Re: The Path of Bones: Knowledge is Power

[Simon Molendinarius]

I'm not certain I agree.  The fundamental nature of the beast is at question here.  Is it a portion of the soul?  Is it the whispers of the adversary?  It can be argued that those behaviors you mention are the result of a Beast not held in check, rather than a harmless venting of frustrations and desire.  Thus a cause for discussion and debate.

I have found that the Roads that espouse control all have certain characteristics they share.  They may interpret the methods for control in different ways, but ultimately they seek control of and mastery over the impulses of the beast.

On the other hand, those Roads that allow their instincts to take hold are quite different from each other.  They do not tame the beast, as you suggest.  Far from it.  One of the core tenants of via Bestiae states you must live in accordance with the beast.  From and outside perspective it can seem as it you are not pulling the strings, but rather it is.  These cainites willingly lower themselves to the level of an animal.  They prefer living 'in the moment', a practice that requires them to ignore the undying nature of their new life.

Meanwhile. Sin elevates the cainite above all others, claiming that they are damned and so willingly do even the most heinous atrocity should the whim strike them.  This seems to me to be the sophistry you mentioned earlier.  If you know the truth of God enough to say you are damned, then you know what you do is wrong.  How selfish to admit such a thing yet ignore it.  Just because you have been damned does not make your actions acceptable.  This is a loophole they wriggle through, and a dangerous one at that.  How presumptuous to claim to know the will of the Lord so well that you are certain you are unredeemable!

For now we see obscurely in a mirror,
but then it will be face to face.
Now I know partly; then I will know fully,
just as God has fully known me.
Corinthians 13:12

Besides, such a claim is far from sensible.  There is little to claim we are unredeemable.  Indeed, God's mercy is great.  Human kind is forever able to seek redemption.  We are undeniably born from humans, and our souls still have the quality that allows human redemption.  We are not demons, forever banned from the grace of the father.  As St. Aquinas wrote "So it is customary to say that man’s free-will is flexible to the opposite both before and after choice; but the angel’s free-will is flexible to either opposite before the choice, but not after. Therefore the good angels who adhered to justice, were confirmed therein; whereas the wicked ones, sinning, are obstinate in sin."  Even in our advanced state, we do not know all. We are still shaped by experience, and our faith is shaped and groomed in such a way.  Undeniably we can change our mind, and so we are not locked in sin as the Fallen.

One might point to eternal sin and say, "but see, even mortal man can be denied a chance for salvation." But this is not so.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."
Hebrews 10:26

So it is the act of blasphemy against the holy spirit that closes this door to salvation, not because salvation is not possible, but because you are knowingly sinning and refuse to stop.  This is your choice, and even still, the Lord, being all powerful, can surely still provide salvation through a miracle.
Besides, the only sin that can close this door is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
Matthew 12:30

Becoming cainite does not necessitate such blasphemy...
Truly, the Road of Sin in particular seems to be on weak theological grounding, formed on a premise that seems invalid based on the word of God itself.

[Simon Molendinarius]

Edit for timeline. Thomas Aquinas will not be canonized for nearly 30 more years. I would not have referred to him as a saint, as that has not yet happened.

[Simon Molendinarius]

I do realize this has gone deeper into theology than originally intended, and I do differentiate between the sins of the bible and those of a given Road. However, in this case the conversation must be driven by theology, as a cornerstone of the Road of Sin focuses on this belief.

[Brother Dominic]

Your Grace, I would not presume to argue with you on matters theological. I follow the righteous heathen Socrates in admitting that the only true wisdom we finite beings are capable of attaining is that we do not possess any wisdom that is truly worthwhile.

But I must observe, if you are correct, it would seem to suggest that travelers on via peccati or via bestiae would be expected to enter wassail at a greater rate than travelers on the other viae. That is to say, if these other roads do not provide them resources to keep their beasts in check, I should imagine that they would more frequently degrade into wights. But I have seen no compelling research or records suggesting that some viae are more wight-ridden than others.

[Brother Dominic]

And let me be clear, I do not regard the behaviors of those on via peccati to be harmless; except in the stoic sense, where no one can truly suffer a harm whose source is external to themselves. And in that sense, those on Via Peccati are, indeed, masters of harm.

[Brother Dominic]

So, i suppose, in either the customary sense of harmful, and in the stoic sense, the followers of via peccati are agents of harm, the difference is simply in whether they harm others or harm themselves. From the stoic perspective, it is simply not my business if they wish to engage in self-harm.

[Simon Molendinarius]

I do not specifically claim that it is a lesser method of holding the beast at bay. However, two methods may be equally effective while only one is correct. Indeed, many who follow the road of heaven would claim the road of sin to be entirely improper and incorrect. Indeed, arguments have been known to lead to violence on mayters of the spirit. You take an admirable, if perhaps too liberal, egalitarian approach to this.

To illustrate, if a man causes me a problem, I can find a way to disuade him through resources, debate, or murder. All options are equally effeftive, but not all are correct.

You are correct though. Perhaps it is not your concern. Likewise, I treat those following sin the same as anyone else. Yet for purposes of discussion, and the persuit of understanding should one not explore these ideas?

[Brother Dominic]

Ah, I see, then, Your Grace, you are, after all, asking me not to assess the efficacy of a road as a guiding principle for one's life as a matter of keeping the beast at bay, but as a system of morality, then?

[Simon Molendinarius]

Some day perhaps. I run ahead of myself on this. I think from your statements that you already agree to some extent with my views on Via Peccati. Hence my interest in a discussion with a follower of the Road of Sin.
We have driven far off topic, and I feel I better grasp the bones of your road, so to speak. That was my original interest. Perhaps another time we will speak of Sin and morality further. The topic is quite interesting...do you have possession of any writings by your 'learned heathens?'

[Brother Dominic]

I possess a copy of Aurelius's Meditations, and a copy of Maimonedes's Guide for the Perplexed. Those are the most relevant texts in my library of those we have touched on.

[Simon Molendinarius]

I would be interested in perusing those works at some point.

[Brother Dominic]

But of course, Your Grace, I would be only too delighted to share them with you.

[Brother Dominic]

Your grace, I wonder if you have opinions on theology of the esteemed thinker and former Archbishop of Canterbury, Saint Anselm?

[Domnal Boruma]

Are you speaking of any particular work, or generally?

[Brother Dominic]

His Grace, Father Simon, has expressed, in various ways, confusion as to how this road constitutes a morality. It has been my own failing that I have not satisfactorily been able to explain to him how dedicating oneself to the pursuit of scholarship might rise to the level he expects from road of morality.

I have been endeavoring to find resources that might enable me to better explicate the outlook that is so important to me to His Grace, that he might better understand the road I walk.

Knowing, as I do, his passion for and knowledge of the Church, it occurred to me that some discussion of Saint Anselm's motto—fides quaerens intellectum—could, potentially, bridge the gap in our perspectives, enabling me to overcome my previous limitations, and so, to enlighten our Baron on that question where I have, as yet, been so unable to satisfy him.

Put simply, I am confident that if only I can find the right manner to express myself, His Grace's curiosity can be satisfied. Anselm's wedding of Faith and Intellect: his commitment to the importance of understanding for proper devotion to the lord, seemed a fortuitous connection with which to endeavor to better explain the via ossium.

[Sponsored content]