What’s tripping you up here is thinking that venial sins are violations of God’s law. So you’re not yet seeing the basis for the difference between mortal and venial sins. Venial sins are not violations of the law; they are not violations of love. They are deficiencies or defects in carrying out the love that is the spirit and principle of the law. So to view venial sins as merely more rule violations is to approach the whole question through the list-paradigm, rather than through the agape paradigm, which gets ‘behind’ the list to the spirit or principle (i.e. agape) of the law, thus allowing for a distinction between actions that violate this spirit, and those that are still ordered by this principle but fall short of its perfect expression.
Bryan explains further.
More explication:
Venial sin in relation to God is very much like doing something minor or unintentional that troubles one’s spouse but does not break the friendship with one’s spouse (say, failing to remember to readjust the seat in the car, so that it is easier for the other person to get in). It is not a violation of the law of love. When you get into the car and find the seat not readjusted, you don’t justifiably turn to your spouse and say, “You violated the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.” That would obviously be way over the top, because the failure was not purposely chosen out of spite or apathy; the spouse loved and loves you, and the inaction did not destroy that love or indicate its absence. But neither is failing to readjust the seat, if one’s spouse has requested that one do so, a perfect conformity to love for one’s spouse. And in our friendship with God there is a similar kind of distinction between two types of sins: mortal and venial.
This is fudging. It's also merely a "venial sin" to tell your little sister that you hate her; this is not merely not re-adjusting the car seat. And yet it will net you simply a couple of Hail Mary's in the confessional.
And yet it is thoroughly a sin according to Matt 5:21-22. This is a clear example of Bryan's "Tradition" negating the Word of God.
They are deficiencies or defects in carrying out the love that is the spirit and principle of the law
ReplyDeleteUm, yes, that would be a violation of the law, since "Love God with all your heart, strength, etc, and love neighbor as yourself" sum up all the law and prophets.
What a terrible thing to say. Again we see works-righteousness simply diminishing the holiness and loftiness of the law of God to serve its own purposes. This is the voice of the enemy.
This is the voice of the enemy.
DeleteWithout question. There are two things going on here. First, if you look at that thread, the Protestants are citing the CCC to the effect that Bryan isn't accurately quoting RC doctrine on it. And second, it's Bryan's attempt (with this "agape paradigm" stuff) to put a pretty face on Rome. So not only is Roman dogma about this bad, but then you've got Bryan's spin on it which is even further off base.
"So to view venial sins as merely more rule violations is to approach the whole question through the list-paradigm, rather than through the agape paradigm, which gets ‘behind’ the list to the spirit or principle (i.e. agape) of the law, thus allowing for a distinction between actions that violate this spirit, and those that are still ordered by this principle but fall short of its perfect expression."
ReplyDeleteExcept that even Catholics that have committed no mortal sins are required to confess to a priest at least once a year (CCC1457). So much for the agape paradigm over the list paradigm.
It seems as if these guys are in it not only to win converts, but to win some kind of accolades for their abilities to come up with "new" concepts. Bryan used to talk about "monocausalism"; he's still using "ecclesial deism" and this "Catholic Interpretive Paradigm" and also these "agape" and "list" paradigms.
DeleteWhere in the history of theology do these things occur?
How is Bryan Cross authorized to speak for Rome on these matters?
DeleteI don't know that he even thinks he is "speaking for Rome". His stated purpose is "To approach the task of Catholic-Protestant reconciliation", and he's got some elaborate explanations stating why he's able to speak competently about the Roman position.
DeletePerfection is the only answer to such dilemmas!
ReplyDeleteIf not, burning in hell is the only other option!
Mat 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Jesus, with those words makes it an impossibility for anyone to make it out of here on any merit of their own!
Did someone say "thank God for Jesus"?
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Thanks Michael :-)
DeleteYou are absolutely right about perfection and God's holiness.
I haven't read all of this, and I think in the Green Baggins thread, Bryan says something to the effect that he hadn't "argued" for the "list" and "agape" paradigms, but it seems to me that he tags the Protestant hermeneutic with the handle "list paradigm" (and Lane says this is not accurate), and he tags the Roman Catholic view of justification with "agape paradigm".
What's amazing to me is that the discussion seems to be going on using these terms.