J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will are the criteria.
All of us have met this criteria at one point.
- Status
All of us have met this criteria at one point.
M
Montrose
Guest
If you actually think it is virtually impossible to commit a mortal sin then its a waste of time debating with you.Montrose:
As Bishop Barron stated, we shouldn’t be surprised that there might be no one in hell, so this means that we should not be surprised that no one is in a state of mortal sin at death. Indeed, I have had long discussions with one of the posters here, and he was unsuccessful in proving when mortal sin is possible in real-human experience. In theory, however, it is still possible.
I wonder if you are really a Catholic.
O
OneSheep
Guest
That is your opinion, and I respect that self-assessment, but if we were to take some scenarios and investigate, it wouldn’t hold up for others. We can converse by message, since this is getting off-topic.
And if you want to address some part of the article you posted, could you please let me know if the article was approved by the local Bishop, is it approved by the Church? Then, please post the relevant parts. I don’t have access to the article unless I go through some steps to download it, steps I cannot readily do.
It is theoretically possible, but I have found it impossible to come up with how it could happen. Just as a start, the CCC states that sin is irrational. If a person is being irrational, they do not know what they are doing, so the whole concept of sinning in “full knowledge and full consent” means that a person is choosing the irrational while prioritizing the rational, which is extremely difficult to conceptualize, and the concept runs contrary to how people actually make decisions. Indeed, if a person is prioritizing the rational, they do the rational, if they do not, they are not choosing rationally, they do not know what they are doing. If you would like to discuss some scenarios, please message me.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Do you have Church approval for YOUR opinions?
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
I see @OneSheep does not.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Absolutely! But seriously, if you can isolate an opinion I have, I can show whether it either follows from the ccc or at least does not conflict.
I make no claims adding something to scripture that isn’t there.
Now, to be fair, I asked you to support your claims first. Are you going to?
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Really? Because I don’t see unconditionally forgiveness in those quotes.
Evidently you don’t read your own commentary.
I have done that, and I’m not a person who likes to repeat myself.
A
Anesti33
Guest
M
Montrose
Guest
Frankly, this is mind boggling. I am fast catching up in this thread with what you believe and don’t believe and I am astounded that you say you are a Catholic.Montrose:
It is theoretically possible, but I have found it impossible to come up with how it could happen.
I haven’t found a single person in this thread who agrees with you and I can understand why.
What do you think the purpose of Confession is?
R
Rubee
Guest
That’s not as simple as many may make it, though. It’s why the church refuses to judge that interior state and forbids us to do so. It certainly isn’t enough that someone knows a sin is listed as a grave sin. It means genuine understanding that this means rejecting goodness/God and freely choosing that. No one but God knows when a soul has done that free of distorting confusion within about goodness and truth.
R
Rubee
Guest
We cannot judge for BOTH reasons. Are you saying our intellect is not darkened/obscured post-fall and is as full of light and understanding as when Adam was created? Most importantly: that this is what the church teaches about the state of human nature? Not that both human will and reason are weakened?
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
That’s fine. You are saying that. It is patently unreasonable and NOT what the church teaches at all.
R
Rubee
Guest
CCC 1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
R
Rubee
Guest
Knowing the principles of moral law by heart and knowing that a particular act is a mortal sin are not the same thing. Otherwise there can be no such thing as “unintentional ignorance.”
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
What has exposure to do with what we know by heart? 
R
Rubee
Guest
You are contradicting yourself
If you believe this^^^, you cannot in the next breath start talking of what “you are told”/exposed to. That only means you agree with me that:
If you believe this^^^, you cannot in the next breath start talking of what “you are told”/exposed to.
That only means you agree with me that:
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
My ONLY problem with what you are saying is that you are making MY argument while insisting that “reading it in the bible is enough to know it’s sin.” It’s the ONLY objection I have.
When I was a religiously indifferent teenager, I understood that religious people thought engaging in homosexual acts was sinful. I, however, never saw the reason for it, besides being what most people in my country believed. I didn’t see how it hurt anyone. And it wasn’t enough that "it was in the Bible/Quran etc) In fact, I thought those interfering were the bullies.
But I was applying moral principles, like letting people be happy in the best way they found if they are not hurting anyone. If I never became Catholic, I’d still VERY sincerely believe this. So "knowing moral principles by heart and applying them to a particular situation (deciding this/that act is good/evil/warranted in the circumstances/unwarranted in the circumstances, etc) are not the same thing at all.
And unless you possess the full mental infrastructure the person is working with, knowing all they weigh as relevant, and why they weight it thus, you cannot say you KNOW for a fact that someone understands they are committing evil just because “they were told when they were young this was bad.” That is far too simplistic a view of human nature. Only God knows what we are seeing/understanding, no one else.
If merely “being told” or reading the Bible were enough for understanding, do you really think we’d have all the divisions we do? Do you think we’d need a teaching/defining/infallible church?
When I was a religiously indifferent teenager, I understood that religious people thought engaging in homosexual acts was sinful. I, however, never saw the reason for it, besides being what most people in my country believed. I didn’t see how it hurt anyone. And it wasn’t enough that "it was in the Bible/Quran etc) In fact, I thought those interfering were the bullies.
But I was applying moral principles, like letting people be happy in the best way they found if they are not hurting anyone. If I never became Catholic, I’d still VERY sincerely believe this. So "knowing moral principles by heart and applying them to a particular situation (deciding this/that act is good/evil/warranted in the circumstances/unwarranted in the circumstances, etc) are not the same thing at all.
And unless you possess the full mental infrastructure the person is working with, knowing all they weigh as relevant, and why they weight it thus, you cannot say you KNOW for a fact that someone understands they are committing evil just because “they were told when they were young this was bad.” That is far too simplistic a view of human nature. Only God knows what we are seeing/understanding, no one else.
If merely “being told” or reading the Bible were enough for understanding, do you really think we’d have all the divisions we do? Do you think we’d need a teaching/defining/infallible church?
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
Not hindering/violating people’s freedom unjustly is a moral principle. :slightly_smiling_face:That’s exactly what I was working with, then. I was wrong, but I was sincerely so.
Last edited:
A
Anesti33
Guest
It is not formulated this way in Church teaching. She has much to say on the dignity of the human person, though. Your examples would be something like an atheist would come up with.
Last edited:
- Status