Sexism And The Bible--fork

[Apotheoun]

Western readings and understandings of what sin is would define anything that was us going against God's revealed will as sin. Surely you remember this?

 

If God has said wear purple, but I choose instead to wear pink, I have sinned. Culpably? Who knows. Mortally? Probably not.

Recourse should always be had to the text, and in both cases St. Paul says nothing about sin.

[Evangetholic]

We need things to be explicitly called sins to understand them as sins? This isn't the Catholic Church's Tradition. (As you know.)

[Evangetholic]

And yes when I  say the Catholic Church I mean that Entity headed by the Pope.

[Apotheoun]

We need things to be explicitly called sins to understand them as sins? This isn't the Catholic Church's Tradition. (As you know.)

Did I say that? What I oppose is turning everything into a sin. Now in the case we are reviewing St. Paul nowhere mentions the word sin, and I really see no reason to bring that word into the discussion.

[Evangetholic]

I brought it in because I understand disobedience to God to be sin. If the things you listed are disobedience, then I do not see how they are not sins. But I don't think this particular divide is one that'll be breached by anyone but the Lord Himself, who I earnestly hope comes soon.

[Apotheoun]

And yes when I  say the Catholic Church I mean that Entity headed by the Pope.

Okay. For me Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church, and He has appointed - through the power of the Holy Spirit - bishops throughout the world to govern each particular instantiation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[Apotheoun]

I brought it in because I understand disobedience to God to be sin. If the things you listed are disobedience, then I do not see how they are not sins. But I don't think this particular divide is one that'll be breached by anyone but the Lord Himself, who I earnestly hope comes soon.

Perhaps that is because you see the terms disobedience and sin as (for all practical purposes) synonymous, and I do not.

[Evangetholic]

Well--for me Christ's Vicar on this earth is the Pope. Unto him it is necessary unto salvation for every human creature (with the reason and faith to do so) to be subject.

[Evangetholic]

Perhaps that is because you see the terms disobedience and sin as (for all practical purposes) synonymous, and I do not.

 

I do. :)

[Evangetholic]

This should totes be moved to the debate table.

[Apotheoun]

Well--for me Christ's Vicar on this earth is the Pope. Unto him it is necessary unto salvation for every human creature (with the reason and faith to do so) to be subject.

Christ is not absent from His Church, and so He needs no vicar.  That said, the pope, like all bishops, is a vicar of Peter and the other Apostles.

 

 

Below is an interesting quotation from a book by Anglican author George Every, S.S.M., that should help to elucidate my position on the use of the word vicar:

 

"[In the East] the primacy of Rome was seldom directly denied, in the sense of 'the primacy among her sisters, and the presidency in the first place of honor at General Councils,' but the Latin interpretation of the primacy in terms of jurisdiction revealed a difference between East and West in the doctrine of the Church. Attempts were made to relate this to the filioque, but these could not penetrate to the heart of the matter while the distinctive element in Latin theology was very little, if at all, understood in the East. St. Augustine was not translated into Greek before the fourteenth century. His De Civitate Dei and his anti-Donatist writings did much to determine the development of the Western doctrine of the Church, as his anti-Pelagian writings are the starting-point of all Western controversies on the nature of grace. Grace is the connecting link between theology (in the Byzantine sense of the doctrine of the Trinity) and ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. The Eastern Churches never had a doctrine of created grace, of the gifts of God apart from the gift of Himself to the baptized who are buried and risen with Christ and live and reign in the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could never understand the idea of the vicar of Christ ruling His Church in His absence. They thought of their bishops not in the first place as rulers, but as high-priests in the presence of Christ and the Spirit, witnesses to the truth, and stewards of the mysteries of God." [George Every, S.S.M., The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204, pages 191-192]

[Apotheoun]

This should totes be moved to the debate table.

Or we could simply go back to the actual topic of the thread.

[Evangetholic]

Our Lord needs nothing Apotheoun. He did not even need our Blessed Mother to come to the Earth.

 

But He still has a Mother.

 

He does not need a Pope to guide His flock; but as a mercy and a sign of man's dignity He has given us a Universal Shepherd. A mere human. It's part of the Scandal of the Holy Cross, in my estimation.

[Evangetholic]

No the original topic went debate-y too. I was sold a false bill of goods vis-a-vis Hoy Church's earthly unity. I kid, I joke. :p

[Apotheoun]

Our Lord needs nothing Apotheoun. He did not even need our Blessed Mother to come to the Earth.

 

But He still has a Mother.

 

He does not need a Pope to guide His flock; but as a mercy and a sign of man's dignity He has given us a Universal Shepherd. A mere human. It's part of the Scandal of the Holy Cross, in my estimation.

Interestingly St. Ignatios of Antioch says that Christ needs His body the Church, that is, that the Head needs the body if He is to exist on earth (Trallians 11).