I think
Mark Connolly
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that
it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's
remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases
reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in
such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely
unforgiven.
I think I will divide this into 6a and 6b for the sake of clarity.
6a)
The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that
it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's
remission;
My response to point No. 5 seems to have anticipated 6a, and so I will say, I agree.
6b)
though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases
reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in
such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely
unforgiven.
This is the part that confuses me. It is not clear to me whether or not this "pope granted" remission "in cases reserved to his judgment" is something that we would all agree to call 'sin'. It's almost as if you have this image of common society, governed by God and His laws, and then something like The Moose Lodge, or some other fraternal organization with its own bylaws. In such a fraternal organization, a member agrees to adhere to some standards of behavior, and places themselves under authority to the organization, and whoever happens to be the titular head of this organization.
If in fact you actually view the Catholic Church as some sort of fraternal organization with separate bylaws that only apply to its members, then you clearly have a concept of The Universal Church that quite simply fails to meet the requirement of the concept of Universal.
I have to wonder if that is what you thought all along. It would shed some light on your later career. I am going to have to leave this part of the response unfinished until I gain a better understanding of the rest of your theses.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same
time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His
vicar, the priest.
Again, I wish I could be sure of what you are saying. It sounds like you are saying God humbles and forgives all at the same time. I don't know what to make of the part that states "...bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest." So, looking up vicar, I found this in the Online Etymology Dictionary:
c.1300, from O.Fr. vicaire, from L. vicarius "substitute, deputy," noun use of adj. vicarius "substituting," from vicis "change, turn, office" (see vicarious). The original notion is of "earthly representative of God or Christ;" but also used in sense of "person acting as parish priest in place of a real parson" (c.1325).
Ok, so you are calling the priest the "earthly representative of God or Christ." In this subjection to the vicar, you are saying the person is brought into subjection to God or Jesus. I know today that the pope is specifically referred to as the vicar of Christ, so I will go with that concept.
So, you posit a three-fold action: being forgiven, being humbled, and being brought in to subjection. Depending on how literally this is all to be taken, this strikes me as a personal viewpoint not immediately gleaned from Scripture. For example:
3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:1-11 (KJV)
It can be argued that the woman was humbled by God through the actions of the pharisees that brought her before Jesus. It can be argued that this is a special case because this was a test, and so Jesus' actions here are not typical since his actions were in response to a test. It can be argued that she was brought into subjection to Christ.
All these can be argued, and in fact must necessarily be argued,
because none of that is implicit in the text. That's simply not what it says. You have to do a lot of work to pull your point No 7 out of that text.
Very explicitly, Jesus does not condemn her. He in fact remits her guilt without humbling her and without bringing her to subjection in himself. This woman makes no profession of faith, did not say she was going to follow Jesus, etc.
I wish I knew what the genesis of this point was. You seem so, I don't know, grim.
Of course, one text in and of itself does not the whole Bible make. And, I do know there are plenty of examples of people being told to repent. And sinners are made miserable throughout the Old Testament. Etc. Still.
There are pieces of what you say that I would agree with. God forgives sins, and a humble and contrite heart is what he wants. The priest/bishop/pope is the vicar of Christ with all that entails. However, Jesus was pretty clear: the apostles were to serve, not lord it over others. He explained this by washing their feet with his own hands. The act of a servant to his master.
I don't agree that anyone is to be brought under subjection to the priest. Or maybe I just don't like the way it sounds. You know. Grim. Where's the joy? Ψ
Continue to Next Post
Posts
