Ed,
I think have been diligent in answering your questions, but you have missed some of mine which I think are important. These questions are found (whether or not as fully elaborated) in several posts I have made in response to you and which I would like to see your answers to.
You said here,There are some adults who have no volition either. This is why the Catholic Church defines mortal sin in such a precise manner, i.e., that one must KNOW that what one is doing is wrong (sin), one must choose to do that despite this knowledge, and one must not be under coercion. Babies may be willful in their natural state (old nature) but they are not willingly choosing sin because they have no knowledge that what they are doing is wrong.
Would you explain how a lack of knowledge equals a lack of volition? The commission of sin is not dependent upon our knowledge. Much as you may break the law of the land by speeding though unaware of the speed limit, you may break the law of God (commit sin) without realizing it. In any case, every choice you make is by your own volition. Even while being coerced, one still has the choice to disobey the coercer. If he obeys the coercer to commit sin, he still commits sin. The presence of coercion does not negate the action.
You said here,If a man is not free to say "yes" to God, then it is not marriage, it is rape. God comes to us as our Beloved Bridegroom and waits that we either accept or reject His proposal to enter into the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.
Interesting you should bring up this illustration! Are you aware that entering into marriage in the ancient world (as a matter of fact, up even to the modern age) was hardly the equal decision of the man and his betrothed? Rare indeed was it for a woman to have a free choice in whom she might marry, although the father certainly did. Did these marriages classify as "rape"? Does our Father's choice to have us married to Christ classify as "rape"?
You said here,[T]heologians I have read on the filoque admit that the filioque is more of a matter of semantics. Both the East and West hold to the orthodoxy of opinion on the deity of Christ. Both the East and the West were trying to defend the deity of Christ against heresy. But due to the politics and emotions of the time, reconcilliation was not easy in this matter.
This goes to you arguments regarding the classification of the Eastern Orthodox as Catholic along with those churches under the Pope's authority. If it is merely a matter of semantics that remains unresolved because of the politics and emotions of a millennium ago, why doesn't Rome, being more ecumenically inclined than the East, simply drop the
filioque, in order to
facilitate reconciliation between herself and what she considers her estranged sister? Would that be a worthy goal, or is the
filioque retained because it is an important issue of doctrinal catholicity, and not merely a matter of semantics?
You said here,Basic covenant structure:
covenant head
covenant helpmeet
offspring from their union.
If the Holy Father is not the head of the Church on earth, then who is? Luther? Falwell? James Boice (whoooops, he's gone!)
Who?
The earthly institution must have a head to fit the covenantal paradigm.
Might I ask who that is?
As you've already been answered, that head is Christ, and the reason no human mediator other than He is necessary is because Christ is both God and Man, and He speaks to us by His Holy Spirit through the means of the written Word and the Sacraments, which are the visible tokens of the Word.
However, for the sake of argument, let us agree that the Pope is the earthly covenantal head of the church. Who, then, is the Pope's covenantal helpmeet equivalent to Mary in heaven and to Eve? The Pope has no wife so that is out of the question. And surely not his mother, who is at any rate no longer on earth. Also, we can clearly rule out any group of people, such as the College of Cardinals, since Mary is but one person. So who is it?
You said here,Jesus is not on earth. How can he be the federal head when He is not HERE?
This smacks of the Manichean heresy of dualism: that the physical body is bad and the spiritual is all that really counts.
Where is this in scripture?
It is taught in principle in the OT and the NT follows suit. God was the King of the Jewish nation. But while God was in Heaven, it was the high priest who was the covenantal head over the nation. As I mentioned before, the sin of the high priest as federal head over the Jewish theocracy is what doomed the Jews to near extinction in AD 70 when the judgment of God fell upon them (Matt. 23 - 24).
In addition to pointing out that this could be considered inconsistent on the basis of Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, i.e., that Christ is indeed (bodily!) present on Earth in the elements of the bread and wine, I asked you to identify our High Priest. You have notyet answered the question. Although the Pope claims for himself the title
Pontifex Maximus (following indeed after the manner of the Emperors of Rome), this is what the Scriptures declare regarding our High Priest:
According to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 6:19–8:6,
This hope [i.e., the hope of perseverance] we have as an anchor of the soul, a [hope] both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation [of his name], king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one [receives them], of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need [was there] for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become [such] not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of Him,
"YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as [it was] not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
"THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER'");
so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
The [former] priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, [appoints] a Son, made perfect forever.
Now the main point in what has been said [is this]: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN." But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
Indeed, there is much, much more that could be said, but it is clearly a vain thing which the Pope proclaims, that he is the living head of the church on earth, and its High Priest. We have but ONE High Priest, and He is Christ Jesus.
You said <a href="" target="_blank">here</a>,
This was one of the chief problems I encountered with the idea of a "spiritual church" as posited by the Reformers. Just HOW does Christ speak CLEARLY AND PERSPICUOUSLY to an earthly people if He is in Heaven and His voice is not heard?
And no, it is NOT the Bible.
Sorry. That won't wash and the number of Protestant denominations that abound with varying different interpretations of the scriptures, yet all claiming to be led of the Holy Spirit is a moot and eloquent argument against that idea.
We know that men are fallen, and I believe that this means they are affected in the totality of their being. No part of man is not affected by the sinfulness he inherits as a result of the Fall: not the body, not the intellect, not the emotions, and not the will. All of these are, as a result of the fall, inclined toward evil. This total inclination toward evil as a result of the Fall is described in Genesis 6:5, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that
every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This must account, at least in part, for the variety of interpretations among Protestants, and certainly at least as much also for the variety of teachings taught and believed (unofficially, perhaps) by those who are under the authority of the Pope.
For Protestants who truly adhere to the doctrine of
Sola Scriptura, their faulty interpretations are a result of their as yet unperfected intellects interacting with the Scripture. You will note, it is not that Scripture is itself unclear, but rather that no man is so perfect as to comprehend it correctly in all areas. ("Protestants" who do not adhere to
Sola Scriptura we must eliminate from consideration, for whatever false interpretations they come up with, they do not find their ultimate authority in God's word, and so do not definitionally fit the Protestant paradigm which you have assaulted.) The claim that the Pope is the sole infallible human authority for the church relies in itself on a traditional explication of Scripture, specifically, Matthew 16:17–19. But this presents its own problem, namely, how can we know that the traditional explication as appealed to by the Pope is true and correct? For indeed, the justification of the authority and infallibility of tradition is itself
traditional. Do we have the infallible definition of church tradition, i.e., what words
did the Apostles teach as sacred tradition (outside of what we have contained in Scripture)?
If you care to bring in the argument about the canon, you are only pushing the question back one step further, from "Whence does the canon of Scripture derive authority?" to "Whence does the tradition of the church derive authority?" I say the canonical books are authoritative precisely because they are God-breathed, not because the sacred tradition of the church identifies them as canonical. The canon is firstly a function of Scripture, not of the church. Whereas the Protestant cites Scripture because
Scripture claims itself to be God-breathed, the Catholic cites Scripture because the
church claims that Scripture is God-breathed. God is in Himself the supreme infallible authority. If we will not accept God's word as such on the basis of the authority which He claims
in that same word, how can we accept it on the basis of any authority which is not God?
Ultimately, unless you are in yourself infallible, your admitting to Rome's authority over the church is at least as fallible an act as my admitting to Scripture's authority over the church. Since the Pope does not claim to be God, whereas Scripture claims to be the very breath of God Himself, I have no cause to bow before the Pope.
"Let God be found true, though every man [be found] a liar, as it is written,
'THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
'AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED'" (Romans 3:4).
