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.
Fair dinkum.
As one who is not a professional theologian, I can only try to answer what you have posted. Some of the issues you bring up are on things I read a while ago, but lamentably did not bookmark.
But....here goes.
Would you explain how a lack of knowledge equals a lack of volition? The commission of sin is not dependent upon our knowledge.
I would disagree. Sin is a willing disobedience to the revealed will of God. It seems that in the days prior to Christ, God had a different standard due to men's ignorance of His purposes:
[color:"0000FF"]Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:[/color]
Why would God wink at sin in the past? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Perhaps the answer is found here:
[color:"0000FF"]Luke 12:47-48 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.[/color]
Seems that God has standards of guilt that depend a lot upon the knowledge we have of His will.
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.
If the speed limit is not posted -- for instance, vandals knocked down the signs -- then is one still guilty?
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.
This gets into the area of "mortal" and "venial" sin. I am not saying that there is no sin, and if I made it look like that I apologized.
Mortal sin is an act of wickedness in which the person knows that the deed is evil, does it with full consent of the will, and is uncoerced. In other words, despite knowing that this is wrong, the person charges into it full steam ahead.
But if someone is holding your child hostage and tells you to go rob 1st National Bank and bring him the money, then there is a serious mitigating circumstance -- the coercion of concern for your child's life. God takes this into account, and the severity of the sin is lessened so that it is not a mortal sin.
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"?
Remember, in a coveantal relationship, the covenant is "cut" by an act of the will by both persons. Covenant is a giving of onesself to another....but one cannot give to another without an act of the will in which one says "yes"
[color:"0000FF"]Genesis 24:58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.[/color]
This is the biblical pattern of covenant. I don't care a whit about how the pagan nations did marrigae (or should I say undid it?)
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?
[I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a meeting of some sort at which John Paul II was in attendence and when the Nicene Creed was recited the filioque was conspicuously absent. That got our attention as members of the Byzantine Catholic Church.
Also, perhaps you are unaware that we, as Eastern Catholics, recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday
without the filioque and that with Rome's approval. We have not had to bend the knee to their understanding.
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?
That is a very good question. The answer is: the Church. More specifically, when we speak of the Church, we speak of the Institution in which reside the rules of life for the believer, and in which are "sub-covenant families" which are the individual parishes. It is the Holy Father who is responsible for the believers, but obviously, he must have help, and that from the bishops and priests who comprise the Church.
It is not without reason that the Church is called "The Holy MOTHER Church." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Does that seem sensible? It did to me when I was trying to reform my eclessiology from the Protestant paradigm and to fit a covenantal form.
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.
Oh, there is no argument that the scriptures teach that Jesus is the man Who is now the Great High Priest of the New Covenant, mostly found in Hebrews.
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:
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.
I have found nothing in Catholicism which indicates that the pope is the high priest of the New Covenant. What I do see referred to is the kingdom structure of the Old Covenant kingdom in which the king always had a prime minister who acted in his stead when he was absent from the throne.
When the prime minister spoke, it was as if the king spoke, but remember, that which the prime minister said was not his will, but the mind and will of the king. You see, this goes back again to that issue of infallibility and the Holy Spirit ruling the mind of the occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. Why do you think that the few wicked popes who held that chair were kept from introducing reforms to the Church's moral doctrines which would have legalized their adulteries and abominations?
I would ask you to please show me an official document of the Church which states that the pope is the high priest of the New Covenant (Church).
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.
And the Church would agree with you. Do you know that in the Catechism of the Church, there is a section which explicitly states that unless a man is called by the Holy Spirit, he CANNOT COME TO CHRIST? I was surprized to find this initially. But then, a lot of what I found in the Catholic Faith has surprized me, for the Faith is nothing like the characature which I believed was the Church. The Church is anything but Pelegian.
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.
Before the Council of Chalcedon, there were a number of epistles which were considered to be "God breathed" and worthy of being called "of divine origin". One was the Epistle of Clement, which was read in the Corinthian church every Sunday. There is simply no epistle among these which tells us which of the others is to be considered in the list.
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?
I think you will admit with me that it is NOT a matter of accepting God's Word as such, but rather the INTERPRETATION of that Word. For instance, John 6, the chapter which introduces us to the Eucharist. There must be at least 6 different interpretations of what Jesus said there which give 6 different ideas of what the Lord's Supper is supposed to be. Each interpretation though comes from believing the Bible, doesn't it?
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.
No one denies that the scriptures state they are God breathed. What is NOT God breathed is interpretations of the scriptures. That is really the issue here, isn't it?
So we are left with the question --WHO is promised the protection of infallibility in regards to proper interpretation of scripture? And please don't deny this. For instance, the whole issue of "forensic justification" in Romans revolves around the interpretation of one Greek word -- logizomai -- and whether that word is interpreted in the Protestant sense or the Catholic sense. Which is correct?
Thank you for your questions.
Best regards,
Brother Ed
