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

[grannymh]

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

Let me put it this way. I am going to defend the affirmative answer to the thread title’s question " Did humanity owe a debt?" My evidence will include the relationship between the two involved parties.

 

[grannymh]

granny’s yes answer to the thread title’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?”

Opening clarification.

Due to specific Catholic doctrines regarding the dawn of human history, it is stipulated that the word “humanity” refers to the first human person biblically known as Adam. This is possible because Catholicism teaches that all humanity is in Adam “as one body of one man.”

Information source. Genesis 2: 18; Genesis 3: 8-9; Genesis 3; 17-19; Romans 5: 12-21;
1 Corinthians 15: 21-22; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4, 1; Pius XII, Humani Generis; CCC 359-360;
CCC 374-376; CCC 390; CCC 402-405; CCC 416-419.

Discussion is open to additional clarifications.

 

[fhansen]

Humanity is ***obligated, ***for the sake of health, wholeness, happiness, harmony, righteousness and justice in the universe, to know and love God. Obedience is simply the natural result of that relationship. We’re obligated-but not forced to comply; that is the essence of our free will. But humanity is lost, out of touch with a Creator whom it’s barely if at all aware of, and whom it’s suspicious and distrustful of even when belief might begin to suggest or prompt itself for one reason or another. Man often prefers darkness, as he prefers himself to God. But all is lost with this scenario; goodness and justice and love cannot reign, with certainty, until and unless they reign supreme. Who can rescue man from this plight, from this brokenness, from this ignorance? Who will reveal the truth about God and our need for Him so that we might end up turning back to Him so truth and harmony can reign within us and among us, as always intended? The prize is our wills.

What can sway us? What mechanism? What conditions would cause us to come to believe in, hope in, and, ultimately, to love God, truly love Him? It is precisely in *Christ’s *will that the answer is found, I believe. Because in Christ God is found to be willing to sacrifice Himself for us; He places at the forefront of all values love, humility, meekness by the willingness to suffer humiliation, pain, and physical death for our sake, at our hands and for all the worst possible reasons, darkness snuffing out the light. But then by having the power to rise again: the light triumphing after all along with its components: life, truth, innocence, justice, righteousness: love- the whole Paschal mystery triumphing over their opposites: lies, sin, darkness, death. Is there a debt in there somewhere, and, if so, to whom was it owed and paid?

 

[simpleas]

Let me put it this way. I am going to defend the affirmative answer to the thread title’s question " Did humanity owe a debt?" My evidence will include the relationship between the two involved parties.

You sound like a Lawyer! lol

 

[grannymh]

You sound like a Lawyer! lol

 

[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:

More important and useful resources:

CCC 2487, 2095, this section: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm, and this section, especially #613-617. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm

 

[grannymh]

granny’s Yes Debt answer to the thread title’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” begins here with a common sense clarification.
Due to specific Catholic doctrines regarding the dawn of human history, it is stipulated that the word “humanity” refers to the first human person biblically known as Adam. This is possible because Catholicism teaches that all humanity is in Adam “as one body of one man.”

Information source. Genesis 2: 18; Genesis 3: 8-9; Genesis 3; 17-19;
Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4, 1;
Pius XII, Humani Generis; CCC 359-360; CCC 374-376; CCC 390;
CCC 402-405; CCC 416-419.

Additional clarifications can be added.

In general, the Yes Debt position is based on answers to the following questions. Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why? not necessarily in that order.

The following are possible, not necessarily probable, items which may come up for discussion.

The necessity of physical obedience
The theory of two gods
The differences between the human creature’s nature and the nature of the Creator
Genesis 1: 26-28; Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 11; Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22
Rational spiritual soul
Conscience
Intellective choice
Debt of gratitude
The reality of Original Sin and debt as the result
The Sacrament of Baptism
Mortal Sin
Contrition and repentance
The Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation
The meaning of a Divine relationship with a human.
State of Sanctifying Grace
The ultimate goal of all humans
Opposition to the Yes Debt position
Additional thoughts and comments not mentioned above
The universal* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 355-421 and paragraphs 1730-1732.

Granted that the above is extensive. However, as evinced in this thread, the No Debt position is considered a legitimate view. Therefore, the Yes Debt position has to consider both the positive aspects of the No Debt position *and *the negative aspects.

Please note that a number of the proposed items for discussion have already been addressed by various posters. If possible, would these posters and/or readers list the links to relevant posts. Or give a summary. The above post 541 (including post 533) is an excellent start.

Personally, I hope to see many thought-filled posts when I return.

Thank you.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning CrossofChrist! Nice to hear from you again.

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.

It is difficult to categorize “Sin is incompatible with God’s goodness” into a debt or no debt view. It depends on the definitions being used. When a person is sinning, he or she is already alienated from God in some way. However, God (and His goodness) is still to be found within the person, within everyone, within the “worst” of sinners.

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.

Feel free to eliminate the view! This thread is for those who see both views as legitimate. A person who is, for the clearest example, an addict, is hardly in a “state of grace” nor is a person caught up in desire for wealth, nor is a person burdened with grudges. That every human person is born with the capacity for these conditions is the effect of original sin, however the definition may be.

To go back to debt vs. no debt - if sin results in God not having a “gracious mood”, then this is the debt view. If God’s mood remains one of complete love, then this is a no-debt view.

Let me present the scenario that you and your spouse are deciding whether or not to have a child, to stop your method of birth delay. However, you have the insight to know that the child in its blindness will rape and murder people. You also know, however, that the child will eventually repent, grow in love, and grow close to you. Whew! As soon as I write that, I say to myself, no, no I would not want to give birth to such a child, not worth it. However, for some reason you decide that you are going to have the child because in some way all the sins will work themselves out, that there is a glorious ending to the whole story. Do you forgive the child beforehand, taking ownership of your own role in the sin in that you decided to give birth to the child and know that the blindness will occur, and know that there will be sin as a result? Do you choose to love the child unconditionally, even as the child does the worst of sin? A person’s answer to these questions would be indicative as to whether the no-debt view is “legitimate”.

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.

Debt view: Christ takes away our sins by paying a debt to God by becoming incarnate, suffering, and eventually dying on the cross.

No-Debt view: Christ takes away our sins by showing us our sinful ways in a new light, showing us what it means to love, and showing us that God loves us without condition. God shows us that He always forgives, which exactly what He wants us to do, regardless of the circumstances (i.e. when enduring crucifixion).

Both views have a good number of variations. God’s “gracious mood” is one determining factor in both. These are not outside all of Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching continues to allow for both views.

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.

The New Testament does not say that men conciliate God, as we really ought to expect, since after all it is they who have failed, not God. It says on the contrary that `God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Cor. 5, 19). This is truly something new, something unheard of – the starting-point of Christian existence and the center of New Testament theology of the cross: God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes to meet them and reconciles them. Here we can see the true direction of the incarnation, of the Cross.

“Accordingly, in the New Testament the Cross appears primarily as a movement from above to below. It does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about. With this twist in the idea of expiation, and thus in the whole axis of religion, worship too, man’s whole existence, acquires in Christianity a new direction. Worship follows in Christianity first of all in thankful acceptance of the divine deed of salvation. The essential form of Christian worship is therefore rightly called `Eucharistia,’ thanksgiving.

Sounds like a radical departure.

(Continued)

 

[OneSheep]

CrossofChrist:

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.

This is concerning my tentative theory that God wills that we sense we owe Him something, even sensing His contempt at sin, until we forgive completely, to the point of wholeness with the other and self, the sins of everyone. In this theory, the debt view and the no-debt view are all part of God’s will.

Since you are coming from the point of view that “no debt” is illegitimate, it makes sense that any theory that incorporates the two views is to be rejected. I am really looking for someone who can see the legitimacy of both views to critique the theory, but I will note to myself that such “repackaging” is one critique from a “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.

We worship him by dropping the fiction of a realm in which we could face him as independent business partners, whereas in truth we can only exist at all in him and from him. Christian sacrifice does not consist in a giving of what God would to have without us but in our becoming totally receptive and letting ourselves be completely taken over by him. Letting God act on us – that is Christian sacrifice.

It is difficult for many to be “totally receptive” when God is seen as One Whose Mood is Not Gracious. However, for many, it takes a wrathful face to coerce a person away from sinful behavior, which is a “minimum”. Unfortunately, a person can refrain from sinful behavior, but the alienation remains. A person who is blind and ignorant remains blind and ignorant unless there is true repentance, “a change of mind”, a transformation. For this transformation to take place, we have to let ourselves be completely taken over by Him, and who wants to be “taken over” by a wrathful God? Humans already have plenty of wrath, which takes us over.

That said, if a person comes to have the discipline to avoid sinful behavior in order to avoid what is seen as a debt to God, then this is certainly a step in the right direction. The person will be able to love completely when he has forgiven completely, but in the mean time there is a lot less pain to go around by sinful behavior being avoided!

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 looked, and it is a very long document. Perhaps you could post the pertinent sections.

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:

His blessing on you also! Thanks!:tiphat: And yes, I think that you have pretty much expressed your view. I am not here to convince you of the legitimacy of a view. I get it, you are eliminating the no-debt view. That is okay!

 

[OneSheep]

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

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

Hello, Granny!

The “generous offer” remains, but I suggest that if you are going to start with the position that the no-debt view is “outside parameters”, then it is not really a mood of reception. If you are closed-minded about a no-debt view, admit it, and we can leave it at that, right?

This thread is about harmonizing the two views, remember? If you are not seeing one as legitimate, and you are closed-minded about its legitimacy, then we are back to the question: What are your goals here?

Yes, the no-debt view is outside of Anselmian teaching. It is within Duns Scotus teaching. All Catholic.

Have a great day, Granny!

 

[grannymh]

Hello, Granny!

The “generous offer” remains, but I suggest that if you are going to start with the position that the no-debt view is “outside parameters”, then it is not really a mood of reception. If you are closed-minded about a no-debt view, admit it, and we can leave it at that, right?

This thread is about harmonizing the two views, remember? If you are not seeing one as legitimate, and you are closed-minded about its legitimacy, then we are back to the question: What are your goals here?

Yes, the no-debt view is outside of Anselmian teaching. It is within Duns Scotus teaching. All Catholic.

Have a great day, Granny!

May you also have a great day.

I have chosen to defend the Yes Debt answer to the thread title’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” starting with post 542. Perhaps, you may consider offering some specific positive aspects of the No Debt position. Perhaps, a current positive aspect as an example. Or perhaps, you might want to demonstrate how the No Debt position relates to any of the possible discussion items.

Personally, I hope to see thought-filled posts when I return.

You may find these sentences interesting.
From post 542.
Granted that the above is extensive. However, as evinced in this thread, the No Debt position is considered a legitimate view. Therefore, the Yes Debt position has to consider both the positive aspects of the No Debt position *and *the negative aspects.

 

[CrossofChrist]

We worship him by dropping the fiction of a realm in which we could face him as independent business partners, whereas in truth we can only exist at all in him and from him. Christian sacrifice does not consist in a giving of what God would to have without us but in our becoming totally receptive and letting ourselves be completely taken over by him. Letting God act on us – that is Christian sacrifice.

It is difficult for many to be “totally receptive” when God is seen as One Whose Mood is Not Gracious. However, for many, it takes a wrathful face to coerce a person away from sinful behavior, which is a “minimum”. Unfortunately, a person can refrain from sinful behavior, but the alienation remains. A person who is blind and ignorant remains blind and ignorant unless there is true repentance, “a change of mind”, a transformation. For this transformation to take place, we have to let ourselves be completely taken over by Him, and who wants to be “taken over” by a wrathful God? Humans already have plenty of wrath, which takes us over.

Just because there is a debt doesn’t mean God is “wrathful”. (Using a different analogy…) If a patient refuses to let a doctor treat his injury, the doctor isn’t the one at fault.

I looked, and it is a very long document. Perhaps you could post the pertinent sections.

It’s a great Encyclical!

With regard to the topic at hand, here is what I think is especially pertinent (emphasis mine):

Christ emphasizes so insistently the need to forgive others that when Peter asked Him how many times he should forgive his neighbor He answered with the symbolic number of "seventy times seven,"131 meaning that he must be able to forgive everyone every time. It is obvious that such a generous requirement of forgiveness does not cancel out the objective requirements of justice. Properly understood, justice constitutes, so to speak, the goal of forgiveness. In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult.** In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness.** (Dives in Misericordia 14)

In the passion and death of Christ-in the fact that the Father did not spare His own Son, but "for our sake made him sin"76 - absolute justice is expressed, for Christ undergoes the passion and cross because of the sins of humanity. This constitutes even a “superabundance” of justice, for the sins of man are “compensated for” by the sacrifice of the Man-God. Nevertheless, this justice, which is properly justice “to God’s measure,” springs completely from love: from the love of the Father and of the Son, and completely bears fruit in love. Precisely for this reason the divine justice revealed in the cross of Christ is “to God’s measure,” because it springs from love and is accomplished in love, producing fruits of salvation. The divine dimension of redemption is put into effect not only by bringing justice to bear upon sin, but also by restoring to love that creative power in man thanks also which he once more has access to the fullness of life and holiness that come from God. In this way, redemption involves the revelation of mercy in its fullness. (Dives in Misericordia 7)

To go back to debt vs. no debt - if sin results in God not having a “gracious mood”, then this is the debt view. If God’s mood remains one of complete love, then this is a no-debt view.

Well, I accept that God’s mood remains one of complete love, yet reject the no-debt view.

If reading Dives in Misericordia is not gonna happen, I’ll recommend at least reading 7,8, and 14.

Sounds like a radical departure.

Actually, not at all. Christianity is different in the history of religions because it is God himself who comes down and expiates our sins by his love. And I wholeheartedly accept that.

Yes, the no-debt view is outside of Anselmian teaching. It is within Duns Scotus teaching. All Catholic.

Do you have a text from Scotus that explicitly endorses this view?

 

[CrossofChrist]

Do you have a text from Scotus that explicitly endorses this view?

From a quick google search, I found this within a book (hopefully this is accessible…):

books.google.com/books?id=mfQ9Bj8j2HoC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=when+christ…offered+himself+he+made+infinite+satisfaction+for+sin+scotus&source=bl&ots=dz8CXlSkND&sig=49b6CRpCT9MB5plwsIkJAK9lZkE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zYDVVJiMB8OzyATooYCgCA&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=when%20christ…offered%20himself%20he%20made%20infinite%20satisfaction%20for%20sin%20scotus&f=false

What I think is most relevant is the following which Bl. Jon Duns Scotus said: When Christ…offered himself on the cross he made adequate satisfaction for an infinity of sins.

Also found these (not from the same source):

Mary would have had the greatest need of Christ as Redeemer; for by reason of her procreation, which followed the common mode, she would have contracted original sin had she not been kept from it by the grace of the Mediator, and just as others are in need of Christ for the remission, by his merit, of sin which they have already contracted, so Mary would have been in still greater need of a Mediator preventing her from contracting sin. (Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, III d.3 q.1, quoted by Carlo Balic, O.F.M., “The Mediaeval Controversy over the Immaculate Conception up to the Death of Scotus” in Edward O’Connor, C.S.C. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception: History and Significance (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1958), 207.)

"The Blessed Mother of God…was never at enmity [with God] whether actually on account of actual sins or originally – because of original sin. She would have been had she not been preserved." ( Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, III d.3 q.1, quoted by Carlo Balic, O.F.M., “The Mediaeval Controversy over the Immaculate Conception up to the Death of Scotus,” in Edward O’Connor, C.S.C. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception: History and Significance (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1958), 208-209.)

 

[OneSheep]

What I think is most relevant is the following which Bl. Jon Duns Scotus said: When Christ…offered himself on the cross he made adequate satisfaction for an infinity of sins.

It appears that “satisfaction” had a different definition for Duns Scotus, based on the sources you posted. I definitely will be reading more about it.

Well, I accept that God’s mood remains one of complete love, yet reject the no-debt view.

Fair enough! There is a great deal of variation within both schools of thought.

 

[OneSheep]

From the Cardinal:

In the Bible the cross does not appear as part of a mechanism of injured right; on the contrary, in the Bible the cross is quite the reverse: it is the expression of the radical nature of the love which gives itself completely, of the process in which one is what one does, and does what one is; it is the expression of a life that is completely being for others. 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.

From JPII:

CrossofChrist:

Christ emphasizes so insistently the need to forgive others that when Peter asked Him how many times he should forgive his neighbor He answered with the symbolic number of "seventy times seven,"131 meaning that he must be able to forgive everyone every time. It is obvious that such a generous requirement of forgiveness does not cancel out the objective requirements of justice. Properly understood, justice constitutes, so to speak, the goal of forgiveness. In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness. (Dives in Misericordia 14)

So, in my interpretation of the no-debt view, the desire itself for justice is part of our enslavement, and Jesus addresses this in may ways (such as the parable of the workers in the vineyard). Jesus did not ask for reparation, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult when He forgave the crowd from the cross. Indeed, His call for “loving enemies” and “turning the cheek” do not call for reparation, compensation, etc. (note: forgiveness is an act of love.) That said, there are also examples in the Gospel itself that lean more toward a debt view.

There are words written and stated by Pope Benedict and Pope JPII that lean one way, and then perhaps another. Their messages are largely pastoral, not taking sides one way or another, which is commendable.

Again, the point of this thread is harmony, not elimination. I have heard your point of view, Cross of Christ, and I am going to politely ask you the same question I asked of Granny. What is your goal in your participation now? Please, if you would like to criticize and eliminate the view that the incarnation was not a matter of expiation, feel free to start a new thread.

“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

Have a great weekend! I am buried for the rest of mine.

 

[grannymh]

Serious question.
Does the No Debt no problem approach sound a tiny bit like Genesis 3: 1-4?

 

[grannymh]

One of the many positive aspects of the Yes Debt answer is that it seriously warns us that Mortal Sin is clearly a no-no. Genesis 3:23.

Unfortunately, the reality of Original Sin’s debt is under stealth attack within today’s Catholic Church. In 2011, Catholic newspapers reported comments by a popular Catholic author/teacher questioning the historical reality of Adam and Eve. Knock down Adam and Original Sin becomes whatever metaphorical story is currently fashionable.

Defending the Yes Debt answer to the thread title’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” I find that Original Sin’s debt, as described in the first three chapters of Genesis, is one of the foundational doctrines of Catholicism. Apparently, Original Sin is not popular in current society because it is the first Mortal Sin. The improved view seems to be that the only thing which counts in the examination of Adam’s Original Sin and his descendant’s State of Mortal Sin is the infinite love of our Creator. The state of the human sinner appears to be inconsequential.

When it comes to the reality of human nature, Genesis 1: 26-28, we cannot overlook the reality that we are creatures with the capability of choosing disobedience to our Creator. We cannot ignore the results of the first human Mortal Sin aka Original Sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity. Genesis 3: 11.

God’s infinite love for humans is in Genesis 3: 15.

When it comes to daily living, one of the positive aspects of Yes Debt is that we realize that our freedom to choose has consequences. We have the capability to walk away from God’s infinite love.

 

[grannymh]

Another positive aspect of the Yes Debt answer to the thread title’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” is that the debt clearly demonstrates that God is different from humanity.
Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1: 26-27.

 

[simpleas]

Serious question.
Does the No Debt no problem approach sound a tiny bit like Genesis 3: 1-4?

That was a trust issue, not a debt issue?

 

[OneSheep]

Unfortunately, the reality of Original Sin’s debt is under stealth attack within today’s Catholic Church. In 2011, Catholic newspapers reported comments by a popular Catholic author/teacher questioning the historical reality of Adam and Eve. Knock down Adam and Original Sin becomes whatever metaphorical story is currently fashionable.

Good morning to you, Granny.

Please refer back to the OP as to the purpose and direction of this thread. You seem to be forgetting what the thread is about! It’s okay, we all do a bit of forgetting, and we all want to set the agenda.

I invite you to start a new thread, perhaps, on the “advantages and disadvantages” or “positives and negatives” on a debt view vs a no-debt view. I promise to participate if you invite me.

In the mean time, I think that most people are not seeing the whole picture. Perhaps the aim of this thread was unrealistic. Since I am going to give the CAF a rest for awhile, as I have too much on my plate, I am ready to let this thread wind down into oblivion.

So, if you would like to finish this thread with a long post about the doctrine of original sin and the importance of seeing Adam as a true historical figure, feel free. I am definitely done trying to steer you back to the purpose of the thread. Take this thread, Granny, take it. Make what you want of it. I will not hold it against you, you will not owe me a debt.

God bless your Sunday, Granny, and thank you for all of your attempts.