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

[Michael_Mayo]

Exact words from the teaching take us to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin. Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant. Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant. After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles

615 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”. Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm

6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearer

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning!

No, it is not Catholic teaching. The words “appease” and “scapegoat” are not used. What are used are words such as these:

It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down His life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that he wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, “making peace through the blood of His Cross.”.

So, what is appeased is “justice”, which is equated with God by some, but for others also fulfills the nagging "disobedience is wrong, and a debt has to be owed somewhere, and it has to be satisfied. Augustine put the “creditor” as satan, Anselm put the creditor as God. Either way, some kind of “satisfaction” is necessary (wrought atonement and reconciliation with God), a sacrifice necessary, in this view, in order to pay the debt.

In addition, there is a lot to be said for the fact that we worship a victim of our own wrath this also turns around many of the typical features of many other religions. In both views, we worship a victim of our own wrath.

If I left anything out or am mistating, Granny, please add more to clarify!

Thanks, both of you!

The words in blue really shed light.

In other posts, not yours, I found a rather confused meaning of justice. My answer is in post 315 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12622562&postcount=315

 

[ynotzap]

Hi Ynotzap! I think I am finally catching up.

So, now I think you are expressing the no-debt view, that God never disfavors. We are not having to “buy back” God’s love or “favor”, because we never lost either in the first place. I see this view as legitimate.

So, let us look at the opposite view. The “God disfavors” view stems from a sense of debt, that we have wronged God and deserve punishment or do not deserve eternal life, etc, some payment is required to right the wrong. Do you see the legitimacy of that view? Does it make sense? I think it makes sense.

Thanks again, and God bless your Sunday!

God" disfavors "view as I see it: God respects man’s choices even though it is against His will grants them. Now love was offended because free will was given to man in love. Free will was misused! Love resides in the will,heart. Now love of self instead of God exists in sin. To be reconciled with God one has to show or pay back to God what is right and just,love for God, which is shown by turning from self and turning to God, by humbling oneself, repenting and desiring forgiveness, this demonstrates sincerity of heart (will), the instrument that was used to offend God. With it comes the temporal punishment due to sin. In Hell they suffer eternally, with no possibility for union with God, we separated ourselves from God, and God grants our desires, we punish ourselves ,we did not love Him, separation is the greatest punishment, because we were created for union in love. When we are still living , sin merited for us a punishment too , a temporal separation from God because we sinned in time, and repented in time. We separated our selves from God which causes “temporal punishment due to sin” In this life punishment is a purgation to cleanse the soul to make it fitting for the Habitation of the Holy Spirit, the reception of sanctifying grace. So we are forgiven with sincere contrition, accept our penance, and make restitution and in so doing, returning our love to God, and this is done by the very faculty used to offend God. In justice and righteousness it is a debt of love owed to God

 

[wmw]

Exact words from the teaching take us to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin. Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant. Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant. After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles

615 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”. Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm

6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearer

Whoohoo! Finally someone who uses proper Catholic terms. I hope we can now dispense with these false no-debt & God-disfavors definitions.

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning, Simpleas!

Are you referring to Adam and Eve? Yes, it is harder for me to feel guilty about something Adam did. However, I have plenty of guilt of my own! I can sense a debt from my own guilt, and that sense is universal, right? (Exception: those with pathologies)

Now, in follow up from my questions on post 234, and later 332;

So, the capacity for sense of “owing” is in the chimpanzees nature, right, their God-given nature? And it serves a purpose for the chimpanzees to have this sense of debt, does it not? Do you see that it makes sense that God created them to have this capacity for sense of debt, in order to serve a greater purpose, like group cooperation?

This is how you are saying that the chimps felt toward the wrong-doers. In addition, their empathy towards the two adolescents was probably blocked, in order that they could carry out the punishment. Do you see what I mean? The chimpanzee group saw what the two did was unjust, and they were angry, and the two were seen as owing a debt to the group.

Okay, the group got the situation under control, but what I am asking is, did the two adolescents now regain acceptance, did they satisfy the group, did they regain “attonement and reconciliation”?

My last question was:

1. How do you think the zookeeper felt about the two adolescents when they were misbehaving? (note: zookeeper=god to a chimp?)

I don’t think the chimps were really “thinking” about this, any more than we think, “I’m going to get really angry about that guy pulling out in front of me”. It was more of a reaction, right? No, they certainly were not concerned with what the zookeeper was thinking. I am starting with questions that assume that chimps could speak, so chimps answering these questions is all speculative fiction.

So, try the question again with that in mind. I ask one of the chimps in the group how the zookeeper feels toward the two wrongdoers. Assume that the chimp has not seen the zookeepers face, nor heard his voice. All the chimp can do is guess. What would the chimp say? Okay, a very insightful chimp would say “I don’t know”. However, most of us humans are not even that insightful. We answer the question like this: “If I were in the zookeeper’s shoes, I would feel____________ towards the wrongdoing chimps.” Would the chimps project that the zookeeper also thought that the two wrong-doers owed something?

Give it a shot, thanks!

Yes I know this is all speculative fiction, please give me some credit, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I get it.

Yes to Adam and Eve, I don’t think there is anyone who thinks they are guilty for the sin of A&E, because we aren’t taught that.

For group co-operation for chimps a sense of debt maybe, for humans not so.

They satisfied the group because they came in earlier/on time the next day. Were they reconciled with the group, well the group may think so, the teens may think differently.

You say you don’t think the chimps didn’t think about it, they did have a night in which to think.
The zookeeper knew what the reaction of the group would be, so he tries to protect the teens by placing them in a different closure for the night, he clearly didn’t know the group would still be angry the next day.

The chimps may have thought the keeper would be angry because that is how they felt, and to satisfy that anger they needed to be taught a lesson, so that they would respect the whole group and the rules.

 

[OneSheep]

Exact words from the teaching take us to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin. Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant. Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant. After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles

615 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”. Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm

6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearer

Whoohoo! Finally someone who uses proper Catholic terms. I hope we can now dispense with these false no-debt & God-disfavors definitions.

Good Morning, wmw and Michael!

I would be happy to dispense with the terms, to be replaced by terms that describe the actual differences in the two views. It is obvious that the doctrine above leans toward a “debt view”, a view that involves payment, expiation to God. I was moving away from the use of “debt view” because “debt” itself is used in so many ways.

What it really boils down to, in conversation with CrossofChrist, is whether or not God ever disfavors us. Ynotzap and I are currently working on the different views. I know, “God disfavors” sounds a bit “unloving”, but how else does one describe the feeling one has toward those we take offense? It is our discipline to “love the sinner and hate the sin”, but such love is not what we effectively communicate when we are disappointed in the actions of another, and if we were to communicate “you have my favor” when we are angry at a person, this goes contrary to the purpose of being capable of such anger in the first place. Anger is meant to influence. If what is communicated is “I favor you, but what you are doing is wrong.” we lose all the natural motivation of human belonging. Humans want to belong, be accepted, be included. When our natural tendency is to express non-acceptance toward a person because of their behavior, this is God’s will at work! Do you see the parallel with the chimpanzees? Yet, the chimpanzees have no reservations concerning “love the sinner, hate the sin”. They behave exactly as their nature (their good, functional nature) guides them.

In order for the human to “love the sinner”, we first forgive. Forgiveness is the first act of love toward those we hold something against.

That last sentence gives another means of terminology, does it not?

In one view, God holds something against us, and Jesus erases, pays for, ransoms for, makes satisfaction for, the debt.

In another view, God never holds anything against us, for He is omniscient and omnibenevolent. He created us with all of the capacities for sin. He expected, He knew, that we would sin before He created us, but created us anyway. He also knew that people would eventually come to love and understand Him - through His Son.

The question is, how do we harmonize the two views? I have offered a suggestion, without receiving much reply yet.

Thanks, both of you!

P.S. I really want to thank both of you, and everyone else, for being so civil and genuinely inquisitive and accepting on this thread. There has been harmony (in congeniality, if not intellectually) despite the differences of opinion, and that is right in line with the words from Pope Benedict in my opening. Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, simpleas!

Yes I know this is all speculative fiction, please give me some credit, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I get it.

I give you tons of credit, remember? You are brilliant, simpleas, I have learned so much from you. Have you noticed? I was ribbing you, and the best I could do was throw in a smile. There isn’t a “ribbing” smilie! And the wink, well, sometimes I don’t know what to make of it.

Yes to Adam and Eve, I don’t think there is anyone who thinks they are guilty for the sin of A&E, because we aren’t taught that.

Well, we are in a sense “taught” that. We are taught that we all bear the “stain” of A&E’s behavior.

For group co-operation for chimps a sense of debt maybe, for humans not so.

So, you are thinking that sense of debt doesn’t help for group cooperation in humans? Hmmm. We so often say that criminals owe a debt to society, and the debt is meant to motivate people to behave. Am I missing something? I felt guilty about the “speculative fiction” comment, for it was not received as I meant it; I had a sense of debt, and explained myself so all could be well again. Do you see what I mean?

They satisfied the group because they came in earlier/on time the next day. Were they reconciled with the group, well the group may think so, the teens may think differently.

Possibly, but I doubt it. Chimps get in little scuffles all the time, and then pecking order follows. “Acceptance” is not as “equal” a thing in chimp society. (arguably, we humans also have a lot of pecking order characteristics too, De Waal goes into that also.) The bottom line is group cooperation, they have to have it in order to survive in the wild.

You say you don’t think the chimps didn’t think about it, they did have a night in which to think.
The zookeeper knew what the reaction of the group would be, so he tries to protect the teens by placing them in a different closure for the night, he clearly didn’t know the group would still be angry the next day.

Well, perhaps the zookeeper thought that the group would cool off over night. For a chimp to “cool off” though, he would either have to forget he was angry or forgive. To forgive, the chimp would have to have a motivation to forgive. The motivation to forgive might be group cooperation (examples are later shown by observations of chimp reconciliation by De Waal) as well as submission to a higher-up in the pecking order. In this case, there were no “peacekeepers”, though, the whole group wanted justice. There may have been a pecking-order adjustment after the incident.

The chimps may have thought the keeper would be angry because that is how they felt, and to satisfy that anger they needed to be taught a lesson, so that they would respect the whole group and the rules.

Yes, it would take a chimp with a lot of imagination and insight to think that the zookeeper would feel any differently than they do. But maybe, just maybe, one chimp who had forgiven the two might project that the zookeeper had never held anything against the two wrongdoers. Again, this is just a bit of speculative fiction, I don’t think chimps are capable of this level of forgiveness…

Thanks. Comments?

 

[OneSheep]

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

God" disfavors "view as I see it: God respects man’s choices even though it is against His will grants them. Now love was offended because free will was given to man in love. Free will was misused! Love resides in the will,heart. Now love of self instead of God exists in sin. To be reconciled with God one has to show or pay back to God what is right and just,love for God, which is shown by turning from self and turning to God, by humbling oneself, repenting and desiring forgiveness, this demonstrates sincerity of heart (will), the instrument that was used to offend God. With it comes the temporal punishment due to sin. In Hell they suffer eternally, with no possibility for union with God, we separated ourselves from God, and God grants our desires, we punish ourselves ,we did not love Him, separation is the greatest punishment, because we were created for union in love. When we are still living , sin merited for us a punishment too , a temporal separation from God because we sinned in time, and repented in time. We separated our selves from God which causes “temporal punishment due to sin” In this life punishment is a purgation to cleanse the soul to make it fitting for the Habitation of the Holy Spirit, the reception of sanctifying grace. So we are forgiven with sincere contrition, accept our penance, and make restitution and in so doing, returning our love to God, and this is done by the very faculty used to offend God. In justice and righteousness it is a debt of love owed to God

Cool, Ynatzap!

I think you have done a great job of expressing the two sides. In the first view, God loves unconditionally and never disfavors man, in the second view God is offended, and is owed a debt (wants payback) to erase the offense. The need for payback is a condition that needs to be satisfied in order for God to no longer be offended.

So, how do we harmonize them? How do we incorporate them into a catechesis? What do you think about the “wills” “until” language I used?

Thanks!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

We have a wrong done and its consequences and we also have a personal offense.
One requires reparation to set things right again, the other requires sorrow and forgiveness. Penance, as an expression of sorrow also has reparation value.

In order for us to partake of the saving act of Jesus we must share in it, joining our crosses to his, joining our lives with his, becoming one in him all the while acknowledging that he is God in human flash. He leads us into that reconciliation by example. We share the cross.

So you owe me a debt. I write a check to myself to cover it. Makes not sense? Wait, in the writing of that check I am showing you how to do it and even putting your name on the account. The critical point is our cooperation, our acceptance, our voluntary participation. If we do not receive forgiveness we still carry the guilt even though God let it go long ago. Now it is our ongoing refusal that offends God.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The question is, how do we harmonize the two views? I have offered a suggestion, without receiving much reply yet.

Sorry but could you restate your summary?

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning, simpleas!

I give you tons of credit, remember? You are brilliant, simpleas, I have learned so much from you. Have you noticed? I was ribbing you, and the best I could do was throw in a smile. There isn’t a “ribbing” smilie! And the wink, well, sometimes I don’t know what to make of it.

Well, we are in a sense “taught” that. We are taught that we all bear the “stain” of A&E’s behavior.

So, you are thinking that sense of debt doesn’t help for group cooperation in humans? Hmmm. We so often say that criminals owe a debt to society, and the debt is meant to motivate people to behave. Am I missing something? I felt guilty about the “speculative fiction” comment, for it was not received as I meant it; I had a sense of debt, and explained myself so all could be well again. Do you see what I mean?

Possibly, but I doubt it. Chimps get in little scuffles all the time, and then pecking order follows. “Acceptance” is not as “equal” a thing in chimp society. (arguably, we humans also have a lot of pecking order characteristics too, De Waal goes into that also.) The bottom line is group cooperation, they have to have it in order to survive in the wild.

Well, perhaps the zookeeper thought that the group would cool off over night. For a chimp to “cool off” though, he would either have to forget he was angry or forgive. To forgive, the chimp would have to have a motivation to forgive. The motivation to forgive might be group cooperation (examples are later shown by observations of chimp reconciliation by De Waal) as well as submission to a higher-up in the pecking order. In this case, there were no “peacekeepers”, though, the whole group wanted justice. There may have been a pecking-order adjustment after the incident.

Yes, it would take a chimp with a lot of imagination and insight to think that the zookeeper would feel any differently than they do. But maybe, just maybe, one chimp who had forgiven the two might project that the zookeeper had never held anything against the two wrongdoers. Again, this is just a bit of speculative fiction, I don’t think chimps are capable of this level of forgiveness…

Thanks. Comments?

The wink smilie I put with the ‘I get it’ …wink… wink…so that you would know that I knew what way the chimp scenario was being discussed. All was well from my end, I just wanted you to know I got it. So no sense of debt is needed, but this is what you felt, and I understand.

I would say man demands a debt to be paid, not as sure with God.

I asked a while back what did how chimps behave relate to us humans? They have their own hierarchy and get on with it. We have a rational mind, empathy, etc so are supposed to be the “leaders”.

I was never taught that I bare the stain of the sin of Adam and Eve, I did miss out on levels of Catholic education, I did learn that I am responsible for my own sins, and that through repentance I would be forgiven by Jesus.
My train of thought is more of a light of lights, that through baptism I received God’s blessing, growing up we learn how to examine our conscience (confession) and into adulthood.
The debt I feel I owe God is one of gratitude, for being alive and living on this sometimes dangerous but beautiful planet, and maybe helping others to see it that way too, rather than owing a debt for being alive.

This probably doesn’t sound the way I’d like it, and I am not dismissing the fact that Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins, I honestly do not have a theological mind that understands it all.

Thanks Onesheep, all is well.

 

[ynotzap]

Cool, Ynatzap!

I think you have done a great job of expressing the two sides. In the first view, God loves unconditionally and never disfavors man, in the second view God is offended, and is owed a debt (wants payback) to erase the offense. The need for payback is a condition that needs to be satisfied in order for God to no longer be offended.

So, how do we harmonize them? How do we incorporate them into a catechesis? What do you think about the “wills” “until” language I used?

Thanks!

How do we harmonize God’s infinite love for us, and by sin we incurred a debt, we owe God. Again the debt as I see it is a debt of love, but also of a humble submission(and rightly so) to God, and to the will of God (which is always consistent with His love for us). We do God no favors but by doing His will we do ourselves good. In humble submission to His will we place ourselves were we should be, at the feet of our Creator in adoration, and love. When we sin doing our will contrary to His we go against everything that guarantees our happiness and well-being, for we were created for God and by Him, and in Him.
In God’s infinite love He designed a pay-back debt,a debt where we owe Him, to do what we are supposed to do in order to accomplish His design, union with Him
But the problem is we can’t do what we are suppose to do because we can’t redeem ourselves, we can’t pick our selves up by our boot-straps we can’t give what we don’t have. When we sin we do not have love for God. (For it is God’s love for us that causes our love for Him). When we sin we are proud, arrogant, weak, selfish, lustful, all of the vices. No only that but there is Satan who takes advantage of our weakness, his rule over us when we lost the Holy Spirit through Adam. The Father remedied this situation out of love, represented by His Son, Jesus Christ. It is through the sanctifying effects of the Holy Spirit merited by Jesus Christ that we now have the ability to conquer our selves, and all our weaknesses. By the implimentation of all the means God provided by Jesus, through His Spirit, in love of man, man is now able to pay back the love and adoration that belongs to God, so this is why I say "the means to pay back the debt (designed by God in love) can be harmonized with His infinite love. It is said “Lord cause me to do, and to accomplish”, His love for us caused us to love Him. Paying back the debt (of love) couldn’t be accomplished with out the Holy Spirit , Love is sent out, Jesus Christ, and love (The Holy Spirit) returns us to the Father. And it is accomplished through a debt owed designed by God Jesus showed us the way to pay the debt we owe God, and He made it possible.

 

[wmw]

Ynotzap and Michael Mayo keep saying these well said truths.

The love covenant that God wants for us is in many ways is like marriage, but I hesitate to say it because you’ve messed with debt so badly; making that say something different than it is intended to say.

When Hosea’s wife goes off and she sleeps around does she owe him a debt? Just like our covenant with God there is a sort of debt, but it’s so much more also. God and Hosea do not fall out of love with us and her yet there is a broken covenant that needs to be mended. The harlotry can’t just be undone there is no repayment that can satisfy this sort of debt, except a complete rejoining with a perfected love and new, different covenant made possible only by God in Jesus Christ. One still of love, but different and spiritually restoring.

 

[ynotzap]

Jesus showed us the way by doing His Father’s will, and by the Holy Spirit merited for us by Jesus, we are now able to do God’s will which is contained in the two greatest commandments, love of God and love of neighbor.

 

[wmw]

AND paid a ransom by His death to save us from the spiritless, empty life inherited from Adam.

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.

 

[simpleas]

We say Jesus paid the debt, he won victory over death and sin for all the human race. Why then continue to say we are born with Original sin?
As Jesus repaired the broken relationship with the Divine and the human, paid the debt of Adam’s sin, all born after Jesus rose from the dead would be free from the Original sin.
Not to say we would not need to be baptised, and confess we are imperfect, but this stain has been removed by Jesus’ sacrifice?

 

[grannymh]

I was never taught that I bare the stain of the sin of Adam and Eve,

As far as I can tell, the “stain” of Adam’s Original Sin has been used to describe the *contracted state *of Original Sin. In other words, transmitted human nature is deprived of Original Holiness, aka Sanctifying Grace. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases Original Sin, that is, it replaces the State of Original Sin with the State of Sanctifying Grace.

 

[grannymh]

We say Jesus paid the debt, he won victory over death and sin for all the human race. Why then continue to say we are born with Original sin?
As Jesus repaired the broken relationship with the Divine and the human, paid the debt of Adam’s sin, all born after Jesus rose from the dead would be free from the Original sin.
Not to say we would not need to be baptised, and confess we are imperfect, but this stain has been removed by Jesus’ sacrifice?

We are born with the contracted State of Original Sin because the contracted State of Original sin is the state of the human nature transmitted to us.

The problem is that “paying the debt of Adam’s sin” leaves out essential information about Original Sin, especially, what should be obvious, the difference between a creature and the Creator. It seems that a lot of the thread’s presentations refer to human relationships with other humans. Fortunately, there have been posts with sound, accurate Catholic information.

My very personal observation is that the push to harmonize this and that avoids some of the basic Catholic doctrines regarding human origin and human nature. Jesus did pay the debt, if one wishes to use that word, owed in justice to God. But, this does not mean that Jesus eliminated human free will.

My suggestion is to first study CCC 1730-1732, and then go back to CCC 356, CCC 396,
CCC 404-405, and whatever else interests you.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Michael_Mayo]

When Hosea’s wife goes off and she sleeps around does she owe him a debt? Just like our covenant with God there is a sort of debt, but it’s so much more also. God and Hosea do not fall out of love with us and her yet there is a broken covenant that needs to be mended. The harlotry can’t just be undone there is no repayment that can satisfy this sort of debt, except a complete rejoining with a perfected love and new, different covenant made possible only by God in Jesus Christ. One still of love, but different and spiritually restoring.

You are reminding me of what I think is a definitive aspect of salvation

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me.

The new and different covenant: more a development than a debt, more a transformation than a transaction. He (we) are not just redeemed we are recreated. We are not just saved. We are born again.

But it is up to us to accept. We owe it to ourselves as well as God.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Michael!

We have a wrong done and its consequences and we also have a personal offense.
One requires reparation to set things right again, the other requires sorrow and forgiveness. Penance, as an expression of sorrow also has reparation value.

In order for us to partake of the saving act of Jesus we must share in it, joining our crosses to his, joining our lives with his, becoming one in him all the while acknowledging that he is God in human flash. He leads us into that reconciliation by example. We share the cross.

So you owe me a debt. I write a check to myself to cover it. Makes not sense? Wait, in the writing of that check I am showing you how to do it and even putting your name on the account. The critical point is our cooperation, our acceptance, our voluntary participation. If we do not receive forgiveness we still carry the guilt even though God let it go long ago. Now it is our ongoing refusal that offends God.

Focusing on the last paragraph, this begins with a debt, so this is a debt view, and it is legitimate. If God “let it go long ago”, there is no debt, so that would be the other view. However, if ongoing refusal offends, then a new debt is incurred, so we are back to a debt view.

This is why, to me, the most attractive “non-debt” view is not one that says “the debt was erased long ago” but more of one that says “omniscience rules out disfavor/sense of debt.” That God created man with the capacity to disobey, and saw that humanity would disobey, but knew that humanity would learn from its errors.

Feel free to eliminate any non-debt view! Elimination is not what this thread is aiming toward, but we are all free to eliminate views we don’t see as legitimate.

Sorry but could you restate your summary?

It is not a summary, but a tentative theory, very tentative. It is that God wills that we have a sense of debt toward others and from God until we forgive, at the deepest possible level of forgiveness, ourselves and everyone else.

Before we forgive ourselves, we are going to have a sense of guilt, debt to God, society, or whomever. Before we forgive others, we are going to sense that an offender owes us. These “senses” are God’s will, these “senses” guide our behavior. Once we have forgiven at the deepest level, our own love is uninhibited by sense of debt. Love itself is the guide, and Love as the guide is also God’s will, but it takes time, experiences, awareness, and choices, until we can forgive at the deepest level.

Feel free to critique, comment, modify, and make suggestions.

Thanks!