Catholics that dont like Catholic teaching

[boppaid]

Boppaid:
But I see others who seem to feel that all you need to do is answer the “Alter Call”, pray the “Sinners Prayer” and maybe get Baptized as a sign of election. I’m strictly commanded not to judge, but I see no good coming out of this. And, this sounds an aweful lot like a form of Gnosticsm which says that what you do doesn’t matter - it’s only what you “Believe”.

I do agree with you about alter calls and simply praying the “sinner’s prayer”. We are on the same page here.

It is good that you’re meeting with the priest. What’s more important that you OBEY and SUBMIT to him. He’s God’s servant and YOUR SHEPHERD, and right now, you’re stuck in some bramble bushes. If you happen to feel the crook of a shepherd’s staff, it’s not meant to choke you - It’s there to free you from the thorns.

Well, I’ve obeyed and submitted for years without the beliefs to back them up. Is that really the best way? Should I believe what I’m doing, rather than simply going through the motions? This isn’t sarcastic, either, but a genuine question because I literally spent YEARS going through the motions of doing what the CC told me to do. Yet, that’s all it was…going through the motions. I have had 3 spiritual advisors and still (while submitting technically) don’t believe most of the Catholic doctrine.

I’ve read all your posts. What it comes down to for me after reading your posts is whether or not the Catholic Church is actually the Church of the New Testament. If it is, then I can sort of see how Catholics claim infallibility. I cannot see evidence of this by reading the NT. Also paramont, of course, is the belief of whether Peter was the rock or Peter’s statement of faith was. I’ve read a few Catholic books on this that were well written (Jesus, Peter & The Keys being the most recent one) and still am not convinced. I TRULY WANT TO BE convinced, though, and sometimes I pretend to myself that I am (because that would be MUCH easier for me), but I just am not.

I am truly at a loss.

I hope the company that you have over are people you want to be with and whose company you enjoy, and that they didn’t disturb your daughters’ sleep too much.

Thank you. Yes, they are two young girls I truly want to be with. They are my young neices who came from a terrible, abusive background who I take care of as often as I can. I love it when they come stay with me, and when they are here, I give them (or try to give them) my undivided attention. I’m not sure what you mean about my daughter’s sleep, but yes, they all managed to fall asleep! (No small feet when you have a large group of excited young children together! )

Scripture shouldn’t be read just to find a verse that hopefully supports some Doctrine hat we want to believe or that opposes a Doctrine the Church teache so we can justify our refusal to submit. I would really appreciate that, before you try posting the results of something like that in the future, you try to read the what we’ve said to you in responses to your posts and your questions. Anything else makes at least me begin to wonder if you’re listening.

Actually, I don’t read scripture that way. I read scripture every night. I’m working on NT again. It is my quiet devotion time to the Lord. I’m sorry if you were bothered by that, but when I read it I truly wondered how it fit in with Catholic theology about us rejecting the Holy Spirit. I really meant nothing else by it.

Scripture must be read so that we can get to know the One who wrote it and gave His life for us. A discipline suggested by the Church for several centuries is something called Lectio Divina.

ocarm.org/lectio/lecteng.htm
osb.org/lectio/

If you can make yourself do this, you’ll find yourself Breathing Scripture, but you just might be embarrassed at how you used it here.

Ouch. There was no need for that, Michael. Actually, I’m familiar with Lectio Devina (although I never knew the official name.) I think the way I read scripture is very similar. I first read the passages. Then I meditate on what I just read, while asking the Lord to guide me in my understanding. I usually follow with letting go of everything to let the Holy Spirit fill me with His word.

I have to say that one good thing in my spiritual life currenly is this daily devotion. It has truly blessed my life, and is God at work in my heart! I keep praying to Him to help guide me. I think He is my hope in all of this confusion, and I beg of you to pray for me that He reveals the truth to me.

Thank you.

 

[Damascus]

Hello Boppaid!

I musta misunderstood your last post - about Catholic theology and the Holy Spirit - did you mean that we reject the Holy Spirit?

 

[boppaid]

Hello Boppaid!

I musta misunderstood your last post - about Catholic theology and the Holy Spirit - did you mean that we reject the Holy Spirit?

No…I actually took YOU to mean that we reject the Holy Spirit. I feel like we can reject God at times because of our sinful natures, but He never leaves us, and if we TRULY saved (meaning truly putting Him as the center of our lives), then he continues to work in us. I know that sounds contradictory, but what I mean is I know that I put Him in the center of my life, yet at times because I am a sinner I reject Him by being unkind to a friend, or what have you. Yet, because I am a believer, who loves the Lord, the Holy Spirit is alive in my soul and having Him in my soul keeps me on the right path, making me feel remorse for my sin, the need to confess to the person I hurt and to God, and the need to repent to please Him. I believe it is the Holy Spirit in me that drives me to want to repent. If he left my soul every time I sinned, then I wouldn’t have the strength to feel remorse, confess, and repent.

I guess that’s why I have a hard time believing that the Holy Spirit is not in me when I sin. Without the Holy Spirit, I wouldn’t make it through.

(And as an aside I do believe Confession (to a priest) is a good thing, but I don’t believe that if a mortal sin is not confession in the confessional someone will go to Hell. I guess that’s a whole 'nother thread, though! )

Damascus, I truly appreciate the time you are taking with me, and the compassion you have shown. God bless you.

 

[Damascus]

Damascus, I truly appreciate the time you are taking with me, and the compassion you have shown. God bless you.

You may or may not be happy with me after this post, forgive me if its redundant as I am really tired now but something you said bothered me.

Consider the words of Peter’s Second Letter:

For it would have been better for them [who have knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, yet become entangled in sin] never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them” (2:20-21, emphasis added).

St. Peter plainly teaches that it would be better never to know Jesus at all than to know Him and commit grave sin, meaning that the fallen-away Christian, having rejected Jesus, is in a worse place than he was originally. This falling away does not preclude the possibility of repentance and reconciliation, but the man’s “fall from grace” makes no sense if his salvation was assured the moment he received Christ. For how could a man who turns away from Christ be “assured of salvation” if the Bible says he is in a worse position than when he never knew Christ at all? If a man were “always saved” from the moment he received Christ, committing grave sins would have no consequences worse than never receiving Christ; yet sacred Scripture says that the consequences are worse.

St. Paul discusses a similar situation in 1 Tim. 5:8: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (emphasis added). This verse speaks of a Christian who violates Jesus’ commandment to love others (1 Jn. 2:3-4; Mt. 22:37-40). To commit such a grave sin, St. Paul says, is to renounce the faith. As with St. Peter so with St. Paul: The man who turns away from Christ is worse off than if he had never believed. Again, this could not be true if a Christian’s salvation were “assured.” If “once saved, always saved” were true, committing grave sin as a believer could never be worse than being an unbeliever.

In rejecting the idea of “once saved, always saved,” we must not go to the other extreme of doubting God’s mercy, goodness, and fidelity to His promises. In other words, we need the virtue of hope (cf. Catechism, nos. 1817-21). When we were baptized, we were neither whisked away into heaven nor left to our own devices on earth. Rather, we embarked on a pilgrimage to our eternal home prepared from all eternity for us by Our Father in heaven (cf. Jn. 14:1- 3; 2 Cor. 5:1-10; Phil. 3:13-14).

the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is Christ’s legacy to His Church. Our salvation requires our cooperation, but our confidence is not in our own efforts, but in God, who will never disappoint us (cf. Rom. 5:5). If we are with Christ, we will be saved (cf. 1 Jn. 5:12).

Sins That Cry to Heaven
The Catechism (no. 1867) lists several “sins that cry out to heaven”:

the blood of Abel (cf. Gen. 4:10)
the sin of the Sodomites (cf. Gen. 18:20; 19:13)
the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt (cf. Ex. 3:7-10)
the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan (cf. Ex. 20:20-22)
injustice to the wage earner (cf. Deut. 24:14-15; Jas. 5:4)
Once Saved, Always Saved?
We must persevere “to the end” (Mt. 10:22; 24:130 “in the kindness of God” (Rom. 11:22) in order to reign with Christ (2 Tim. 2:12).
Scripture provides several cases of Christians who have fallen away through sin (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:8; Heb. 6:4-6; Jas. 5:19-20; 2 Pet. 2:20-21).
St. Paul, who had one of the most dramatic and profound conversions in 2,000 years of Christianity, writes, “I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27).
St. Paul further advises those who are already Christians to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).
Christians are called to cultivate the theological virtue of hope, which is the confident expectation of divine blessing and eternal life with God (Catechism, no. 2090).
Hope is not based on our own strength or ability to resist temptations, but on the mercy and goodness of God poured out upon us by the Holy Spirit (Catechism, no. 1817; cf. Rom. 5:5).

I had to copy and paste the above for you from a bookmark. (edited a bit)

In the end, I am not sure where anyone gets the idea that the Holy Spirit would want to be in someone say, murdering their kids or some other grave horror. But, I dont know if the HS hangs around a “touch” or not in the act of sin…

I do know that Mary was so filled with the Holy Spirit.

As a blueprint of how humans ought to be like.

We cant say a certain person does not have the Holy Spirit, but in the case of Mary we can say she had it big time.

So, You say bringing up confession is “a whole other thread” but, its really not.

Confession is one of the many gifts that the Church has available to aid us and yes, the Church and the sacraments are indeed connected to the Holy Spirit.

But if you want me to do a thread on it I will,

 

[Damascus]

If the Holy Spirit makes me feel remorse for my sin, and not myself because I chose to repent -basically are you saying that Christians are brainwashed robots of the Holy Spirit? I mean, I can not fall and sin but if I do fall and sin then I was a fraud to begin with?
So a person who sins Boppaid, are they simply decievers that never had the Holy Spirit?
I am right now reeling from the very thought, since that would eliminate a lot of Saints, A lot of Christians…
Maybe I dont understand it right.?

You are right that God never leaves us, but God also never forces himself on anyone. He is sad if we reject him, happy if we come to our senses, but I missed the part where he is going to hang around when I tell him to buzz off.

 

[boppaid]

If the Holy Spirit makes me feel remorse for my sin, and not myself because I chose to repent -basically are you saying that Christians are brainwashed robots of the Holy Spirit? I mean, I can not fall and sin but if I do fall and sin then I was a fraud to begin with?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Here is an analogy that might help describe what i"m saying (because obviously I am having difficulty explaining myself ).

I am married to a wonderful man whom I adore. I love him, and truly desire to live my life for him. I love making him happy. I know he loves me too, and I know how to make him happy. That said, since I am not perfect, sometimes I do things that get under his skin. I might spend money on something when we don’t have much money, or nag, or whatever. When I tick him off for whatever reason, does he leave me? Am I actually rejecting him, or just being my imperfect self? But because I love him so much, and desire so much to make him happy, I keep striving to be a good wife to him.

The same can be said about how a man loves his wife. This is how I see our relationship with Jesus. When we commit to Him, and truly love Him with all our heart, we strive to be all He wants us to be. Because we are imperfect and sinners, we make mistakes but it is our love for Him that puts us right back on track.

Damascus, you wouldn’t say that I love my husband and strive to be a good wife to him because I am a robot, would you?

 

[boppaid]

Damascus, PS-I love the picture at the end of your posts!

 

[boppaid]

Ooops…I forgot to address the rest of your OSAS posts. You are right about a lot of it. I suppose someone could very well be “saved” then make a complete rejection of God. So, technically it wouldn’t be OSAS. Using my above analogy about a husband and wife, this would be divorce. However, in that case, I would really question that husband and wife’s sincerity when taking their vows. (Not passing judgement, but lets face it…sometimes people marry too young, our for unsound reasons, rashness, etc.) Regardless, in the same way I question the “saved” person’s sincerity in their commitment for Christ if they were able to reject Him so completely.

But the question of works vs faith can be included in this analogy as well. I do good works four my husband (like wash his socks and underwear ) because of my love for him. The works wouldn’t come first. (Believe me, I wouldn’t wash his clothes if I didn’t love him!!). So, I think the love is what bind the couple, the works are fruit of that love. Just as I think faith is what saves us, and our works are fruit of that love. Just as good works in a good marriage are necessary, so are they in our salvation. However, they come naturally as fruit from our faith. True saving faith will produce works on their own.

(At least that’s my belief. I think it tends to be more Protestant in nature, but maybe not completely?)

 

[Damascus]

Ooops…I forgot to address the rest of your OSAS posts. You are right about a lot of it. I suppose someone could very well be “saved” then make a complete rejection of God. So, technically it wouldn’t be OSAS. Using my above analogy about a husband and wife, this would be divorce. However, in that case, I would really question that husband and wife’s sincerity when taking their vows. (Not passing judgement, but lets face it…sometimes people marry too young, our for unsound reasons, rashness, etc.) Regardless, in the same way I question the “saved” person’s sincerity in their commitment for Christ if they were able to reject Him so completely.

But the question of works vs faith can be included in this analogy as well. I do good works four my husband (like wash his socks and underwear ) because of my love for him. The works wouldn’t come first. (Believe me, I wouldn’t wash his clothes if I didn’t love him!!). So, I think the love is what bind the couple, the works are fruit of that love. Just as I think faith is what saves us, and our works are fruit of that love. Just as good works in a good marriage are necessary, so are they in our salvation. However, they come naturally as fruit from our faith. True saving faith will produce works on their own.

(At least that’s my belief. I think it tends to be more Protestant in nature, but maybe not completely?)

Sorry I missed your posts Boppaid,

I had a horrible day, my little one fell down and got a goose egg on the forehead and its been a stressfull day. I popped in and out when I could.

I am in no way ignoring your posts, and thanks for the compliment on the sig line - I am trying to figure out how to shrink it a bit more

I will respond when I can, In the meantime you are in my thoughts and prayers and your family as well.

Please pray Boppaid. Can I be so bold to suggest you ponder tonight or tomorrow the life of St. John the Baptist?

I know it does not seem to connect here- but I have a strong strong feeling- that is why I changed my sig. For you.

 

[boppaid]

Okay. Take care your little one! Poor thing!

 

[Damascus]

Okay Boppaid,

I am trying to give you an example that I want your opinion of. I have a sister in law that is an atheist. She was not a big religious person as a youth, but she was not against the idea and in fact was a nominal christian by her definition since she felt she could accept Jesus Christ, know he died for all men, and she accepted the reserrection, that the bible was the word of God and she would either go to heaven or hell blah blah, but she did not think she needed to go to a Church (although she did 2 wice a year) and she felt she was more of a “spiritual person” (I dont know what that means) so, years went by and she had 2 lovely brilliant daughters - one is working at NASA now in fact. The other is a medical professional. Now, her last pregnancy was different. She found out at birth her son had Downs Syndrome and was at the lower functioning level. He also had many other health problems along the way, but she told me at that moment she found out about her Son, she kinda gave up on believing in God, and that she questioned if she had been foolish for believing in God from the very start. Then at some point she started going a step further and possibly becoming very angry with God then finally she stopped because she stopped believing in God totally.

Your thoughts? Was she insincere from the start just because she was a “nominal” Christian? I dont know. I cant read hearts. Just like in the marriage senario you brought up, I dont know. Will my sister in law remain an atheist? I dont know. I cant predict the future. relief. But I know me. I know I will sin a lot. But, I am not one that feels that I was insincere when I embraced Christ. I also take great precautions to avoid sin, but I also take comfort in knowing that many great Saints sinned their pants off, but they knew the remedy for this, and they struggled and prevailed through many a close call. But, could I ever say at any point in their sinful periods that they were not sincere from the start?

I dont know, maybe I am confused or sleep deprived here and just not understanding the fine line difference between what you are telling me and how I understand on a basic level. I am I guess saying I take no comfort in the fact that on that bright sunny day many years ago when I said to myself, I Love Jesus Christ and want to be close to him the rest of my life, that I was saved and I would never sin if I meant it., and if I did I was a fraud or if I died in my sinful periods or in grave sin It would work out somehow… as long as I was sincere.

Cause that just goes in circles.

I think I better make bleeping sure I dont die in a state of sin or I am hellbound. In sum.

 

[Damascus]

Damascus, you wouldn’t say that I love my husband and strive to be a good wife to him because I am a robot, would you?

Maybe not in your case, as I am hoping the man is a good one!

But, lets say he left you and the kids or (fill in the horror here) and you decided hey, I was sincere when I took my vows, I love him but not what he is doing to us, but just because he is a wretched sinner, does not mean I am off the hook from my obligations. So she does her end of the bargain but its robotic because she looses love for him.

Is it biblical for her to? Well, it very well could be. The Bible says men Must love their wives. It does not explictly say women Must love their husbands.

Interesting no?

 

[boppaid]

Damascus, not ignoring you. I am so.tired.tonight. and I have to work early tomorrow. I will get back with you. thanks!

 

[Damascus]

Damascus, not ignoring you. I am so.tired.tonight. and I have to work early tomorrow. I will get back with you. thanks!

Never doubted you Boppaid. I know things get crazy. And I have you on my priority list, no matter how long it takes, no matter what you ask, no matter what you do. I will not leave you Boppaid. I am in it for the long haul.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You must define “knowing they are wrong”. Because the clause about conscience in the catechism is the point on which the contrary hang their hats. For instance, those who promote married priests and women priests- if they are aware that the Pope affirmed automatic excommunication for members of Call to Action yesterday for promoting married and women priests, then they have become very aware they are wrong. If they continue acting Catholics in good standing while supporting Call To Action, this is obstinancy and heresy. I would think at this point one just cannot point to one’s conscience and slide out from under.
To say after that they simply “do not know they are wrong” and therefore have incurred no personal sin is silly.

Of course that is silly - but it bears no relation to anything in the post.​

Conscience is always to be obeyed - even when it is erroneous. That is Catholic teaching. ##

Obviously if they are believing in something that incurs excommunication, someone is wrong. Odds are it is the excommunicated.

Maybe so - but not all wrongness is moral wrongness; otherwise it would be a moral fault to be mistaken about the weather or the time.​

Besides, it’s entirely possible for there to be an error in doctrine, without any particular individual’s being morally culpable. Culpability is meaningless if it does not apply to persons - particular persons. It can’t simply be presumed or taken for granted; because the conscience is found in persons, not in abstractions - so one can’t judge, without further ado, that because a group of people as a body is in error on some point, all are therefore morally culpable. Moral judgements depend upon details; we can’t just rush to judgement on the basis of a few external impressions. Not unless equity & truth & respect for the reputation of our neighbors are irrelevant to Christian ethics. If people don’t realise they are wrong, how can they be blamed ? That is not the same thing as affected ignorance, let alone *crass *ignorance.

Being wrong is not a sin. ISTM you aren’t talking about simple error, but about affected ignorance - not nescience either, but ignorance. I’m sorry not to have made those distinctions clearer. ##

 

[Damascus]

I wish I was bright enough to get Gottle’s posts. It will take me days to figure it out and even then,?
But I have never been steered wrong by GOG either.

I am a slow learner, but a willing one.

 

[lak611]

Of course that is silly - but it bears no relation to anything in the post.​

Conscience is always to be obeyed - even when it is erroneous. That is Catholic teaching]

As Catholics, though, we must have an informed conscience, based on the doctrines of the Church. It is no excuse to NOT study and learn the duties of one’s state of life and the precepts of the Church.

 

[boppaid]

Okay Boppaid,

I have a sister in law that is an atheist. She was not a big religious person as a youth, but she was not against the idea and in fact was a nominal christian by her definition since she felt she could accept Jesus Christ, know he died for all men, and she accepted the reserrection, that the bible was the word of God and she would either go to heaven or hell blah blah, but she did not think she needed to go to a Church (although she did 2 wice a year) and she felt she was more of a “spiritual person” (I dont know what that means) so, years went by and she had 2 lovely brilliant daughters - one is working at NASA now in fact. The other is a medical professional. Now, her last pregnancy was different. She found out at birth her son had Downs Syndrome and was at the lower functioning level. He also had many other health problems along the way, but she told me at that moment she found out about her Son, she kinda gave up on believing in God, and that she questioned if she had been foolish for believing in God from the very start. Then at some point she started going a step further and possibly becoming very angry with God then finally she stopped because she stopped believing in God totally.

Sounds like the person in my example who married for the wrong reasons and later divorced (or annuled) the marriage. Was her heart truly in it? (Of course we do not know). Remember, though, it isn’t enough to believe in God . (James 2:19 “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”) Nor is it enough to simply call on Christ’s name. (Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”)

In other words it is not enough to simply say “I’m a Christian”…because if you simply say it, you are not. You must BE a Christian. A true Christian will strive to live for God. A true Christian will be known by the fruit of their faith…their works. So was your sister a true Christian all along? I honestly don’t know. In my (humble) opinion, it doesn’t appear so.

However, again, I do believe that someone can reject God completely. I don’t necessarily believe OSAS (as I think I stated in this thread). BUT I don’t believe you can work your way into heaven either. I truly believe that faith saves you and works are fruit of your faith (as my example about myself and my husband demonstrates).

But I know me. I know I will sin a lot. But, I am not one that feels that I was insincere when I embraced Christ.

I don’t think someone who sins was insincere when they embraced Christ. Because we ALL sin. I do believe, though, that even though you sin, you still strive to do better because of your love for God. You faith that he loved you so much that He sent His only begotten son to die for your sins has saved you because it drives you to get back on the right path out of your love for HIM.

I also take great precautions to avoid sin, but I also take comfort in knowing that many great Saints sinned their pants off, but they knew the remedy for this, and they struggled and prevailed through many a close call. But, could I ever say at any point in their sinful periods that they were not sincere from the start?

No, nor would I. If they were not sincere, would they have kept trying? Would they have repented for their sin? As Christ’s followers, we are driven to repent for our sins. We WANT to repent. We are remorseful.

I dont know, maybe I am confused or sleep deprived here and just not understanding the fine line difference between what you are telling me and how I understand on a basic level. I am I guess saying I take no comfort in the fact that on that bright sunny day many years ago when I said to myself, I Love Jesus Christ and want to be close to him the rest of my life, that I was saved and I would never sin if I meant it., and if I did I was a fraud or if I died in my sinful periods or in grave sin It would work out somehow… as long as I was sincere.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Just because a person is saved doesn’t mean that they will never sin. The fact that we sin is the very reason we need a savior.

I think I better make bleeping sure I dont die in a state of sin or I am hellbound. In sum.

See, that’s where we disagree. I don’t think we will go to hell if we die with unconfessed mortal sin. I think that’s too “luck-oriented”. God is more merciful. He knows our hearts.

 

[boppaid]

Maybe not in your case, as I am hoping the man is a good one!

He is.

But, lets say he left you and the kids or (fill in the horror here) and you decided hey, I was sincere when I took my vows, I love him but not what he is doing to us, but just because he is a wretched sinner, does not mean I am off the hook from my obligations. So she does her end of the bargain but its robotic because she looses love for him.

Is Christ the husband in this scenario and am I the wife? (I’m trying to clarify before I answer.)

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Boppaid:

I think you are misunderstaning the nature of Salvation. Although it is something that Christ occomplished once on the cross, for us, it’s a process, the Book of Acts said, “And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.” Acts2:47b RSV

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Just because a person is saved doesn’t mean that they will never sin. The fact that we sin is the very reason we need a savior.

This is in addition to the Scripture I’ve quoted to you before:

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
Philippians 2:12-13 NIV

Now, if you’ve misunderstood the nature of Salvation, don’t you think you might also have misunderstood what MORTAL SIN is? And, If you have, don’t you think you should receive the instruction that is being offered rather than trying to find disagreements with something you don’t really understand?

See, that’s where we disagree. I don’t think we will go to hell if we die with unconfessed mortal sin. I think that’s too “luck-oriented”. God is more merciful. He knows our hearts.

Mortal Sin is covered in The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Part Three: Life in Christ
Section One: Man’s Vocation - Life in the Spirit
Chapter One: The Dignity of the Human Person
Article 8 - SIN
IV. The Gravity of Sin: Mortal and Venial Sin

*1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.*

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM

If you’ll read the description in this section, you’ll see that MORTAL SIN isn’t just something that you stumble or fall into. In fact, it reguires pretty fair amount of deliberation and malice aforthought, or deliberate disobedience.

If we have free will, and If God is going to honor our free will, then He has to allow us to walk away from His loving embrace if that is what we are insisting on.

Boppaid, part of our working out our salvation is that we become less concerned with whether whether we are saved and more concerned with spreading the Gospel and both our brothers and sisters in Christ and those who haven’t had a chance to hear the Gospel yet.

I don’t see that happening here, and I really want to.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael