If one knows that assent should be given to the dogmas of faith, and is aware of what they are and refuses to do so (mentally and outwardly), or one opposes the truths taught by the Church when they are revealed by conscience, then one should rightly should fear Hell. Then, if one does not have final repentance it will lead to condemnation, per the Church teaching.
Thank you Vico. I very much appreciate your candor in giving a Catholic viewpoint. God bless and peace.
Sy, Sy , Sy…
Weak David. You have chosen to edit and rationalize their comments to suit yourself. Bad idea! And, even worse, you have chosen to mislead others.
Your claim that my suggestion necessitates the possibility of someone being able to commit mortal sin without knowing it is a desperate non-sequitor. Knowledge of the sinful character of the act is pretty clear. So is knowing that it’s opposed to God’s law. Now the question of whether one knows it is GRAVE MATTER is different and creates a level of ambiguity. I say anything overtly covered in the 10 commandments is pretty easy to know as grave matter: murder, adultery, theft, etc
I cannot believe I have to explain this to you fragment by fragment, but I will. Let’s start with this part of the paragraph - “part A”:
OK, basically this is explaining that - DURING OUR EARTHLY LIFE -we can’t be united to God (ie in a state of grace, saved, etc) unless we love God and love our neighbor. If we fail in this respect we will be separated from Him (ie in a fallen state). Got it? Then the CCC goes on to say…
What’s being said here IN CONTEXT is that IF someone were to die having failed to meet the standards set in “part A” (ie love of God and neighbor) THEN the consequence of having freely making those choices - choices made DURING YOUR EARTHLY LIFE - will result in being separated from God for ever. Because it is a choice one freely makes during their earthly life, the consequence of that choice - separation from him forever - is something that is fixed in eternity but which happens as a result of those choices during our earthly life. Simply stated, remaining separated from him in eternity is a consequence resulting from what we freely choose during our earthly life and which becomes fixed at the point of death. The final sentence …
The freely chosen separation from God that we exercise during our earthly life, and which becomes fixed and eternal at the point of death, is called “hell”.
I cannot speak about your current state, and won’t attempt to. As to whether you should or should not take Communion, you should not. And not because you are or are not in a state of grace, but because you deny unity with the Church and her teachings.
Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Thank you for the explanation. It’s largely irrelevant, however. I don’t think I have ever seen a definition of a non-mathematical term include a mathematical expression. It’s because words and math are different. Fortunately, there is no need to get side tracked on the appropriateness of the equivalency of the descriptive term “full” with the mathematical expression “100%” since 100% doesn’t appear in the paragraph we are discussing and there is no need to speculate. Other terms do appear which explain - in a way which numbers can’t capture - what the terms full and complete are attempting to express. You seem to be carefully avoiding these terms. Let me repeat them for you:
While I agree with you that the terms “full” and “complete” wouldn’t have been my choice, where I disagree with you is your attempt at ignoring the rest of the paragraph. “A consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” is very well articulated, suggests that the “completeness” of the consent is reflected in the fact that it is completely one’s own choice by virtue of it being SUFFICIENTLY deliberate. Good luck with your mathematical expression of that!
I don’t know what you mean by “Christians of good will”.
In your Bio,
Very wise! If only people understood that the Church is there to HELP us, and make things easier!
Thank you and ZZ.
I’m a mathematician. I gravitate towards words that have a quantitative nature, because I can relate to these words.
I don’t like what WHAT has to say??? The stuff I quoted (and quoted very well)?
Didn’t I answer this already?
I have no idea either. Fortunately, neither of us are ever expected to make such a determination. So our inability to do so is irrelevant.
So, are you suggesting that I ought to post some criteria about who is NOT a “person of good will?”
Well, let’s see. If an alcoholic (or druggie) gets drunk (or uses drugs), (an objective sin of gluttony), is it a mortal sin? Could his physical or psychological addiction to alcohol or drugs diminish his freewill consent JUST A LITTLE BIT?
My math stands. I see no reason why the phrase “sufficiently deliberate” would preclude an understanding that “sufficient” is, umm, “complete” (because that’s ALSO what the Catechism says).
Well, in one sense you are quite right. No one can tell you that you can not go to Jesus for healing. In the Catholic Church, as a Catholic, we have a Sacrament of Grace called Confession (or Reconciliation.) Just as the woman who came to Jesus at the house of the Pharisees, she humbled herself with tears and washed Jesus’ feet. So every sinner has access to Jesus, and Jesus beckons to sinners for this very reason, and revealed that there is more joy in heaven over one soul that repents than over the 99 righteous. Jesus prayed for all of us sinners while sweating blood in the Garden of Olives, that his suffering and death would not be wasted on anyone.
But the Angel didn’t use it in the context of mortal sin. Why do you use it in the context of mortal sin?
How about this - is this language in Catholic doctrine consistent with “complete”? Is a consent sufficiently deliberate (ie less than 100% in your terms) also completely (100%)deliberate in that it is completely a personal choice?
The entirety of the paragraph you extracted “full” and “complete” from. Here’s the part you ignore:
I don’t get what you mean.
I don’t see the relevance of whether any sin can rise to the level of mortal sin in refuting the claim that Christians can commit mortal sin.
You are proving my point for me; you are supposed to be supporting your argument that since the bar is so high to commit mortal sin Hell might actually be empty.
Yes, but you are not the guy who can provide a convincing argument for that last belief - in fact the first two beliefs would seem to obviate the last.
Call you a heretic? Sorry but I have a day job. I’m content pointing out that the stated basis for your claim that it’s difficult for most Christians to commit mortal sin - that it requires 100% full knowledge and 100% complete consent - is simply not a basis one can rationally derive from Scripture or the Catechism. This is especially evident in your gross oversimplification (100%) of the term “complete consent” which, as the CCC clearly articulates simply means sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.
The angel promised “peace” to “people of good will.”
OK, you’re not a mathematician. That’s OK. I will try to put it into non-mathematical terms.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
my $i = 123;
while ($i > 0) {
my $ounces = ( $i > 1 ) ? 'ounces' : 'ounce'; #deal with plural/singular
print "Not $i $ounces. ";
$i--;
}