Ed,
First, thanks for taking the time to look at what I've said and respond. Now on with the show! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />
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:
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Why would God wink at sin in the past? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Perhaps the answer is found here:
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.
Seems that God has standards of guilt that depend a lot upon the knowledge we have of His will.
Regarding Acts 17:30, God bore the ignorance of the Gentiles patiently, allowing them to continue on earth rather than destroying them outright, thus that they might live to hear the Gospel. This is God's "winking." It does not mean that they are excused from sin. And regarding Luke 12:47,48, it is indeed true that those who have more knowledge of these things will be held the more accountable, but we see that even those lacking knowledge are still held accountable.
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?
The problem with your analogy is that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, per Rom. 1:18. In essence, the speed limit IS posted. If I do not notice the speed limit because I am more concerned about getting to my destination as quickly as possible, I am still guilty of breaking the law. In the same way, men look out for themselves first, and in so doing they fail to notice, and indeed actively resist, the law of God.
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.
Perhaps so, but it is nonetheless a sin which merits punishment.
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"
Genesis 24:58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.
Ah, but look what happens before Rebekah ever consents: "I put the ring on her nose, and the bracelets on her wrists" (v. 47). Or what about this? "Here is Rebekah before you, take [her] and go, and let her be the wife of your master's son, as the LORD has spoken" (v.51). Indeed, the only reason her opinion was asked was because Abraham's servant wanted to leave and return (v. 54), but Rebekah's family was loth to see her go so soon (v. 55). I am not denying that we have a positive response to make to the Gospel, but we only respond positively because God has first laid hold of us.
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?)
The pagan nations weren't the only ones who arranged marriages, nor does arrangement illigetimize a marriage.
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.
I was unaware of that. Nonetheless, the
filioque yet remains officially in the Western version of the Nicene Creed, and for this reason it is still a bone of contention between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox. So my point, I believe, is still valid.
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."
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.
No, it does not seem sensible to me according to the covenantal paradigm you have set forth for this reason: the church is not a single individual, as were both Mary and Eve.
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.
May I ask, Who was King David's "prime minister"?
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?
That God is merciful does not show that the papal office is infallible.
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).
Well, then, what indeed is he the
Pontifex Maximus ("Most High Priest") of? You read through the whole passage I cited from Hebrews, did you not? Where therein is any mention made of an earthly equivalent to Christ
for the New Covenant church?
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.
No, it's not Pelagian, but it's semi-Pelagian.
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.
As far as anyone who accepts the authority of Rome and her sacred tradition, the Epistle of Clement could only now be considered God-breathed
if Rome said so. As I said before, you simply move the question back one step further. Now we must ask, from where does the authority of Rome come, and where is her infallible definition of the sacred tradition upon which she bases her claims to authority?
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?
Rome's interpretation comes from believing in the authority of Rome's tradition, not from believing that Scripture is itself sufficient.
So we are left with the question --WHO is promised the protection of infallibility in regards to proper interpretation of scripture?
No one is.
