Changing obligations and sin

[Third_Day]

The Catholic Church is in a constant state of change in it’s beliefs. It’s almost a new church every 60 years.

No dogma of the Church has every changed. Name a dogma that has changed.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t understand you here.
Can you tell me what, in a general sense, is “required to love”, anyone?

I love my spouse. BECAUSE I love her, I do all that I can for her. I wish the highest good for her. I sacrifice willingly for her. I refuse to do anything that I know would hurt her in any way.
Are these things “Required to Love her”? Not at All!!! Rather they are the RESULT of loving her.

We could make the same case for our relationship with God.
If we Love Him we Willingly workd for Him. We sacrifice for Him. We refuse to do anything that would be offensive to Him. We obey those rules that have been laid down by Him for our own good.
We do these things, not becuase they are required in order to Love God, but rather as a RESULT of Loving God.

Our obedience flows from Love. Our love does not flow from obedience.

Do you see the distinction?

Peace
James

James, I think. If your wife says to you, “Honey please take the trash out.” You obey. Then if she says, “Honey, you no longer have to take the trash out”, you can still do it but not obligated to. And in both cases you still love her.

 

[JRKH]

James, I think. If your wife says to you, “Honey please take the trash out.” You obey. Then if she says, “Honey, you no longer have to take the trash out”, you can still do it but not obligated to. And in both cases you still love her.

Precisely, and if My Wife says “Honey please take the trash out” and I tell her to, “go jump in the lake”, and storm out of the house, its pretty clear that I Don’t love her. And am not worthy of Her Love either.

Then, later if we were to get a divorce the issue would not be whether I did or did not take out the trash, but whether I actually Loved her.

Thus one can see that the issue that sends one to hell is not the inclusion of meat but the exclusion of love.

Peace
James

 

[mike52ad]

The Catholic Church is in a constant state of change in it’s beliefs. It’s almost a new church every 60 years.

Beliefs and disciplines are not the same!

The core beliefs of the Catholic Church have never changed. What we believe in is prayed in the Mass every Sunday in the Nicene Creed. The beliefs that we express in this creed are unchanging and predate the council that penned the creed back to the beginning of the Chruch.

The disciplines of the church can be changed. Changing of these disciplines does not change the beliefs that are at the core of the Church. What I think prevous posters were saying was that the person who willfully sinned by rejecting the discipline of the Church by eating meat on Friday, most likely was rejecting the Church and more importantly of course Jesus Christ as evidenced by the pattern of his whole life. In effect eating meat was just a symptom of a greater malady. If he knowingly sinned by eating meat, did he commit adultery as well? Did he lie, cheat and steal? Did he follow any of the commandments of God? Was God at all a part of his life? Did he care at all about God, Jesus and the Church? Probably not, and that is the only sin that cannot be forgiven if we die in it, rejection of God, the classical sin against the Holy Spirit.

So no, I do not believe that the man who died with a hot dog he swallowed a on a pre-Vatican II Friday would have been sent to teach religion to Hitler and Stalin in hell if his life was otherwise turned to God.

DO NOT confuse what I said above with "weighing good against bad. This is not what I am saying at all. It is your love of God that propels you to accept the discipline of the Church just as love of God propels you to minister to your brothers and sisters.

JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!

 

[rev_kevin]

No dogma of the Church has every changed. Name a dogma that has changed.

What about the dogmas of Mary. Perpetual Virginity.
At first it was said the this meant the conception and birth of Jesus. Then some times later in 649 the Council of the Lateran said that it also meant she stayed a virgin the rest of her life.
I could be wrong but it seems like a change to me.

 

[CMatt25]

What about the dogmas of Mary. Perpetual Virginity.
At first it was said the this meant the conception and birth of Jesus. Then some times later in 649 the Council of the Lateran said that it also meant she stayed a virgin the rest of her life.
I could be wrong but it seems like a change to me.

Rev, I don’t know. But is that dogma or doctrine? In an earlier post I was told doctrine can change as it includes things that may not have been completely clarified officially yet. There’s a lot to absorb… Canon law, dogma, doctrine, teachings, catechism, disciplines, traditions

 

[Third_Day]

What about the dogmas of Mary. Perpetual Virginity.
At first it was said the this meant the conception and birth of Jesus. Then some times later in 649 the Council of the Lateran said that it also meant she stayed a virgin the rest of her life.
I could be wrong but it seems like a change to me.

No dogma of Mary has ever changed. Mary’s perpetual virginity was addressed in AD 383 by St. Jerome. Read his response to Helvidius and you can see that Jerome is shocked that Helvidius is questioning this teaching. This implies that it was always believed by the early Church Fathers that Mary had no other children.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/749/Perpetual_Virginity_of_Mary_St_Jerome.html

 

[Yerusalyim]

What about the dogmas of Mary. Perpetual Virginity.
At first it was said the this meant the conception and birth of Jesus. Then some times later in 649 the Council of the Lateran said that it also meant she stayed a virgin the rest of her life.
I could be wrong but it seems like a change to me.

Don’t confuse the Church formally affirming a belief with changing that belief. Generally the Church has only found it necessary to formally affirm a doctrine or dogma when it’s challenged. The Church did not fully affirm the homostatic union of Christ until that union was challenged by Arian.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I understand the sin is disobedience. What I’m still having difficulty with is how what we must obey to avoid mortal sin is changable. By fairness I’m speaking of someone who disobeyed the abstinance rules back in the day and now may find themselves in hell. But nowadays someone is not disobeying if they eat meat on a Friday outside of Lent as long as they do another act of charity. Did the Catholic soul have the option to do another act of charity yrs ago or was it they had to abstain from eating meat back then, period… or else risk eternal damnation from mortal sin? My point is they would not have had the option of another act of charity to avoid mortal sin if they ate meat on any Fri of the yr. But now people do. Just seems like if this is the case, the poor soul who ate meat before faced an eternity without Christ without the option of doing some other act to avoid the sin. But now the same person could eat meat today but avoid mortal sin by doing some other act instead. Yet it’s too late for them if their soul has already been sent to hell because the requirements to fulfill the obligation were different back then.

The Catholic church has NEVER officially said ANY individual was in hell. There are particular conditions that must be met for a sin to be “mortal” it must be of a grave nature the individual must have full knowlege of the sin and its consequences and that committing thand full assent of the will. It would be hard for not abstaining from meat to have met the full requirement to be “mortal”.

The Church has the authority to “bind and loose” and did so with meat on Fridays. Again, the sin was NOT eating meat, the sin was disobedience.

 

[Third_Day]

I understand the sin is disobedience. What I’m still having difficulty with is how what we must obey to avoid mortal sin is changable. By fairness I’m speaking of someone who disobeyed the abstinance rules back in the day and now may find themselves in hell. But nowadays someone is not disobeying if they eat meat on a Friday outside of Lent as long as they do another act of charity. Did the Catholic soul have the option to do another act of charity yrs ago or was it they had to abstain from eating meat back then, period… or else risk eternal damnation from mortal sin? My point is they would not have had the option of another act of charity to avoid mortal sin if they ate meat on any Fri of the yr. But now people do. Just seems like if this is the case, the poor soul who ate meat before faced an eternity without Christ without the option of doing some other act to avoid the sin. But now the same person could eat meat today but avoid mortal sin by doing some other act instead. Yet it’s too late for them if their soul has already been sent to hell because the requirements to fulfill the obligation were different back then.

Back in the 1800’s if you stole a man’s horse you would be tried and the punishment would be hanging.
Today if you stole a man’s horse you would be tried and you would have to pay a fine.
Is that fair?
Yes. Because the man in the 1800’s knew what the punishment was but he did it anyway.
Someone who ate meat on a Friday knowing that it was a mortal sin and did it anyway deserves the punishment.
I grew up when eating meat on a Friday was a mortal sin. I doubt that anyone intentionly ate meat with full knowledge that it was a mortal sin.