Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. If you look at the law given the Jews and later us Christians, then you may interpret his behavior as sinful. But if you look at the law given him, that is, law prior to Moses, you will not have a basis to declare his drunken behavior sinful, and the inspired author of the Bible does not describe it as sinful:
20 And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard. 21 And drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent. 22 Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father's nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without. 23 But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward, covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him, 25 He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant.
He works; he drinks; he becomes drunk and falls asleep in his tent; his clothes become undone. He is not described as seeking to get drunk or seeking to disrobe himself in public; historically, wine was not drunk for recreation as we do it, but because it was often the only way to hydrate your body in the field. All the emphasis is on the behavior of the sons; Noah's actions are described as completely natural, and this is all you get from the text. It is, of course, possible to theorize that he sinned, and that his exceptional righteousness is somehow not thorough enough to cover every little detail (as Kosta does following your post), but it is still a theory and not plain reading.
John had ABSOLUTELY no excuse
Again, this is a theory, and I am interested in what the scripture has to say. It does not describe the question as sinful, and logically, it does not have to be.
Jesus elevated the faith of the centurion above that of the Jews who HAD seen Him and known of Him
That He did, at the expense of the Jews who we not equally quick to believe in Him without signs and miracles. Mary is not in that circle of comparision. The text says: "such great faith": not any faith but such faith that comes with zero prior knowledge.
She was just the first one whom He knew would say "Yes".
Yes, that is a possibility. The patristic teaching as I know it was that Mary was the first capable of saying "yes" and meaning it. If mankind were ready for Christ a second sooner, He would have come a second sooner. But this is precisely why we venerate Mary so much.
Didn't God's foreknowledge of her "yes" include His giving of the special grace? That would take the decision out of Mary's hands and ruin everything.
No it doesn't, -- God gives all of us grace, but the decision to accept it is ours, as it was Mary's.
I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. What do you think of this? :
Gen 4:6-11 : 6 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." 8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?" 10 The Lord said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
If you were Cain's lawyer, would you have said "But God, you never told Cain that killing was a sin"? Probably not. :) Indeed, even earlier we are told that Adam and Eve had a knowledge of "good and evil". So, I don't think that a lack of formal declaration of law relieves one from responsibility for sin. Now, there might be a case to be made for non-obvious or counterintuitive laws such as the dietary laws. Therefore, we have to decide whether what Noah did is of a kind as this.
I would not think so given that: as already discussed this was not Noah's first tilt, and he knew the effects of alcohol. He knew that drinking too much could cause one to lose control of one's faculties. Further, he knew that nakedness (in this context) was a sin from the story of Adam and Eve. Therefore, I would apply the felony murder rule here. :) -- For those who don't know, normally if you kill someone purely by accident (hunting, etc.) you are not charged with murder. However, if you accidentally kill someone while robbing a bank you DO get charged with murder. The idea is that you assume that risk when you make the original wrongful decision to rob the bank. -- I see Noah as falling into this category, given what he DID know at the time.
... historically, wine was not drunk for recreation as we do it, but because it was often the only way to hydrate your body in the field.
What??? Wine is a DE-hydrant because of the alcohol.
FK: "Jesus elevated the faith of the centurion above that of the Jews who HAD seen Him and known of Him."
That He did, at the expense of the Jews who were not equally quick to believe in Him without signs and miracles. Mary is not in that circle of comparison. The text says: "such great faith": not any faith but such faith that comes with zero prior knowledge.
In your immediately (unrelated) prior comment you said: "Again, this is a theory, and I am interested in what the scripture has to say." Sounds perfectly good to me. Why do you abandon it so quickly? :) You are building in something from nothing here. Jesus says: "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." That's it, no qualifiers. Mary is either part of "Israel" or she is not.
The patristic teaching as I know it was that Mary was the first capable of saying "yes" and meaning it. If mankind were ready for Christ a second sooner, He would have come a second sooner. But this is precisely why we venerate Mary so much.
Do you mean to say that God was standing on the sidelines, waiting for man to be "ready" before Christ was sent? That makes no sense to me because surely Mary was not the first Godly (righteous) woman. The OT has plenty of them. What are you saying?
FK: "Didn't God's foreknowledge of her "yes" include His giving of the special grace? That would take the decision out of Mary's hands and ruin everything."
No it doesn't, -- God gives all of us grace, but the decision to accept it is ours, as it was Mary's.
Now wait a minute. :) You hail Mary because she was full of grace. You can't tell me now that it was the same grace that everyone else is free to receive. It had to have been some kind of exclusive, special grace that is not available to anyone else. Otherwise, you have to convince me that no one else has "chosen" to partake of it either before OR AFTER Mary. Why would none of you good Catholics choose to accept such grace?
Plus, I thought that the Immaculate Conception meant that Mary was graced in her mother's womb. Mary certainly never accepted that!
The sin wasn't Noah drinking and being drunk it was that his son "uncovered his father's nakedness". That means much more than it says. The sin was incest.