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

[CrossofChrist]

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?

Or does that mean the forgiveness we receive personally is about accepting the love offered for us, because Christ already took care of the debt?

This is why I would need more context to understand Pope Francis’ take on the subject.

Unfortunately I don’t have more of a context to offer. But I don’t think Francis is rejecting debt at all.

In a no-debt view, <>

I’m not so much concerned about the actuality of love being present–although I think in the end this becomes incomprehensible and is part of why I personally reject Suarezian philosophy (as I understand it–no real distinction, only intellectual, between essence/existence). I’m more concerned about how you can give causal significance to Christ.

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.

A great book.

“Makes up for” .

Can you accept the possibility of the debt and forgiveness being simultaneous, rather than a distinction of time?

I’m thinking, if God’s love is a gift for us, doesn’t that mean there is something for us to receive? If it is already present so that we don’t actually have to receive it, but merely “look” at it, doesn’t that do away with or at least certainly take the sting out of the Christian doctrine?

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.

I certainly extrapolated, since Rahner is talking about the offer itself. Later he brings up the point that God’s offer to man is through Christ, so we have the causal significance of Christ’s life and being.

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’m saying the fact that our debt is eliminated in Christ for all time (and therefore there is no debt anymore), and the fact that sin incurs a debt to God–an infinite offense–is essentially the paradox.

Of course, the forgiveness of God is only applied to us via the sacraments and prayer.

Pope JPII again:

Overcoming evil: this is the meaning of the Redemption. This is brought about in the sacrifice of Christ, by which man redeems the debt of sin and is reconciled to God. The Son of God became man, taking a body and soul in the womb of the Virgin, precisely for this reason: to become the perfect redeeming sacrifice. The religion of the Incarnation is the religion of the world’s Redemption through the sacrifice of Christ, wherein lies victory over evil, over sin and over death itself. Accepting death on the Cross, Christ at the same time reveals and gives life, because he rises again and death no longer has power over him. (Tertio millennio adveniente, n. 7).

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.

I agree, but I just brought up those examples to show that Christianity is full of paradoxes.

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.

But does Ratzinger really deny the existence of a debt?

And by himself, on his own, man is unable to extricate himself from this situation, on his own he cannot redeem himself; only the Creator himself can right relationships. Only if he from who we distanced ourselves comes to us and lovingly holds out his hand can proper relationships be restored. This happens through Jesus Christ, who goes in exactly the opposite direction to Adam, as is described by the hymn in the second chapter of St Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (2:5-11): whereas Adam did not acknowledge his creatural being and wanted to put himself in God’s place, Jesus, the Son of God, was in a perfect filial relationship with the Father, he emptied himself and became the servant, he took the path of love, humbling himself even to death on a cross, to set right our relations with God.

The Liturgy of the Hours (Benedict XVI speaking):

“Christ is baptized and the whole world is made holy”, sings today’s liturgy; “he wipes out the debt of our sins; we will all be purified by water and the Holy Spirit” (Antiphon to the Benedictus, Office of Lauds).

And Pope Francis also said the following:

“With a certain irony, the Gospel says that everyone went away, one by one, beginning with the elders: it is evident that they had a big debt against them in the bank of heaven!”…

And Francis again:

“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”. In these words from the Our Father, there is a plan for life, based on mercy. Mercy, kindness, forgiveness of debts, is not only a thing of devotion, of intimacy, of spiritual healing, a sort of oil which helps us be kinder, better, no. It is the prophecy of a new world…

 

[wmw]

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.

not a debt owed – a debt is a lack of something usually money, but we agree that money is not it here. It is a lack of sanctifying grace. It is not something that God is short, but what is missing in us from Adam’s original sin. Jesus pays the price sort of speak in that He allows us to not be lacking in the grace for salvation. It is not a debt in the sense that God is holding something against us; so, Popes can correctly say it is not a debt to be paid back to God.

Again arguing is it a debt or not a debt is like arguing is Jesus a Shepard or not a Shepard. It is a description to illustrate aspects of our salvation not a formulation of exact equality as in the case of God is Love.

 

[ynotzap]

Repentance is a grace (which is freely given), to give God what is expected of us is a grace, to atone for sins is a grace, grace is the actions of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. But we do have the ability to refuse grace. Lord, cause me to love you! The purpose of our creation ultimately is to be united with God. He states that “You can do nothing without me” Even our free will is subject to God’s providence. As I stated before, what can we give to God that we haven’t received from Him? We owe it to ourselves to give God what is His due, not for His sake, but for our own sake because it is right and just. God is subsistent, and needs nothing, we always benefit form God’s love.

 

[wmw]

Then we have agreement that God is due all things, and when we sin then we are further in debited to Him by the restoration of the gifts of Grace provided by Christ. By Jesus’ sacrifice we are made whole spiritually and united to Him and the debt is canceled. We can use the terminology of debt or not in describing in imperfect human terms the great Pascal Mystery. Also, pontiffs may say it is or not a debt as they wish to emphasize different aspects of the way in which our gifts of grace maybe made available to us again and counter some poor perceptions that are drawn from a view of debt gone awry.

To say “our debt is eliminated for all time” can be true in the sense that Christ makes His grace available through the Holy Spirit always, but there are many of us humans lacking sanctifying grace and in that sense have a “debt weighing upon our souls” from the denial of the need of it or the denial that Christ is the source for canceling this debt or resorting sanctifying grace, either way you’d like to say it.

Please be kind, some of my turn of phrases on debt may not be the best. I’ve used too many of them to have this tired brain get them all right according to every nuance of good Catholic doctrine.

 

[grannymh]

Please be kind, some of my turn of phrases on debt may not be the best. I’ve used too many of them to have this tired brain get them all right according to every nuance of good Catholic doctrine.

May I add to your last line in post 163?

Not only is the nuance of Catholic doctrine important, but also is the nuance of Catholic context important.

Should we assume that everyone who talks about debt is correctly putting atonement in the context of Original Sin?

Can different views be harmonized outside of Catholic doctrines (plural intended) of Original Sin and the reality that the context of Original Sin includes the context of the first human Adam? Yes, anything can be harmonized by adding or subtracting this or that. But is it really correct to subtract Original Sin?

 

[ynotzap]

May I add to your last line in post 163?

Not only is the nuance of Catholic doctrine important, but also is the nuance of Catholic context important.

Should we assume that everyone who talks about debt is correctly putting atonement in the context of Original Sin?

Can different views be harmonized outside of Catholic doctrines (plural intended) of Original Sin and the reality that the context of Original Sin includes the context of the first human Adam? Yes, anything can be harmonized by adding or subtracting this or that. But is it really correct to subtract Original Sin?

No because Original Sin existed to manifest man’s fallibility and limitations, and helplessness for we are totally dependent upon God for everything, it’s the condition of our nature. As a matter of fact St.Thomas uses this dependence as one of the proofs of God’s existence. O.S. also manifested God’s love for mankind which He created good. He did this by uniting human nature with Divine Nature in Jesus, God-man making it possible for man to share in Divine Life, for through Him we receive the Holy Spirit who transforms us into the likeness of Christ. Without Him there is no salvation, salvation meaning to raise human nature above it’s fallibility, limitations, and helplessness, and to accomplish the Divine Purpose of our creation. It was Adam’s desire to become like God through disobedience to God, It is our Father’s desire for us to become like God, through the obedience of Jesus to the Father, God does it His Way!!

 

[grannymh]

No because Original Sin existed to manifest man’s fallibility and limitations, and helplessness for we are totally dependent upon God for everything, it’s the condition of our nature.

Pardon me. I will clear up some possible confusion.

In post 164, I am not referring to the condition of our nature. I am referring to Adam’s Original Sin which is an intellectively free act of disobedience that destroyed humanity’s relationship with Divinity. (Information source. *CCC *396-409) I am referring to the whole context of Adam’s actual act of scorning his Creator, and not to the Contracted State of Original Sin which is transmitted to Adam’s descendants.

Here are my questions and serious concerns.

Should we assume that everyone who talks about debt is correctly putting it in the context of the actual real Original Sin?

Can different views be harmonized outside of Catholic doctrines (plural intended) about Original Sin and outside of the reality that the context of the real Original Sin includes the context of the first human Adam?

Yes, anything can be harmonized by adding or subtracting this or that. But is it really correct to subtract Original Sin, a doctrine of the Catholic Church?

 

[ynotzap]

Original sin is a definite reality with it’s effects to explain the fallen state of man. According to Church teaching Adam and Eve committed Original Sin, the sin that all other sins take their origin. O.S. upset the harmony of the whole being of man. Upon sin, they immediately felt guilt, darkness of mind, they experienced the rebellion of their senses, became ashamed of their nakedness, fleeing from God and hiding. thus started mankind’s miseries, sufferings, and tribulations. Quote “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we will die (Ecclus 25:33) By the offense of one, all died…by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners.”(Rom; 5:l5, l9) St. John recalls the role of the devil:"“He was a murderer from the beginning”(Jn:8:44) Tradition is unanimous on this doctrine. their sin was grave because they were blessed with spiritual light and strength, thus having no excuse so their intent was pure malice. Besides, if Divine Justice struck and rightly so, Divine Mercy and Goodness intervened immediately with the promise of the Redeemer who will crush the serpent, Satan

Consequences of O.S. in the first parents themselves are (a) privation of both supernatural gifts (grace and infused virtue) and of preternatural gift of integrity. (b) state of sin with accompanying guilt and stain (adhesion to created goods and not God) (c) debt of eternal punishment (d) wounding of nature upon which the passions rise in rebellion against reason, hampering the free exercise of free will and making good difficult. The Council of Trent defined that Adam’s whole being through sin was “changed for the worst”

This is the teaching of theChurch, and we are required to believe it as such. I think the confusion about debt enters two specific realities, one reality deals with the concepts of God and His attributes. Being love, and initiating the salvation of mankind, He gave freely, no debt incurred by mankind, mankind in it’s natural state is incapable of paying back this supernatural and infinite gift of love. On the other hand, we are dealing with the cause and effects of our created world. With God it is only CAuse. To bring us to our eternal destiny He had to elevate mankind to a supernatural level, He had to harmonize our fallen natural condition with the supernatural, in other words, supernaturalize our fallen nature. This was caused by the Holy Spirit who in our human practice of doing God’s will in our life (human acts) in the state of grace, our action are lifted to a supernatural level and gain eternal merit through Jesus Christ There is a natural debt incurred by sin, in order to make our atonement effective with God, it had to be raised to a super-natural level There is temporal punishment for sin. Jesus accomplished this by taking on human nature, but not fallen human nature for this included sin. So debt is incurred on a natural level, something we can give, not debt incurred on a supernatural level because Salvation was freely given, not debt incurred, but on a natural level, it must be raised to a supernatural level to be regarded by God, and Jesus once again did it out of original love for mankind. IMO, these are hard concepts to harmonize and I think not necessary for Salvation, the Church makes known what is necessary! Deo gratias!

 

[grannymh]

Being a granny, I go straight to the fact that the actual action of Original Sin is the actual disobedience
of the real human person Adam.
Adam spit in the face of his Maker.

 

[wmw]

Grannymh I agree the no-debt side has often gone “feel-good” to the point of “there is no such thing as guilt” and even consequences to sin in general is doubted let alone the Original Sin; so clearly that is out, but in the case of the Pope’s using “no debt” terminology there are nuances that must be explained. All I’m saying is that there are ways of telling the same story without the parable of debt; though any verse of a Gospel is not made untrue by the new story in a pontifical explanation that says let us not talk of debt now.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh I agree the no-debt side has often gone “feel-good” to the point of “there is no such thing as guilt” and even consequences to sin in general is doubted let alone the Original Sin; so clearly that is out, but in the case of the Pope’s using “no debt” terminology there are nuances that must be explained. All I’m saying is that there are ways of telling the same story without the parable of debt; though any verse of a Gospel is not made untrue by the new story in a pontifical explanation that says let us not talk of debt now.

Absolutely, with any writer’s terminology, there are always nuances that must be explained.

What seems strange in this particular thread is that the context, that is, the rest of the story, appears to be insignificant. The Original Sin action of Adam has more significance than forgetting to water the garden.

 

[grannymh]

Could the real problem of this thread be the question in the title? Is there a hidden bait and switch?

Question in title: Did humanity owe a debt?

Why is the word humanity used since it is Adam who owed the debt?

 

[wmw]

Could the real problem of this thread be the question in the title? Is there a hidden bait and switch?

Question in title: Did humanity owe a debt?

Why is the word humanity used since it is Adam who owed the debt?

Since humanity “inherits” the Original Sin from Adam & Eve I have been taking that as saying that the full consequences of Original Sin IS “baked” into the question. This is why I don’t understand your objection while at the same time fully agree with your insistence upon it.

Where this Thread has its problems is where the thread is not about this question, but about “legitimate differences” particularly as a means to say we can excuse or dismiss stated Catholic doctrine.

I’m trying to say, no, there are no “legitimate differences” where the reality of the true doctrine defined by the Church has stated it; therefore; there is only one truth. Also, yes there are different and legitimate human explanations that can point to this one truth, some using debt terminology and some not. Pontiffs who can weed through the nuances can opine through these different views and bring out better insights to the one doctrine, unlike my weak attempts that I just use as examples as how to use and then not use the debt terminology and thus I don’t make any claim that each of my uses is so well formed to the one truth.

 

[fhansen]

Could the real problem of this thread be the question in the title? Is there a hidden bait and switch?

Question in title: Did humanity owe a debt?

Why is the word humanity used since it is Adam who owed the debt?

It seems to me there isn’t a contradiction because “all are in Adam as one” and because, in any case, we are all held accountable for Adam’s sin, with punishment the outcome unless reconciliation is realized.

 

[wmw]

…So debt is incurred on a natural level, something we can give, not debt incurred on a supernatural level because Salvation was freely given, not debt incurred, but on a natural level, it must be raised to a supernatural level to be regarded by God…

This seems slicing the hair to too great an extent. I’ve not heard a major theologian try to make any sort of no debt on a spiritual level, but debt on a material level statement. Just because the payment must be infinite and Jesus must pay it I don’t see it not also being able to fit in the debt explanation. Also, we can pay material debts? Really? I think many of those are of quite a high price also.

No, this is confusing and just doubles the full picture. Humanity is one being not well treated as a part spiritual and part material being though we are both in our wholeness.

 

[grannymh]

It seems to me there isn’t a contradiction because “all are in Adam as one” and because, in any case, we are all held accountable for Adam’s sin, with punishment the outcome unless reconciliation is realized.

Please refer to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 402-409. Please do not, I repeat do not, and again do not take individual points out of the context of paragraphs 402-409. All the information in paragraphs 402-409 must be read as a whole.

Links to Catholic teachings

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

 

[grannymh]

Since humanity “inherits” the Original Sin from Adam & Eve I have been taking that as saying that the full consequences of Original Sin IS “baked” into the question. This is why I don’t understand your objection while at the same time fully agree with your insistence upon it.

Maybe this approach will help clarify my deep concern about this thread. While the consequences of Original Sin are very bad. I want to know exactly what it was that caused the consequences. What did Adam do to cause the consequences? What exactly did Adam do which required the Divinity of Jesus Christ?

It is o.k. to talk about consequences. I am not denying the importance of consequences. I do not live in an either-or world. Jesus had to conquer one of the consequences of Original Sin. (1 Corinthians 15: 55)

I will have to make this short.

It appears to me that one of the reasons, the actual, I mean actual action of Adam 's Original Sin is being avoided as the cause of debt is that some, not all, people do not want to admit that the actual deed of Original Sin has to have an actual first human Adam as the one who committed the Original Sin. A metaphor eating organic fruit ? ? ?

What did Adam do? The Catechism uses the word “scorn.” In my old neighborhood “scorn” is too timid. In a previous post 168, I gave an example of what Adam did which is based on my old neighborhood.

Please continue to keep me in your prayers. Thank you.

 

[ynotzap]

This seems slicing the hair to too great an extent. I’ve not heard a major theologian try to make any sort of no debt on a spiritual level, but debt on a material level statement. Just because the payment must be infinite and Jesus must pay it I don’t see it not also being able to fit in the debt explanation. Also, we can pay material debts? Really? I think many of those are of quite a high price also.

No, this is confusing and just doubles the full picture. Humanity is one being not well treated as a part spiritual and part material being though we are both in our wholeness.

When we sin we fall out of the state of grace, we must be truly contrite to receive through the Sacrament of Reconciliation the reinstatement in grace. The Sacrament gives grace. If we don’t commit a serious offense, we do not fall completely out of grace, but we diminish it. It’s the use of the Sacrament that we receive forgiveness. It is an offense against God, and incures a debt, we do penance All debt occures on a spiritual level when we talk about sin. We are sorry for offending God, because He is Love HIs love and forgiveness are always available It is right and just that we are contrite for offending His love for us. What I meant is debt incurred on a human level, but no debt incurred when God granted us Salvation before we sinned for the simple reason that God would never expect from us what we could never pay. But on a human level, with its limitation we could give what we could. Through Christ our request for forgiveness is raised to a supernatural level, our prayers are now heard and answered through the Sacrament of reconciliation. I don’t mean to confuse the issue, as I stated these are difficult concepts to reconcile, debt and no debt, and yes there seems to be some hair splitting. I hope I explained my statements. There is some theological hair splitting when it comes to Scotus and St. Thomas.

 

[fhansen]

Please refer to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 402-409. Please do not, I repeat do not, and again do not take individual points out of the context of paragraphs 402-409. All the information in paragraphs 402-409 must be read as a whole.

Links to Catholic teachings

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

Maybe you could interpret it since it sounds consistent with what I wrote near as I can tell. Aside from that the fact that all must be baptized, except for certain circumstances, means that the debt must be owed by all humanity, not Adam alone. He sinned and fell for all of us; we all fell with him.

 

[wmw]

…debt incurred on a human level, but no debt incurred when God granted us Salvation before we sinned…

Are you saying at baptism we are set free from debt, but a sin after baptism incurs a debt unless it’s a mortal sin because that’s too high a price also?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “before we sinned”. You could also mean before Adam sinned, but then what debt are you talking about that was before the Original Sin?

No, again this looks quite apart from any orthodoxy I’ve heard. Maybe if you could quote a reputable source for this it would have some legs to move further. I’m not into chasing hand waved theology. I think that is what grannymh is getting at. Wondering about in the weeds on our own hand waving of theology is only going to get us further lost.