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

[simpleas]

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.

Ha, this made me laugh!

I just wanted to comment that the question Did humanity owe a debt? is cental to the O.P and Grannymh has given her answer…which is Yes.
Being a pretty informative person as I’ve observed, she then set out to give her reason for her answer, just as we all do when we are trying to discuss a certain subject.
The debt view obviously includes the teaching of O.S within our faith and so would need examining even if both no debt/debt views are held.

Just my observation, hope I haven’t stepped out of line.

Love to all :kiss4you:

 

[grannymh]

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.

Thank you. I will do my best to respond to your challenge. Please note all the possible items for discussion in post 542. If any of those sound interesting to you, please jump in.

Here is a good starting point from post 543. I put in bold a very important point which actually follows from the Yes Debt position.
"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."

The important definition in the Yes Debt position defines the “who” from the journalism mantra. The who in the Yes Debt position is not any person sinning nor can the who be any human after the first human. Catholicism teaches that the who is actually the first real fully-complete human biblically known as Adam.

It is true that "When a person is sinning, he or she is already alienated from God in some way. The truth of this statement depends on the definitions being used. Does the definition for “a person” who is sinning indicate Adam? According to Catholic teaching, Adam began his life in the state of Original Holiness aka the State of Sanctifying Grace. Therefore, Adam is not already alienated from God in some way.

The above simple observation is necessary to keep straight the various human references in this thread.

Regarding the last sentence in the quote from post 543.
“However, God (and His goodness) is still to be found within the person, within everyone, within the “worst” of sinners.”

This is a good way to demonstrate the Catholic teaching that God not only gives us being and existence, but also enables us to freely choose to have a relationship state with God or to not have a relationship state with God. In this sense, the definition of person, within everyone, within the “worst” of sinners applies to both Adam and ourselves.

Nonetheless, we must be extremely careful to keep the Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins.

Information source. Genesis 1: 26-2; Genesis 2: 15-17; CCC 301;
*CCC *1730-1732; CCC 396; *CCC *415-417

 

[wmw]

Q: How to fathom “God within everyone”?

A: Degrees of Grace.

From: ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MNGGRACE.HTM

…The divine presence envelops and penetrates all creatures. It is a knowing presence, which pierces the secrets of hearts; a powerful presence, which gives beings their activity,
…
the power to ‘be’ what it is. These are the three aspects of his presence in creation. It is intimate to creatures. Strictly speaking, God is more present to things than they are to themselves. ‘God who art in my heaven more my heaven than heaven,’ said Pere Chardon; he is in me more me than myself. And if for one instant he were to forget the world, it would fall immediately into nothingness.

Yet God who is so mysteriously present to the world is not immersed in the world; he is not dissolved in things. He keeps his absolute transcendence. If, then, he fills all things, it is as the infinite Cause of an effect that is imperfect and limited: ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ (Jer. xxiii. 24), he asks, and the psalmist says, ‘If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; if I descend into hell, thou art present’ (Ps. cxxxviii. 8).

There is a second act of God that is still more overwhelming. It is a little like the act of a mother who feels the child she has brought into the world is too remote, and takes and presses him to her heart. God unites himself in a new way to the souls who open themselves to his grace and his love. This is a presence still more mysterious, more hidden, the presence of indwelling.
…
That God desires thus to come down secretly into our universe to find his dwelling in it is a truth already perceived dimly in the Old Testament. But the fullness of this revelation is to be found in the New Testament. Consider, for example, the opening verses of chapter xxi of the Apocalypse: ‘I, John, saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. . . .And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men; and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people, and God himself with them shall be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and death shall be no more. Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more; for the former things are passed away.’

In this second way, God cannot dwell in material things; but where there is a spirit, he is able to come down and hold converse with that spirit. And this presence of indwelling is conditioned by the descent, in that spirit, of grace in its fullest meaning. You see the importance of grace: it transforms the soul and fits it for the immediate indwelling of the divine Persons.
…
We must now observe that God’s love is of two kinds:

(a) a love which St. Thomas calls common, by which God loves the blade of grass, the star, the pebble of which the film “La Strada” speaks… All these beings are, and they are by an act of divine love and volition. Even the sinner has his being, even the devil, and this being would not subsist did not God continue to will it. What is evil in the devil is his perverted will, the act by which he annuls the love offered to him; but his being itself is a richness; being is always a splendour, a participation in the divine Source. In this sense we can say that the common love of God extends to all that exists, in so far as it exists;

(b) a special love by which God elevates the rational creature above the conditions of his nature, clothes him as if with a new nature, brings him into a new universe. He makes him a sharer in the divine life by pouring into him created grace. Created grace is a reality, a quality, a light that enables the soul to receive worthily the indwelling of the three divine Persons.
…
God could have created a universe composed solely of natures, but in this hypothesis what would have been our relations with God? We should know the world by reason and from the world we should ascend to God as to its source. We would know God only through a glass, darkly. What we would see first would be the universe, its riches, its beauty, its being, and doubtless that is something!
…
It is borrowed being, dependent on the Being per se, the Absolute. Then, in the order of natures, we would know God as the great X on whom the world depends. He would be the Master, the Creator, but we could not enter into a relationship with him as friend to friend. Aristotle said we cannot speak of friendship with the immortal gods, because friendship supposes a certain equality.

But God does not leave us in that condition. He comes out to meet us, and his desire is to set up in us a new universe of life, light and love, so that we may be able to make our way towards the depth of his being and intimacy with him, to speak to him as our friend. That is the mystery of the elevation of our nature by grace, and that is why we call this new life supernatural. It transforms, imbues our whole being to make it proportionate to an end hitherto unknown to it, one which goes beyond our nature. God raises us up, rather as the artist uses an instrument to make it produce what by itself it would be incapable of—joy, sadness, prayer. Something beyond its own power acts through the instrument: it is a human heart that touches the instrument and the effect produced, being on the plane of its cause, is a human effect. If divine grace comes down into me, I shall no longer be in community only with the things of earth and with men, but with the divine Persons, with all that is deepest and most hidden in the heart of God.

 

[simpleas]

From Post # 557

Nonetheless, we must be extremely careful to keep the Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins.

How do we do that? The human race is inclined towards sin because of the Original sin.

I don’t know if this thread with continue, some of what you listed afew post’s back would have made for interesting discussion from all posters.

 

[grannymh]

From Post # 557

Nonetheless, we must be extremely careful to keep the Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins.

How do we do that? The human race is inclined towards sin because of the Original sin.

I don’t know if this thread with continue, some of what you listed afew post’s back would have made for interesting discussion from all posters.

How do we keep Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins?
This is a valid question because some of the thread’s comments go back and forth between Divine creditor and human creditor. I was confused.

Step one. Describe Original Sin. Give examples of subsequent sins.

Step two. Who committed the Original Sin? Is that person living today?
Give an example of a living person committing a human sin.

Once steps one and two are completed, we will find the answer to the question
"How do we keep Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins? "

We will also have a working position for continuing the defense of the Yes Debt position.

 

[simpleas]

How do we keep Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins?
This is a valid question because some of the thread’s comments go back and forth between Divine creditor and human creditor. I was confused.

Step one. Describe Original Sin. Give examples of subsequent sins.

Step two. Who committed the Original Sin? Is that person living today?
Give an example of a living person committing a human sin.

Once steps one and two are completed, we will find the answer to the question
"How do we keep Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins? "

We will also have a working position for continuing the defense of the Yes Debt position.

Original sin was disobedience of God’s will. Adam and Eve choose their own will over what God had told them.
Sin today is still disobedience of God’s will, when we choose our own will over what we have been told would be against the will of God for our lives.
Unless you are thinking of some other sin that was committed by the first two humans I don’t see how O.S can be separate from sin today.

 

[grannymh]

From post 560
Step one. Describe Original Sin. Give examples of subsequent sins.

Step two. Who committed the Original Sin? Is that person living today?
Give an example of a living person committing a human sin.

Once steps one and two are completed, we will find the answer to the question
"How do we keep Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins? "

Original sin was disobedience of God’s will. Adam and Eve choose their own will over what God had told them.
Sin today is still disobedience of God’s will, when we choose our own will over what we have been told would be against the will of God for our lives.
Unless you are thinking of some other sin that was committed by the first two humans I don’t see how O.S can be separate from sin today.

It is correct that Original Sin was disobedience of God’s will. And it is also correct that examples of subsequent sins are disobedience of God’s will. Does that correct idea make you Adam?

We cannot eliminate step two which asks "“Who committed the Original Sin? Is that person living today?”

Since you are living today and it is possible for you to commit the sin of disobedience just like the Original Sin, it sounds reasonable that you must be Adam … … … Or at least significantly like Adam in that you had the extra gift of immortality before you disobeyed God. Since you would be significantly the same as Adam, you have the same free choice of obeying God. Following this reasoning, there would be immortal people either yourself or others living in your neighborhood.

As a journalist before the existence of Google, you would be at the top of my list for a personal interview. In addition, my nit-picking boss would insist that I examine your birth certificate to make sure that you are the first person of the human species.

My apology for the silliness of the above. However, I also lived at a time when creative imagination was considered a proper tool for resolving some situations. Thus, I can still claim that it is possible to keep the Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins. The reason I stick to this is that there have been a lot of
non-valid comparisons between a human creature debt and a Divine Creator.

P.S. Please note that there are some current popular authors who propose that Original Sin is some kind of symbol for everyone’s sins. Unfortunately, ordinary folk are buying this.

 

[simpleas]

From post 560
Step one. Describe Original Sin. Give examples of subsequent sins.

Step two. Who committed the Original Sin? Is that person living today?
Give an example of a living person committing a human sin.

Once steps one and two are completed, we will find the answer to the question
"How do we keep Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins? "

It is correct that Original Sin was disobedience of God’s will. And it is also correct that examples of subsequent sins are disobedience of God’s will. Does that correct idea make you Adam?

We cannot eliminate step two which asks "“Who committed the Original Sin? Is that person living today?”

Since you are living today and it is possible for you to commit the sin of disobedience just like the Original Sin, it sounds reasonable that you must be Adam … … … Or at least significantly like Adam in that you had the extra gift of immortality before you disobeyed God. Since you would be significantly the same as Adam, you have the same free choice of obeying God. Following this reasoning, there would be immortal people either yourself or others living in your neighborhood.

As a journalist before the existence of Google, you would be at the top of my list for a personal interview. In addition, my nit-picking boss would insist that I examine your birth certificate to make sure that you are the first person of the human species.

My apology for the silliness of the above. However, I also lived at a time when creative imagination was considered a proper tool for resolving some situations. Thus, I can still claim that it is possible to keep the Original Sin separate from subsequent human sins. The reason I stick to this is that there have been a lot of
non-valid comparisons between a human creature debt and a Divine Creator.

P.S. Please note that there are some current popular authors who propose that Original Sin is some kind of symbol for everyone’s sins. Unfortunately, ordinary folk are buying this.

You know I like alittle bit of humor! It keeps me sane!

While I would say I am not thee Adam or Eve, I’m very much like them, that my sin is disobedience as was theirs.
If however Adam and Eve’s sin was unique, and that I couldn’t possibly commit the same act as they did, then I could separate the O.S with all human sin that followed.

 

[grannymh]

You know I like alittle bit of humor! It keeps me sane!

While I would say I am not thee Adam or Eve, I’m very much like them, that my sin is disobedience as was theirs.
If however Adam and Eve’s sin was unique, and that I couldn’t possibly commit the same act as they did, then I could separate the O.S with all human sin that followed.

Adam and Eve’s sin is unique. While you can commit sins of disobedience, they are your sins. You could not possibly commit Adam’s sin of disobedience.

Besides you are better looking and smarter than Adam.

 

[simpleas]

Adam and Eve’s sin is unique. While you can commit sins of disobedience, they are your sins. You could not possibly commit Adam’s sin of disobedience.

Besides you are better looking and smarter than Adam.

Liking the compliment! lol

I love to discuss Adam and Original sin with you.

I agree I could not commit Adam’s sin, but, I can commit the one sin that binds us together.
Adam was a fully complete human being, as am I and everyone else.

Adam and Eve become more special if their sin was unique, that we are lower than they were, in that we are born without the grace they had, until baptism. But even then, we have decisions to make which can lead to disobedience.
We have mortal sins, which we believe to be separation from God.

I don’t think it’s written in the CCC how Adam and Eve’s sin is more unique, it explains why man turns from God (distorted image of God etc.)

Hope this doesn’t like a contest about who’s sin is more important! Not my intention.

Thanks.

 

[fhansen]

You know I like alittle bit of humor! It keeps me sane!

While I would say I am not thee Adam or Eve, I’m very much like them, that my sin is disobedience as was theirs.
If however Adam and Eve’s sin was unique, and that I couldn’t possibly commit the same act as they did, then I could separate the O.S with all human sin that followed.

I think we don’t re-commit Adam & Eve’s sin so much as we reaffirm it to the extent that we carry on the family tradition, to the extent that we might remain distant or alienated from God, remaining in sin, spurning Him even as He calls us back to Himself- rejecting grace IOW. Humanity is made up of individuals but we also form a single body corporately. There’s a sense in which our experiences are shared, are corporate or communal-the Fall as well as salvation included in this.

 

[simpleas]

I think we don’t re-commit Adam & Eve’s sin so much as we reaffirm it to the extent that we carry on the family tradition, to the extent that we might remain distant or alienated from God, remaining in sin, spurning Him even as He calls us back to Himself- rejecting grace IOW. Humanity is made up of individuals but we also form a single body corporately. There’s a sense in which our experiences are shared, are corporate or communal-the Fall as well as salvation included in this.

So Adam and Eve’s sin is not unique then? They disobeyed a command, we in turn are the same. If they were just as human as we are, then where is the uniqueness in what they did?

 

[fhansen]

So Adam and Eve’s sin is not unique then? They disobeyed a command, we in turn are the same. If they were just as human as we are, then where is the uniqueness in what they did?

Their sin was the granddaddy. It wasn’t the act of just committing any particular sin; it was the act of consciously disobeying God. Once that door was opened, man became his own god, no longer subservient to the laws that God had written in his heart. As we become more and more aware of God’s existence and goodness, we become more and more aware of our obligation to obey Him. Then any sin we commit becomes all the more an affirmation or echoing of Adams original sin. Adam knew God to begin with-that’s a major difference.

 

[simpleas]

Their sin was the granddaddy. It wasn’t the act of just committing any particular sin; it was the act of consciously disobeying God. Once that door was opened, man became his own god, no longer subservient to the laws that God had written in his heart. As we become more and more aware of God’s existence and goodness, we become more and more aware of our obligation to obey Him. Then any sin we commit becomes all the more an affirmation or echoing of Adams original sin. Adam knew God to begin with-that’s a major difference.

Adam only became like God with the knowledge of good and evil, he did not become his own God, or else the story would be quite different
The act of consciously disobeying God was something God saw fit to give to humans, our freewill gift.
We can choose the same as Adam, especially as Catholic’s if we believe in baptism.
For some reason Adam did not feel obliged to obey God, he sensed no fear of debt or he would not have sinned.
We on the other hand, fear God, feel obliged to obey and believe we owed a debt. (well some people do).

Knowing God to begin with didn’t work out quite so well for our human race.

 

[grannymh]

Again, the point of this thread is harmony, not elimination.

Having chosen the Yes Debt answer to the thread title’s question – “Did humanity owe a debt?” – I need to briefly address the concept of harmony between the two concepts of debt and no debt.

Trying to harmonize these two concepts appears to violate the philosophical principle of non-contradiction. That being the case, there is no way of avoiding an elimination of one of the two opposing positions.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Note that “gracious mood” is in quote marks. My humble interpretation is that “God not having a gracious mood” is somewhat like the opposite of God having complete love. Some posts use the term “unconditional love” which would include forgiveness of any wrong doing.

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.

The above No-Debt view from post 543 is very positive. It reminds us of John 3: 16-17. It is true that God loves us without condition and He always forgives. God wants us to likewise forgive others as we love them. In the Catholic Church, forgiveness for our personal sins is accomplished with the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation.

The problem is that the No-Debt view in post 543 refers to us, you and me –
“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).”

The atonement debt, that is the debt in the thread title’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” refers to the action of the first human known as Adam. I may be older than dirt, but I am definitely not the first human person on planet earth. The shift away from Original Sin and a real person as the doer of the deed has appeared in various writings, news stories, etc. Two sole founders of humanity is not a popular idea in some circles.

To add to the problem of separating ourselves from the first human is that in an unique way we are involved with the first Original Sin. The Catholic Church teaching is found in its universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 404. Please take note of the last line – “And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.”
**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Knowing Adam’s who?, how?, what? is very important when there is a question of God being a kind of creditor. In the quote below, please be careful of the words “and He would therefore feel compelled to save us, …”
The Creator is all powerful and thus is free from any kind of feeling compelled.

From post 209.
“Is it more accurate, then, to describe the paradox as God-as-creditor vs. God-as-freely-giving? Indeed, since we all know that God loves us, and He would therefore feel compelled to save us, is the debt a matter of removing a roadblock before such salvation is offered? If so, then this is God-as-creditor.”

 

[grannymh]

Knowing Adam’s who?, how?, what? is very important because the reality of Adam and Original Sin are fundamental Catholic Doctrines.

What eventually becomes noticeable is that the No Debt proposal does not refer directly to Adam’s existence or to the Catholic teachings regarding Original Sin. Thus, it is important to recognize that there are some good Catholics who are embarrassed by the first three chapters of Genesis. Using a misunderstanding of God’s love makes it possible for some good Catholics to deny the possibility that humans can remove themselves from God’s love.

At times, it looks like the No Debt proposal is proclaiming God’s love. The odd thing is that the No Debt proposal ignores human’s intellective free will to either respond appropriately to God’s love or to reject God’s love as Adam did. The side issue becomes an attack on human conscience.

In reality, we need to affirm our belief in God’s divine revelation which flows from the reality of Adam and Original Sin. We need to be extremely careful of describing God-as-creditor vs. God-as freely-giving when it comes to the truth of both Genesis 1:26-27 *and *Genesis 2: 15-17. It is folly to try to divide the Creator’s actions into a this or that category in relationship to His human creatures. God is One in love. We are the ones who can divide. We can choose this or that category --State of Sanctifying Grace or State of Mortal Sin. God’s love remains. It is we who can choose our own state. We cannot hide our State of Mortal Sin from God by claiming a no debt position due to some kind of a blind loving Creator.

 

[grannymh]

Q: How to fathom “God within everyone”?

A: Degrees of Grace.

From: ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MNGGRACE.HTM

…The divine presence envelops and penetrates all creatures. It is a knowing presence, which pierces the secrets of hearts; a powerful presence, which gives beings their activity,
…
the power to ‘be’ what it is. These are the three aspects of his presence in creation. It is intimate to creatures. Strictly speaking, God is more present to things than they are to themselves. ‘God who art in my heaven more my heaven than heaven,’ said Pere Chardon; he is in me more me than myself. And if for one instant he were to forget the world, it would fall immediately into nothingness.

Yet God who is so mysteriously present to the world is not immersed in the world; he is not dissolved in things. He keeps his absolute transcendence. If, then, he fills all things, it is as the infinite Cause of an effect that is imperfect and limited: ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ (Jer. xxiii. 24), he asks, and the psalmist says, ‘If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; if I descend into hell, thou art present’ (Ps. cxxxviii. 8).

**There is a second act of God that is still more overwhelming. It is a little like the act of a mother who feels the child she has brought into the world is too remote, and takes and presses him to her heart. God unites himself in a new way to the souls who open themselves to his grace and his love. This is a presence still more mysterious, more hidden, the presence of indwelling. **
…
That God desires thus to come down secretly into our universe to find his dwelling in it is a truth already perceived dimly in the Old Testament. But the fullness of this revelation is to be found in the New Testament. Consider, for example, the opening verses of chapter xxi of the Apocalypse: ‘I, John, saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. . . .And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men; and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people, and God himself with them shall be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and death shall be no more. Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more; for the former things are passed away.’

In this second way, God cannot dwell in material things; but where there is a spirit, he is able to come down and hold converse with that spirit. And this presence of indwelling is conditioned by the descent, in that spirit, of grace in its fullest meaning. You see the importance of grace: it transforms the soul and fits it for the immediate indwelling of the divine Persons.
…
We must now observe that God’s love is of two kinds:

(a) a love which St. Thomas calls common, by which God loves the blade of grass, the star, the pebble of which the film “La Strada” speaks… All these beings are, and they are by an act of divine love and volition. Even the sinner has his being, even the devil, and this being would not subsist did not God continue to will it. What is evil in the devil is his perverted will, the act by which he annuls the love offered to him; but his being itself is a richness; being is always a splendour, a participation in the divine Source. In this sense we can say that the common love of God extends to all that exists, in so far as it exists;

(b) a special love by which God elevates the rational creature above the conditions of his nature, clothes him as if with a new nature, brings him into a new universe. He makes him a sharer in the divine life by pouring into him created grace. Created grace is a reality, a quality, a light that enables the soul to receive worthily the indwelling of the three divine Persons.
…
God could have created a universe composed solely of natures, but in this hypothesis what would have been our relations with God? We should know the world by reason and from the world we should ascend to God as to its source. We would know God only through a glass, darkly. What we would see first would be the universe, its riches, its beauty, its being, and doubtless that is something!
…
It is borrowed being, dependent on the Being per se, the Absolute. Then, in the order of natures, we would know God as the great X on whom the world depends. He would be the Master, the Creator, but we could not enter into a relationship with him as friend to friend. Aristotle said we cannot speak of friendship with the immortal gods, because friendship supposes a certain equality.

But God does not leave us in that condition. He comes out to meet us, and his desire is to set up in us a new universe of life, light and love, so that we may be able to make our way towards the depth of his being and intimacy with him, to speak to him as our friend. That is the mystery of the elevation of our nature by grace, and that is why we call this new life supernatural. It transforms, imbues our whole being to make it proportionate to an end hitherto unknown to it, one which goes beyond our nature. God raises us up, rather as the artist uses an instrument to make it produce what by itself it would be incapable of—joy, sadness, prayer. Something beyond its own power acts through the instrument: it is a human heart that touches the instrument and the effect produced, being on the plane of its cause, is a human effect. If divine grace comes down into me, I shall no longer be in community only with the things of earth and with men, but with the divine Persons, with all that is deepest and most hidden in the heart of God.

In a new way, God is united to us who open ourselves to His love. Yet, we can mortally deny Him.

 

[simpleas]

Note that “gracious mood” is in quote marks. My humble interpretation is that “God not having a gracious mood” is somewhat like the opposite of God having complete love. Some posts use the term “unconditional love” which would include forgiveness of any wrong doing.

The above No-Debt view from post 543 is very positive. It reminds us of John 3: 16-17. It is true that God loves us without condition and He always forgives. God wants us to likewise forgive others as we love them. In the Catholic Church, forgiveness for our personal sins is accomplished with the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation.

The problem is that the No-Debt view in post 543 refers to us, you and me –
“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).”

The atonement debt, that is the debt in the thread title’s question “Did humanity owe a debt?” refers to the action of the first human known as Adam. I may be older than dirt, but I am definitely not the first human person on planet earth. The shift away from Original Sin and a real person as the doer of the deed has appeared in various writings, news stories, etc. Two sole founders of humanity is not a popular idea in some circles.

To add to the problem of separating ourselves from the first human is that in an unique way we are involved with the first Original Sin. The Catholic Church teaching is found in its universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 404. Please take note of the last line – “And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.”
**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Knowing Adam’s who?, how?, what? is very important when there is a question of God being a kind of creditor. In the quote below, please be careful of the words “and He would therefore feel compelled to save us, …”
The Creator is all powerful and thus is free from any kind of feeling compelled.

From post 209.
“Is it more accurate, then, to describe the paradox as God-as-creditor vs. God-as-freely-giving? Indeed, since we all know that God loves us, and He would therefore feel compelled to save us, is the debt a matter of removing a roadblock before such salvation is offered? If so, then this is God-as-creditor.”

It seems to me we can’t help but think what God might feel, even though we believe God to be pure spirit, he created a creature unlike any other, one that does have emotions, feelings,a conscience, can create, and can desire knowledge of God or not.
Even knowing what this creation (humanity) will do to it’s own, it’s fellow creatures and the planet.
I don’t know if God felt compelled to save us, but in going ahead with us, he knew he would need to save us…maybe because of his love for us.

 

[simpleas]

Knowing Adam’s who?, how?, what? is very important because the reality of Adam and Original Sin are fundamental Catholic Doctrines.

What eventually becomes noticeable is that the No Debt proposal does not refer directly to Adam’s existence or to the Catholic teachings regarding Original Sin. Thus, it is important to recognize that there are some good Catholics who are embarrassed by the first three chapters of Genesis. Using a misunderstanding of God’s love makes it possible for some good Catholics to deny the possibility that humans can remove themselves from God’s love.

At times, it looks like the No Debt proposal is proclaiming God’s love. The odd thing is that the No Debt proposal ignores human’s intellective free will to either respond appropriately to God’s love or to reject God’s love as Adam did. The side issue becomes an attack on human conscience.

In reality, we need to affirm our belief in God’s divine revelation which flows from the reality of Adam and Original Sin. We need to be extremely careful of describing God-as-creditor vs. God-as freely-giving when it comes to the truth of both Genesis 1:26-27 *and *Genesis 2: 15-17. It is folly to try to divide the Creator’s actions into a this or that category in relationship to His human creatures. God is One in love. We are the ones who can divide. We can choose this or that category --State of Sanctifying Grace or State of Mortal Sin. God’s love remains. It is we who can choose our own state. We cannot hide our State of Mortal Sin from God by claiming a no debt position due to some kind of a blind loving Creator.

We aren’t able to choose our own state though, at birth. Even baptism as a baby is someone else’s choice.
We are told we are born separate from God, and only become a child of God when baptised. Some even say we are born as the devils child.

I must research where Jesus said we are born separate from God. I understand when he said we must be washed with the water of new life, and in part that when we are baptised we become a new creation, for God.