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

[wmw]

Each of the following paragraphs are copies of portions of the following NewAdvent.org Encyclopedia web page on “Doctrine of the Atonement” (newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm) From them I restate my conclusion that the views are ways at looking at the mystery of the Atonement in a metaphorical sense that if taken too far begin to falter as mere human explanation of a Devine act.

Anselm’s argument - God had chosen to restore mankind, and at the same time, to require full satisfaction as a condition of pardon and deliverance, nothing less than the Atonement made by one who was God as well as man could suffice as satisfaction for the offense against the Divine Majesty. And in this case Anselm’s argument will hold good. Mankind cannot be restored unless God becomes man to save them.

Objection - Abelard was unable to accept Anselm’s view that an equivalent satisfaction for sin was necessary, and that this debt could only be paid by the death of the Divine Redeemer. He insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction. And, in his view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God. By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God.

The Both/And Solution - the divergent views of the two schools on the primary motive of the Incarnation naturally have some effect on the Thomist and Scotist theology of the Atonement. On looking back at the various theories noticed so far, it will be seen that they are not, for the most part, mutually exclusive, but may be combined and harmonized. It may be said, indeed, that they all help to bring out different aspects of that great doctrine which cannot find adequate expression in any human theory.

 

[wmw]

I am a little confused about which theologian you are referring to,

The one that wrote the article linked to previously that completely rejects Anselm’s argument, but Anselm’s argument has and should remain a true part of the harmonized doctrine.

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.

Right, I chose wisely two images of our Lord that visually seem impossible for Jesus to be BOTH and yet very widely among Christians all have easily accepted that He is BOTH. Just like the two views on Atonement. They can and should be BOTH correct and yet not fully perfect if overextended.

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.

False, I perfectly well expressed that both views are legitimate. That there is no need of legitimate differences, but only one true doctrine that includes BOTH these two ways of looking at it. That Anselm & Abelard had legitimate differences that had to be harmonized hundreds of years ago is true, but that is no longer the case today.

 

[grannymh]

Each of the following paragraphs are copies of portions of the following NewAdvent.org Encyclopedia web page on “Doctrine of the Atonement” (newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm) From them I restate my conclusion that the views are ways at looking at the mystery of the Atonement in a metaphorical sense that if taken too far begin to falter as mere human explanation of a Devine act.

Anselm’s argument - God had chosen to restore mankind, and at the same time, to require full satisfaction as a condition of pardon and deliverance, nothing less than the Atonement made by one who was God as well as man could suffice as satisfaction for the offense against the Divine Majesty. And in this case Anselm’s argument will hold good. Mankind cannot be restored unless God becomes man to save them.

Objection - Abelard was unable to accept Anselm’s view that an equivalent satisfaction for sin was necessary, and that this debt could only be paid by the death of the Divine Redeemer. He insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction. And, in his view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God. By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God.

The Both/And Solution - the divergent views of the two schools on the primary motive of the Incarnation naturally have some effect on the Thomist and Scotist theology of the Atonement. On looking back at the various theories noticed so far, it will be seen that they are not, for the most part, mutually exclusive, but may be combined and harmonized. It may be said, indeed, that they all help to bring out different aspects of that great doctrine which cannot find adequate expression in any human theory.

Excellent post. Thank you.

The reason that today’s intellectual Catholics cannot completely “harmonize,” whatever that means, is that today, many, not all, Catholics do not accept the full definition of Original Sin, especially the fact that a real Original Sin was freely committed by the first real human person who began his life in the real State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. This is the result of the secular movement within the Catholic Church, which demands that Divine Revelation be updated to comport with the Science of Human Evolution.

One obvious mistake that is being made is that some, not all, modern Catholic intellectuals fail to realize that Anselm and Abelard had not read the research of Charles Darwin. The second obvious mistake is that some, not all, of these intellectuals do not see the necessity of continuing the “rest of the story.”

 

[CrossofChrist]

---

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.

It is part of the legitimate view. Because how else is Christ central to our relationship with God? If we are united with God apart from Christ, then there is no need for the Church.

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?

But God doesn’t love us before Christ. Christ is God’s love for us.

Think about it this way: creation is a “thought” of God’s; God thinks in all of eternity about a finite existence called creation. This finite existence exists solely for the purpose of being brought into supernatural unity with the eternity of God, but at the same time it already does exist in that unity with God. How? Not by the very nature of the “thought”, but that thought has supernatural unity with God because of Christ.

The placation view (debt incurred and needs payment) is that we are brought into God’s love by Christ, right?

Correct.

The opposite point of view would be that Christ brings our love to God, does it not?

But apart from Christ, we have no love for God.

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.

All of this is true, but I don’t see how it proves your point in anyway.

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

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?

Maybe this will help better explain what I mean: The only link we have in our existential condition to God’s eternity is in Christ, and while his Incarnation brings our nature to the supernatural level of God, the “door” isn’t opened for us until Christ has atoned for our sins via the Crucifixion. The Resurrection is what enables us to “enter through” that door.

The “door” is eternity–love–which our sin, incompatible with absolute love and therefore an infinite offense against that love, blocks us from entering. Christ entered by his Incarnation, and we can enter after him once he has died and risen.

But Christ is also the very purpose for the creation. Without him, God would’ve had no reason to create. So Jesus isn’t just an afterthought to the problem of sin. Because creation is meant to show God’s glory, which is done in the highest fashion–although in God’s freedom could’ve been shown in any other way–in Christ (since he is God). So rather, sin is in a sense an “afterthought” to Christ—something permitted (although not desired) to show God’s glory.

This can help us understand why sin is an offense to God. It disrupts the plan he made for us, to be united with God in eternity. When we sin, we sin both against God and against ourselves.

So there exists a debt. Not a debt that God creates and all of a sudden forgives by some human action, but a debt that we create by blocking out the free love of God. The debt–the blocking out of God–is made up by Christ who enables us to have access to the forgiveness of God. Without Christ, we don’t have any bridge to God’s forgiveness, because Christ is God’s forgiveness for us.

FWIW, I realize some of the above is theological speculation, but only because it helps us understand how two doctrines of the Church can be reconciled, namely God’s eternal love for us and the sacrificial and expiatory value of Christ’s death.

*If any of this is incomprehensible, my excuse is I’m very hungry.

 

[CrossofChrist]

False, I perfectly well expressed that both views are legitimate. That there is no need of legitimate differences, but only one true doctrine that includes BOTH these two ways of looking at it.

 

[grannymh]

It is part of the legitimate view. Because how else is Christ central to our relationship with God? If we are united with God apart from Christ, then there is no need for the Church.

But God doesn’t love us before Christ. Christ is God’s love for us.

Think about it this way: creation is a “thought” of God’s; God thinks in all of eternity about a finite existence called creation. This finite existence exists solely for the purpose of being brought into supernatural unity with the eternity of God, but at the same time it already does exist in that unity with God. How? Not by the very nature of the “thought”, but that thought has supernatural unity with God because of Christ.

Correct.

But apart from Christ, we have no love for God.

All of this is true, but I don’t see how it proves your point in anyway.

Maybe this will help better explain what I mean: The only link we have in our existential condition to God’s eternity is in Christ, and while his Incarnation brings our nature to the supernatural level of God, the “door” isn’t opened for us until Christ has atoned for our sins via the Crucifixion. The Resurrection is what enables us to “enter through” that door.

The “door” is eternity–love–which our sin, incompatible with absolute love and therefore an infinite offense against that love, blocks us from entering. Christ entered by his Incarnation, and we can enter after him once he has died and risen.

But Christ is also the very purpose for the creation. Without him, God would’ve had no reason to create. So Jesus isn’t just an afterthought to the problem of sin. Because creation is meant to show God’s glory, which is done in the highest fashion–although in God’s freedom could’ve been shown in any other way–in Christ (since he is God). So rather, sin is in a sense an “afterthought” to Christ—something permitted (although not desired) to show God’s glory.

This can help us understand why sin is an offense to God. It disrupts the plan he made for us, to be united with God in eternity. When we sin, we sin both against God and against ourselves.

So there exists a debt. Not a debt that God creates and all of a sudden forgives by some human action, but a debt that we create by blocking out the free love of God. The debt–the blocking out of God–is made up by Christ who enables us to have access to the forgiveness of God. Without Christ, we don’t have any bridge to God’s forgiveness, because Christ is God’s forgiveness for us.

FWIW, I realize some of the above is theological speculation, but only because it helps us understand how two doctrines of the Church can be reconciled, namely God’s eternal love for us and the sacrificial and expiatory value of Christ’s death.

*If any of this is incomprehensible, my excuse is I’m very hungry.

The reason, and please accept my apology, that this borders on the incomprehensible, is because the cornerstone, Original Sin, is now swept under the rug. In addition, the true direct connection to God, Genesis 1: 26-27, appears to be slighted.

A rather stupid question —
Why is theological speculation required when there are already simple basic Catholic doctrines, flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. In my neighborhood, we don’t bother with reinventing the wheel.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The reason, and please accept my apology, that this borders on the incomprehensible, is because the cornerstone, Original Sin, is now swept under the rug. In addition, the true direct connection to God, Genesis 1: 26-27, appears to be slighted.

How so?

A rather stupid question —
Why is theological speculation required when there are already simple basic Catholic doctrines, flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. In my neighborhood, we don’t bother with reinventing the wheel.

To better understand what we already know. It’s not about “reinventing the wheel”, but building on what we know.

An example of theological speculation: Christ would’ve become man had man not sinned. Scotus argued for it, others argued against it, and Aquinas seemed to lean toward the side that was against it. In reality, we don’t know the answer. Maybe some day on earth it will become clear though.

Another example would be reconciling God’s salvific will for all of humanity and how the Gospel is yet to be proclaimed to some people. So, most modern speculative theology would say that the Gospel is implicitly found among people of good will (we can’t limit God’s grace) and made explicit once the Gospel is proclaimed there. If you are interested, de Lubac wrote a book entitled Catholicism that is a great read. Ratzinger highly praised it.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The reason, and please accept my apology, that this borders on the incomprehensible, is because the cornerstone, Original Sin, is now swept under the rug. In addition, the true direct connection to God, Genesis 1: 26-27, appears to be slighted.

How so?

Here is an example from post 95.
"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.”

At the bottom of post 95, there is this request.
“Please tell us how you explain the Catholic reality of two sole real true genuine
fully-complete human parents as the founders of humankind?”

Common sense says that there had to be a need for presenting this request. Obviously, in this thread, there has not been a lot of discussion about the Catholic teachings on the original Original Sin which is the source for any kind of debt. If I accidentally missed a significant discussion on Adam and Original Sin which triggered the need for Jesus Christ, please point me to the post. Thank you.
(Information source. Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22)

I am sure that a significant percent of readers will be surprised by this statement from CCC 389.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

The theologian St. Paul connects the first Adam to Jesus Christ. Yet, how often has this connection been properly explained in this thread? Oops! That is another question that seeks a full complete explanation.

 

[simpleas]

So Christ would have still come to earth to teach us, although we would be without sin, which to me would exclude all unlove, violence, greed etc, etc. And as a humanity of love, Christ would not have had to suffer and be put to death, because we would not do such a thing to anyone in the first place. So no debt to be paid.

What of all the prophets before Christ, who spoke to God, saw him even and then taught the wayward peoples about morals etc?

None of this would have accured, we would be very different people had sin not entered the world. I think we would be very different in the 21st century if Christ is had not arrived to make it right.

 

[grannymh]

Pardon me.
I realize that speculating about how God should behave is great fun.
However, and do accept my apology for referring to Catholicism, ignoring human nature as created by God does not sound proper.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If I accidentally missed a significant discussion on Adam and Original Sin which triggered the need for Jesus Christ, please point me to the post. Thank you.
(Information source. Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22)

Ah, here I see why you might be questioning my post. I was not denying the importance of original sin in creating the debt. Original sin is necessary for us to understand how sin entered the world, and therefore is essential to Christ redeeming us.

But this doesn’t touch on whether or not Christ would’ve become man had man not sinned, or how God permits sin ultimately for a greater good (Christ). This is because “Christ is the center of history and of the cosmos” (Pope Benedict XVI)

Neither does this address how my post appears to have slighted Genesis 1:26-27, which I don’t believe it did. God made man in his image, giving him a rational intellect with a capacity for the supernatural. The ultimate purpose for this was for man to participate in the beatific vision, to have communion with God. The only way for us to have access to God is through Christ. “Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.”” (Pope St. John Paul II)

 

[grannymh]

Ah, here I see why you might be questioning my post. I was not denying the importance of original sin in creating the debt. Original sin is necessary for us to understand how sin entered the world, and therefore is essential to Christ redeeming us.

But this doesn’t touch on whether or not Christ would’ve become man had man not sinned, or how God permits sin ultimately for a greater good (Christ). This is because “Christ is the center of history and of the cosmos” (Pope Benedict XVI)

Neither does this address how my post appears to have slighted Genesis 1:26-27, which I don’t believe it did. God made man in his image, giving him a rational intellect with a capacity for the supernatural. The ultimate purpose for this was for man to participate in the beatific vision, to have communion with God. The only way for us to have access to God is through Christ. “Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.”” (Pope St. John Paul II)

This comment about an only link is a tad narrow.
"The only link we have in our existential condition to God’s eternity is in Christ, "
Genesis 1: 26-27 gives the original essential basic necessary means of having a relationship with Christ True God. You may have the last word regarding the importance of Genesis 1: 26-27.

I did not see any denial in your post.
I simply made a simple observation which is “The reason, and please accept my apology, that this borders on the incomprehensible, is because the cornerstone, Original Sin, is now swept under the rug.” And I will now add another simple observation. While it is true that Original Sin is necessary for us to understand how sin entered the world, and therefore is essential to Christ redeeming us – It is also true that we cannot truly understand the depth of Original Sin unless we know what it is and what exactly it did. You may have the last word regarding any necessity to know what the actual Original Sin is and did.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

 

[CrossofChrist]

This comment about an only link is a tad narrow.
"The only link we have in our existential condition to God’s eternity is in Christ, "
Genesis 1: 26-27 gives the original essential basic necessary means of having a relationship with Christ True God. You may have the last word regarding the importance of Genesis 1: 26-27.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

Ah, I got ahead of myself. What I meant was our access to the beatific vision and the supernatural life of faith is only through Christ. This in a sense gives new meaning to Gen 1:26-27 since our being in the image of God is no longer just about our rationality, but also because we are an image of Christ (since all are called to a supernatural end, given only through Christ).

 

[simpleas]

Ah, I got ahead of myself. What I meant was our access to the beatific vision and the supernatural life of faith is only through Christ. This in a sense gives new meaning to Gen 1:26-27 since our being in the image of God is no longer just about our rationality, but also because we are an image of Christ (since all are called to a supernatural end, given only through Christ).

 

[ynotzap]

Pardon me.
I realize that speculating about how God should behave is great fun.
However, and do accept my apology for referring to Catholicism, ignoring human nature as created by God does not sound proper.

Did they ever consider that God can not create an “infallible” human? To be infallible is to be omniscient, all knowing, are humans all-knowing, if not, what is the alternative, will they always retain free will, and if so, are mistakes, sin, inevitable? So even if Jesus could come to mankind even if mankind did not sin, is this pure speculation making man infallible, and if that is the case, should we dismiss the entire speculaltion. As St. Thomas said, "God can do anything and could come to mankind even if He did not sin, and he just conceded that truth, but it answered a possiblilty, not an actuality. The eternal truth is that mankind needed redemption, and Christ is the Redeemer.

 

[grannymh]

Did they ever consider that God can not create an “infallible” human? To be infallible is to be omniscient, all knowing, are humans all-knowing, if not, what is the alternative, will they always retain free will, and if so, are mistakes, sin, inevitable? So even if Jesus could come to mankind even if mankind did not sin, is this pure speculation making man infallible, and if that is the case, should we dismiss the entire speculaltion. As St. Thomas said, "God can do anything and could come to mankind even if He did not sin, and he just conceded that truth, but it answered a possiblilty, not an actuality. The eternal truth is that mankind needed redemption, and Christ is the Redeemer.

I cannot speak for the speculations of the deceased. In my humble opinion, these current speculations are a classic example of the tail wagging the dog,

Absolutely, the eternal truth is that mankind needed redemption, and Christ is the Redeemer.

 

[OneSheep]

Each of the following paragraphs are copies of portions of the following NewAdvent.org Encyclopedia web page on “Doctrine of the Atonement” (newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm) From them I restate my conclusion that the views are ways at looking at the mystery of the Atonement in a metaphorical sense that if taken too far begin to falter as mere human explanation of a Devine act.

Anselm’s argument - God had chosen to restore mankind, and at the same time, to require full satisfaction as a condition of pardon and deliverance, nothing less than the Atonement made by one who was God as well as man could suffice as satisfaction for the offense against the Divine Majesty. And in this case Anselm’s argument will hold good. Mankind cannot be restored unless God becomes man to save them.

Objection - Abelard was unable to accept Anselm’s view that an equivalent satisfaction for sin was necessary, and that this debt could only be paid by the death of the Divine Redeemer. He insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction. And, in his view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God. By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God.

The Both/And Solution - the divergent views of the two schools on the primary motive of the Incarnation naturally have some effect on the Thomist and Scotist theology of the Atonement. On looking back at the various theories noticed so far, it will be seen that they are not, for the most part, mutually exclusive, but may be combined and harmonized. It may be said, indeed, that they all help to bring out different aspects of that great doctrine which cannot find adequate expression in any human theory.

Hi wmw!

I am a big fan of both/and solutions!

However, I am not averse to attempt to humanly find expression. It is interesting that the New Advent article is the same (essentially) as the link in my OP, signed by “W H Kent”:

catholic.com/encyclopedia/doctrine-of-the-atonement

So, let’s also look at a different part of the encyclopedia article:

But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge.....

Here, I find that an opposing legitimate view is not mentioned, that God does not get angry

…, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

Well, I think that to many people the “only” is lost in the sentiment that the “debt due” was an essential part of the whole picture, and that payment was also an essential part of the picture. This, IMO, is also legitimate. The question has to come back to: did God’s favor of man depend on the incarnation?.

It makes sense in light of a wrathful God that there was disfavor, and that satisfaction was essential to regain favor, whether or not the satisfaction was the cause or the result of God’s mercy. Some people certainly cannot believe that God is merciful at all toward those who do evil, it is beyond their comprehension, they find such a God unconscionable. What are we to say to those individuals about the “falsehood” of their view?

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

Again, it makes some sense that if God was angry about sin, that there would be the sentiment occurring among many that God would need to be appeased somehow, placated. Somebody would have to pay, and Jesus “paid” with His life. There is a lot of support for this view, especially in light of a God who “angers at the sight of sin” and does not immediately forgive unconditionally. Unconditional forgiveness, in itself, is very often seen as unconscionable and unacceptable. How would one explain that this view (Jesus died to appease an angry God) is not legitimate, if this is the way they see God?

To me, there is a means of harmonizing even those views that the encyclopedia describes as untrue or “mistaken tendencies”. Do you see such a means?

I am looking at a pastoral approach.

Thanks, wmw!

 

[OneSheep]

wmw:

I perfectly well expressed that both views are legitimate. That there is no need of legitimate differences, but only one true doctrine that includes BOTH these two ways of looking at it. That Anselm & Abelard had legitimate differences that had to be harmonized hundreds of years ago is true, but that is no longer the case today.

I am wondering if you read the link to parts of Cardinal Ratzinger’s * Introduction* in the OP. It would seem to me that if the views had been harmonized years ago, he would not have put the two (his own vs Anselm’s) in the book. The Cardinal pointed out what he saw as some problematic areas. Even if doctrine may seem clear (IMO, it is not!) there is a persistent adherence to Anselm’s theology. Did you read the part I linked?

A very big question in this remains: Why is the appeal of Anselm’s view so universal? Yes, as the Cardinal said, the theology is prevalent, and occurs in many, many, religions.

Again, thanks!

 

[grannymh]

A very big question in this remains: Why is the appeal of Anselm’s view so universal? Yes, as the Cardinal said, the theology is prevalent, and occurs in many, many, religions.

Again, thanks!

Why is the appeal of certain, not all, proposals of Anselm’s (and more recent promoters) so universal? One reason could be the desire to update Catholicism so that it blends in (harmonizes) with contemporary living. Another reason is that the State of Original Sin and the State of Mortal Sin is not appealing. Objections to Original Sin – it requires human responsibility-- has been around for centuries. More current is that some, not all, Catholics do not like the idea that ultimately the human person is responsible for decisions which could result in a broken relationship with the Creator. Possibly, the objection to Jesus dying on the cross is that His bloody act is really scary.

 

[OneSheep]

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?

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

Good morning Granny! Happy New Year, Happy Advent!

We await the coming of our savior.

I know, you see the CCC as the last unalterable words. The CCC emphasizes certain views, Granny, and some legitimate views are not emphasized enough. I get the idea, generally speaking, that people want the stability of doctrine. To me, God is much more than doctrine.

The Holy Spirit, Granny, can provide us with two or more views that He will guide us to harmonize.

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.

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.

Thanks, Granny. I know, the literal Adam and Eve and the literal story are very important to you and your faith. Such is legitimate.

Why is the appeal of certain, not all, proposals of Anselm’s (and more recent promoters) so universal? One reason could be the desire to update Catholicism so that it blends in (harmonizes) with contemporary living. Another reason is that the State of Original Sin and the State of Mortal Sin is not appealing. Objections to Original Sin – it requires human responsibility-- has been around for centuries. More current is that some, not all, Catholics do not like the idea that ultimately the human person is responsible for decisions which could result in a broken relationship with the Creator. Possibly, the objection to Jesus dying on the cross is that His bloody act is really scary.

Possibly, but I think that now you are mixing up Anselm with the others. The question I asked is more broad, Granny. Here was my question:

Why is the appeal of Anselm’s view so universal? Yes, as the Cardinal said, the theology is prevalent, and occurs in many, many, religions.

Pagan and other religions the world over have the view that payment is due God. Some of it is offerings of gratitude, most of it is for reparations of perceived disfavor. However, it also happens that some people do not perceive disfavor.

Indeed, even the atheist is subject to the same issues, but “God” can become the society as a whole. Does society favor me, or disfavor me? What can I do to placate society? etc.

Do you see what I am asking, Granny? Why does our mind operate in this way?

Have a great Sunday!