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

[CrossofChrist]

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?

To be forgiven implies that there already existed a “gap” that needed to be filled.

Jesus is God’s expression of infinite love for us, and so it is through Jesus God is saying, “I forgive you and I’ve always forgiven you, but it is only through me (Jesus) that this forgiveness is given.”

Our connection to God is only by our connection with Christ. In fact, our existence in the world as God created it presupposes Christ. So, because he is first, Christ is God’s way of saying that he already forgives us beforehand by his infinite love. Yet this simultaneously bridges the gap (debt) that sin necessarily entails, because Christ’s infinite expression of love is also what makes up for our sin.

What Ratzinger is addressing about Anselm’s view is its ability to make it seem as though God is punishing Jesus and that Jesus’ death is the only way to “satisfy” the Father’s demands.

FWIW, Scotus speaks of Christ’s death using the words “perfect expiation” when justifying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861001en.html

The Tridentine decree contains another statement: Adam’s sin is transmitted to all his descendants by generation and not merely by way of bad example. The decree states: “This sin of Adam, which by origin is unique and transmitted by generation and not by way of imitation, is present in all as proper to each” (DS 1513).

Therefore original sin is transmitted by way of natural generation. This conviction of the Church is indicated also by the practice of infant baptism, to which the conciliar decree refers. Newborn infants are incapable of committing personal sin, yet in accordance with the Church’s centuries-old tradition, they are baptized shortly after birth for the remission of sin. The decree states: “They are truly baptized for the remission of sin, so that what they contracted in generation may be cleansed by regeneration” (DS 1514).

 

[CrossofChrist]

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”.

)

This is not an accurate assessment. At least I don’t think so. Hopefully to all the viewers out there my position on the matter has been clear.

 

[grannymh]

This is not an accurate assessment. At least I don’t think so. Hopefully to all the viewers out there my position on the matter has been clear.

Out of context quotes often present problems of doubt. For example, the mechanism of injured and restored right becomes nearly meaningless when it is separated from the context of Catholic teachings on the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. For example, Adam, the creature did not have an inherent “right” to be restored. It is the Creator who freely gave Adam the State of Holiness, aka the original spiritual relationship between the Creator and the creature. When Adam freely shattered that relationship, he did not have the divine power to restore that relationship simply because he was not equal to his Creator. Adam was given the gift of a rational spiritual soul which made the human species peerless. It is this background information which is needed to clarify “restored right.”

Another view. If Adam had maintained his State of Holiness, then he would have had the right to be in the presence of the Beatific Vision after his life on earth was completed. The opportunity to share in God’s life in joy eternal was given to Adam in Genesis 1: 26-27. The point is that when “restored right” is separated from the teachings on human nature and God’s free invitation to us, a problem of doubt appears.

I would like to comment on this statement from post 80. “Our connection to God is only by our connection with Christ.”

Our connection to God is the result of Genesis 1: 26-27.

and comment on the danger in this statement from post 80. " So, because he is first, Christ is God’s way of saying that he already forgives us beforehand by his infinite love."

Sad to say. I have seen the idea of automatic or pre-established forgiveness, because God loves infinitely, lead straight to the abolishment of the Catholic Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation especially when mortal sin is committed.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, CrossofChrist!

I am going to aim toward brevity, so if I skip anything you want specifically addressed, please bring it back.

I’m skipping the Scotus part because I’m not too familiar with him.

Well, when you get a chance, take the time to read his views. If you find them legitimate, we can discuss them, though I have to admit that I am not well-read on him either.

Yes. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861105en.html

This was in response to the question “does sin incur a debt”? Perhaps you could pick out the parts of that link that are most pertinent? Then I could present a different point of view. I agree that such “incurring” happens. Why does it happen? Where does it happen? How does God’s unconditional love come into play? Even if the debt is incurred “against God”, it makes no difference because placation does not act on God. This again indicates that it is legitimate in view that there is no disfavor on the part of God, ever. On the other hand, can you, as I see the legitimacy of the opposite point of view, that God does need to be placated, and that God does disfavor man in some way?

You see, if we can come to the point of seeing both points of view as legitimate, then we can move to the point of harmonizing the differences!

But he wasn’t countering the idea of expiation per se. He was countering a particular way of understanding expiation.

• The gaze of Jesus embraces individuals and multitudes, and he brings them all before the Father, offering Himself as a sacrifice of expiation.* - Pope Benedict XVI, Lent, 2006.

The idea of expiation is also part of Catholic dogma (see Trent’s Canons (#3) on the Sacrifice of the Mass).

Here is something that seems to draw on the same line of thought:

Why “was it… necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” (cf. Lk 24: 26) This question sometimes receives what might be termed a “weak”, and in a certain sense, reassuring answer. Christ, in revealing the truth of God, necessarily provokes the opposition of the forces of evil and darkness, and these forces, as happened with the prophets, will lead to his rejection and elimination. “It was necessary that Christ suffer” would then be understood in the sense of “it was inevitable that Christ suffer”.

Paul gives a very “strong” answer to that question. The need is not of the natural order but rather of the supernatural. In countries where the Christian faith has existed since antiquity the idea of suffering and the cross is almost always associated with sacrifice and expiation. Suffering, it is thought, is necessary to atone for sins and to placate God’s justice. This is what has provoked, in the modern epoch, the rejection of every idea of sacrifice offered to God, and in the end, the very idea of God.

It cannot be denied that we Christians have possibly exposed ourselves to this accusation. But we are dealing with a ambiguity that a better understanding of St Paul’s thought has already definitively clarified. He writes that God has preordained Christ “whom God put forward as an expiation” (Rom 3: 25).** However, this expiation does not act on God to placate him, but on sin to eliminate it**. “It can be said that it is God himself, not man, who expiates sin… the image is that of removing a corrosive stain or neutralizing a lethal virus rather than anger placated by punishment” [2].

Christ has given a radically new meaning to the idea of sacrifice. In it, "it is no longer man who exerts an influence on God in order to placate him. Rather it is God who acts to make man stop hating him and his neighbour. Salvation does not start with man asking for reconciliation; it begins with God’s request: “Be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5: 20ff.) [3].

It seems to me that if there is a debt incurred to God then we are looking at placation. To me, what is being indicated, as mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia in the OP, is that the whole idea of “expiation” is not to be taken too far. Nobody is “owed”. It is more like the consequence of Jesus’ incarnation was His suffering, but in that suffering there was more that the common man could relate to, that God suffers with us and we with Him. Is this the “participatory” approach that Paul ascribes?

It has long seemed to me that suffering was an aspect the process of our own education, our own awareness. I suffer, therefore, I learn.

I thank you immensely for calling my attention to this article, because also contained in it is this statement which I can very much relate to:

Yet God’s measure of justice is different from ours and if he sees good faith or blameless ignorance he saves even those who had been anxious to fight him in their lives.

This is what I see,CrossofChrist, that all sin has the crucial element of blindness and/or ignorance, and in such seeing, I find no reason to “blame” man, in the sense that I find reason or compulsion to condemn.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

Hi again, I am going to take out bits and pieces from this post, please let me know if I left too much out.

But there is a debt for someone in a state of sin. An infinite debt, an infinite “gap” we can’t make up.

The idea of a debt payment isn’t just Anselm’s; it’s part of the larger Tradition. Certainly he had his own spin on it, but the idea of propitiation itslef is enshrined in Christianity.

… our status before God is changed because we are brought into God and can participate in the divine life after Christ’s life/death/resurrection.

Well, God is justice.

So, in my view, all of these statements involve some element of placation. There is a gap, there is a debt payment, and then our status before God is changed. This, I agree, is a legitimate view.

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.

Here, I think it depends on what you mean by “participate” in terms of whether this is a matter of placating God or is a matter of changing man’s view about God.

Christ came to show us his love. His love by his example for us (in various ways outlined many times by various saints), but most importantly by his dying for us to lift us up from sin.

He didn’t need anything to happen, BUT, his life, death, and resurrection IS his favor. The means for us to live in a state where WE participate in God’s favor is given in Christ. A parent can love a child even when they don’t love the parent back. But the parent’s extended hand to the child when they are fallen on the ground is both the expression of the parent’s love and the offering of the parent’s love to the child.

What makes up for our sin isn’t any change in God, but our being brought into God (so to speak). The offering of Christ isn’t an offering to appease God’s anger but to bring us into God’s love.

Here again, what does it mean to “bring us into God’s love” if God already loves us unconditionally, even before Christ, even before Adam? The placation view (debt incurred and needs payment) is that we are brought into God’s love by Christ, right? The opposite point of view would be that Christ brings our love to God, does it not? Christ shows us who God really is, and through that we see how He loves us, and therefore we can love God in a most endearing way, a way that we can when we know our “Abba”, our Daddy! We need not fear His wrath, is what I am hearing from Pope Benedict, the wrath is not there.

They aren’t different approaches because it is de fide that God both loved us eternally and that Jesus’ sacrifice has expiatory value. The question is how to reconcile those two teachings, and that is what accounts for the differences among various saints.

Yes, we are focusing on the “expiatory”, and the different approaches.

I asked a question about this:

Why does the human (universally!) think that there is a debt to be paid?

And your answer was:

Because there is. We have created an infinite debt to God that only God can make up. And God does so by his love. If my understanding is correct that means that God forgives by his very nature. So what makes up for, what pays for, our sin is God. God repays God.
How did he choose to do so? By making his infinite act of love for us within time through Jesus.

I am looking for a more indepth explanation, though. As I explained, when we forgive we no longer have this sense of debt. Do you see what I am saying? The sense of debt is a product of a lack of forgiveness. So, before we have forgiven, we have this sense of debt. The question is, why? Why is it that before we have forgiven, we have this sense of debt?

God Bless, and thanks again!

I have family over this afternoon, so I won’t be on the forum much for the next few days. I apologize to my other friends who have posted for now. I “owed” this one to Cross of Christ first, and I hope to placate other demands in the future.

 

[OneSheep]

For all of those interested, here is a great overview of the issue at hand, including St. Thomas Aquinas’ view. It is a bit long, but worth the read:

patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/12/for-mind-blowing-franciscan-thoughts-on-the-incarnation-by-bl-john-duns-scotus.html

Enjoy!

 

[grannymh]

I wonder if any of the current great intellectuals know that the Catholic Church does not have any properly defined doctrines/Divine Revelation specifically and directly describing in perfect detail how Adam and Eve would get to heaven after no bodily death. (Think no Original Sin)

Should we be imagining Jesus saying – On the other hand, here are some interesting issues to take away the boredom of My audience.

 

[grannymh]

I wonder if any of the current great intellectuals realize that the performance of Original Sin required immediate action on the part of Adam. Could that immediate action be considered a debt owed? Obviously, Adam did not throw a party with dancing in the street.

 

[OneSheep]

I wonder if any of the current great intellectuals know that the Catholic Church does not have any properly defined doctrines/Divine Revelation specifically and directly describing in perfect detail how Adam and Eve would get to heaven after no bodily death. (Think no Original Sin)

Should we be imagining Jesus saying – On the other hand, here are some interesting issues to take away the boredom of My audience.

Granny, you are the Greatest!

Thanks for all the fun comments, but I would really like to know your answers to my post 76 questions.

You don’t have to, of course, but the questions regard the manner of the thread.

If I don’t get a chance to say again, have a happy Thanksgiving!

 

[OneSheep]

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

Hi Simpleas!

You may recall that I don’t think we necessarily had a “fall”. It is very possible that God has continued through the ages making order out of chaos, in an uninterrupted way. Humans continue to get “better” over the millennia, IMO. People are becoming more loving.

What I was addressing was say, person A looks at a person B, and person B has the opinion “God finds us worthy”. If person A determines that person B’s opinion comes from pride or arrogance, then person A closes off their mind to the possibility that person B’s opinion reflects the truth. This is not a matter of jealousy, I think it is a matter that people hold their own truths very dear, and if something different comes along, then it is taken as a threat to their own truth, do you see what I mean? Remember the thread with the women priests discussion? That one seems to hit triggers every time, the opposite opinion is seen as a threat to the security of the truth as known.

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).

Can you understand, though, Simpleas, the point of view that God does disfavor us, that He disfavored Adam? Can you see that such a view is also legitimate?

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…

Waaaiiit a minute, didn’t you just say that God doesn’t disfavor anybody? Yet now you are saying we are still unworthy? Now, I’m confused. If you were being truthful, then you answered my question, you can indeed see that both views are legitimate!

The title of my thread was “Did humanity…”, past tense. This is what the discussion is about, Simpleas. Some theologians say that there was never a debt, and some say that there was. In the former view, Jesus did not come to satisfy God’s need for a payment, but came to show us that God loves us unconditionally and participates in our suffering, among other aspects of incarnation. In the latter view, the focus is on God as Justice, that human departure from cooperation and moral living called for punitive action on God’s part, and Jesus comes to erase that debt, among other aspects of incarnation. This is too simplistic a synopsis, and I apologize to readers for the lack of depth (and accuracy!) in those summaries.

Good day, mademoiselle.

 

[OneSheep]

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:

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.

Hello, wmw, and welcome!

I am a little confused about which theologian you are referring to, but I don’t think anyone is arguing that Jesus is not our true shepherd or pascal lamb. The differences lie in the definitions and significance of those two concepts.

For example, can you see the legitimacy of Anselm’s view? Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the view in the link I provided in the OP. I know, this begs the definition of legitimate. Let’s observe together that neither Duns Scotus view or Anselm’s view have been added to the heap of heresies and anathemas. So, can they be harmonized? I think so! It does take some discussion to do so, and we have yet to begin on this thread! So far, no one has expressed that they see the legitimacy of both views.

Have a great Thanksgiving, if you are from the States. Thanks for your response!

 

[grannymh]

Granny, you are the Greatest!

Thanks for all the fun comments, but I would really like to know your answers to my post 76 questions.

You don’t have to, of course, but the questions regard the manner of the thread.

If I don’t get a chance to say again, have a happy Thanksgiving!

And may Thanksgiving be happy for you and your family.
granny’s replies to questions in post 76. Take them or leave them.

“Do you get the subtle point too, Granny?”
answer. Nope.
“There is such a thing as two or more legitimate differences…”
answer. In football, yes. Within the Catholic Deposit of Faith, no.
“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?”
answer. No clue. I do think that legitimate differences in a football game can be ruled out. Since there are no legitimate differences within the Catholic Deposit of Faith, I need a hint or two.

"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?”
answer. Not currently. My older than dirt brain needs specifics. I do not harmonize anything blindly.

“Do you see, Granny?”
answer. Nope

“There are aspects of the “deposit of faith” subject to legitimate differences. True love does not eliminate them, Granny.”
answer. The Holy Spirit is true love. That is why it is His wisdom which guards the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
“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?”
answer. Nope.

“Give it a think and a prayer, Good Granny.
thanks for your continued efforts.”
answer. You are welcome. And I will give all of this a think and a prayer.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

You may recall that I don’t think we necessarily had a “fall”. It is very possible that God has continued through the ages making order out of chaos, in an uninterrupted way. Humans continue to get “better” over the millennia, IMO. People are becoming more loving.

Yes

What I was addressing was say, person A looks at a person B, and person B has the opinion “God finds us worthy”. If person A determines that person B’s opinion comes from pride or arrogance, then person A closes off their mind to the possibility that person B’s opinion reflects the truth. This is not a matter of jealousy, I think it is a matter that people hold their own truths very dear, and if something different comes along, then it is taken as a threat to their own truth, do you see what I mean? Remember the thread with the women priests discussion? That one seems to hit triggers every time, the opposite opinion is seen as a threat to the security of the truth as known.

Thanks for explaining, but people are holding the churches truth rather than their own truth. Yes I see how some people can get rather upset about some discussions.

Can you understand, though, Simpleas, the point of view that God does disfavor us, that He disfavored Adam? Can you see that such a view is also legitimate?

Waaaiiit a minute, didn’t you just say that God doesn’t disfavor anybody? Yet now you are saying we are still unworthy? Now, I’m confused. If you were being truthful, then you answered my question, you can indeed see that both views are legitimate!

The title of my thread was “Did humanity…”, past tense. This is what the discussion is about, Simpleas. Some theologians say that there was never a debt, and some say that there was. In the former view, Jesus did not come to satisfy God’s need for a payment, but came to show us that God loves us unconditionally and participates in our suffering, among other aspects of incarnation. In the latter view, the focus is on God as Justice, that human departure from cooperation and moral living called for punitive action on God’s part, and Jesus comes to erase that debt, among other aspects of incarnation. This is too simplistic a synopsis, and I apologize to readers for the lack of depth (and accuracy!) in those summaries.

Sorry I thought you were also asking do we as humanity still owe a debt. Jesus was the last perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world is what I have learnt from the teachings I received. I can see and sometimes it makes more sense about Jesus’ death and ressurrection for the love of people

Good day, mademoiselle.

Good evening

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks for explaining, but people are holding the churches truth rather than their own truth. Yes I see how some people can get rather upset about some discussions.

Hello, Simpleas!

It is central to this thread that the discussion on atonement involves the understanding that there is more than one way of looking at the “church’s truth”. St. Augustine, Pope Leo, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Duns Scotus, all had slightly different (or greatly different) views on atonement, as you also saw in the video discussion panel you posted fairly recently.

And yes, when people encounter a version that goes against “what I have always learned”, especially if “what I have always learned” is a version that if altered would shake the foundation of a person’s faith, then there is going to be some push-back.

Sorry I thought you were also asking do we as humanity still owe a debt. Jesus was the last perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world is what I have learnt from the teachings I received. I can see and sometimes it makes more sense about Jesus’ death and ressurrection for the love of people.
Good evening

Actually, what you said there is not really a subject of differences when people discuss atonement. Core to the differences are topics like “How does God view humanity?” and “What is God like?” “Did humanity ever have a debt to pay God in order that He favor us?” and other such topics.

God Bless your day, Simpleas, and hang in there. You have a lot of great questions and comments, and don’t forget that!

 

[grannymh]

Hello, Simpleas!

It is central to this thread that the discussion on atonement involves the understanding that there is more than one way of looking at the “church’s truth”. St. Augustine, Pope Leo, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Duns Scotus, all had slightly different (or greatly different) views on atonement, as you also saw in the video discussion panel you posted fairly recently.

No problem about the different views of St. Augustine, Pope Leo, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Duns Scotus and current Catholics. What is the big deal about different views when we all know that the Catholic Church follows the correct view provided by the Holy Spirit?

And yes, when people encounter a version that goes against “what I have always learned”, especially if “what I have always learned” is a version that if altered would shake the foundation of a person’s faith, then there is going to be some push-back.

Who is pushing whom when we all know that it is the wisdom of the Holy Spirit which the Catholic Church follows?

Actually, what you said there is not really a subject of differences when people discuss atonement. Core to the differences are topics like “How does God view humanity?” and “What is God like?” “Did humanity ever have a debt to pay God in order that He favor us?” and other such topics.

Humanity who? Excuse me. Talking about humanity in relationship to Jesus hanging bloody on His cross requires a deep belief that Adam and Eve existed.

May I make a gentle suggestion for figuring out this atonement thing?
First, there is the establishment of the reality of the original Adam and the fact that he committed the original Original Sin.

OneSheep,
Please tell us how you explain the Catholic reality of two sole real true genuine fully-complete human parents as the founders of humankind?

Thank you. And may you continue to enjoy the good which is yours – for the rest of this Thanksgiving Day and always.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Granny, and Happy Thanksgiving!

And may Thanksgiving be happy for you and your family.
granny’s replies to questions in post 76. Take them or leave them.

I will most definitely not “leave them”. Pope Benedict asks us to “harmonize”, remember?

“Do you get the subtle point too, Granny?”
answer. Nope.
“There is such a thing as two or more legitimate differences…”
answer. In football, yes. Within the Catholic Deposit of Faith, no.
“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?”
answer. No clue. I do think that legitimate differences in a football game can be ruled out. Since there are no legitimate differences within the Catholic Deposit of Faith, I need a hint or two.

So, if you do not have a clue, take the time to inform yourself, Granny! None of the people I have mentioned had views on atonement condemned as anathemas or heresies, so we can certainly view them as legitimate. Take people from where they are, Granny, give people the benefit of the doubt. Yes, the Holy Spirit guides our Church, but there are mysteries whose answers are only slowly unfolding. Isn’t that exciting! There is more for us to learn about God, Granny!

"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?”
answer. Not currently. My older than dirt brain needs specifics. I do not harmonize anything blindly.

That is an important point. It makes sense to first understand the opposing views. I understand the opposing views, and I encourage readers to do the same!

“Do you see, Granny?”
answer. Nope

“There are aspects of the “deposit of faith” subject to legitimate differences. True love does not eliminate them, Granny.”
answer. The Holy Spirit is true love. That is why it is His wisdom which guards the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
“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?”
answer. Nope.

“Give it a think and a prayer, Good Granny.
thanks for your continued efforts.”

answer. You are welcome. And I will give all of this a think and a prayer.
​

Thanks, Granny, no pressure. Once you have given this a think and a prayer, let me know your conclusion.

In the mean time, you bring up another position to harmonize. Pope Benedict told us that there are legitimate differences, and you are (I think) leaning toward that there are not legitimate differences concerning the topics we have discussed. Is the view that there are no legitimate differences in itself legitimate? Well, the Pope’s words seem to indicate what he sees as the truth (that there are legitimate differences), but would he understand the point of view that says “there are no legitimate differences”, and ask us to harmonize those two points of view? I think so!

Again, I find myself going to the Eucharist for the answer. We all profess one creed, we all love Jesus, and we all love His Church! That is the starting point. From there, we look at the guidance from the Holy Spirit in the history of the Church, and how the Spirit unfolds and works through “legitimate differences”. Feel free to disagree, Granny! Your differences, IMO, are legitimate!

Happy Turkey Day!​

 

[grannymh]

Again, I find myself going to the Eucharist for the answer. We all profess one creed, we all love Jesus, and we all love His Church! That is the starting point. From there, we look at the guidance from the Holy Spirit in the history of the Church, and how the Spirit unfolds and works through “legitimate differences”. Feel free to disagree, Granny! Your differences, IMO, are legitimate!

Happy Turkey Day!

Regarding differences, please refer to post 95. Please note last comments/ request on bottom of the post.

Regarding chapter 14, Gospel of John,
The protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth is that differences become part of the agenda for a major Ecumenical Council. It is here that the current leaders of the Church gather together to prayerfully study all differences on a point of Divine Revelation. It is here that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church in choosing one particular explanation from a host of different explanations. The remaining differences are left out of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

There are some living Catholics who resurrect discarded differences in order to support their own personal disagreements with the Catholic Church. That is nothing new. All I can do is to remind readers that the Holy Spirit does not change the Catholic Deposit of Faith whenever the wind blows.

The Index of Citations begins on page 689, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. This is a handy source when one is interested in true Catholic Ecumenical Councils or in the writings of people mentioned in various places. For example. St. Anselm of Canterbury is quoted in CCC 158.

 

[grannymh]

So, if you do not have a clue, take the time to inform yourself, Granny! None of the people I have mentioned had views on atonement condemned as anathemas or heresies, so we can certainly view them as legitimate. Take people from where they are, Granny, give people the benefit of the doubt. Yes, the Holy Spirit guides our Church, but there are mysteries whose answers are only slowly unfolding. Isn’t that exciting! There is more for us to learn about God, Granny!

Even ancient Saints had free speech.

Perhaps, today’s Catholics are not aware that Christ Jesus is the Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation.

Please read paragraphs 65-67.* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*. There is no new Public Revelation to be expected. These modern informative paragraphs include pertinent support information in small print.
Please read CCC 20-21 for the explanation of the use of small print.

Links to real Catholic Teachings.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny, and Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanks, Granny, no pressure. Once you have given this a think and a prayer, let me know your conclusion.

In the mean time, you bring up another position to harmonize. Pope Benedict told us that there are legitimate differences, and you are (I think) leaning toward that there are not legitimate differences concerning the topics we have discussed. Is the view that there are no legitimate differences in itself legitimate? Well, the Pope’s words seem to indicate what he sees as the truth (that there are legitimate differences), but would he understand the point of view that says “there are no legitimate differences”, and ask us to harmonize those two points of view? I think so!

May I humbly and quietly point out that there are plenty of legitimate differences in an election of public officials. Of course, the differences are legitimate differences and can always be considered legitimate differences during the course of history. I am sure that any Pope would suggest that certain particular legitimate differences during
an election year should be harmonized in a moral way in order to provide for the good of the electorate.

Thank you for bringing up legitimate differences. This is so important when we are working toward a harmonization of moral principles in government.