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

[OneSheep]

One Sheep, I’m just going to respond without quoting since I don’t think quoting you will add much new…

You are viewing things in a linear way, evident by your use of “microseconds”, etc.

But can you see how they could both be true simultaneously, in a kind of paradox?

Pope John Paul II: “He made him who did not know sin to be sin” (2 Cor 5: 21). A few moments ago, in the second reading, we heard this surprising assertion made by the Apostle. What do these words mean? They seem, and in effect are, a paradox. How could God, who is holiness itself, “make” his Only-begotten Son, sent into the world, “to be sin”? Yet this is exactly what we read in the passage from St Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. We are in the presence of a mystery: a mystery which at first sight is baffling, but is clearly written in divine Revelation.

If it is true about Christ in relation to us, that it is a paradoxical relationship, couldn’t that also be true about us in relation to Christ?

Good Morning, CrossofChrist!

I have been a bit busier lately, but your posts give me something to ponder and investigate. The best I can decipher out of Jesus “becoming sin” is that it means that in the incarnation when God became human, He took on the capacity to sin, just as any ordinary human. He had to deal with all of the same compulsions, desires, drives, appetites, suffering, and so forth that we do.

I am still wondering about the answer to this question:

So, I am wondering, can you can see the legitimacy of the point of view that God (Jesus) would never disfavor us, even for a microsecond?

This is another way of looking at the issue, from a spirituality standpoint. When I sense that I am offended by someone, I have a sense that the person owes me something, I feel resentment, anger, I have a negative feeling towards him, I hold something against him.

In the process of forgiveness, I come to understand, through prayer and reflection, why the person did what they did, to the degree that I can say “I could have done what he did given his situation and awareness.” I feel one again; I have reconciled, and all of the negative feelings toward the person have been lifted. I may feel sadness, but all desire for the person to “pay” simply disappears.

So, because I am so slow-witted, it takes awhile to understand the trespasser and forgive at this deeper level, but eventually I do. The time factor is limited by my awareness. Now, if I take that to the level of God, who has no time factor, He already understands why a person has sinned even before the person has committed the act. In fact, it is God who has created the man in the first place with the capacity to sin. If I know ahead of time that a person is going to do something bad, and I understand that the person is doing it out of ignorance and/or blindness, the behavior is predictable. Again, if I was complicit in creating a creature who is ignorant and capable of blindness, then I will know that sin will happen; I will feel sadness for the victim, but no anger toward the sinner. In other words, I am explaining the legitimacy of the view that* omniscience precludes wrath, that omniscience precludes debt. *

Do you see the legitimacy, or do you eliminate it? It’s okay to eliminate it, I won’t hold it against you at all. There are two quotes to add to the foundation of the “other view”:

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.

Pope Benedict

English Standard Version
And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Luke 23:34

Blame, my friend, will be in the eye of the beholder, right?

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

CrossofChrist:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing God always loves us. In fact, that is Catholic dogma, because God is love. But it is incoherent to say that sin isn’t separation from God; if sin is an action against love, then sin is incompatible with God’s nature.

Pope JPII again: However, Jesus knew that by this ultimate phase of his sacrifice, reaching the intimate core of his being, he completed the work of reparation which was the purpose of his sacrifice for the expiation of sins. If sin is separation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that separation.

To deny that sin separates us from God (not that God separates himself from us) is tantamount to saying there is no hell and we have always been justified/inastateofgrace, that sin doesn’t exist.

Note that JPII says “If sin is separation from God”. Would he use the word “if” if such an “if” would mean denial of hell and sin’s non-existence? I don’t know. St. Paul said that nothing separates us from the love of God. Like I said, though, I see the legitimacy of the other point of view.

CCC 1263: By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

Here, it says that separation from God is the gravest consequence of sin. The question is, does this grave consequence ever happen from God’s view, or does it only happen from man’s view. This brings us back to the debt issue, which brings us back to the wrath issue.

Did the prodigal son’s father always have open arms, or only when the son changed his mind, realized his error, and returned? If I was that son, I could have easily perceived that my father’s arms were not open when I had been doing so much wrong. If the prodigal son had the view that he owed a debt to his father, that would be very legitimate, and understandable. However, if the father said, “Son, I loved you, and forgave you, all along. I was there with you and wanted you home; I wanted you to stop hurting yourself and others.”, would the son see that there was never a debt?

God Bless you, CrossofChrist, and thank you for your continued patience and gentleness.

Thanks, and please feel free to “eliminate”, it’s okay!

 

[OneSheep]

Ok thanks for explaining

Yes I’m learning now how people do view God. Although I don’t think I’ve viewed God in way you explained. To me God is the only one being that wouldn’t treat us a worthless, nor condemn us, he is our creator after all.

I know of the animal sacrifices, and so Jesus is seen as the perfect human sacrifice to end all sacrifice.

What of when Jesus tells us that we must eat his body and drink his blood? If there was no sacrifice…blood shed for the sins of the world, why would Jesus tell us this. I believe he means spiritual food and drink, but if he hadn’t allowed himself to be sacrificed then we would not have a divine connection with God?

Thanks for your patience

Hi Simpleas!

St. Paul, in my understanding, looked at the sacrifice as participatory. So, when we participate in the Eucharist, we participate in the sacrifice.

Jesus having to be hung on a cross in order to pay God for our sins would be connected with the view that Anselm was talking about, addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger in my OP link. This was part of the “sinister view of God” he discussed.

Ciao, for now.

 

[OneSheep]

The Church wants to instruct away from these untrue and “mistaken tendencies”. The view of a debt is a true one, but the view of a wrathful God is a false one. The Church teaches BOTH that our sins including the Original must be redeemed and that God is Love. Teach what the Church teaches and stop mixing these mistaken ideas back into the truth. That is all this conjecture/seculation appears to be doing.

Good Morning, wmw!

I’m sorry, I am not trying to mix things up. I am a bit “mixed up” in your statement, which I wish to have clarified. I am not blaming you, I take full responsibility for my own lack here.

Here was the second “tendency”

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.

So, “vicarious” is defined as “performed or suffered by one person as a substitute for another or to the benefit or advantage of another”.

Here is the definition of “debt”:

1. Something owed, such as money, goods, or services.

a. An obligation or liability to pay or render something to someone else.
b. The condition of owing: a young family always in debt.
3. An offense requiring forgiveness or reparation; a trespass.

So, are you using the third definition of debt? In that case, “requirement” does not reflect payment, but reflects a need that calls for fulfillment, a reparation, not something demanded, but something given freely as a movement of compassion.

If you are using the first and second definitions, you are talking about something that is required from a creditor in order to bring about acceptance, good will, favor, satisfaction on the part of the creditor.

So, is God a creditor, or is he not?

To your question of the knock down dead theological solution to a person that is locked into a wrathful God concept and to be pastoral about it. It is, be loving, teach them love, and show them that God must be Love.

Yes!

 

[CrossofChrist]

Note that JPII says “If sin is separation from God”. Would he use the word “if” if such an “if” would mean denial of hell and sin’s non-existence? I don’t know. St. Paul said that nothing separates us from the love of God. Like I said, though, I see the legitimacy of the other point of view.

JPII was using “if” in a way that is like “because”. Similar to “If P, therefore Q”. Of course, not strictly necessary, but like Aquinas’ necessary because it is extremely fitting.

Here, it says that separation from God is the gravest consequence of sin. The question is, does this grave consequence ever happen from God’s view, or does it only happen from man’s view. This brings us back to the debt issue, which brings us back to the wrath issue.

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

So we see that the only access we have to the Father’s open arms, or rather the Father’s open arms to us are, precisely through the Jesus Christ who simultaneously makes up for our sin by his infinite love for the Father in the Holy Spirit.

Did the prodigal son’s father always have open arms, or only when the son changed his mind, realized his error, and returned? If I was that son, I could have easily perceived that my father’s arms were not open when I had been doing so much wrong. If the prodigal son had the view that he owed a debt to his father, that would be very legitimate, and understandable. However, if the father said, “Son, I loved you, and forgave you, all along. I was there with you and wanted you home; I wanted you to stop hurting yourself and others.”, would the son see that there was never a debt?

I disagree with your interpretation. Imagine a child and a parent–the parent loves the child and is ready 24/7 to receive the child’s apology. But the child slams the door to their bedroom and refuses to come out. Is there a separation between the child and the parent, even with the parent’s readiness to forgive? Yes, there is.

Or let’s use the parable of the Prodigal Son. The son is out, abandoning the house of the father. Is he separated from his father even though the father is willing to receive the love of the prodigal son? Absolutely, but it’s also entirely the son’s fault for it.

Extending it to God, he is always ready to forgive. Yet we aren’t always open to that forgiveness. Is there a separation despite the unconditional love the Father offers? Absolutely, as Jesus indicates in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

But what about the debt?

The prodigal son clearly sees that he is unworthy and “owes” a lot to his father. That could certainly be applied to sinful humanity. Yet if we extend the parable of the prodigal son out to God, we could also say that he already redeemed us through Christ, that we can participate in his love if we accept it, that there is no debt for us to pay.

Have you read JPII’s Encyclical Dives in Misericordia? If you haven’t, I encourage you to read it, at least parts 7-8. It addresses this very topic because it’s all about mercy. Here’s a snippet of DM 7:

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

God bless you too!!!

On this note, I encourage all to go to Confession during Advent. It’s a great way to receive the love of God.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, CrossofChrist!

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN…

With some time and space, I could suggest how all of this fits into the non-debt view.

Romans 8:38-39English Standard Version (ESV)

38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The individual, himself, is certainly part of creation. Do you note the significance of the “I statement”? He leaves room for people to disagree. He leaves room for legitimate differences. Again, do we harmonize the legitimate differences, or do we eliminate them?

So we see that the only access we have to the Father’s open arms, or rather the Father’s open arms to us are, precisely through the Jesus Christ who simultaneously makes up for our sin by his infinite love for the Father in the Holy Spirit.

“Makes up for” is again the debt-view.

I disagree with your interpretation. Imagine a child and a parent–the parent loves the child and is ready 24/7 to receive the child’s apology. But the child slams the door to their bedroom and refuses to come out. Is there a separation between the child and the parent, even with the parent’s readiness to forgive? Yes, there is.

There is no separation of love from the parent, and if the parent has already forgiven, there is no separation from “favor”, there is no longer a debt if a debt had been ever incurred to this parent. The parent can forgive without having received an apology. The child has been “separated” from his own love for the parent, due to his own resentment-induced blindness.

In the legitimate view that there is truly a separation from the parent’s side this can be seen as the effect of withheld forgiveness. Indeed, the debt incurred could be the effect of withheld forgiveness.

Or let’s use the parable of the Prodigal Son. The son is out, abandoning the house of the father. Is he separated from his father even though the father is willing to receive the love of the prodigal son? Absolutely, but it’s also entirely the son’s fault for it.

Extending it to God, he is always ready to forgive. Yet we aren’t always open to that forgiveness. Is there a separation despite the unconditional love the Father offers? Absolutely, as Jesus indicates in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

In the non-debt view, there is a separation of the son from the experience of the Father’s love and forgiveness, even though it is available all the time. In the debt view, it is not available unless a debt is paid. Is the non-debt view legitimate, or is it not? Please, feel free to say no, it’s okay.

In a non-debt view, in the case of the prodigal son, vs. the previous example, the son has not necessarily “slammed the door” to his father, but has certainly “slammed the door” to his own freedom. He has blindly and ignorantly chosen the wrong path, enslaved by his appetites.

In the debt view, he has “slammed the door” to his father, and the offended father demands a payment, the father is a creditor in some respects.

But what about the debt?

The prodigal son clearly sees that he is unworthy and “owes” a lot to his father. That could certainly be applied to sinful humanity. Yet if we extend the parable of the prodigal son out to God, we could also say that he already redeemed us through Christ, that we can participate in his love if we accept it, that there is no debt for us to pay.

Yes, but in this legitimate view there is still a debt incurred. Yes, the son believes that he “owes”. Can you see the legitimacy of the view that omniscience precludes debt incurment? If so, we can work on harmonizing. Remember, I did not really start this thread to put down either view, instead I am intent on harmonizing them. If you do not wish to harmonize them, that’s okay, but perhaps it is of no use to belabor the legitimacy of one view if you would prefer to eliminate it.

Have you read JPII’s Encyclical Dives in Misericordia? If you haven’t, I encourage you to read it, at least parts 7-8. It addresses this very topic because it’s all about mercy. Here’s a snippet of DM 7:

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

The word “compensation” indicates an Anselmian view, which I continue to label “legitimate”. It is difficult to say whether his theology is essentially Anselmian or otherwise, based on that passage.

Thanks again, for your continued responses!

I very, very, much appreciate your civility and generosity.​

 

[ynotzap]

I will not repeat my previous statements to avoid the risk of redundancy. but I do add the following. Baptism makes us adopted children of God and heirs to His Kingdom. By Baptism we become God-righteous, and not self-righteous Humanity was incapable of of self-justification for what could humanity give God that it didn’t receive, nothing. One act of Jesus, God-man was sufficient to redeem mankind because by the union of human nature with the divine nature, in a Divine Person (the Hypostatic Union, a mystery of Faith) , the merit of His act was eternal which could be applied to mankind. Jesus, being consistent with His divine nature, gave His all, His life for the redemption of man. In so doing He manifested His divine attribute of love ( no greater love has man, than to give his life for another), in Jesus, because He is God, is His attributes, Love is one of them.

Satan is a reality, a person, not just some illusion. Scripture attests to this reality, and so does human experience, (and I for one) Jesus came to break the spiritual bondage that Satan has on humanity (and I see this every day) There is a condition though, one must receive this freedom from Jesus, and Him alone (by the Father’s will.) No one can come to Jesus, unless the Father calls him, and not one can go the Father except through Jesus. St. Paul confirms that we are in a spiritual battle with Satan.

Referring to lCol l: 15-29, St. Paul states that Jesus is to be pre-eminent, , in Him were created all things, He is before all things, all things were created by Him, and for Him, and through Him. I don’t think St.Thomas over looked this fact, So the Scotists didn’t really add anything new. To say the Jesus would have come through Mary even if we didn,t sin, is not contrary to God’s power, but appears to be a speculation, and not in conflict with what is already known, I can appreciate the speculation. They raise some questions that( referrinjg to St. Thomas) that Christ was only an occasioned good, occasioned by sin I find this unacceptable and not consistent with ST. Thomas’ teachings. I can agree with most of the Scotists views, but personally I’ll stick with St.Thomas, and for the most part as I see it, so does the Church

I appreciate your imput, it reinforces many things that we already know, and then adds some. Thank you, One Sheep

 

[CrossofChrist]

With some time and space, I could suggest how all of this fits into the non-debt view.

It would have to end up as a rejection of sin in some form though, in the end.

Romans 8:38-39English Standard Version (ESV)

38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The individual, himself, is certainly part of creation. Do you note the significance of the “I statement”? He leaves room for people to disagree. He leaves room for legitimate differences. Again, do we harmonize the legitimate differences, or do we eliminate them?

Because Christ died on the Cross our debt is eliminated. There is nothing to separate us from God but sin.

“Makes up for” is again the debt-view.

True, but it’s also the same terminology that the Church has pretty much used forever. Heck, it goes back to Jewish times (atonement)…see Proverbs 10:12 for example.

In the legitimate view that there is truly a separation from the parent’s side this can be seen as the effect of withheld forgiveness. Indeed, the debt incurred could be the effect of withheld forgiveness.

From God’s perspective, all things in time exist simultaneously, since God is beyond time. So there is simultaneously a debt incurred by sin and a forgiveness of that debt by God in Christ.

In the non-debt view, there is a separation of the son from the experience of the Father’s love and forgiveness, even though it is available all the time. In the debt view, it is not available unless a debt is paid. Is the non-debt view legitimate, or is it not? Please, feel free to say no, it’s okay.

I really can’t see the legitimacy of no debt. There must be some debt. Otherwise, what are we to make of various statements from the ordinary Magisterium of the Church through various Popes? What is it that separates us from God, then? Or rather, why would sin separate us from God?

Pope JPII again:
In this context of the whole mystery of salvation and of the forgiveness of sins, what matters most is that we love Jesus with our whole soul—he who comes to us as the eternal will of love and of forgiveness. Christ himself teaches us this when, seated at table with the Pharisees and seeing them surprised by the fact that he accepted the marks of veneration on the part of the woman who was a sinner, he recounted to them the parable of the two debtors. One owed the money-lender five hundred coins, the other fifty. Since neither was able to repay, the money-lender wrote off both debts. “Which of the two,” Jesus asked, “was more grateful to him?” Simon replied, “He, I presume, to whom he remitted the larger sum.” Jesus said to him, “You are right… You see this woman?.. Her many sins are forgiven because of her great love. But he who is forgiven little, loves little” (cf. Lk 7:42-47).

The complex psychology of the relationship between the creditor and the debtor, between the love which obtains pardon and the pardon which engenders new love, between the rigorous measure of giving and possessing and the generosity of the grateful heart which tends to give without measure, is condensed in these words of Jesus. They invite us to adopt the right attitude in the presence of the God-Man who exercises his divine power of forgiving sins for our salvation.

Since we are all in debt to God, Jesus included in the prayer taught to his disciples and passed on by them to all believers, that fundamental request to the Father, “Forgive us our debts” (Mt 6:12), which in Luke’s version reads, “Forgive us our sins” (Lk 11:4). Once again he wished to teach us that only God can forgive sins (cf. Mk 2:7). At the same time, however, Jesus exercised this divine power in virtue of that other truth also taught by him, namely, that the Father has not only “given all judgment to the Son” (Jn 5:22), but has also conferred on him the power to forgive sins.

OTOH, it’s God’s love that comes first. Christ isn’t about taking away a debt, at least primarily, but rather about God’s offer of love. We can come back to Rahner’s words: “God’s self-communication as offer is also the necessary condition which makes its acceptance possible”. This presupposes that his offer is also the condition which makes its rejection possible. If so, this means that Christ’s offer of love he gives us through his life comes “before” our sin (even though in time our sin was before Christ’s life). His offer of love is also simultaneously the means that takes away our debt. When we incur the debt, it is already taken care of in Christ.

Pope Francis: God’s forgiveness is not a matter of canceling a debt we have with him. God forgives us in the wounds of his Son lifted up on the Cross.

So God’s forgiveness comes first in the order of things. The sins we commit come after God’s offer of forgiveness and his taking away of our sins. That means that, the debt that we do incur from sinning has already been made up for. You say that therefore there is no debt and it makes no sense to speak of debt at all. I disagree. In a kind of paradoxical fashion, the forgiveness in Christ takes away our debt before it happens (applied to all times), but it still happens in time from our sin.

To be continued…

 

[CrossofChrist]

Continued…

So now back to Ratzinger–he can say the Cross isn’t about a payment of debt, a credit and debit system (something Francis takes off from in the quote above), yet in the same book say God’s love is what makes up for our sin. It’s not like God is an angry guy–perhaps vicious–until we pay up and then all of a sudden is super friendly. So we have an image Ratzinger is countering (tying it back to the original point of the thread ), that God’s love is superficial. Think about it, God requiring a payment we don’t have the means to make?

But if forgiveness is first, if Rahner’s words: God’s self-communication as offer is also the necessary condition which makes its acceptance possible. hold true, then it is Christ who gives us love we can reject and incur debt from, but also is the love that makes up for our sin. God’s Word comes first–Jesus is God’s Word.

Ratzinger’s statements actually make sense together, and mustn’t be thought of as opposed or in contradiction. Think about his theology and those who he associated with (de Lubac, von Balthasar, etc.)–all about recognizing paradoxes. Because Christianity is a religion of paradoxes: three in one God, man’s true self in Christ is only beyond himself, Christ is both God and man, the Church is divine and human, sinful and sinless, etc.

So we have the problem of sin and forgiveness.

That is a paradox, and the only way I can see to truly harmonize the tradition is to recognize the paradox.

 

[OneSheep]

I will not repeat my previous statements to avoid the risk of redundancy. but I do add the following. Baptism makes us adopted children of God and heirs to His Kingdom. By Baptism we become God-righteous, and not self-righteous Humanity was incapable of of self-justification for what could humanity give God that it didn’t receive, nothing. One act of Jesus, God-man was sufficient to redeem mankind because by the union of human nature with the divine nature, in a Divine Person (the Hypostatic Union, a mystery of Faith) , the merit of His act was eternal which could be applied to mankind. Jesus, being consistent with His divine nature, gave His all, His life for the redemption of man. In so doing He manifested His divine attribute of love ( no greater love has man, than to give his life for another), in Jesus, because He is God, is His attributes, Love is one of them.

Satan is a reality, a person, not just some illusion. Scripture attests to this reality, and so does human experience, (and I for one) Jesus came to break the spiritual bondage that Satan has on humanity (and I see this every day) There is a condition though, one must receive this freedom from Jesus, and Him alone (by the Father’s will.) No one can come to Jesus, unless the Father calls him, and not one can go the Father except through Jesus. St. Paul confirms that we are in a spiritual battle with Satan.

Referring to lCol l: 15-29, St. Paul states that Jesus is to be pre-eminent, , in Him were created all things, He is before all things, all things were created by Him, and for Him, and through Him. I don’t think St.Thomas over looked this fact, So the Scotists didn’t really add anything new. To say the Jesus would have come through Mary even if we didn,t sin, is not contrary to God’s power, but appears to be a speculation, and not in conflict with what is already known, I can appreciate the speculation. They raise some questions that( referrinjg to St. Thomas) that Christ was only an occasioned good, occasioned by sin I find this unacceptable and not consistent with ST. Thomas’ teachings. I can agree with most of the Scotists views, but personally I’ll stick with St.Thomas, and for the most part as I see it, so does the Church

I appreciate your imput, it reinforces many things that we already know, and then adds some. Thank you, One Sheep

You are welcome!

I must say that I was hoping to have a discussion attempting to harmonize Anselm and others, but it seems that people are seeing that there are no “two sides” in the first place, and I am concluding that I am the only one in the room here seeing the legitimacy of the no-debt view. Indeed, I see fear of the no-debt view, that if it was not for debt, that people would move away from the faith or not see the appeal of faith in God, among a number of other scary possible manifestations.

I understand this view of God, life, and faith as legitimate, but I also see the no-debt view as legitimate.

Thank you, Ynotzap, for all of your contributions!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Cross of Christ!

It would have to end up as a rejection of sin in some form though, in the end.

Not necessarily, though. Unless some redefinition would be considered “rejection”. But you see, harmonizing would not involve rejection or elimination. Are you seeing the direction?

True, but it’s also the same terminology that the Church has pretty much used forever. Heck, it goes back to Jewish times (atonement)…see Proverbs 10:12 for example.

The OT reflects a religion chock-full of the view that there is a debt to be paid to God. This is not unlike “all religions” expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger. In the no-debt view, Jesus comes, among other reasons, to show us that there is no debt because God loves and forgives unconditionally, that there is no debt to be paid.

From God’s perspective, all things in time exist simultaneously, since God is beyond time. So there is simultaneously a debt incurred by sin and a forgiveness of that debt by God in Christ.

I really can’t see the legitimacy of no debt. There must be some debt. Otherwise, what are we to make of various statements from the ordinary Magisterium of the Church through various Popes? What is it that separates us from God, then? Or rather, why would sin separate us from God?

If you go by what St. Paul said, nothing separates us from God. Did you consider what I suggested for a no-debt view, that people are separated from their own love of God when they are ignorant, possessed by appetites or are resentful of God or other people?

The notion of debt is going to make sense, spiritually, and have its appeal because of human guilt before God, as said Cardinal Ratzinger in the link in the OP.

The “moment of debt” view is interesting, but it is very hard to get my head around it while living in time. If debt payment was a “final” act, that is, it ended the debt, then “final” itself is throughout all time (that there was never an unpaid debt). In that case, Jesus comes to us to tell us that all of our sense of debt was for nothing, because the debt had been paid at the beginning of time, even before Adam. On the other hand, most who insist on debt say that Adam incurred a debt, so either Adam existed before the debt was paid, or Adam incurred a new debt.

To me, the incurment of debt makes more sense in the dimension of time. The Gospel of John starts with “In the beginning…” In addition, it is in the cycle of my own forgiveness of others that trespass against me that I get offended, feel resentment, sense that a person owes me something (like an apology), then I pray for the person and come to an understanding of why they did what they did, and finally I forgive and reconcile with the person (if not personally, in a spiritual way). If I had the prayerfulness and understanding in the beginning, I would not have taken offense in the first place.

I fully accept your position that the no-debt view does not make sense in light of the quote by JPII and others.

Pope JPII again:
In this context of the whole mystery of salvation and of the forgiveness of sins, …

Since we are all in debt to God,…

This, again, indicates that Pope JPII had a debt view. Did he recognize the legitimacy of the no-debt view? I don’t know.

(continued)

 

[wmw]

I think we need the idea of debt to see the seriousness of sin to help us understand the tangible gravity of it. This capturing the real debt and need of repayment is so very important in order to reach true sorrow and therefore obtain a state of contrition and therefore do not return to the sin by taking it too lightly and repeatedly accepting forgiveness too conveniently. I just don’t think there is a word that transmits this concept better that the word debt; therefore, the Holy Spirit uses it in the Gospel of Mathew.

On the importance and at times difficulty of really reaching a state of contrition:

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on the Master of the Sentences explains contrition’s peculiar use:

“Since it is requisite for the remission of sin that a man cast away entirely the liking for sin which implies a sort of continuity and solidity in his mind, the act which obtains forgiveness is termed by a figure of speech ‘contrition’” (In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvii; cf. Supplem. III, Q. i, a. 1). This sorrow of soul is not merely speculative sorrow for wrong done, remorse of conscience, or a resolve to amend; it is a real pain and bitterness of soul together with a hatred and horror for sin committed; and this hatred for sin leads to the resolve to sin no more.

Yes, I think there is a proper fear that this is not transmitted in a message that ONLY says “just be one with me and all is forgotten” in the communication of the faith.
Also there is a sense that God is all Justice and is making reparations to the victims of our sins in the treasures of heaven and we have personally incurred those debts. They just don’t hurt God and He doesn’t respond as an injured person or jilted creditor might.

There are just too many ways that this concept conveys the correct understanding including the other previous posts on pre-payment of the debt in Christ, but it is short in the aspect that Christ turns our sins into Love and does this in a participatory, inclusive way. Thus; both have to be included in the whole of the teaching of the faith.

 

[OneSheep]

CrossofChrist:

OTOH, it’s God’s love that comes first. Christ isn’t about taking away a debt, at least primarily, but rather about God’s offer of love. We can come back to Rahner’s words: “God’s self-communication as offer is also the necessary condition which makes its acceptance possible”. This presupposes that his offer is also the condition which makes its rejection possible. If so, this means that Christ’s offer of love he gives us through his life comes “before” our sin (even though in time our sin was before Christ’s life). His offer of love is also simultaneously the means that takes away our debt. When we incur the debt, it is already taken care of in Christ.

Pope Francis: God’s forgiveness is not a matter of canceling a debt we have with him. God forgives us in the wounds of his Son lifted up on the Cross.

So God’s forgiveness comes first in the order of things. The sins we commit come after God’s offer of forgiveness and his taking away of our sins. That means that, the debt that we do incur from sinning has already been made up for. You say that therefore there is no debt and it makes no sense to speak of debt at all. I disagree. In a kind of paradoxical fashion, the forgiveness in Christ takes away our debt before it happens (applied to all times), but it still happens in time from our sin.

Interesting quote from Pope Francis, I would like to see it in context. If God’s forgiveness is not a matter of canceling a debt, does that mean that there was no debt in the first place, or does that mean that the debt was never satisfied?

Okay, it is obvious that to Pope Francis that there was no debt in the first place. However, if “God forgives us in the wounds of his Son lifted up on the Cross” it sure sounds like debt payment, doesn’t it? After all, what is forgiven if it not some form of debt? This is why I would need more context to understand Pope Francis’ take on the subject.

In a no-debt view, Christ comes to tell us, among other very important things, that there is no debt. We feel guilty, but Abba wants us to know that we are loved no matter what, that He does not “hold it (sin) against us”. In this view, anthropologically speaking, it is ultimately the experience of God’s love that we lack, not the actuality of it. How do we experience God’s love (and eternal-life-on-Earth)? By following the commandments, by loving and forgiving every single person we hold anything against (including ourselves). Until we do this, we will not experience God’s love, we will project a God who does not forgive sometimes, and if this is the case we will always find that “sometimes” in our own lives.

Have you ever read St. Augustines Confessions? Every time he recalled the acts he had done that he never forgave, he was dragged down; his own experience of God’s love was buried in guilt.

Continued…

So now back to Ratzinger–he can say the Cross isn’t about a payment of debt, a credit and debit system (something Francis takes off from in the quote above), yet in the same book say God’s love is what makes up for our sin. It’s not like God is an angry guy–perhaps vicious–until we pay up and then all of a sudden is super friendly. So we have an image Ratzinger is countering (tying it back to the original point of the thread ), that God’s love is superficial. Think about it, God requiring a payment we don’t have the means to make?

But if forgiveness is first, if Rahner’s words: God’s self-communication as offer is also the necessary condition which makes its acceptance possible. hold true, then it is Christ who gives us love we can reject and incur debt from, but also is the love that makes up for our sin. God’s Word comes first–Jesus is God’s Word.

“Makes up for” can mean a lot of different things. Does it mean that He loves and understands us so much that he never takes offense in the first place, or does it mean that He does take offense, but it is blotted out immediately by His love? Again, here, we get down to that microsecond, but a microsecond is still a measure of time. If offense happens, it happens in time.

I don’t really see that Rahner’s quote there necessarily applies to debt. The offer can be a means to the way to freedom, salvation from slavery to sin. It is not necessarily the offer made by a creditor.

Ratzinger’s statements actually make sense together, and mustn’t be thought of as opposed or in contradiction. Think about his theology and those who he associated with (de Lubac, von Balthasar, etc.)–all about recognizing paradoxes. Because Christianity is a religion of paradoxes: three in one God, man’s true self in Christ is only beyond himself, Christ is both God and man, the Church is divine and human, sinful and sinless, etc.

So we have the problem of sin and forgiveness.

That is a paradox, and the only way I can see to truly harmonize the tradition is to recognize the paradox.

So, are you saying that the no-debt view is part of the paradox, or is it one to eliminate? It sounds like you are “not seeing it”.

I am thinking that the paradox of sin and forgiveness is tied to the view of debt/no debt. This is a much different paradox than that of the trinity.

There is a contradiction, regardless of whether we choose to think of it that way or not. Either there is an incurred debt, or there is not, and both views are legitimate. I am convinced, though, that there is a means of harmonizing these apparent legitimate contradictions.

So, where do we go from here? I am still interested in sharing the source I mentioned in the OP, but I am waiting for someone who sees both views as legitimate. Do you see, perhaps, that the debt view is more legitimate, even though the no-debt view has its legitimacy also? We could start from there, perhaps.

Thanks again

 

[simpleas]

What the mystery of the cross reveals is that the opponent is not so much evil as a symbol of a greater evil of which he or she also is a victim! Please think about that. The mystery of the cross takes a great capacity for empathy and forgiveness, and probably is a sign of “fusion” with God. On the cross we agree to carry that victim status together with Jesus. We agree to bear the burden of human evil, of which we all are victims and all are complicit. It is the ultimate act of solidarity with humanity. We can’t do it alone at all, but only by a deep identification with the Crucified One and crucified humanity. Jesus then does it in us, through us, with us and for us. Then we have become his “new creation” (Galatians 5:14-16) and definitely a very different kind of human being.

This is Christianity’s unique revelation. We share many things with many religions, but no other world religion has the revelation of the cross. It’s called a revelation because it’s not something the rational and calculating mind will ever come to it by itself. It’s given almost from outside of history because our logical mind doesn’t come to it by any rational or dualistic process. The best it can do is to go halfway.

The mystery of the cross is saying that human existence is neither perfectly consistent (though that’s what educated, ideological and control-needy people want), nor is it total chaos (our philosophical words for that are post-modernism, nihilism or even atheism). Human existence, though, is filled with contradictions. To hold the contradictions with God, with Jesus, is to be a Christian and to share and participate in the redemption of the world (Colossians 1:24). It feels like a forgiving of reality for being what it is.

spiritofststephens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1380:the-mystery-of-the-cross-richard-rohr-ch-9-things-hidden-scripture-as-spirituality&catid=66&Itemid=82

 

[simpleas]

I was listening to a christian radio station the other night. It did express that talks etc on the station did not reflect the views of all Christians. (We know there are many views about God, the Bible, Jesus etc.)

There was a preacher talking about forgiveness, and the use of words when angry…the harm words can actually cause a person. Then he went on to speak about God’s anger, the wrath of God we read about, because God was angry with his creation, and that is why Jesus had to die for our sinful ways.

This (below) I find very interesting and encouraging : (from the link in the above post)

This very issue is an example of two telling patterns: Catholicism was once more broad-minded. It allowed for alternative interpretations of doctrine more often before the Reformation than it does today. Second, the Protestant Reformation often either reacted to–or continued with-popular Catholicism much more than it realized.

 

[grannymh]

Considering Original Sin, why is anyone truthfully upset about a debt, atonement, whatever?

 

[ynotzap]

You are welcome!

I must say that I was hoping to have a discussion attempting to harmonize Anselm and others, but it seems that people are seeing that there are no “two sides” in the first place, and I am concluding that I am the only one in the room here seeing the legitimacy of the no-debt view. Indeed, I see fear of the no-debt view, that if it was not for debt, that people would move away from the faith or not see the appeal of faith in God, among a number of other scary possible manifestations.

I understand this view of God, life, and faith as legitimate, but I also see the no-debt view as legitimate.

Thank you, Ynotzap, for all of your contributions!

I think that because God had the plan of Salvation before we sinned was because He has infinite love for us, this love could never be merited by us. It was out of the Love and Goodness of His divine will, not debt owed,that He initiated Salvation. But out of the love and gratitude of our wills, and heart for what He had done it was only right and just that we in our own mortal way reciprocated in thanksgiving,and love We owe Him as we owe our parents for bringing us into the world and caring for us, a debt of love and thanksgiving. Pure love never demands, it pours out with no return, and never ceases if there is no return. Purification is for our sake, we don’t want to be and neither does God want us to be embarrassed with dirty clothes when we stand before Him( remember the White garment the Master required at the Banquet)We could never repay God for His infinite love for us, and He did love us while we were in sin, it was freely given, no debt required by Him, He forgives and removes all sin, if we are contrite, showing good will. I can see both views and they do harmonize each other in the Wills of God and Humans. God gives in Love, and we reciprocate in love. Don’t feel alone God bless you.

 

[ynotzap]

I think that because God had the plan of Salvation before we sinned was because He has infinite love for us, this love could never be merited by us. It was out of the Love and Goodness of His divine will, not debt owed,that He initiated Salvation. But out of the love and gratitude of our wills, and heart for what He had done it was only right and just that we in our own mortal way reciprocated in thanksgiving,and love We owe Him as we owe our parents for bringing us into the world and caring for us, a debt of love and thanksgiving. Pure love never demands, it pours out with no return, and never ceases if there is no return. Purification is for our sake, we don’t want to be and neither does God want us to be embarrassed with dirty clothes when we stand before Him( remember the White garment the Master required at the Banquet)We could never repay God for His infinite love for us, and He did love us while we were in sin, it was freely given, no debt required by Him, He forgives and removes all sin, if we are contrite, showing good will. I can see both views and they do harmonize each other in the Wills of God and Humans. God gives in Love, and we reciprocate in love. Don’t feel alone God bless you.

Love begets love!

 

[simpleas]

Considering Original Sin, why is anyone truthfully upset about a debt, atonement, whatever?

I’d like to take a stab at replying to your question, but we’d go off topic, because it would mean covering alot of thoughts…

I will say I’m not ‘upset’ about O.S, for me it’s a learning process, one I have to understand in some way, so that I can find the truth…

 

[CrossofChrist]

Not necessarily, though. Unless some redefinition would be considered “rejection”. But you see, harmonizing would not involve rejection or elimination. Are you seeing the direction?

Indeed. I’m pushing you on to explain how it wouldn’t be a rejection.

The OT reflects a religion chock-full of the view that there is a debt to be paid to God. This is not unlike “all religions” expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger. In the no-debt view, Jesus comes, among other reasons, to show us that there is no debt because God loves and forgives unconditionally, that there is no debt to be paid.

But where does this leave us? How is Jesus in anyway the cause of our salvation?

If you go by what St. Paul said, nothing separates us from God. Did you consider what I suggested for a no-debt view, that people are separated from their own love of God when they are ignorant, possessed by appetites or are resentful of God or other people?

So would all humans have the love of God, or not? Do we already have the fullness of our humanity?

To me, the incurment of debt makes more sense in the dimension of time. The Gospel of John starts with “In the beginning…” In addition, it is in the cycle of my own forgiveness of others that trespass against me that I get offended, feel resentment, sense that a person owes me something (like an apology), then I pray for the person and come to an understanding of why they did what they did, and finally I forgive and reconcile with the person (if not personally, in a spiritual way). If I had the prayerfulness and understanding in the beginning, I would not have taken offense in the first place.

True, the debt happened in time. But to reject debt wholesale would, in my estimation, be the equivalent of rejecting the Tradition. Christ is our Redeemer–a dogma.

God forgave us in his love, true as well (of course!). But I want to know how you can put a causal significance to Christ’s life if the whole problem of sin was already taken care of previously, or if it is just an illusion on our part.