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

[CrossofChrist]

Jesus is the way, the truth, the life. We are literally nothing without God,** and He has always dwelled within us. **

In addition to the other post I made, I’m skeptical as to how this can be reconciled with original sin, and sin in general.

I can accept (and in fact do accept) the following: that God is always present to our “inmost self”, to our true humanity. But we don’t have our true self, and the only way to get to it is going beyond ourself to God via Christ. We still are human, retaining our essence, but we are incomplete. Guardini talked about how we aren’t yet Christian, but are on the way of becoming one (one the way to our supernatural end, the beatific vision).

What it seems to me that your proposal does is deny the existence of sin in reality. We have to go beyond our existence we currently are at and go to Christ’s “level”. If we (i.e everyone) are already at Christ’s “level”, where does this leave sin?

In a “God always favors” view, the favor is there, but it is not in our nature to see! Jesus came to open our eyes, cure our blindness, among many other things. It took a supernatural effort (Jesus) to make this happen. Faith, too, is supernatural.

This isn’t exclusive to that view, though.

To understand, consider the “separation” within the individual human. Ignorance and blindness separate us from our own love of God. In the “always favors” view, God always loves and is part of us, but we do not realize it, we don’t recognize it, so we don’t return it. So yes, in either view, there is a “separation” of a sort.

But if we don’t realize it in sin, can we really be loving God?

So, in the “always favored” view, that grace comes in the form of awareness, I suppose.

My understanding of what you are suggesting is that we already have sanctifying grace within our souls, but it is “hidden” and the only thing Christ does is make it explicit.

Did I forget to tell you I read the whole book?

Perhaps. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if I forgot.

Now, let’s turn it around. Can you see the legitimacy of the “picture of the reality” criticized by Ratzinger? Infinite debt incurred requires infinite payment, so Jesus had to die. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

I believe it (what Ratzinger criticizes) misses the point though, which is essentially what he was saying.

A priest once explained to us, “even the non-Christian who is saved, is saved through Christ.” Doesn’t the CCC address salvation outside the Church?

Yep.

 

[CrossofChrist]

We could be separated from our own love of God.

If this means we actually have sanctifying grace in our souls at all times, I can’t accept that.

If, OTOH, you mean something akin to us being separated from our own true self that is beyond us, I can accept it.

Remember the commandment? Why the #1 commandment? Despite the unity, we don’t realize, we are not aware of God’s love. All sin stems from this lack of awareness, the lack of awareness is an essential ingredient in all sin, right? After all, God is in everyone, we sin against those people in who we do not see God, or are blind to God’s presence. It is through **reconciliation **and awareness that we see God’s presence in everyone. Jesus’ revelation, his forgiveness from the cross, was supernatural, and to me, it was necessary to really show me what it means to love and forgive. I cannot think of a more moving context for “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

It seems to me that in the proposed model, reconciliation would only entail “making explicit”. In this case, Jesus would be dispensable, even if he is capable of being helpful. Jesus’ role in expiation and causation both seem to be denied.

Trent’s Canon #10 on justification:

If anyone says that men are justified without the justice of Christ,[115] whereby Her merited for us, or by that justice are formally just, let him be anathema.

From Chapter 3 of Trent’s Decree on Justification:

But though He died for all,[16] yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so if they were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.

Yes, it makes sense in terms of expiation. Something “blocks” favor. In the non-separation-from-God (God never disfavors) view, God is present, already, in all of us, but we do not recognize Him.

If God is already present in all of us–not just present “to” (like in an encounter with another) but present “in”–how are we to understand mortal sin, which deprives us of sanctifying grace and unrepented makes eternal life impossible (CCC 1874)?

We are “separated” from our own love of God and neighbor. Fr. Rohr quotes Paula D’Arcy: “God comes disguised as our life”. When we resent our own lives, we resent God. Christ shows us how to love God, by steering our own mind away from our self and our miseries, and turn toward service to others. The “eternal life” is one of service.

I believe I’ve addressed this enough, but I don’t think this need be incompatible with an understanding of debt with sin.

In the mean time, I do have time to add that in the “always favors” view (for lack of a better description!), “merit” is not part of the equation, ever, even if there is a sense of debt. In the other view, God sees right through any rejection, and sees the ignorance and/or blindness behind the rejection. The person is seen as unaware. The source I soon quote will also reveal something about “merit”, I think.

Trent’s Canon #32 on justification:

If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

I don’t know about you, but if nothing else, I am learning a lot about my own “lack” in terms of ability to use the English language to describe the paradox!

Thanks again..

Language is tricky. Our language is incomplete, but does nonetheless give us a true description of reality. The Catechism talks about it a little:

42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”;17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18

170 We do not believe in formulas, but in those realities they express, which faith allows us to touch. "The believer’s act [of faith] does not terminate in the propositions, but in the realities [which they express]."56 All the same, we do approach these realities with the help of formulations of the faith which permit us to express the faith and to hand it on, to celebrate it in community, to assimilate and live on it more and more.

 

[grannymh]

May all of you have a Merry Christmas
as we celebrate the joy of Christ’s birth.



Lorenzo Lotto, 1523

http://www32.ureach.com/images/blank.gif

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Granny!

I have a little time today, so I’m going to try to respond to as many posts as I can.

I have completed enough research to agree to “The view that Adam is a real, historic person is legitimate.”

While I need to do more research on the negative views of Adam, for example, Adam is a only a symbol, I am open to most, not all, of the negative views of Adam’s literal reality. Open in the sense that I need to learn all the nitty-gritty in the negative opinions. Not open in the sense, that my understanding automatically means acceptance.

The next step is for you to offer the other legitimate views.

I don’t quite understand your use of “negative” in describing other views of Adam. No one can deny, biologically even, that at some point there was a mutation that finally defined what it means to be human, and that final mutation was our first ancestor. It could have been a male, and anyone who claims that a literal Adam and Eve is impossible is not looking at the whole picture. We just don’t know. Now, as far as the Adam and Eve story itself being literal or allegorical, there are a variety of views.

For example, the Church has long had a doctrine of original sin, but the Eastern Orthodox do not look at it as passing down to generations, and Judaical tradition does not include any notion of “Original Sin” from the story.

In addition, if you would like to see at a Chrisitan “no-debt” view, look here:

catholica.com.au/ianstake/016_it_print.php

especially in the section “Jesus Died to Show Us the Love of God”

I did not see the “change in direction” referred to by the Cardinal because I have not read most of the quotations in this thread.

Do read the link in the OP, and try your best to understand it. I find myself reading it often!

Originally Posted by grannymh
Again, there are the legitimate questions – What exactly is the something that God held against Adam, therefore the human race?

Disobedience is an excellent view, in my humble opinion.

You probably noticed that I specified Adam. Once the other legitimate views on Adam’s historic reality or non-reality have been expressed here in a post, then we can move on to sin.

Just a reminder, though, Granny. This thread is not about Adam, and it is not about eliminating legitimate views. If you have decided that a no-debt view is illegitimate, then feel free to eliminate. This thread, however, is about harmonizing. If you are determined to understand another point of view, read Ratzinger and the link above, and seek to understand. If you do not understand, I can try to help. If you understand but wish to eliminate anyway, then this isn’t the thread for that (please!)

And thanks for the cool Christmas Card!

Love,

OneSheep.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, wmw,

I hope this post finds you warm and well, in anticipation of the coming of the Christ child.

Up to here your statement makes some sense, but why do the problems below here connect with the above? Why can’t Jesus “pay” for our sin without just loving and forgiving conditionally?

Well, the need for payment is a condition, right?

In one blog post I’ve read long ago and have now found again I copy this rebuttal to the wrathful god (lower case since we are not talking here about the true God) view. The part that I think says it best starts with a quote of Isaiah prophesying that our sins are bore by Christ:
calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

This means that Christ carried in His body the sufferings that sin has brought into the world, and that Christ suffered in His soul over all the sins of the world, and their offense against God. He bore our iniquities not in the sense that God punished Him for what we did, but in the sense that He grieved over them all, in solidarity with us. That is what it means that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death), by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands.

The view in the article is complicated, and it I find it very difficult to separate the “reformed” view from the “catholic” view as depicted. For example, look at this line:

Hence through the cross Christ merited grace for the salvation of all men. Those who refuse His grace do not do so because Christ did not die for them or did not win sufficient grace for them on the cross, but because of their own free choice.

So, when we have a situation where grace has to be “won”, then we have a God who starts out disfavoring/is owed something, etc, regardless of how much the sacrifice of love “outweighs” the offenses, a view which is still legitimate. Merited implies that there was a condition to be met, and that view is legitimate, but is not the same as a view that maintains that God never held anything against us, a view that omniscience precludes the whole concept of merit vs lack of merit.

I really want to thank you for the link, though, and I wonder if the Cardinal was contrasting the two views in the same way that Bryan Cross was in the article.

So, this is another way of saying both/and; Jesus took our sins and suffered from their consequences, and He enters into solidarity and Communion with us when our wills are open, i.e. repentant, in a state of grace, etc. Also, God is not exacting revenge, but loves Jesus for His saving gift to us whom He has also always loved unconditionally.

Now this last part of your post, to me, demonstrates a mixture of the two approaches, depending on the definition of “state of grace”. If “state of grace” means that God finds disfavor/holds something against man in his default “state”, then this is a condition of His favor. If “state of grace” is a state of awareness, where the person, through awareness of Love learns that faith, love of God and others, etc. is a means to an “eternal life” (a holy life, a wonderful, joyous life, free from enslavement to sin) then the state has nothing to do with how God sees us, but has everything to do with how we see God. Do you see the difference? And, at the same time, can you see the legitimacy of both views?

Did I write this to you in a previous post? What about this, for harmonzing:

God wills that we see Him as desiring payment, that we owe Him recompense, that we have earned his disfavor, and all of the other aspects that follow from that until through our following of the first and second commandment we come to forgive everyone, including ourselves, and see that God loves us unconditionally.

In addition, in the microcosm of the moment, God Wills that we resent ourselves (and others) because of sin Until we understand and forgive the self and others.

For up until the point that we forgive, holding something against someone, as we project God doing against us, serves a purpose. Along that same line, as I posted in #234, the resentment that the chimpanzees held against two in their group served a purpose.

Thanks for your responses, wmw, and thanks for the link!

 

[OneSheep]

Did the entire colony beat the two chimps or only a number of, say, elder chimps?

Just curious…

Hi Simpleas!

You are referring to my post 234. All it said was that the entire colony chased them around; I think it would have been physically impossible for the all to be involved in the beating, and de Waal did not specify. It is my guess that some of the adults beat them up.

I, too, have SO MANY questions about what happened, especially what was going on in the minds of the chimps. Frans de Waal does give at least two other examples of chimpanzee justice, though. One was a case where an adult female chastised a male for not supporting her after she had supported him, which also brings forth the instinct of reciprocity, and there is a lot of that demonstrated in apes.

How about this question: The two chimps knew that they were supposed to go in, and they knew that they had to go in to get fed. Did they not think about the fact that the rest of the Chimps were not getting food either? If they did, did their desire for autonomy/control block out their empathy for the other chimps, as it happens in humans? Given that they were the first ones in the next night, they knew which rule they had broken. Did they know they were going to get a beating once they were tardy, and then they feared coming in? Frans de Waal did not say that there was any expression of anxiety or fear.

Isn’t it amazing that not only did the colony remember the incident until the next day, but in addition the two adolescents made the connection between their being punished and the previous nights’ behavior?

Thanks!

 

[wmw]

Good theology must account for all of the teachings of the Bible neither the “Wrath of God upon Jesus” nor the “[only] anticipated Jesus’ death on the cross. God might have permitted it because “he loved us so much” and wanted to leave us an everlasting image of that love. However, God need not have planned it. To be blunt, God could “turn any sow’s ear into a purse”. Jesus did not have to die;” I’ll call it the “Duns Scotus” view does not account for the complete Biblical account. You are hardly just de-literalizing the early chapters of Genesis, but some major portions of the New Testament.
I think it’s well understood that no one is happy with the “Wrath of God upon Jesus” view. This is often used as a straw man to make the reader take the “Duns Scotus” view as superior. Therefore, I’ll concentrate on enumerating the biblical problems with the “Duns Scotus” view that I could quickly find in order to dispel the thought that this is a fully functional theology.

Romans 3:25 “…whom God set forth as a propitiation” for our sins. “Propitiation” literally means “something that appeases a deity.” However, it can mean to “accept hurt”, to “forgive”, or to “show mercy.”

Rom. 3:25, 1 John 2:2; 4:10 - tells that Jesus did not pay a propitiation, but that He is a propitiation for our sins.

Romans 5:10 - “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life”

Romans 8:32 - “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?”

Rev. 12:10, 5:9, 12. - The end of the accusations of Satan.

Galatians 3:13 - "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, “Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree”

Matthew 26:38 - “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death”

Romans 5:17-21 – “For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. 18 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. 19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. 20 The law entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

John 3:13-15 – “No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.i14And just as Moses lifted up* the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,j15* so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

Mark 10: 45 - " For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

John 10:17-18 - “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
So just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God’s wonderful kindness rules instead, giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Peter 1:18-19 -
For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. He paid for you with the precious lifeblood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God.

Hebrews 2:14-17 - Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

2 Corinthians 5:21 - God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30 - It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Galatians 4:4&5 - till the appointed time came. Then God sent out his Son on a mission to us. He took birth from a woman, took birth as a subject of the law, 5 so as to ransom those who were subject to the law, and make us sons by adoption.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny!

Just a reminder, though, Granny. This thread is not about Adam, and it is not about eliminating legitimate views.

Before I check the rest of the posts…I do not want to make a mistake about this amazing thread.

Would you please explain what you mean by the word “humanity” in your title?

Thank you for your prayers. Cancer surgery was successful. And I am now able to get to today’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Praise God.

 

[wmw]

Cancer surgery was successful. And I am now able to get to today’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Praise God.

Great news, praise God!

 

[ynotzap]

Hi, ynotzap, this is exactly the question at hand.

The idea that satan ruled over man was a pre-Anselmian view. In this view, a debt was incurred, and the debt had to be paid (by Jesus’) bloody death, to satan. Anselm and then Abelard, turned this theory on its head:

Answer" I see a problem with these statements, St.Thomas in his grades of spiritual beings lists men (body and soul), angels, and then God above all. It is understood that this is the order that God established. Angels by their nature are superior to men. If both offended God mortally, they committed an injustice, but in the process angels didn’t lose their supremacy of being over men, and because of that supremacy in their nature had power over sinful men.
Also St.Peter reminds us that Jesus came to redeem us from the works of Satan. What are the works of Satan, except to lead men into sin by his angelic influence.

So I see this as a God-given right of rule, for a rebellious angel to rule over rebellious men. It was not a debt that had to be paid to Satan, but a right of rule that had to be arrested from Satan. This Jesus did by assuming human nature. When Satan by his influence had sinful men crucify Jesus who was man and God he overstepped his right of rule because Jesus was like us in every way but sin. Because Jesus was God, his actions have infinite merit before His Father to be applied to all who turn to Him. He allows Satan to exercise this power, even though Satan is constantly suffering the torment of hell in the process Jesus’ humility was Satan’s downfall, as pride was mans’ and Satan’s. One act of Christ could have redeemed mankind, but Jesus in love gave His all, in human terms, His life, no greater love has man than to give his life for another. This is the view I favor unless I learn otherwise.

In common with St. Anselm, Abelard utterly rejected the old, and then still prevailing, notion that the devil had some sort of right over fallen man, who could only be justly delivered by means of a ransom paid to his captor. Against this he very rightly urges, with Anselm, that Satan was clearly guilty of injustice in the matter and could have no right to anything but punishment. But, on the other hand, Abelard was unable to accept Anselm’s view that an equivalent satisfaction for sin was necessary, and that this debt could only be paid by the death of the Divine Redeemer. He insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction.

I can agree with St. Anselm and Abelard that Satan had no rights to anything but punishment,in the moral order but they said nothing about the right of rule that comes from one’s nature, angelic vs human nature.,in the natural order It is also stated that …" Satan is allowed to test the saints" Man could not give God satisfaction in a fallen state, that’s another reason Jesus assumed human nature to raise it to the level of being regarded by the Father, to be heard, to be pardoned, to be reinstated in grace.

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

This “arrest” you are referring to is similar to the “satisfaction” that Ablelard says could have been pardoned without requiring a death on the part of anyone. Does the idea that forgiveness or grace was “unmerited” speaks toward the idea of a need for expiation or does it take us in a different direction?

Did you see these parts in the text of the links in the OP? They are worth a good read, maybe 3 or 4 good reads, and I need to look into this issue more myself!

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny!

I don’t quite understand your use of “negative” in describing other views of Adam.
And thanks for the cool Christmas Card!

Love,

OneSheep.

Example of a negative view of Adam, which, by the way, is occasionally expressed.
Adam is not literally real. Not is the negative.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, CrossofChrist!

In the God-always-favors-view, Jesus is the way, the truth, the life. We are literally nothing without God, and He has always dwelled within us.

In addition to the other post I made, I’m skeptical as to how this can be reconciled with original sin, and sin in general.

I can accept (and in fact do accept) the following: that God is always present to our “inmost self”, to our true humanity. But we don’t have our true self, and the only way to get to it is going beyond ourself to God via Christ. We still are human, retaining our essence, but we are incomplete. Guardini talked about how we aren’t yet Christian, but are on the way of becoming one (one the way to our supernatural end, the beatific vision).

What it seems to me that your proposal does is deny the existence of sin… We have to go beyond our existence we currently are and go to Christ’s “level”. If we (i.e everyone) are already at Christ’s “level”, where does this leave sin?

Yes, in the “debt” view, unless sin actually separates us from God, it is not sin. In other words, sin is not sin specifically because it is hurtful to self or others, but it is sin specifically because of the separation from God. The appeal here is to force upon the sinner the importance of avoiding sin not because of the harm it causes the self or other, but because of the after-life consequences involved with non-repentance. For the person whose behavior is not guided by empathy and love (does not care, or is unaware of the harm done to self or others), the after-life consequences, if they indeed force the individual to behave, are important behavioral motivators.

A “God always favors” view would be one that sees that man inadvertently turns from God, in ignorance; it involves an anthropology that starts with the premise that man is beautiful and lovable, and never turns from God when he knows God. The “God always favors” view starts with the premise that God always forgives, immediately, and never holds anything against man in the first place. In that view, the only player in the picture where forgiveness is an issue is man, not God. I am not saying that this is the only non-debt approach, though.

My quote:

To understand, consider the “separation” within the individual human. Ignorance and blindness separate us from our own love of God. In the “always favors” view, God always loves and is part of us, but we do not realize it, we don’t recognize it, so we don’t return it. So yes, in either view, there is a “separation” of a sort.

But if we don’t realize it in sin, can we really be loving God?

I’m not sure I communicated well, or I don’t understand the question you ask here. What I am trying to explain, in an example of a no-debt view, is that Jesus came to show us that God loves us unconditionally. When we do not love others in this way, we cannot see that God loves us this way. Our own ignorance, not loving others unconditionally, blocks us from seeing that God loves us in this way.

My understanding of what you are suggesting is that we already have sanctifying grace within our souls, but it is “hidden” and the only thing Christ does is make it explicit.

Yes, “only” that. (Among a lot of other important teachings, and assuming that God-incarnate was God-incarnate from the “beginning”). In a God-always-favors view, Word is message, Word shows us the way, the truth, and the life. To show man that God always forgives means that God, in Jesus, from the cross, provides an example to all mankind. We can, and are, to forgive one another without condition.

So God made creation in such a way that it should love, and above all love the divine nature that is the object of love of all the persons in the Trinity. Now for creation to be able to love to the highest extent, there must be at least one created thing capable of the highest love. That created thing is the human nature of Christ. The human nature of Christ was predestined by God to that highest glory of the beatific sharing in the inner life of the divine persons. Once God had decided upon this predestination of Christ’s human nature, then he willed the union of Christ’s divine nature with his human nature in the person of Christ since only a human nature united to the divine nature in one person could love to the highest extent, the extent to which God loves. St. Paul tells us that Christ was the first-born of all creation, and Scotus’ theology makes sense of this affirmation. Scotus did not believe that the acts of creation and Incarnation were separate, but part of one divine plan. So rather than the Incarnation being a sort of “Plan B” to rescue humanity after the fall, in Scotus’ theology it is the whole purpose of creation. Christ is the masterpiece of love in the midst of a creation designed for love, rather than a divine plumber come to fix the mess of original sin. Thus the Incarnation is placed by Scotus in the context of creation and not of human sin.
afriarslife.blogspot.com/2008/06/primacy-of-christ-in-john-duns-scotus.html

No other view of God ever showed this to man. The default among all religions (that believe in a god) is to project a god who needs appeasement and demands expiation, just as we humans need appeasement and demand expiation.

In the man-owes-a-debt-to-God view, Jesus “only” comes to satisfy the debt. (Among a lot of other important teachings…).

I believe it (what Ratzinger criticizes) misses the point though, which is essentially what he was saying.

Okay, so it is a beside-the-point issue. I think Ratzinger felt a little more strongly when he said it presents a “false image”.

However, do you see the legitimacy of the view that God demands appeasement, just as we humans demand appeasement? It makes sense, does it not?

Thanks!

 

[CrossofChrist]

Good evening OneSheep

My quote:

To understand, consider the “separation” within the individual human. Ignorance and blindness separate us from our own love of God. In the “always favors” view, God always loves and is part of us, but we do not realize it, we don’t recognize it, so we don’t return it. So yes, in either view, there is a “separation” of a sort.

But if we don’t realize it in sin, can we really be loving God?

I’m not sure I communicated well, or I don’t understand the question you ask here. What I am trying to explain, in an example of a no-debt view, is that Jesus came to show us that God loves us unconditionally. When we do not love others in this way, we cannot see that God loves us this way. Our own ignorance, not loving others unconditionally, blocks us from seeing that God loves us in this way.

In this model, does us not seeing how much God loves us hinder us from loving God?

When you say “separates us from our own love of God”, it would be a contradiction if we loved God and didn’t love God at the same time.

But anyway, when you say we already have sanctifying grace, that would mean we already have the love of God in our souls. So then sin wouldn’t ever destroy sanctifying grace in our souls.

Which would also mean Confession is ultimately meaningless…perhaps of value in confessing venial faults, but the obligation to confess grave sins is pointless because there couldn’t ever be a grave sin committed (we always have sanctifying grace).

Yes, “only” that. (Among a lot of other important teachings, and assuming that God-incarnate was God-incarnate from the “beginning”).

Ok, but how does this square with original sin, as well as the Immaculate Conception?

What this has done, if I’m not mistaken, is changed Rahner’s supernatural existential (a kind of prevenient grace) and made it into sanctifying grace. This isn’t a legitimate view.

In the man-owes-a-debt-to-God view, Jesus “only” comes to satisfy the debt. (Among a lot of other important teachings…).

That’s not true, that would be the primary reason, yes (“O happy fault…”), but not the only reason.

I don’t see how this would preclude believing Christ would’ve become man had Christ not sinned.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Okay, so it is a beside-the-point issue. I think Ratzinger felt a little more strongly when he said it presents a “false image”.

However, do you see the legitimacy of the view that God demands appeasement, just as we humans demand appeasement? It makes sense, does it not?

Thanks!

Anselm’s view is legitimate, but the caricature of it isn’t. God is love. It was one of the reasons why liberal Protestant ideas took hold.

*In some versions of Protestant, and even Catholic, pulpit oratory, the penal substitution theory depicted God almost as a vengeful sovereign exacting reparation for his offended honor. The idea that God would punish the innocent in place of the guilty seemed incompatible with the Christian conviction that God is eminently just and loving. It is understandable, therefore, that liberal Christians took a very different approach, in which the vindictive justice of God held no place. * (Select Questions on the Theology of God the Redeemer, 23)

 

[CrossofChrist]

What this has done, if I’m not mistaken, is changed Rahner’s supernatural existential (a kind of prevenient grace) and made it into sanctifying grace. This isn’t a legitimate view.

Rahner’s supernatural existential didn’t entail grace within a soul though, just always present.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

You are referring to my post 234. All it said was that the entire colony chased them around; I think it would have been physically impossible for the all to be involved in the beating, and de Waal did not specify. It is my guess that some of the adults beat them up.

I, too, have SO MANY questions about what happened, especially what was going on in the minds of the chimps. Frans de Waal does give at least two other examples of chimpanzee justice, though. One was a case where an adult female chastised a male for not supporting her after she had supported him, which also brings forth the instinct of reciprocity, and there is a lot of that demonstrated in apes.

How about this question: The two chimps knew that they were supposed to go in, and they knew that they had to go in to get fed. Did they not think about the fact that the rest of the Chimps were not getting food either? If they did, did their desire for autonomy/control block out their empathy for the other chimps, as it happens in humans? Given that they were the first ones in the next night, they knew which rule they had broken. Did they know they were going to get a beating once they were tardy, and then they feared coming in? Frans de Waal did not say that there was any expression of anxiety or fear.

Isn’t it amazing that not only did the colony remember the incident until the next day, but in addition the two adolescents made the connection between their being punished and the previous nights’ behavior?

Thanks!

They sound like some typical teenagers who want to do their own thing and have some fun by themselves. But when they received the beating they made sure they were in the next evening because of fear rather than respect.

Yes I’d like to know what the actions of chimps (who I love but know little of apart from some documentaries) has to do with our human way of belief in debts owned or not owned to God. We as humans are supposed to be the higher intelligence, the spiritual beings who can give thanks and praise to the creator (althought I am tempted to say animals could do this in their own way). Yet our behaviors over what is deemed right or wrong is sometimes even below the animals who apparently have no soul…

Merry Christmas Onesheep and to all

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny!

Just a reminder, though, Granny. This thread is not about Adam, and it is not about eliminating legitimate views.

:newidea:

Finally, I now understand that this thread is all about legitimate views on humanity.

Yet, I am still wondering what is your answer, as OP, to the question in post 247.

Would you please explain what you mean by the word “humanity” in your title?

Since this thread is not about eliminating legitimate views, how about giving your one or two or dozen legitimate views on humanity? --** After Christmas**.

Christmas is our time to adore Jesus Christ, True Man and True God. It is our time to decide whether or not we will participate in the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Did anyone notice the Crucifix in the painting in post 242?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

This participationist approach [St.Paul] is also implicit in the later Franciscan understanding of redemption, which as we noted last week was based primarily on the teaching of John Duns Scotus in the 13th century. Duns Scotus did not believe in any “substitutionary atonement theory” of the cross: Jesus did not have to die to make God love us; he was paying no debt, he was changing no divine mind. Rather, God gave us Jesus as a sacrament of transformative encounter. The divine Word was incarnated into the historical Jesus to change our mind about the nature of God!

I need to read more Scotus.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by OneSheep forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
This participationist approach [St.Paul] is also implicit in the later Franciscan understanding of redemption, which as we noted last week was based primarily on the teaching of John Duns Scotus in the 13th century. Duns Scotus did not believe in any “substitutionary atonement theory” of the cross: Jesus did not have to die to make God love us; he was paying no debt, he was changing no divine mind. Rather, God gave us Jesus as a sacrament of transformative encounter. The divine Word was incarnated into the historical Jesus to change our mind about the nature of God!

I need to read more Scotus.

I do hope you will find some Catholic teachings.

Maybe the actual teachings, not someone’s summary related to the “New Story” that views the Creation and the Incarnation as two related expressions of God’s self-communication to humankind. See link in post 49.

For example, the above has nice words which do have meaning. However, the Catholic Faith is not a “do it yourself” project."

Oops. I forgot that all legitimate views are to be harmonized today.

Around the time of Augustine and again in the 13th century, a variety of persons, including saints etc., had numerous legitimate views which were presented in the major Catholic Church ecumenical councils. Not everyone’s views were harmonized with Divine Revelation.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

. See link in post 49.

Thank you. I will as I am late to this discussion and there are 18 pages.