Not really.A mortal sin is a mortal sin.
But if it’s a mortal sin today, it should be a mortal sin tomorrow, right? (Assuming all three conditions are met.) Aren’t morals and faith infallible? Or are we going to say the Ten Commandments are all disciplinary now and any Pope can dispose of them?Not really.
Sometimes we hear that an action involving grave matter is a mortal sin. For example, we may hear that it is a mortal sin to rob a bank and murder the bank teller. But that type of mortal sin is not a mortal sin unless there is sufficient knowledge and consent of the will.
But in the early Church when private confessions where prohibited, only three mortal sins had to be confessed before the congregation. Adultery, theft and apostasy. All other sins were merely confess directly to God.But if it’s a mortal sin today, it should be a mortal sin tomorrow, right? (Assuming all three conditions are met.) Aren’t morals and faith infallible? Or are we going to say the Ten Commandments are all disciplinary now and any Pope can dispose of them?
It looks like you’ve done some study on this and I don’t disagree with you. You do make a valid point.But in the early Church when private confessions where prohibited, only three mortal sins had to be confessed before the congregation. Adultery, theft and apostasy. All other sins were merely confess directly to God.
Jim
From what I recall, and I’m using my senior memory here, private confessions to a priest didn’t come about until around the 7th century in Ireland, when priest were not allowed outside of monasteries to preach or say Mass. So, they constructed little rooms on the outside walls of the monastery. The people could enter these rooms from an outside door. The priest on the other side would open a little window and speak with the person, giving them spiritual direction. Of course the person would usually confess sins to the priest. This ended up becoming so popular over having to stand before the congregation and confess publicly, that it quickly became the norm and became what we have today.It looks like you’ve done some study on this and I don’t disagree with you. You do make a valid point.
It also seems, though, that the gospels weren’t written until the middle of the 2nd century and it was “revealed” then that Christ had mentioned something about “whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven…” This, I believe, forms the basis of us confessing our sins to the priest.
But I could be wrong in my thought process here.
That is the problem, thus the statement by Pope Francis, “Sanctity is stronger than scandal.”That is true. However, the priest must contend himself with the possible scandal shown by couples who are quite open about their relationship and present themselves for communion.
Wrong. It was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. Today it is not. Today it is a mortal sin for a European white man to enslave black African women. It was not a sin in the past. Even Popes had slaves and issued proclamations implicitly approving of slavery.But if it’s a mortal sin today, it should be a mortal sin tomorrow, right? (Assuming all three conditions are met.) Aren’t morals and faith infallible? Or are we going to say the Ten Commandments are all disciplinary now and any Pope can dispose of them?
Yes, the Friday meat abstinence occurred to me after I had posted. I was thinking the Ten Commandments but you got me. However, my understanding is that the Church’s position on morals and faith is still infallible. That’s why the Pope couldn’t permit artificial birth control, for example. But I also see where the lines can get somewhat blurred when certain social injustices are exposed, such as in your slave example, and someone has to make a moral decision on the subject.Wrong. It was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. Today it is not. Today it is a mortal sin for a European white man to enslave black African women. It was not a sin in the past. Even Popes had slaves and issued proclamations implicitly approving of slavery.
True but the sin, then and now, is not the meat but the violation of the precept of the Church to obey the laws of fast and abstinence.Wrong. It was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. Today it is not.
And what about slavery?True but the sin, then and now, is not the meat but the violation of the precept of the Church to obey the laws of fast and abstinence.
It looks like all of Canon Law would fall into that category today. Good point, though, about violation against Church law, which for Catholics is the real moral issue.True but the sin, then and now, is not the meat but the violation of the precept of the Church to obey the laws of fast and abstinence.
I would say it’s always been morally wrong. But are you comparing the Church’s allowance of the practice in former periods to proposed “allowance” of cohabiting? Just wondering where you’re going with this.And what about slavery?
The word slavery doesn’t always mean the same thing. You have to distinguish between forms. For example, in ancient times people sometimes used the word “slave” for a role not terribly different in essence than today’s professional sports player (minus the astronomic pay). In other words the service was a legally binding contract in which the slave owed labor to the master. In some cases, it was for a specific contract, in others it was lifelong. But other than the service owed, the slave was still a human being with the dignity so associated. In later years, this form came to be called “indentured servant” to distinguish it from the slavery described below.And what about slavery?
So only faithful Christians can ever have a “valid” marriage? This doesn’t sound right. I’m pretty sure that the church’s understanding of marriage is that it exists on both the natural and sacramental level and that “natural” marriages are considered valid, even if they are not sacramental. Thus, a marriage between two Hindus is viewed by the Church as a valid marriage unless it is demonstrated that one of the specific defects is present. Obviously they don’t have faith in Christ, so that can’t be a criteria, can it?Too many young couples get married in the Church, not out of faith, but out of pressure from their parents. After they’re married, they rarely if ever attend Mass.
The point the former Pope is making is that this could invalidate a marriage and needs to be taken into consideration by marriage tribunals in the annulment review process.
So, back to Jesus words, those asking the question were trying to trap him, so he gave an answer within this context. He was also speaking of a valid marriage, and what that meant to Jesus he explains in that it is what God has joined. Lack of faith at the time of marriage leaves God out of the act the couple makes and thereby makes it an invalid sacramental marriage.
You wrote:I would say it’s always been morally wrong. But are you comparing the Church’s allowance of the practice in former periods to proposed “allowance” of cohabiting? Just wondering where you’re going with this.
This is not true and I gave the example of slavery.But if it’s a mortal sin today, it should be a mortal sin tomorrow, right?
The Church recognizes civil marriages as legally valid, but that doesn’t make them sacramentally valid.So only faithful Christians can ever have a “valid” marriage? This doesn’t sound right. I’m pretty sure that the church’s understanding of marriage is that it exists on both the natural and sacramental level and that “natural” marriages are considered valid, even if they are not sacramental. Thus, a marriage between two Hindus is viewed by the Church as a valid marriage unless it is demonstrated that one of the specific defects is present. Obviously they don’t have faith in Christ, so that can’t be a criteria, can it?
Myself like so many others, know many couples today who were married, divorced and remarried without an annulment. I wondered what the Church could do to help them. Pope Francis seems to have the answer.You seem well read, so I suspect you may have already wrestled with this. What’dja find?
It’s not so much the priest who has to ask the couple these questions, but the couple themselves have to ask themselves why they are getting married in the Church? Is it to have their marriage before God to be blessed, or is it the social construct ? Even when these questions are answered, the maturity level of understanding which the couple proceed into has much to do with the validity of their marriage.The other problem this assertion raises is one of marriage within the church. What you claim suggests that priests really need to be looking at the marriage prep process and asking tougher questions of those requesting to be married in the church.
The marriage permanence Jesus referred to is what has to have taken place for the marriage to be valid.ARe we really doing people any favors by allowing them to deceive themselves into thinking they are marrying when “defect of faith” symptoms are blatantly obvious before the wedding? If we don’t look at this from both sides, then we would rightly be charged with rationalizing excuses for granting annullments to anybody who asked for them. That makes the idea of marital permanence as Jesus taught a sham.
I don’t know what this statement has to do with the subject, so I won’t even try to answer.Mercy and forgiveness is certainly good, but we can’t make the indissolubility of marriage a logical sham like the evangelicals “once saved, always saved” silliness. (Oh, that backslider? He was never really saved anyways or he wouldn’t have backslidden…)
Huh??? I’m certainly with you on the last line, but it’s not me that’s attempting to point the pope down a new road here, it’s you. Maybe I misread, but I believe you asserted that the church needs to stop telling divorced and long time remarried people that they are sinning. I’ve not yet seen Francis say that. He’s only saying that we need to be welcoming and accepting of people FIRST before we have any credibility challenging them in areas where stubborn sin exists. The rest is you projecting different things forward into what you’d like to see in the future, no? Don’t imagine that such extrapolation is the same as “following” Francis.I don’t know what this statement has to do with the subject, so I won’t even try to answer.
Lets follow what the Pope is teaching and follow his guidance with prayer and humility.
I’m not the one who pointed at evangelicals, which has nothing to do with the topic.Huh??? I’m certainly with you on the last line, but it’s not me that’s attempting to point the pope down a new road here, it’s you.
The Pope is the one who is telling priest to change their language concerning divorced and cohabiting couples. Are you hearing what he’s saying ?Maybe I misread, but I believe you asserted that the church needs to stop telling divorced and long time remarried people that they are sinning.
But, as manualman and corki implied, you’re not comparing apples to apples here. It seems you have to define exactly what you’re sinning against. It was never immoral to eat meat on Friday per se. But it is considered (from the standpoint of sin) immoral for a Catholic to disobey the Church. As is social injustice. But again, I’m not a moral theologian.You wrote:
This is not true and I gave the example of slavery.
I was thinking all the way back to this. Characterizing the millennia old tradition of asking people to resolve problems of stubbornly serious sin before partaking of the Eucharist is hardly using it as a “whipping tool.” It’s always possible that I misunderstood you (it sure happens enough), but this sure looked like you extrapolating Francis awfully far forward, not “following” him.Hopefully the Pope will open the Eucharist to divorced and remarried couples, who have a desire to get closer to Jesus.
It makes no sense to use the sacrament as a whipping tool to make people conform.