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

[Servant19]

.

One perspective is to observe how every single thing in creation was created as a result of “paying a debt”…

Even if you want to walk from home to work, you must pay a debt to the air which will resist you. When you pay this debt you are gifted with a new reality…your workplace.

Some realities are so tremendous that they require death for it to be achieved.

Jesus created a new heaven and a new earth.

Humanity didn’t owe a debt, as such, but in order for it to progress towards a new reality, a sacrifice was needed, just as we sacrifice ourselves to do a simple thing such as walking.

Creation is built upon sacrifice.
It’s the reason most of the major global religions encourage fasting.


.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
. See link in post 49.

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

In brief, here is a quote from the link in post 49. Notice the word “myth”. Notice that the loss of Original Holiness, that is, a profound relationship with God, is carefully omitted. Notice that what the author writes sidesteps the actual meaning of Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church.
“Does this mean that we can dispense with the old notion of “Original Sin”? The short answer is no! I think that the doctrine of Original Sin, as expressed in the Genesis myth of Adam and Eve, continues to speak to the human condition in a profound way - it speaks powerfully of all our inherited limitations. In some cases these limitations are genetic, in others our personal difficulties derive from poor nurturing or past trauma. Nevertheless, there is probably very, very few of us who reach adulthood without some severe limitations on our ability to act lovingly and selflessly.”

There is no doubt that Jesus died to show us the love of God as the link points out. We are very familiar with
John 3: 16-17. What many Catholics are not familiar with is that it took a real action on the part of the first real human to sever humanity’s original relationship with Divinity.
Another quote from the link.
“Biblical scholarship and biological science has long since taught us that such literalist readings of the scriptures can no longer be tolerated. Back in 2004, Franciscan Richard Rohr, writing a review of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” referred to the theological position that Jesus died for our sins as a “Neanderthal view of Christianity” (2004).”

What many Catholics are not familiar with is that Jesus was obedient unto death in order to conquer death – a bodily death which is the result of the disobedience of Adam.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Originally Posted by grannymh
[/INDENT]What many Catholics are not familiar with is that Jesus was obedient unto death in order to conquer death – a bodily death which is the result of the disobedience of Adam.

I am not so sure Adam is even necessary since we all, on our own, do a very effective job of disobedience. I need a savior for my own sins.

 

[grannymh]

I am not so sure Adam is even necessary since we all, on our own, do a very effective job of disobedience. I need a savior for my own sins.

Jesus is your Savior.

The glitch involves “opening the gates of heaven” to you personally.

The basic reason that Adam’s Original Sin is pure disaster is that our, yours and mine, human relationship with God – which gave us entrance to the Beatific Vision in heaven – was shattered into so many pieces that only someone Divine had the capability to put it all back together.

The Sacrament of Baptism, by imparting the* life *of Christ’s grace erases Original Sin and restores the individual’s relationship with God aka the State of Sanctifying Grace so that you and I, after bodily death can enter heaven with maybe a clean-up in Purgatory.

Part of the idea behind the general push to remove the idea of atonement is to avoid the consequences of Original Sin and by removing Adam, Original Sin bites the dust.
From here, it gets a bit tricky. When atonement, called debt because that is a more difficult word to understand, is removed, that signifies that God allows any old mortal sin to be committed without its natural results. The Catholic teachings on the significance of the State of Mortal Sin flies out the window.

Genesis 3: 4 is alive and well in our hometown.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Part of the idea behind the general push to remove the idea of atonement is to avoid the consequences of Original Sin and by removing Adam, Original Sin bites the dust.
From here, it gets a bit tricky. When atonement, called debt because that is a more difficult word to understand, is removed, that signifies that God allows any old mortal sin to be committed without its natural results. The Catholic teachings on the significance of the State of Mortal Sin flies out the window.

Genesis 3: 4 is alive and well in our hometown.

Doesn’t then God pay the debt to Himself on our behalf?

How do you see “any old mortal sin to be committed without its natural results” being dependent on Adam since even those baptized and thus erased of Adam’s sin still suffer the consequences of mortal sin.?

 

[grannymh]

Doesn’t then God pay the debt to Himself on our behalf?

Before I can reply properly, I need to know what debt are you referring to.
Or what kind of debt? Or what exactly is the debt? And especially why is there a debt or whatever.

How do you see “any old mortal sin to be committed without its natural results” being dependent on Adam since even those baptized and thus erased of Adam’s sin still suffer the consequences of mortal sin.?

When one goes back to post 263, the true Catholic teachings of Original Sin, not the following sins, are depended on a true Adam. Mortal sins committed by Adam’s descendants are not depended on Adam.

I did give a fair warning.

In brief. In a variety of threads, there has been the idea that God does not stop loving us. This is true. What is usually omitted is the “natural result” that Mortal Sin destroys one’s State of Sanctifying Grace. With a bit of sleight of hand, the idea is then presented that there is no debt or atonement necessary–because God loves unconditionally. Many people fail to recognize that God gave us the free choice to live in a friendship relationship with Him or the free choice to go our separate way.

Odd as it may seem, the idea that God loves unconditionally and therefore there is automatic forgiveness for sins, has been implied in some threads. On the other hand, Catholicism teaches that when a person is in the State of Mortal Sin, that person has basically separated herself or himself from God. The less than straight thinking offers the idea that it was not necessary to repair (atonement or debt) the damaged relationship between Adam and his Creator. Then somewhat later, is the idea that it is not necessary for the Sinner to repair her or his freely broken relationship with God.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion because many people do not like the idea that God is angry etc. These people fail to see that it is the Sinner who is angry at God.

 

[grannymh]

Interestingly, there is not a lot of affirmation of Adam’s real existence in this thread.

Is there anyone who is interested in answering the thread’s title from the position of Adam being the first true human as taught by the Catholic Church?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Before I can reply properly, I need to know what debt are you referring to.
Or what kind of debt? Or what exactly is the debt? And especially why is there a debt or whatever.

It was you who introduced the term in post #263: "When atonement, called debt because that is a more difficult word to understand, is removed, that signifies that God allows any old mortal sin to be committed without its natural results. The Catholic teachings on the significance of the State of Mortal Sin flies out the window. "

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Odd as it may seem, the idea that God loves unconditionally and therefore there is automatic forgiveness for sins, has been implied in some threads. On the other hand, Catholicism teaches that when a person is in the State of Mortal Sin, that person has basically separated herself or himself from God. The less than straight thinking offers the idea that it was not necessary to repair (atonement or debt) the damaged relationship between Adam and his Creator. Then somewhat later, is the idea that it is not necessary for the Sinner to repair her or his freely broken relationship with God.

I did not see anything related to, " the idea that it is not necessary for the Sinner to repair her or his freely broken relationship with God."

 

[grannymh]

It was you who introduced the term in post #263: "When atonement, called debt because that is a more difficult word to understand, is removed, that signifies that God allows any old mortal sin to be committed without its natural results. The Catholic teachings on the significance of the State of Mortal Sin flies out the window. "

Actually, the word debt is in the title of this thread.

Because of the difficult discussions in this thread, I wanted to know either what “debt” you would use or if you simply wanted to introduce debt in your terms. No big deal. Thank you for replying.

 

[grannymh]

I did not see anything related to, " the idea that it is not necessary for the Sinner to repair her or his freely broken relationship with God."

Actually, it is not necessary to study every post in this thread because I did not name a particular post.

I was presenting general information regarding the results of “less than straight thinking” in post 265. It is my personal impression that this thread contains a number of legitimate views, including those from past centuries. It is not my granny nature to accept a variety of legitimate views without doing some research especially when some “legitimate” views could lead to some dangerous waters.

Of course, there will be people who do not look at a trail in the same manner as I do. That is expected in open discussions. Thank you for replying.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

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!

What was it that was offered?

As we read Genesis we see 'iysh (adam, man ) and 'ishshah (eve, woman). Certainly there was a man and a woman who evolved to have a sense of morality and guilt. But a specific act changing the course of history and nature?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Another thought:

Commenting on Jesus “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” saying

Jesus did not reject the principle of equality as a basic legal principle but rather wanted here to open up to man a new dimension of his behavior. Law in isolation and made absolute becomes a vicious circle, a cycle of retaliation from which finally there is no way out any longer. In his relationship with us God has broken through this circle. In the face of God we are in the wrong, having turned away from him in the search for our own glorification and thus fallen victim to death. But God renounces the punishment that would be just and replaces it by something new: salvation, our conversion to renewed “yes” to the truth of ourselves. For this transformation to occur he goes ahead of us and takes the pain and suffering of transformation upon himself. The cross of Christ is the real discharging of the saying: not eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but the transformation of evil through the power of love. In his whole human existence, from the incarnation to the cross, Jesus does and is what is said here. He burst our “no” open by means of a
stronger and greater “yes.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, The Yes of Jesus Christ, 1991)

opuscula.blogspot.com/2006/05/ratzinger-on-love-and-redemption.html

 

[grannymh]

Another thought:

Commenting on Jesus “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” saying

Jesus did not reject the principle of equality as a basic legal principle but rather wanted here to open up to man a new dimension of his behavior. Law in isolation and made absolute becomes a vicious circle, a cycle of retaliation from which finally there is no way out any longer. In his relationship with us God has broken through this circle. In the face of God we are in the wrong, having turned away from him in the search for our own glorification and thus fallen victim to death. But God renounces the punishment that would be just and replaces it by something new: salvation, our conversion to renewed “yes” to the truth of ourselves. For this transformation to occur he goes ahead of us and takes the pain and suffering of transformation upon himself. The cross of Christ is the real discharging of the saying: not eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but the transformation of evil through the power of love. In his whole human existence, from the incarnation to the cross, Jesus does and is what is said here. He burst our “no” open by means of a
stronger and greater “yes.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, The Yes of Jesus Christ, 1991)

opuscula.blogspot.com/2006/05/ratzinger-on-love-and-redemption.html

John 3: 16
John 3: 17

 

[Michael_Mayo]

John 3: 16
John 3: 17

Amen!

Now if there had been no sin in the garden with Man and Woman would he still have come?

 

[fhansen]

Amen!

Now if there had been no sin in the garden with Man and Woman would he still have come?

IMO- just speculation- He was already there: the Tree of Life, which Adam & Eve dismissed but Who came later anyway, when the time was ripe, when man was approaching readiness, to rescue Adam/humanity. So we’ll turn back to Him, and partake of Him as was always intended.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi CrossofChrist!

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)

I’m confused here, though. There is " The idea that God would punish the innocent in place of the guilty." However, that is not the impression I get from Anselm’s view. What I am getting from Anselm’s view was that man created an infinite debt, and that only God incarnate could erase the debt. Given that God’s wrath is referred to many places, it is very understandable that a person could project that God is wrathful, and wants to be paid for harm done, as a matter of justice. The use of “vindictive” is a negative (resentful) view of this need for reparation and emotional reaction by God Himself. I don’t think Anselm saw this view of God as “vindictive”; he saw the view as that of God desiring justice.

It’s like, when is an act of justice seen as vindication? Frans de Waal quotes Susan Jacoby: in that there is “persistent tension between uncontrolled vengeance as destroyer and controlled vengeance as an unavoidable component of justice.” One person may look on an act of justice as vindictive, and another not. In our own modern society, we have more of an aversion to wrath, and the idea of “God’s wrath” is downplayed, for the carrying out justice with wrath is seen as vengeful. On the other hand, we also have scripture referring to “vengeance belongs to God” and so forth. All of these begin from the image of a God who disfavors for reason of offense.

In the “God always favors view”, assessment of the assertion that “vengeance belongs to God” would begin with a God who always forgives. The human is encouraged to let go of vengeance, indeed, to forgive as God forgives. This view does not mean “don’t worry about punishing someone, God will do it for you”, it means “forgive, let go of your desire for vengeance, just as God forgives you.”

So, it seems to me that within the “God disfavors” view, there is going to be a range of stances as to when justice is vindictive and when it is not, and I think that this is a manifestation of the “tension” referred to by Susan Jacoby in Wild Justice.

I am very far behind on responses now, but I am determined to catch up; I still need to address the “anathema post” and many that follow.

I hope everyone here had a wonderful Christmas, mine was particularly enlightening. I still have family here, and I am trying to balance my time today, with not much success.

As we are going on vacation with family today, my responses will continue to be spotty, sorry about that!

Thanks again, CrossofChrist, I will get back to you!

 

[fhansen]

Hi CrossofChrist!

I’m confused here, though. There is " The idea that God would punish the innocent in place of the guilty." However, that is not the impression I get from Anselm’s view. What I am getting from Anselm’s view was that man created an infinite debt, and that only God incarnate could erase the debt. Given that God’s wrath is referred to many places, it is very understandable that a person could project that God is wrathful, and wants to be paid for harm done, as a matter of justice. The use of “vindictive” is a negative (resentful) view of this need for reparation and emotional reaction by God Himself. I don’t think Anselm saw this view of God as “vindictive”; he saw the view as that of God desiring justice.

It’s like, when is an act of justice seen as vindication? Frans de Waal quotes Susan Jacoby: in that there is “persistent tension between uncontrolled vengeance as destroyer and controlled vengeance as an unavoidable component of justice.” One person may look on an act of justice as vindictive, and another not. In our own modern society, we have more of an aversion to wrath, and the idea of “God’s wrath” is downplayed, for the carrying out justice with wrath is seen as vengeful. On the other hand, we also have scripture referring to “vengeance belongs to God” and so forth. All of these begin from the image of a God who disfavors for reason of offense.

In the “God always favors view”, assessment of the assertion that “vengeance belongs to God” would begin with a God who always forgives. The human is encouraged to let go of vengeance, indeed, to forgive as God forgives. This view does not mean “don’t worry about punishing someone, God will do it for you”, it means “forgive, let go of your desire for vengeance, just as God forgives you.”

So, it seems to me that within the “God disfavors” view, there is going to be a range of stances as to when justice is vindictive and when it is not, and I think that this is a manifestation of the “tension” referred to by Susan Jacoby in Wild Justice.

I am very far behind on responses now, but I am determined to catch up; I still need to address the “anathema post” and many that follow.

I hope everyone here had a wonderful Christmas, mine was particularly enlightening. I still have family here, and I am trying to balance my time today, with not much success.

As we are going on vacation with family today, my responses will continue to be spotty, sorry about that!

Thanks again, CrossofChrist, I will get back to you!

It seems to me that the Atonement is all about change…in man; change away from the arrogance, anger, unforgiveness, and vengeance that we often perceive God as having towards the qualities set forth in 1 Cor 13, which describe love, which likewise describe God. But while the love is unconditional, the change is optional, because while God offers forgiveness freely, we may not accept the forgiveness; we may not want to change. Otherwise salvation would be universal and no justice would be served, no change would occur, no righteousness in man be demanded; sin/opposition to God’s will remains alive and well in His universe. Forgiveness may be universal but not so for salvation; change always remains optional; grace can be resisted.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I am very far behind on responses now, but I am determined to catch up; I still need to address the “anathema post” and many that follow.

Where is that. I think I saw it once but then could not find it again.

In retribution theory I do not see how God suffering on our behalf satisfies justice. If anything it makes it worse. I like the direction fhansen is going. The change or transformation or sanctification brought about by the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus follows the pattern of Jesus’ empowerment style, "You go and proclaim… You go and baptize…You go and do the same… and of course every week we hear “Ite, Missa est” “Go [and do], it is sent.”

 

[grannymh]

Speaking of justice…

May I gently remind readers of Genesis 1: 26-27 which needs to be understood in terms of Original Sin – the real Original Sin as taught by ***Catholic ***doctrines duly defined and properly proclaimed.

The best way to understand the term justice is to go the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *, Glossary, Justice, page 885. “The cardinal moral virtue which consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and to neighbor.”

Paragraph 1807 has this deep thought. "Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Paragraph 2095 says “Thus charity leads us to render to God what we as creatures owe him in all justice.”

What did Adam, the creature, owe God the Creator in all justice?

In all justice, Adam owed God obedience. (Information source. Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 8-11; CCC 356, CCC 396; CCC 1730-32)

The problem of this thread is now solved.:clapping: