How much (or little!) love is 'enough' for salvation?

[JRKH]

But who in their right mind would choose death?

Who in their right mind indeed…Yet we see people choosing death every day - everyone who buys a pack of cigarettes or “smokeless tobacco” is choosing death are they not? Isn’t the evidence clear that smoking and “chew” and other such products are going to give you cancer?
Are they choosing death??? they might not think so - yet they have been told…they have the evidence… and there are many ways to stop - to break the habit…but they still choose to smoke…Are they not “Choosing death”?

Even atheists don’t choose death, but I personally wouldn’t say that their choice to live is the kernel of love that God desires from us. Or maybe, I’m looking at this completely different, is the atheist’s choice for life INDEED the kernel of love?

This is a complex subject that I don’t entirely have my head around. Let me put this as best I can…bear with me.
Love can only come from one source and that is God. St John has this to say on the subject.
1John 4:7-8
7Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. 8He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.
Now at first blush this sounds rather strange for an atheist can love - can be a very “good” person - yet does he “know God”?
Consider…
Can a person innately “know” something without being able to name it?
Can a person reject some “image” or “description” of something - but in reality would totally agree with what the thing actually is in it’s totality?

This is, I think the dilemma when we try discussing Atheists. If the Atheist has the right kind of Love - Agape - for his fellow man and he builds his life around this kind of love can we say that he is not touched by the Holy Spirit?
If the “god” that he is rejecting is some description of God that he has received and was somehow scarred by - or if his “reason” and/or the influence of others is preventing him from Recognizing and embracing God as he truly is (Love) - - then is he actually rejecting God? Remember our fellow has embraced love as the core of his life…

Like I said - it’s a tough question…

I’m not sure what that encompasses, but let me come from a different angle. I feel that the problem with the pharisees was that their true savior wasn’t God, but it was actually themselves and their ability to follow rules. Of course, they’re not going to admit that just like I wasn’t going to admit back then that God’s rules were just one of many that I was willing to follow. Back then, I was trusting in myself to save myself without any true love for God. In that sense, I was similar to the pharisees.

Fair enough. You certainly know yourself better than I can ever know you.
In the above I think we are both saying pretty much the same thing. They relied on the Law - and on their being descendents of Abraham. Add to that they fact that they we all puffed up with their own importance and that they paid more attention to the letter of the law than the spirit of it and you have a pretty sad case…

Peace
James

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, this was your response when I said:
When Eve took the fruit to improve her situation, she had FAITH in SATAN that it would work.

When I said this, what I wanted to emphasize was that the “faith” I had wasn’t really directed at Jesus. The faith was in the supernatural in general, whether it be Buddha, Shiva, Zeus, etc. It was just a matter of who came first. I don’t know how to articulate this, but I don’t think that we’re talking about the same kind of faith

I see. So, what you’re telling me is that, back then, when you prayed, you said, “Dear Jesus (or Buddha or Shiva or Zeus, whoever you are), please save me. I believe in supernatural things, but not You personally. Please, through your vaguely impersonal unknowable deity, ‘look down’ on me and ‘hear’ my prayer. Amen.” …? Or, was it more that you prayed to Jesus himself, but without a well-formed knowledge of the faith? (The two options are vastly different in terms of their implications!)

Now, don’t get me wrong – I hear what you’re saying: looking back, and comparing then to now, you see a massive difference in your spiritual maturity and knowledge. (That’s awesome! Congratulations!) Does that mean that, in your youth, before you came to such a love of Christ, that God didn’t love you and justify you through your baptism and give you His grace? Of course not!

Was it the “same kind of faith”? Of course not! But, then again, that’s what the process of maturing is all about – you grow, not just physically, but emotionally and spiritually, in order to become the adult you are now.

You seem to be defending some sort of faith that I had.

I think it’s a little more subtle than that. You’re asserting that you didn’t have love or faith in Jesus, and I’m defending against that assertion. Am I saying that your faith back then was exemplary? Of course not. Am I saying that even that little bit of faith that you exhibited was loved by God? Yes!

Assuming I did have faith, what made it different from that of the pharisees? I personally don’t think there’s a difference

Really? Let’s look at Matthew 23, then. Jesus told the people to obey the Pharisees. I doubt whether, if they were completely unredeemable or completely teaching the wrong thing, that He would have done so. Even so, here’s what Jesus was complaining about, with respect to the example the Pharisees were to the people:

• Their works are performed to be seen (v5). Were your works, as a young man, performed to be seen? No… what you’ve said here was that you believed that they would be efficacious, so you did them with a proper goal in mind.
• They love places of honor (v6) and love to exalt themselves (v12). Was that your experience of your faith life as a young man? Did it exist in order for you to exalt yourself before others? If so, that hasn’t been in your characterization of your youth.
• They ‘lock the kingdom of heaven’ for others and don’t attempt to get in, themselves. Again, not you: you were attempting to attain to heaven!
• They paid tithes even down to the spices they used, but did not pay attention to judgment, mercy, or fidelity (v23). Again, this is nothing that is characteristic of what you’ve shared with us.

Do I need to go on? What you’ve told us about yourself as a young man sounds nothing like what Jesus was unhappy about with the Pharisees!

I think that God requires a different kind of “faith” that I can’t really articulate at this time.

It’s an interesting assertion you’re making here. If you can find anything in the Bible that supports your assertion about a “different kind of faith”, or that helps you to articulate the intuition you have, please share it with us! Until then, though, it seems like you have notions about faith that are unsupported by the Scriptures…

 

[Gorgias]

During my early twenties, I didn’t have love for God if I’m honest with myself. I wanted an eternity without punishment

So, you were seeking the Good. That’s bad…umm… why?

, but I would have taken it ANY way that I could regardless of who gave it to me.

In logic, this is known as a “hypothesis contrary to fact,” and is a logical fallacy. (If you start with a non-truth, you can’t reach a valid conclusion. “If I had wings, I’d have flown to all the great cities of the world by now.” Well, I don’t have wings, so I can’t use this to support any argument about my travel habits.)

In the same way, there’s no one who can give you eternal life but God. Your lack of knowledge – presuming that if there were someone, you would have followed him – is immaterial, because… you followed God, and He justified you in your baptism, setting you on the path to salvation. I appreciate that this thought was in your mind, but it only shows how much you valued eternal life. Good on you!

I would go to confession for fear of punishment.

We’ve already talked about this. That “fear of punishment” is called ‘imperfect contrition’, and it’s sufficient for absolution. Do you think children do what their parents tell them out of a mature desire and with the same intent as their parents who set the goals? Do you think that (some) adults obey the law simply out of a desire for the good of society? Or isn’t it rather that in both cases, children and adults simply are attempting to avoid punishment?

This isn’t where we hope people end up, with respect to morality and decision-making… but it’s not a bad place to start…

As I mentioned, no priest really got to know me, so my lack of love wasn’t detected or corrected.

You misunderstand the sacrament of reconciliation, then. Its purpose isn’t to be a counseling session or spiritual direction, but rather, to sacramentally absolve you from sin. Do you want a priest to get to know you? Do you want a priest to lead you to a greater love of God? That’s awesome! Find one to be your spiritual director! Don’t say “confession is worthless because the priest didn’t deliver on my mistaken understanding of what he was going to do”!

I was just brought up thinking that Jesus was JUST ANOTHER authority figure that I needed to kiss up to like my teachers in school or the cop that pulled me over.

Great place to start. Not a great place to end up, but a great place to start!

As far as participating in RC activities, I have stopped due to my honest discomfort about the way that they are done.

It would be interesting to hear what your discomfort is all about. With all due respect though, Jay, I think you’re projecting again. I think what you’re about to say is, “well, when I was at Catholic Mass or sacraments as a kid, my heart wasn’t in it. I was pretty mechanical about my faith. When I come back now, I see the exact same Mass, the exact same sacraments, and I know that Catholics, in their hearts, are as mechanical about their faith as I was about mine, years ago.”

I definitely want to do the will of God, but I’m not going to just participate in something just because a human being told me that God gave them the power to do so.

Of course you wouldn’t – no one in their right mind would! And yet, what a reasonable person would do is ask for some reasonable explanation why their claims hold up. (The Catholic Church can provide such an explanation, by the way!)

If I’m expected to scrutinize these claims for the sake of the truth, I don’t see why Roman Catholicism’s claims shouldn’t be scrutinized as well.

Yep, that’s reasonable. (Yet, interestingly enough, that’s not what you’ve been doing, is it? Instead of asking “why do Catholics do X, Y, and Z?”, you’ve been making claims from your own understanding of Catholicism (which, as you’ve admitted, was deficient as a young adult). I think this has led to interesting discussions of Catholic doctrine!)

From a salvation standpoint, do you think I am better off now or in my early twenties? Don’t worry, I will not take your word as Gospel, but I still want to get an idea of how you view this. Again, please refer me to the proper references.

I think your heart is in the right place. I think you want to find God and love Him and spend eternity with Him in heaven. This is all awesome. I think, though, that you’re searching for Him in the wrong place. I’m Catholic, and so that means that I believe what the Church teaches. I believe that Jesus comes to us sacramentally in the Eucharist and “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (John 6:53). I believe that forgiveness of sins comes from God alone, and that the means of receiving this forgiveness was given to us by Jesus, who told the apostles, “[w]hose sins you forgive are forgiven them” (John 20:23). I believe that those who are Catholic and well-catechized, but leave the Church, are in jeopardy of being judged harshly by God (cf Lumen Gentium, paragraph 14).

I think that you’re “better off” in that you’re more attuned to the need to love God; I think you’re worse off in that you’re searching for that love outside His Church and outside the means that Jesus gave us to grow in love of Him (i.e., the sacraments). Hey, give me a break – I’m not trying to be mean, but I’m a Catholic, and so, in all honesty, I think that the Church has it right and the thousands of denominations of non-Catholic Christians out there, all teaching mutually exclusive doctrines, have tended to get it wrong in a variety of ways.

 

[michaelhager]

I also didn’t leave because I don’t like rules. Actually, I’m a very good rule follower and like a lot of people, I would rather be given black and white rules and commandments, so that I can just check them off. As I grow in love for Jesus, I started to realize that everything isn’t black and white. Out of love, exceptions have to be made and sometimes those exceptions aren’t clear. In a way, I’d actually rather return to my old rule following ways because it was somewhat easier.

Here is what I have to say about Catholic rules… There aren’t any. God gave us free will to do as we please. We have no rules to follow, nothing we are ever forced forced to do. Everything is up to us as individuals.

But since God is love, and the greatest of all is love, He sent His Son to redeem us and along the way, He gave us His true Church, the sacraments and a long list of beautiful gifts that we GET to use to show how much we love Him back. If we truly follow Christ, and deeply WANT to be close to Him, all of the things that many people call rules we will soon realize are really precious gifts, given to us to make it easier to be true to Him.

When we change our attitude about “rules” we become blessed to be able to do the things He wants.

And these are gifts… we RECEIVE the gift of baptism, we RECEIVE the gift of the Eucharist, we RECEIVE the gift of reconciliation, Christ gives and we receive. When we look at it that way, how can we have anything BUT love for our God? What an amazing giver He is!

Think about it… then maybe you can return to your rule following days… as a receiver of gifts rather then a follower of rules.

God bless you in your Journey with Christ!

 

[JRKH]

Here is what I have to say about Catholic rules… There aren’t any. God gave us free will to do as we please. We have no rules to follow, nothing we are ever forced forced to do. Everything is up to us as individuals.

But since God is love, and the greatest of all is love, He sent His Son to redeem us and along the way, He gave us His true Church, the sacraments and a long list of beautiful gifts that we GET to use to show how much we love Him back. If we truly follow Christ, and deeply WANT to be close to Him, all of the things that many people call rules we will soon realize are really precious gifts, given to us to make it easier to be true to Him.

When we change our attitude about “rules” we become blessed to be able to do the things He wants.

And these are gifts… we RECEIVE the gift of baptism, we RECEIVE the gift of the Eucharist, we RECEIVE the gift of reconciliation, Christ gives and we receive. When we look at it that way, how can we have anything BUT love for our God? What an amazing giver He is!

Think about it… then maybe you can return to your rule following days… as a receiver of gifts rather then a follower of rules.

God bless you in your Journey with Christ!

WELL SAID :clapping::clapping:

Peace
James

 

[truthseekerjay]

Oh I definitely think you are better off now than in your twenties. I just don’t think that your journey is finished yet. I truly think (or maybe just hope) that you will one day return to the Church and once home again you will be a great asset to your fellow Catholics.

I want to respond to your other statements, but I just want to be clear about something first. You’re saying that I’m better off now. Suppose I committed a mortal sin in my early twenties and I commit that same sin now. Would I be saved back then, now, or both had I died during those respective times? When referring to the moment in time in the past, I’m talking about after confessing that mortal sin.

 

[truthseekerjay]

Do I need to go on? What you’ve told us about yourself as a young man sounds nothing like what Jesus was unhappy about with the Pharisees!

In post #27, you said:
Perhaps… but you went to His booth nevertheless. And, as it were, you went not because it was the first or only one – but because you believed that it was efficacious. That is, you (or your parents) went because you believed it worked. That’s faith, and that’s what God asks of us.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understood this to mean that believing that God’s rules are efficacious is the initial faith that God desires. Now, since the pharisees had the SAME kind of faith in the efficaciousness of the rules, BUT were somehow deficient, I wanted to propose that maybe this isn’t the faith that God desires.

I don’t think that having faith in the efficaciousness of the rules necessarily translates to faith in Jesus. If anything, I personally feel that the pharisees had faith in their ability to follow rules rather than in Jesus. Jesus wasn’t their savior, they were.

 

[JRKH]

I want to respond to your other statements, but I just want to be clear about something first. You’re saying that I’m better off now. Suppose I committed a mortal sin in my early twenties and I commit that same sin now. Would I be saved back then, now, or both had I died during those respective times? When referring to the moment in time in the past, I’m talking about after confessing that mortal sin.

Fair question - but one displaying a lack of understanding about mortal sin.
What you have done here is to ask a “legal” question - which actually, I guess, speaks to how you viewed the Church and God back in your early twenties…and possibly how you still view the Catholic Church today.

“Suppose I committed a mortal sin…”. In order to do so this would mean that you a) knew it was a grave sin, b) freely chose to commit the act anyway.
In essence - to commit a mortal sin, you must say to God, I know this gravely offends you and that it violates the law of love, but I’m going to do it anyway.
At that point you have turned away from God - taken a wrong path - given away your inheritance - and rejected salvation. That is what “mortal sin” means - to sin unto death.

To regain salvation requires that one repent (to change one’s direction), turn back to God in sorrow and to ask God for forgiveness and for Him to be merciful. Without this - without repentance and a firm commitment to not sin again - nothing else will matter.

Now - to your “legal question” about going to confession…I don’t know. Based on what you told me about your early years, it would seem that your repentance would leave something to be desired - but you WOULD receive graces through the sacrament of reconciliation.

The problem you have now (and I really don’t know what your current faith tradition is or how you are viewing things) is this. Though you might turn back to God after rejecting Him, can you be sure of your status - or are you just deceiving yourself (or being deceived)?
How does one restore themselves to community (to the Body of Christ) in your current faith tradition after having freely and knowingly rejected that body through Mortal Sin?

Peace
James

 

[Gorgias]

You’re saying that I’m better off now. Suppose I committed a mortal sin in my early twenties and I commit that same sin now. Would I be saved back then, now, or both had I died during those respective times? When referring to the moment in time in the past, I’m talking about after confessing that mortal sin.

Jay,

I know you’re responding to James, here, but this is the kind of thing I was alluding to in my reply to your question. First of all, let’s make sure we understand what ‘mortal sin’ means. It doesn’t speak solely to the gravity of the sin, per se, but to your culpability – that is, to the level to which you’re held responsible. A mortal sin is first of all a sin with great gravity (e.g., fibbing to your teacher about the spitball you launched isn’t grave; attempting to kill your teacher because she yelled at you, is!). In addition to gravity, there are two other considerations: did you know that it was a grave sin? Did you commit the sin willingly and with full intent? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes’, then it’s a mortal sin; if the answer to either question is ‘no’, then it’s a venial sin.

So, for the sake of your question, let’s suppose you murdered someone while you were a practicing Catholic, and then went to confession, and that you murdered another person now. We would say that the first murder was absolved via the sacrament.

The second murder is where it gets more complicated, and is what I was alluding to. If you were a practicing Catholic, and committed the mortal sin of murder now, then I would say that it doesn’t matter a bit how much you think you love God; your sin has demonstrated that, in fact, you’ve severed your relationship with Him. (Until, of course, you repent and seek sacramental reconciliation.) For you, though, the question might be a bit more complicated (and, of course, I’m just giving an abstract analysis – in the end, it’s only the judgment of God that matters!)

For you, as a Catholic who has left the practice of the faith in the Church and gone to another denomination, the questions tend to focus on how well you were catechized and what your level of understanding about sin is, now. If today, having murdered someone, you realize that you’ve committed a mortal sin and know that the Church you were baptized into teaches that one who dies in mortal sin risks their very salvation, but you decide that the sacrament isn’t something you’re going to bother with… well, then, I would say that you’re very much in worse shape now than when you were in your 20s!

In the former case, you repented and sought sacramental absolution; in this case, even though you knew the seriousness of your sin, you would be (I’m assuming) eschewing recourse to absolution. That would mean that, presuming you’d be in a state of mortal sin, you’d continue in that state till your death.

So, in the particular case you raised – mortal sin (absolved) as a youth, and mortal sin (unconfessed) now – yes, in your thought experiment, you would appear to be in a very bad place now…!

 

[Gorgias]

Now - to your “legal question” about going to confession…I don’t know. Based on what you told me about your early years, it would seem that your repentance would leave something to be desired - but you WOULD receive graces through the sacrament of reconciliation.

But, if it were genuine contrition – even if only the kind of contrition that fears punishment – then there would be absolution. Therefore, the earlier mortal sin would have been absolved.

The problem you have now (and I really don’t know what your current faith tradition is or how you are viewing things) is this. Though you might turn back to God after rejecting Him, can you be sure of your status - or are you just deceiving yourself (or being deceived)?
How does one restore themselves to community (to the Body of Christ) in your current faith tradition after having freely and knowingly rejected that body through Mortal Sin?

But, in Jay’s case, there’s more to the story. If his only contact with Christianity had been in his current denomination, then I’d say you’re on the money here, James. That is, if Jay had no idea that Jesus gave sacramental reconciliation to us as the means of restoring our relationship with Him, then that would be one thing. But, he does know – at least, up through his 20s, he practiced the Catholic faith. So, the question now, it appears, comes down to this: does Jay reject the efficacy of sacramental reconciliation? Does he – knowing that the Catholic Church teaches the necessity of sacramental reconciliation in the case of mortal sin in order to attain to heaven – nevertheless decide not to avail himself of confession?

If the answer is “yes, as a person baptized and catechized in the Catholic Church, Jay knows and willingly rejects sacramental absolution,” then there’s a problem that goes beyond the question “what does his current denomination teach”? (I might even go so far as to suggest that, if there were a deep-seated psychological reason preventing Jay from returning to the sacraments, then that might alter the conclusion. But, if it’s simply “I know what the Church teaches, but I don’t want to be part of it anymore”, then that’s a whole 'nother ballgame.)

In the Catholic Church, there is certainly room for honest and charitable dialogue with our non-Catholic Christian brethren. This dialogue, though, doesn’t take on the tenor of identifying distinct but non-overlapping doctrines (in a syncretistic way), though. Salvation still comes through the Catholic Church, even if one avails himself of it indirectly and through another denomination. But, the case of a person who was a practicing Catholic and later left for a Christian denomination is distinctly different, and (IMHO) in all charity should be addressed differently. Gently, charitably, in a friendly manner – to be sure! – but without compromising the truth.

 

[Gorgias]

In post #27, you said:
Perhaps… but you went to His booth nevertheless. And, as it were, you went not because it was the first or only one – but because you believed that it was efficacious. That is, you (or your parents) went because you believed it worked. That’s faith, and that’s what God asks of us.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understood this to mean that believing that God’s rules are efficacious is the initial faith that God desires. Now, since the pharisees had the SAME kind of faith in the efficaciousness of the rules, BUT were somehow deficient, I wanted to propose that maybe this isn’t the faith that God desires.

Good insight. Yet, I’m not certain I agree, Jay, for a few reasons. First, in comparing your situation to that of the Pharisees, you’re comparing apples and oranges. They were under the Mosaic covenant; you were baptized into Christ and His new covenant. This means that your contexts are vastly different.

Paul himself addresses the question you’ve raised here, in Romans. Jews are saved by the Law; Christians are saved by the grace of Christ. So, when the Pharisees were “good rule followers”, they were doing what the Law required of them; this was a good thing. For you, however, salvation doesn’t come through the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, so the question of whether you were a good rule follower does not apply. Rather, the question is whether you accepted the grace offered to you by God, and through it, entered into the hope of salvation through Christ.

My argument, then, isn’t whether you were a better rule follower than the Pharisees, or even if your kind of rule following is like theirs. Rather, I’m simply asking the question of whether you accepted God’s offer of grace and justification. My assertion is that, by ‘following the rules’, you were making an implicit statement of your belief in the truth of God’s offer of salvation; and therefore, you were truly accepting His grace (even if your relationship with Him at that time was still in its infancy, and hadn’t yet borne fruits).

Do you see the difference? You’ve made an interesting comparison, but I don’t think it holds up, in this case; the analogy fails because there is a fundamental covenantal difference between you and the Pharisees. (Now… if the Pharisees had been Christians, then your analogy would have been much more productive!)

 

[JRKH]

But, if it were genuine contrition – even if only the kind of contrition that fears punishment – then there would be absolution. Therefore, the earlier mortal sin would have been absolved.

Quite right - though I would change “would have been” to “could have been” since we cannot know the particular circumstances of a given confession, there is always that chance (though admittedly slim) that the priest will hold a sin bound - at least for a time.

But, in Jay’s case, there’s more to the story. If his only contact with Christianity had been in his current denomination, then I’d say you’re on the money here, James. That is, if Jay had no idea that Jesus gave sacramental reconciliation to us as the means of restoring our relationship with Him, then that would be one thing. But, he does know – at least, up through his 20s, he practiced the Catholic faith. So, the question now, it appears, comes down to this: does Jay reject the efficacy of sacramental reconciliation? Does he – knowing that the Catholic Church teaches the necessity of sacramental reconciliation in the case of mortal sin in order to attain to heaven – nevertheless decide not to avail himself of confession?

If the answer is “yes, as a person baptized and catechized in the Catholic Church, Jay knows and willingly rejects sacramental absolution,” then there’s a problem that goes beyond the question “what does his current denomination teach”? (I might even go so far as to suggest that, if there were a deep-seated psychological reason preventing Jay from returning to the sacraments, then that might alter the conclusion. But, if it’s simply “I know what the Church teaches, but I don’t want to be part of it anymore”, then that’s a whole 'nother ballgame.)

In the Catholic Church, there is certainly room for honest and charitable dialogue with our non-Catholic Christian brethren. This dialogue, though, doesn’t take on the tenor of identifying distinct but non-overlapping doctrines (in a syncretistic way), though. Salvation still comes through the Catholic Church, even if one avails himself of it indirectly and through another denomination. But, the case of a person who was a practicing Catholic and later left for a Christian denomination is distinctly different, and (IMHO) in all charity should be addressed differently. Gently, charitably, in a friendly manner – to be sure! – but without compromising the truth.

Quite right - and it is never my intent to compromise the truth.
That said, I think that your reply hits the nail on the head. I very real question in cases like Jay’s is this…Just what DID the person know and what DID they leave or reject for another denomination.

How often do we hear of people being poorly catechized and/or having parents who barely practice or “practice the rules” (go through the motions) but then act in very unchristian ways in their day to day lives. It can be difficult to determine just what these people believe they are leaving…

So I agree that these kinds of conversations are great for sharing and growing.

Peace
James

 

[clem456]

…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understood this to mean that believing that God’s rules are efficacious is the initial faith that God desires. Now, since the pharisees had the SAME kind of faith in the efficaciousness of the rules, BUT were somehow deficient, I wanted to propose that maybe this isn’t the faith that God desires.

I don’t think that having faith in the efficaciousness of the rules necessarily translates to faith in Jesus. If anything, I personally feel that the pharisees had faith in their ability to follow rules rather than in Jesus. Jesus wasn’t their savior, they were.

God and rules:
Jesus is first of all a person, a divine person who became human. Of themselves, rules are not efficacious. Sacraments are efficacious…but knowing the rules is not efficacious. Acting on the rules (or participating in the sacraments), is. Sacraments are efficacious because they participate in the life of a person, Jesus Christ, not merely because they follow a formula.

If we merely have rules, then we have a contract. A contract spells out duties and consequences, maybe rewards as well. A contract makes like simple for sure, but trying to justify ourselves by just following the rules is the road to death. It can’t be done. Our salvation is a person, not a book.

God, as a person, offers a covenant, with us as a people. A covenant is a relationship that is offered. Relationships are messy. They require all the relationship elements: Faith, hope, love, trust, persistence in the face of failure. Trust is a big one.

 

[truthseekerjay]

The problem you have now (and I really don’t know what your current faith tradition is or how you are viewing things) is this. Though you might turn back to God after rejecting Him, can you be sure of your status - or are you just deceiving yourself (or being deceived)?
How does one restore themselves to community (to the Body of Christ) in your current faith tradition after having freely and knowingly rejected that body through Mortal Sin?

I’m sorry if I go off on a tangent here, but we’re actually getting close to what is confusing me. Just a little bit of background, I thought I understood the concepts of venial and mortal sins back in my early twenties, but in reality, I was only able to give the “dictionary” definitions. As I understand the Gospel more, grow in faith and love, and do more introspection, the concepts actually became more confusing and the line became more blurred in that I now feel that some venial sins should actually be mortal sins.

Anyway, from your definition of mortal sin, I can think of two possible situations and implications. Before I give you the situations, I also want to mention that I haven’t committed anything that “grave" from a human standpoint.

Situation A: In a way, I feel like I’ve never committed a mortal sin. As I mentioned, I was apathetic towards God prior to my late twenties, so there was never a time when I was trying to purposely offend God since I wasn’t even thinking of Him. Now that I actually have love for God, I’m still not perfect and will sin. These sins arise from battles with the flesh and also as a reflex sometimes. However, I’m more easily convicted of these sins and I am not doing these to spite God. Also, I’m actually MORE SORRY for these sins now than I was back then since I realize that they offend the holy and merciful King of the universe. Because of this, it’s almost like I’m never committing a mortal sin and therefore have no need for confession.

Of course, people are going to tell me that I can possibly be deceiving myself and that’s why I need confession, so let me describe the next situation that I can think of. BTW, this is the situation that actually resonates with me.

Situation B: I feel that ALL sin can possibly be mortal sin. Even if I steal a single piece of paper from work for personal use at home, I’m pretty much saying to God that I don’t care about His rules. For us humans, we would probably let this go because this is more socially acceptable than stealing a car or a neighbor’s wife. However, God is holy and His ways are different than ours. We don’t know what He considers grave. We also deceive ourselves A LOT and God knows our hearts better than us, so He alone decides whether or not we chose freely to commit the act. We all continue to sin and probably multiple times EVERY single hour. Since each sin could potentially be mortal, I would imagine that we pretty much need to have a priest with us to confess to ALL THE TIME to “be sure of your status” as you mention above.

Is one situation more accurate? Is there a happy medium?

 

[Gorgias]

Jay,

You keep responding to James, so if you want me to back off and let him respond, just let me know. It won’t offend me.

I was apathetic towards God prior to my late twenties, so there was never a time when I was trying to purposely offend God since I wasn’t even thinking of Him.

Hold on a second: “purposely trying to offend God” isn’t part of the definition of mortal sin. Unless I’m misunderstanding you, it seems that you’re attempting to offer an additional consideration to the definition of mortal sin: not just grave matter, not just full knowledge, not just willingness – but also, a desire to offend God. In other words, it seems that you’re adding in a new condition: if I know killing a person is grave matter, and I do it with full assent of my will, but without the desire to offend God by doing it (i.e., “hey, I don’t care about God all that much. It might tick Him off, but I’m not intending it to do so”), then the result is “not mortal sin.” That’s not part of the definition of mortal sin.

Now that I actually have love for God, I’m still not perfect and will sin. These sins arise from battles with the flesh and also as a reflex sometimes. However, I’m more easily convicted of these sins and I am not doing these to spite God. Also, I’m actually MORE SORRY for these sins now than I was back then since I realize that they offend the holy and merciful King of the universe. Because of this, it’s almost like I’m never committing a mortal sin and therefore have no need for confession.

This, too, seems odd. Since you love God, and since you don’t want to tick Him off, and since you’re sorry… your sins don’t have the potential to be mortal sins? No, that doesn’t make sense. That seems to be saying that a really sensitive, God-fearing man who beats his wife isn’t sinning, simply because he thinks he loves God so much. (Maybe I’m misunderstanding your case, here? )

Since each sin could potentially be mortal, I would imagine that we pretty much need to have a priest with us to confess to ALL THE TIME to “be sure of your status” as you mention above.

I think I disagree with your assertion that “all sins are grave.” If so, then John’s epistle would be a lie: “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.” (1 John 5:16-17)

You seem to be saying that, potentially, your sins are deadly. If this is the case, then Scripture tells you that you really, really, really better do something other than “just pray”. Wanna talk again about why the Sacrament of Reconciliation is efficacious?

 

[truthseekerjay]

Hold on a second: “purposely trying to offend God” isn’t part of the definition of mortal sin. Unless I’m misunderstanding you, it seems that you’re attempting to offer an additional consideration to the definition of mortal sin: not just grave matter, not just full knowledge, not just willingness – but also, a desire to offend God. In other words, it seems that you’re adding in a new condition: if I know killing a person is grave matter, and I do it with full assent of my will, but without the desire to offend God by doing it (i.e., “hey, I don’t care about God all that much. It might tick Him off, but I’m not intending it to do so”), then the result is “not mortal sin.” That’s not part of the definition of mortal sin.

This, too, seems odd. Since you love God, and since you don’t want to tick Him off, and since you’re sorry… your sins don’t have the potential to be mortal sins? No, that doesn’t make sense. That seems to be saying that a really sensitive, God-fearing man who beats his wife isn’t sinning, simply because he thinks he loves God so much. (Maybe I’m misunderstanding your case, here?

I just want to first point out that I actually believe Situation B and part of the reason I’m having a hard time articulating Situation A is because I don’t really agree with it either. I brought up these two situations because, with the definition of mortal sin that James gave, I feel like there are two possibilities with implications that need to be considered. I can see a scenario in which our subjectivity matters more (Situation A) and one in which God pretty much decides everything (Situation B).

Perhaps my example in Situation A didn’t make sense, but one of the things I wanted to point out was the subjectivity and how we can PROBABLY come up with some sort of excuse that will allow ANY sin to pass through the cracks as a venial sin. I’ll just use myself as an example. As for many people, the two sins that were emphasized as evil were stealing and killing. Also, at no fault of my own, no one emphasized the fact that taking little things from work/school (ie paperclips, paper, etc.) was stealing. Therefore, up until and through my early twenties, I DIDN’T KNOW how much I was actually offending God. I honestly thought that socially acceptable = God acceptable. If you look at James’s post #48, it basically says that a mortal sin is when you’re heart is saying “I know this is seriously bad, but whatever” (James, please correct this statement if I misinterpreted it). I honestly didn’t think God even took notice of my actions since my fellow man didn’t really care.

As for the man beating his wife, there’s so many excuses (BTW, I’m NOT AGREEING WITH ANY OF THEM). It could be a chemical imbalance or even misusing Bible verses.

 

[truthseekerjay]

One more thing Gorgias (and James if you’re following this). I’ll admit that I’m definitely projecting on this one, but hear me out. Once you set your mind on following God’s rules (whether out of true love or apathy), I don’t really see how anyone would commit a mortal sin. When I was younger, I feared that I would die before going to confession and that’s why I wouldn’t do anything that I thought would be serious in God’s eyes. Not that I completely agree with what this line of thinking, but I do wonder if anyone would purposely commit a mortal sin. It’s almost like you purposely failed the final when you passed all the previous tests.

Again, I don’t really agree with Situation A and I believe Situation B. By mentioning this, I’m just trying to show that if subjectivity does play a part, then confessions may not even be necessary.

 

[Gorgias]

I brought up these two situations because, with the definition of mortal sin that James gave, I feel like there are two possibilities with implications that need to be considered. I can see a scenario in which our subjectivity matters more (Situation A) and one in which God pretty much decides everything (Situation B).

Fair enough. I agree – situation A doesn’t make sense to me, either. It seems to say that the definition of sin depends on us more than God.

But, your definition of situation B seems problematic, too. “God pretty much decides everything” doesn’t imply “all sin is grave”! Now, I’d agree that all sin offends God; but, as I pointed out using Scripture, not all sin is of the same level of seriousness! Do you agree? Or do you disagree with 1 John?

Perhaps my example in Situation A didn’t make sense, but one of the things I wanted to point out was the subjectivity and how we can PROBABLY come up with some sort of excuse that will allow ANY sin to pass through the cracks as a venial sin.

Fair enough; people can rationalize just about any thing. Yet, those rationalizations don’t mean that “there is nothing except venial sin”, do they? I mean, sure – people make excuses – but that doesn’t mean that those excuses hold up, do they?

If you look at James’s post #48, it basically says that a mortal sin is when you’re heart is saying “I know this is seriously bad, but whatever” (James, please correct this statement if I misinterpreted it).

I think it’s more along the lines of “I know this is evil in God’s eyes, but I want to do it anyway.”

As for the man beating his wife, there’s so many excuses (BTW, I’m NOT AGREEING WITH ANY OF THEM). It could be a chemical imbalance or even misusing Bible verses.

The point, though, is that he can’t come up with an excuse that actually excuses his behavior, short of something that demonstrates that he doesn’t know it’s sin or that he isn’t able to freely choose; the point is that it’s sin, regardless how he spins it. Your point with situation B was that “it’s almost like I’m never committing a mortal sin and therefore have no need for confession,” to which I reply that “it’s almost like I’m never committing a mortal sin” is simply self-delusion.

 

[Gorgias]

Once you set your mind on following God’s rules (whether out of true love or apathy), I don’t really see how anyone would commit a mortal sin.

Really? It happens all the time: “I love God… but I really love my girlfriend, so it’s not really sinful if I’m going to have sex with her.” Or, “I love God, so it’s not really a sin to miss Mass on Sunday (after all, I have tickets to the Steelers game; I still love God, though, and He understands!)” After all, the Jews “set their minds on following God’s rules”, didn’t they? Then why did they need the Ten Commandments? If we didn’t need to be told “don’t do this,” then God wouldn’t have told us. So, yeah… we may love God – but we still fall short and sin (sometimes mortally).

Are you saying that God-fearing people don’t sin? If so, then I have news for you – you need to read your Bible more closely… it’s a book filled with God-fearing people who sin grievously, over and again! And, if we think we’re much better… we’re just kidding ourselves!

Again, I don’t really agree with Situation A and I believe Situation B. By mentioning this, I’m just trying to show that if subjectivity does play a part, then confessions may not even be necessary.

If by “subjectivity”, you mean “subjectively deciding what’s sin and what’s not”, then you’ve hit on the heart of the “Fall of Adam” story in Genesis 3. Adam & Eve wished to decide for themselves what it meant to determine what good & evil were… and we see how poorly that worked out for them. No, we’re not able to determine – on our own – what’s good and what’s evil. So, no… we’re not able to dispense with the sacrament of reconciliation simply on the basis of the fact that we’re pretty good with rationalizing just about anything.

We’re also not able to dispense with mortal sin on the basis of your situation B – to say “good people don’t sin” misses the entire point of the Bible. Take just one example: Noah. He was saved, among all men, because he was a good person who loved God and wished to follow His commands. But, what does Noah do as soon as he’s off the boat? He makes wine and gets passed-out drunk. That’s sinful, wouldn’t you say? The point of the whole Noah story is “you can’t separate people into ‘good’ and ‘bad’; all people have the potential to do ‘good’, and all people have the potential to sin.”

 

[JRKH]

One more thing Gorgias (and James if you’re following this). I’ll admit that I’m definitely projecting on this one, but hear me out. Once you set your mind on following God’s rules (whether out of true love or apathy), I don’t really see how anyone would commit a mortal sin.

Sorry that I don’t have a lot of time to devote to this wonderful discussion right now…but wanted to comment here.
Consider in the way you have expressed this above that you have basically placed yourself 'under the law" so to speak. You mention “Love or apathy” which where we need to focus. The one who “sets his mind” when his heart is not in it is much more likely to fail.
that said, you are quite right that a person who has truly repented and wished to please God will not likely commit a mortal sin…but we all fail from time to time.

When I was younger, I feared that I would die before going to confession and that’s why I wouldn’t do anything that I thought would be serious in God’s eyes. Not that I completely agree with what this line of thinking, but I do wonder if anyone would purposely commit a mortal sin. It’s almost like you purposely failed the final when you passed all the previous tests.

Mortal sins are always “on purpose”. That is the point. We can accidently commit a grave sin and that is truly bad, but the definition of Mortal sin requires knowledge and consent of the will.

Again, I don’t really agree with Situation A and I believe Situation B. By mentioning this, I’m just trying to show that if subjectivity does play a part, then confessions may not even be necessary.

Situation B is the opposite end of the spectrum - where scrupulosity becomes an issue.

You are asking great questions - - but there are no “pat answers”. We have to work through these things carefully.

Peace
James