Mortal Sin no longer

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not the one to think that the Pope has the authority declare binding doctrine, but at least I understand the concept. He is the spiritual leader of the Church and when you are speaking about spiritual or theological matters, you would naturally hear what he has to say.

Dietary laws and other things which are specifically within the realm of Christian liberty, however, are another thing altogether. Recent Popes have been very godly men, as well as being astute in a political way. No problem with that. We are to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Still, what happens if in some future you get a bad pope, a bad apple (you have had some of them in the past, it could happen again). And, let’s say that this bad pope, just for the malevolent pure joy of it, wants to see what absurd, ridiculous hoops he can force faithful Catholics to run through? Use your imagination. Pick whatever absurd requirement you want. You pick. You make it up. Are you saying that if the Pope was so inclined to impose such a requirement, you’d be obligated under penalty of hell to obey?

(I am not talking theological heresy because you hold that the Holy Spirit would prevent that from happening).

The “malevolent” novelty would be rejected because it would not reflect the constant teaching of the Church.

 

[rr1213]

The “malevolent” novelty would be rejected because it would not reflect the constant teaching of the Church.

I would hope that would be the case. Still, is it within the valid authority of the Pope to prohibit something which is outside of faith and morals which, if violated by faithful Catholics, would be deemed mortal sin? The OP example of no meat on Friday seems to be a real life illustration. What if the Pope said that during the season of Pentacost, every Catholic shall wear red clothes only, to the exclusion of any other color, in recognition of the works of the Holy Spirit amongst the Church? If you knowingly violate such an instruction, are you committing sin mortal or otherwise? To me, I’d say that this is outside of the realm of the Pope’s legitimate authority and could be ignored without consequence. I’m not too sure that most Catholics on this forum would agree with me on that one though. Loose and bind. Obey authority, etc.

 

[fix]

…Historically it can be shown that a disciplinary power has been exercised by the Church uninterruptedly, first by the Apostles and then by their successors…

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law; …
Ecclesiastical Discipline

 

[Philthy]

I will add to this. We are told to obey those placed over us. Is failure to obey those placed over us a mortal sin? If it is, then only 1% of 1% of 1% of us christians are actually going to make it to heaven. Point in case I use everytime. Our government has been placed in charge of us by the will of God. That same government has issued laws to protect us and others. Point in case? Speeding laws. If you conscientiously go over the speed limit, then you are conscientiously disobeying the government, and if you are disobeying the government, then you are disobeying the will of God with full intent, full knowledge, and full grave matter.

It isn’t a mortal sin to go over the speed limit - get a hold of yourself! Do you honestly believe such speculations are fruitful?

 

[VociMike]

First of all, it is very unlikely that most people who ate meat back in the days when it was prohibited on Fridays, committed a mortal sin. For most of them it is likely that full knowledge of the magnitude of the sin were lacking. They probably treated it as more of a cultural thing – we’re Catholic so we don’t eat meat on Fridays, but what the heck, I’ve wanted a steak all week!

Now, what was the sin? It was not eating meat on Fridays. It was defying the God-given authority of the Church. Either the Church has this authority as she claims, or she doesn’t. If she does, she is to be obeyed because she speaks for God, so to speak. If she doesn’t have this authority then the heck with her.

Anybody who wants to face the question of “hell for eating meat on Fridays?!” must connect it to the question “hell for eating one apple, not to mention bringing suffering and death to all mankind?!” If you accept that God was justified in requiring obedience of Adam and Eve even on such a “small” matter, why would you reject that God’s Church is justified in requiring obedience on such a “small” matter?

As I said, it all comes down to the question of whether the Church really has authority (and guidance) from God.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Right, as long as the law is just and those in power act within their authority.

The duties of citizens
2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 …

Are speed limits just? I would say yes since they were enacted to help prevent a loss of life. So when you speed, in essence you are saying that you don’t care about anyone’s life to a certain degree, which would be a violation of love your neighbor as yourself. So you are actually breaking two commandments handed down by scripture. MHO.

 

[JoeyWarren]

It isn’t a mortal sin to go over the speed limit - get a hold of yourself! Do you honestly believe such speculations are fruitful?

Yes. There are those that claim to have never sinned after becoming saved. When in fact they do sin are totally clueless about it.

 

[fix]

Are speed limits just? I would say yes since they were enacted to help prevent a loss of life. So when you speed, in essence you are saying that you don’t care about anyone’s life to a certain degree, which would be a violation of love your neighbor as yourself. So you are actually breaking two commandments handed down by scripture. MHO.

I would say intentionally speeding is a sin. Usually venial, but in some cases mortal. Not to go off topic, but a man who insists on driving 70mph in a 30 mph zone and gets into an accident that kills someone certainly committed an objectively grave sin.

 

[Gareth]

Anybody who wants to face the question of “hell for eating meat on Fridays?!” must connect it to the question “hell for eating one apple, not to mention bringing suffering and death to all mankind?!” If you accept that God was justified in requiring obedience of Adam and Eve even on such a “small” matter, why would you reject that God’s Church is justified in requiring obedience on such a “small” matter?

Interesting point. I thought about this, my imediate thought was, it probably wasn’t an apple though, something more than an apple I would have thought. But you could argue that it’s not just meat on a friday also, so the point is made.

Your responses are good, but it seems like an Old Testament kind of way of thinking and the church condemend as heresy early on,people who tried to make christians conform to laws… (be circumsized etc.)

p.s also noticed I ment to say shouldn’t eat meat on friday not fish.

Thanks
Gareth

 

[JoeyWarren]

I would say intentionally speeding is a sin. Usually venial, but in some cases mortal. Not to go off topic, but a man who insists on driving 70mph in a 30 mph zone and gets into an accident that kills someone certainly committed an objectively grave sin.

I don’t think it went off topic, I think the jist of the topic is that something was considered mortal and now it is not by some token of measure.

 

[ricmat]

Two items:

1. Assuming that one eating meat on Friday was NOT a case of “In your face God and the Church”, is it really a MORTAL sin? That doesn’t leave much room for any venial sins at all.
2. Where I live (SoCal), the average speed on the roads is about 20mph above the posted limit. You are much more likely to get somebody killed by going the limit than going with the disobedient flow. If you insist on going the limit, and kill somebody as a result, are you going to say “Well, thank God I didn’t commit a mortal sin?”

 

[fix]

Two items:

1. Assuming that one eating meat on Friday was NOT a case of “In your face God and the Church”, is it really a MORTAL sin? That doesn’t leave much room for any venial sins at all.

For centuries, Catholics couldn’t eat meat on Friday. Today they can.
When that prohibition was in force, the Magisterium was using its
authority in a seriously binding way. One sinned seriously when one ate
meat deliberately on Friday. Today, the Magisterium leaves the grave duty
of mortifying oneself up to the individual, particularly how one will
practice self-denial. The authority of the Church is involved in both
instances, but differently.

 A joke was going around a few years ago on what St. Peter was to do

with those Catholics in hell because they ate meat on Friday. They are
still there, I say, because they deliberately disobeyed the Magisterium.
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/DISCHUR.TXT

1. Where I live (SoCal), the average speed on the roads is about 20mph above the posted limit. You are much more likely to get somebody killed by going the limit than going with the disobedient flow. If you insist on going the limit, and kill somebody as a result, are you going to say “Well, thank God I didn’t commit a mortal sin?”

So, all those folks who break the law are morally correct? If an accident were to happen the fault is with those who disobey.

 

[twf]

Is everything grave matter!? Surely going 5 miles over the speed limit is not a mortal sin…maybe, if done with full knowledge and consent, it would be a venial sin…but surely such a minor act of disobedience is not grave matter. If EVERY little act of disobedience, against man, country, Church, or God is to be considered grave matter, I will be very surprised if a single soul gets to heaven…

 

[kleary]

Hi,

A an older guy I know late 60s a catholic mentioned the following issue to me.

In New Zealand not eating fish on a friday was taken out and is no longer in force.

Eating fish on a friday was up until this time considered a mortal sin.
Dieing in a state of mortal sin would condemn one to hell.

What of someone who died in this way, was condemned to hell, then the Church changed its mind, what would happen to this person?

It is one of the things that stops me from crossing over…

Catholic answers only please.

Sincerly
Gareth

Well - there is a similar situation here in the US. Prior to the change in the 1960’s all Catholics were obliged to abstain from flesh meat on evey single Friday of the year.

Then the disciplinary practice was “modified” here in the US. In the US today you can either abstain from flesh meat, something other than that you regularly enjoy (such as candy) or do an act of penance, mortification or almsgiving. Now if you do not do something else in place of abstaining from flesh meat then you commit mortal sin. THIS IS STILL A DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

Now, what about all those other Catholics prior to the change who ate meat on Friday. Did they go to hell? Well on appearance of it, if they did then it was not for “eating meat on Friday” - but for DISOBEDIENCE.

Ken

 

[kleary]

And on a side note here- the Church has never said anyone is in hell. God is the judge. But don’t let that fool you. Hell most certainly exists- I am not going to say someone will go there- but I cannot say someone won’t.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Is everything grave matter!? Surely going 5 miles over the speed limit is not a mortal sin…maybe, if done with full knowledge and consent, it would be a venial sin…but surely such a minor act of disobedience is not grave matter. If EVERY little act of disobedience, against man, country, Church, or God is to be considered grave matter, I will be very surprised if a single soul gets to heaven…

In the confessional the priest gave 10-15 miles over the speed limit in his best judgement. In that case it is a matter of safety and not of a limit for a cop to issue a ticket. I know for a fact that state troopers here on a particular highway that is completely straight and very wide to where the speed limit is 65 MPH will not pull you over unless you exceed 80 MPH (my bro is a cop).

Ken

 

[Giovanna]

…

Am I the only person reading this thread who feels absolutely gobsmacked beyond words at the insanely unmerciful legalism?

If a loving, merciful, fatherly God is honestly that implacable, why should anyone ever bother believing in the faintest glint of hope, ever?

This is why potential converts run away screaming.

 

[rr1213]

…

Am I the only person reading this thread who feels absolutely gobsmacked beyond words at the insanely unmerciful legalism?

If a loving, merciful, fatherly God is honestly that implacable, why should anyone ever bother believing in the faintest glint of hope, ever?

This is why potential converts run away screaming.

Yes, yes, yes…

 

[Gareth]

And on a side note here- the Church has never said anyone is in hell.
Ken

I’m sure that’s not so, does the church not teach that a person who dies in a state of mortal sin goes to hell?

I am also pretty astounded at the legalism present,in this thread. Thankfully I’m not going to ‘run off screaming’ as I think in reality Church leadership would probably give a more balanced opinion.

It is a bad P.R job for the RCC. Surely it’s motive that counts, more than act. I knowingly speed, but you can’t be so black and white about things. Sometimes doing the speed limit would be wrong (i.e you should go slower) sometimes, I might slow my car to look at a woman on the side of the road, sometimes plain lack of courtesy is a sin, even though I might have the ‘right of way’. I think we all know when we commit a sin or not.

I guess my real issue with the meat thing is, yes I could see how eating meat and saying in your face God would be a mortal sin I just find it hard to accept it’s a mortal sin if someone weakens under temptation and sins through weakness.

The words of Jesus are pretty clear on this sort of thing, look up the references to the law which Jesus ‘breaks’…

Not washing his hands (x2)
Healing on a Sabbath

Or the laws he criticizes, tithing herbs etc. Extra laws that were added by what was at that time, the One true faith (and Jesus obivously knew this)

I understand the need to accept the authority of the church, but this seems petty, and unlikely to cause God in his ultimate judgement to condemn someone to eternal suffereing.

Cheers
Gareth

 

[LilyM]

…

Am I the only person reading this thread who feels absolutely gobsmacked beyond words at the insanely unmerciful legalism?

If a loving, merciful, fatherly God is honestly that implacable, why should anyone ever bother believing in the faintest glint of hope, ever?

This is why potential converts run away screaming.

God, like the best fathers, strikes a balance in his parenting. On the one hand (but it’s only one hand) is warm fuzzy love and mercy stuff.

On the other (and equally necessary) are the rules, responsibilities, hard lessons and boundary-setting. And the required obedience even-if-it-seems-unfair-to-you-because-you-can’t-understand stuff.

Any parent worth their salt will tell you you can’t veer too far in either of these two directions at the expense of the other. And looking at the way most children turn out in this permissive age, I’m glad God has the sense to require a little more of us and excuse a little less from us.