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

[Michael_Mayo]

Very good, granny. And so all “mankind” (Adam) owes God obedience, whether it be one of the first or last. I don’t think Ratzinger challenges that… What we inherit from our ancestors, according to Bonaventure, is moral darkness which prevents us from contemplative illumination. Our savior gives us the grace to make the ascent and that involves virtues and a whole new life.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

A couple things:

1. I messed up on the quote, since that wasn’t directly addressing Anselm.
2. OTOH, it applies in a more remote way, because the impression one can get from a reading of Anselm’s view is that God’s demand for justice is itself unjust (or at least arbitrary).

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 think this indicates where Ratzinger’s critique is coming from, in the same line of thought as his famous Regensburg Address. As the above shows, it (the disfavoring) appears almost arbitrary, not in line with reason–not the view per se, but how it is perceived.

IIRC, Ratzinger never directly repudiated Anselm’s view in Introduction to Christianity, only critiqued potential misunderstandings from it.

Obviously he didn’t wholeheartedly accept it either. Anselm’s view doesn’t fully grasp the impact of the Resurrection. But I don’t see any evidence of Ratzinger rejecting the idea of debt owed to God. And the idea of debt isn’t exclusively Anselm’s either.

Hope you had and are having a Merry Christmas!

 

[CrossofChrist]

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

Maybe this?

 

[grannymh]

Very good, granny. And so all “mankind” (Adam) owes God obedience, whether it be one of the first or last. \quote]

Correct.

The problem of this thread, which is confusion, is now solved.

This thread’s basic confusion is caused because at least one of these essential questions regarding both the Creator *and *Original Sin has been deliberately avoided. Necessary questions are: Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?

By the way, those questions were answered long ago in major Catholic Ecumenical Councils guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. (see footnotes in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition) At least one of those pertinent questions is avoided by some people who want to alter Divine Revelation to suit one’s modern preferences. The push is for the acceptance of “legitimate views” regardless.

Obviously, people are not required to answer those proper questions. However, the result is that topics like “Did humanity owe a debt?” cannot be sufficiently discussed.

 

[grannymh]

Very good, granny. And so all “mankind” (Adam) owes God obedience, whether it be one of the first or last.

Correct.

The problem of this thread, which is confusion, is now solved.

This thread’s basic confusion is caused because at least one, maybe more, of these essential questions regarding both the Creator *and *Original Sin has been deliberately avoided. Necessary questions are: Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?

By the way, those questions were answered long ago in major Catholic Ecumenical Councils guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. (see footnotes in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition) At least one, maybe more, of those pertinent questions is avoided by some people who want to alter Divine Revelation to suit one’s modern preferences. The push is for the acceptance of “legitimate views” regardless.

Obviously, people are not required to answer those proper questions. However, the result is that topics like “Did humanity owe a debt?” cannot be sufficiently discussed.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

At least one, maybe more, of those pertinent questions is avoided by some people who want to alter Divine Revelation to suit one’s modern preferences. The push is for the acceptance of “legitimate views” regardless.

Since I was late to the discussion and never had the best of grasp on it, which pertinent question seems most avoided to you and what modern preference might it serve?

 

[grannymh]

Since I was late to the discussion and never had the best of grasp on it, which pertinent question seems most avoided to you and what modern preference might it serve?

Because some currently alive Catholics have abandoned the realities of both Adam and Original Sin, I would offer that the fully complete answers to the “who”, “what” questions are often avoided. For example, fully complete answers are necessary due to some of the incomplete views of atonement.

The modern preference is that some Catholics want to be “modern” in numerous ways such as scientific, cultural, spiritual, secular, and so on. Which “way” is the most preferred is a question I cannot answer. Being scientifically modern is popular. However, recently I came across modern spirituality and started the thread “Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging Christianity?” in the Apologetics Forum. That thread is basically dead in the water most likely because I did not handle a rather unknown issue correctly. In my humble opinion, an unfamiliar issue, often referred to by other names like “big tent” does not mean that it is harmless. That is the end of my answer because I do not want to go off topic.

 

[simpleas]

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.

I think it is to do with change more than oweing a debt to God. I mean by we are born where we are in whatever circumstances and we deal with life in our own experience of it. To change is the most difficult for us I would say, to be forgiving, loving toward people we maybe in conflict with, not just strangers but in our own family. To follow Jesus in his teaching of forgiveness and love one another in our actions, but also in prayer to give us the grace understanding etc in order to achieve it.
If we owe a debt from what someone else did we would always be trying to pay it, Jesus paid it with his obedience and freed us from the debt in order for us to move on as a forgiving/loving human spiritual creature.

Just my random thoughts

 

[Michael_Mayo]

If we owe a debt from what someone else did we would always be trying to pay it, Jesus paid it with his obedience and freed us from the debt in order for us to move on as a forgiving/loving human spiritual creature.

And yet , as God, he paid it to himself.

 

[grannymh]

And yet , as God, he paid it to himself.

And yet, because Jesus Christ is both True God and True Man, He had the credentials to repair humanity’s broken relationship with Divinity.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

And yet, because Jesus Christ is both True God and True Man, He had the credentials to repair humanity’s broken relationship with Divinity.

And calls us to share in his work. One of the most meaningful documents for me has been St. John Paul II’s Salvifici Doloris:

With these and similar words the witnesses of the New Covenant speak of the greatness of the Redemption, accomplished through the suffering of Christ. The Redeemer suffered in place of man and for man. Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. He is called to share in that suffering through which all human suffering has also been redeemed. In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ.

1. The texts of the New Testament express this concept in many places. In the Second Letter to the Corinthians the Apostle writes: “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh … knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus”.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

 

[grannymh]

And calls us to share in his work. One of the most meaningful documents for me has been St. John Paul II’s Salvifici Doloris:

With these and similar words the witnesses of the New Covenant speak of the greatness of the Redemption, accomplished through the suffering of Christ. The Redeemer suffered in place of man and for man. Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. He is called to share in that suffering through which all human suffering has also been redeemed. In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ.

1. The texts of the New Testament express this concept in many places. In the Second Letter to the Corinthians the Apostle writes: “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh … knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus”.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

Thank you. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

Returning to the Opening Post, I am very interested in this question.

Hello, fellow forum-visitors:

skip

So, here is a question central to our faith. Why did Jesus come?

Agree.

Knowing why Jesus came is essential to our “faith” in Catholicism and it is essential to knowing our very selves.

The word “why” is part of a mantra used by many writers. This journalism mantra looks for information that will answer the following – Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?

To begin. Why? did Jesus come?

It is obvious from the Gospels that Jesus has a mission on our planet earth. This mission can be briefly summarized as Jesus bringing humans to eternal joy in the presence of the Beatific Vision after bodily death.

Yet, we still must ask “Who” is Jesus?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Not only who is Jesus, but who is The Word, The Son? Jesus is the incarnation of The Word, The Son, who is timeless. "He is the image* of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians)

It all belongs to him. He could come anytime he wants and for any reason he wants.

 

[grannymh]

Not only who is Jesus, but who is The Word, The Son? Jesus is the incarnation of The Word, The Son, who is timeless. "He is the image* of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians)

It all belongs to him. He could come anytime he wants and for any reason he wants.

One of the benefits of using Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why? is that answers often intertwine with each other in a synergy manner. For example. Not only does post 292 answer Who?, we find that it also answers How? Answer. The Incarnation of the Word, The Son Who is timeless.

In this holy season, When? is Christmas. Most of us are like the shepherds. We follow the music of the angels without all the knowledge and gifts of the Wise Men who also come to bow low to the Messiah. Nonetheless, we ask. Why did the Second Person of the Holy Trinity assume human nature? What is happening is that when the big picture of the six questions is used, we find more correct answers to individual questions like the one in post 1, Why did Jesus come?

 

[simpleas]

The creation story (Adam) was written by the Hebrews, our faith teaches us about Original sin and owing a debt. The Jewish faith does not. Why?
I think that the Jewish faith was waiting for a saviour, but still did not teach anything on Original sin and owing a debt to God.
When Jesus came, he was not the messiah they were waiting for. So how did we (christians) think that we were deprived, born as a fallen nature, and that God needed his son as a sacrifice to atone for the first humans sin?

We also speak of Jesus as a spotless victim…

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The creation story (Adam) was written by the Hebrews, our faith teaches us about Original sin and owing a debt. The Jewish faith does not. Why?
I think that the Jewish faith was waiting for a saviour, but still did not teach anything on Original sin and owing a debt to God.
When Jesus came, he was not the messiah they were waiting for. So how did we (christians) think that we were deprived, born as a fallen nature, and that God needed his son as a sacrifice to atone for the first humans sin?

We also speak of Jesus as a spotless victim…

A note to the Gospel of Luke:

[24:26] That the Messiah should suffer…: Luke is the only New Testament writer to speak explicitly of a suffering Messiah (Lk 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23). The idea of a suffering Messiah is not found in the Old Testament or in other Jewish literature prior to the New Testament period, although the idea is hinted at in Mk 8:31–33. See notes on Mt 26:63 and 26:67–68.

usccb.org/bible/luke/24#50024025-o

And yet Isaiah does speak of the Suffering Servant

4 Yet it was our pain that he bore, our sufferings he endured.

5 But he was pierced for our sins, crushed for our iniquity.
He bore the punishment that makes us whole,
by his wounds we were healed

6 We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way;
But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.

usccb.org/bible/is/53:00

It was not until Jesus came along that the two (Messiah and Suffering Servant) were put together. And yet still, it would seem that we all have enough sin to be accounted for without the inherited burden of a sin committed by ancient ancestors.

 

[grannymh]

The creation story (Adam) was written by the Hebrews, our faith teaches us about Original sin and owing a debt. The Jewish faith does not. Why?
I think that the Jewish faith was waiting for a saviour, but still did not teach anything on Original sin and owing a debt to God.
When Jesus came, he was not the messiah they were waiting for. So how did we (christians) think that we were deprived, born as a fallen nature, and that God needed his son as a sacrifice to atone for the first humans sin?

We Christians, starting with the Christian theologian St. Paul, have access to the Hebrew Scriptures. In my old neighborhood, sometimes the Old Testament was referred to as the Hebrew Scriptures. In addition, I have heard the comment that the Hebrew author most quoted by Jesus is Isaiah. I have not verified that comment.

We also speak of Jesus as a spotless victim…

Wow! Jesus as a spotless victim really brings home the truly generous free will of Jesus.

 

[grannymh]

A note to the Gospel of Luke:

[24:26] That the Messiah should suffer…: Luke is the only New Testament writer to speak explicitly of a suffering Messiah (Lk 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23). The idea of a suffering Messiah is not found in the Old Testament or in other Jewish literature prior to the New Testament period, although the idea is hinted at in Mk 8:31–33. See notes on Mt 26:63 and 26:67–68.

usccb.org/bible/luke/24#50024025-o

And yet Isaiah does speak of the Suffering Servant

4 Yet it was our pain that he bore, our sufferings he endured.

5 But he was pierced for our sins, crushed for our iniquity.
He bore the punishment that makes us whole,
by his wounds we were healed

6 We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way;
But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.

usccb.org/bible/is/53:00

It was not until Jesus came along that the two (Messiah and Suffering Servant) were put together. And yet still, it would seem that we all have enough sin to be accounted for without the inherited burden of a sin committed by ancient ancestors.

You and I posted at the same time. Does that mean we are equally intelligent? Or equally good looking?

In one sense, our beginning State of Original Sin could be considered a burden especially when this is compared with Adam’s original State of Holiness and Justice. However, the State of Original Sin can easily be replaced by the State of Sanctifying Grace. Unfortunately, Adam’s wounded human nature is transmitted by propagation to his descendants. This does not change the fact that God constantly calls us to share, by knowledge and love, in His own life. (CCC 356) Life is a battle. Personally, I like to hide behind Mother Mary.

 

[wmw]

Are we separating two why’s? Part of the no-debt argument has been that Jesus didn’t have to die for payment’s sake. Some have gone so far as to say that Jesus didn’t have to be crucified, except for fulfilling prophesy; hence, only for identification as the suffering servant of love. It was just how it happened because of his rejection by the authorities of men.

Therefore, there are two why’s:

1. why the incarnation.
2. why the crucifixion and resurrection.

Yes, in normal Catholic discussion this is all one why, but this has been a crucial doubt introduced by this “forgiveness and change needs no payment of death” view.

I am still in the camp of His death is necessary and can be said to be a debt, but the How is through a participatory invitation to die with Him; the sentence of death in repentance of sin is still a type of payment of debt for the satisfaction of justice. We still must spiritually die by uniting with the grief of all sin that the crucifixion was made to be and we chiefly do this via the sacraments and secondarily through prayer.