B
billcu1
Guest
I have read the Jesus is the end of the law. What’s that mean. And the moral law is written on the heart. But civil and ecclesiastic law and so is moral law. Then why is things not a sin unless we know it?
This is the scripture where Christ spoke on this issue:I have read the Jesus is the end of the law. What’s that mean. And the moral law is written on the heart. But civil and ecclesiastic law and so is moral law. Then why is things not a sin unless we know it?
Hi billcuI have read the Jesus is the end of the law. What’s that mean. And the moral law is written on the heart. But civil and ecclesiastic law and so is moral law. Then why is things not a sin unless we know it?
Man’s conscience was corrupted, obscured, and dimmed by the Fall, by his ensuing autonomy from God, the authority* behind* the law. So Augustine would write, “God wrote on tables of stone what man failed to read in his heart”.I have read the Jesus is the end of the law. What’s that mean. And the moral law is written on the heart. But civil and ecclesiastic law and so is moral law. Then why is things not a sin unless we know it?
The moral law is written on the heart. We all know it. If we do or not. Right? If we break it we sin. Who told Cain it was wrong and against law to kill his brother? He was punished.Regarding sin you don’t know you committed. How could God hold you responsible for something you don’t even know you did? He loves you and is a just God. Do you punish an 18 month old for dropping a glass and breaking it? No. God will never punish you for something you don’t know you did wrong.
GG
You’re also speaking of the Natural Law which humans know naturally.The moral law is written on the heart. We all know it. If we do or not. Right? If we break it we sin. Who told Cain it was wrong and against law to kill his brother? He was punished.
Ok maybe it’s natural law then I am speaking of. Written on the heart of man. So we do not need to develop a conscious to know that? Or do we already have a “conscious” sense of that? I have been told by confessors in the past several times, “Obey your conscious” I always thought we were too corrupt for that. Can you only form a conscious when in Grace? We are too influence at the thinking an emotional levels by outside forces to even know what ideas are ours I believe. By things seen and unseen.You’re also speaking of the Natural Law which humans know naturally.
We do have to be taught the Law. Our consciences do have to be properly formed. Did you know that most kids think they don’t sin? They need to be taught what sin is and understand that they also sin.
If the conscience is well formed, one will know he is sinning. It’s not always the case. Is getting mad at my husband a sin? It depends. If we’re arguing about something and things get out of hand, I could get very mad. It’s a human feeling - it depends on what we do with it. If it passes and we don’t dwell on it, it isn’t a sin. BUT, if my husband is sick, and I get mad at him and it causes him to feel worse or badly, THEN it’s a sin immediately. Do most people know this?
You can’t ask forgiveness if you don’t KNOW you’ve sinned. But God will forgive you anyway…
But you’re right. The Law is now written on the heart. The New Covenant.
Jeremiah 31:33
GG
You’re a smart person billcu1.Ok maybe it’s natural law then I am speaking of. Written on the heart of man. So we do not need to develop a conscious to know that? Or do we already have a “conscious” sense of that? I have been told by confessors in the past several times, “Obey your conscious” I always thought we were too corrupt for that. Can you only form a conscious when in Grace? We are too influence at the thinking an emotional levels by outside forces to even know what ideas are ours I believe. By things seen and unseen.
I think we need to come to understand how the following teachings from the catechism compliment, rather than conflict with, each other:Ok maybe it’s natural law then I am speaking of. Written on the heart of man. So we do not need to develop a conscious to know that? Or do we already have a “conscious” sense of that? I have been told by confessors in the past several times, “Obey your conscious” I always thought we were too corrupt for that. Can you only form a conscious when in Grace? We are too influence at the thinking an emotional levels by outside forces to even know what ideas are ours I believe. By things seen and unseen.
You bring up a good point here. The argument, “it’s a woman’s body” does not convince. It is in error in several ways. If it’s a woman’s body, then she gave life to herself. We are told, “your body is not your own, but bought with a price.” Our bodies have *never * been our own. If it’s a woman’s body then she has to right to abuse it, via drug abuse, self mutilation and so forth. Why is that not allowed. So “a woman’s body is her own” does not apply to doing whatever you want.As far as conscience: Your confessor must know you and must know that YOU can follow your conscience. If he didn’t, he would be incorrect in giving this advice. What if someone’s conscience tells them there’s nothing wrong with abortion because it’s the woman’s own body? I have a friend who attends Mass every week and she thinks it’s okay for two gay people to live together because they really love each other. Can her conscience be trusted? No.
IDK if the conscious was perfect. We wouldn’t need the law given. It shows us perfection because without it we would not have perfection. It seems to me anyway. I do not trust people’s conscious, nor mine implicitly.I think we need to come to understand how the following teachings from the catechism compliment, rather than conflict with, each other:
**1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61
**
Great point!You bring up a good point here. The argument, “it’s a woman’s body” does not convince. It is in error in several ways. If it’s a woman’s body, then she gave life to herself. We are told, “your body is not your own, but bought with a price.” Our bodies have *never * been our own. If it’s a woman’s body then she has to right to abuse it, via drug abuse, self mutilation and so forth. Why is that not allowed. So “a woman’s body is her own” does not apply to doing whatever you want.
Well, that’s basically what they’re saying I think. The conscience was compromised and corrupted by the Fall and man’s spiritual disconnect from his Creator. Otherwise the “revealed law” should not even be necessary. Either way the conscience is in need of formation/perfecting.IDK if the conscious was perfect. We wouldn’t need the law given. It shows us perfection because without it we would not have perfection. It seems to me anyway. I do not trust people’s conscious, nor mine implicitly.![]()
It is said I know there are 2 reasons why we sin, not knowing what we ought to do, and failing to do what we know we should do. Unless we are divinely helped, we will fail at both.Well, that’s basically what they’re saying I think. The conscience was compromised and corrupted by the Fall and man’s spiritual disconnect from his Creator. Otherwise the “revealed law” should not even be necessary. Either way the conscience is in need of formation/perfecting.
-- Enchiridion
Man’s will is never uninvolved. If we sin by not doing what we should do, whose fault is that? While we need divine help, especially to approach perfection, God nonetheless does not force the issue; He won’t force us to accept His help. So in the whole process of our choosing good over evil, life over death, both God and ourselves are involved. His intention is to draw, to coax, to help, to stretch and refine, but He want us to participate, to own our choices; that’s an aspect of our justice, of our being transformed into His image.It is said I know there are 2 reasons why we sin, not knowing what we ought to do, and failing to do what we know we should do. Unless we are divinely helped, we will fail at both.
What I don’t understand fully there is what Augustine meant when he said the 1st thing. Wouldn’t that not be sin since we didn’t know what to do? Maybe he means venial sin.Code:-- Enchiridion
So not knowing what we ought to do is involving will because we should be inquiring ? Is that what you mean?Man’s will is never uninvolved. If we sin by not doing what we should do, whose fault is that? While we need divine help, especially to approach perfection, God nonetheless does not force the issue; He won’t force us to accept His help. So in the whole process of our choosing good over evil, life over death, both God and ourselves are involved. His intention is to draw, to coax, to help, to stretch and refine, but He want us to participate, to own our choices; that’s an aspect of our justice, of our being transformed into His image.
So even if the first step in our being righteous is to turn to God for help, we’re taught that we have little excuse not to seek Him, not to know of Him, not to believe in Him. We’re not mindless beasts-we’ll always be responsible to one degree ore another for our actions. Augustine may’ve presented the ideal-we’re expected to do the best we can with what we’ve been given to realize it. In the end God judges by the heart.
Yes, thats why acedia, spiritual sloth, is considered a deadly sin.So not knowing what we ought to do is involving will because we should be inquiring ? Is that what you mean?