Does Mortal/Venial sin make Christ meaningless?

[Sherlock]

Lazerlike42,

You wrote: “The Hebrews’ concept of Heaven involved 3 Heavens, the 3rd of which is the place God lives. One of them is the sky. I forget what the other one is. In any case, even though there are gradations in Heaven based on what Jesus says, that’s not what Paul was talking about.”

My understanding of this came from a very orthodox priest, as well as more briefly from other clergy—could you cite sources for your interpretation? I’m not asking this in a confrontational way, I’m simply curious and would like to know more.

You wrote in your first post, “If therefore, a person were born and never commited a single mortal sin, then that would seem to make Jesus pointless!”

Someone made the point earlier that without Jesus heaven was not possible for man to attain. Therefore, I don’t see how Jesus becomes pointless, regardless of the absence of mortal sin.

 

[Lazerlike42]

“Most often this model contained seven heavens but in a few writings there were only three layers. Even though the number of layers was different these models of the universe shared some common traits. The lowest heaven, the core of the “onion,” is the visible physical world that all people can see. In most of these models the second heaven is composed of water, a great sea, a firmament dividing the earth from the heavenly beings. This water that surrounded the earth became a common symbol for chaos and disorder that threatened to engulf the world (cf. Gen 6; see Speaking the Language of Canaan for a discussion of the symbolism of the cosmic waters). So often, these waters were understood to be gathered to await the coming day of judgment when they would once again be loosed to destroy the unrighteous. However, the third heaven was beyond the sight of human beings. It was the dwelling place of God and his attendant heavenly beings whom he would send to protect Israel and the righteous. So when Paul claims to have seen the risen Christ he is describing his experience in terms that he, and others, would readily understand. In that cultural context, he would have assumed that God had taken him to the region where it was possible to see spiritual beings, and the risen Christ.”

Part of cresourcei.org/thirdheaven.html, although you can find that information anywhere. It’s historical and cultural, there’s no way the Church doesn’t recognize it in this way. That being said, it doesn’t matter because the gradation of Heaven is established elsewhere.

 

[Pace]

Lazerlike42:

what are you talking about?

I answered your original question. You posted again and said that nobody answered your original question. So I wrote back and told you that I answered your original question, but that you in effect rejected my answer. Your ignoring (default rejection) of my answer itself answers your questions about mortal sin.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Pace:

I answered your original question. You posted again and said that nobody answered your original question. So I wrote back and told you that I answered your original question, but that you in effect rejected my answer. Your ignoring (default rejection) of my answer itself answers your questions about mortal sin.

Please expound upon this

 

[Pace]

Lazerlike42:

Please expound upon this

I answered your original question by suggesting that it is not possible to come to an understanding of mortal sin through words or reason; that it may be something we can ‘see’ but no longer articulate. It may have been enough in the past to state the well-known three necessary conditions for a mortal sin to have taken place. I don’t think that it is enough in our times. I think things have progressed past a certain point. And I believe that the reason that it has progressed from what it used to be is because of the advent and subsequent evolution of movies. I believe that ‘the movies’ have finally succeeded in breaking the ‘sense of the faithful’, which might be defined as seeing what is there to be seen: “For those who have eyes, let them see.” peterkreeft.com/topics/love-sees.htm

There are two movies which have broken this spell and returned to us our lost vision. They are the two movies I mentioned above: Mulholland Drive and Dogville. These two movies show us mortal sin at just the time in history when it is no longer possible to reason about mortal sin.

 

[Pace]

And are we “sent” to heaven or hell? Or do we choose it, as we would choose a movie?

 

[porthos11]

Hi Lazer,

Lemme try.

First of all, it is affirmed by both Scripture and Tradition that all sin, small or big is enough to separate man from God forever. That means even venial sin merits hell. Why is that? Because the gravity of an offense is also affected by the deservedness of the offended one (for example, you premeditatively murder in cold blood a man who raped your wife, or you murder a man who once rescued you from a freezing winter. Which deed would be more despicable? Which is more likely to get you the death penalty?) In much the same way, God is infinite goodness. Any offense against him is infinitely despicable, and therefore mortal.

Now, God loves man so much, he couldn’t leave him in that state. However, man, in his fallen nature had no way of atoning for his sins. Only a perfect Man can do that, yet there was none. So God took on human nature on himself, so that as Man, he can offer his life for ours, and as God, his sacrifice would be perfect, once-for-all. Because of Jesus’ action, man has now been reconciled with God, and we can once again be entitled to heaven once justified. That is also why we have moved from the age of law into the era of grace.

It is grace which allows the distinction between mortal and venial sin. Venial sin does not damn us because venial sin is not serious enough to remove us from a state of sanctifying grace. It is not a deliberate rejection of Christ’s grace in us, just a stumble along the road. Mortal sin is a complete rejection of that grace. So if it were not for Christ’s sacrifice, there would be no distinction between mortal and venial sin. So if a man were to commit only venial sin all his life, he would still be saved, because he had Christ’s sanctifying grace in him, which comes only from the Cross.
That's also why I fear for unbaptized people who obstinately persist in venial sin without sanctifying grace to begin with. Salvation may be theirs in ways known to God alone, as the Catechism says, that is why Baptism is an absolute necessity (and hence, the Church's missionary mandate), because I don't think Original Sin+Venial Sin is a good combination. Even if it doesn't necessarily damn them to hell (but it could), I think they are definitely excluded from the vision of God permanently (some kind of Limbus??). But God is more merciful than I am. Even if somehow they manage to avoid hell, it is still through the merits of Christ and nothing else.