Replies

Yes, some sins are committed in ignorance. For example, there could be a Muslim man raised to believe honor killing is virtuous, and so he kills his daughter for becoming too western. He sincerely believes he is right. Did he sin willfully? That is, was his will involved in his sinful act? Again, to restate my earlier question, can there be any such thing as a sin that does not involve an act of the will?

I do not recall a single case where the lawyers that posed these types of questions to the Messiah profited thereby. My advice, is to take these scriptural warnings to heart, so to speak, and profit thereby.

Jesus didn't avoid answering any lawyerly questions by saying they were useless. Rather, He leveraged those questions into startling new insights. He is the best lawyer (and teacher) ever, and he out-lawyered the very best the Jewish magisterium had to offer. In that regard, and in every other way possible, He is my role model.

As for my question to you, I ask you to answer rather than avoid, because I believe it will lead to insight. The bottom line is, it has dawned on me I am not up against just one Roman heresy, but every FR Catholic who expounds their own private views as if they were speaking for Rome, but are in effect being their own little mini-me RC popes. This comes home to me when I can't seem to get you to give me anything remotely like an authoritative, infallible interpretation of this passage in Hebrews 10. Am I really expected to argue these things with all of you individually, only to find out at the end of the day that Rome has no official position on the matter? What a monumental waste of time and effort. At my age time is precious. I truly do not want to waste a second of it. If your position isn't even demonstrably the Roman position, why would I care about it?

But of course I do care about it. I care because I know the damage false guilt from dire warnings can produce when they are unfounded. It is precisely because this is such a terrifying warning that it's exact application must be made certain. Again, I am asking you most sincerely to consider the question I posed as if you were in a role of pastoral care. Real pastors do have to answer these questions for real, troubled souls. Those pesky lawyers Jesus confronted only wanted to confound Jesus. They had no care for the people in their charge. But I've seen the damage misapplied "warnings" can do, up close and in person. This is serious business. I wish I could convince you of at least that. We don't have to agree. But the word of God can be seriously misused. Don't you suppose the "circumcisionists" Paul fought in Galatia were running around quoting dire warnings at people who were not the proper object of those warnings? You see Paul's pastoral instinct come out strong against those folks, not because he wants to out-lawyer them, but because he cares about the damage they are doing to precious souls for whom Christ died.

That's where I'm coming from. That's why the question needs to be answered. Better if you can get an official, "infallible," dogmatic answer from Rome. But I'll take your private interpretation too. Equal opportunity apologetics. But I would like some truth in labeling. If it's just your personal opinion, better if everyone knows that up front.

Peace,

SR