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

[simpleas]

If there was a debt and Jesus paid the debt by obedience to the father and accepting that he was a victim for the whole of the human race, then the debt is paid. The sin of Adam and Eve no longer remains in any of us… If it does, then the debt is still to be paid, and so the priest, by offering the body and blood, soul and divinty for our sins, and protection from temption and our admitting our sins before receiving, we pay back the debt of Adam and Eve over and over…

 

[CrossofChrist]

Will get back to you onesheep…have to get over a cold though…don’t want to contaminate the computer for the rest of the family (on another device now )

 

[grannymh]

If there was a debt and Jesus paid the debt by obedience to the father and accepting that he was a victim for the whole of the human race, then the debt is paid. The sin of Adam and Eve no longer remains in any of us… If it does, then the debt is still to be paid, and so the priest, by offering the body and blood, soul and divinty for our sins, and protection from temption and our admitting our sins before receiving, we pay back the debt of Adam and Eve over and over…

Not exactly.

Original Sin is the utter destruction of the original relationship between humanity and Divinity aka Adam and Eve’s Original Holiness aka the State of Sanctifying Grace. Adam’s debt to God is the result of this utter destruction simply because Adam is the person who destroyed this special relationship with his Original Sin of disobedience.

We are not the original human who destroyed humanity’s relationship with Divinity.

We are Adam’s descendants. We are included in the effects of Original Sin because in Adam was … from CCC 404

**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Here is the explanation of “contracted state of deprivation of Original Holiness and Justice. From CCC 405
**405 **Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Obviously, there are times when the* CCC* language is so involved that it can be hard to pick out the facts. Please let me know if you need help matching CCC 404-405 with your post 477.

 

[wmw]

In the debt view, this initiative is a one which takes place to make reparation of a wronged God. In the no-debt view, this initiative is from pure love and desire for union, done freely without the burden of having to satisfy a wrong. The incarnation, in the no-debt view, is part of a singular, uninterrupted creative motion on the part of God.

Feel free to bring in more apparent contradictions! These items have to be worked through in order to establish legitimacy.

The broken record of these arbitrary view definitions is getting in your way. The point of the victim’s view is to break through that. I stick to Catholic teaching in the victim’s view starting with that God is complete by nature and is not a creditor of debt, but the victims are in need of collecting the debt of the sins against them to find justice and healing. Part of the nature of sin, particularly the Original Sin is that we all bare the burden and are victims and sinners.

Again in the victim’s view there is this fulfillment of union with Christ in both the forgiveness and healing that is the resurrection of new life where there is only death for the oppressed and oppressor in each of us. This is done in the creative power of Divine Love collecting sin and suffering unto Himself. This is His Loving of us rather than wrath and no debt statements of the Gospels or the CCC need to be twisted out of shape; very unlike the no-debt view.

Peace in neither trespasses nor trespassers for you OneSheep!

 

[simpleas]

The broken record of these arbitrary view definitions is getting in your way. The point of the victim’s view is to break through that. I stick to Catholic teaching in the victim’s view starting with that God is complete by nature and is not a creditor of debt, but the victims are in need of collecting the debt of the sins against them to find justice and healing. Part of the nature of sin, particularly the Original Sin is that we all bare the burden and are victims and sinners.
Again in the victim’s view there is this fulfillment of union with Christ in both the forgiveness and healing that is the resurrection of new life where there is only death for the oppressed and oppressor in each of us. This is done in the creative power of Divine Love collecting sin and suffering unto Himself. This is His Loving of us rather than wrath and no debt statements of the Gospels or the CCC need to be twisted out of shape; very unlike the no-debt view.

Peace in neither trespasses nor trespassers for you OneSheep!

Original sin is wiped away at baptism, so there wouldn’t be any burden of it?
We are still affected by this “condition” though because we, still, can sin. Jesus’ sacrifice was to free us from original sin.

Wasn’t the life and sacrifice of Jesus to show us that God does not hold anything against us? If God did hold the sins of man against us I don’t think he would have sent his son to show us forgiveness and love of the father, and we would be still offering our own sacrifices to God.

 

[grannymh]

Original sin is wiped away at baptism, so there wouldn’t be any burden of it?
We are still affected by this “condition” though because we, still, can sin. Jesus’ sacrifice was to free us from original sin.

Wasn’t the life and sacrifice of Jesus to show us that God does not hold anything against us? If God did hold the sins of man against us I don’t think he would have sent his son to show us forgiveness and love of the father, and we would be still offering our own sacrifices to God.

The reverse is the better way to look at the question.
" Wasn’t the life and sacrifice of Jesus to show us that God does not hold anything against us?"

In real life, Adam and ourselves hold our disobedience against God.

 

[simpleas]

The reverse is the better way to look at the question.
" Wasn’t the life and sacrifice of Jesus to show us that God does not hold anything against us?"

In real life, Adam and ourselves hold our disobedience against God.

Why would God offer forgiveness if he held something (o.s) against us?

Granted we need to have faith in God before we can acknowledge that we can be forgiven.

I don’t think we can hold anything against God because we are not on the same level, we can disobey for numerous reasons, one being, not fully in union with God, and if we do hold anything thing against God it would be being created in a state of separation from him to begin with.

 

[grannymh]

Why would God offer forgiveness if he held something (o.s) against us?

Granted we need to have faith in God before we can acknowledge that we can be forgiven.

I don’t think we can hold anything against God because we are not on the same level, we can disobey for numerous reasons, one being, not fully in union with God, and if we do hold anything thing against God it would be being created in a state of separation from him to begin with.

May I respectfully point out that post 482 did not refer to “anything”. The last sentence about real life is specific.

 

[wmw]

Original sin is wiped away at baptism, so there wouldn’t be any burden of it?
We are still affected by this “condition” though because we, still, can sin. Jesus’ sacrifice was to free us from original sin.

Wasn’t the life and sacrifice of Jesus to show us that God does not hold anything against us? If God did hold the sins of man against us I don’t think he would have sent his son to show us forgiveness and love of the father, and we would be still offering our own sacrifices to God.

Not all the effects of Original Sin are “wiped away”

We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized.

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favor is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God.

Number 3, sanctifying grace, is restored for as long as we don’t commit mortal sin. #1 our suffering and death in the spiritual is realm, our “second death”, and spiritual suffering is diminished from hell to purgatory, but our earthly life still must deal with suffering and death. Again the spiritual benefits can be lost if we commit mortal sin though we may seek Reconciliation (Confession) and be granted Absolution.

 

[OneSheep]

The broken record of these arbitrary view definitions is getting in your way. The point of the victim’s view is to break through that. I stick to Catholic teaching in the victim’s view starting with that God is complete by nature and is not a creditor of debt, but the victims are in need of collecting the debt of the sins against them to find justice and healing. Part of the nature of sin, particularly the Original Sin is that we all bare the burden and are victims and sinners.

Again in the victim’s view there is this fulfillment of union with Christ in both the forgiveness and healing that is the resurrection of new life where there is only death for the oppressed and oppressor in each of us. This is done in the creative power of Divine Love collecting sin and suffering unto Himself. This is His Loving of us rather than wrath and no debt statements of the Gospels or the CCC need to be twisted out of shape; very unlike the no-debt view.

Peace in neither trespasses nor trespassers for you OneSheep!

Hi WMW!

I went on a little hike with a priest yesterday, and it turns out that we both loved Cardinal Ratzinger’s introduction, and he told me that the debt view is prevalent among both Catholics and Protestants. He also agreed that the debt/no debt distinction is much as I described.

He did not exactly agree (or disagree) that the “debt” view is one to be harmonized, but everyone has their own opinion, right? He considered the view that some expiation had to be made to God gives the image of “vindictiveness”, and that all pagan religions, “natural religions” had this debt view. This fellow is very well-read, I gathered that he read most of Pope Benedict’s books.

To me, a image of God presented, extrapolated, from our nature is not one to be eliminated, the image itself has its place.

Now, as far as the victim’s position, how does one extract any victim from the personhood of God? What we do to our neighbor, we do unto God. In this manner the “victim” is completely tied in with God, and we go back to the question of whether God holds a debt or not. Right? We humans most naturally hold debts with one another, mitigated by forgiveness, repentance, reconciation, etc.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[CrossofChrist]

Why would God offer forgiveness if he held something (o.s) against us?

To me that’s like asking, “Why would a doctor give a patient medicine if they had an illness?”

Well, because they are sick!

Why would God offer forgiveness if we had no need of it?

I don’t think we can hold anything against God because we are not on the same level, we can disobey for numerous reasons, one being, not fully in union with God, and if we do hold anything thing against God it would be being created in a state of separation from him to begin with.

People can hold a grudge against God for a number of reasons. I don’t really understand what this means though. Certainly this isn’t denying sin? I’m confused.

 

[wmw]

Why would God offer forgiveness if he held something (o.s) against us?

Granted we need to have faith in God before we can acknowledge that we can be forgiven.

I don’t think we can hold anything against God because we are not on the same level, we can disobey for numerous reasons, one being, not fully in union with God, and if we do hold anything thing against God it would be being created in a state of separation from him to begin with.

True, He does not. That is part of the reason that a view like the “debt view” proposed earlier is not legitimate. Though that does not mean that all views that use the description of debt like the “victim’s view” are incorrect, because like it views and NT verses and CCC paragraphs may tell of debt that doesn’t make God into a “creditor” or “holder of debt”.

 

[CrossofChrist]

We’ll see how his goes…trying to make a more in depth post on a portable device, so please bear with any potential mistakes in this post

Hi CrossofChrist! You are always welcome here, come any time.

Of course! I’ve just found that CAF has been too much of a distraction at times…

I put in red the part that defines the “debt view”. In the no-debt view, God does not take offense, he has already forgiven “before always”.

First, I think it should be said that this “before always” is something that must be understood as coming only through Christ’s sacrifice.

God forgives all people through Jesus’ death, which is also his offer of love to us (all grace comes to us by his death). But (assuming countless people are correct when they have confessed to others–e.g even on CAF–that they have committed mortal sins…of course I’m not about the state of people’s souls. But at least Adam committed a mortal sin, even if not more that him and Eve…but I think we both get what I’m trying to say) some people don’t accept the forgiveness God offers. An analogy I think some Church Fathers used was how a doctor can’t cure a sick person who doesn’t show the doctor the wound they have. So some people don’t have God’s forgiveness “applied” to them because they refuse it.

He understands why people do what they do, and does not take offense.

Judging by Luke 19:41-42, 23:28, his reaction to the money changers in the Temple, and his emphatic message for all to repent, Jesus is very emphatic about turning to God (IIRC as Ratzinger would say, “an about-turn”) and abandoning sin. (Love the sinner, hate the sin. But hate that people sin.) He, like everyone else, had a natural inclination to life, life that he was willing to give up for a greater good in being obedient to the Father…and the agony in the Garden shows that he was distressed. I can’t imagine being “pierced for our offenses” was enjoyable.

He sees people’s “good intent”, that decision to act come from our (good) nature, even though our acts are so often done in ignorance (lack of awareness).

But there are mortal sins in addition to venial sins.

The view that God is justice, depending on the definitions, is one variation of the debt view, from my reading. CCC 2095 does not address the fact that our nature imbues a sense of debt. Even chimpanzees, as I posted long ago, have been observed to hold a debt toward others, and chimpanzees are hardly card-carrying Catholics.

CCC 271 elaborates a bit on God’s simplicity. It says that God’s justice is identical with his essence and will and power, etc.

While I would start discussing why our nature having a sense of debt would indicate something about reality, let’s forget about the term “debt” for now. I’ll also assume that you accept the reality of meriting and the loss of sanctifying grace when a mortal sin is committed.

When we sin, we have to be reconciled to God. To quote Ratzinger, “(Christ) in his love reconciles us and draws us up to God,” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, trans. Henry Taylor [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004], 97). So this entire discussion revolves around how Christ reconciles us. My stance is that it makes no sense to say Christ reconciles us to God if we are already reconciled to God apart from Jesus. If that is what you mean by"no debt", (and I still don’t have a good idea about what you mean) I have absolutely no idea how it can be harmonized with Catholic teaching. Reconciliation also presupposes that an “about-turn”, or repentance, is needed, has been achieved or that sin has been prevented.

God’s love can be understood by humanity, CrossofChrist. Cardinal Ratzinger, in rejecting Anselm’s view, was in essence saying “this is not love”. The Cardinal inserted an alternative, “This is Love.”

God is ineffable. Are you familiar with St. Thomas’ analogy of being?

I’m reluctant to copy anything lest I lose this post (since I’m not on a computer–yikes it has taken a while to write this!), so I’ll just say:

See CCC 42, 251.

I’ll also throw in a sales pitch for de Lubac’s The Discovery of God. A great book, highly recommended to all by me .

Saying we can’t know God’s love is our ending point, not starting point. We can say that God is love, and that his love is infinitely greater than our own love, but our knowledge of what* it is will always fall short of the reality. To comprehend God’s love would be to comprehend the Trinity. And we can’t do that, because we aren’t God.

In the no-debt view, God loved us before we loved Him, and forgiveness itself is love. God forgave you before you were born. God forgave humanity before He created, “before always”.

And Christ and sin?

So, to me the “mystery” concerning debt is not so.

How could it not be a mystery? It concerns our relationship to God. We can list the facts and say that xyz is true either because we know from our natural reason or because we know from Revelation, but to harmonize everything in a nice and neat way is not possible, for it would have to assume we can know God as God knows himself. To paraphrase something Pope Francis once said, we can’t have all the answers and ask for an exaggerated doctrinal security.

Ratzinger and von Balthasar both concluded “it is not given to man to see and express the whole in itself” (Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology. Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology”, trans. Sr. Mary Frances McCarthy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 169).*

 

[grannymh]

It is now obvious that the current updated no/debt position regarding the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin is a secular position which either downgrades or denies various Catholic doctrines on human nature such as free will, responsibility, intelligence, origin, spiritual soul, goal, mortal sin, consequences, and relationship with a Divine Being Creator.

 

[simpleas]

Not all the effects of Original Sin are “wiped away”

Number 3, sanctifying grace, is restored for as long as we don’t commit mortal sin. #1 our suffering and death in the spiritual is realm, our “second death”, and spiritual suffering is diminished from hell to purgatory, but our earthly life still must deal with suffering and death. Again the spiritual benefits can be lost if we commit mortal sin though we may seek Reconciliation (Confession) and be granted Absolution.

This just becomes to confusing for me. I then have to ask what effects of Original sin are wiped away at baptism?

If Original sin is the sin of disobedience of God’s commands then we are never quite free from this O.S, because at some point in our life we will disobey a command, I don’t think there is anyone who has never sinned after all.

 

[simpleas]

To me that’s like asking, “Why would a doctor give a patient medicine if they had an illness?”

Well, because they are sick!

Why would God offer forgiveness if we had no need of it?

People can hold a grudge against God for a number of reasons. I don’t really understand what this means though. Certainly this isn’t denying sin? I’m confused.

My question :

Why would God offer forgiveness if he held something (o.s) against us?

Was in reference to :

*Part of the nature of sin, particularly the Original Sin is that we all bare the burden and are victims and sinners. *

Baring the burden of O.S committed by the first humans sounded to me like saying God held the O.S against us, generally I view that in human terms, people who hold a debt against another, don’t usually offer forgiveness, because well they hold a debt to begin with.

 

[grannymh]

This just becomes to confusing for me. I then have to ask what effects of Original sin are wiped away at baptism?

If Original sin is the sin of disobedience of God’s commands then we are never quite free from this O.S, because at some point in our life we will disobey a command, I don’t think there is anyone who has never sinned after all.

Try looking at Adam as one person. Try looking at people today as individuals, that is, each person is one person in the same sense that Adam is one person.

Granted that within Adam is all humankind. However, Catholicism teaches that each person claiming to be part of humankind is an individual. Not only that, but each person claiming to be part of humankind has an individual spiritual soul which was individually directly created by God. And, believe it or not, each person claiming to be part of humankind has a material decomposing anatomy inherited from human ancestors going back to the original two human founders of the human species.

The next step, once the individual Adam is recognized as one person, is to accept the Catholic teaching that human nature is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual principles.

Yes, there are a few popular Catholic authors who deny that Adam is one person. Their explanations, found on the internet, appear to be genuine. Appearing genuine does not overturn Divine Revelation as taught by the true Catholic Church.

By the way, recognizing Adam as the first one real person with a real human nature is a hole in the no/debt proposition.

 

[grannymh]

My question :

Why would God offer forgiveness if he held something (o.s) against us?

Was in reference to :

*Part of the nature of sin, particularly the Original Sin is that we all bare the burden and are victims and sinners. *

Baring the burden of O.S committed by the first humans sounded to me like saying God held the O.S against us, generally I view that in human terms, people who hold a debt against another, don’t usually offer forgiveness, because well they hold a debt to begin with.

My humble suggestion is to ignore the popular Catholic authors who deny or downgrade various Catholic doctrines regarding the origin of our own human nature. One way to override the influence of these few individuals and their followers is to study Original Sin, which is rarely mentioned in Catholic terms.

 

[fhansen]

This just becomes to confusing for me. I then have to ask what effects of Original sin are wiped away at baptism?

If Original sin is the sin of disobedience of God’s commands then we are never quite free from this O.S, because at some point in our life we will disobey a command, I don’t think there is anyone who has never sinned after all.

Mary never sinned. She began life without the effects of OS, at least in terms of grace, and she could’ve sinned just as Adam did, but she chose all throughout her life to remain the humble hand-maiden of the Lord. We are free from OS to the extent that we remain in communion with God, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’.

 

[fhansen]

We have to remember that God was never surprised-or taken off-gaurd-by Adam’s sin. Knowing that sin would occur, He had purposed to use it as part of His overall plan of perfecting humanity from before the creation of the world. Salvation becomes integral with or an aspect of perfecting. We’re not merely saved by restoration to Adam’s pre-Fall status; rather we’re meant to be perfected/divinized.