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

[benotagoat]

When we are in Heaven and close to God this is what it will feel like.

I agree entirely with Cardinal Ratzinger,but I take issue with the RCC as the only means to
‘get to heaven’,indeed I question that as someone from a long catholic ‘line’ .

I am happy to see that he thinks like us ,who have never read catholic theology .

From a long line of Irish catholics we stayed catholic as we did not ,would not choose the alternative which was to be 'protestant to please the British but we were really christians in practice, of no denomination, eventually ,as we found the Church oppressive to the more questioning people like us .;

 

[benotagoat]

:aok:

Hey, remember also, “on Earth as it is in Heaven”?

It can happen now.

Thanks!

I agree ,it HAS to begin here .

 

[benotagoat]

The love of Jesus Christ took the place of aversion to moral strength in order to give us strength, and in the process replaced our selfishness with His love before the eyes of God. That is what the old CE is talking about.

Ratzinger had in mind the idea that God is up there saying “SOMEBODY, even anybody, needs to suffer for these sins. Whoever it is, I’ll accept it if its enough suffering”. That is the wrong way of looking at this

I agree ,that is totally wrong . Only God Himself had the power free us ,from the ’ below’ .

 

[benotagoat]

When God was offended, Love was offended God in justice deserves all the love that man can give for his very existence, He deserves gratitude, love and adoration from His creatures. He created “fallible man” and "fallible’ angels He knew that man would fall, and Satan too. Although Satan’s knowledge is superior to man, and his will is immutable God who is just gave him a test which he was capable of passing, because God would not expect something from Satan he could not give. Satan sinned mortally. Man also sinned mortally, these creatures had sanctifying grace so their transgressions where fatal. How could these offensive acts be permitted by God who is deserving of their adoration, and love knowing that His creatures could never merit forgiveness, and even be acknowledged by God, since they alienated themselves from Him, they made their choices, it was their wills, and God respects their freedom of will. How could they be reconciled (mankind) with their Creator. It would seem completely futile plan from the beginning.

Mankind was made subjected to the rule of Satan, because Satan is superior in nature to man, being p;ure spirit, man being matter and spirit on the ladder of spiritual beings. Both are sinners, and the stronger one reigns. How to redeem mankind from this God-given right. God had a plan from the beginning of creation! Someone had to be a man who could be acknowledged by God and also have the same status as God, a God-man To be a man in order to give God the love and adoration that is justly His, and to be God to arrest the God-given right given to Satan to rule over sinful man. This was accomplished by Jesus Christ! It was all about Love, the Love that Jesus had for His Father, the love that He and the Father had for us, and this love was personified by the Holy Spirit who makes it possible to be redeemed by the merits of Jesus.

The love that existed between Jesus and the Father, begets the Holy Spirit, and it is all internal. There are legitimate differences between the Creature and the Creator, but Jesus through the internal love of the Father, His Spirit harmonized humanity with the divine For humans the internal acceptance of Jesus, make it possible to receive the internal love of God, the Holy Spirit

I don’t think God was offended .He created His work in a harmonious way in Love and Beauty and ,Precision and when lucifer destroyedl that, by standing against the Creator ,taking with him so many of the original creation, it was neccessary for God to plan the salvation of those who would be lost among the humanity which fell .
He had to set in motion a way to rebalance the Creation to it’s original perfection,and that required our cooperation ,and His sacrifice .

 

[grannymh]

I agree ,that is totally wrong . Only God Himself had the power free us ,from the ’ below’ .

Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 15: 50-58? “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

This will bring us straight back to the debt of Original Sin which is another problem of the no-debt view.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Good Morning, fhansen!

You give many good reasons why people believe in God in the first place, from the beginning of humanity, I expect. Are these consequences? Well, they certainly seem to be, after all, we would love to be without them. So, since God is omnipotent, He can certainly will that we not have these “consequences”, so it makes sense that He wills them, and since we suffer from all of them, they must be punishment, because that is what we know as humans; we inflict punishment as consequence for resented behavior. The OT is full of stories about a people determining why it is that they have been punished, and the focus is largely on obedience in the form of fidelity. “Things are going rotten now, so I must have done something bad.” All of this is part of a legitimate debt view, right?

In at least some no-debt views, the following are not consequences, but aspects of the process of creation itself:

shame: A human emotion associated with the conscience, which guides our behavior

distorted image of God: We will project that God is something like a human, this is our limitation. However, the Spirit guides our Church, it involves a lot of trial and error, two steps forward and one step back. The distorted image is also a consequence of alienation, see below.

human unhappiness, pain, suffering: These are all traits we share with other species, and as such they contribute to our survival. As capacities, they are gifts. As occurrences, we loathe them. These occurrences are part of the creation process (no-debt view) or punishment (debt view).

death: Another mysterious part of the creation process. If I believe that God is offended by human behavior, it is going to make sense that death is a punishment. If I do not believe that about God, then death itself can be seen as part of the creative process. A tree sheds its old leaves, and new take their place, but the tree continues to grow. This is one way of making sense of death from a no-debt view.

flourishing sin: Yes, this is a “consequence” in terms of cause-and-effect. For example, humans are born compelled to look at certain people as the “in-group” and others as the “out-group”, which leads to a lot of favoritism and discord. This compulsion is part of our good nature, but it can be enslaving for mankind and lead to many problems. Jesus comes to move us beyond this compulsion, this is a “primacy of Christ” approach, that the incarnation is not a “fixit” but a step beyond the goodness of our nature. In another “no debt” view, sin is alienation, and sinful behaviors are manifestations of the alienation. Alienation is caused by our attachment, enslavement, to appetites or other aspects of our nature such as grudge-holding.

Alienation, then, is due to our lack of awareness. Is lack of awareness a “consequence” imposed by God, or is there some other reason why we are born unaware? The answer will depend on the individual’s image of God, i.e., “Does God get wrathful/offended by the behavior of His creatures?”

So yes, “sumpthin” causes these things! Does our view of that “sumpthin” begin with our guilt, or instead does it begin with our awe, our wonder? Does our view begin with God taking offense, or instead does it begin with God forgiving “before always”, with a God whose omniscience precludes sense of death, precludes wrath?

Either way - legitimate, do you agree?

Thanks, fhansen

 

[grannymh]

Humans are not born compelled to look at certain people as the “in-group” and others as the “out-group”, which leads to a lot of favoritism and discord.

Song from South Pacific

You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Without a lot of study in to the parable, at face value this is a story meant to appeal to “debt view” of God, a wrathful God.

If I look at the purpose of the story, though, it is to motivate the listener to use their gifts. How do we motivate the listener? Well, first of all, the listener needs to know that a person not using their gifts is harmful, it is a sin of omission. People are more attuned to sins of commission, but Jesus here is showing that avoidance of omission sins, too, should be ingrained in our conscience. And how does our conscience deal with sin? Wrath, towards ourselves.

The parable would be counter-productive on the servant who fears what God would do. Jesus clearly does not intend for the listener to fear God more, which would be the reaction of the servant to the Master’s response in the story, for it was fear that kept the servant from investing his money in the first place! The servant goes away saying, “See, I was right to fear!” However, the parable cannot be separated from the context of the bulk of Jesus’ teachings: do not be afraid, God loves you.

So, in a debt view, the parable depicts a God who takes offense. In a no-debt view, the parable is a story that intends to incorporate sins of omission into the conscience. A person of good conscience takes offense at sins of omission.

I’m sure that there are other ways of looking at the parable, but these are two examples.

God Bless your day.

 

[cfauster]

Thanks!

Blessings on your day as well.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Granny!

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.

Your goals, then, are not those of this thread, Granny dear. Please, stay with the topic. If you want to eliminate one or both of these aspects of what many embrace as legitimate please start a new thread. Please!

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.

From the OP:

The “v.” is a challenge, not to determine what view is the “right” one, but instead to investigate with this in mind:

“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”

Pope Benedict

If you want to answer the simple question, as you basically have, that is fine. The key words here are “investigate” and “legitimate differences”. I am not here to try to sell you on one view or another. The goal is harmony. If there were no such thing as “legitimate differences” then the Cardinal’s words were about nothing. Obviously, Granny, there are legitimate differences in the Church that are not resolved/addressed by the CCC.

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?

Cardinal Ratzinger has a general answer:

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.

Your question, Granny, comes from the view that God was not in a gracious mood, and that Jesus came to rectify that situation.

Humans are not born compelled to look at certain people as the “in-group” and others as the “out-group”, which leads to a lot of favoritism and discord.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027712000947

theinclusionsolution.me/a-point-of-view-bias-nature-or-nurture/

cbsnews.com/videos/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality-50135408/

I suggest you start with the bottom link. It is being theorized that the ingroup-outgroup thinking is evolutionarily selected (translation: God protecting children). If children are drawn to people like them, then they will more likely be protected and reach adulthood. This does not eliminate the overwhelming influence of nurture.

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?

This would mean that all people never feel guilty. A person without feeling guilt is a person without a conscience. As far as I know, all of us have consciences. The no-debt view is not about people not feeling guilt before God, which we will always have until we acknowledge either that God has forgiven and/or that God never held anything against us, which is all part of the Sacrament.

In addition, do our own guilty consciences depend on the thinking that God is offended? The answer: no. Therefore, the sacrament will continue, always, to be pertinent.

Fear not, Granny. What do you fear? What do you fear? What are you afraid of? Tell us Granny, do not keep your fear within. PM me, if you prefer.

Granny, I know you mean well, but please respect my requests.

God Bless your day.

 

[grannymh]

Cardinal Ratzinger has a general answer:

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.

The words I put in black become an interesting out of context statement especially in reference to the thread’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” The reference to “the damaged relationship with God” is key. When we look at the scriptural theology of the cross, we can ask why was Divinity involved, especially when we think about the no-debt view. Was the relationship with God simply damaged or was it destroyed as happens when an individual freely chooses to remain in the State of Mortal Sin?

The above are simple questions in order to gain a deeper understanding of what is involved in debt/no debt legitimate views. The harder questions come later. I wonder, when it comes to the scriptural theology of the cross, (see first sentence in blue above) does anyone connect that with the Last Supper? The Last Supper is directly related to the love of God which has been declared over and over again in this thread. The Eucharist is certainly a real revolution from the OT sacrifices.

Thank you OneSheep for this wonderful thread.

It is time I accept your generous offer to help me…
Looking forward to that.

 

[OneSheep]

The words I put in black become an interesting out of context statement especially in reference to the thread’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” The reference to “the damaged relationship with God” is key. When we look at the scriptural theology of the cross, we can ask why was Divinity involved, especially when we think about the no-debt view. Was the relationship with God simply damaged or was it destroyed as happens when an individual freely chooses to remain in the State of Mortal Sin?

The above are simple questions in order to gain a deeper understanding of what is involved in debt/no debt legitimate views. The harder questions come later. I wonder, when it comes to the scriptural theology of the cross, (see first sentence in blue above) does anyone connect that with the Last Supper? The Last Supper is directly related to the love of God which has been declared over and over again in this thread. The Eucharist is certainly a real revolution from the OT sacrifices.

Thank you OneSheep for this wonderful thread.

It is time I accept your generous offer to help me…
Looking forward to that.

Good Morning!

So, there are definitely many ways of interpreting “the damaged relationship with God”. Since he is talking about all religions, then he is making the assumption that people of all theistic religions perceive a damaged relationship with God. I think that this is a very valid assumption, as guilt itself will give the mind a sense of “damage”. Another way of looking at is the word “damage” itself. “Damage” can mean that when the soul is not in a body, before birth, there is a unity with the divine, and upon the soul entering a body, the relationship is becomes a less unified state. “Damage” can also imply “undeveloped”, but that would depend on perspective. Undoubtedly, as the human body develops, the mind takes on new genetically-induced distractions such as increased drive for territoriality, increased capacity to hold a grudge, and of course the mind-overwhelming introduction of sex drive. In addition, some (many) adults have to deal with addiction, which is very rare in children. All of these distractions clearly play a role in the perception of “damage” in relationship with God.

What we fail to recognize is that while the relationship may seem to be damaged, there is likely to be growth in other areas. For example, as people grow up, they become more and more aware of the harm of their actions, as well as how they can make lives better for those around them. This is all part of becoming closer to God; it is the development of awareness and conscience. What is the net effect? If a person is primarily affected by guilt, then he will perceive damage. If a person is primarily positive about their own growth and optimistic about the growth of humanity towards relationship with God, then she will perceive growth. I grew up in a household that generally perceived “everything is getting worse”. After a time in my own spiritual growth, I had an “aha” moment: the world is getting better.

What “the damage” does not mean, in terms of Christianity, is that “the damage” occurs because God is in a non-gracious mood, that we have offended Him and He holds it against us. That would be what the Cardinal is indicating as occurring in non-Christian religions.

I will say that the Pope Benedict’s words are not consistently of a no-debt perspective. Perhaps he does not take the time to qualify his words sometimes to make sure that they are not read in a “debt” way. In any case, to embrace both the debt and no-debt perspectives is definitely pastoral, which is another reason to call for harmonization of views! This is another reason why I so much love our Pope Emeritus.

Eucharist = Communion = Pastoral emphasis.

So, my “help” could come in the form of answering questions or clarifying examples of no-debt perspectives. Feel free to ask for clarification when you are so inspired.

And thank you for the kind words about this thread. All of the contributors have helped. And, although I offered an attempt at “harmonizing the views”, my attempt has received no comment, and all other attempts so far, though well-meaning, seem to end up eliminating one view or the other. So, perhaps this thread has become more of one that explains the legitimacy of both views. Perhaps it will be some time yet before we can work on harmonzing.

And actually, when I think about it more, Pope Benedict’s words, indicating that there is more than one legitimate view, already lay the groundwork for such harmony. Those two words, “legitimate views” are pastoral, they are Eucharistic.!

Thanks, Granny.

 

[simpleas]

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.

Thanks for your thoughts

As only a human, I can’t possibly image why God would punish anyone for actually just being born a human. (one not baptised).
I think sometimes we think about what way things will be in heaven and forget that we should be helping to live “in heaven” while on earth.

 

[fhansen]

human unhappiness, pain, suffering: These are all traits we share with other species, and as such they contribute to our survival. As capacities, they are gifts.

This I disagree with. Humans are far less happy than they need to be -than *reason *should allow for. Most of our unhappiness, IMO, comes from unfulfilled desires, those desires more often than not misplaced, which is why, for example, so many rich and famous people become miserable, addicted, etc. This life doesn’t fulfill what we want/need. The average animal returns to some sort of homeostasis in terms of happiness so long as physical pain is absent. Man suffers in spite of having his basic needs met. unhappiness, pain, and suffering are gifts to the extent that they drive us towards the Source of happiness and wholeness.

death: Another mysterious part of the creation process. If I believe that God is offended by human behavior, it is going to make sense that death is a punishment. If I do not believe that about God, then death itself can be seen as part of the creative process. A tree sheds its old leaves, and new take their place, but the tree continues to grow. This is one way of making sense of death from a no-debt view.

And if I don’t believe in God at all, then death is ultimately mean and meaningless, as is the life that inevitably leads to it.

flourishing sin: Yes, this is a “consequence” in terms of cause-and-effect. For example, humans are born compelled to look at certain people as the “in-group” and others as the “out-group”, which leads to a lot of favoritism and discord. This compulsion is part of our good nature, but it can be enslaving for mankind and lead to many problems. Jesus comes to move us beyond this compulsion, this is a “primacy of Christ” approach, that the incarnation is not a “fixit” but a step beyond the goodness of our nature. In another “no debt” view, sin is alienation, and sinful behaviors are manifestations of the alienation. Alienation is caused by our attachment, enslavement, to appetites or other aspects of our nature such as grudge-holding.

I think its mainly due to our fixation on ourselves and away from God.

Alienation, then, is due to our lack of awareness. Is lack of awareness a “consequence” imposed by God, or is there some other reason why we are born unaware? The answer will depend on the individual’s image of God, i.e., “Does God get wrathful/offended by the behavior of His creatures?”

God wants all creation to have faith in, hope/trust in, and love for Him. Then order and happiness prevail.

So yes, “sumpthin” causes these things! Does our view of that “sumpthin” begin with our guilt, or instead does it begin with our awe, our wonder? Does our view begin with God taking offense, or instead does it begin with God forgiving “before always”, with a God whose omniscience precludes sense of death, precludes wrath?

Either way - legitimate, do you agree?

We know now, or learn if we’re fortunate/willing, that God is all-loving and all-forgiving. And that we need Him.
Thanks, OneSheep

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning!

So, there are definitely many ways of interpreting “the damaged relationship with God”. Since he is talking about all religions, then he is making the assumption that people of all theistic religions perceive a damaged relationship with God. I think that this is a very valid assumption, as guilt itself will give the mind a sense of “damage”. Another way of looking at is the word “damage” itself. “Damage” can mean that when the soul is not in a body, before birth, there is a unity with the divine, and upon the soul entering a body, the relationship is becomes a less unified state.

Important correction needed for post 528.

The Catholic Church does not teach that “Damage” can mean that when the soul is not in a body, before birth, there is a unity with the divine, and upon the soul entering a body, the relationship is becomes a less unified state."

 

[OneSheep]

Important correction needed for post 528.

The Catholic Church does not teach that “Damage” can mean that when the soul is not in a body, before birth, there is a unity with the divine, and upon the soul entering a body, the relationship is becomes a less unified state."

Thanks for the clarification. To clarify further, my comments were concerning “all religions”, as the Cardinal was addressing. I was not speaking about Catholic doctrine, though some of the scenarios may apply to many Catholics.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Our consciences are guilty when we sin precisely because sin is evil. We lose sanctifying grace because evil is incompatible with good, sin incompatible with grace. It has nothing to do with God “holding something against us”, like a grudge. It is more similar to how a glass of water can’t be clean and tainted (with dirt or something) at the same time. Sin is incompatible with God’s goodness.

Here are some major points that need to be clarified before the thread can really go anywhere. To see what I mean about the thread going anywhere, it is enough to point out that granny has brought up original sin for probably the last 20 pages:

Some of the conclusions drawn from the “no-debt view”–vague as that is–are quite frankly not legitimate. It is not legitimate to say that we have sanctifying grace in our souls at all times, thereby denying original sin and its effects, along with what happens after any mortal sin. In addition, the idea of Jesus “taking away our sins” and expiation is possibly rejected (illegitimately) if done before (and so apart/detached from) Christ. None of the hypothesizing matters at all if it isn’t within the parameters of Catholic teaching. I also find the thread title misleading since it is implied that Fr. Ratzinger denied the existence of a debt. Yes, “debt” can be an ambiguous term, yet the reality it signifies is as true as ever: that without Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and the grace he gives to atone for our sins, we don’t have access to eternal life. Certainly the image of creditor/debtor has evoked troublesome thoughts on the matter, too legalistic about God’s grace, but the image Ratzinger presents (more akin to the parable of the lost sheep) is not meant to be something radically different than the reality creditor/debtor view signifies.

As general advice to anyone coming across this, the best place to go to learn about this topic is ultimately what the Magisterium has said. Dives in Misericordia by John Paul II is a good place to start.

I’ve expressed myself enough on the thread; there’s not a lot for me to add. Perhaps if this post gets responded to I will return, but until then, God bless! :tiphat:

 

[CrossofChrist]

Our consciences are guilty when we sin precisely because sin is evil. We lose sanctifying grace because evil is incompatible with good, sin incompatible with grace. It has nothing to do with God “holding something against us”, like a grudge. It is more similar to how a glass of water can’t be clean and tainted (with dirt or something) at the same time. Sin is incompatible with God’s goodness.

Here are some major points that need to be clarified:

Some of the conclusions drawn from the “no-debt view”–vague as that is and I won’t speak for others in saying these views are held by them, since there has been much speculation here–are quite frankly not legitimate. It is not legitimate to say that we have sanctifying grace in our souls at all times, thereby denying original sin and its effects, along with what happens after any mortal sin. In addition, the idea of Jesus “taking away our sins” and expiation is possibly rejected (illegitimately) if done before (and so apart/detached from) Christ. None of the hypothesizing matters at all if it isn’t within the parameters of Catholic teaching. I also find the thread title misleading since it is implied that Fr. Ratzinger denied the existence of a debt. Yes, “debt” can be an ambiguous term, yet the reality it signifies is as true as ever: that without Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and the grace he gives to atone for our sins, we don’t have access to eternal life. Certainly the image of creditor/debtor has evoked troublesome thoughts on the matter, too legalistic about God’s grace, but the image Ratzinger presents (more akin to the parable of the lost sheep) is not meant to be something radically different than the reality creditor/debtor view signifies.

Now, to the tentative theory:

It seems to me that it misses the point. It tries to say we are debtors (or more precisely, are under the impression that we are debtors) up to a certain point until we come to the realization that we aren’t debtors and never were. It seems to me that that is just repackaging the “no-debt” view.

It isn’t merely a realization that eliminates our separation from God, but an actual transformation and turning toward God. And while it is all grace, it seems to me the tentative theory fails to realize that we will have to “render an account” of our actions–implied in that statement is that we have an obligation imposed by charity to worship God. The debt view taken one-sidedly can make it appear as though grace isn’t truly freely given, but go too far in the other direction and our own obligation to respond positively to God’s call is not adequately considered. Which is one major point of using the term “debt”, because it makes it very easy to understand the idea of obligation. The downfall is that it can appear as if grace is therefore imposed and not free.

As general advice to anyone coming across this, the best place to go to learn about this topic is ultimately what the Magisterium has said. Dives in Misericordia by John Paul II is a good place to start.

I’ve expressed myself enough on the thread; there’s not a lot for me to add. Perhaps if this post gets responded to I will return, but until then, God bless! :tiphat:

 

[grannymh]

Here are some major points that need to be clarified:

Thank you for post 533. I started thinking about some major points that need clarification.

Some of the conclusions drawn from the “no-debt view”–vague as that is and I won’t speak for others in saying these views are held by them, since there has been much speculation here–are quite frankly not legitimate.

In my humble opinion, the apparent speculations go very deep so that a basic question arises. Simply – Is there a difference between the first real human person (Adam) and God? With all the speculations about humans and what humans do, there is a cloud as to what exactly is the relationship, if there was one, between Adam and his Creator

It is not legitimate to say that we have sanctifying grace in our souls at all times, thereby denying original sin and its effects, along with what happens after any mortal sin.

What the speculations appear to be doing, in my humble opinion, is to bypass the important fact that the goal of humans is to seek the presence of God in their souls, aka the State of Sanctifying Grace. In other words, speculations have removed *CCC *1730-1732 from the discussion. Of course this is a legitimate consequence because everyone is entitled to offer speculations thus insuring legitimacy. ???

The fact that all speculations can be considered legitimate now omits the real fact that speculations regarding the original relationship between the Creator and the human creature have already been settled by the Holy Spirit’s promised guidance during the major Catholic Church councils. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

In addition, the idea of Jesus “taking away our sins” and expiation is possibly rejected (illegitimately) if done before (and so apart/detached from) Christ. None of the hypothesizing matters at all if it isn’t within the parameters of Catholic teaching.

Old hypothesizing which is now outside the parameters of Catholic teachings is being dressed up as legitimate.

My suggestion is that readers go back to post 533 for the “rest of the story.”

 

[simpleas]

Thank you for post 533. I started thinking about some major points that need clarification.

In my humble opinion, the apparent speculations go very deep so that a basic question arises. Simply – Is there a difference between the first real human person (Adam) and God? With all the speculations about humans and what humans do, there is a cloud as to what exactly is the relationship, if there was one, between Adam and his Creator

What the speculations appear to be doing, in my humble opinion, is to bypass the important fact that the goal of humans is to seek the presence of God in their souls, aka the State of Sanctifying Grace. In other words, speculations have removed *CCC *1730-1732 from the discussion. Of course this is a legitimate consequence because everyone is entitled to offer speculations thus insuring legitimacy. ???

The fact that all speculations can be considered legitimate now omits the real fact that speculations regarding the original relationship between the Creator and the human creature have already been settled by the Holy Spirit’s promised guidance during the major Catholic Church councils. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Old hypothesizing which is now outside the parameters of Catholic teachings is being dressed up as legitimate.

My suggestion is that readers go back to post 533 for the “rest of the story.”

Can I ask what is the importance of understanding what the relationship was like with Adam and God?

Isn’t it more important to have our own relationship with God rather than trying to understand what happened or didn’t happen between Adam and God?

I think I’m missing something…

Thanks.