Mortal Sin Exception

[Tantum_ergo]

The Church teaches exactly what Scripture teaches in regard to mortal sin.

Please read your Ezechiel, which deals with EXACTLY the scenario that is (once again) being dredged up (“nothing new under the sun” which is from yet ANOTHER Scripture source, Ecclesiasticus).

In Ezechiel, we hear that “if a good man rebels and sins, he will die for the sin and his good will not be remembered.”

And we also hear the corollary --which people seem much less likely (or willing) to bring up: That if a WICKED man turns away from his sins and does good, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

God will not be mocked. He knows (none better) what is in our hearts, and whether we have fully consented to ‘choose evil’.

In the New Testament, both St. Paul and St. James remind us that our salvation is 'not from works lest we should boast." It appears to me that many here seem to think that the ‘good person’ has somehow ‘earned heaven’ from his works and that one ‘little thing’ should not take away his ‘merit’. But that isn’t what St. Paul and St. James say.

St. James tells us that faith without works is dead. . .and that means too that even if we have previously ‘worked’ for good, if we turn aside from our faith (and that is what we are doing when we deliberately choose mortal sin) we have killed our faith and our relationship with God, and then any of our works are ‘dead’ until or unless we repent.

Really, friends, it is all right there in ‘black and white’ and has been authoritatively taught by God’s own Church for 2 millennia.

He ‘saw’ all these ‘arguments’ long ago. He dealt with them both in the Old and the New Testament, and He was quite specific, knowing our stiff necks, rebellious and unnatural hearts, and our itching ears which are so quick to seek out the teaching which makes god into OUR image and likeness and makes US into beings ‘better than god’ in that WE would seek to claim that WE are more ‘forgiving’, more ‘loving’, and more ‘just’ than He.

 

[bobzills]

The Church teaches exactly what Scripture teaches in regard to mortal sin.

Please read your Ezechiel, which deals with EXACTLY the scenario that is (once again) being dredged up (“nothing new under the sun” which is from yet ANOTHER Scripture source, Ecclesiasticus).

In Ezechiel, we hear that “if a good man rebels and sins, he will die for the sin and his good will not be remembered.”

And we also hear the corollary --which people seem much less likely (or willing) to bring up: That if a WICKED man turns away from his sins and does good, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

God will not be mocked. He knows (none better) what is in our hearts, and whether we have fully consented to ‘choose evil’.

In the New Testament, both St. Paul and St. James remind us that our salvation is 'not from works lest we should boast." It appears to me that many here seem to think that the ‘good person’ has somehow ‘earned heaven’ from his works and that one ‘little thing’ should not take away his ‘merit’. But that isn’t what St. Paul and St. James say.

St. James tells us that faith without works is dead. . .and that means too that even if we have previously ‘worked’ for good, if we turn aside from our faith (and that is what we are doing when we deliberately choose mortal sin) we have killed our faith and our relationship with God, and then any of our works are ‘dead’ until or unless we repent.

Really, friends, it is all right there in ‘black and white’ and has been authoritatively taught by God’s own Church for 2 millennia.

He ‘saw’ all these ‘arguments’ long ago. He dealt with them both in the Old and the New Testament, and He was quite specific, knowing our stiff necks, rebellious and unnatural hearts, and our itching ears which are so quick to seek out the teaching which makes god into OUR image and likeness and makes US into beings ‘better than god’ in that WE would seek to claim that WE are more ‘forgiving’, more ‘loving’, and more ‘just’ than He.

So, my example does then exist, and it is not impossible to happen, as a good man can turn away from God, as the Bible says.

 

[Tom]

So, my example does then exist, and it is not impossible to happen, as a good man can turn away from God, as the Bible says.

I did a word search for “hot dog” in the Bible, it ain’t there… LOL My point was that it is such a small thing it wouldn’t even cross the “good” Catholic’s mind.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I did a word search for “hot dog” in the Bible, it ain’t there… LOL My point was that it is such a small thing it wouldn’t even cross the “good” Catholic’s mind.

It might depend on if it was cooked in beer or not. Don’t we make a special exception to the Lenten rules on St. Patty’s day?

James

 

[davidv]

I did a word search for “hot dog” in the Bible, it ain’t there… LOL My point was that it is such a small thing it wouldn’t even cross the “good” Catholic’s mind.

If my memory serves me. Moses thought it was no big deal that he struck the rock to get water instead of speaking to it as God commanded. What did it get him? He was prevented from entering the promised land. Jesus commanded that we listen to the apostles and their successors as if he were speaking. So, it could be are “really big deal”.

 

[Tom]

If my memory serves me. Moses thought it was no big deal that he struck the rock to get water instead of speaking to it as God commanded. What did it get him? He was prevented from entering the promised land. Jesus commanded that we listen to the apostles and their successors as if he were speaking. So, it could be are “really big deal”.

A “devout” Catholic (and I’m by no means “devout”) doesn’t even think about it. It’s simply not an issue. Heck, even a cafeteria Catholic like me, has no problem not eating meat on any Friday. During Lent? Please, have some fries as was suggested earlier. You know the rules, follow them!

 

[bobzills]

I did a word search for “hot dog” in the Bible, it ain’t there… LOL My point was that it is such a small thing it wouldn’t even cross the “good” Catholic’s mind.

The Bible does not specifically mention hot dogs, but it does mention that a virtuous man can turn away from God. That would then lead a reasonable person to believe that the Bible supports the idea that it would be possible for a virtuous Catholic to go against the rules and take bite of a hot dog on a day of abstinence. This is also seen by the Catholic teaching on free will.

 

[Tom]

The Bible does not specifically mention hot dogs, but it does mention that a virtuous man can turn away from God. That would then lead a reasonable person to believe that the Bible supports the idea that it would be possible for a virtuous Catholic to go against the rules and take bite of a hot dog on a day of abstinence. This is also seen by the Catholic teaching on free will.

Yes, and my point was that the bite of hot is such a minor temptation that a “devout” Catholic wouldn’t even be tempted. You’re trying to say a "minor mortal sin” and I’m saying there’s no such thing as a “minor” mortal sin to a devout Catholic or Christian. You’re trying to minimize a major sin like it’s an every day event. A mortal sin isn’t a “minor” infraction!

 

[sodak]

I’m still trying to see where this hot dog eating is a mortal sin. Is this defined in the CCC - not abstaining from meat during Lent?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Perhaps the confusion arises because it is not ‘eating the hot dog’ that is the mortal sin but rather DISOBEDIENCE to a Church ‘discipline’.

NonCatholics (and even some ‘nominal’ Catholics) are ‘appalled’ at the idea of God punishing some ‘poor innocent’ person JUST FOR EATING A HOT DOG. Doesn’t sound very ‘loving’.

Of course, He DID punish those two people --Adam and Eve --JUST for eating a fruit from a tree which He had told them not to eat.

See the parallel here?

Adam and Eve, we are told, had every imaginable ‘fruit’ and food from which to choose in the garden of Eden. For them to DELIBERATELY defy God, turn away from all the other ‘fruit’ (which may have been EXACTLY the same ‘kind’ of fruit as what grew on the tree) and eat the ‘forbidden fruit’ --THAT WAS THE SIN.

Likewise with the poor old hot dog–or the burger, the pork chop, etc.–it is not those things in THEMSELVES which are harmful. It is the deliberate defiance, the willful setting of one’s own ‘choice’ over what has been presented to us BY what we–as Catholics–believe to be the GOD-GIVEN AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH–that is the mortal sin.

IOW, the Catholic who DELIBERATELY --not ‘mistakenly’, not ‘carelessly’, not ‘unthinkingly’, but DELIBERATELY chooses to defy a Church teaching which we believe was INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT–meaning, the teaching is from GOD, not ‘from man’–is not sinning through ‘eating meat’ but through DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD HIMSELF THROUGH HIS ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

It’s big. It’s really big. That is why it is ‘mortal’ --disobedience to GOD ‘is’ a big, big deal. Don’t you agree?

Because it is a long-standing tradition, because it is a very ‘public’ and well known tradition, it is much more obvious to others. If John and Jane are KNOWN to be Catholic, yet walk into Wendy’s on a Lenten Friday and order megabuster burgers, people are going to KNOW that they are in defiance of their own Church “rules”. I am sure many people–Catholics and nonCatholics–sin ‘mortally’ but simply are not so visibly ‘seen’ by others. And I’m sure they try to excuse it just as much.

“Well, yes, I cheated on my wife/husband–but SHE/HE doesn’t understand me/is out of shape or unappealing/can’t satisfy my wants. . .etc. etc.”
“Well, yes, I did steal a lot from stores/employers/the government/other people–but they don’t pay me what I’m worth and so in order to get what I ‘need’ I have to get it someplace else, or “they” can ‘afford’ to buy plenty, and I can’t.”
“Well, yes, I did have/consented to have my partner get an abortion. . .but you don’t understand. I/she would have had to give up MY/HER WHOLE LIFE because of one ‘little mistake’. . .and besides, it’s KINDER to ‘not let’ the child be born unless it has parents who PLANNED for it and can GIVE IT ALL IT WANTS. Right?”

 

[bobzills]

Yes, and my point was that the bite of hot is such a minor temptation that a “devout” Catholic wouldn’t even be tempted. You’re trying to say a "minor mortal sin” and I’m saying there’s no such thing as a “minor” mortal sin to a devout Catholic or Christian. You’re trying to minimize a major sin like it’s an every day event. A mortal sin isn’t a “minor” infraction!

I did not use the expressions which you have placed in quotation marks, so this is not a correct quotation of what I have actually said.
Still, I would say that in some sense, not all mortal sins are of equal severity. Some mortal sins cause terrible pain and harm to innocent people and are directly against the commandments of God.

 

[sodak]

Perhaps the confusion arises because it is not ‘eating the hot dog’ that is the mortal sin but rather DISOBEDIENCE to a Church ‘discipline’.

NonCatholics (and even some ‘nominal’ Catholics) are ‘appalled’ at the idea of God punishing some ‘poor innocent’ person JUST FOR EATING A HOT DOG. Doesn’t sound very ‘loving’.

Of course, He DID punish those two people --Adam and Eve --JUST for eating a fruit from a tree which He had told them not to eat.

See the parallel here?

Adam and Eve, we are told, had every imaginable ‘fruit’ and food from which to choose in the garden of Eden. For them to DELIBERATELY defy God, turn away from all the other ‘fruit’ (which may have been EXACTLY the same ‘kind’ of fruit as what grew on the tree) and eat the ‘forbidden fruit’ --THAT WAS THE SIN.

Likewise with the poor old hot dog–or the burger, the pork chop, etc.–it is not those things in THEMSELVES which are harmful. It is the deliberate defiance, the willful setting of one’s own ‘choice’ over what has been presented to us BY what we–as Catholics–believe to be the GOD-GIVEN AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH–that is the mortal sin.

IOW, the Catholic who DELIBERATELY --not ‘mistakenly’, not ‘carelessly’, not ‘unthinkingly’, but DELIBERATELY chooses to defy a Church teaching which we believe was INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT–meaning, the teaching is from GOD, not ‘from man’–is not sinning through ‘eating meat’ but through DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD HIMSELF THROUGH HIS ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

It’s big. It’s really big. That is why it is ‘mortal’ --disobedience to GOD ‘is’ a big, big deal. Don’t you agree?

No. I don’t.

Because it is a long-standing tradition, because it is a very ‘public’ and well known tradition, it is much more obvious to others. If John and Jane are KNOWN to be Catholic, yet walk into Wendy’s on a Lenten Friday and order megabuster burgers, people are going to KNOW that they are in defiance of their own Church “rules”. I am sure many people–Catholics and nonCatholics–sin ‘mortally’ but simply are not so visibly ‘seen’ by others. And I’m sure they try to excuse it just as much.

“Well, yes, I cheated on my wife/husband–but SHE/HE doesn’t understand me/is out of shape or unappealing/can’t satisfy my wants. . .etc. etc.”
“Well, yes, I did steal a lot from stores/employers/the government/other people–but they don’t pay me what I’m worth and so in order to get what I ‘need’ I have to get it someplace else, or “they” can ‘afford’ to buy plenty, and I can’t.”
“Well, yes, I did have/consented to have my partner get an abortion. . .but you don’t understand. I/she would have had to give up MY/HER WHOLE LIFE because of one ‘little mistake’. . .and besides, it’s KINDER to ‘not let’ the child be born unless it has parents who PLANNED for it and can GIVE IT ALL IT WANTS. Right?”

**
Once more, if you equate eating a hot dog, or, if you prefer, rebelling against a church tradition, to abortion and adultery, then you need to get some perspective.

I ask again, on what or who’s authority do we have that this is a mortal sin? I can think of one condition not satisfied - serious matter.

Ok, I’ll quit posting on this, as I think this will just drag on and on. I am amazed at the seriousness accorded of this. If someone were to go up to a Priest or Bishop and chomp a hot dog as an act of defiance, then yes, I could see this as being more serious. If someone is hungry and forgets, big deal. If someone “conveniently” forgets, then perhaps a slightly bigger deal, but still not that serious in my mind. To equate disobeying a discipline to adultery or murder is sheer nonsense. **

 

[CentralFLJames]

**
Once more, if you equate eating a hot dog, or, if you prefer, rebelling against a church tradition, to abortion and adultery, then you need to get some perspective.

I ask again, on what or who’s authority do we have that this is a mortal sin? I can think of one condition not satisfied - serious matter.

OK, I’ll quit posting on this, as I think this will just drag on and on. I am amazed at the seriousness accorded of this. If someone were to go up to a Priest or Bishop and chomp a hot dog as an act of defiance, then yes, I could see this as being more serious. If someone is hungry and forgets, big deal. If someone “conveniently” forgets, then perhaps a slightly bigger deal, but still not that serious in my mind. To equate disobeying a discipline to adultery or murder is sheer nonsense. **

The problem with “mortal sin” is that in so far as going to heaven is concerned there is no real distinction of “degree” or “frequency”- we simply are cut off from God by any number of them (1 or more) or by any “apparent” difference of severity between them and somone elses. We are responsible for ourselves - not somone elses value opinion on what God should value. Just because Person A goes to Hell for breaking fast 1 time and Person B goes to Hell for murdering 3 times does not change the fact that neither of them can go to heaven. No doubt God has something extra special prepared to punish person B though. This is one of those few black and white concepts. It’s either mortal sin or not mortal sin; hell or heaven (ususally through purgatory).

The good news is even though it sounds unfair one can have a million venial sins and still get to heaven (eventually - probably after spending probably all the time till final judgement suffering in purgatory). But as an aside - the reality of this flippant venial example though is that the high concupiscence caused by that high frequency of venial sin would be indicative of a life style and lax spiritual attitude that would likely lead sooner or later to mortal sin (kind of like someone recreationally often taking less serious illegal drugs that are risk factors leading to one eventually becoming exposed to deadly illegal drugs and dieing).

While alive we can get back to God from a state of mortal sin if we really repent with a sincere contrition and repentance. But if we die in that impenitent state - its the end of the road for us; game over; do not pass go; go straight to hell; and there is no “get out of jail card” to be had for any price. It only sounds unfair since we are judging by human standards. The contrary case does not sound fair either. That is, some people get to go to heaven for eternity for doing nothing but obeying God’s rules and watching their Ps and Qs; while somone else worked hard in the Church all their life and was pious but ended up getting involved later in life with some-one’s spouse working as a church volunteer, committed adultery, divorced and remarried.

Once we start getting into moral relativism the human tendency is to invent all kinds of special escape or weasel clauses to justify sin or trivialize it. For example if things really got bad in society and it became lawless and murder was a common every day occurrence (like it is in the inner cities) do you think it would matter to God how many people you killed in so far as going to heaven is concerned? No. But I could imagine someone arguing against Satan - “but I only murdered one jerk and everyone else murders on average of 4 people in their life so cut me a break.” This case is just a lesser evil - but its still *evil *and nothing evil can go to heaven - period.

I have said in other forums here that I don’t think people really quite get just how profoundly “holy” God is. If an impure soul were permitted to glance at God face to face (not a chance) it would be annihilated by his holiness. If more people thought of this they would not only do the minor fasting and things - but they would go out of there way to exceed the minimal requirements out of conviction and start working on indulgences for themselves, their families, friends and deceased who are likely still in purgatory suffering terribly.

We Catholics are called not just to obedience and not just to “do no evil” - we are called to holiness. Holiness is not just simply doing no evil.

James

 

[Verbum_Caro]

**
I ask again, on what or who’s authority do we have that this is a mortal sin? I can think of one condition not satisfied - serious matter.
**

Sodak,

I think one place we can look (besides canon law) is the apostolic constitution Paenitemini :

Therefore, the following is declared and established:

I. By divine law all the faithful are required to do penance.

II. . . . .The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday. . .Their substantial observance binds gravely.

Since the obligation to do some sort of penance is a divine law and the concrete expression of this is commanded by the Church on Fridays of Lent and binds gravely, I think we could plausible say that knowingly defying this grave obligation would be serious matter.

VC

 

[bobzills]

**
Once more, if you equate eating a hot dog, or, if you prefer, rebelling against a church tradition, to abortion and adultery, then you need to get some perspective.

I ask again, on what or who’s authority do we have that this is a mortal sin? I can think of one condition not satisfied - serious matter. . **

I guess it is on the authority of His Holiness Pope Alexander who condemned the following proposition: Whosoever violates the ecclesiastical law of fasting to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he acts through contempt or disobedience.
Please see: Denzinger, no.1123. And it is also on the basis of the day to day teaching of the Church.

 

[Sir_Knight]

So, my example does then exist, and it is not impossible to happen, as a good man can turn away from God, as the Bible says.

These are the exact same points and the exact same passages that I mentioned in posts #19 & #29.

 

[sodak]

Bobzills and Verbum Caro, thanks! That’s what I was looking for!

CentralFLJames, thank you also. You have given me a lot to think about, good points!