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

[ynotzap]

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

Yes, they were permitted because God gave man free will, but did the acts incur a debt? Was man given connection with God, and then the connection taken away by God? Did something done by man create a situation in which anything but God’s unconditional love was “merited”? Or, did the Father not love unconditionally in the first place? Did God give his love, and then take it away?

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

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

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

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

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

See, it depends a lot on what the words “make it possible” mean here, in my reading. If “make it possible” is a matter of a debt that needed paying, then this goes against Cardinal Ratzinger’s writing. If the “make it possible” means that by our internal acceptance of the truth that Jesus is God-incarnate-Love, we know and love God as He truly is, as One who loves unconditionally, whose love knows no bound, whose love is not inhibited by merit, then it falls in line with the Cardinal’s Introduction. Do you see the importance of these seemingly subtle differences?

Do you see how fascinating it all is? I would not have personally used the “false image” words that Cardinal Ratzinger did, because this image of a God who demands payment is so enticing. After all, isn’t God just? Isn’t it fair that people who do evil have to pay? And since we are all sinners, don’t we all have to pay? Since we are sinners, doesn’t satan have power over us? Doesn’t satan seem to rule, and “have rights to” such an unworthy lot? Augustine seemed to thinks so, but these views were later rejected.

But should they be rejected outright? As far as I know, the aspect of satan’s rule, even though it arguably smacks of Manichaeism, has never been branded a heresy. Is there a deeper reality, one that unifies it all? We know there is, intuitively, a reality that unifies, but why are all these different views manifested?

Lots to think about, isn’t it?

Thanks for contributions. I asked a lot of questions; take a stab at a few!

It is not God’s demand for payment, but in justice His creatures owe Him the acknowledgement and adoration that belongs to Him for their OWN SAKE, and not His, to acknowledge the truth, in order to assume the rightful status that God intended for us, to be immersed in truth, to be in contact with Him as our Lady was when she stated "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoiced in God my Savior, because He regarded the lowliness of His handmaid, for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed, for He that is mighty hath done great things to me, and Holy is His name, and His mercy is from generation to generation. We too are led by the Holy Spirit to make our own magnificat, to be immersed in truth. When we are we have reached the status that God intended for us, union with Him, who is the Truth, Love, and Life. Jesus’ intent in assuming human nature was to destroy the works of Satan, and bringing us back to the Father, this is central to our beliefs. Mankind did not merit this, it was freely given.

 

[OneSheep]

It is not God’s demand for payment, but in justice His creatures owe Him the acknowledgement and adoration that belongs to Him for their OWN SAKE, and not His, to acknowledge the truth, in order to assume the rightful status that God intended for us, to be immersed in truth, to be in contact with Him as our Lady was when she stated "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoiced in God my Savior, because He regarded the lowliness of His handmaid, for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed, for He that is mighty hath done great things to me, and Holy is His name, and His mercy is from generation to generation.

Good Morning, ynotzap,

So, we have a mixture of approaches above. When we are talking about not God’s demand for payment, but “in justice” they owe him, then this could still be considered a matter of expiation, a debt. Every debt is paid for the debtor’s sake. Does it sort of depend on how we view God’s “attitude” on the matter? Like, how does God view us before Jesus came versus after; did it change? Did the Father’s arms open? Did God withhold something before the “henceforth”, waiting for payment?

We too are led by the Holy Spirit to make our own magnificat, to be immersed in truth. When we are we have reached the status that God intended for us, union with Him, who is the Truth, Love, and Life. Jesus’ intent in assuming human nature was to destroy the works of Satan, and bringing us back to the Father, this is central to our beliefs. Mankind did not merit this, it was freely given.

Here the use of “merit” and “status” can be seen a number of ways. Was there something that Jesus did that changed our state in the eyes of God? This may or may not call forward the image of a God who wants a payment. When we say “mankind did not merit this”, are we saying that mankind did not deserve this? Is that man speaking, or God speaking? Is that coming from a position of feelings of guilt? I’m not saying that is wrong, nor any of this wrong, but we can certainly understand the perspectives, right?

Even the idea of Jesus coming to destroy the “works of satan” is subject to different perspectives. Some people see that evil happens because of a separate power, and others see that evil happens because of ignorance and blindness. Can you understand those two perspectives?

It’s our use of the gift of the Holy Spirit, understanding, which allows us to enter into the different perspectives without judging them.

God Bless your day, ynotzap!

 

[OneSheep]

Correct.
That is exactly what Adam and ourselves need to do in our relationship with God. God the Creator is one step higher than two human creatures.

Good Morning Granny!

So, different people will have varying ways of looking at the word “need”, right? Is the “need” a matter of righting a wrong, something man owes to God? Or is “need” a matter of the wholeness that man lacks without connection to the divine within and without. Is the “need” a matter of freedom from the slavery of the appetites? Is one of these ways the “wrong” way to look at the picture?

Adam and ourselves would be alive because it is possible that material bodies can procreate material bodies. Genesis 1: 26-27 tells us that we are more than a decomposing material anatomy. God gives us a spiritual soul which is considered to be the “form” of the body. The result is that our human body is not two natures united (Cartesian extreme dualism), but rather this unique union forms a single peerless human nature. (* CCC*, 365)

Correct.
Adam’s acknowledgement is primary in Genesis 2: 15-17. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that as long as Adam remained within his relationship with God, he would not encounter the fate of material creatures which is bodily death. (CCC, 376) It is reasonable that Adam felt gratitude for this preternatural gift.

Preternatural gifts, information link.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35763

Here is an exerpt from the definition:

“Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.”

So, with this definition, in light of Cardinal Ratzinger’s writing, is the entire concept of “preternatural gifts” indicate the depiction of a God who gives and then takes away? If so, do you see that it is very understandable for people to be drawn to the Anselmian view criticized by Cardinal Ratzinger?

Your Mom must be a saint. Technically, your Mom is not a Divine God. Therefore, we have to adjust “owing her for this gift” because when we talk about Adam’s relationship with God his Father, we have to consider that Adam is not a god.

However, we do have to make some adjustments because your Mom is not the God in Genesis 1:1. We have to recognize that God did not create Adam as a duplicate god. Therefore, Adam being a spiritual creature needed to live in free submission (obedience) to his Creator. (CCC, 396; CCC, 1730) Living in obedience to one’s spouse is not exactly the same.

Both my parents are saints. Yes, obedience is called for, but Adam did not follow the rules. Did God take something away from man, as a result? Did we owe a debt to God because of this disobedience? Underlying what Cardinal Ratzinger is saying is that God’s love is understandable in terms of human experience. God loves us “more” than any human. If my own mother would stop at nothing to keep her arms open to me, then God is even more so. There is no “mystery” as to why God would withhold grace when a human would not. God does not take away. On the other hand, can you see the merits, can you understand the perspective that God does take something away, in the Fall? Do you see that there is a place for this perspective, a debt perspective, in human spirituality?

Because when it comes to a relationship between the Divine and the human, reciprocity is not a quid pro quo (an equal exchange or substitution) situation. Adam’s free intellective decision to commit Original mortal Sin, in a sense, took away Adam’s own love for his Creator. Adam, being a human creature, did not possess the power to destroy God’s eternal love. Therefore, God’s love for Adam is evinced by Genesis 3:15.

I’m a little confused by God’s love evinced by Genesis 3:15.

Did Adam stop loving God? That is an interesting view. I did not read that into his decision to eat the fruit. However, what we are addressing here is God’s response. Did God take something away? That is part of the subject addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Thank you. And I have the same hope for you.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

God bless your day, Granny!
Thanks!

 

[ynotzap]

Good Morning, ynotzap,

So, we have a mixture of approaches above. When we are talking about not God’s demand for payment, but “in justice” they owe him, then this could still be considered a matter of expiation, a debt. Every debt is paid for the debtor’s sake. Does it sort of depend on how we view God’s “attitude” on the matter? Like, how does God view us before Jesus came versus after; did it change? Did the Father’s arms open? Did God withhold something before the “henceforth”, waiting for payment?

Here the use of “merit” and “status” can be seen a number of ways. Was there something that Jesus did that changed our state in the eyes of God? This may or may not call forward the image of a God who wants a payment. When we say “mankind did not merit this”, are we saying that mankind did not deserve this? Is that man speaking, or God speaking? Is that coming from a position of feelings of guilt? I’m not saying that is wrong, nor any of this wrong, but we can certainly understand the perspectives, right?

Even the idea of Jesus coming to destroy the “works of satan” is subject to different perspectives. Some people see that evil happens because of a separate power, and others see that evil happens because of ignorance and blindness. Can you understand those two perspectives?

It’s our use of the gift of the Holy Spirit, understanding, which allows us to enter into the different perspectives without judging them.

God Bless your day, ynotzap!

God’s view of us never changed, for Him it is eternal, for us it was accomplished in time. In God we have our being. Jesus gained His Father’s attention for us, so that we could connect with the Father, this was lost by Adam. In accepting Jesus for who He is, turning from sin and turning to Him, we receive His and the Father’s love for us, The Holy Spirit who sanctifies us working salvation in us, and He is freely given. Our love and fidelity to God is tried, and with the cooperation of Grace, we are purified as “gold in a fire” and made worthy. We are reinstated in grace, as our first parents were given. Adams sanctified state was freely given, he did nothing to deserve it, our sanctified state is freely given, we did nothing to deserve it, Jesus merited the Holy Spirit for us. God’s love for us is freely given, and unconditional. the feeling of guilt is an effect of sin, and effect that conditions our perspectives

It is true people can have different perspectives, and God knew this, that’s why He founded the Church and endowed it through the successors of Peter who represents Jesus here on earth with the gift of infallibility when teaching Faith and Morals, to counter the effects of sin, it’s ignorance, and weakness, to counter the many perspectives with the true perspective. Our understanding through the gift of the Holy spirit is enlightenment which gives us discernment without judging. By understanding the conditiions of human nature, we can discern the conditions of human nature that influence perspectives. This involves no guilt, as judgement does.

God bless you too, One Sheep!

 

[CrossofChrist]

If you read Ratzinger’s statement carefully, you see that he is addressing a way of viewing the atonement, as if the crucifixion was necessary to appease God. In this there are two problems:

1. It isn’t man that makes up for our sin, as if we could break even with God. God is infinitely greater than we are. It is a loving God that takes away our sin that we could never make up (more on this in #2).
2. The physical pain that Jesus endured isn’t what gives the Cross value. What gives the sacrifice (offering) value is that the Cross is the consummation (completion) of a pure act of love (Jesus’ life); Jesus’ being is a pure being “for”. It is by God’s action of becoming man, uniting man to Himself, and taking us into his infinite love that Jesus’ act of being “for” even “to the end” has infinite value to take away our sins (infinite debt). In that way man is given an active role in salvation and is given an opportunity to “make up” for sin by partaking in the divine life.

Anselm’s theory is the way many have viewed the Cross, but it ignores the fact that God is free to do what he wills and could have redeemed us any way he wanted. In this Aquinas does better by saying it was “necessary” in that it was extremely fitting for the Cross, not “necessary” as if there was nothing else God could’ve done.

Help at all?

 

[grannymh]

I’m a little confused by God’s love evinced by Genesis 3:15.

I am so sorry that you are a little confused by God’s love evinced by Genesis 3:15. (from post 23) Are you thinking that God is not loving? I hope not.

Wait a minute. Perhaps, the confusion is caused because Genesis 3: 15 is in the middle of a big problem. That problem is known as Original Sin. Now I do realize that lots of people simply do not like the idea of Original Sin. Do you have any feelings or reactions to Original Sin which you care to share. If that is too personal, please accept my apology. Getting back to Genesis 3: 15. The truth is that I learned basic Catholic doctrines, as a very young student, without the benefit of seriously studying the first three chapters of Genesis. One of the benefits of being on CAF is that I discovered the joys of those initial chapters.

God never abandoned Adam even when Adam abandoned God.
(Information source. CCC, 410-411)

Genesis 3:15 is known as the Protoevangelium, that is, the “first Gospel.” The Second Person of the Holy Trinity would personally rescue Adam and subsequently humankind. This works because all humanity is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (Information source*. CCC*, 404; St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4, 1.) Could it be that this simple concept (John 3: 16-17) is the why there is the thread’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” Certainly, Adam had the responsibility to fix what he broke.

 

[grannymh]

Because when it comes to a relationship between the Divine and the human, reciprocity is not a quid pro quo (an equal exchange or substitution) situation. Adam’s free intellective decision to commit Original mortal Sin, in a sense, took away Adam’s own love for his Creator. Adam, being a human creature, did not possess the power to destroy God’s eternal love. Therefore, God’s love for Adam is evinced by Genesis 3:15.

I’m a little confused by God’s love evinced by Genesis 3:15.

Did Adam stop loving God? That is an interesting view. I did not read that into his decision to eat the fruit. However, what we are addressing here is God’s response. Did God take something away? That is part of the subject addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

True love is a many splendored thing.

Adam was able to love God because Adam learned from God the deepest meanings of love. God loved Adam first by first creating him in His own image. (Genesis 1: 26-27;* CCC*, 356) Adam witnessed God’s great love for himself. (Genesis 1: 28-29; CCC, 374-379; CCC, 383) Adam was in “communion” with God. (Genesis 2: 15; Genesis 2: 19; CCC, 396, first sentence)

Adam learned love from God; but he could not be the same as God.

Not being the same as God, Adam learned that he, the creature, needed to live in loving submission to his Creator.(Genesis 2: 15-17) Today, we learn from philosophy that there cannot be two equally, supreme, and infinitely powerful Gods at the same time. Not only that, but also Adam, because he was truly a human person with a human nature, had to make a choice regarding his relationship with God. He could either seek God or reject this opportunity. (CCC, 1730-1732) The philosophical principle of non-contradiction is in play. Adam could not do both at the same time.

With that bit of philosophy, we can correctly say that Adam could not love God at the same time he rejected God. Adam’s love for his Creator is expressed in his required obedience. (Genesis 2: 16-17) Adam freely let go of his love for God which was expressed in his disobedience. (Genesis 3:11)

OneSheep asks: “Did God take something away?”

To answer that question appropriately, we need to delve further into the meanings of obedience and disobedience as applied to a Pure Spirit Creator and a creature with material skin and bones, blood and guts. We learn from CCC, 398, that Adam’s creaturely status had requirements. These centered on his free submission (obedience) to his Creator. (Genesis 2: 15-17) The Pure Spirit Creator is in the powerful position of determining those requirements. Adam, being a physical creature, did not have the power to change those requirements. In His loving wisdom, God did not give His own divine creative powers to Adam. (No two Gods principle) Instead, He gave Adam the ability to freely choose his course of action to God or away from God. (Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC, 1730-1732)

Briefly. Adam’s disobedience is Adam’s choice to move away from God. Moving away from God opposes moving toward God. Moving away and moving toward God at the same time is impossible for a true physical human to do. Moving away from God is a prime example of rejecting God by a free choice.

Adam’s clear action, which is known as Original (mortal) Sin, can be viewed as the action which turns the direction of Adam’s love away from his Creator. God did not change in His infinite love. It is Adam who deliberately changed the direction of his love from God to himself.

 

[CrossofChrist]

1. The physical pain that Jesus endured isn’t what gives the Cross value. ]

The above is meant with regard to the restoration of the order of justice. It certainly isn’t meant to neglect other values the physical aspect of the Crucifixion contains (eg showing how there can be value in suffering, solidarity with others, revelation of how sinful man is, etc etc. these are expressions of the love Christ offered, but it is the love itself that is what purchased redemption).

 

[OneSheep]

I am so sorry that you are a little confused by God’s love evinced by Genesis 3:15. (from post 23) Are you thinking that God is not loving? I hope not.

Wait a minute. Perhaps, the confusion is caused because Genesis 3: 15 is in the middle of a big problem. That problem is known as Original Sin. Now I do realize that lots of people simply do not like the idea of Original Sin. Do you have any feelings or reactions to Original Sin which you care to share. If that is too personal, please accept my apology. Getting back to Genesis 3: 15. The truth is that I learned basic Catholic doctrines, as a very young student, without the benefit of seriously studying the first three chapters of Genesis. One of the benefits of being on CAF is that I discovered the joys of those initial chapters.

God never abandoned Adam even when Adam abandoned God.
(Information source. CCC, 410-411)

Genesis 3:15 is known as the Protoevangelium, that is, the “first Gospel.” The Second Person of the Holy Trinity would personally rescue Adam and subsequently humankind. This works because all humanity is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (Information source*. CCC*, 404; St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4, 1.) Could it be that this simple concept (John 3: 16-17) is the why there is the thread’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” Certainly, Adam had the responsibility to fix what he broke.

Good Evening Granny!

My confusion is not rejection, it is just confusion.

Here is the text:

Genesis 3:15New International Version (NIV)

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush** your head, and you will strike his heel.”

So, please explain how this is the “protogospel”, and how it shows God’s love. If you have a source of your explanation, feel free to bring it forward and we can discuss the whole concept in terms of debt and give-and-take.

Adam abandoned God? That, again, is also a new one to me. Adam stopped loving God and abandoned God: I understand the conclusion, but I don’t see Adam the same way. Can you understand the conclusion that Adam did not abandon God or stop loving God?

Thanks again.**

 

[grannymh]

Good Evening Granny!

My confusion is not rejection, it is just confusion.

Here is the text:

Genesis 3:15New International Version (NIV)

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush** your head, and you will strike his heel.”

So, please explain how this is the “protogospel”, and how it shows God’s love. If you have a source of your explanation, feel free to bring it forward and we can discuss the whole concept in terms of debt and give-and-take.

Adam abandoned God? That, again, is also a new one to me. Adam stopped loving God and abandoned God: I understand the conclusion, but I don’t see Adam the same way. Can you understand the conclusion that Adam did not abandon God or stop loving God?

Thanks again.**

Information source: CCC, 410-411 & John 3: 16-17
As for terms of debt and give-and-take, I find none in Genesis 3: 15. I simply see the basic promise of a Redeemer which is an obvious act of love. Maybe, there will be another time for a different discussion.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi CrossofChrist,

Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking response. It is definitely helpful to get another viewpoint.

If you read Ratzinger’s statement carefully, you see that he is addressing a way of viewing the atonement, as if the crucifixion was necessary to appease God. In this there are two problems:

1. It isn’t man that makes up for our sin, as if we could break even with God. God is infinitely greater than we are. It is a loving God that takes away our sin that we could never make up (more on this in #2).
2. The physical pain that Jesus endured isn’t what gives the Cross value. What gives the sacrifice (offering) value is that the Cross is the consummation (completion) of a pure act of love (Jesus’ life); Jesus’ being is a pure being “for”. It is by God’s action of becoming man, uniting man to Himself, and taking us into his infinite love that Jesus’ act of being “for” even “to the end” has infinite value to take away our sins (infinite debt). In that way man is given an active role in salvation and is given an opportunity to “make up” for sin by partaking in the divine life.

Yes, the Cardinal emphasized the “for” a great deal. However, the “make up” for sin, at a glance, appears to follow the lines of expiation:

To many Christians, and especially to those who only know the faith from a fair distance, it looks as if the cross is to be understood as part of a mechanism of injured and restored right. It is the form, so it seems, in which the infinitely offended righteousness of God was propitiated again by means of an infinite expiation. It thus appears to people as the expression of an attitude which insists on a precise balance between debit and credit; at the same time one gets the feeling that this balance is based on a fiction. One gives first secretly with the left hand what one takes back again ceremonially with the right. The `infinite expiation’ on which God seems to insist thus moves into a doubly sinister light.

Is the “make up” a means of gaining favor (propitiate) with God? Did man need to gain favor with God at all?

Did man already have God’s favor? If the answer is yes, this is what clearly distinguishes Christianity. The projected Power of other faiths is one that demands some kind of “make up”, that is what I read from this segment of the Introduction to Christianity. In other words, a debt is owed. Man does not have God’s favor, in many other religions, until something is done to make up the debt.

As I have said before, the idea of a debt being owed, and Jesus somehow pays it, ('makes up for sin") is quite understandable, would you agree? And we don’t need to speak in terms of the crucifixion, that was just an extreme example he gave. We can speak in terms of the incarnation in general.

Anselm’s theory is the way many have viewed the Cross, but it ignores the fact that God is free to do what he wills and could have redeemed us any way he wanted. In this Aquinas does better by saying it was “necessary” in that it was extremely fitting for the Cross, not “necessary” as if there was nothing else God could’ve done.

Help at all?

1. The physical pain that Jesus endured isn’t what gives the Cross value. ]

The above is meant with regard to the restoration of the order of justice. It certainly isn’t meant to neglect other values the physical aspect of the Crucifixion contains (eg showing how there can be value in suffering, solidarity with others, revelation of how sinful man is, etc etc. these are expressions of the love Christ offered, but it is the love itself that is what purchased redemption).

Here again is a word of payment, expiation: “purchased” redemption. This, to me, indicates that something was owed, that there was favor to be gained. “Purchase” makes sense in light of restoration of justice, yes. But was there a justice to be restored, or was there instead an awareness to be put forth? Is the good news “God loves you, and always has, without condition.” or “God loves you now that Jesus came and made a purchase” or something else?

Thanks again, I look forward to your response!

 

[grannymh]

As I have said before, the idea of a debt being owed, and Jesus somehow pays it, ('makes up for sin") is quite understandable, would you agree? And we don’t need to speak in terms of the crucifixion, that was just an extreme example he gave. We can speak in terms of the incarnation in general.

Red flag alert.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Dear!

Fine morning for some philosophy. Went on a long hike with an old friend yesterday, and we talked theology the whole time. We were so caught up in it that we missed a turning point and walked off the map we had. He has a much greater scope than I in theology, and he said that no two theologians agree on everything. It is such a freeing thing, Granny, to have the ability to let our minds go to whatever idea without thinking that one will get zapped by a bolt of lightning.

This is all inquiry, all speculative. Let us not fear that we mislead the onlooker. It’s okay for onlookers to know that we all have a lot to learn about God. May the onlookers make their own discoveries in relationship, and feel free to share their findings! (Great sources: prayer, the Bible, the CCC)

Information source: CCC, 410-411 & John 3: 16-17
As for terms of debt and give-and-take, I find none in Genesis 3: 15. I simply see the basic promise of a Redeemer which is an obvious act of love. Maybe, there will be another time for a different discussion.

So, here is Genesis 3:15 again:

Genesis 3:15New International Version (NIV)

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush** your head, and you will strike his heel.”**

With a quick read, there is not a universal consensus on the “protogospel”, nor the meaning of Genesis 3:15. I understand now, though. You are saying that Jesus is the offspring, and He will crush satan’s head. There is a variety of interpretation of the passage among scholars.

CCC, 410-411:

IV. “YOU DID NOT ABANDON HIM TO THE POWER OF DEATH”

410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

The “You did not abandon” line is from Eucharistic Prayer IV. Notice that it says “many Fathers”.

Notice also the use of “make amends”.

From Dictionary.com:

make amends: reparation or compensation for a loss, damage, or injury of any kind; recompense.

So yes, “Christian tradition” does refer to the incarnation as “making amends”, as Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of the prevalence of the view. This, however, sounds like a debt that is needing of payment, which is the Anselmian view, right? We cannot deny that the view of debt payment is part of our tradition, but then St. Gregory (post 2, and my response on post 9) is also part of our tradition.

You pointed out that a debt is something owed to someone else, so St. Gregory essentially changes the formula to no debt incurred which appears to be what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying. St. Gregory was contesting the Augustinian view, so both the “debt view” and the “no debt” view have their place in Catholic tradition. Isn’t that cool?

Or is it scary to you, Granny? Can you hold my hand, and break bread together, even though opinions vary? No, I am not talking about having lunch. And no, I am not downplaying the sacred. Jesus broke bread with the disciples, and we are called to do the same.

I am going to repeat a question from a previous post:

Adam abandoned God? That, again, is also a new one to me. Adam stopped loving God and abandoned God: I understand the conclusion, but I don’t see Adam the same way. Can you understand the conclusion that Adam did not abandon God or stop loving God?

Oh, and if you want to get into this again, we can here, but feel free to invite me to one of your other threads to discuss it elsewhere:

With that bit of philosophy, we can correctly say that Adam could not love God at the same time he rejected God. Adam’s love for his Creator is expressed in his required obedience. (Genesis 2: 16-17) Adam freely let go of his love for God which was expressed in his disobedience. (Genesis 3:11)

Yes, a person can love God at the same time he unwittingly rejects God. You may recall, I have yet to find an example of anyone ever knowingly and willingly rejecting God. I know, I know, Adam is omniscient, so such unwittingness is impossible. But remember: this makes Adam much more than an ordinary human, a fictitious figure. I am coming from “If Adam was an ordinary human…”

And think about it, Granny. If your mother had told you to do something, and you decided to do the opposite, would you indeed be intending not to love? No, you love your mother, but you disagree with the rule, right? If you reject the rule, are you rejecting your mother altogether? When our children defy our rules, are they rejecting us altogether? Well, some parents may take it that way. I’m glad my parents aren’t like that!

Thanks, Granny!

 

[simpleas]

True love is a many splendored thing.

Adam was able to love God because Adam learned from God the deepest meanings of love. God loved Adam first by first creating him in His own image. (Genesis 1: 26-27;* CCC*, 356) Adam witnessed God’s great love for himself. (Genesis 1: 28-29; CCC, 374-379; CCC, 383) Adam was in “communion” with God. (Genesis 2: 15; Genesis 2: 19; CCC, 396, first sentence)

Adam learned love from God; but he could not be the same as God.

Not being the same as God, Adam learned that he, the creature, needed to live in loving submission to his Creator.(Genesis 2: 15-17) Today, we learn from philosophy that there cannot be two equally, supreme, and infinitely powerful Gods at the same time. Not only that, but also Adam, because he was truly a human person with a human nature, had to make a choice regarding his relationship with God. He could either seek God or reject this opportunity. (CCC, 1730-1732) The philosophical principle of non-contradiction is in play. Adam could not do both at the same time.

With that bit of philosophy, we can correctly say that Adam could not love God at the same time he rejected God. Adam’s love for his Creator is expressed in his required obedience. (Genesis 2: 16-17) Adam freely let go of his love for God which was expressed in his disobedience. (Genesis 3:11)

OneSheep asks: “Did God take something away?”

To answer that question appropriately, we need to delve further into the meanings of obedience and disobedience as applied to a Pure Spirit Creator and a creature with material skin and bones, blood and guts. We learn from CCC, 398, that Adam’s creaturely status had requirements. These centered on his free submission (obedience) to his Creator. (Genesis 2: 15-17) The Pure Spirit Creator is in the powerful position of determining those requirements. Adam, being a physical creature, did not have the power to change those requirements. In His loving wisdom, God did not give His own divine creative powers to Adam. (No two Gods principle) Instead, He gave Adam the ability to freely choose his course of action to God or away from God. (Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC, 1730-1732)

Briefly. Adam’s disobedience is Adam’s choice to move away from God. Moving away from God opposes moving toward God. Moving away and moving toward God at the same time is impossible for a true physical human to do. Moving away from God is a prime example of rejecting God by a free choice.

Adam’s clear action, which is known as Original (mortal) Sin, can be viewed as the action which turns the direction of Adam’s love away from his Creator. God did not change in His infinite love. It is Adam who deliberately changed the direction of his love from God to himself.

How do we know that God gave Adam and Eve the sole responsiblity to decide the fate at that time of the whole human race?
Adam and Eve made a choice to reject God’s command, that was their own choice and their own sin.

We do move toward God and reject God, and vice versa, or else noone would be able to realise they do in fact need God in their life. And the very first two humans did the same thing.

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning Dear!

Fine morning for some philosophy. Went on a long hike with an old friend yesterday, and we talked theology the whole time. We were so caught up in it that we missed a turning point and walked off the map we had. He has a much greater scope than I in theology, and he said that no two theologians agree on everything. It is such a freeing thing, Granny, to have the ability to let our minds go to whatever idea without thinking that one will get zapped by a bolt of lightning.

This is all inquiry, all speculative. Let us not fear that we mislead the onlooker. It’s okay for onlookers to know that we all have a lot to learn about God. May the onlookers make their own discoveries in relationship, and feel free to share their findings! (Great sources: prayer, the Bible, the CCC)

So, here is Genesis 3:15 again:

Genesis 3:15New International Version (NIV)

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush** your head, and you will strike his heel.”**

With a quick read, there is not a universal consensus on the “protogospel”, nor the meaning of Genesis 3:15. I understand now, though. You are saying that Jesus is the offspring, and He will crush satan’s head. There is a variety of interpretation of the passage among scholars.

CCC, 410-411:

IV. “YOU DID NOT ABANDON HIM TO THE POWER OF DEATH”

410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

The “You did not abandon” line is from Eucharistic Prayer IV. Notice that it says “many Fathers”.

Notice also the use of “make amends”.

From Dictionary.com:

make amends: reparation or compensation for a loss, damage, or injury of any kind; recompense.

So yes, “Christian tradition” does refer to the incarnation as “making amends”, as Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of the prevalence of the view. This, however, sounds like a debt that is needing of payment, which is the Anselmian view, right? We cannot deny that the view of debt payment is part of our tradition, but then St. Gregory (post 2, and my response on post 9) is also part of our tradition.

You pointed out that a debt is something owed to someone else, so St. Gregory essentially changes the formula to no debt incurred which appears to be what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying. St. Gregory was contesting the Augustinian view, so both the “debt view” and the “no debt” view have their place in Catholic tradition. Isn’t that cool?

Or is it scary to you, Granny? Can you hold my hand, and break bread together, even though opinions vary? No, I am not talking about having lunch. And no, I am not downplaying the sacred. Jesus broke bread with the disciples, and we are called to do the same.

I am going to repeat a question from a previous post:

Adam abandoned God? That, again, is also a new one to me. Adam stopped loving God and abandoned God: I understand the conclusion, but I don’t see Adam the same way. Can you understand the conclusion that Adam did not abandon God or stop loving God?

Oh, and if you want to get into this again, we can here, but feel free to invite me to one of your other threads to discuss it elsewhere:

God never changes, it’s us that change our way of thinking about him.
What pickles my brain about Adam is that he had all he needed in the garden, yet he seeked to be like God/ a God and so fell to the temptation of the devils lies.
After the Original sin, he know longer was able to commune with God and so he must have felt very abandoned by God, as only a human could feel. God no longer “walked with him in the cool of the day” nor taught him any more on how to be a human being.
He would have to work the ground and his wife would be tormented by pains in child birth. So as God had left him and his wife the sole task of procreation, he must have desparately looked for things to give to God in the hope that God would relent and forgive his sin.
But was it all in Adams mind?
Did God leave him, or was God right there all the time, like in Jacobs ladder?

I just don’t know how Adam and Eve went from being in union with God, knowing Love etc, to feeling alone and needing to offer sacrifices. Their sin has got to be more on a cosmic level than on a human level, imo.

When Jesus paid the debt, then he righted the wrong. God does not require any more sacrifce from man, we are now made righteous again. But it’s taken 2,000 years for us to even start to begin to believe that God never left us…

 

[CHCL]

Yes, a person can love God at the same time he unwittingly rejects God. You may recall, I have yet to find an example of anyone ever knowingly and willingly rejecting God. I know, I know, Adam is omniscient, so such unwittingness is impossible. But remember: this makes Adam much more than an ordinary human, a fictitious figure. I am coming from “If Adam was an ordinary human…”

Thanks, Granny!

Adam was not omniscient by any means. He had knowledge of what would happen, and was born with knowledge, but he was not omniscient. Only God is omniscient.

 

[grannymh]

The “You did not abandon” line is from Eucharistic Prayer IV. Notice that it says “many Fathers”.

Thanks, Granny!

In the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Eucharistic Prayer IV (which I have in my hand) I do not see “many Fathers”. Please be so kind as to give me the lines above and below so that I can make a correction. In my work off CAF, there are always typo’s so I would not doubt that they can occur.

Thank you sincerely

 

[CrossofChrist]

Yes, the Cardinal emphasized the “for” a great deal. However, the “make up” for sin, at a glance, appears to follow the lines of expiation:

You are right, it does. In fact, Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazereth: Holy Week addresses the problem expiation creates for some exegetes. He goes on to defend the idea, but clarifies it is love that takes away our sin, not anything else.

And you also have to understand the context of the time Ratzinger wrote Introduction to Christianity. Unlike today, expiation was addressed using words like “destruction”. Which can give some observers a wrong impression on what expiation consists of.

To many Christians…cut for space

I don’t know if you actually own a copy of the book, or if you just got your information from that website (which, BTW, was something I frequently visited before I got the book ). But looking at the context in which he says that is very helpful to understanding what he is getting at. He’s addressing the idea (brought up earlier ca. p. 230) that by giving man an impossible task (making up for sin) he is being gracious by making up for it himself, when it was he who established that criteria in the first place. On the contrary, the point of the crucifixion wasn’t about the act itself, but about Christ’s infinite love that brings us back from a situation that we created for ourselves. God takes the initiative, not man.

Is the “make up” a means of gaining favor (propitiate) with God? Did man need to gain favor with God at all?

Sin is incompatible with God’s love. But man can’t win back favor with God; it can only come from God’s free initiative.

Did man already have God’s favor?

Yes and no. Christ’s sacrifice has merits that go into eternity and count for all time, because by his Incarnation he has given man and creation a place in God. We can communicate with God at any time in the history of creation because he did with us (IOW, the supernatural dignity of man applies for all time yet is entirely through Christ). Perhaps this quote from Rahner will explain better what I’m getting at, “God’s self-communication as offer is also the necessary condition which makes its acceptance possible” (FCF 128).

OTOH, since man also sinned within time via original sin and other sins afterward, man lives opposed to God. Christ both gives the option of communion with God by his Incarnation and restores it by his death.

If the answer is yes, this is what clearly distinguishes Christianity. The projected Power of other faiths is one that demands some kind of “make up”, that is what I read from this segment of the Introduction to Christianity. In other words, a debt is owed.

No, Ratzinger is saying what distinguishes Christianity from other religions is that it is God that takes the initiative to expiate our sins, not man that takes the initiative.

Christianity isn’t unique because it ignores sin, but because God is the one addressing it.

Man does not have God’s favor, in many other religions, until something is done to make up the debt.

That’s also true for Christianity, but God makes up the debt. Man is also lifted up to a role that gives him an opportunity to participate in the act of expiation via unity with God.

As I have said before, the idea of a debt being owed, and Jesus somehow pays it, ('makes up for sin") is quite understandable, would you agree?

Yes it is. The language is used throughout the history of Christianity. Debt can be used interchangeably with sin.

Here’s expiation used in the Catechism (notice it’s under the title speaking of God’s love):

God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love

604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins."408 God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."409

And we don’t need to speak in terms of the crucifixion, that was just an extreme example he gave.

But we do. It was his crucifixion that gave us a chance to respond to his invitation he gave at the Incarnation, an invitation thrown away by our sin.

We can speak in terms of the incarnation in general.

The Incarnation is fruitless (although certainly not valueless) for us without the Cross and Resurrection.

You can’t have a theology of the Incarnation without a theology of the Cross.

Here again is a word of payment, expiation: “purchased” redemption. This, to me, indicates that something was owed, that there was favor to be gained. “Purchase” makes sense in light of restoration of justice, yes.

Agreed.

But was there a justice to be restored, or was there instead an awareness to be put forth?

Both. We broke the relationship offered by God through our sin, clearly an offense to justice. But God’s love is greater by bridging that gap for us, in our place.

Is the good news “God loves you, and always has, without condition.” or “God loves you now that Jesus came and made a purchase” or something else?

God has always love us and always will, which is shown in the Cross.

Thanks again, I look forward to your response!

No problem!

 

[wmw]

In my own (not getting zapped) theology I think of the Debt analogy as a pretty loose one. Same as Jesus being thee Shepherd and we His sheep. We have to be careful in using analogy beyond their intent. God doesn’t become like a loan agent or banker because of this very Biblical analogy.

 

[OneSheep]

In the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Eucharistic Prayer IV (which I have in my hand) I do not see “many Fathers”. Please be so kind as to give me the lines above and below so that I can make a correction. In my work off CAF, there are always typo’s so I would not doubt that they can occur.

Thank you sincerely

Woops, I meant to put the whole phrase. CCC 411 says “many fathers and doctors of the Church…” CCC 410-411 are in a section that addresses that part of the Eucharistic prayer, at least that is what they appear to address.