Is it a mortal sin

[JRKH]

I bet so. A great time for serenity. Even though I only have an old push-mower, not even self-propelling. But the area is not large.

Yea - isn’t it funny that something so “noisy” can also be something so “quiet”. I understand about the push mower. I’m restricted to that now as well.
At the time that God spoke to me, even with the noise of the mower, it was so clear and soft…

I can understand that. But, you see, there are children, who only see that their mother is now gone. They do not understand. They pray, and their prayer goes unanswered. Let’s not fool ourselves that the “answer was NO”. There is no answer. Period. (By the way, this is another euphemism “the answer was: no” which goes under my skin - because it is so obviously a cop-out. Let’s call a “spade” a “spade” and let’s not use politically correct euphemisms.)

Yes - As children it is hard for us to understand things like death.
Did you lose your mother at a young age?

I really do not wish to hurt your feelings. But this is just a cop-out in my eyes. You ask for something, and nothing happens - that is the unvarnished truth.

Jesus promised: “whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled”. Not a hard to understand promise, which needs to be interpreted. No exceptions mentioned. As Dostoyevskyfan mentioned: “…he cannot refuse me because the Bible says he will 'not reject anyone who comes to him”. Yet it seems to me that the requests which are actually filfilled are as rare as white ravens. And the requests which are not fulfilled are all over the place.

You bring out a good point and one that many do not understand - Especially children.
What does it mean to “pray in Jesus name”. Is is an “abracadabra” sort of magic word, or is there more to it than the mere mention of the name itself? Maybe the problem is that we say the wrong “name” because we say it in English instead of in Aramaic or Hebrew…
No -I’m sure you do not subscribe to this any more than I do.
Praying in Jesus name means more than just some sort of magical incantation of a word, it means praying in conformance with the teachings of Jesus. It means seeking to pray as Jesus prayed and in this we have the Lords Prayer as our guide. The disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray and he responded with a 5 tiered outline.
In this prayer there is a hierarchy…1) Praise of God, 2) Desire for His Will and not ours, 3) Request for our basic needs, 4) Request for forgiveness in accord with how we forgive others and finally, 5) A request for divine guidance and protection.

The more closely we conform our will to God’s Will - the more firmly we seek to emulate Christ - the more effective will be our prayers.

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

Did you lose your mother at a young age?

No, I was lucky I guess. She was of age 82 and I was 55. She quietly passed away in her sleep, and we had the honor of witnessing her last breath. If I would be religious, I would say that we were “blessed” to participate in her final moments.

You bring out a good point and one that many do not understand - Especially children.
What does it mean to “pray in Jesus name”. Is is an “abracadabra” sort of magic word, or is there more to it than the mere mention of the name itself? Maybe the problem is that we say the wrong “name” because we say it in English instead of in Aramaic or Hebrew…
No -I’m sure you do not subscribe to this any more than I do.
Praying in Jesus name means more than just some sort of magical incantation of a word, it means praying in conformance with the teachings of Jesus. It means seeking to pray as Jesus prayed and in this we have the Lords Prayer as our guide. The disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray and he responded with a 5 tiered outline.
In this prayer there is a hierarchy…1) Praise of God, 2) Desire for His Will and not ours, 3) Request for our basic needs, 4) Request for forgiveness in accord with how we forgive others and finally, 5) A request for divine guidance and protection.

The more closely we conform our will to God’s Will - the more firmly we seek to emulate Christ - the more effective will be our prayers.

The problem here is obvious. To ask in the name of Jesus is something along the way you expressed. The prayer should be in “synch” what God is supposed to value: peace, love, goodwill and so on. I am sure that millions of good people fervently pray for these goals. Yet, nothing happens.

 

[JRKH]

No, I was lucky I guess. She was of age 82 and I was 55. She quietly passed away in her sleep, and we had the honor of witnessing her last breath. If I would be religious, I would say that we were “blessed” to participate in her final moments.

Yes, you were blessed to be there - religious or not, it was a blessing for you and your mother…Perhaps she is praying for you right now.

The problem here is obvious. To ask in the name of Jesus is something along the way you expressed. The prayer should be in “synch” what God is supposed to value: peace, love, goodwill and so on. I am sure that millions of good people fervently pray for these goals. Yet, nothing happens.

I am just as sure that millions of good people are fervently praying for these goals and something IS happening.

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

I am just as sure that millions of good people are fervently praying for these goals and something IS happening.

If only that “happening” could be told apart from “not happening”. If only there would be fewer atrocities, murders, rapes, etc… but if there is a change, its very small, infinitesimally small. Not a visible, radical, heart-warming change one would expect from a divine action. Again, I would expect that God acted in our best interest. There is no sign that he does.

I understand that you believe otherwise. Do you have any measurable evidence that your belief is grounded in reality, and not just pure faith - which is believing what one hopes for??

 

[Windfish]

You misunderstand what mortal sin is. It is a grave matter to not attend Mass. It only becomes a mortal sin when it meets several criteria. For many non-Catholics, though, not only do they not meet that criteria, their ignorance of the truth of the Catholicism makes them blameless and without sin. It is still a grave matter, but there is no personal fault.

If I may say so, it doesn’t seem like you are familiar with the subject matter even though you have been here for quite a long time - it makes me wonder if you have gone through the trouble at all of actually taking time and educating yourself with the best authors and resources so as to give Catholicism the best possible shot. Do you mind if I ask what your library is? What have you read on Catholicism?

 

[Spock]

You misunderstand what mortal sin is. It is a grave matter to not attend Mass.

Thank you, but I know the details. I have read them many times.

1. the act must be a grave matter.
2. the person committing the act is fully aware of this fact.
3. the person acts with full consent.

It only becomes a mortal sin when it meets several criteria. For many non-Catholics, though, not only do they not meet that criteria, their ignorance of the truth of the Catholicism makes them blameless and without sin. It is still a grave matter, but there is no personal fault.

Speaking of myself, I heard that it is a grave matter - but I disagree. I am aware that it is considered a grave matter by Catholicism - but I disagree. I willfully do not attend mass. Does my simple disagreement constitute “invincible ignorance”?

What you say is most interesting and encouraging, but I wonder, if it reflects some official, infallible teaching of the Church, or is it a personal opinion? If it is an official and infallible teaching then atheists and all non-Catholics are in a very good shape when it comes to “mortal sins”. After all, non-Catholics are “ignorant” (to be more precise they reject according to their own conscience) of the “truth of Catholicism”, and thus we are all blameless. So we cannot commit a mortal sin, if we disagree with the Church, even if we are fully aware of the Church’s teachings. Of course we do agree with many of the Church’s teachings, so we can commit mortal sins, but only if we agree with the Church (according to our conscience). What about those Catholics, who disagree with some teachings of the Church? I heard the “loving, charitable” word of “heretic” applied to those people. Since they also disagree with some teaching of the Church, do they fall into the culpable category?

Are you really sure that this is the offical, infallible teaching of the Church?

If I may say so, it doesn’t seem like you are familiar with the subject matter even though you have been here for quite a long time - it makes me wonder if you have gone through the trouble at all of actually taking time and educating yourself with the best authors and resources so as to give Catholicism the best possible shot. Do you mind if I ask what your library is? What have you read on Catholicism?

You are welcome to say anything, since you do it with proper goodwill and courtesy. I think that I am aware of those aspects of Catholicism, which are usually debated on these forums, since I read the posts and understand them - though I see many differing opinions by different Catholics. I read the Bible, though not every word of it, I read some of the catecism, and looked at the posted lists of the dogmas. And I read quite a few books written by apologists. By the way, I think we all would benefit if the Church would compose an official and inclusive list of all the infallible teachings, and post it for all of us to see. So many confusions could be cleared up with one click of the mouse.

 

[Windfish]

Spock, your latest post is exactly what I am talking about. In the same way you seemed to display an ignorance of what mortal sin is, you seem to be under false understandings of what invincible ignorance is and the nature and degrees of authority of the Catholic Church. All of these would be mitigated if you picked up a good book on them. Not to be snarky, but it’s pretty basic stuff, and I am thinking it might be better for you if I don’t answer and let you buy a book. Who knows, maybe that’s why you are an atheist, you haven’t really dived into the material. To give an example, there is an incredible amount of rigorous and thorough data, scientific and historical, on modern miracles in the Catholic Church that point to it being the one true religion. I can’t imagine being an atheist after seeing this data.

 

[Spock]

Spock, your latest post is exactly what I am talking about. In the same way you seemed to display an ignorance of what mortal sin is, you seem to be under false understandings of what invincible ignorance is and the nature and degrees of authority of the Catholic Church. All of these would be mitigated if you picked up a good book on them. Not to be snarky, but it’s pretty basic stuff, and I am thinking it might be better for you if I don’t answer and let you buy a book. Who knows, maybe that’s why you are an atheist, you haven’t really dived into the material. To give an example, there is an incredible amount of rigorous and thorough data, scientific and historical, on modern miracles in the Catholic Church that point to it being the one true religion. I can’t imagine being an atheist after seeing this data.

You only speak of “a book”. What book? Does it have a title? An author? I would prefer a dialog, starting with a criticism of what I wrote. But, of course it is your choice.

Does the authority of the Catholic Church extend to those who reject this “authority”? You wrote this: “For many non-Catholics, though, not only do they not meet that criteria, their ignorance of the truth of the Catholicism makes them blameless and without sin. It is still a grave matter, but there is no personal fault.” I asked a very specific question from you: “Is that an official, infallible teaching of the Church?”. If you are interested in a dialog, you can answer this. If you are not interested, that is fine, too.

Speaking of those “miracles”, is there an ofiicial, infallible list of those miracles?

 

[levinas12]

Spock:
" I asked a very specific question from you: “Is that an official, infallible teaching of the Church?”.

It may not meet your criteria but the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 8, presents an outline of the Church’s teaching on sin. Paragraph 1860 under IV of Article 8 discusses unintentional ignorance.

All of this is subject to a prudential call, i.e., every situation is different so there is an ad hoc quality to these matters.

As in Aristotle, the “mean” varies with the individual agent.

I’m not sure if this citation has already come up in previous postings on this thread. You may be already familiar with this citation, or its general content. But it’s the best I could do under time constraints, etc. I think it does provide a segue for further discussion.

 

[JRKH]

If only that “happening” could be told apart from “not happening”. If only there would be fewer atrocities, murders, rapes, etc… but if there is a change, its very small, infinitesimally small. Not a visible, radical, heart-warming change one would expect from a divine action. Again, I would expect that God acted in our best interest. There is no sign that he does.

I understand that you believe otherwise. Do you have any measurable evidence that your belief is grounded in reality, and not just pure faith - which is believing what one hopes for??

Spock,
No, I don’t have “measurable evidence”.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure there is “measurable evidence” for the opposite view either. You say:
If only that “happening” could be told apart from “not happening”. If only there would be fewer atrocities, murders, rapes, etc
The term “fewer” here seems to me to be rather nebulous when it comes to “measurable evidence”. What constitutes “fewer”? If you read in the paper that “Crime is down” and thus have “evidence”, do you attribute this to God’s benevolence? Yet it appears that you wish to use crime as evidence of God’s “lack of care”.
Shall we try to compare the numbers of crimes to the numbers of “not crimes”? In statistics this might be referred to as “failures per opportunity” but then how does one define “opportunity” for a crime?
Shall we compare the numbers of crimes per day to the numbers of “benevolent” actions per day? – Unfortunately I don’t think that there are any “measurable evidence” kept for “benevolent actions” in the way one can find numbers for crime.

Even If one were to seek to try to quantify these things specifically as “God’s response to prayer”, there are a great number of factors that would need to be taken into consideration and not simply whether there are “fewer” crimes in relation to “prayers”. Many of these factors would be difficult or impossible to scientifically quantify and control in and of themselves. Which makes science, in it’s present state, a very poor methodology for gauging the efficacy of prayer.

Peace
James

 

[levinas12]

It may not meet your criteria but the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 8, presents an outline of the Church’s teaching on sin. Paragraph 1860 under IV of Article 8 discusses unintentional ignorance.

All of this is subject to a prudential call, i.e., every situation is different so there is an ad hoc quality to these matters.

As in Aristotle, the “mean” varies with the individual agent.

I’m not sure if this citation has already come up in previous postings on this thread. You may be already familiar with this citation, or its general content. But it’s the best I could do under time constraints, etc. I think it does provide a segue for further discussion.

I know you wanted a dialogue instead of a citation. But you did ask about a book, an author, etc. I’ll have to post some of my own thoughts a bit later.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Onward with the experiment! All in favor of Spock saying the rosary in a Cathedral say “aye”. For the purposes of the experiment, I think it would be helpful if at least a few posters in this thread would say a rosary for Mr.Spock as I think it will increase the success chances. I think I will.

If he does follow through with my proposal, I think we may be dealing with a “Saint Spock” in the near future. The possibilities are very exciting! Possible results from the experiment could be “signal graces” (bizarre unexplainable coincidences relating to matters of faith) all the way to an all out vision/revelation of biblical proportions. Mr.Spock seems to have a very high standard for what constitutes “evidence for belief”. Stigmata, Lourdes healings, and nuclear bomb survivals seem to be insufficient, therefore who here can doubt that God will provide “extra-ordinary” evidence for the “extra-ordinary” claim that Jesus is God? If he says the rosary, I am sure God will accomodate him. Just as he did with Thomas.

 

[JRKH]

Onward with the experiment! All in favor of Spock saying the rosary in a Cathedral say “aye”. For the purposes of the experiment, I think it would be helpful if at least a few posters in this thread would say a rosary for Mr.Spock as I think it will increase the success chances. I think I will.

If he does follow through with my proposal, I think we may be dealing with a “Saint Spock” in the near future. The possibilities are very exciting! Possible results from the experiment could be “signal graces” (bizarre unexplainable coincidences relating to matters of faith) all the way to an all out vision/revelation of biblical proportions. Mr.Spock seems to have a very high standard for what constitutes “evidence for belief”. Stigmata, Lourdes healings, and nuclear bomb survivals seem to be insufficient, therefore who here can doubt that God will provide “extra-ordinary” evidence for the “extra-ordinary” claim that Jesus is God? If he says the rosary, I am sure God will accommodate him. Just as he did with Thomas.

Spock is and will be definitely in my thoughts and prayers as he moves forward with this “experiment”.

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

No, I don’t have “measurable evidence”.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure there is “measurable evidence” for the opposite view either. You say:
If only that “happening” could be told apart from “not happening”. If only there would be fewer atrocities, murders, rapes, etc
The term “fewer” here seems to me to be rather nebulous when it comes to “measurable evidence”. What constitutes “fewer”?

Something that is significant. Fortuantely there is a way to use the chi-square probe of statistics.

If you read in the paper that “Crime is down” and thus have “evidence”, do you attribute this to God’s benevolence? Yet it appears that you wish to use crime as evidence of God’s “lack of care”.

If there would be a huge drop in crime (preferably cessasion of violent crimes), which cannot be explained, then I would be inclined to attribute it to God. Small fluctuations do not matter.

Even If one were to seek to try to quantify these things specifically as “God’s response to prayer”, there are a great number of factors that would need to be taken into consideration and not simply whether there are “fewer” crimes in relation to “prayers”. Many of these factors would be difficult or impossible to scientifically quantify and control in and of themselves. Which makes science, in it’s present state, a very poor methodology for gauging the efficacy of prayer.

It is not easy to measure the effectiveness of prayer. There have been numerous experiments, and the result was never significant. You could set up a wide network, and try to pray for something measurable, and see if the result is more significant than what one could expect from mere statistical fluctuation. Of course the “prayed-for event” should not be something frivolous, it should be for something that we think is in accordance with God’s wishes.

 

[Spock]

I know you wanted a dialogue instead of a citation. But you did ask about a book, an author, etc. I’ll have to post some of my own thoughts a bit later.

Thanks.

 

[Spock]

Onward with the experiment! All in favor of Spock saying the rosary in a Cathedral say “aye”. For the purposes of the experiment, I think it would be helpful if at least a few posters in this thread would say a rosary for Mr.Spock as I think it will increase the success chances. I think I will.

If he does follow through with my proposal, I think we may be dealing with a “Saint Spock” in the near future. The possibilities are very exciting! Possible results from the experiment could be “signal graces” (bizarre unexplainable coincidences relating to matters of faith) all the way to an all out vision/revelation of biblical proportions. Mr.Spock seems to have a very high standard for what constitutes “evidence for belief”. Stigmata, Lourdes healings, and nuclear bomb survivals seem to be insufficient, therefore who here can doubt that God will provide “extra-ordinary” evidence for the “extra-ordinary” claim that Jesus is God? If he says the rosary, I am sure God will accomodate him. Just as he did with Thomas.

That would work for me. Thank you for your kind wishes. As I said, tomorrow we shall go for a cruise trip, and will be back in about 10 days. I will report the result when I am back.

Spock is and will be definitely in my thoughts and prayers as he moves forward with this “experiment”.

Thank you

 

[JRKH]

That would work for me. Thank you for your kind wishes. As I said, tomorrow we shall go for a cruise trip, and will be back in about 10 days. I will report the result when I am back.

Thank you

You are welcome.

Have a fun and safe trip.

Peace
James

 

[Windfish]

I asked a very specific question from you: “Is that an official, infallible teaching of the Church?”. If you are interested in a dialog, you can answer this.

Anyone familiar with the nature of the infallibility of the Church knows that yours is a confused question - in order to really answer it, I would have to go into the confused thinking that gave rise to it. And, honestly speaking, I am not competent enough right now to go into such a systematic exploration.

Spock:

Speaking of those “miracles”, is there an ofiicial, infallible list of those miracles?

What a weird question. Anyway, no. PM me about them. There is no reason to be a non-Catholic after viewing this information.

 

[Don_Machiavelli]

Is the belief currently held still that one immediately goes to hell (no excuses) if he dies in a state of mortal sin?

 

[fhansen]

Is the belief currently held still that one immediately goes to hell (no excuses) if he dies in a state of mortal sin?

It’s impossible for us to judge one’s state at any point in time so the categorizations of sin are really to act as guidelines- and describe principles. The intention is not to breed scrupulosity but rather to instruct us when we may be acting outside of or in opposition to the standard of Love, which the entire Law is based on-because love of God and neighbor is what constitutes our justice.

Sin is a reality in human life and it’s possible for sin to be so serious that it implies we’ve moved farther away from love and life and nearer to the cold selfishness and death that we can be drawn to. This is why the Catechism teaches that mortal sin destroys love in ones heart. God is love (1John 4:8) and the absence of God/love is hell.

**1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. **