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

[JRKH]

Scrupulous or not, there’s a valid reason for worrying about whether EVERY sin is mortal or venial.

The only valid reason for such worry is lack of understanding. Yes there are certain sins and conditions that can blur the line but there are many many cases that are quite clear.

It seems as if the RC Church teaches that if any of these sins were mortal and you died before you’re able to go to confession, then you would end up in ETERNAL punishment.

Any of what sins??
As has already been explained, the conditions for a sin to be mortal requires that one know it and freely choose to commit it. So - one does not go to hell accidentally or through lack of knowledge.

I personally feel that God doesn’t want us to be worrying so much,

I totally agree - so stop worrying about it.

but it’s YOUR church’s system that produces this.

It’s God’s Church system.

This is why I started questioning whether or not the RC system of confession was what God intended when He told us to confess to one another.

The system is designed to allow people to avoid such worry - and in the vast majority of cases it does a fine job. There will always be a few who struggle with it - as you are doing - but honestly, that seems to be a minority.

We are doing our level best to try to alleviate your concerns - but one does get the feeling that you are rather entrenched in your position - - or we are just missing something fundamental about your view…I dunno…

Peace
James

 

[Gorgias]

Jay,

This is the important aspect, right here:

As has already been explained, the conditions for a sin to be mortal requires that one know it and freely choose to commit it. So - one does not go to hell accidentally or through lack of knowledge.

Your example (Ebola virus) is solely an objective reality: once exposed to the virus, whether you know it or not, meant it or not, or even were vaguely aware of it – once you have it, you have it, and that’s all there is to it.

Now stop, take a deep breath, and read this next sentence very clearly. Your Ebola example is not how mortal sin works; mortal sin speaks not only about objectively grave matter, but about a subjective experience. (That subjective experience includes full knowledge and deliberate intent: if you do not know it’s a grave sin, or if you do not intend to commit the sin, then it cannot, by definition, be a mortal sin. Period.)

truthseekerjay:

there’s a valid reason for worrying about whether EVERY sin is mortal or venial. It seems as if the RC Church teaches that if any of these sins were mortal and you died before you’re able to go to confession, then you would end up in ETERNAL punishment.

Close. If one is contrite, and intends to go to confession, but is prevented (i.e., “hit by a bus on the way to confession”), the Church does not teach that God says, “sorry, but you failed to meet the rules, so you’re going to hell. Tough luck, buddy.” Rather, the Church teaches that God isn’t prevented – by His own rules – from applying His mercy as He wishes.

truthseekerjay:

I personally feel that God doesn’t want us to be worrying so much, but it’s YOUR church’s system that produces this.

Actually, I’d disagree. It’s not the “Catholic Church’s system” that produces worry – it’s a person’s mistaken notions, even to the point of denying what he is being taught that the Church really teaches, that would seem to create worry. If a child worries that there’s a monster under the bed, and his parent reassures him, time and again, that this isn’t the case, but the child persists in his mistaken belief, would you say that the parent has created the worry? Of course not. Then please don’t try to make that case with respect to the Catholic Church.

This is why I started questioning whether or not the RC system of confession was what God intended when He told us to confess to one another.

Again, an individual’s personal knowledge trumps the wisdom of the unbroken 2000-year tradition of the Church that Christ Himself founded?

 

[truthseekerjay]

James, were you able to look at my latest email? It may help with some of my confusion. My response to Gorgias below will also reveal my confusion.

(That subjective experience includes full knowledge and deliberate intent: if you do not know it’s a grave sin, or if you do not intend to commit the sin, then it cannot, by definition, be a mortal sin. Period.)

In your post #74, it seems as if you think I’m in mortal sin for missing RC mass. Honestly, I’m not intending to commit a sin. God says to keep the Sabbath holy and I have every intention of doing so. In fact (and although you don’t agree that this “counts”), I attend worship gatherings every Sunday. Previously, you’ve told me that I know the truth and that I’m just choosing to ignore it, but let’s just examine the situation.

I’m not missing RC mass so that I can watch football. I’m not missing RC mass because I’m trying to avoid someone. I’m not missing RC mass and not practicing RC because I want to justify some sin. If anything, right before I stopped identifying as RC, I tried my hardest to justify being RC due to the comforts that it provided me. My transition out of RC WAS NOT easy, but I couldn’t ignore what my reasoning and conscience were telling me.

As of right now, I HONESTLY can’t say that I know exactly what God wants us to do during the Sabbath. To use a different drug analogy, it’s like a person has a disease and there are multiple drugs presented to this person. Just taking any drug is not risk free due to the possible side effects. EVEN IF the first drug presented to the person was the actual cure, I personally think it would be irresponsible just to take the first one presented CONSIDERING that other potential drugs are present as well. Perhaps, if the actual drug was the ONLY one presented, then I can understand that rejection of the drug could be viewed as some sort of denial of the truth. HOWEVER, multiple drugs ARE presented, so they should at least be considered and researched. Why should it be any different with our faith (in which a wrong decision has even worse consequences)?

Perhaps my reasoning is just different (and God knows if it is or not), but I can assure you that I don’t intend to sin. Why does it seem as if you and other posters assume that I’m purposely ignoring the truth and committing mortal sin?

If I can deceive myself, how are you so sure that YOU aren’t deceiving yourself to think that none of your sins in between your monthly confessions are mortal rather than venial?

 

[Gorgias]

In your post #74, it seems as if you think I’m in mortal sin for missing RC mass.

You were baptized & raised Catholic? You know that missing Mass is a grave sin? You intend to miss Mass? Then yeah: mortal sin.

Honestly, I’m not intending to commit a sin.

Interesting take on things. So, if you decided to kill someone, knowing that it was a grave sin, and intending to kill them, but if you said to yourself, “it’s not my intent to sin,” then you’d consider yourself not to have sinned?

You’re using the phrase in a different way, then. The way that phrase is meant is that you have intent to commit the act. The way you’re using it is to defend against ‘full knowledge’: you’re saying “I don’t think it’s a sin”.

God says to keep the Sabbath holy and I have every intention of doing so.

And the way the Catholic Church – in which you were raised – interprets “keep the Sabbath holy” is attend Mass on Sundays and holy days.

In fact (and although you don’t agree that this “counts”), I attend worship gatherings every Sunday.

Good on you! Prayer is an important part of keeping the Sabbath. However, participation in the Mass is what we’re called to do as Catholics.

My transition out of RC WAS NOT easy, but I couldn’t ignore what my reasoning and conscience were telling me.

Fair enough. We all must obey what our conscience tells us to do. Yet, when our conscience tells us to do something opposite of what the Church teaches, the proper thing to do isn’t to shrug and say “oh well, I guess that’s that!” but rather, to ask “why is it that the Church is saying ‘X’ and my reason and conscience is saying ‘not X’? Could I be wrong here?”

EVEN IF the first drug presented to the person was the actual cure, I personally think it would be irresponsible just to take the first one presented CONSIDERING that other potential drugs are present as well… HOWEVER, multiple drugs ARE presented, so they should at least be considered and researched. Why should it be any different with our faith (in which a wrong decision has even worse consequences)?

The ‘first drug’ comes to you through the Church that Jesus Himself founded. All the other drugs come to you through denominations that humans founded. The ‘irresponsibility’ would come in choosing “John Doe’s” drug over Jesus’…

Perhaps my reasoning is just different (and God knows if it is or not), but I can assure you that I don’t intend to sin. Why does it seem as if you and other posters assume that I’m purposely ignoring the truth and committing mortal sin?

Because you’re misinterpreting what “deliberate intent” means, and (probably) we’re using ‘shorthand’ to explain it. “Deliberate intent” means that you intend to do the act which you have full knowledge that the Church understands as gravely sinful. (It doesn’t mean that you disagree that it’s sinful, and therefore, you don’t have ‘deliberate intent’ to sin.)

If I can deceive myself, how are you so sure that YOU aren’t deceiving yourself to think that none of your sins in between your monthly confessions are mortal rather than venial?

Because, in theory, you’re arguing for things that the Church calls sinful, whereas we are not. The ‘nature’ of the potential deceit differs in the two cases.

 

[Gorgias]

To use a different drug analogy, it’s like a person has a disease and there are multiple drugs presented to this person. Just taking any drug is not risk free due to the possible side effects. EVEN IF the first drug presented to the person was the actual cure, I personally think it would be irresponsible just to take the first one presented CONSIDERING that other potential drugs are present as well. Perhaps, if the actual drug was the ONLY one presented, then I can understand that rejection of the drug could be viewed as some sort of denial of the truth. HOWEVER, multiple drugs ARE presented, so they should at least be considered and researched. Why should it be any different with our faith (in which a wrong decision has even worse consequences)?

Jay,

Thinking about your new ‘drug’ analogy, I think that it’s quite ripe for some further analysis, and might bear fruit in our discussion…

The first thing that comes to mind is that, when we walk down the pharmacy aisle, it isn’t just a matter of making a personal choice of drugs. Sure, we could choose all sorts of treatments, ointments, or potions – but not all are cures. Some just have attractive packaging, others taste good, and still others simply mask symptoms. But, you’re not there because you’re making a personal decision about your course of treatment – you’re there because your doctor has prescribed a treatment for you! Your role isn’t that of doctor, but as patient! Yes, there are many possibilities out there… but you’re not being irresponsible by following your doctor’s instructions – rather, you’re doing well by listening to your doctor!

And here’s the thing: Jesus is our doctor of souls! And, more to our point in this analogy, He came to earth to found a doctor’s office (not a medical building filled with a variety of practitioners for us to pick and choose among)! And so, we are all called to use the doctor that Jesus gave us – the Church!

Now, some might say, “Smith’s daughter got a lollipop when she went to the doctor, but my son didn’t, so I’m not going back”, or “I don’t like the music there” or “the people there don’t smile” or even “I don’t feel loved there”… but that’s immaterial: this is the only doctor’s office that Jesus gave us, and the one course of treatment He made available to us. To stand outside the door and say “I honestly don’t know whether this is what God intended” flies in the face of the self-evident facts: this is the doctor’s office that Jesus set up, and about which he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail. We know what God intended because it is Jesus who gave us His Church.

 

[JRKH]

Jay,

Thinking about your new ‘drug’ analogy, I think that it’s quite ripe for some further analysis, and might bear fruit in our discussion…

The first thing that comes to mind is that, when we walk down the pharmacy aisle, it isn’t just a matter of making a personal choice of drugs. Sure, we could choose all sorts of treatments, ointments, or potions – but not all are cures. Some just have attractive packaging, others taste good, and still others simply mask symptoms. But, you’re not there because you’re making a personal decision about your course of treatment – you’re there because your doctor has prescribed a treatment for you! Your role isn’t that of doctor, but as patient! Yes, there are many possibilities out there… but you’re not being irresponsible by following your doctor’s instructions – rather, you’re doing well by listening to your doctor!

And here’s the thing: Jesus is our doctor of souls! And, more to our point in this analogy, He came to earth to found a doctor’s office (not a medical building filled with a variety of practitioners for us to pick and choose among)! And so, we are all called to use the doctor that Jesus gave us – the Church!

Excellent food for thought here.

Now, some might say, “Smith’s daughter got a lollipop when she went to the doctor, but my son didn’t, so I’m not going back”, or “I don’t like the music there” or “the people there don’t smile” or even “I don’t feel loved there”… but that’s immaterial: this is the only doctor’s office that Jesus gave us, and the one course of treatment He made available to us. To stand outside the door and say “I honestly don’t know whether this is what God intended” flies in the face of the self-evident facts: this is the doctor’s office that Jesus set up, and about which he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail. We know what God intended because it is Jesus who gave us His Church.

Here I think we need to also recognize that some people leave - not for light causes like music - but truly have deeper issues.
In Jay’s case I think that while his statement that you quote above hints at such deeper questions.

Peace
James

 

[truthseekerjay]

But, you’re not there because you’re making a personal decision about your course of treatment – you’re there because your doctor has prescribed a treatment for you! Your role isn’t that of doctor, but as patient! Yes, there are many possibilities out there… but you’re not being irresponsible by following your doctor’s instructions – rather, you’re doing well by listening to your doctor!

The drug analogy I presented actually differs from this analogy, but let me change your analogy to fit my situation. Suppose you have someone with a lifelong disease. He has been seeing a doctor since birth for this disease. Now, his friends tell him about other doctors. Wouldn’t it be responsible for this person to AT LEAST see what the other doctors have to offer ESPECIALLY if he sees results in his friends (as for results, I don’t mean that the music is better at the other church)? If the original doctor was indeed the best, then more power to him, but I don’t see anything wrong with him researching other doctors especially if his condition doesn’t seem to be getting better.

Yet, when our conscience tells us to do something opposite of what the Church teaches, the proper thing to do isn’t to shrug and say “oh well, I guess that’s that!” but rather, to ask “why is it that the Church is saying ‘X’ and my reason and conscience is saying ‘not X’? Could I be wrong here?”

Why do you feel that I’m not asking that question? I’m on this forum, am I not? If the RC Church is a doctor, I haven’t left it out of my research for potential doctors. I’m also on an Evangelical forum as well as an EO forum. I’m also reading about other religions, but for now, let’s simplify this and just talk about RC, EO, and Evangelical Christianity.

Let’s just say that these are three potential doctors prescribing three different drugs. RC says to go to a RC mass. EO says to go to an EO mass. Evangelical Christianity says to go to a worship gathering. BTW, believe or not, I actually question Evangelical Christianity as well. You may wonder why I engage in Evangelical activities and not RC activities (ie mass) considering that I’m unsure about Evangelical Christianity. Well from my OWN experience (not generalizing), the Evangelical activities are actually producing results that I didn’t see while engaging in RC activities. I feel that my faith and love for God has grown. I feel more aware of my sin and actually feel sorry. Overall, my view of life, purpose, identity, etc. has changed.

As of right now, I can’t say that I completely trust ANY OF THESE THREE doctors. HOWEVER, one treatment does seem to be producing tangible results as I mentioned above. I stopped the other treatment for fear that it may actually be more detrimental, BUT that doesn’t mean that my research has stopped or that I’ve completely ignored the other doctors. However, I WILL continue what seems to be working in the meantime while I figure things out. Before I move on, is this line of thinking unreasonable?

As of right now, I can honestly say that I DON’T HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE that ANY doctor is true. Perhaps I might be deceived, but from my POINT OF VIEW, I actually have a reason to engage in Evangelical activities. As for RC activities, I don’t see a reason to engage in them in my CURRENT STATE of thinking, so if I were to engage in them, it would ONLY be to say that I did them. Should I really engage in RC activities “just to say that I did them?” I might as well go to EO masses as well.

Because you’re misinterpreting what “deliberate intent” means, and (probably) we’re using ‘shorthand’ to explain it. “Deliberate intent” means that you intend to do the act which you have full knowledge that the Church understands as gravely sinful. (It doesn’t mean that you disagree that it’s sinful, and therefore, you don’t have ‘deliberate intent’ to sin.)

Interesting take on things. So, if you decided to kill someone, knowing that it was a grave sin, and intending to kill them, but if you said to yourself, “it’s not my intent to sin,” then you’d consider yourself not to have sinned?

Before I move on with the following exercise, I want to make it clear that I’m NOT trying to argue that my missing of mass isn’t a mortal sin. What I AM TRYING to show is that I’ve done an honest introspective exam and still feel that I don’t have full knowledge of it being gravely sinful. Despite this exam, you still feel that I’m deceiving myself. If this is possible, then I feel that perhaps your own introspective exams have led you to deceive yourself as well.

Here are some of the things I asked myself in my introspection:
Do I miss RC mass because I’d rather do something else (ie watch football)?
Do I miss RC mass because I’m trying to avoid something?
Do I miss RC mass to spite someone (perhaps my parents)?
Do I miss RC mass to justify a sin? BTW, I actually used to GO TO RC mass to justify my sins committed on Saturday nights.
Do I miss RC mass because I don’t like the preaching, music, environment, etc.?

The answer to all these questions is NO. Can you help me think of other reasons why I would INTENTIONALLY turn my back on the truth?

 

[Gorgias]

Suppose you have someone with a lifelong disease. He has been seeing a doctor since birth for this disease. Now, his friends tell him about other doctors. Wouldn’t it be responsible for this person to AT LEAST see what the other doctors have to offer ESPECIALLY if he sees results in his friends (as for results, I don’t mean that the music is better at the other church)?

If the choice is between three imperfect humans (i.e., doctors), then I agree completely. If the choice is between the Church that Jesus Himself founded and ecclesial communities founded by men who walked away from the Church Jesus founded, then my answer is “no way! There’s no way that it would be, in the tiniest bit, responsible to leave Jesus’ Church for another, even if that other community makes all kinds of claims!” But, then again, I’m a Catholic, so it’s unsurprising that I’d see it that way.

Why do you feel that I’m not asking that question? I’m on this forum, am I not?

Ok… fair point!

It seems to me that you’re reluctant to hear (or trust what you’re hearing) here, which is why, perhaps, I have that feeling…

RC says to go to a RC mass. EO says to go to an EO mass.

And both of these are valid answers, since these two remain the “two lungs” of the Church that Jesus founded.

Well from my OWN experience (not generalizing), the Evangelical activities are actually producing results that I didn’t see while engaging in RC activities.

It’s interesting that we are using a medical example at the moment. Ever hear of a ‘false positive’? Now, I’m not saying that you’re not growing in your love of God – by no means! However, I would strenuously assert that this does not imply that the Evangelical community with whom you participate has a greater knowledge of God or a handle on the Truth that’s more profound than that of the Catholic Church.

BUT that doesn’t mean that my research has stopped or that I’ve completely ignored the other doctors. However, I WILL continue what seems to be working in the meantime while I figure things out. Before I move on, is this line of thinking unreasonable?

No, that makes sense.

As of right now, I can honestly say that I DON’T HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE that ANY doctor is true.

I recognize that this is where your heart is at the moment, and that’s cool… but as a Catholic, it doesn’t resonate with me. I open my Bible, and I see that Christ founded a Church. I read Acts and the epistles, and I see the apostles ministering to that Church. I read history, and I see that some people decided that they should leave Christ’s Church and found other churches, interpreting Christ’s teachings in ways that hadn’t been taught in the 1500-year history of the Church. And then I ask myself, “do I have sufficient cause to believe that Christ founded this Church, which is now present in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? (Yep.) Do I have sufficient cause to avoid these other communities, in which they feel that they know better than the leaders whom Christ entrusted to His Church and promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it? (Yep.)”

As for RC activities, I don’t see a reason to engage in them in my CURRENT STATE of thinking, so if I were to engage in them, it would ONLY be to say that I did them. Should I really engage in RC activities “just to say that I did them?”

Isn’t that like saying, “Mom told me not to stick my finger in the electrical socket, but I don’t see a reason for doing it; should I do what she says, ‘just to say that I listened’, even if it doesn’t make sense to me right now?” Or, on the other hand, “Mom told me not to eat cookies before meals, but you know what? I’m stuffing my face with cookies before every dinner, and I feel great! It really makes me feel happy, and I’m a much more loving person – I’m seeing results, doing exactly what Mom told me not to do… so I’m going to stick with these good results!”

to be continued…

 

[Gorgias]

continuing…

truthseekerjay:

What I AM TRYING to show is that I’ve done an honest introspective exam and still feel that I don’t have full knowledge of it being gravely sinful.

Hmm… I still think you’re using that term in a way that it’s not intended. (I think you’re using it in a way that says, “I don’t believe the Church’s teaching wrt Mass attendance” rather than “I don’t know what the Church teaches wrt Mass attendance”. It’s the latter that ‘full knowledge’ is really addressing, not the former.)

So, let me ask you: if you “don’t have full knowledge of it being gravely sinful,” what would it take for you to have this knowledge? (It’s kind of a loaded question: if your answer tends toward the line of “I’d have to fully believe it” or “I’d have to accept it in my heart”, then you’re not talking about knowledge (which is what this part of the definition of mortal sin really addresses!) but rather, about acceptance of the teaching.)

Despite this exam, you still feel that I’m deceiving myself. If this is possible, then I feel that perhaps your own introspective exams have led you to deceive yourself as well.

I think that, if you’re ‘deceiving yourself’ at all, it’s because your questions are tangential to the question that’s relevant. My “own introspective exams”, I believe, don’t lead me into deceit, precisely because they don’t ask irrelevant questions…

Here are some of the things I asked myself in my introspection:
Do I miss RC mass because I’d rather do something else (ie watch football)?
Do I miss RC mass because I’m trying to avoid something?
Do I miss RC mass to spite someone (perhaps my parents)?
Do I miss RC mass to justify a sin? BTW, I actually used to GO TO RC mass to justify my sins committed on Saturday nights.
Do I miss RC mass because I don’t like the preaching, music, environment, etc.?

Yet, the definition of mortal sin (which is the topic at hand at the moment) doesn’t list “the reason why I committed the sin” as one of its considerations! We’re not saying “it’s not a mortal sin if there’s the absence of bad intentions, or even if you’re doing it with the best of intentions!” (In fact, the Church teaches that one cannot do evil with good intentions – that, too, is still sinful!) So, your questions of “why do I miss Catholic Mass?” aren’t relevant to the question of whether it’s sinful to do so! (And so, I think that you’re not ‘deceiving yourself’ so much as you’re asking the wrong questions.)

Can you help me think of other reasons why I would INTENTIONALLY turn my back on the truth?

Do you want me to be brutally honest? I think that it’s because you had an experience of Catholicism as a child and a young adult that included things that turned you off to the Church. And so, today, even if you say that, intellectually, you wish to be open to Church teachings, there’s still something deep inside you that refuses to accept these teachings, since you think you have proof that the Church is in error. (That’s just my guess, though, and it’s only based on our conversations here, so it may be way off.)

 

[JRKH]

The drug analogy I presented actually differs from this analogy, but let me change your analogy to fit my situation. Suppose you have someone with a lifelong disease. He has been seeing a doctor since birth for this disease. Now, his friends tell him about other doctors. Wouldn’t it be responsible for this person to AT LEAST see what the other doctors have to offer ESPECIALLY if he sees results in his friends (as for results, I don’t mean that the music is better at the other church)? If the original doctor was indeed the best, then more power to him, but I don’t see anything wrong with him researching other doctors especially if his condition doesn’t seem to be getting better.

Seeing other doctors is fine but Yet consider this…all of those doctors are licensed under the same system. They are all trained in schools that offer very specific and approved curriculum. The treatments and the drugs that they offer are likewise all approved by the same organization.
The purpose of this is to protect you - the patient - and to give you assurance that the treatments you receive are effective.
This does not prevent doctors from preferring one approach of treatment over another - or from trying some new things etc. The structure can actually help and encourage this by requiring certain levels of discussion and study in order to vette a given treatment idea.

So called “doctors”, or “healers” or whatever - who work outside of this system cannot offer the same level of assurance. So - when a person chooses to go outside of the established and approved system…they take a much greater risk onto themselves.

The Catholic church works in much the same way. Different priests have different approaches to things, but they are all trained in the same basics. They all offer the same grace and absolution. These things have all been vetted and shown to be good and effective by nearly 2000 years of practice.

Protestantism, as a group, does not have the same level of “quality control” because they do not have the same level of cohesion and communion - one with the other.
Their approach is more like handing someone a medical book and saying - Read this the remedy is in there. But then if you have a question about something in the book, six different people might give you six different answers.

Selecting a different Doctor is one thing…Going outside of the established medical community is another.
Selecting a different priest is one thing…going outside of the established Church is another.

Peace
James

 

[Gorgias]

Selecting a different Doctor is one thing…Going outside of the established medical community is another.
Selecting a different priest is one thing…going outside of the established Church is another.

Awesome…!

 

[truthseekerjay]

Gorgias, I can’t respond to all your statements right now, so I’ll just start with this.

Hmm… I still think you’re using that term in a way that it’s not intended. (I think you’re using it in a way that says, “I don’t believe the Church’s teaching wrt Mass attendance” rather than “I don’t know what the Church teaches wrt Mass attendance”. It’s the latter that ‘full knowledge’ is really addressing, not the former.)

So, let me ask you: if you “don’t have full knowledge of it being gravely sinful,” what would it take for you to have this knowledge? (It’s kind of a loaded question: if your answer tends toward the line of “I’d have to fully believe it” or “I’d have to accept it in my heart”, then you’re not talking about knowledge (which is what this part of the definition of mortal sin really addresses!) but rather, about acceptance of the teaching.)

What exactly is full knowledge? If someone simply blurted out to a Buddhist about the RC church requiring mass and left it at that, does the Buddhist now have “full knowledge” about the gravity of missing mass? I admit that I definitely received more indoctrination than the hypothetical Buddhist. However, my parents weren’t very good instructors of the RC faith and many people in the local RC churches that I attended slipped through the cracks perhaps because of a lack of accountability for the instructors. Did you ever consider that perhaps the Evangelicals had an easy time of convincing me because I didn’t have full knowledge?

BTW, I used to believe in Darwinian evolution because that was all that was taught in school. Now, I’m not sure what I believe regarding evolution. I can see reasons for Darwinian evolution, creationism, and a mixture of both, so I honestly can’t say I know that any of these are the truth. Let’s just call my new confused belief “x.” Can you really insist that I actually believe in Darwinian evolution but am just pretending not to believe it? This is what it sounds like when you insist that I know that RC is true and purposely ignoring it.

 

[JRKH]

Gorgias, I can’t respond to all your statements right now, so I’ll just start with this.

What exactly is full knowledge?

From the Catechism…
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Peace
James

 

[Gorgias]

f someone simply blurted out to a Buddhist about the RC church requiring mass and left it at that, does the Buddhist now have “full knowledge” about the gravity of missing mass?

(Which would not be the same thing as saying that the Buddhist would now be on the hook for the grave sin of missing Mass, of course; but it would say that he has knowledge of the Catholic teaching on Mass.)

Did you ever consider that perhaps the Evangelicals had an easy time of convincing me because I didn’t have full knowledge?

You weren’t well catechized in the Catholic faith; yes, I’ll grant you that. But you’ve jumped the tracks again: ‘full knowledge’ (in the context of mortal sin) does not imply “of the entirety of Catholic faith”, which is what you seem to be implying here. It merely means that you fully know that this action is sinful – and, in fact, that it’s gravely sinful – according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So, in the context of this example, full knowledge is a pretty simple thing: to say that you don’t have it, you would have to be asserting that you did not have a clear idea that missing Mass on Sunday was considered sinful by the Catholic Church. Could you say that as a youngster, growing up? Could you say that now? If not, then you have ‘full knowledge’ of the gravity of that sin.

Let’s just call my new confused belief “x.”

Perhaps you’ve just moved on to another topic, and I’m not picking up on it. However, it seems you’re still talking about ‘full knowledge’. If so, you’ve veered off the road again: you’ve gone from ‘full knowledge’ to ‘belief’. The question is not “do you believe missing Mass is a grave sin?” but rather “do you know that the Catholic Church teaches that missing Mass on Sundays and holy days is a grave sin?”

(In this context, that ‘belief’ you’re talking about is the operation of your conscience. It works something like this: intellectually, a Catholic has knowledge of the teaching of the Catholic Church on a particular matter; they have formed their conscience in a variety of ways throughout their life. Their conscience, then, tells them whether they believe that this action is sinful. If their conscience is well-formed, then it believes what the Church teaches, and their conscience says, “yep – if I miss Mass on Sunday, that’s a grave sin!”

But, if their conscience is not well-formed, they might say, “I don’t believe it’s really a grave sin to miss Mass this Sunday.” The reason for that faulty conclusion might vary – maybe it’s because they think the rule is stupid and they could just pray at home; maybe it’s because they’re missing it in order to go watch football. Whatever the reason, their conscience has informed them that it’s OK to miss Mass. All in all, the reason is immaterial to the objective consideration that missing Mass is gravely sinful; the reason is also a separate consideration from the subjective notion that he has deliberately intended to miss Mass!

Now, a person is obliged to follow their conscience. Yet, the Catholic Church says, when a person knows that their conscience is directing them to do something that the Church identifies as sinful, that person has the obligation to ‘fix’ their conscience – to re-form the deformation in their conscience. (This is just a long way of saying that a ‘confused belief’ certainly requires action on a Catholic’s part. But, the confused belief does not get a Catholic off the hook if there’s full knowledge. If there’s confused knowledge, then that’s a different thing; but you were talking about belief, not knowledge, right?))

Can you really insist that I actually believe in Darwinian evolution but am just pretending not to believe it?

How could I possibly know what belief there is in your heart, other than knowing and trusting what you’ve written on these forums?

This is what it sounds like when you insist that I know that RC is true and purposely ignoring it.

Umm… have I said that? I don’t recall ever writing that.

Or, have you moved on to your notion of ‘self-deception’ here? As I’ve said, I don’t think you’re ‘deceiving yourself’, but rather, might be having a hard time getting over the emotional unwillingness to accept the faith, based on past experience. That’s a far cry from “purposely ignoring the truth of the Catholic faith”…

 

[truthseekerjay]

Do you want me to be brutally honest? I think that it’s because you had an experience of Catholicism as a child and a young adult that included things that turned you off to the Church. And so, today, even if you say that, intellectually, you wish to be open to Church teachings, there’s still something deep inside you that refuses to accept these teachings, since you think you have proof that the Church is in error. (That’s just my guess, though, and it’s only based on our conversations here, so it may be way off.)

Maybe I should tell you a little more about my experiences before I move on. As I mentioned, I identified as RC up until and through my early twenties. I first encountered the Evangelicals in college and to be honest with you, they were saying things that I ACTUALLY agreed with. I DID NOT agree with them because of something I didn’t like in the RC church. In fact, I WOULD LIE TO MYSELF and try to reason out why I actually didn’t agree because of the worldly comforts that I had in the RC church. BTW, from this experience, I knew how it felt to lie to myself and this is part of the reason I’m pretty confident I’m not doing it now with respect to RC being the correct faith. During my transition, I was also TRYING my hardest to find ANY REASON NOT to be an Evangelical (so when you tell me that I should have tried to determine why my conscience is telling me that RC is wrong, I’d like to respond that I did and with a passion). You may argue that I didn’t look hard enough for answers, but did you ever consider that I just couldn’t find them? Remember, I would have used ANY REASON (EVEN if they were actually lies) to remain in the RC church.

However, over time, I just couldn’t deny what my conscience and reasoning were telling me and I tried to apply what I learned from the Evangelicals while participating in RC activities. There was actually a time that I was participating in both RC and Evangelical activities, but I would slowly stop participating in things that weren’t necessarily “required” (ie praying the rosary). BTW, I was still searching for answers during this whole time. However, there came a point when the ONLY reason I continued to participate in RC activities was because I didn’t have the courage to tell my family that I didn’t agree with RC and that I couldn’t find a reason to stay. At this point, I wasn’t fully invested in Evangelical Christianity OR any other religion. However, I did see something in the Evangelicals that made me want to explore how they believed. Also, at this point, I saw how Mormons, Muslims, etc. would leave their faith that they first practiced to follow their conscience. I honestly didn’t see how I was any different with respect to practicing RC first. I thought that RC could just have been like ANY of these other religions and God wasn’t blind to this fact. God knew that if I stayed in the RC church, that it WOULD NOT BE because I knew that it was the truth, but it WOULD BE because I was comfortable. I couldn’t fool God and that’s part of the reason I left.

 

[truthseekerjay]

Part 2 of 2

Umm… have I said that? I don’t recall ever writing that.

This was your response to my statement:
This is what it sounds like when you insist that I know that RC is true and purposely ignoring it.

Not in so many words, but I feel that my statement above is what you are essentially saying when you tell me that I have full knowledge of what the RC church teaches and purposely ignoring it. See your quote below.

This is from your post #85:
Isn’t that like saying, “Mom told me not to stick my finger in the electrical socket, but I don’t see a reason for doing it; should I do what she says, ‘just to say that I listened’, even if it doesn’t make sense to me right now?” Or, on the other hand, "Mom told me not to eat cookies before meals, but you know what? I’m stuffing my face with cookies before every dinner, and I feel great! It really makes me feel happy, and I’m a much more loving person – I’m seeing results, doing exactly what Mom told me not to do… so I’m going to stick with these good results!"

Granted I didn’t give you more details about my experiences before, but after reading what I wrote about my transition out of RC, can you really say that the electrical socket and cookie analogies really apply to me?

It’s not so much that I don’t trust what “mom” says. I’m starting to question if God really told me to obey this particular “mom” and I think that God knows that I’m trying to figure this out in my effort to OBEY WHAT HE REALLY WANTS. When you KNOW that there are fake moms (ie Church of Mormonism, Church of Jehovah’s Winesses, etc.) and that people are deceived to obey them, wouldn’t you think to make sure that you’re not being deceived as well?

To be honest, I don’t know if my drug analogy best illustrates my situation. Let’s try this new one to emphasize my lack of certainty. Suppose a man had his son kidnapped. The TRUE kidnapper sends a ransom note to get money out of the father. Other devious people start hearing about this situation and send ransom notes of their own to the father to get money out of him as well. Should the father simply send money to the writer of the first note or should he do some research first considering the potential of the other writers being the true kidnapper?

Suppose the kidnapped son was all knowing like God. EVEN IF the first note did come from the TRUE kidnapper, would the son really be mad at his dad for not obeying that note immediately?

So, in the context of this example, full knowledge is a pretty simple thing: to say that you don’t have it, you would have to be asserting that you did not have a clear idea that missing Mass on Sunday was considered sinful by the Catholic Church. Could you say that as a youngster, growing up? Could you say that now? If not, then you have ‘full knowledge’ of the gravity of that sin.

Now that I think about it, I knew that missing mass was sinful growing up. HOWEVER, I honestly equated going to a Protestant gathering with mass. My parents had Protestant friends and sometimes they would go with them to their gatherings. To me at the time, both mass and the gatherings were equally boring, so I thought that I had made my payment for the week to God. Also, since masses and catechism classes weren’t really meant to explore apologetic issues, know one ever made the distinction clear between RC churches and other Christ-based churches and Protestantism, Mormonism, etc. weren’t EVEN mentioned through these RC gatherings.

In fact, part of the reason I started exploring Evangelical churches was that I didn’t think anything was wrong with that and that this was just part of my growth in my relationship with God. These different churches all talked about Jesus, so I thought that they were just different “schools” trying to achieve the same purpose. When the Evangelicals were trying to convince me to attend their churches, I just thought that they were more efficient “schools” or “gyms” compared to RC churches. After I started identifying as an Evangelical, I tried to get RCs to join my school and THAT was actually the moment that I was told that not participating SPECIFICALLY in RC activities was a grave mistake.

Prior to this, I was mainly researching non Christ-based religions in an effort to prove Christianity correct, but after this I started focusing more on Church history and researching the different Christ-based faiths (RC, different branches of Protestantism, EO, OO, Church of the East, even Christ-based cults like Mormonism). Now, it became a question of which one is the true “mom?”

Perhaps the question isn’t really if I have full knowledge of the activities, since I have “full knowledge” of the activities of these different “moms,” but full knowledge about which “mom” is correct.

 

[Gorgias]

I first encountered the Evangelicals in college and to be honest with you, they were saying things that I ACTUALLY agreed with.

However, over time, I just couldn’t deny what my conscience and reasoning were telling me and I tried to apply what I learned from the Evangelicals

However, I did see something in the Evangelicals that made me want to explore how they believed.

OK – you’ve piqued my curiosity. What is it that Evangelicals told you, in contradiction to Church teachings, that convinced you eventually to leave the Church?

 

[truthseekerjay]

I actually won’t be able to respond much this week, but I can start off the conversation.

OK – you’ve piqued my curiosity. What is it that Evangelicals told you, in contradiction to Church teachings, that convinced you eventually to leave the Church?

First of all, my transition out of the RC church wasn’t a straight path. It involved multiple Evangelicals approaching me at different points in my life. It also involved research of other religions, Church history, and history in general. I had to examine my self and my life experiences as well as those of others.

The Evangelicals actually didn’t initiate my curiosity. It was my background in science and being exposed to people of different religions in college. Although I knew it in the back of my mind, college was probably the first time that I paid attention to the fact that with so many religions, there HAS to be some people (if not most) in error. If I’m telling the Mormons that approached me that they need to do more research, I thought that it would be hypocritical for me not to do research about my own beliefs because in all honesty, the only reason I believed that RC was the truth was because the people I grew up with told me so and not because I actually saw some inherent truth in it.

The first Evangelicals that talked to me actually didn’t tell me anything that contradicted what the RC church taught. What they DID do was show me that I was a lot worse and sinful than how I perceived myself. This process is what took the longest time and which I was the most resistant to. It was only after I started to accept the fact that I could possibly be deceiving myself to think that I was better that things started to unravel.

I know that I’m being vague right now and it’s because I really don’t know how to explain everything at once, but I will try to answer any specific questions that you may have as I continue with the story. For now, consider this (which will hopefully show you how much worse we really are):

It’s only through God’s grace that we are changed and ONLY God really knows our current state in the process of change. Suppose that after receiving confession and leaving the church that I see a beautiful woman across the street. I stare lustfully at her. I don’t know if you consider this mortal or venial, but it doesn’t matter at this point.

Now, instead of the street, let’s just say I was somehow teleported to my own house after confession. I’m alone in the house and staring at a computer. The same woman from above appears in an advertisement for an inappropriate site.

Now, instead of my home, I’m teleported after confession to a deserted island with the same woman. In this island, NO ONE will EVER know what I do except the woman and I.

It’s easy for me to say that I will not look at porn or that I will not sleep with a stranger, but knowing that I was capable of committing the sin of looking lustfully at the woman and actually executing the sin, wouldn’t this indicate that I could possibly look at porn or sleep with a stranger had the situation been different? Essentially, wasn’t I just lucky that I wasn’t in those latter situations in which more grave sins would have been committed? Of course, I really can’t be sure about my current state in my progress. Perhaps, if I were placed in the deserted island, that I actually wouldn’t sleep with the woman, but that I would still look at porn if place in the second situation. My point is that we don’t know for sure, but God does!

I can argue with Him and say that I only committed a minor sin by looking lustfully at a woman and He can respond and say, “You only looked because I prevented you from being in a deserted island where you WOULD have slept with her.” The sin is offensive to God regardless and how the sin manifests really just depends on the situation. Perhaps through the work that God has done in me, I might actually be in a state in which I actually wouldn’t sleep with the woman even if I was on the deserted island, but ONLY God knows for sure how my sin will manifest in different situations.

 

[Gorgias]

I actually won’t be able to respond much this week, but I can start off the conversation.

No problems; last week was a busy one for me. Come to think of it, this week, too…

The Evangelicals actually didn’t initiate my curiosity. It was my background in science and being exposed to people of different religions in college. Although I knew it in the back of my mind, college was probably the first time that I paid attention to the fact that with so many religions, there HAS to be some people (if not most) in error.

Fair enough. Tell me – do you believe that Jesus founded the Church? And that He placed Peter and the apostles in charge? And promised that “the gates of hell [would] not prevail” against the Church He founded?

in all honesty, the only reason I believed that RC was the truth was because the people I grew up with told me so and not because I actually saw some inherent truth in it.

Again, fair enough. Yet, wouldn’t a scientist ask “what are the grounds for belief in this as truth?” rather than “hey! why don’t I try to re-prove it all again, from the start?”…? (I’m not asking whether it’s possible to prove… but whether what an inquiring scientist does is re-verify everything that has gone before him or whether he simply checks his sources to see what they say?)

The first Evangelicals that talked to me actually didn’t tell me anything that contradicted what the RC church taught. What they DID do was show me that I was a lot worse and sinful than how I perceived myself. This process is what took the longest time and which I was the most resistant to. It was only after I started to accept the fact that I could possibly be deceiving myself to think that I was better that things started to unravel.

This, too, is fair enough. Yet, as far as logic goes, there’s a problem here, isn’t there? If an Evangelical clues you in to the fact that your understanding of your Catholic faith is deficient, that doesn’t mean that his faith is more correct than yours – just that your understanding needs work. And, if he uses the deficiency of your understanding in your faith tradition as the way to assert that his denomination has the truth… well, that’s not only dirty pool (i.e., ‘sheep stealing’), but illogical, as well! (Here’s my baseball example, again: if a NE Patriots fan points out to an Arizona Diamondbacks fan that his team doesn’t know how to play baseball… it doesn’t mean that baseball is bad! And, it doesn’t mean that being a Patriots football fan is better!)

(continued…)

 

[Gorgias]

For now, consider this (which will hopefully show you how much worse we really are):

We need to talk about this “worse than we think” issue – your example doesn’t imply it, let alone prove it… and I’m afraid it’s not even relevant!

It’s only through God’s grace that we are changed

Agreed. The Catholic Church teaches this.

and ONLY God really knows our current state in the process of change.

Umm… no; not in the way you mean it, and certainly not in a way that is insightful or relevant. We’ll get back to this point…

Suppose that after receiving confession and leaving the church that I see a beautiful woman across the street. I stare lustfully at her. I don’t know if you consider this mortal or venial, but it doesn’t matter at this point.

Wow… you needed an Evangelical to point out this example to you? Jay, you were definitely hanging with the wrong Catholics! (Just kidding…)

BTW – I think it does matter at this point. This isn’t just a “teaching of a church” – this comes directly from Jesus’ own words in Matthew 5! In fact, this Gospel is read on a regular basis at Catholic Masses – most recently, this was the Gospel at the Mass on Feb 16! (So, if you really want a discussion of the mortal/venial distinction in this case (which I suspect you don’t, but nevertheless…) this would have to be ‘mortal’ if you know that Jesus taught it directly and if you were actually lusting and not just looking.)

So, it would have to be a really odd occurrence for this not to be mortal sin – but, in any case, it’s definitely grave sin!

Now, instead of the street, let’s just say I was somehow teleported to my own house after confession. I’m alone in the house and staring at a computer. The same woman from above appears in an advertisement for an inappropriate site.

I’m assuming that you mean that, looking at her, you are lusting after her? Yep, you got it – grave sin!

Now, instead of my home, I’m teleported after confession to a deserted island with the same woman. In this island, NO ONE will EVER know what I do except the woman and I.

And, if you lust after her – let alone consummate that lust physically! – it’s the same story: grave sin!

It’s easy for me to say that I will not look at porn or that I will not sleep with a stranger, but knowing that I was capable of committing the sin of looking lustfully at the woman and actually executing the sin, wouldn’t this indicate that I could possibly look at porn or sleep with a stranger had the situation been different?

It’s immaterial. Jesus told us Himself – if we look lustfully at a woman, we commit adultery in our heart. Period. We don’t have to ask ourselves, “would I? could I? might I?” – in this case, we know it’s a grave sin, regardless!

Essentially, wasn’t I just lucky that I wasn’t in those latter situations in which more grave sins would have been committed?

Nope. In each case, it’s a grave sin. Sorry, but that’s how Jesus sees it, so that’s how we have to see it as the Church. (Maybe it’s a bad example, but the principle holds: a grave sin is a grave sin.)

Of course, I really can’t be sure about my current state in my progress. Perhaps, if I were placed in the deserted island, that I actually wouldn’t sleep with the woman, but that I would still look at porn if place in the second situation. My point is that we don’t know for sure, but God does!

And, it’s irrelevant, for a few reasons. First, in your example, all of these are grave sins. So, it really doesn’t matter whether you’d sleep with her or not – you’ve already committed the grave sin of adultery in your heart.

I can argue with Him and say that I only committed a minor sin by looking lustfully at a woman and He can respond and say, “You only looked because I prevented you from being in a deserted island where you WOULD have slept with her.” … ONLY God knows for sure how my sin will manifest in different situations.

Here’s the thing, though: this is a completely irrelevant consideration! Please re-read the story of the final judgment again (in Matthew 25). Let me ask you a question: what does Jesus say that the standard of judgment is? Is it, as you say, “you would have done this, if given the chance”, or is it what you actually did (fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the imprisoned – or failed to do so)? Yep, you know the answer! It’s what you actually do, not what you “would have done” (which only God knows)! So, if the point of your story is that only God knows what you would do in some arbitrary situation… then there’s a problem with your story – that’s not the standard God uses! (I’m hoping that this isn’t the selling point that your Evangelical friends used on you… 'cause that dog just don’t hunt… :nope