Knowledge of Sin for others

[VonDerTann]

I’m sorry, FND, we will have to agree to disagree.

You can quote the Catechism all you want…but the Catechism never says, “murder is a mortal sin.” It never says “abortion is a mortal sin.” It certainly never says “missing mass is a mortal sin.” Why? Because there is a subjective element in any such sin.

As to your statement that:
“But objectively, murder, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, etc. will “not enter the kingdom of heaven.” If you don’t take my word for it then your are at issue with Jesus because I am quoting Him!”
–In your zeal to make this point, you are overlooking the fact that Jesus did not say it. St. Paul wrote it.
–My point of course, which you cannot get around, is that it is incorrect to state “Christ spoke often about mortal sin,” because he did not.
–Finally, at least one thief did enter the kingdom of God - the “good thief” crucified with Jesus.

Look, we just aren’t going to agree that its a good idea to wander around telling folks when they’re in mortal sin. Are there times it’s a good thing? I suppose maybe so, but as to OP – who we seem to have lost – I think it’s pretty bad to start telling folks they are in mortal sin for having missed mass.

I’m moving on.

 

[FNDRB58]

I’m sorry, FND, we will have to agree to disagree.

You can quote the Catechism all you want…but the Catechism never says, “murder is a mortal sin.” It never says “abortion is a mortal sin.” It certainly never says “missing mass is a mortal sin.” Why? Because there is a subjective element in any such sin.

It doesn’t have to say it for it to be true. That is the point. Jesus says there are sins that are worthy of damnation. The Church that you purport to belong to gives it a name, mortal. It is in the Catechism therefore it is Catholic teaching. Do you not use the term “Trinity” to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If you do then you are doing what you say I am doing. The Trinity is not used in the bible either but it is in the Catechism because the Church is the teaching authority and it gave the teaching a name. So you must explain this to be consistent with your assertion that the term mortal can’t be used.

As to your statement that:
“But objectively, murder, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, etc. will “not enter the kingdom of heaven.” If you don’t take my word for it then your are at issue with Jesus because I am quoting Him!”
–In your zeal to make this point, you are overlooking the fact that Jesus did not say it. St. Paul wrote it.
–My point of course, which you cannot get around, is that it is incorrect to state “Christ spoke often about mortal sin,” because he did not.
–Finally, at least one thief did enter the kingdom of God - the “good thief” crucified with Jesus.

Thank you for the correction. Of course Paul said it, inspired by God. Does this change the point? You still have not responded to it. What was Paul’s point in telling them that those who commit these sins are unrighteous and will not inherit the Kingdom? Aren’t those sins mortal as the Church describes them?

Or do you not recognize the teaching authority of the Church?

Look, we just aren’t going to agree that its a good idea to wander around telling folks when they’re in mortal sin. Are there times it’s a good thing? I suppose maybe so, but as to OP – who we seem to have lost – I think it’s pretty bad to start telling folks they are in mortal sin for having missed mass.

This is the problem I see with your argument. You tend to jump to conclusions and exaggerate facts. No one is “wandering around anywhere telling folks that they’re in mortal sin.” I never intimated that we go around approaching strangers. The OP described one instance when he knew someone who was not obedient to the Church’s teaching, at least objectively speaking. It was his duty to inform the person so they at least knew what it was they were doing. The bible teaches this.

 

[3DOCTORS]

It might be good to drop back 20 yards and punt here. Helping to instruct and educate is one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy. So is admonishing the sinner.

Now, the question is - which is occurring in a given case?

If the person genuinely didn’t know it was a mortal sin to miss Mass, then he or she acted in ignorance. He/she isn’t retroactively guilty of a mortal sin. The person who educates him or her is performing the “instruct the ignorant” spiritual work of mercy.

If the person is deliberately missing Mass, admonishment is what’s going on. This is difficult and must be handled with charity and tact. Prayer beforehand will help discern the best approach.

Any of these Spiritual Works of Mercy must be done in a spirit of love. Also, it helps if we lay the groundwork for the “rule part” by first emphasizing the positives about Mass attendance, the graces and blessings received. Just hitting someone with rules alone feeds into the fear and rebellion our human nature is prone to. Mine as well as anyone else’s - though with the growth and guidance of good spiritual teachers and friends I’ve gotten past the “Do I have to?” stage pretty much. Which is a relief. :coolinoff:

Wouldn’t it be great if somehow we could all get to the point where the “obligation” was almost a moot point because people were eager to go to Mass? I know it won’t happen today or tomorrow, but it’s an ideal to strive for and if we did, maybe we wouldn’t have the fears and people getting worked up about it . . .

 

[FNDRB58]

I agree with the above post.

 

[DPMartin]

First, they were going to condemn her to death! No one is doing that here. Had they, out of love and kindness, informed the woman that her actions were sinful then that would have been a loving and holy action. So your comments regarding this passage of the Bible does not fit the context of the OP’s question.

Again, no one is condemning. You can correct someone of a fault without condemning them to hell. We are not divinizing ourselves when we do correct someone. Your understanding of this is your crutch.

Jesus indeed preached about sin, did he not?

No one is condemning. We are informing others of the Scriptures. Jesus told the apostles to go and preach the Word and that extends to each one of us. We are to inform others of the truth. It is up to them to receive it or not. For those who purport to be Catholics yet “unworthily” receive the Eucharist, they are committing a mortal sin. To the extent that they understand this to be Church teaching, they are culpable.

There is indeed a list of mortal sins in the bible:

(1 Corinthians 6:9) 9 Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

This we call mortal sin because it separates us totally from God unless we repent of these sins.

FNDRB58

thanks for the reply

You just don’t get it do you?

In the case of the woman what was the consequence of her sin according to the very law Jesus fulfilled? Wasn’t it to be stoned?

According to the Apostle Paul no matter what part of the Law was broken, what is the consequences of that sin? Isn’t it that if you break one of you broke all of?

Then Jesus delivered her from the consequence of her sin, didn’t He? Which was His Judgement, which is according to God the Father’s Judgement, isn’t it?

You don’t stand over the person in the pit and tell him he is in the pit because of his sin, you get in the pit with him and show him the Way out of the pit. For you have the knowledge of his salvation, Jesus Christ, which is your salvation. That is not of your own doing, because you’ve sinned also, and without God’s deliverance you would be in the same pit also.

In the Book of Judges God rased up men to do what? Condemn to, or deliver from the consequences of the actions, of the Israelites? If a soul cries out to God for deliverance, would God assign you who is a sinner that justifies his right to point out that person’s sins. Or will He assign some one else who would share the Knowledge of his own salvation, deliverance, that, that person would be delivered, saved?

And yes it has every thing to do with the concern in the knowledge of another’s sin. It is the Knowledge of their deliverance that is important, no matter the sin committed.

 

[dfp42]

I’m sorry. I didn’t know this would cause such chaos and confusion. Please understand that I in no way am out there trying to condemn people for going to hell etc. I was simply asking about correction out of love (fraternal correction). It’s so difficult on these forums to ask or talk about sin without being labeled. I would say the situation requires balance to do the right thing. It amazes me is how many different kinds of Catholics there are on the forums. We want unity with others but yet we can’t even get it right often with ourselves when it comes to issues of faith and morals. Again sorry to ask this question.

 

[FNDRB58]

FNDRB58

thanks for the reply

You just don’t get it do you?

In the case of the woman what was the consequence of her sin according to the very law Jesus fulfilled? Wasn’t it to be stoned?

According to the Apostle Paul no matter what part of the Law was broken, what is the consequences of that sin? Isn’t it that if you break one of you broke all of?

Then Jesus delivered her from the consequence of her sin, didn’t He? Which was His Judgement, which is according to God the Father’s Judgement, isn’t it?

You don’t stand over the person in the pit and tell him he is in the pit because of his sin, you get in the pit with him and show him the Way out of the pit. For you have the knowledge of his salvation, Jesus Christ, which is your salvation. That is not of your own doing, because you’ve sinned also, and without God’s deliverance you would be in the same pit also.

In the Book of Judges God rased up men to do what? Condemn to, or deliver from the consequences of the actions, of the Israelites? If a soul cries out to God for deliverance, would God assign you who is a sinner that justifies his right to point out that person’s sins. Or will He assign some one else who would share the Knowledge of his own salvation, deliverance, that, that person would be delivered, saved?

And yes it has every thing to do with the concern in the knowledge of another’s sin. It is the Knowledge of their deliverance that is important, no matter the sin committed.

I have done all I can in conveying the Catholic Church’s teachings. Despite what you have displayed as your faith you appear instead to be a Protestant. I say this because you don’t conform to Catholic teaching by the very fact that you think a particular word has to be literally visible in the bible in order for a theological concept (truth) to be true. Also, you don’t subscribe to the Catholic Catechism nor the authority of the Catholic Church. You are a bible only believer it appears to me. It is not surprising that you haven’t directly responded to any of my assertions.

 

[FNDRB58]

FNDRB58
In the case of the woman what was the consequence of her sin according to the very law Jesus fulfilled? Wasn’t it to be stoned?

According to the Apostle Paul no matter what part of the Law was broken, what is the consequences of that sin? Isn’t it that if you break one of you broke all of?

 

[FNDRB58]

I’m sorry. I didn’t know this would cause such chaos and confusion. Please understand that I in no way am out there trying to condemn people for going to hell etc. I was simply asking about correction out of love (fraternal correction). It’s so difficult on these forums to ask or talk about sin without being labeled. I would say the situation requires balance to do the right thing. It amazes me is how many different kinds of Catholics there are on the forums. We want unity with others but yet we can’t even get it right often with ourselves when it comes to issues of faith and morals. Again sorry to ask this question.

Don’t worry about it. I got your back. Your question I think was answered early on but when someone who claims to be Catholic (Von) and preach Catholic teaching but is quite clearly a bible only believing Protestant then I feel obligated to correct his erroneous teaching. This often happens on these forums.

The bottom line for you and your post is that it is perfectly fine to inform someone (presumably not a stranger) that it is sinful to go to communion while in the state of mortal sin. It is indeed a holy action as long as you are not being hypocritical and you are doing it in a loving manner and not out of arrogance. This is indeed Catholic teaching.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

I’m sorry. I didn’t know this would cause such chaos and confusion. Please understand that I in no way am out there trying to condemn people for going to hell etc. I was simply asking about correction out of love (fraternal correction). It’s so difficult on these forums to ask or talk about sin without being labeled. I would say the situation requires balance to do the right thing. It amazes me is how many different kinds of Catholics there are on the forums. We want unity with others but yet we can’t even get it right often with ourselves when it comes to issues of faith and morals. Again sorry to ask this question.

f the question is, ‘should I explain to my friend that he is sinning?’ than the answer is yes. If the question is ‘can I know if my friend is in a state of mortal sin? Can I know the state of his soul?’ than the answer is no, and why should you? You know that he has sinned. You do not, and cannot, know his culpability. You can teach, and pray that he hears you. Your job is to tell him he should be going to Church, and to try to explain why. You job is to pray for him and try to bring him home.

The reason you have people up in arms about judgment is because your initial post did not seem to wonder about what you should do, but about the state of your friend’s soul, which is unknowable to you (and us, and everyone else except God). You can see sin, you can correct sinners, but you cannot judge culpability.

 

[VonDerTann]

FNDRB58, you are WAY** WAY,**out of line. Considering you talk about acting in love, there was nothing loving, or dare I say Catholic, about this:

“when someone who claims to be Catholic (Von) and preach Catholic teaching but is quite clearly a bible only believing Protestant then I feel obligated to correct his erroneous teaching. This often happens on these forums.”

–You don’t know me or anything about who I am, other than the fact that I quoted the Bible.

If Catholics - of whom I am one – have really reached the point where me quoting the Bible gets me branded by someone as a “bible only beleiving Protestant” then all I can say is: How sad. Better I read that, than practically praying to the Catechism, as “happens often on this forum.”

-If you want to talk about whose teachings are erroneous, I respectfully point out that you have repeatedly mishmashed the Catechism; claimed Jesus said things he never said; attributed Paul’s words to Jesus; and claimed Jesus “spoke often on mortal sin” (he didn’t, and you can’t say where He did).

–For that matter, the “I got your back” does nothing more than feed some sense of “it’s us against the sinners…look how right we are…we’ve got each others’ backs!”

As to your statement “The bottom line for you and your post is that it is perfectly fine to inform someone (presumably not a stranger) that it is sinful to go to communion while in the state of mortal sin. It is indeed a holy action as long as you are not being hypocritical and you are doing it in a loving manner and not out of arrogance. This is indeed Catholic teaching.,” all I can say is…your statement that it is “perfectly fine” is meaningless since it is unclear whether you mean “perfectly fine” from a theological perspective, or why it need only apply to a “non-stranger” or why we must water down the statement about being “non-hypocritcal,” and provided we only act in love, etc…

Good thing I wasn’t really asleep.

 

[FNDRB58]

I agree with the above post.

 

[FNDRB58]

You are hypersensitive. Nothing that I said should have been taken personally precisely by the fact that I DON’T know you. This is a forum. You have to toughen up a bit when debating. I could take it personally that you are calling me God by my supposed damning people to hell. But, alas, though frustrating that you don’t understand this concept of loving your neighbor by informing him of his fault, I still do not take your comments personally. Neither should you. The best recourse for you should be to answer some of the questions that I have put forth to you in my previous posts. If you claim to be Catholic but teach bible only beliefs which is what you are doing then you should expect to get called on it and you should explain why you believe, for example, that if a word is not explicitly stated in the bible then it can’t be taught or believed, and that the Catechism should not be a source of teaching. It appears to me that you are a bible only Christian. Correct me if my presumption is false by answering my questions and explaining your reasoning.

Regarding my “watering-down”. Its called, putting things into context. Context is everything when it comes to interpreting the bible. Protestants often do not put things into context which is another reason why I suspect you may be Protestant. The Catholic Church helps us put things into context, hence the Catechism.

 

[VonDerTann]

FN, Don’t be insulting then cry “hypersensitivity!” or say “toughen up!” when called on it.

“though frustrating that you don’t understand this concept of loving your neighbor by informing him of his fault,”
–Please don’t respond to allegations of nastiness by…saying I “don’t understand.” It’s just more namecalling. I may understand the concept better than you do.

“If you claim to be Catholic but teach bible only beliefs…”
–Misdirection, having been caught trashing someone you thought left. Quoting the Bible does not mean I believe the Bible alone.

As to whether I should “explain If a word is not explicitly stated in the bible then it can’t be taught or believed…,” I’m afraid you’re the one with the “splainin’” to do. You said “Christ spoke a lot about mortal sins.” I responded, “no, He did not.” Your response, “he never mentioned ‘trinity,’ either.” My response to that is that your statement is irrelevant, since my entire point was simply that your claim was inaccurate…which it was. And still is.

“It appears to me that you are a bible only Christian.”
– I don’t care what you think. You’re wrong, but since you’ve been wrong about everything else you write, this is no different.
– I do however not like being insulted, and
–I DO care, very much, that you are passing off a mishmash of a) “grave matter,” b) St. Paul’s Corinthians 6, and c) your own opinion as “constituting Church teaching on mortal sin.” Nothing in any post you have written indicates any real understanding of what mortal sin is, and what the Church teaches as to what is, and what is not, mortal sin.

As to OP, here’s why I don’t think he should wander up to anyone and accuse them of mortal sin:

1. There is no proof the OP is any moral authority on anything.
2. There is no proof OP can “rebuke with love,” because his whole desire appeared to be to say, “you’re in mortal sin!” rather than to educate or to bring anyone to Christ…
3. …which seems to be a problem of many on this board. Phrased differently, there is little proof just about anyone can do this well/effectively.
4. There is no proof of culpability on the part of his target.
5. It appears subjectively uncharitable and unlikely to result in any benefit not outweighed by the negative impact.
6. It will likely empower more uncharitable conduct.
7. It fuels negative stereotypes of Catholics as sin-obsessed judgmental jerks.

Now, please provide answers to MY questions:

1. What is mortal sin?
2. What list of acts, as comprehensively as possible, do you contend are mortal sins?
3. For each act you list in #2, please advise the source of your belief (Bible, Catechism, etc.)

 

[FNDRB58]

FN, Don’t be insulting then cry “hypersensitivity!” or say “toughen up!” when called on it.

“though frustrating that you don’t understand this concept of loving your neighbor by informing him of his fault,”
–Please don’t respond to allegations of nastiness by…saying I “don’t understand.” It’s just more namecalling. I may understand the concept better than you do.

I wasn’t insulted and did not take your comments personally. That was my whole point!

“If you claim to be Catholic but teach bible only beliefs…”
–Misdirection, having been caught trashing someone you thought left. Quoting the Bible does not mean I believe the Bible alone.

I have no idea what your first sentence refers to. The second one makes no sense either since my referring to you as expressing bible only beliefs is not the same as you just quoting the bible…so your comment again, makes no sense.

As to whether I should “explain If a word is not explicitly stated in the bible then it can’t be taught or believed…,” I’m afraid you’re the one with the “splainin’” to do. You said “Christ spoke a lot about mortal sins.” I responded, “no, He did not.” Your response, “he never mentioned ‘trinity,’ either.” My response to that is that your statement is irrelevant, since my entire point was simply that your claim was inaccurate…which it was. And still is.

Your paraphrasing here is inaccurate. I agreed that it was Paul who spoke about sins that prevent one from inheriting the Kingdom (mortal sin). I then asked you what difference does it make whether Jesus said it or Paul said it. I received no answer from you.

“It appears to me that you are a bible only Christian.”
– I don’t care what you think. You’re wrong, but since you’ve been wrong about everything else you write, this is no different.
– I do however not like being insulted, and
–I DO care, very much, that you are passing off a mishmash of a) “grave matter,” b) St. Paul’s Corinthians 6, and c) your own opinion as “constituting Church teaching on mortal sin.” Nothing in any post you have written indicates any real understanding of what mortal sin is, and what the Church teaches as to what is, and what is not, mortal sin.

If you are insulted by a stranger on a forum stating that he is under the strong impression that you are Protestant then you are being too sensitve. Perhaps these forums are not for you.

As to OP, here’s why I don’t think he should wander up to anyone and accuse them of mortal sin:

1. There is no proof the OP is any moral authority on anything.
2. There is no proof OP can “rebuke with love,” because his whole desire appeared to be to say, “you’re in mortal sin!” rather than to educate or to bring anyone to Christ…
3. …which seems to be a problem of many on this board. Phrased differently, there is little proof just about anyone can do this well/effectively.
4. There is no proof of culpability on the part of his target.
5. It appears subjectively uncharitable and unlikely to result in any benefit not outweighed by the negative impact.
6. It will likely empower more uncharitable conduct.
7. It fuels negative stereotypes of Catholics as sin-obsessed judgmental jerks.

Here you go again, presuming the OP and I are just accosting strangers “willy nilly” again.

Regarding your numbered items above, I answer each of them :

1. No one said the OP has moral authority about anything. What I said was that we all have a moral obligation to inform our brother when he is in or is about to be in grave sin…per Scripture. I don’t know where you got moral authority from.
2. You need proof that one can effectively inform his brother of a fault? Really? Where does it say in the Bible that one needs proof as you put it? Many people have been converted from evil to good by individuals who extended a loving word to them about their sinful lives. I guess you are presuming that the OP can’t do this? How do YOU know. Maybe he can.

Yet despite MY explicitly saying “inform with love” you still say I am wrong to do this. You are inconsistent. Are you now conceding that one can indeed inform a brother in Christ a fault and do so out of love for his soul???

1. Then why does the bible tell us to tell our brother when he sins? Are you saying Paul is incorrect to say this?
2. I never said there had to be proof though the OP should have a good reason for the instruction. If the OP believes in his heart that the person is disobeying the Church with regard to receiving the Real Presence of Christ through communion, he in good faith may bring the issue up to the individual. If he has his facts wrong then so be it. No harm done. But we are obligated to love the soul of our brother and to inform him of possibly falling into mortal sin…or, if you prefer…grave sin, then informing him is indeed a loving and holy act.
3. What is the negative impact? The person gets upet with him? What is more important, to instruct the ignorant out of love for his soul or have the person possibly angry at him?
4. More likely to empower more uncharitable acts? Not if he does so charitably. You are presuming he is arrogantly accosting people. That is where you are obstinate in this discussion. You won’t concede the fact that the OP has good intentions. It is with good intentions that the bible speaks of this act toward our brother.
5. We are sheep in a den of wolves, if the truth said in love and charity makes us look like judgemental jerks then, “Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

continued…

 

[FNDRB58]

Now, please provide answers to MY questions:

1. What is mortal sin?
2. What list of acts, as comprehensively as possible, do you contend are mortal sins?
3. For each act you list in #2, please advise the source of your belief (Bible, Catechism, etc.)

Okay, but you still haven’t answered any of mine.

1. Mortal sin is this - sin which kills the spiritual life of the soul and deprives a person of salvation, unless he repents. Jesus did indeed speak of sin and hell. The early Church Fathers were unanimous in teaching the reality of mortal sin. They had to embrace the doctrine of mortal sin precisely because they recognized not only the salvific power of baptism but also the damning power of certain serious sins. Mortal sin is real but we do not judge one’s state of their soul. BUT, if we fear that one could be in the state of mortal sin based on what appears to us by the use of our common sense actions that are gravely sinful, then we should lovingly inform them of this possiblity.
2. There is no comprehensive list and I never said there was. What I did say was that there was a list: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. These sins would certainly be considered mortal if they precluded one from heaven.
3. See #2 - the Bible!

 

[VonDerTann]

FN, telling me that “maybe these boards aren’t for” me is just as unfriendly as the other namecalling are doing.

The only really noteworthy aspect of either of your last posts – most of whch are opinon or invective – is this:

“2. There is no comprehensive list and I never said there was. What I did say was that there was a list: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. These sins would certainly be considered mortal if they precluded one from heaven.”

–No, there is NO list of mortal sins, anywhere in the Bible or the Catechism.

–The Catholic Church NEVER says any particular act is a mortal sin, b/c such mortal sin requires “full consent of the will.” Only God knows that. Because we can never know the state of anyone’s consent, we can never declare any particular act to be a mortal sin.

–As to each of Paul’s listed acts, any such act can be undertaken under fear, coercion, undue influence, etc., any of which defeats “full consent of the will.”

–The worst that can be stated is that some acts constitute “grave matter,” but grave acts need not equal mortal sins.

–If you were correct, the Catechism could/would hold up Paul’s list and state unequivocally, “these are always mortal sins!” It does not. By negative implication…they are not always mortal.

–Look at the passage before 1 Corinthians 6:9: Paul condemns those in lawsuits. If you were correct - and you are not - being a plaintiff in a lawsuit now would be equally immoral. Since the Church does not teach us, “never sue anyone,” it follows that Paul’s statements are not a blanket overview of who is going to heaven & who isn’t.

 

[DPMartin]

DPMartin;7603577:

FNDRB58
In the case of the woman what was the consequence of her sin according to the very law Jesus fulfilled? Wasn’t it to be stoned?

Are you asserting that there is no such thing as venial sin? This flies in the face of scripture.

I assume your point is that you believe that we are damning people to hell? There you go again…

There you go, yet again… No one is judging anyone to hell. Until you understand that a person can lovingly inform someone that he is or is about to commit a grave sin (without playing God), then you will remain in this shortsided belief of yours. You are not in conformity with Catholic teaching.

Then what did Paul mean when he said that no murderer, fornicator, etc. will be righteous and inherit the Kingdom? Please answer this question?

FNDRB58

You might see that it files in the face of the Catholic Church’s self proclaimed authoritive knowledge of sin. (Amazing how much the Church knows about evil) But scripture no. the catechism is not the Bible. I am not in agreement with the Catholic Church therefore not required to be obligated. But the King of the Kingdom of God yes. Of which the Catholic Church does not seem to no longer be in agreement with. It is most definitely in agreement with it’s self and it’s own choices. But God’s Choice?

You don’t have the power to judge anyone to hell, no more then you have the power to rase souls from the dead.

Since you agree with your self that you are the judge, you can answer that question to your own satisfaction. Which doesn’t fly before God. I thought you actually believed that God was to deliver you from evil, since you say so in Mass, why is that exclusive to just you?

Interesting you should ask that about Apostle Paul’s teachings, since he was once a killer of Christians who stood in consent of stoning to death St. Seven in the name of offending the law, before he became one.

please don’t bother to reply, Self righteousness is nauseating at best

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

It is sad that what could be a great conversation is instead a spitting match between two who seem not to be communicating at all. FWIW, to an observer relatively new to these forums, you both seem more interested in proving your points- long lost amid traded attacks- than in seeking truth. It is sad. Obviously, I cannot know what your motives are, but that is how it seems.

I will touch only on a few points:

1. Mortal sin is this - sin which kills the spiritual life of the soul and deprives a person of salvation, unless he repents. Jesus did indeed speak of sin and hell. The early Church Fathers were unanimous in teaching the reality of mortal sin. They had to embrace the doctrine of mortal sin precisely because they recognized not only the salvific power of baptism but also the damning power of certain serious sins. Mortal sin is real but we do not judge one’s state of their soul. BUT, if we fear that one could be in the state of mortal sin based on what appears to us by the use of our common sense actions that are gravely sinful, then we should lovingly inform them of this possiblity.
2. There is no comprehensive list and I never said there was. What I did say was that there was a list: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. These sins would certainly be considered mortal if they precluded one from heaven.

What you have said is true, as far as it goes, but it does not define Mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal it must be grave- which is what you seem to be talking about in your posts. Sins like fornication, murder etc., are grave. You cannot, however, say that they are mortal generally. Mortal sin depends on circumstance.

Catechism:
//1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”[131]

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.”[132] The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.//

Thus you see that that a person who does not know a sin is mortal commits a venial sin- even if it be grave matter. And there is indeed a list. It is the ten commandments.

We can judge an action to be sinful. We cannot judge the culpability of our neighbor as we cannot know their mind or heart. We must teach- as has been said. We have a duty to our neighbors, and especially to our loved ones, to lead them away from sin. We would, I hope, want admonishment from them in our own sins.

But, so say that because you tell a person that a thing is sinful, they therefore know that it is sinful is not simply true. The mind is too complicated to assign such a simple formula for knowledge. Even if you cite the authority of the Church, if they do not understand why the Church ought to be given such authority than your message is undermined as opinion. It has been said that if you say a thing, citing proper authority, than they are culpable. This may be true in many (perhaps most) cases, but cannot be true in all cases. Rejecting a truth that you know is sinful. Rejecting a truth that you have never understood is not. If they do not understand from whence comes the authority of the Church, than you cannot hold them accountable for not accepting that authority. Then your task changes to teaching about who we are and why the authority of the Church is authoritative, even when we do not understand.

In no case is it your job to determine the culpability of your friend. That is the judgement that we leave for God. Judging an action to be sinful is different, and we must do that. Telling a friend that an action is sinful is also not judging them, and it is necessary. Leave the worry of whether or not a given action of your friend is mortal to God. He alone can make that determination, and indeed, He alone has use for the knowledge. What would you do differently if you knew? You still must teach about sin either way. You still love him either way. You still pray for him either way.

 

[FNDRB58]

I have not insulted Von in any manner. The only thing I have said that got him up in arms is my assertion that I feel he may be Protestant given his bible-only beliefs that he has clearly expressed in his posts. That is neither name-calling nor insulting. He may take issue with it and he may refute my impression by responding with a rebuttal. But to get so upset about it is unwarranted and a sign of a very sensitive disposition to which debates in these forums do not cater well.

Back to the issue at hand…

Beth - regarding your post. I already expressed most of what you said. I suspect you haven’t read all of my posts. Given the length of this thread I can understand why.

In summary, this is what I have said:

We do not judge a person’s soul.
We do not judge a person to hell.
We do not judge one’s culpability for a sinful action. That is reserved for God.
We do not accost strangers “willy nilly” and tell them of their sinful actions. This is just common sense etiquette and as Von has said would turn someone off.
We do not out of arrogance tell someone they are a sinner or have sinned.
We do not tell someone of their sin when we too are committing the same sin.
We do not tell someone that they are committing a mortal sin when we are in the state of mortal sin. This is biblical.

What we are expected to do is to correct our brother when he is risking the salvation of his soul through sin. When he is in darkness, we are to shine our light before him.
We do this with love and charity because he is our brother in Christ and we want him to go to heaven. This is right out of the bible.

This has been my position. Please refute any of the above comments as being incorrect. I will gladly explain what I meant, rephrase something, or even concede a point if I am in error.

Regarding mortal sin specifically…There is a subtle difference between mortal sin and grave sin. All mortal sin is grave sin. Not all grave sin is mortal sin if the three requirements for culpability are not present. The bible speaks to the fact that some sins make one unrighteous before God and inhibit one from inheriting the Kingdom of God. This is what the Church defines as mortal sin. Grave sin becomes mortal sin if the three requirements exist. Only the penitent and God can answer those questions.

Having said this, the terms mortal sin and grave sin are often used interchangeably in certain contexts in the Catechism, in the Catholic encylopedia, and by the early Church Fathers. When a priest tells his congregation that they must confess mortal sins he is also telling them that they must confess grave sins. He is not playing God as it were and judging them. We also do not judge a person when they are gravely sinning. Yet, we may say that an action is a mortal sin, objectively speaking. We are not declaring anything on their soul, judging their culpability for the objectively sinful act. We do know that to receive Chirst unworthily while in the state of mortal sin brings judgement on ourselves as the Bible says. So, if we are aware that someone is living in sin or missed Sunday Mass and then attempts to go to communion prior to reconciling himself to God, then, with love and compassion, we should instruct this person so he is aware of what he is doing. It doesn’t matter whether he is ignorant of Church teaching or is deliberately disobeying it. He will take whatever action moves him and God will judge whether he is culpable. BUT it is our duty to love him and steer him in the right direction.

Yet, all three of you refuse to acknowledge that my position is that we do not judge, damn, nor determine someone’s culpability. I have stated this multiple times in my posts. Why you all are contradicting what I have stated repeatedly is perplexing and suspicious.