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

[Michael_Mayo]

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

I am certain you excel me in both.

 

[simpleas]

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.

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

I’m sure victim means something in our teaching that I’ve yet to learn. Victim meaning innocent, guiltless, no consent in a situation. The first two are Jesus, but the latter, Jesus was aware of what he needed to do.
I’m probably looking at the word victim from the wrong angle…

 

[simpleas]

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.

Yes but we would not have been sinners if the first two humans had not broken the relationship with the divine.
We may have become sinners by our own choice/freewill anyway. Yet we need two first people to have been the “criminals” who were first to do this.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Yes but we would not have been sinners if the first two humans had not broken the relationship with the divine.
We may have become sinners by our own choice/freewill anyway. Yet we need two first people to have been the “criminals” who were first to do this.

I am afraid I do enough sinning on my own without that “need”. And yet I can see how sin is learned and passed on through generations, like the sin of bigotry, for example.

Baptism cleanses us of that Original sin anyway:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

And yet we still suffer.

 

[wmw]

Our own sinfulness does indeed explain our personal need for a savior, but I don’t think it explains the entire decay of our whole material universe.

Let me slip into speculation - Imagine a universe where Eden is only bared for some or that some are of a greater wisdom and intelligence than those that don’t inherit sanctifying grace.

Anyway the actual state we find - The total debilitation of the whole of humanity and the material universe from the fall makes any second hand experience of God more hidden from us and is the cause of a need for a complete reentry necessary from the manna from heaven.

And you provide your own answer for our continued suffering with paragraph 1264 of the CCC.

 

[simpleas]

I am afraid I do enough sinning on my own without that “need”. And yet I can see how sin is learned and passed on through generations, like the sin of bigotry, for example.

Baptism cleanses us of that Original sin anyway:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

And yet we still suffer.

Yes I think many people don’t even think of the first two people sinning and giving us our human natures. We are responsible for our own sins. Yet our teaching insists on original sin for us to understand why Jesus had to suffer and die for that first sin, and all sin that follows it due to the effects we inhert, is what I was trying to say.

Yes we can’t ever escape some form of suffering in this life. I think we have to live with the good and the bad in order to reach an understanding rather than just try to bury anything that is seen as bad.

 

[grannymh]

Yes but we would not have been sinners if the first two humans had not broken the relationship with the divine.
We may have become sinners by our own choice/freewill anyway. Yet we need two first people to have been the “criminals” who were first to do this.

Please do not forget that intellective free will is essential in human nature. Thus, there is no real reason for the comment:
“We may have become sinners by our own choice/freewill anyway. Yet we need two first people to have been the “criminals” who were first to do this.”
The real reason that we need two first people is that without them, we would not exist.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, CrossofChrist!

I’m going to try to sneak in a response here, I have only a few minutes to do so. Thank you for your patience, I am obviously very far behind here.

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.

I am having trouble remembering exactly where we were, but if the “true self” is the self that has “sanctifying grace” at all times, then I think that would be the “God always favors” view. If sanctifying grace is something paid for by Jesus, then that would be part of the “God disfavors” view. Is that accurate? I need to refer to the CCC for a lot of definitions.

One thing I have been thinking about is the most easily applicable case of the drug addict. One could certainly not look upon him and say he is in a “state of grace”. He is enslaved by his dependence. He is most likely far from connected to his “true self”. Does that make sense? I do much better with examples.

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.

In the Duns Scotus view, Jesus is not dispensable, for all creation happens through Him, and He would have the same place even if humanity never sinned.

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.

I’ve been waiting for a week (or two?) to address this. Yes, justification without merit is against-the-theme (anathema) when the theme is that Jesus paid a debt to God. Within both views (God always favors v. God disfavors) there is a range of “acceptable” views. Most certainly, the counter reformation pointed at certain protestant doctrines as unacceptable, and the “theme” was to point that out!

The Duns Scotus view, I think, was overlooked at Trent, I think. The focus was on Luther et al. The whole language of “justification” pertains to the debt view, the “God disfavors” view.

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.

This all comes from the Anselmian view, it appears, which is legitimate.

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)?

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

If we start from the addict example, and keep in mind that eternal life starts here and now, not at death, then both views can be applied. Running out of time…!

Shoot, I’m going to have to get on again to address the rest. Jan 2, I hope.

Thank you again, for your patience!

 

[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.

As I continue to think about the “who” of Jesus, the Incarnation of the Word reminds me that Jesus is both True God and True Man. It seems to me that the necessity of Jesus being True Man has been a tad neglected. Wonder if that is because there would need to be a true first man (Adam) which would dramatically bring back the idea that atonement or debt is very reasonable.

Following the essential questions about this thread – Who? How? What" When? Where? and Why?

 

[simpleas]

Please do not forget that intellective free will is essential in human nature. Thus, there is no real reason for the comment:
“We may have become sinners by our own choice/freewill anyway. Yet we need two first people to have been the “criminals” who were first to do this.”
The real reason that we need two first people is that without them, we would not exist.

We would not exist without God.

So we don’t need for the two first ever humans to have sinned, thus passing on the effects of sin, because we all have free will to choose to sin or not.
We only need them to be the first two created with a soul to know that is why we exist with a soul.

 

[grannymh]

We would not exist without God.

So we don’t need for the two first ever humans to have sinned, thus passing on the effects of sin, because we all have free will to choose to sin or not.
We only need them to be the first two created with a soul to know that is why we exist with a soul.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi again, I have another couple of minutes to finish this one:

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.

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.

Thanks for these paragraphs. So, bringing it back to “anathemas”, we have two themes to be addressed. One theme is the unconditional love of God, that God always loves us no matter what, and that God never disfavors us, even if we do not choose to follow Him. This is the Abba who strives to get to that last lost sheep, all exemplified by Jesus. The other theme is the God-as-justice, for which it is unconscionable for God to forgive the unrepentant and avoid disfavor toward those who behave badly. This is the God who disfavored humanity for a number of reasons, and Jesus comes to erase the debt, erasing the disfavor.

These are the two views that I gather as legitimate. So, how do we harmonize them?

I know, you have more responses to my posts after this one. I will be able to address more on Friday.

Thanks, and Happy New Year!

 

[grannymh]

Hi again, I have another couple of minutes to finish this one:

Thanks for these paragraphs. So, bringing it back to “anathemas”, we have two themes to be addressed. One theme is the unconditional love of God, that God always loves us no matter what, and that God never disfavors us, even if we do not choose to follow Him. This is the Abba who strives to get to that last lost sheep, all exemplified by Jesus. The other theme is the God-as-justice, for which it is unconscionable for God to forgive the unrepentant and avoid disfavor toward those who behave badly. This is the God who disfavored humanity for a number of reasons, and Jesus comes to erase the debt, erasing the disfavor.

These are the two views that I gather as legitimate. So, how do we harmonize them?

I know, you have more responses to my posts after this one. I will be able to address more on Friday.

Thanks, and Happy New Year!

Briefly, as I, too, am limited by time.

Regarding the second theme from post 310.
“The other theme is the God-as-justice, for which it is unconscionable for God to forgive the unrepentant and avoid disfavor toward those who behave badly.”

Not sure how the idea of God-as-justice popped up.

Justice is on the part of humans to God. Humans are restricted to justice. God, as a Pure Spirit Creator super-natural being, is not restricted like human creatures.

General information for readers. I added the bold print.

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)

 

[grannymh]

One theme is the unconditional love of God, that God always loves us no matter what, and that God never disfavors us, even if we do not choose to follow Him.

“Even if we do not choose to follow Him.”

That choice sounds like the State of Mortal Sin.

It sounds like the theme is ignoring the Catholic teachings of the State of Mortal Sin and the State of Sanctifying Grace. How can one harmonize a denial of Catholic teachings with an acceptance of Catholic teachings at the same time?

Or is the intention simply to get rid of the Catholic teaching on Mortal Sin?
Or is it human’s intellective free will that is being avoided?

 

[grannymh]

. So, bringing it back to “anathemas”, we have two themes to be addressed. One theme is the unconditional love of God, that God always loves us no matter what, and that God never disfavors us, even if we do not choose to follow Him. This is the Abba who strives to get to that last lost sheep, all exemplified by Jesus. The other theme is the God-as-justice, for which it is unconscionable for God to forgive the unrepentant and avoid disfavor toward those who behave badly. This is the God who disfavored humanity for a number of reasons, and Jesus comes to erase the debt, erasing the disfavor.

These are the two views that I gather as legitimate. So, how do we harmonize them?

We do not harmonize them because God is not on the same level as a human. The different levels of Creator and creature are taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Briefly, as I, too, am limited by time.

Regarding the second theme from post 310.
“The other theme is the God-as-justice, for which it is unconscionable for God to forgive the unrepentant and avoid disfavor toward those who behave badly.”

Not sure how the idea of God-as-justice popped up.

Justice is on the part of humans to God. Humans are restricted to justice. God, as a Pure Spirit Creator super-natural being, is not restricted like human creatures.

General information for readers. I added the bold print.

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)

Just briefly…

Just as we say God is love (charity) we say God is justice, because God’s mercy and love IS his justice. It goes back to how God is infinitely simple (CCC 43).

 

[grannymh]

Just briefly…

Just as we say God is love (charity) we say God is justice, because God’s mercy and love IS his justice. It goes back to how God is infinitely simple (CCC 43).

What you are doing in an excellent way is to describe the “attributes” of God.

However, atonement involves a relationship between God the Creator and Adam the creature. Not only is God involved, but also a human is involved. Therefore, when we speak of justice in regard to atonement, we have to go beyond the Divinity of God and examine the “nature” of a human creature in terms of this relationship.

One of the many aspects of a God-Adam relationship is the basic principle that there cannot be two equal gods.
CCC 396 comments that Adam can live in a friendship relationship with God only if he lives in free submission (obedience) to God. That should be obvious given Genesis 2: 15-17 & Genesis 3: 11; yet, some people pass by that principle.

The best way to understand the term justice when it is applied to a relationship between the Creator and a creature is to go to the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *, Glossary, Justice, page 885, which lists a number of meanings of justice. The appropriate meaning for this thread is “The cardinal moral virtue which consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and to neighbor.” Adam did have virtues to help him get to heaven, even though we rarely talk about them.

In justice, Adam owed God obedience. (Information source. Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 8-11; CCC 356, CCC 396; CCC 1730-32) That answers the question – What was the debt which needed Christ’s reparation?

 

[ynotzap]

Hi again, I have another couple of minutes to finish this one:

Thanks for these paragraphs. So, bringing it back to “anathemas”, we have two themes to be addressed. One theme is the unconditional love of God, that God always loves us no matter what, and that God never disfavors us, even if we do not choose to follow Him. This is the Abba who strives to get to that last lost sheep, all exemplified by Jesus. The other theme is the God-as-justice, for which it is unconscionable for God to forgive the unrepentant and avoid disfavor toward those who behave badly. This is the God who disfavored humanity for a number of reasons, and Jesus comes to erase the debt, erasing the disfavor.

These are the two views that I gather as legitimate. So, how do we harmonize them?

I know, you have more responses to my posts after this one. I will be able to address more on Friday.

Thanks, and Happy New Year!

It is not man that God disapproves of (disfavors), it is his acts or choices that separate man from God, not God from man. God’s love is unconditional, and infinite. In love He created man, also in His love is included justice, He gives man his due by His own intentions, that is He give man his free will, and respects it, or honors it, even if man does not favor God. If man by free will disfavors God, and God honors his choice, is God disfavoring humanity, is God in love and justice disfavoring humanity? Or the opposite, man by his will disfavors God. How is God’s justice and love separated They are harmonized God’s love for mankind is infinite, and unconditional, there is no reconciliation needed between God’s love, and His justice

 

[grannymh]

It is not man that God disapproves of (disfavors), it is his acts or choices that separate man from God, not God from man. God’s love is unconditional, and infinite. In love He created man, also in His love is included justice, He gives man his due by His own intentions, that is He give man his free will, and respects it, or honors it, even if man does not favor God. If man by free will disfavors God, and God honors his choice, is God disfavoring humanity, is God in love and justice disfavoring humanity? Or the opposite, man by his will disfavors God. How is God’s justice and love separated They are harmonized God’s love for mankind is infinite, and unconditional, there is no reconciliation needed between God’s love, and His justice

This is essential. From post 316.
“It is not man that God disapproves of (disfavors), it is his acts or choices that separate man from God, not God from man.”

Thank you.

 

[CrossofChrist]

What you are doing in an excellent way is to describe the “attributes” of God.

However, atonement involves a relationship between God the Creator and Adam the creature. Not only is God involved, but also a human is involved. Therefore, when we speak of justice in regard to atonement, we have to go beyond the Divinity of God and examine the “nature” of a human creature in terms of this relationship.

One of the many aspects of a God-Adam relationship is the basic principle that there cannot be two equal gods.
CCC 396 comments that Adam can live in a friendship relationship with God only if he lives in free submission (obedience) to God. That should be obvious given Genesis 2: 15-17 & Genesis 3: 11; yet, some people pass by that principle.

The best way to understand the term justice when it is applied to a relationship between the Creator and a creature is to go to the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *, Glossary, Justice, page 885, which lists a number of meanings of justice. The appropriate meaning for this thread is “The cardinal moral virtue which consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and to neighbor.” Adam did have virtues to help him get to heaven, even though we rarely talk about them.

In justice, Adam owed God obedience. (Information source. Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 8-11; CCC 356, CCC 396; CCC 1730-32) That answers the question – What was the debt which needed Christ’s reparation?

My mistake. I thought you were wondering how we could apply the attribute of justice to God at all.