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

[CrossofChrist]

Yes, I see that as part of the distinction the Cardinal was making, but not all of it. Christianity certainly does not ignore sin, and it is true that man is in a “state” that calls for a savior. In the view of many, Jesus provided a transformative encounter, as the Catholica article stated. However, the view that expiation was called for is also part of our tradition. Can you step back and see the value in both views, as can I?

I’m not quite sure what you are saying here…

Yes, Christ gave us a supreme example, but he also is the cause of our salvation and atoned for our sins. Both are true.

It is difficult, now that I am reading this more, to determine if the Cardinal is walking a line, or is he taking a definite position? He is looking at Anselm and saying “definitely not that” but look at this line from the Cardinal, does it not reflect a give-and-take, and expiation?:

He restores disturbed right on the initiative of his own power to love, by making unjust man just again, the dead living again…

Ratzinger isn’t debating expiation, but only a way of viewing it.

Doesn’t “disturbed right” sound like a bit of a contradiction to his own “In the Bible the cross does not appear as part of a mechanism of injured right”. Indeed, if there is a “disturbed right” then it is only logical that we humans will conclude that Jesus had to come, and even die, in order to gain favor with God.

This goes to the state humanity was in. God always had us in his favor. Which is why he sent Christ. But humanity separated itself from God via sin. So how can we understand the Cross in relation to those two idea (separation from sin, God’s eternal love)?

God gave us a supernatural invitation to the divine life in his Incarnation; this is his self-communication with man. But man refused to communicate back with God’s grace that is given to him. Christ’s sacrifice makes it possible for us to “communicate back” to God, to bridge the gap caused by an infinite offense that is sin.

Jesus’ whole life is “one act”, because God is one. We can’t accept the offer (the Incarnation) until the invitation is complete (Christ’s death). We can’t participate in the offer until we are brought in (Christ’s Resurrection).

This is a spiritual issue at its heart. Does God disfavor the sinner, or does God forgive the sinner? Did God need Jesus to pay a debt in order for Him to forgive us?

 

[grannymh]

Good morning, OneSheep-at least it’s still morning here!
The Cardinal was addressing the debt of sin. That is directly related to our (or Adam’s) obligation to obey God. The story of the Fall is about man’s obligation-man’s need-to remain in communion with God-or else man/creation is none but the loser. So yes, like it or not, man has an obligation, his own part to fulfill, so that order may prevail in God’s universe. God didn’t have to set it up this way, but in His wisdom, He did. Once man truly does love God, the obligation is rendered more or less irrelevant, because it’s been fulfilled; it, the greatest commandment, has been fulfilled, and any other law is automatically fulfilled by it. God’s plan of bringing His universe into perfection via a “state of journeying” has been completed in us.

Jesus came to reconcile man with God-to prove God’s trustworthiness after all, man having “conceived a distorted image” of Him as the Catechism puts it, a distorted image that would remain within fallen man’s conception of God. Apparently His death was required in order to drive that point home to us. And with the help of grace we’re enabled, barely at first, to grasp the width and breadth and depth of God’s love in that act. The biblical language is quite symbolic. And anyone who claims to fully understand the way in which the legal concepts employed by St Paul and others might apply or work to explain how Jesus managed to reconcile man with God by His sacrificial act is fooling themselves IMO. What we do know is that He did, indeed, sacrifice Himself for us. All God wants, ultimately, is our love in return for His. In that way, simple as it sounds, creation’s perfection has been attained.

We lose something: communion with God, the same as saying that we lose original holiness, original justice, sanctifying grace, His Spirit dwelling within-or at least operative within.* Something* changes in man or else we wouldn’t have the kind of world we have today, a world where man’s born without intimate knowledge of God or certainly forfeits it early enough without much struggle, an earth where God’s will is not at all necessarily done as it is in heaven.

True words of wisdom.

 

[grannymh]

When we refuse to face the reality of our own nature which can intellectively choose mortal sin, our only option is to attack the fundamental understanding of reconciliation between the Creator and the created.

We hide our face from the truth of debt to our Creator by denying the justice involved when God’s offer of joy eternal is trashed by our free disobedience.

When we become seriously afraid of our capability to freely and knowingly commit mortal sin, we will say anything in order to downplay the fact that we are both mortal and spiritual creatures. Often we change the meaning of our own nature so that we can be free from the justice of God in creating us in the first place.

 

[OneSheep]

Yeah thats what I mean, God didn’t take anything away, he was always there, yet Adam some how believed he had been rejected, that he was less than he was before.

The only thing I have believed I owed God is love.

Good Morning! (oh yeah, its let’s see, 5pm there. Good afternoon, dear.)

Not only did Adam believe he was less than before, but many, many after him believed the same, and still do today. There is some merit to the statement, in the context of the individual. For example, an alcoholic, defeated by his condition, would understandably see his existence as somehow “less” than before, right? And, the person enslaved by desire for riches would only find himself “less” in light of the frustration of not attaining such riches, for with wealth comes status, and low status = “less” right?

However, despite the human perception that we are “less”, are we “less” in the eyes of God? Well, to me, no, but a person enslaved will have great difficulty breaking out of the mindset. More entrenching (enslaving) is when a person looks at someone else who is not so enslaved and says that to find the human good or worthy or just is a position of pride or arrogance. That closes the mind to the Spirit, does it not?

The alcoholic “owes” it to himself to drop the bottle, yes. We “owe” it to God to love Him, in the sense that we want to return love with love. But does God disfavor those who do not? Is there a debt to pay God, or instead does God give freely? When we do not behave lovingly, does God hold it against us, or does he forgive?

These are some of the big questions, I think.

God’s Love

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning! (oh yeah, its let’s see, 5pm there. Good afternoon, dear.)

Not only did Adam believe he was less than before, but many, many after him believed the same, and still do today. There is some merit to the statement, in the context of the individual. For example, an alcoholic, defeated by his condition, would understandably see his existence as somehow “less” than before, right? And, the person enslaved by desire for riches would only find himself “less” in light of the frustration of not attaining such riches, for with wealth comes status, and low status = “less” right?

However, despite the human perception that we are “less”, are we “less” in the eyes of God? Well, to me, no, but a person enslaved will have great difficulty breaking out of the mindset. More entrenching (enslaving) is when a person looks at someone else who is not so enslaved and says that to find the human good or worthy or just is a position of pride or arrogance. That closes the mind to the Spirit, does it not?

The alcoholic “owes” it to himself to drop the bottle, yes. We “owe” it to God to love Him, in the sense that we want to return love with love. But does God disfavor those who do not? Is there a debt to pay God, or instead does God give freely? When we do not behave lovingly, does God hold it against us, or does he forgive?

These are some of the big questions, I think.

God’s Love

May I gently point out that the “atonement debt” was attached to Original Sin committed by the original Adam. It is a tad foolish to think that we are in the same position as Adam. Therefore, we all need to be clear as to whom the concept of the “big debt” is applied to.

Questions like "Is there a debt to pay God, or instead does God give freely? If the person is sincere about this question, then the person must tell us which debt owed by which human-- Original Sin or my mortal sin? Adam or my neighbor?

We need to be clear. While Original Sin was a mortal sin; my mortal sin is not the Original Sin.

If I am not clear enough, then perhaps we need to figure out the difference between the Divinity of God and my decomposing anatomy. Seriously.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning! (oh yeah, its let’s see, 5pm there. Good afternoon, dear.)

Not only did Adam believe he was less than before, but many, many after him believed the same, and still do today. There is some merit to the statement, in the context of the individual. For example, an alcoholic, defeated by his condition, would understandably see his existence as somehow “less” than before, right? And, the person enslaved by desire for riches would only find himself “less” in light of the frustration of not attaining such riches, for with wealth comes status, and low status = “less” right?

However, despite the human perception that we are “less”, are we “less” in the eyes of God? Well, to me, no, but a person enslaved will have great difficulty breaking out of the mindset. More entrenching (enslaving) is when a person looks at someone else who is not so enslaved and says that to find the human good or worthy or just is a position of pride or arrogance. That closes the mind to the Spirit, does it not?

The alcoholic “owes” it to himself to drop the bottle, yes. We “owe” it to God to love Him, in the sense that we want to return love with love. But does God disfavor those who do not? Is there a debt to pay God, or instead does God give freely? When we do not behave lovingly, does God hold it against us, or does he forgive?

These are some of the big questions, I think.

God’s Love

May I gently point out that the original “atonement debt” was attached to Original Sin committed by the original Adam. It is a tad foolish to think that we are in the same position as Adam. Therefore, we all need to be clear as to whom the concept of the “big debt” is applied to.

Questions like "Is there a debt to pay God, or instead does God give freely? If the person is sincere about this question, then the person must tell us which debt owed by which human-- Original Sin or my mortal sin? Adam or my neighbor?

We need to be clear. While Original Sin was a mortal sin; my mortal sin is not the Original Sin.

If I am not clear enough, then perhaps we need to figure out the difference between the Divinity of God and my decomposing anatomy which I inherited from my ancestors. Seriously.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi ynotzap! I’m sorry I did not respond to this earlier post, I saw it, and then thought, “how am I going to respond?”, and then forgot. When you did the recent response, I remembered!

God’s view of us never changed, for Him it is eternal, for us it was accomplished in time. In God we have our being. Jesus gained His Father’s attention for us, so that we could connect with the Father, this was lost by Adam. In accepting Jesus for who He is, turning from sin and turning to Him, we receive His and the Father’s love for us, The Holy Spirit who sanctifies us working salvation in us, and He is freely given. Our love and fidelity to God is tried, and with the cooperation of Grace, we are purified as “gold in a fire” and made worthy. We are reinstated in grace, as our first parents were given. Adams sanctified state was freely given, he did nothing to deserve it, our sanctified state is freely given, we did nothing to deserve it, Jesus merited the Holy Spirit for us. God’s love for us is freely given, and unconditional. the feeling of guilt is an effect of sin, and effect that conditions our perspectives.

It is true people can have different perspectives, and God knew this, that’s why He founded the Church and endowed it through the successors of Peter who represents Jesus here on earth with the gift of infallibility when teaching Faith and Morals, to counter the effects of sin, it’s ignorance, and weakness, to counter the many perspectives with the true perspective. Our understanding through the gift of the Holy spirit is enlightenment which gives us discernment without judging. By understanding the conditiions of human nature, we can discern the conditions of human nature that influence perspectives. This involves no guilt, as judgement does.

So, here again, is a more central question: If God’s view never changed of us, then isn’t it true that there was no matter of “making us worthy”, because we were always worthy in his eyes? I understand completely the view that we are not worthy, but I also understand the view that we are worthy, despite our infidelity, lack of cooperation, and sin. Do you? As I said in the OP:

“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

I am coming from the position that the “worthy” view and the “unworthy” view are both “legitimate”, in that they both have their place in human spirituality and Church pedagogy.

If you see the legitimacy of both views, as I do, how do you (we) harmonize them?

Justice: It includes essentially the concept of right, objectively, is that which is due another It is evident that “right” implies a relationship between two persons, so that to the right of one there corresponds a duty of the other. Justice as an act consists in giving each his own, eg. what is due him, what by right belongs to him. Applying this concept to the relationship to man not only to his fellow man, but also toward God, we have justice in the broad sense which is equivalent to holiness,as in the language of the Bible in which the holy man is the just man, it can be “commutative” regulating the relationship between single individuals; distributive, between superiors and subjects, legal, between individuals and society Strictly speaking the true justice is the commutative justice According to Catholic doctrine with sanctifying grace God infuses into the soul the theological virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and with them the cardinal virtues, among which is justice which inclines the will to give to each his own, according to the various relationships mentioned above. Taken from the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology

At the Eucharistic prayers of the Mass, the people respond "Let us give thanks to Our Lord our God, it is right and just. The priest continues, It is truly right and just, o ur Duty, and salvation, always, and everywhere to give You thanks, Father most High through Jesus your Son… So it is our duty, and it is right and just to give God his due

Yes, that is our prayer, and it comes when we see God wearing the “justice” hat. However, when we see God wearing the “love without bound” hat, then we don’t perceive that God requires a due, instead we have a duty to ourselves to free ourselves from enslavement, that involves no sentiment of disfavor or unworthiness from God.

To many Christians, and especially to those who only know the faith from a fair distance, it looks as if the cross is to be understood as part of a mechanism of injured and restored right.

Cardinal Ratzinger

In this line, I do not find the Cardinal’s acceptance of the legitimacy of “injured and restored right”, but I think that he came to see the legitimacy of the position later on. I do not think that he flipped the position, saying instead that those who do not see the cross to be understood as a “mechanism of injured and restored right” are at “a fair distance”.

Can you understand the two perspectives as legitimate? If not, I can try to explain the legitimacy of the position you perhaps do not find legitimate, but if your approach is one of “this is wrong”, then it’s not worth the effort. That’s okay!

I’m looking for harmony. Are you joining me in the search?

God Bless

 

[OneSheep]

May I gently point out that the original “atonement debt” was attached to Original Sin committed by the original Adam. It is a tad foolish to think that we are in the same position as Adam. Therefore, we all need to be clear as to whom the concept of the “big debt” is applied to.

Questions like "Is there a debt to pay God, or instead does God give freely? If the person is sincere about this question, then the person must tell us which debt owed by which human-- Original Sin or my mortal sin? Adam or my neighbor?

We need to be clear. While Original Sin was a mortal sin; my mortal sin is not the Original Sin.

If I am not clear enough, then perhaps we need to figure out the difference between the Divinity of God and my decomposing anatomy which I inherited from my ancestors. Seriously.

Dearest Granny,

Have you read this article? It is another view of original sin:

catholica.com.au/ianstake/016_it_print.php

Do you find the point of view legitimate? If not, it will be difficult to harmonize the two views, as Pope Benedict asked us to do. Do you get the subtle point too, Granny? There is such a thing as two or more legitimate differences…

…and they are not to be eliminated, but harmonized.

If there was only one legitimate point of view, Granny, then what was the Pope saying?

I offer that there are many “legitimate” differences regarding original sin and the creation story and debt.

Will you join me in an effort to harmonize them?

Love and Peace

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, OneSheep-at least it’s still morning here!
The Cardinal was addressing the debt of sin. That is directly related to our (or Adam’s) obligation to obey God. The story of the Fall is about man’s obligation-man’s need-to remain in communion with God-or else man/creation is none but the loser. So yes, like it or not, man has an obligation, his own part to fulfill, so that order may prevail in God’s universe. God didn’t have to set it up this way, but in His wisdom, He did. Once man truly does love God, the obligation is rendered more or less irrelevant, because it’s been fulfilled; it, the greatest commandment, has been fulfilled, and any other law is automatically fulfilled by it. God’s plan of bringing His universe into perfection via a “state of journeying” has been completed in us.

Good morning, fhansen!

You may recall that I live in the same state, where it is still morning, yes. We’re in a state of water impoverishment, soggy as its been the last couple days.

I am moving on a little sub-theme with my replies, here, focusing on the word “legitimacy”. I see the legitimacy of the view that man has an obligation to God, and that it is part of the order to prevail that man pay the debt even though, to me, the debt view seems to be one of “injured and restored right” (see the OP)

Jesus came to reconcile man with God-to prove God’s trustworthiness after all, man having “conceived a distorted image” of Him as the Catechism puts it, a distorted image that would remain within fallen man’s conception of God. Apparently His death was required in order to drive that point home to us. And with the help of grace we’re enabled, barely at first, to grasp the width and breadth and depth of God’s love in that act. The biblical language is quite symbolic. And anyone who claims to fully understand the way in which the legal concepts employed by St Paul and others might apply or work to explain how Jesus managed to reconcile man with God by His sacrificial act is fooling themselves IMO. What we do know is that He did, indeed, sacrifice Himself for us. All God wants, ultimately, is our love in return for His. In that way, simple as it sounds, creation’s perfection has been attained.

Is it apparent, though, that His death was required in order to drive that point home? There is a difference between whether God “wants” something or that He “requires” something.

How do we harmonize “want” and “require”? Yes, “fully understanding” is impossible, because none of us can “channel” these saints. However, I think that all of us, with a bit of prayer and effort, understanding, and imagination, can understand why we personally would be able to use the language of all the Saints, whoever addressed the topic. I am not being naive. I know it is possible. First-hand experience!

I do not necessarily agree with Anselm’s position, but I understand it and see it as legitimate, do you?

We lose something: communion with God, the same as saying that we lose original holiness, original justice, sanctifying grace, His Spirit dwelling within-or at least operative within.* Something* changes in man or else we wouldn’t have the kind of world we have today, a world where man’s born without intimate knowledge of God or certainly forfeits it early enough without much struggle, an earth where God’s will is not at all necessarily done as it is in heaven.

To me, “on Earth as it is in Heaven” is a calling, and if Jesus came to reverse the effects you are talking about, “forfeiting knowledge of God” if they are real effects, then the effects are unchanged.

Bottom line: again, this sounds like an “injured and restored right”, which I see as legitimate. Given that you see that we “lose” something, in that God required a particular order and man messed it up, I think that you agree with its legitimacy. I ask if you can see the legitimacy of St. Leo “the debt belongs to our condition” (see post 2), and our condition is basically our selves, and if you can also see the legitimacy of the debt belonging to God or even satan.

God Bless your day, fhansen, and your weekend! I am going to be out of town so won’t have much time to respond to posts.

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning! (oh yeah, its let’s see, 5pm there. Good afternoon, dear.)

Not only did Adam believe he was less than before, but many, many after him believed the same, and still do today. There is some merit to the statement, in the context of the individual. For example, an alcoholic, defeated by his condition, would understandably see his existence as somehow “less” than before, right? And, the person enslaved by desire for riches would only find himself “less” in light of the frustration of not attaining such riches, for with wealth comes status, and low status = “less” right?

However, despite the human perception that we are “less”, are we “less” in the eyes of God? Well, to me, no, but a person enslaved will have great difficulty breaking out of the mindset. More entrenching (enslaving) is when a person looks at someone else who is not so enslaved and says that to find the human good or worthy or just is a position of pride or arrogance. That closes the mind to the Spirit, does it not?

The alcoholic “owes” it to himself to drop the bottle, yes. We “owe” it to God to love Him, in the sense that we want to return love with love. But does God disfavor those who do not? Is there a debt to pay God, or instead does God give freely? When we do not behave lovingly, does God hold it against us, or does he forgive?

These are some of the big questions, I think.

God’s Love

Dear? Now I feel old…

Yes but we aren’t talking about an alcoholic, (although I get what you mean). We are talking about the first ever two human beings, who walked, talked, learned about the creator and his love. Were given the gifts that made sinless humans.
When they lost the gifts ( i think it was the choice to turn from God, that they lost grace rather than God taking it away, maybe grace remained but the choice to disobey troubled their minds and so they believed God had abandoned them)

Why would finding someone not so enslaved be prideful or arrogant, It would be jealousy? I’m not sure I understand what you are saying

I don’t think God would disfavor anybody. I’m of the thinking that anything us humans think is right/wrong, loving unloving etc, God will have a very different way of being.

We believe God is love and always has been, our human journey is still on it’s way to that perfect love (hopefully).

Is there a debt to pay? Not any longer, Jesus paid it did he not? That is what our Church has believed for centuries, yet we are still unworthy in God’s eyes…

Good day, me dear…

 

[grannymh]

Dearest Granny,

Have you read this article? It is another view of original sin:

catholica.com.au/ianstake/016_it_print.php

Do you find the point of view legitimate? If not, it will be difficult to harmonize the two views, as Pope Benedict asked us to do. Do you get the subtle point too, Granny? There is such a thing as two or more legitimate differences…

…and they are not to be eliminated, but harmonized.

If there was only one legitimate point of view, Granny, then what was the Pope saying?

I offer that there are many “legitimate” differences regarding original sin and the creation story and debt.

Will you join me in an effort to harmonize them?

Love and Peace

Sorry, but I refuse to be sidetracked away from basic Catholic teachings.

 

[ynotzap]

Hi ynotzap! I’m sorry I did not respond to this earlier post, I saw it, and then thought, “how am I going to respond?”, and then forgot. When you did the recent response, I remembered!

So, here again, is a more central question: If God’s view never changed of us, then isn’t it true that there was no matter of “making us worthy”, because we were always worthy in his eyes? I understand completely the view that we are not worthy, but I also understand the view that we are worthy, despite our infidelity, lack of cooperation, and sin. Do you? As I said in the OP:

“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

I am coming from the position that the “worthy” view and the “unworthy” view are both “legitimate”, in that they both have their place in human spirituality and Church pedagogy.

If you see the legitimacy of both views, as I do, how do you (we) harmonize them?

Ans: What God created is always worthy, but humanity in a sinful state is not worthy of friendship with God, unless it is restored to it’s original state (change) That is that our wills have to be in HARMONY; WITH GOD’S WILL. At the beginning of creation in Adam we were ACTUALLY WORTHY before the fall, but we were always POTENTIALLY UNWORTHY. After the fall we became ACTUALLY UNWORTHY, and POTENTIALLY WORTHY But by the Divine mover who moves us from Potency to Act, we can become worthy again. This Jesus did when He merited the Holy Spirit for us who produces holiness in us through the virtues, as I once explained in another post. Co-operation with grace comes from the inside “our free will” which HARMONIZES our wills with God’s will. Both views of worthiness, and unworthiness are legitimate We must remember we don’t change ourselves, because we can’t give what we don’t have, and that is “grace”. Also we must remember that God loved us first, and His love CAUSED us to love Him. This love of God for us is Personified in Jesus Christ, the perfect reflection of the Father, and this Love in us for God is executed by the Holy Spirit. Man does not pick himself up by his own boot-straps!

 

[grannymh]

Ans: What God created is always worthy, but humanity in a sinful state is not worthy of friendship with God, unless it is restored to it’s original state (change) That is that our wills have to be in HARMONY; WITH GOD’S WILL. At the beginning of creation in Adam we were ACTUALLY WORTHY before the fall, but we were always POTENTIALLY UNWORTHY. After the fall we became ACTUALLY UNWORTHY, and POTENTIALLY WORTHY But by the Divine mover who moves us from Potency to Act, we can become worthy again. This Jesus did when He merited the Holy Spirit for us who produces holiness in us through the virtues, as I once explained in another post. Co-operation with grace comes from the inside “our free will” which HARMONIZES our wills with God’s will. Both views of worthiness, and unworthiness are legitimate We must remember we don’t change ourselves, because we can’t give what we don’t have, and that is “grace”. Also we must remember that God loved us first, and His love CAUSED us to love Him. This love of God for us is Personified in Jesus Christ, the perfect reflection of the Father, and this Love in us for God is executed by the Holy Spirit. Man does not pick himself up by his own boot-straps!

Thank you for this excellent explanation – especially the Capital letters. Hopefully the eyes which need to see these will be able to accept their importance.

Again, thank you for sharing your wisdom.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi ynotzap! I’m sorry I did not respond to this earlier post, I saw it, and then thought, “how am I going to respond?”, and then forgot. When you did the recent response, I remembered!

So, here again, is a more central question: If God’s view never changed of us, then isn’t it true that there was no matter of “making us worthy”, because we were always worthy in his eyes? I understand completely the view that we are not worthy, but I also understand the view that we are worthy, despite our infidelity, lack of cooperation, and sin. Do you? As I said in the OP:

“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

I am coming from the position that the “worthy” view and the “unworthy” view are both “legitimate”, in that they both have their place in human spirituality and Church pedagogy.

If you see the legitimacy of both views, as I do, how do you (we) harmonize them?

Ans: What God created is always worthy, but humanity in a sinful state is not worthy of friendship with God, unless it is restored to it’s original state (change) That is that our wills have to be in HARMONY; WITH GOD’S WILL. At the beginning of creation in Adam we were ACTUALLY WORTHY before the fall, but we were always POTENTIALLY UNWORTHY. After the fall we became ACTUALLY UNWORTHY, and POTENTIALLY WORTHY But by the Divine mover who moves us from Potency to Act, we can become worthy again. This Jesus did when He merited the Holy Spirit for us who produces holiness in us through the virtues, as I once explained in another post. Co-operation with grace comes from the inside “our free will” which HARMONIZES our wills with God’s will. Both views of worthiness, and unworthiness are legitimate We must remember we don’t change ourselves, because we can’t give what we don’t have, and that is “grace”. Also we must remember that God loved us first, and His love CAUSED us to love Him. This love of God for us is Personified in Jesus Christ, the perfect reflection of the Father, and this Love in us for God is executed by the Holy Spirit. Man does not pick himself up by his own boot-straps!

Hi Again, Ynotzap!

I get it, no problem! You do not recognize the legitimacy of the view that man is “worthy” of friendship with God (no matter what he does), that man is never “disfavored”. You are seeing that man is found unworthy when he sins, is not committed to the One God, or does not cooperate, etc.

I can only honor your position; it is to be respected and promoted, especially to our youth, IMO.

This thread is about looking at both positions, the “always worthy” and the “conditionally worthy” (“injured and restored right”) as both legitimate in the tradition of the Church, and figure out how to harmonize them, as encouraged by Pope Benedict. If you find the “always worthy” position illegitimate, feel free to read John Duns Scotus and others that lean in that direction. If not, that’s okay too! In the mean time, thanks for your responses.

God Bless your weekend!

 

[grannymh]

Pardon my error.

I thought a CAF thread was suppose to lead to the truth found in the Catholic Deposit of Faith which is not subject to the winds of different opinions promoted centuries ago or in this very century as we speak.

 

[OneSheep]

God always favors the sinner. There was no time when that wasn’t true. Yet without Christ man doesn’t have the means to come back to God–God is there, yet infinitely distant. With Christ, God becomes infinitely close.

By God’s nature being pure justice (presupposing pure love), a sin is by definition an offense against God that incurs a debt to justice. But it’s not like God wasn’t willing to forgive unless man came with an offer (the point Ratzinger is countering). God forgives anyway, and Christ is the only means whereby man can participate in that forgiveness.

God’s forgiving is his receiving.

Hi CrossofChrist,

I’m not avoiding you, it is just that we are a bit scattered, and I am going to try to do some condensing, which as you know is more work that responding to bits and pieces!

I am on a bit of a tight schedule this weekend, but I thought I would start with this, and try to get to the rest on Sunday night or Monday morning.

Yes, God forgives anyway, and his forgiving is His receiving. When someone sins against me, it is my calling to forgive. When I forgive, then I no longer hold anything against them, there is no debt. Now, until I forgive, then indeed I do have a sense that I am owed something. Does God have this same period of time that He senses He is owed something, or does God forgive so quickly (versus my slow plod) that He never has that sense of debt?

Now, we can take a further step back. God has his finger over the “create” button, and in his omniscience He sees all of the evil that man will do to himself, to each other, to creation. He sees that man will defy Him, deny Him, defile Him, choose other “gods”, and hang His son on a tree. At that point, does God say "all of these things will happen, and I will be offended every time, and I will disfavor man every time until he (fill in the blank here), or does God say, “I understand why man will do all of these things, and I forgive him. He does not know what he is doing, but eventually he will come to know me.”?

It is from the latter statement, in my view, that I can see the “no debt” view as also legitimate. Is God ever distant? Is this distance only in the eyes of man, or is it in the eyes of God too?

If you like, take a little time to read up a little on John Duns Scotus. I have Jesus of Nazareth on order, but I ordered the wrong section. I will order the last book of the series.

Gotta run, but I will get back to you!

Thanks for your continued efforts and (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[OneSheep]

Pardon my error.

I thought a CAF thread was suppose to lead to the truth found in the Catholic Deposit of Faith which is not subject to the winds of different opinions promoted centuries ago or in this very century as we speak.

Do you get the subtle point too, Granny? There is such a thing as two or more legitimate differences…

“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 there was only one legitimate point of view, Granny, then what was the Pope saying?

I offer that there are many “legitimate” differences regarding original sin and the creation story and debt.

Will you join me in an effort to harmonize them?

Do you see, Granny? There are aspects of the “deposit of faith” subject to legitimate differences. True love does not eliminate them, Granny. Do you have it from very high places that John Duns Scotus, Pope Leo, Saint Gregory, and others have contributed differences that are not legitimate?

Give it a think and a prayer, Good Granny.

thanks for your continued efforts.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not avoiding you, it is just that we are a bit scattered, and I am going to try to do some condensing, which as you know is more work that responding to bits and pieces!

I am on a bit of a tight schedule this weekend, but I thought I would start with this, and try to get to the rest on Sunday night or Monday morning.

Yes, God forgives anyway, and his forgiving is His receiving. When someone sins against me, it is my calling to forgive. When I forgive, then I no longer hold anything against them, there is no debt. Now, until I forgive, then indeed I do have a sense that I am owed something. Does God have this same period of time that He senses He is owed something, or does God forgive so quickly (versus my slow plod) that He never has that sense of debt?

Pardon me.
It must be the cold weather which is affecting my brain. Are you putting God the Creator on your level of humanity.
:winter:

Now, we can take a further step back. God has his finger over the “create” button, and in his omniscience He sees all of the evil that man will do to himself, to each other, to creation. He sees that man will defy Him, deny Him, defile Him, choose other “gods”, and hang His son on a tree. At that point, does God say "all of these things will happen, and I will be offended every time, and I will disfavor man every time until he (fill in the blank here), or does God say, “I understand why man will do all of these things, and I forgive him. He does not know what he is doing, but eventually he will come to know me.”?

Me thinks you are referring to the difference between the State of Sanctifying Grace and the State of Mortal Sin. Am I close to what you are trying to explain?

 

[grannymh]

Do you get the subtle point too, Granny? There is such a thing as two or more legitimate differences…

“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 there was only one legitimate point of view, Granny, then what was the Pope saying?

I offer that there are many “legitimate” differences regarding original sin and the creation story and debt.

Will you join me in an effort to harmonize them?

Do you see, Granny? There are aspects of the “deposit of faith” subject to legitimate differences. True love does not eliminate them, Granny. Do you have it from very high places that John Duns Scotus, Pope Leo, Saint Gregory, and others have contributed differences that are not legitimate?

Give it a think and a prayer, Good Granny.

thanks for your continued efforts.

Pardon me.

I do not need any Pope or John Duns Scotus, or Saint Gregory, or the Pastor of the local Catholic Church to tell me about the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Catholicism 101 gives this definition for the [Catholic] Deposit of Faith.
“The heritage of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, handed on in the Church from the time of the Apostles, from which the Magisterium draws all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed.”
I put as being divinely revealed in bold because that is very, very important to understand. Humans, even Popes, do not have the power to directly alter God’s Divine Revelation contained in Catholic doctrines which are properly defined and duly declared. Under the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 14, Gospel of John), the major ecumenical councils have gradually defined the full significance of the completed Divine Revelation. One needs to check the footnotes of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, for this kind of information after reading CCC, 20-21 about the use of small print.

 

[wmw]

Do you get the subtle point too, Granny? There is such a thing as two or more legitimate differences…

“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 there was only one legitimate point of view, Granny, then what was the Pope saying?

I offer that there are many “legitimate” differences regarding original sin and the creation story and debt.

Will you join me in an effort to harmonize them?

Do you see, Granny? There are aspects of the “deposit of faith” subject to legitimate differences. True love does not eliminate them, Granny. Do you have it from very high places that John Duns Scotus, Pope Leo, Saint Gregory, and others have contributed differences that are not legitimate?

Give it a think and a prayer, Good Granny.

thanks for your continued efforts.

It took a bit of back tracking to see what these legitimate differences were.

Warning this following paragraph in the quote box is a paraphrase of a poorly written Article; I’m thinking it must be from a theologian that can’t separate the need of atonement with the thought that God; therefore, must be very vengeful:

After reading the Aussie theologian’s article I see the problem. He presents that these two views as contradictory that as the Lamb of the Sacrifice that God is wrath filled, but as a role model of love and suffering He just lived a life of true teaching that rubbed the authorities the wrong way; so, the method of His death was only a natural result and not theologically necessary.

He claims this second view is Pauline and Johannine it makes me sick to think of it the way this theology professor has pitted parts of Biblical theology against other parts.

When the whole Biblical theology is what we should be seeing. Jesus is both; first, the Lamb of the Sacrifice and the atonement (that we need, not God) which we eat on the Lord’s day the new Sabbath of the new and eternal sacrifice; and second, the Love that has no bounds that is the bountiful gift of divine self in whom we participate and imitate.

No, these are not legitimate differences, but a false division of the whole of theology. Again I say these are viewpoints that are both true like two analogies. Jesus is both our True Shepard and the Pascal Lamb.