R
ResoluteSheep
Guest
I don’t get this passage. Can someone help explain it?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If lying is a venial sin, why does Rev 21:8 state that all liars go to hell?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Lying can be mortally sinful, don’t be misled into thinking otherwise.
An example that comes to mind is that of perjury - lying under oath. There can be other instances where the sin causes irreparable injury to our neighbor and his reputation and standing in the community. It is classed under calumny or slander.
I never forgot the incident with St. Gerard Magella having been calumniated by a vicious woman. It cost him his vocation as a Redemptoriis. In the end, the woman admitted her lie and he was exonerated. Here is part of the story.
A few days later, a letter sped from Lacedonia to Nocera. Neria Caggiano, gravely ill, now admitted that her previous letter was a tissue of lies. The innocence of Brother Gerard was at long last confirmed. Alphonsus Liguori was overjoyed. It was not long before the two saints met again.
“You were innocent all the time, my son, and yet you said nothing,” Alphonsus Liguori’s face was radiant with solicitude. “How could I, my Father,” said Gerard simply, “when our Rule forbids that we make excuses.” It seemed the warm Nocera sun poured in more brightly through the window!
An example that comes to mind is that of perjury - lying under oath. There can be other instances where the sin causes irreparable injury to our neighbor and his reputation and standing in the community. It is classed under calumny or slander.
I never forgot the incident with St. Gerard Magella having been calumniated by a vicious woman. It cost him his vocation as a Redemptoriis. In the end, the woman admitted her lie and he was exonerated. Here is part of the story.
A few days later, a letter sped from Lacedonia to Nocera. Neria Caggiano, gravely ill, now admitted that her previous letter was a tissue of lies. The innocence of Brother Gerard was at long last confirmed. Alphonsus Liguori was overjoyed. It was not long before the two saints met again.
“You were innocent all the time, my son, and yet you said nothing,” Alphonsus Liguori’s face was radiant with solicitude. “How could I, my Father,” said Gerard simply, “when our Rule forbids that we make excuses.” It seemed the warm Nocera sun poured in more brightly through the window!
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Liar, when used to describe a person, describes a personality trait. In this case, someone who is routinely dishonest. Telling a lie once doesn’t really make you a liar anymore than being drunk once makes you an alcoholic.
B
Bookcat
Guest
It refers to liars in a more specific sense (yes a serious sense). Yes lies can be venial sins (and thus not a choice in relation to hell). It does not say “all those who told a lie ever”. Another translation has “deceivers of every sort”. (all kinds of em…like saying murderers of every sort…). Which again does not mean that if someone told a venial lie and deceived someone about a little thing…that means the person “goes to hell”. You were right to not just take it to mean any one who every told a lie. The Book of Revelation requires some very good Catholic commentaries.
J
jas84173
Guest
Who knows. I personally believe the Apocalypse of Peter should be in the Bible, among some other books that were very popular in early Christianity. And at the end of the Apocalypse of Peter, Jesus says “My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, … It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men… [and God said]”… thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin."
So universal salvation was taught in this. Probably why it didn’t make the Bible. Kind of like the Shepherd of Hermas could be interpreted to mean further revelation is possible throughout time. I’m Catholic but I am very much interested in the books which nearly made the Canon but didn’t, more than likely because they taught doctrine that the bishops didn’t like. 2 Peter a writing that should not be in the Bible but it is. Thus why reading other early Christian writings is beneficial; unless they are Gnostic texts that is.
So universal salvation was taught in this. Probably why it didn’t make the Bible. Kind of like the Shepherd of Hermas could be interpreted to mean further revelation is possible throughout time. I’m Catholic but I am very much interested in the books which nearly made the Canon but didn’t, more than likely because they taught doctrine that the bishops didn’t like. 2 Peter a writing that should not be in the Bible but it is. Thus why reading other early Christian writings is beneficial; unless they are Gnostic texts that is.
C
cjb_914
Guest
They didn’t make it because they weren’t inspired works. The council the canon was closed at falls under the teaching authority of the church and was guided by the Holy Spirit in their choosing of which books they didn’t ‘like’. I’d recommend “Will Many Be Saved” by Ralph Martin, he’s got some good points about apokatastasis.Who knows. I personally believe the Apocalypse of Peter should be in the Bible, among some other books that were very popular in early Christianity. And at the end of the Apocalypse of Peter, Jesus says “My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, … It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men… [and God said]”… thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin."
So universal salvation was taught in this. Probably why it didn’t make the Bible. Kind of like the Shepherd of Hermas could be interpreted to mean further revelation is possible throughout time. I’m Catholic but I am very much interested in the books which nearly made the Canon but didn’t, more than likely because they taught doctrine that the bishops didn’t like. 2 Peter a writing that should not be in the Bible but it is. Thus why reading other early Christian writings is beneficial; unless they are Gnostic texts that is.
J
John_Lazarus
Guest
What’s wrong with 2 Peter?2 Peter a writing that should not be in the Bible but it is.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I am inclined to agree. It is canon. Most Christians accept it. It should be in the Bible or it WOULDN’T beWhat’s wrong with 2 Peter?
B
Bookcat
Guest
2 Peter is Sacred Scripture.
D
drforjc
Guest
Statements like jas84173 made make me all the more grateful to God for giving the Church the authority to determine the canon. I do not have to “personally” believe what should or should not be in Scripture.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!I don’t get this passage. Can someone help explain it?
…there are sins and then there are sins… that’s what the Church Teaches…
While some “lies” may seem far from damaging, they eventually lead to more serious behavior, including a life of lies (compulsive lying); “little white lies” seem to imply that there’s really nothing wrong… yet, Jesus Word is:
(St. Matthew 5:37)37 All you need say is “Yes” if you mean yes, “No” if you mean no; anything more than this comes from the evil one.
44 The devil is your father, and you prefer to do what your father wants. He was a murderer from the start; he was never grounded in the truth; there is no truth in him at all: when he lies he is drawing on his own store, because he is a liar, and the father of lies. (St. John 8:44)
…so while a little white lie (as “to look out for someone”) may seem quite inoffensive… it is rooted in the devil and leads, and may keep us, away from God.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!Who knows. I personally believe the Apocalypse of Peter should be in the Bible, among some other books that were very popular in early Christianity. And at the end of the Apocalypse of Peter, Jesus says “My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, … It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men… [and God said]”… thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin."
So universal salvation was taught in this. Probably why it didn’t make the Bible. Kind of like the Shepherd of Hermas could be interpreted to mean further revelation is possible throughout time. I’m Catholic but I am very much interested in the books which nearly made the Canon but didn’t, more than likely because they taught doctrine that the bishops didn’t like. 2 Peter a writing that should not be in the Bible but it is. Thus why reading other early Christian writings is beneficial; unless they are Gnostic texts that is.
…I think that it goes deeper than “taught a doctrine that the bishops didn’t like.”
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!Statements like jas84173 made make me all the more grateful to God for giving the Church the authority to determine the canon. I do not have to “personally” believe what should or should not be in Scripture.
…it’s hollowood’s spiritualism: ‘take what you like, exclude what you don’t like, and make up the rest!’
Christianity is not about personal empowerment (believe, trust, achieve, just do it–all egocentric calls); it’s about submitting to God’s Will–the second we forget this we begin to reinvent the wheel and create our own 'paths" to God! :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Maran atha!
Angel
- Status
- Not open for further replies.