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

[grannymh]

Question for a snowy Sunday.

Does the babble surrounding the no-debt proposition actually detract from a greater truth?

:snowing:

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Granny!

Thank you. Your position is understandable in our wide world.

We are discussing the positions of many. They are all understandable.

Accidentally, I just found some information about offending God under the definition for the sin of presumption. From the human position, I wonder if some of the assumptions inherent in the no debt view could be considered as wrongful assumptions or misleading assumptions.

From this link on the sin of presumption. catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-sin-of-presumption
“One wonders how sincere a person’s love for God is when he is so readily willing to sin simply because God is forgiving. God cannot be fooled. He reads hearts and knows our sincerity. To decide to sin is to offend God. To decide to sin because one knows that he can be forgiven is to sin twice. It is to use God, reducing him to a utility at the service of our whim. It is to laugh at His passion and death.”

In the no-debt view I have been recently quoting, sin is alienation. The actual sinful acts are the result, the manifestation, of the alienation that already exists in the individual. So, a person who even considers a sinful act as something acceptable, a good means, etc. is already alienated by sin to some degree. The person is ignorant, lacking in awareness, or blind.

In the no-debt view, one presumes that God’s love is unconditional and infinite. One presumes that God does not hold a debt, because he has forgiven “before always”, or that omniscience precludes wrath, precludes desire for punishment, precludes the sense of debt in terms of debt created by offense.

It would take an omniscient person to say that all individuals will choose to be with God, so the position of “presumption” as described as “sinful” is one that describes the ignorance of a person who thinks that they are omniscient. One can hold the opinion that it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever choose an eternity away from God, but remain open-minded to the possibility that such a choice may actually happen. This is not presumption, it is optimism about the human desire to be united with Love.

For the purpose of harmonizing the debt/no debt views, the word debt will be defined as a result of something happening between the first human person and his Divine Creator.

The purpose of harmonizing the views, Granny, is apparently not yours, at least that is what I gather from your continued refusal to acknowledge the no-debt view as legitimate.

Given that, I am wondering what your goals are in participation in this thread. I have offered to help you understand the no-debt view, but you have not taken me up on it. Be up front, Granny, please, admit that you do not see the legitimacy of the no-debt view, and know that I am okay with that. Then, why are you participating here? What is your goal?

Please, go back and read the section from Cardinal Ratzinger’s introduction. Do you see a difference between your own view and the Anselmian view? If so, feel free to point out the differences. If there is no difference, and Anselm’s position is satisfactory to you, then rest in your view as one that was also shared by a very famous saint.

Google brought up an intriguing definition. *a feeling of gratitude for a service or favor. “we owe them a debt of thanks.”
synonyms: indebtedness, obligation *

Another interesting definition. "A moral or legal obligation to make reparations or undergo punishment for committing an offense: a criminal repaying his debt to society.
And, of course, the common definition of owing money to a creditor. Additional definitions and/or examples will be appreciated.

Regardless of how debt is defined, it is still the result of something happening which causes the *“debt.” *Coming from Catholic teachings, we can conclude that this thread’s word “debt” refers to the result of the first human directly and freely disobeying God. (Genesis 3: 11; CCC 396-397)

Please be careful. Knowing that the debt is the result means that we have to have precise knowledge of what caused it. According to Catholicism, what caused the debt is the Original Sin of the first original human.

Yes, Granny, I think that we are all quite familiar with the debt view. As I have said before, we are referring to the debt created by offense to God. However, as the Cardinal stated, the idea of expiation comes from our individual feeling of guilt before God, it is not limited to Adam in the Cardinal’s description.

It is quite obvious that you really love to discuss Adam! This brings me back to the question. What is your goal in your participation on this thread? My goal is to harmonize the two views, which was a goal inspired by the Cardinal’s words in my OP. What is your goal?

God bless your Sunday, Granny. Peace be with you.

 

[fhansen]

Question for a snowy Sunday.

Does the babble surrounding the no-debt proposition actually detract from a greater truth?

:snowing:

It will probably reach 70 degrees here in northern CA today, which is almost eerie even for this part of the world this time of the year-we’re facing drought again. Weird weather.

 

[wmw]

Teachings from the CCC on the 2 punishments due to sin (including O.S.), the bold is mine to emphasize things discussed in this thread:

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84 (1861, 1031)

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”85 (2447)

In the Communion of Saints

1474 The Christian who seeks to purify himself of his sin and to become holy with the help of God’s grace is not alone. “The life of each of God’s children is joined in Christ and through Christ in a wonderful way to the life of all the other Christian brethren in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, as in a single mystical person.”86 (946-959, 795)

1475 In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.”87 In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

1476 We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church’s treasury, which is “not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the ‘treasury of the Church’ is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy.”88 (617)

1477 “This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.”89 (969)

 

[CrossofChrist]

It will probably reach 70 degrees here in northern CA today, which is almost eerie even for this part of the world this time of the year-we’re facing drought again. Weird weather.

Here in MN there is hardly any snow, and it has been around 40 degrees for the last few days (although today it’s below freezing again).



Climate change, people.

 

[simpleas]

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’.

I knew when I was writing that, that I should have excluded Mary, it’s just obvious.

 

[simpleas]

Teachings from the CCC on the 2 punishments due to sin (including O.S.), the bold is mine to emphasize things discussed in this thread:

I wonder what the punishment in Purgatory will be like, that’s if I make it there! We’ve seen others decriptions of hell, and heaven, still will purgatory be another place of pain and suffering?

As purgatory isn’t hell or heaven then it’s a place/state were the soul goes to be purified, without a body, so what does the church say would happen to the soul? Is there another form of pain and punishment that only the soul would be affected by?

Maybe it’s a place of peace, where one can find their true soul in union with God and then move on to eternal life…

 

[wmw]

I wonder what the punishment in Purgatory will be like, that’s if I make it there! We’ve seen others decriptions of hell, and heaven, still will purgatory be another place of pain and suffering?

As purgatory isn’t hell or heaven then it’s a place/state were the soul goes to be purified, without a body, so what does the church say would happen to the soul? Is there another form of pain and punishment that only the soul would be affected by?

Maybe it’s a place of peace, where one can find their true soul in union with God and then move on to eternal life…

Since we can make the effect of purgatory here on earth I would not be surprised if the striving/pain were not any more difficult than working on it here. See the end of 1472, “A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain”.

It also may depend on the sins, purgation for a cold blooded murderer that repented on his deathbed may have much more of a struggle than most. I think I remember also reading that St. Augustine and/or St Thomas thought that the “punishment” remaining for just Original Sin would be of the slightest amount.

Punishment/pain it may seem, but I sort of picture it as mental/spiritual anguish as we truly get to understand how we have distorted the creation, ourselves, and our neighbors and make the conversion in understanding how our humanity should actually be in heaven. Also, its not as if we are locked away in solitude, we remain an active part of the mystical body of Christ. But in this last paragraph I’m drifting further away from the solid teaching or Dr’s of the faith and just waxing on my own ideas.

 

[OneSheep]

Teachings from the CCC on the 2 punishments due to sin (including O.S.), the bold is mine to emphasize things discussed in this thread:

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin.** These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.** A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84 (1861, 1031)

Thanks for adding these to the thread, wmw. I am going to focus on the second bolded lines here, because they are the ones that will change definition depending on debt vs. no-debt views. The rest of the CCC sections sort of rest on this one, more or less.

In the debt view, the debt is incurred because of offense to God. It does not not have to be perceived as “vengeful”, as we have state justice systems that are not intended to be vengeful, but corrective. However, whether an action is described as vengeful or instead as corrective, the question is whether or not the punishment proceeds from a God who has been offended, or does it proceed from a God who takes no offense, indeed forgives “before always”? Is a state of non-purification one that is unacceptable to God’s communion, and does God change His mind toward man as man seeks communion, discontinues sinful behavior, and asks for forgiveness? Or, instead, is God’s position towards us one of everlasting open arms, even doing everything short of dragging us into heaven against our will? Cardinal Ratzinger presents an image of God as one who does not wait for us to change, but Who becomes incarnate to decisively gather us to Himself.

If forgiveness is “belonging”, as I have relayed in one no-debt view, then forgiveness stands simply as the opposite of alienation (sin). Since God is omnipotent, and Jesus is One with God, God asserts that the human belongs with Him even if the human does not embrace God. Jesus’ role is to entice the human to embrace God. Such embracing, by man, is the completion of the “belonging”, as it takes two to make a relationship, does it not? The roadblock, though, remains man’s lack of awareness, which is certain to be remedied during purification.

Whew! Sorry about the lack of examples. I am extrapolating a bit on what I read, I am filling in some blanks, showing what follows.

If forgiveness is release of God’s sense of our debt to Him, if it somehow makes us acceptable to Him when we were not before, if forgiveness is something withheld because God (Jesus) holds something against us, then this is a “debt” view. Yes, this view could be described as “vengeful” from the view of a third-person observer, but as parents love their children, yet react angrily to misdeed, and often hold the sin against the children, this is not described ordinarily as “vengeful”. It is an ordinary reaction of a human’s conscience (from the parent) toward what one sees as injustice (on the part of the child). It is only “vengeance” when we despise the reaction for some reason or find it other than corrective.

What I am saying is that there is room to read the CCC from either view.

Sorry to be long-winded here: Let us take the example of a parent punishing a child. Has the parent already forgiven before punishing the child, or has the parent withheld such forgiveness for until the child has changed his ways? If the parent has forgiven “before always” there is always nothing but unconditional love toward the child, and the punishment proceeds for the child’s own well-being. Disfavor is never even considered. On the other hand, if the parent is behaving with a normal human conscience, he will resent the child for awhile, and not forgive until certain things happen, that is, the child responds to the punishment in a way that is acceptable to the parent. Note: this is the picture from the parent view, this is what the thread is about.

As I write all of this, it is such an exercise in expressing things with language. It isn’t easy. Thanks, wmw, for continuing to provide what appear to settle the differences. The fact remains that there are (at least) two different, but legitimate, ways of seeing God!

 

[CrossofChrist]

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).

I must correct myself: we can’t harmonize everything here because, while we have the whole (Christ) present among us, his presence isn’t yet fully realized in us. So we must wait until his love is completely realized within us if we are to see the whole reality. IOW, not until we’ve entered eternity–heaven. See Lumen Fidei 33

So I made a mistake by saying we must be God to harmonize all things. But only in heaven can that be seen by us completely.

 

[grannymh]

I must correct myself: we can’t harmonize everything here because, while we have the whole (Christ) present among us, his presence isn’t yet fully realized in us. So we must wait until his love is completely realized within us if we are to see the whole reality. IOW, not until we’ve entered eternity–heaven. See Lumen Fidei 33

So I made a mistake by saying we must be God to harmonize all things. But only in heaven can that be seen by us completely.

In my humble opinion, only two truths can be harmonized. Unfortunately, as I continue to probe the no-debt proposition, I am finding a bit of slander injurious to a person’s reputation.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hi fhansen,

I think that use of “pre-fall status” has the hint of a debt view, if “status” is our status in the eyes of God. Here are the Cardinal’s words addressing this:

To anyone who looks more closely, the scriptural theology of the cross represents a real revolution as compared with the notions of expiation and redemption entertained by non-Christian religions, though it certainly cannot be denied that in the later Christian consciousness this revolution was largely neutralized and its whole scope seldom recognized. In other world religions expiation usually means the restoration of the damaged relationship with God by means of expiatory actions on the part of men. Almost all religions center round the problem of expiation; they arise out of man’s knowledge of his guilt before God and signify the attempt to remove this feeling of guilt, to surmount the guilt through conciliatory actions offered up to God. The expiatory activity by which men hope to conciliate the divinity and to put him in a gracious mood stands at the heart of the history of religion.

Does the incarnation change our “status”? Does it put God in a “gracious mood”? If these are the same question (they may not be, depending on definitions) and the answer is yes, then we are talking about an Anselmian view, which is very common, and I see as legitimate.

In the other view, which I have been describing as “no debt”, the only change in “mood” to be brought about by the incarnation is that of man.

Jesus’ words were falling on a people who thought they owed a debt to God because of their guilt. Jesus presented God as “Abba”, the constant loving Father (i.e. that of the prodigal son). However, Jesus also makes reference to God as judge, offended by man’s behaviors, subject to change in “mood”. Both views of God can be found in the Gospel.

I don’t know if that helps make the parameters of this thread more clear, but it might.

Thanks for posting, fhansen.

 

[cfauster]

I too think that the Incarnate Christ changes our potential for relationship with God from both sides of the relationship.

I agree with the former Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger that the Christian view of how the relationship can be made right differs from a typical non-Christian religious expiatory approach.

But I also agree that there is more needed to restore the relationship than simply realizing that God loves us. For one thing, I think we need to understand that the love is undeserved, at least as far as anything we can do ourselves.

Being undeserving of God’s love, and helpless by ourselves to become deserving of God’s love, might seem hopeless. Or it might seem unfair (Why didn’t God create us deserving of love and/or immune to losing our innocence?).

But ironically, I think the whole idea that we could deserve God’s love is the main problem. We can never get over that nagging sense of guilt by ourselves, because we know we are not God and thus we are not perfect nor innocent.

Christ, I think, solves the problem by showing us two things:

1. Yes we deserve judgment.
2. But, God is gracious and willing to forgive.

We need to accept that forgiveness by faith. Without the Incarnation, I don’t think such faith would be possible.

 

[OneSheep]

I too think that the Incarnate Christ changes our potential for relationship with God from both sides of the relationship.

I agree with the former Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger that the Christian view of how the relationship can be made right differs from a typical non-Christian religious expiatory approach.

But I also agree that there is more needed to restore the relationship than simply realizing that God loves us. For one thing, I think we need to understand that the love is undeserved, at least as far as anything we can do ourselves.

Being undeserving of God’s love, and helpless by ourselves to become deserving of God’s love, might seem hopeless. Or it might seem unfair (Why didn’t God create us deserving of love and/or immune to losing our innocence?).

But ironically, I think the whole idea that we could deserve God’s love is the main problem. We can never get over that nagging sense of guilt by ourselves, because we know we are not God and thus we are not perfect nor innocent.

Christ, I think, solves the problem by showing us two things:

1. Yes we deserve judgment.
2. But, God is gracious and willing to forgive.

We need to accept that forgiveness by faith. Without the Incarnation, I don’t think such faith would be possible.

Hello cfauster

Since both the words “deserve” and “judgment” are often defined in various ways, it is difficult to determine whether you are coming from a “debt” view or “no debt.”

In at least one “no debt” view, the human commits sinful acts only when blindness or ignorance is a factor, without exception; no one ever intends to harm that which they value, and in not seeing the value, people are either blind, ignorant, or both. It is easy for the aware to say “he should have known”, but in fact people do not know what they are doing, as Jesus accurately pointed out from the cross.

Now, judgement as to whether or not this ignorance is “innocent” is going to depend on the viewer. If the viewer has forgiven ignorance or blindness at the deepest level, i.e. understanding the reason for either case and no longer condemning the occurrence of such, then they are more likely to embrace a “no debt” view. If instead there is something about ignorance or blindness that they still hold in contempt, there would be good cause for the person to hold to a “debt” view, and consider man “deserving” of condemnation (one option in judgment).

If a person cannot discover their own innocence, he may never get over his feelings of guilt, in the view I am describing.

Here is another question inspired by your post: Does anyone on Earth not “deserve” my love? If the answer is yes, I will likely project that God feels the same way. This is a legitimate stance, in my view. “Deserving” can be a word of humility, or a word of condemnation/condonation.

Do you see what I mean? Some things we say can go either way, a lot of clarification is necessary.

Thanks for posting!

 

[fhansen]

Hi fhansen,

I think that use of “pre-fall status” has the hint of a debt view, if “status” is our status in the eyes of God. Here are the Cardinal’s words addressing this:

To anyone who looks more closely, the scriptural theology of the cross represents a real revolution as compared with the notions of expiation and redemption entertained by non-Christian religions, though it certainly cannot be denied that in the later Christian consciousness this revolution was largely neutralized and its whole scope seldom recognized. In other world religions expiation usually means the restoration of the damaged relationship with God by means of expiatory actions on the part of men. Almost all religions center round the problem of expiation; they arise out of man’s knowledge of his guilt before God and signify the attempt to remove this feeling of guilt, to surmount the guilt through conciliatory actions offered up to God. The expiatory activity by which men hope to conciliate the divinity and to put him in a gracious mood stands at the heart of the history of religion.

Does the incarnation change our “status”? Does it put God in a “gracious mood”? If these are the same question (they may not be, depending on definitions) and the answer is yes, then we are talking about an Anselmian view, which is very common, and I see as legitimate.

In the other view, which I have been describing as “no debt”, the only change in “mood” to be brought about by the incarnation is that of man.

Jesus’ words were falling on a people who thought they owed a debt to God because of their guilt. Jesus presented God as “Abba”, the constant loving Father (i.e. that of the prodigal son). However, Jesus also makes reference to God as judge, offended by man’s behaviors, subject to change in “mood”. Both views of God can be found in the Gospel.

I don’t know if that helps make the parameters of this thread more clear, but it might.

Thanks for posting, fhansen.

The status of man changed, if, as a result, he was now effectively, spiritually, disassociated from God, even if only from man’s own perspective. We’re born without any kind of immediate knowledge of our Creator. Should we simply take it for granted that this is the normal condition for man: a sentient, rational being with free will who is essentially lost in terms of knowing where, if anywhere, he came from, what, if anything, he’s here for, and where, if anywhere, he’s going? But sumpthin’ happened in any case to cause the world we now live in, a world which includes the reported consequences of Adam’s disobedience: shame, a distorted image of God, flourishing sin, human unhappiness, pain, suffering, death.

 

[cfauster]

Hello cfauster
Here is another question inspired by your post: Does anyone on Earth not “deserve” my love?

No. Thanks for the clarifying question. Clearly we are called to love everyone, even our enemies. And if we are called to to so, much more can we trust that God does!

And, since God is love, even when God judges, let alone when God deals mercifully with people who deserve judgment, I think it’s probably more accurate to say that God always operates from a perspective of love.

I should be more careful, then, to avoid implying that God would ever take an unloving stance towards anyone.

By “undeserving” of God’s love, I simply meant that we cannot earn it, and in fact our actions - in the absence of Christ - do the opposite.

As much as God might want to reach us and want us to trust, we are prone to act like the unfaithful servant in Jesus’ parable who buried treasure the master had entrusted to him, rather than invest the treasure to gain returns. (Matthew 25:14-30)

Why did the unfaithful servant not invest the treasure for which the master made the servant responsible as steward? Because the servant “knew” (erroneously) that his master was ungenerous, ungracious, etc.

The master in the parable gets pretty angry and judgmental with the “wicked” servant, and gives the treasure to other servants who already have more.

I imagine God’s anger/wrath is often because we fail to trust. We act towards God as if God were as untrustworthy as ourselves.

 

[grannymh]

No. Thanks for the clarifying question. Clearly we are called to love everyone, even our enemies. And if we are called to to so, much more can we trust that God does!

And, since God is love, even when God judges, let alone when God deals mercifully with people who deserve judgment, I think it’s probably more accurate to say that God always operates from a perspective of love.

I should be more careful, then, to avoid implying that God would ever take an unloving stance towards anyone.

By “undeserving” of God’s love, I simply meant that we cannot earn it, and in fact our actions - in the absence of Christ - do the opposite.

As much as God might want to reach us and want us to trust, we are prone to act like the unfaithful servant in Jesus’ parable who buried treasure the master had entrusted to him, rather than invest the treasure to gain returns. (Matthew 25:14-30)

Why did the unfaithful servant not invest the treasure for which the master made the servant responsible as steward? Because the servant “knew” (erroneously) that his master was ungenerous, ungracious, etc.

The master in the parable gets pretty angry and judgmental with the “wicked” servant, and gives the treasure to other servants who already have more.

I imagine God’s anger/wrath is often because we fail to trust. We act towards God as if God were as untrustworthy as ourselves.

I have always thought that the “unfaithful servant’s” mistake was not burying the treasure. The mistake was not digging it up.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Granny!

We are discussing the positions of many. They are all understandable.

In the no-debt view I have been recently quoting, sin is alienation. The actual sinful acts are the result, the manifestation, of the alienation that already exists in the individual. So, a person who even considers a sinful act as something acceptable, a good means, etc. is already alienated by sin to some degree. The person is ignorant, lacking in awareness, or blind.

In the no-debt view, one presumes that God’s love is unconditional and infinite. One presumes that God does not hold a debt, because he has forgiven “before always”, or that omniscience precludes wrath, precludes desire for punishment, precludes the sense of debt in terms of debt created by offense.

It would take an omniscient person to say that all individuals will choose to be with God, so the position of “presumption” as described as “sinful” is one that describes the ignorance of a person who thinks that they are omniscient. One can hold the opinion that it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever choose an eternity away from God, but remain open-minded to the possibility that such a choice may actually happen. This is not presumption, it is optimism about the human desire to be united with Love.

The purpose of harmonizing the views, Granny, is apparently not yours, at least that is what I gather from your continued refusal to acknowledge the no-debt view as legitimate.

Given that, I am wondering what your goals are in participation in this thread. I have offered to help you understand the no-debt view, but you have not taken me up on it. Be up front, Granny, please, admit that you do not see the legitimacy of the no-debt view, and know that I am okay with that. Then, why are you participating here? What is your goal?

Please, go back and read the section from Cardinal Ratzinger’s introduction. Do you see a difference between your own view and the Anselmian view? If so, feel free to point out the differences. If there is no difference, and Anselm’s position is satisfactory to you, then rest in your view as one that was also shared by a very famous saint.

Yes, Granny, I think that we are all quite familiar with the debt view. As I have said before, we are referring to the debt created by offense to God. However, as the Cardinal stated, the idea of expiation comes from our individual feeling of guilt before God, it is not limited to Adam in the Cardinal’s description.

It is quite obvious that you really love to discuss Adam! This brings me back to the question. What is your goal in your participation on this thread? My goal is to harmonize the two views, which was a goal inspired by the Cardinal’s words in my OP. What is your goal?

God bless your Sunday, Granny. Peace be with you.

Briefly.

My primary goal is not to compare my view with Anselm’s view or with Cardinal Ratzinger’s introduction. My view is to present the Catholic Church’s complete teachings and compare them with the debt view and the no-debt view. My main source of information about the no-debt view is what OneSheep is sharing with readers.

It should be obvious that my “love to discuss Adam,” as taught by the Catholic Church, is key to understanding the debt/no-debt issues from the position of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

My secondary goal is to point out just where a few of the current interpretations of no-debt can possibly lead. In other words, I do not believe that Anselm was downplaying Mortal Sin. Maybe I am wrong about Anselm, but not about Catholic teaching regarding the intellective freely chosen State of Mortal Sin.

Considering the question “Did humanity owe a debt?” in the thread’s title, technically, I do not have to respond to harmonization. As evinced in my recent posts, I did start to harmonize the debt/no-debt issue using the principle of a common denominator, but when it came to God’s attributes, I hit a road block.

Eventually, I hope to post on the debt as in the thread’s title “Did humanity owe a debt?” At this point if one is going to accept the no/debt position, the question to be answered is – Why is it that Adam could not repair humanity’s relationship with Divinity so that in realty there would be no debt? Does anyone have an answer?

 

[cfauster]

I have always thought that the “unfaithful servant’s” mistake was not burying the treasure. The mistake was not digging it up.

In the parable, he digs it up and presents it to the master, but since it was sitting buried in the ground, it gained no interest or yield or increase of any kind.

I do think many people “remember” the parable as if the wicked servant wasted what had been entrusted to him (in the sense of losing it or otherwise making it unavailable to the master upon the master’s return).

Maybe that’s another parable somewhere in the Bible!

 

[grannymh]

A general question regarding the no-debt view.

When one applies the no-debt view to this decade, would there be a remote possibility that the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation would disappear from the Catholic Church?