap away from myself, my demands! Do you see the “change in direction” referred to by the Cardinal? In my reading of the Introduction God is telling us, not “It is all about me”, He is saying, “It’s all about you.”! To follow Christ’s example (Abba’s example), in this view, is to let go of the demands we have on one another, to love freely, without inhibition, as God loves us.

To me,I “needed” to let go of the idea that God ever holds anything against me (or anyone else). This I see as legitimate.

I also see as legitimate the idea that God held something against Adam, therefore the human race. This is an inhibition, but this is the way I also saw God.

Now, if you are ready to acknowledge with me the legitimacy of the two perspectives, we can work to harmonize them. If not, feel free to eliminate one. However, if you wish to eliminate, keep in mind that it goes against those guiding words from Pope Benedict with which I started this thread.

God Bless you, Granny, do take care of yourself!

 

[OneSheep]

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!

Hi ynotzap!

“Dread the loss of heaven and pains of hell” can reflect a fear, though, right? I love the prayer, for it so reflects a remorse, guilt. I even find myself saying it when I do not live up to my own expectations of myself! I find myself fearing disappointment from others or myself.

As I was telling Granny, though, I think what Cardinal Ratzinger was emphasizing was that God (Jesus) gives freely.

We need not fear, but we do, and the prayer takes us from the fear and guilt, refocuses us on Love, and ends with resolution. Very cool.

On the other hand, many people have faith because of fear of hell. Is this illegitimate? To me, it is not, especially when “hell” is seen as part of what we choose on Earth. Addiction is hell. Clinging to grudges is hell. Having life revolve around material wealth is hell. etc.

Godspeed!

 

[davidv]

Hi ynotzap!

“Dread the loss of heaven and pains of hell” can reflect a fear, though, right? I love the prayer, for it so reflects a remorse, guilt. I even find myself saying it when I do not live up to my own expectations of myself! I find myself fearing disappointment from others or myself.

As I was telling Granny, though, I think what Cardinal Ratzinger was emphasizing was that God (Jesus) gives freely.

We need not fear, but we do, and the prayer takes us from the fear and guilt, refocuses us on Love, and ends with resolution. Very cool.

On the other hand, many people have faith because of fear of hell. Is this illegitimate? To me, it is not, especially when “hell” is seen as part of what we choose on Earth. Addiction is hell. Clinging to grudges is hell. Having life revolve around material wealth is hell. etc.

Godspeed!

As a now infamous preacher was fond of saying, fear is not the best reason to ask for forgiveness, but it is a good place to start.

 

[CrossofChrist]

(Is that Australian?

I’ll get back to you in a little bit, but I will say this made me chuckle to myself. Thanks!

Then I looked it up…it’s Australian!

Makes me wonder how I incorporated that into my vocabulary.

 

[CrossofChrist]

In the view that God did not demand a debt be paid, Jesus came to show us that Abba loves us very much, so much that nothing can stop or alter His love, even murdering Him on a cross. Jesus saves us from our fears, not the least of which is death, by His rising. Jesus saves us from enslavement from our resentment and hatred by encouraging us to forgive, as well as guiding us to an “eternal life” described above. This is far, far, from giving either view the full extent of “salvation”, but it is a start.

Ok…but why would Jesus need to save us from any of that if God already did beforehand?

To me, in either view we have the love of God. Is “fullness of our humanity” defined somewhere? Are we ever “full”? Just taking a stab here - “fullness” in the “debt” view would be a renewal of relationship with Abba through debt payment, and “fullness” in a no-debt view would be a matter of awareness of God-in-All, Love-in-All. Does anyone have that “fullness”? Even if I thought I did, I could in no way make the statement that I am “fully human” if such meant being fully aware of God.

I guess here’s what I mean: it seems to me that from a perspective that there is no debt to God, then we are already united with God.

So I have 2 concerns:

1. If we are already united with God prior to Christ, what significance does Christ have? And how can this in anyway be reconciled with Tradition which has stated that Christ is our link to God–our Mediator?

But perhaps you grant that and we are just talking past each other…

1. If there is no debt, doesn’t that entail there is no separation from God? So where does this leave sin? Even if you say there is a failure to be aware of God’s love, that entails a separation, because God’s love isn’t realized in us.

When I speak of debt in this topic, I am (generally) referring to separation, not as if God lends money and expects repayment. I believe it is the latter image that Ratzinger and Francis are denying.

God’s loves is present “to us” at all times, but it isn’t actualized “in us” until we receive sanctifying grace.

Are you aware of the issue of the nature of the photon in particle physics? Do one experiment, and it is a wave, not a particle, but do the other experiment, and it is a particle, not a wave. Both experimental results are legitimate in the scientific community, but the results are totally contradictory. The results indicate that there is a much deeper reality, beyond the grasp of physics at this point in history.

It’s pretty cool, no?

Thanks again!

You’re welcome.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Hi again!

Here was the quote you offered this thread:

Pope Francis: God’s forgiveness is not a matter of canceling a debt we have with him.

Well, let’s put the above quote next to this one from your last post:

“With a certain irony, the Gospel says that everyone went away, one by one, beginning with the elders: it is evident that they had a big debt against them in the bank of heaven!”…

Since it was the elders themselves that “went away”, then the debt was that which was perceived by the elders themselves. Is God the creditor, though? It seems to me that the elders would think so, but Pope Francis said pretty clearly that Jesus did not come to cancel a debt. So, we get back to the question, was there a debt, or not? But since the faithful appear to have both views, the pastoral approach is one that harmonizes.

Hopefully I was clear enough in the last post what I meant when I am speaking about debt. So that sums up my thoughts on Francis’ words. He wasn’t denying debt per se, but a particular picture of the reality (similar to Ratzinger…if you get Introduction to Christianity or read it, you might be amazed how much Francis appears to “steal” ideas from it…especially “controversial” things like triumphalist Christianity…etc…etc…)

I’m not a philosopher, and I am not familiar with Suarez. I hope you can see causal significance in both views.

My mind was elsewhere bringing up Suarez…that should be for another thread another time…

I can’t see how it is possible to give any causal significance to Christ if God’s love is present to us outside of Jesus–there is no salvation outside the Church or Christ.

I can accept the possibility of debt with or without the distinction of time. If I couldn’t see the legitimacy, then this thread would be a bit of a waste of time. We got into this section because we were discerning when a debt view is a debt view and when it is not. It’s harmony, not elimination, remember?

I guess this all comes down to what you really mean by “no-debt” view. If we aren’t in anyway separated from God, what value does faith have? Wouldn’t we already realize and be aware of God’s love in that case?

And given that the word “debt” is used in SO MANY ways I am going to definitely have to back away from the description of the two views as “debt vs. no debt”.

Perhaps this will help the discussion…to see if this is all semantics or not.

If all this time you were presenting Anselm’s view as the (sole) debt view and the position Ratzinger presents as the non-debt view, then it very well could be semantics.

Certainly Anselm’s view is legitimate…just that it can have a tendency to paint an incorrect image of God.

Certainly Ratzinger’s view is legitimate, but he also isn’t denying that there is a debt (i.e separation from God). For then where does that leave sin or Christ?

I think the reason why “debt” is used so often–in the sense that we owe worship to God in the order of justice–is because to fail to give God what he deserves is a sin against justice. Because God is just. And justice against God can become tangible to us using terminology like “debt”. So then we have a debt (that is, we have sinned), an offense against God that if we are to be in a state of grace must be “made right” (sin must be atoned for, taken away). Our failure which separates us must be made right, or forgiven (the separation has to be taken away).

 

[CrossofChrist]

I’m going to skip a lot of what you posted (don’t worry, I read it, just not commenting on it).

To CrossofChrist: (continued meandering)

Is it more accurate, then, to describe the paradox as God-as-creditor vs. God-as-freely-giving? Indeed, since we all know that God loves us, and He would therefore feel compelled to save us, is the debt a matter of removing a roadblock before such salvation is offered? If so, then this is God-as-creditor.

This isn’t what I am talking about when saying sin is debt. God offers us regardless of any roadblocks. In fact, what I am saying is God’s offer is simultaneously what removes any roadblocks for us to get to God. All we have to do is accept God’s offer that is ever present to us, so that the sin which separates us from God can be removed and God can become present in us.

Does this make any sense to you?

Doesn’t this all beg the question of why we humans sense debt in the first place? I am still dying to share the really cool thing I read, but nobody is biting on the importance of the question… I’m beginning to feel like the little kid who comes to “show-and-tell” and nobody cares…

I was thinking of asking you about that…but I think we are still potentially talking past each other.

Suggestion: Perhaps the more accurate distinction is between “God who disfavors” and "God who never disfavors.:? What distinction do you glean from the Introduction?

I would say God’s favor to us is in Jesus, and outside of Jesus there is no favor. But Christ is both ever present to us by his unity with God and has merits that extend for all times in every place, which means simultaneously that there is no time when God disfavors. If we are in disfavor with God, it is entirely because of our rejection of grace, not because of God not loving us or not offering salvation to us.

 

[wmw]

Please read again carefully the words of Pope Francis, “God’s forgiveness is not a matter of canceling a debt we have with him.”

Our sins are our own history. We know we have sinned, hurting others, we have a debt in the way we have treated or not treated people. The resulting lack of grace is within our own hearts. God is not holding any account, but we would find ourselves unable to enter the beautific vision either before purgatory or eternally. God holds only the forgiveness offered by Christ for the removal of our debts and he makes this available throughout our lives.

If we must find all the roles in the theater of debt play then the creditors are all the victims of sin. For instance the spilled blood of Able that calls from the earth. Jesus resurrects and makes Able whole, Christ is our Advocate and Savior from our lack of graces (debt); then finally, the Devil is our accuser.

My claim is that there is no need for a debt that requires a wrathful Father. This Wrath of God is the wrong answer of which Pope Francis speaks; not the whole of the debt concept.

 

[simpleas]

Ok…but why would Jesus need to save us from any of that if God already did beforehand?

I guess here’s what I mean: it seems to me that from a perspective that there is no debt to God, then we are already united with God.

So I have 2 concerns:

1. If we are already united with God prior to Christ, what significance does Christ have? And how can this in anyway be reconciled with Tradition which has stated that Christ is our link to God–our Mediator?

But perhaps you grant that and we are just talking past each other…

1. If there is no debt, doesn’t that entail there is no separation from God? So where does this leave sin? Even if you say there is a failure to be aware of God’s love, that entails a separation, because God’s love isn’t realized in us.

When I speak of debt in this topic, I am (generally) referring to separation, not as if God lends money and expects repayment. I believe it is the latter image that Ratzinger and Francis are denying.

God’s loves is present “to us” at all times, but it isn’t actualized “in us” until we receive sanctifying grace.

It’s pretty cool, no?

You’re welcome.

Not addressed to me, but if you don’t mind…

Ok…but why would Jesus need to save us from any of that if God already did beforehand?

I think it could mean that God did all beforehand as God never changes, but the people of that time may have failed to see God as Jesus taught him to be. Like the sacrifices in the temple were done to take away the sin of the person, but through Jesus all sin is taken away, no more animal sacrifice is needed, we know more now about God.
The people saw others in a, it’s them and us sort of way I think, unlike a Christian, who should hopefully see all people as Gods children, because we follow the teaching of love one another.

Just my :twocents:

 

[grannymh]

Now, if you are ready to acknowledge with me the legitimacy of the two perspectives, we can work to harmonize them. If not, feel free to eliminate one. However, if you wish to eliminate, keep in mind that it goes against those guiding words from Pope Benedict with which I started this thread.

God Bless you, Granny, do take care of yourself!

Thank you for your prayers. I am half way through the cancer issues and am waiting for results.

Good timing. Here is my legitimate view, we can harmonize God is a Pure Spirit which makes Him more powerful that humans who are a unification of both matter *and *spirit, Will you break bread with me since I firmly believe that Adam is the first fully-complete human Person.