Is it easier to post what isn't a sin?

[FidesSpesCarita]

Proverbs are just that, proverbs. They are not necessarily literally true, so claiming that passage means “good men” literally sin 7 times each day is …well…at best not required by Christian faith and at worst ridiculous.

Such a claim also begs other questions…what about women? How often do they sin daily?

What about “bad men” (and of course “bad women”)–how often do they sin daily?

If I sin 7 times in one day, no more and no less, in accordance with the Bible, does that mean I am de facto a “good man”?

The point is that even a “just man” sins 7 times, therefore those of us who arent just sin more often than that. And please dont fall to the puerile “what about women”. Have some intellectual integrity here.

Are you trying to say that you can actually avoid sin? That you can go a whole day without sin? I am just confused what your grudge with this is.

That didn’t answer the question of why the importance of any Church.

Actually it does.

The importance of the Church… that would require a VERY long reply. I suppose to keep it short I will address just a few things.

1. Since we all sin daily, with varying degrees of willing participation, we are all constantly harming our relationship with God. This means that we must be, on a regular basis, attempting to heal our bond with God, which is not to say that we can fix it ourselves or by our actions, but we need to seek reconciliation with him which he has gratuitously provided for us in the sacrament of penance. It is through this sacrament that we can come to God, beg forgiveness, receive absolution, and do penance, all of which lead us back into union with God. The hard part for most people is that this sacrament requires REPENTANCE, colloquially speaking the attitude that says “I will never do that sin again”. Since many of us lack that true repentant spirit and only can attain imperfect contrition we must continue to revisit the sacrament regularly and often for the same sins. “Church” is the crutch, figuratively speaking, which assists us in living this life of and in Christ “wherever two or more are gathered in my name”. Without a Church to organize the followers, teach hermeneutics, instruct the young, etc. there would be no cohesive whole but a myriad of individual people following whatever they thought they should. Christ prayed that all would be one, not that all should go their own way.
2. Since we know scripturally that God instituted a Church, instructed Peter to feed his sheep, and gave the apostles His authority to bind and loose and forgive or withhold forgiveness of sin, if we love Christ we must obey him and follow those he placed over us. We must follow those whom we can know were given authority by Christ and follow in faith their successors in order that we may be assured of following the accurate, correct, and complete teachings of Christ.
3. We know of few ordinary ways to attain salvation. We must be baptized, we must “pick up your cross and follow [Christ]”, we must “persevere” until the end, that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man in order that we may have life within us. Christ tells us time and again in the Gospels that the one who loves him will obey him and that whoever obeys him loves him. In order to obey him we must follow his instruction. There is no other place where one can receive the Body and Blood of Christ other than the Catholic Church (Here I am counting the orthodox among our number since we are essentially two brothers having a spat). There is no place on earth outside of the confessional where a person (since you seem to like gender inclusive language and get offended by the use of “man” to refer to “mankind”… or should it be man/woman kind?) may receive absolution.
4. There is but one Church (again including the orthodox for the same reason as above) that can trace its descendants to the apostles and through them to Christ. Remember what St. Augustine said re: the scriptures “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”

Again, I dont understand the level of umbrage my comments seem to have garnered from a Catholic. We are all sinners, there can be no doubt of that. We all have need of the Church simply because of what I listed in my first post, but slightly more extensively because of what I listed in the second.

Perhaps you could tell me why YOU feel we need The Church or any church? Or perhaps why we dont need either? Whichever way you feel, please explain. Also, please explain how you can avoid sinning (since you dislike the biblical statement that a good man sins 7 times you must assume that you can avoid sinning or at least that a good man can) since if there is a way to avoid sin that is in line with the teachings of Christ and his Church I would jump on that like a fat kid on cake… mmmm… cake… Dang it, now I want cake… Or pie… Whatever…

FSC

EDIT: I apologize for the vitriolic response. I have left the body of the post unedited, as a kind of reminder for myself… But I humbly apologize for the lack of charity.

 

[Vince1022]

The point is that even a “just man” sins 7 times, therefore those of us who arent just sin more often than that. And please dont fall to the puerile “what about women”. Have some intellectual integrity here.

My point, with all integrity, and without meaning to be puerile, is that we can’t read anything from the Bible that says people sin a given number of times each day.

Are you trying to say that you can actually avoid sin? That you can go a whole day without sin?

Yes, sin can be avoided, but I’m not saying I nor anyone else necessarily does do on a given day. I’m just saying that the Bible does not say that everyone sins every day, nor that everyone sins a minimum or certain number of times each day.

 

[Vince1022]

[BIBLEDRB]Proverbs 24:16[/BIBLEDRB]

See my post above, quoted below.

I think I was concerned about your statement that we all “sin without desire or intent every day.”

When judging sin, “intent” is a key element (along with circumstances and object). I may have misunderstood what you meant, but I was concerned that you might be saying people can sin regardless of (i.e. without) intent. I just don’t think it’s adequate or accurate to say people can sin without intent (depending on what “without intent” means).

Can you clarify? Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

T

Actually it does.

The importance of the Church… that would require a VERY long reply. I suppose to keep it short I will address just a few things.

1. Since we all sin daily, with varying degrees of willing participation, we are all constantly harming our relationship with God. This means that we must be, on a regular basis, attempting to heal our bond with God, which is not to say that we can fix it ourselves or by our actions, but we need to seek reconciliation with him which he has gratuitously provided for us in the sacrament of penance. It is through this sacrament that we can come to God, beg forgiveness, receive absolution, and do penance, all of which lead us back into union with God. The hard part for most people is that this sacrament requires REPENTANCE, colloquially speaking the attitude that says “I will never do that sin again”. Since many of us lack that true repentant spirit and only can attain imperfect contrition we must continue to revisit the sacrament regularly and often for the same sins. “Church” is the crutch, figuratively speaking, which assists us in living this life of and in Christ “wherever two or more are gathered in my name”. Without a Church to organize the followers, teach hermeneutics, instruct the young, etc. there would be no cohesive whole but a myriad of individual people following whatever they thought they should. Christ prayed that all would be one, not that all should go their own way.
2. Since we know scripturally that God instituted a Church, instructed Peter to feed his sheep, and gave the apostles His authority to bind and loose and forgive or withhold forgiveness of sin, if we love Christ we must obey him and follow those he placed over us. We must follow those whom we can know were given authority by Christ and follow in faith their successors in order that we may be assured of following the accurate, correct, and complete teachings of Christ.
3. We know of few ordinary ways to attain salvation. We must be baptized, we must “pick up your cross and follow [Christ]”, we must “persevere” until the end, that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man in order that we may have life within us. Christ tells us time and again in the Gospels that the one who loves him will obey him and that whoever obeys him loves him. In order to obey him we must follow his instruction. There is no other place where one can receive the Body and Blood of Christ other than the Catholic Church (Here I am counting the orthodox among our number since we are essentially two brothers having a spat). There is no place on earth outside of the confessional where a person (since you seem to like gender inclusive language and get offended by the use of “man” to refer to “mankind”… or should it be man/woman kind?) may receive absolution.
4. There is but one Church (again including the orthodox for the same reason as above) that can trace its descendants to the apostles and through them to Christ. Remember what St. Augustine said re: the scriptures “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”

Again, I dont understand the level of umbrage my comments seem to have garnered from a Catholic. We are all sinners, there can be no doubt of that. We all have need of the Church simply because of what I listed in my first post, but slightly more extensively because of what I listed in the second.

Perhaps you could tell me why YOU feel we need The Church or any church? Or perhaps why we dont need either? Whichever way you feel, please explain. Also, please explain how you can avoid sinning (since you dislike the biblical statement that a good man sins 7 times you must assume that you can avoid sinning or at least that a good man can) since if there is a way to avoid sin that is in line with the teachings of Christ and his Church I would jump on that like a fat kid on cake… mmmm… cake… Dang it, now I want cake… Or pie… Whatever…

FSC

EDIT: I apologize for the vitriolic response. I have left the body of the post unedited, as a kind of reminder for myself… But I humbly apologize for the lack of charity.

In the post I responded to you said “Well, Big Dummy is technically correct here. It is a true statement that All we must do is life the law of God and prove our walk by our fruits.”

My only point was that such a thing may be done by any individual, based on their own understanding of God and God’s laws, regardless of a given community or Church. Right?

Your further clarification here is very helpful. Thanks!

Regarding your further points…

The question of whether, Scripturally, God instituted a Church is debatable.

Also, as the Catholic Church teaches, salvation is possible for non-Christians.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I think I was concerned about your statement that we all “sin without desire or intent every day.”

When judging sin, “intent” is a key element (along with circumstances and object). I may have misunderstood what you meant, but I was concerned that you might be saying people can sin regardless of (i.e. without) intent. I just don’t think it’s adequate or accurate to say people can sin without intent (depending on what “without intent” means).

Can you clarify? Thanks.

Clarification:

Mortal sin requires intent, venial sin does not. Mortal Sin requires the three conditions: Grave matter, full knowledge, full consent. Venial sin has none of those requirements.

{CCC} 1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135

that 135 at the end is a reference to… well, here I will paste it 135 St. Augustine, In ep. Jo. 1,6L 35,1982.

To say that sin can be avoided when the definition of venial sin is “without full knowledge or consent” is clearly inaccurate. A Sin is something that goes against the will of God. It has no regard for the intent or even the knowledge of the act. It IS possible, and quite difficult to avoid, sinning without intent. That does not mean that we are all damned. Just think of the first commandment and ask yourself “Is there anything I have done today that was not done entirely out of love for God? Have I loved the Lord my God with all my heart, with all my soul, with all me strength?” I know that I cannot say that I have loved God like that. It does not make us bad people, Paul told us that the good he wished to do was what he did NOT do, while the sin he did not wish to do was what he did. If Paul did not want to sin, but sinned anyway, then intent has little to nothing to do with the fact of sin, but much to do with its impact on our salvation.

In the post I responded to you said “Well, Big Dummy is technically correct here. It is a true statement that All we must do is life the law of God and prove our walk by our fruits.”

My only point was that such a thing may be done by any individual, based on their own understanding of God and God’s laws, regardless of a given community or Church. Right?

No, such a thing is not possible. Only one person has ever managed to live out the life we are called to by Christ: The Blessed Virgin Mary, my Mother. Reread that post and dont stop at that sentence, continue reading the rest of the post.

Your further clarification here is very helpful. Thanks!

Hey, I like giving my opinions, no thanks are required

Regarding your further points…

The question of whether, Scripturally, God instituted a Church is debatable.

Also, as the Catholic Church teaches, salvation is possible for non-Christians.

Yes, Christ instituted a Church, founded on Peter, followed by the other apostles, with a hierarchy of deacons, priests, and bishops. all scriptural, including the passing on of authority by the laying on of hands which has been continued in unbroken succession to today in the Catholic Church.

Yes, Salvation is attainable by non-catholics and even non-christians, but those are the EXTRAordinary events. the only way we know of to obtain salvation (the beatific vision, if you will) is through baptism, reception of the sacraments, essentially that which is taught in the Church. If you are willing to bet your salvation on extraordinary, unusual, or infrequent (by definition) gifts of God when he has given us a sure way, be my guest. But you have been warned by me (which aint worth much ), by the Catholic Church, and by Scripture.

 

[Vince1022]

Mortal sin requires intent, venial sin does not.

Where does the Catholic Church teach this? Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

C

Yes, Christ instituted a Church,

Again, a theologically debatable claim.

 

[Vince1022]

No, such a thing is not possible.

Ok, but your post I responded to seemed to me to suggest otherwise. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[Vince1022]

Yes, Salvation is attainable by non-catholics and even non-christians, but those are the EXTRAordinary events.

I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that such events are “EXTRAordinary”…any reference? Thanks again.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Again, a theologically debatable claim.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]

Where does the Catholic Church teach this? Thanks.

Did you read the CC reference I quoted above?

Ok, but your post I responded to seemed to me to suggest otherwise. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

It would not have suggested otherwise had you continued reading the post.

I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that such events are “EXTRAordinary”…any reference? Thanks again.

We need to get you a Catechism

Here you go

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Any other questions?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

or go here for more information

catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

 

[Vince1022]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]

Yes of course Matt 16:18 as well as all of the New Testament. Still, the point remains, it’s theologically debatable whether or not, from the New Testament witness, Christ intended to institute a Church.

 

[Vince1022]

Did you read the CC reference I quoted above?

Yes, which is why I asked the question. Where does the Catechism or any Church teaching say that venial sin does not require intent?

 

[Vince1022]

We need to get you a Catechism

No, I have one. Actually, more than one. You didn’t answer my question. Try again?

 

[Debora123]

“Originally Posted by Debora123
I’m honestly getting pretty sick of this thread. It’s frustrating to see Catholics saying such things. My mother and I both went to a catholic college and got bachelor’s degrees in theology, specializing in Catholicism, and people still quote me and tell me I’m wrong, while making pretty weak points and often times even misinterpreting what I said.”

I know what you meant, I wanted to clarify for those who did not. When you make the statement that

*Originally Posted by Debora123
I said they were “ape like creatures,” not the same apes that exist today. There’s plenty of proof out there. There are fossils and skeletons of creatures that were somewhere in between a monkey and a human, and the older the skeletons were, the more ape like they were, while the newer ones were more human like. This is evidence that we evolved from species that didn’t start off as the human race today. We studied this and were taught about it in the Catholic school I went to.

JPII talks about intelligent design and evolution in his books. It’s ok to believe in evolution and the CC at the same time.*

You leave yourself very open to people not understanding your statement.

Well if you had read my post #41 you would have seen that I actually DO explain that I full heartedly believe God created our souls. I very specifically mention that. So I’ll have to disagree with you saying I “leave myself open to misinterpretation.” If you had read all my posts you would have seen that I actually DO explain myself quite clearly. Anyhow, why would you take what I said and argue against me if you claim you “knew what I meant?” Just for the sake of arguing? Interesting.

"Originally Posted by Debora123

1. I WAS talking about the evolution of the human physical form. You’re the second person to call me out and tell me I’m wrong about what I said regarding evolution because you say “God created our souls.” Yes, I know, God did create our souls. I was talking about the physical form, I don’t know where in there people are getting the idea that I’m suggesting that our souls weren’t created by God." *

See above. Your statements are ambiguous at best and show a lack of regard for your listener receiving the true teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the creation of Man.

Again, you accuse me of having lack of regard for my listeners because supposedly I didn’t explain that I still believe God created the human soul. Except I DID. And if you had actually read all my posts before making that accusation, you would have seen that I quite clearly do indeed state exactly that in my post #41.

Since you seem quite obstinate in asserting that you dont actually have to follow the teachings of the Church to be in the Church, I am going to answer this out of the Catechism… again…

Wow. Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to do here - claiming that I don’t actually have to follow the teachings of the Church, lol.

Anyway, about the catechism, you’re right. It says that “original sin” is not something that we can fully comprehend. We try to compare it to things we can understand, although it goes a lot deeper than that. We try to understand it/explain it by saying that it’s something we’ve inherited, or by saying that it’s some kind of “mark.” When obviously, those two things are just a symbolic way of saying that original sin is something we all have as a result of our imperfect nature. What is our imperfect nature? It’s the fact that we sin, and we all CHOOSE to sin. With the exception of the Virgin Mary (who was born without original sin), none of us is perfectly freed from sin.

We can also conclude that the catechism uses “Adam” symbolically, since we all know now, thanks to science, that it was historically and mathematically impossible for there to have been only one first man and one first women. (And if you’re going to bash me for making this statement, please refer to my earlier posts about the proof behind human evolution and JPII’s approval of it.)

 

[Debora123]

“Originally posted by Debora123
3. Yes, you quoted the bible. The bible says many many HEINOUS things. There are a lot of things in the bible that we don’t take literally, and that we completely ignore. The bible isn’t the main pillar of truth, the Church is.”

Please tell me you arent being serious here. You went to a CATHOLIC school and this what you received? What are the three “legs of the stool” we are all taught in Catechism class? Mine were Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium. But here’s a Catechism quote, since you love that work so very much

Oh I was being completely serious. We had big class discussions about all this. Unless I wanted to go back and tell all my nun professors that they were wrong, I can’t really take back anything I’ve been saying, because it comes straight from my education. Everything I said in my above quote is true, and I don’t see how any Catholic can deny that. Let’s break it down:

1. The bible says many heinous things that we don’t take literally.

I am sorry, but this is true. We all know the old testament says some horrible horrible things.

Example: “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them… “Now … kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
– Numbers 31:1-18 (NIV)

The new testament isn’t nearly as notorious but there are some pretty bad things there as well.

Example: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
– I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

Like I said, we don’t take these things literally. They are examples/symbols representing some type of lesson to learn. You’re right, a lot of the Catechism IS based on scripture. But not all of it. I didn’t say every single thing written in the bible is terrible, and none of it is to be taken literally. I just said “some.” I don’t see why any Catholic would have a problem with that statement.

1. The bible isn’t the main pillar of truth, the Church is.

Again, I am surprised that you, as a Catholic, would argue this.

Read 1 Timothy 3:15. Or better yet, read this: catscans.com/catholicsite/bible.htm

So there it all is. I WAS being serious. I went to Catholic school/college, and this is what I received.

 

[Debora123]

*Originally posted by Debora 123
I don’t know what it is about this forum that attracts so many fundamentalists/extremists, but I’ve never heard a Catholic say that someone who isn’t baptized or who isn’t Christian is going to Hell. That’s definitely not what I’ve been taught. Both the Catechism and the Bible say a lot of things that can very easily be taken out of context, and that we know aren’t meant to be taken so literally. JPII himself admits to contradicting the Catechism in multiple occasions. We can’t sit here and say we know who is going to Hell based on what they have and have not done in their lives. One, because it’s not that black and white, and two, because it’s God’s business and God’s business alone. Only He knows what is in someone’s heart, so how about we stop being so ridiculous and claiming that we know when someone is or is not “saved.”
*

Correct, we cannot say we know with certainty. But what we can say is that ONE SIN is enough to send us to hell. When we see people in sin we need to “admonish the sinner” and attempt to bring all people to heaven.

One sin IS enough to send someone to Hell. I never said otherwise, so I don’t know why you’re using this as an argument against my statement above. And correct ME if I’m wrong but there is a right way and a wrong way of trying to help someone get to heaven. All I’m saying here is that it’s wrong to point fingers and judge people, and try to tell them they’re going to Hell. It’s not loving, and it’s just going to push them farther away from God. Agree or no?

And I cant believe that you are a Catholic who went to Catholic School, apparently at least minored in theology, and still dont know the fundamentals of your faith… Bishop Sheen was apparently correct when he said “If you want your child to lose the faith, send him to a Catholic school. If you want him to fight for the faith, send him to a public school.”

What exactly makes you think I don’t know the fundamentals of my faith? You don’t know me, and you don’t know how I live my life. And for the record, I went to a Catholic grade school, but then attended a public high school… in which I DID have to fight for my faith and fight the temptation to succumb to the norms of society. And I had to fight those things every day. I read many books throughout high school to help keep me in check. Most of which were based off of JPII’s Theology of the Body, including Mary Beth Bonacci and Christopher West.

It shouldn’t bother me that a complete stranger is telling me I don’t know anything about my faith, when my faith is actually a huge part of my life, but it does. It does insult me and bother me a lot. Which is why I couldn’t possibly fight the urge to come back here and defend myself, even though I know it is a foolish thing to do and will lead to nowhere.

Read the Gospels and tell me if YOU think Christ was the hippy “peace and love, we’re all ok, all roads lead to heaven” type of savior.

I DID read a lot of the Gospel, thanks. And did I ever say Jesus was a hippy and that we’re all ok and that we’re all going to heaven??? I never said that, neither do I believe in that. I don’t even know what it was I said that makes you accuse me of believing such things. All I said (and I’ve said it about 70 times now) is that…

"We can’t sit here and say we know who is going to Hell based on what they have and have not done in their lives. One, because it’s not that black and white, and two, because it’s God’s business and God’s business alone. Only He knows what is in someone’s heart, so how about we stop being so ridiculous and claiming that we know when someone is or is not “saved.”

…I’m not quite sure how you got “hippiness” and “everyone is going to heaven” out of that. Only God knows what is in our hearts. Agree or no? We can’t claim to know who is and is not going to Hell. Agree or no? We shouldn’t judge people. Agree or no? Those were the points I was making, and from that you got hippiness?

And some people seem confused about my “black and white” statement above. I wasn’t referring to sins. Obviously, something is or is not a sin. THAT is black and white. But I wasn’t talking about sin. I was talking about whether or not WE can say an individual is going to Hell based on what WE know he has done. In other words, just because someone commits a mortal sin doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to hell. That’s what I was talking about when I said it’s not that black and white. Because once again, only GOD knows what is in that person’s heart, and what that person’s intentions were. For example, we can’t sit here and say “so-and-so is going to hell because he had premarital sex and never repented.” It’s not that black and white. We don’t know what was running through that person’s head. Maybe he was never taught that premarital sex was wrong. Maybe he honestly believed that bedding his girlfriend was an expression of love and affection, because that’s all he’s ever heard all his life. Maybe she pressured him into it and he genuinely thought it was the right thing to do to make her happy. Does that mean he’s going straight to hell for that sin? Not necessarily. It’s not that black and white. Only God knows, and only God can say, and it’s not our place to judge and look down on that person. Agree or no?

 

[Debora123]

*“Originally Posted by Debora123
It’s no wonder Atheists and fallen Catholics have such a horrible view of Christianity. So many of us (actually not that many, just ppl on this forum apparently) just sit on our high horses and pretend to know who’s going to hell and who’s saved and who isn’t, and acting like we’re better than others because we are baptized and therefore we’re supposedly not going to Hell like the unbaptized or unbelievers. God calls us to be humble and loving and charitable, and that doesn’t include judging people in the way that only God can. When we do that, we are only pushing them further away from us and most importantly, further away from God.” *

I never have and never will make a statement that anyone is going to hell. I will state my faith and the biblically required foundation for attaining heaven. The comical part of that statement is when you look around the country, the religious orders that are gaining members are the orthodox orders while the heretodox orders are losing members. The Orthodox congregations are gaining members while the heretodox orders are slowly withering. Like Chesterton said “The truly liberal part of [Catholicism] is the Dogmatic Part”.

Ok? So what are you suggesting here by debating my above quote? You think we SHOULD sit on our high horses and pretend to know who is going to hell and who’s saved and who isn’t? I said “God calls us to be humble and loving and charitable, and that doesn’t include judging people in the way that only God can.” Do you disagree with my statement there? It seems to me like a lot of times you just argue for the sake of arguing.

Furthermore, I most certainly don’t consider myself a liberal Catholic. I just don’t pretend to know who is/is not saved. I thought not judging people was a huge part of being a good Catholic, and that’s what I try to do. I also know that walking down the street and preaching God’s word to random people may have worked a long time ago but definitely just turns people off nowadays, especially when we’re talking about being saved or not. Mary Beth Bonacci gives some very good advice on how to effectively evangelize in her book “We are on a Mission from God.”

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Yes, which is why I asked the question. Where does the Catechism or any Church teaching say that venial sin does not require intent?

Paragraph 1862

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Well if you had read my post #41 you would have seen that I actually DO explain that I full heartedly believe God created our souls. I very specifically mention that. So I’ll have to disagree with you saying I “leave myself open to misinterpretation.” If you had read all my posts you would have seen that I actually DO explain myself quite clearly. Anyhow, why would you take what I said and argue against me if you claim you “knew what I meant?” Just for the sake of arguing? Interesting.

Nope, not just for the sake of arguing. For the sake of clarification. To ensure that others could understand the orthodox teachings of the Catholic Church.

Again, you accuse me of having lack of regard for my listeners because supposedly I didn’t explain that I still believe God created the human soul. Except I DID. And if you had actually read all my posts before making that accusation, you would have seen that I quite clearly do indeed state exactly that in my post #41.

Here is your post

See, that’s the thing though. I don’t believe we “inherited” any sin. That doesn’t make any sense. We inherit eye color, personality traits, money, etc etc, but we don’t inherit SINS. It’s not like our parents commit sins and we “inherit” them. Once again, I think the whole inheritance concept was purely symbolic.

Neither do I believe there was only one first man and one first women. According to some pretty accurate evidence, that’s not the case.

Now to answer your question, I don’t mean to pretend like I know exactly what happened, but I can hypothesize based on the theological and scientific information I’ve gathered.

I believe that at one point in the evolution of humanity, we transitioned from animals into the modern day human, and along with that transition also came God’s creation of our souls. Once we became intelligent and had souls, we were no longer “animals,” but became human beings. Like I said earlier, I don’t believe this is just a story of one man and one women, but rather of thousands of us. Once we became intelligent enough and had souls, we figured out that we had a choice in all our actions, a choice between doing good or doing evil. This makes sense to me, because animals don’t have the knowledge of good/evil, but humans do. This correlates to the story of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge. Before they ate from the tree of knowledge, they didn’t know the difference between good/evil. Just like animals don’t know the difference between good/evil, but humans do. I believe the tree of knowledge symbolizes the fact that at one point, we became actual human beings with souls and intelligence, and therefore knew the difference between good/evil, and chose evil many times, just like we all choose evil countless times in our everyday lives.

I don’t think original sin was one sin between one man and one women that we all “inherited.” I believe that original sin is the fact that all of us, as a human race with souls and intelligence, have the choice everyday between doing good or doing evil, and we will do evil sometimes because we are imperfect. THAT is what original sin means to me. It makes sense to me because Mary was the only person who didn’t have original sin, and she never sinned.

I apologize. I was overwhelmed by the evolution talk. THIS has lots of good information, with an imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Wow. Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to do here - claiming that I don’t actually have to follow the teachings of the Church, lol.

If its not intentional then it is accidental, but still present.

Anyway, about the catechism, you’re right. It says that “original sin” is not something that we can fully comprehend. We try to compare it to things we can understand, although it goes a lot deeper than that. We try to understand it/explain it by saying that it’s something we’ve inherited, or by saying that it’s some kind of “mark.” When obviously, those two things are just a symbolic way of saying that original sin is something we all have as a result of our imperfect nature. What is our imperfect nature? It’s the fact that we sin, and we all CHOOSE to sin. With the exception of the Virgin Mary (who was born without original sin), none of us is perfectly freed from sin.

That is nothing close to the teachings of the Church. What would be the purpose of baptism except to wash away sin and receive the Holy Spirit? Is the Eucharist merely symbolic as well?

We can also conclude that the catechism uses “Adam” symbolically, since we all know now, thanks to science, that it was historically and mathematically impossible for there to have been only one first man and one first women. (And if you’re going to bash me for making this statement, please refer to my earlier posts about the proof behind human evolution and JPII’s approval of it.)

I will just quote Pope Pius Xii here

Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).