Mortal Sin Question

[ralphinal]

So the church definitions of mortal sin are infallible?

Perhaps maybe I am wrong here, but I seem to recall reading that the requirements for the fast before mass over time have changed. At one time it was many hours, but now it is only an hour. Is my understanding here correct?

That is a matter of discipline, not sin. That can be changed. Murder is always murder.

I also recall reading this year that the church has added new mortal sins. I forget what they were, but I am sure I am correct. Does that mean that someone who commits this sin before the church defines it gets a pass while someone who commits this sin today goes to hell?

These are new additions to the seven deadly sins, which should be called predispositions. These are acts that tend to lead to serious sin even when they are not sins to begin with. More than likely, no one would be sent to hell just for one of these.

I thought infallible teachings could not change.

The do not change, but our understanding might.

I am quite sure that the mortal sins the church recently added were still possible to commit on the day before the church added these.

Again, these are predispositions that cause trouble. One is being obscenely rich. Is that in and of itself a sin? Probably not. Does it lead to situations that are sinful? Yep.

That is why I included the word function in many variables. In the case of theft, there are at least two variables and possibly more (amount stolen and net worth of victim).

Even though functions in many variables look different than functions in one variable, they still logically suffer from the cutoff point problem.

No, they don’t. Once you make a threshold, you alter the dynamic. $100.00 is not always just $100.00. It is how we effect others that matters as well as our sinning against God.

Well when you get to the heart, this leads to a separate set of questions.

I could take some answers I have received so far and interpret them as being that "mortal sin is a hypothetical possiblity but rare to non-existent in real life because a Christian rarely if ever really sins out of rejecting God.

Under this scenario, the hunter (with a 99.99 percent confidence factor) did not commit a mortal sin because he was not rejecting God.

But that is not the answer I received to my question.

To chose sin is to reject God. ANY SIN IS A CHOICE TO REJECT GOD. THe sin itself might not be the sin of rejecting God, but any sin is putting something before him. When I sin, I am telling God that I want him out of my heart.

 

[With_Questions]

If he was truly contrite and at the first opportunity confessed his sin to a Priest he would be forgiven by Christ.

If he was fully contrite and had every intention to confess his sins at the first opportunity; but, did not have a chance to then he would be forgiven. He may have to go to purgatory for cleansing.

So under my example he was not truly contrite. He felt some guilt but was not dealing with it yet. Now I am sure he would have in a couple of days but not yet. Of course the accident happened in the mean time.

You may think I am nitpicking but this is my world. From my experience when I sin it goes something like this.
(1) It starts with me not being really in a place where I should be. Probably my priorities are out of whack and I am not spending time with God as I should.
(2) So just like Peter I blow out.
(3) And just like Peter (presumably) I feel guilty afterwards. However I do not deal with guilt.
(4) And just like Peter (when the cock crows) the Lord gets a hold of me and I deal with what I have done
(5) Until the next time this cycle happens again.

This is my world. Maybe it is not that way with any of you, but it is that way with me.

If I understand you all correctly, if I just happen to croak between time (2) above and time (4) above I go straight to hell. Otherwise I go to heaven (well maybe through purgatory but we won’t worry about that for now)

 

[ralphinal]

So under my example he was not truly contrite. He felt some guilt but was not dealing with it yet. Now I am sure he would have in a couple of days but not yet. Of course the accident happened in the mean time.

You may think I am nitpicking but this is my world. From my experience when I sin it goes something like this.
(1) It starts with me not being really in a place where I should be. Probably my priorities are out of whack and I am not spending time with God as I should.
(2) So just like Peter I blow out.
(3) And just like Peter (presumably) I feel guilty afterwards. However I do not deal with guilt.
(4) And just like Peter (when the cock crows) the Lord gets a hold of me and I deal with what I have done
(5) Until the next time this cycle happens again.

This is my world. Maybe it is not that way with any of you, but it is that way with me.

If I understand you all correctly, if I just happen to croak between time (2) above and time (4) above I go straight to hell. Otherwise I go to heaven (well maybe through purgatory but we won’t worry about that for now)

You are not alone. I go through that too. the catch is not to get to step 2. WHen it seems wrong, leave then. My own willpower tends to fail all to often when I trust it to hold up.

 

[With_Questions]

To chose sin is to reject God. ANY SIN IS A CHOICE TO REJECT GOD. THe sin itself might not be the sin of rejecting God, but any sin is putting something before him. When I sin, I am telling God that I want him out of my heart.

I respectfully disagree.

Back to the two year old analogy.

A bratty two year old might have days where he/she is totally rebellious and naughty before mom. At least my two year olds have been that way. Maybe your two year olds are different.

However, this bratty two year old is not really rejecting mom. He is acting that way because he is…well a two year old. And certainly mother does not reject the two year old.

Maybe you all aren’t that way, but I find that for myself I am too often just like that bratty two year old before my heavenly Father.

 

[ralphinal]

I respectfully disagree.

Back to the two year old analogy.

A bratty two year old might have days where he/she is totally rebellious and naughty before mom. At least my two year olds have been that way. Maybe your two year olds are different.

However, this bratty two year old is not really rejecting mom. He is acting that way because he is…well a two year old. And certainly mother does not reject the two year old.

Maybe you all aren’t that way, but I find that for myself I am too often just like that bratty two year old before my heavenly Father.

But you are not two. At some point, you must accept responsibility for your actions. Paul would say you must stop acting like a child, thinking like a child, and be an adult.

It is not easy, but it is our calling.

Mortal sin is not throwing a temper tantrum. There is no two-year old equivalent. It is more like stealing the car and running away. Even then, mortal sin, by the fact that you know it is a sin and choose to do it, is a wilfull defiance of God.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Under your theology, I would hate to imagine what would happen if I croaked when I was having one of these days.

I don’t know how to make it any clearer that it’s not a question of “one of those days.” It’s about the choices that you make day in and day out.

You keep mentioning Peter denying Jesus. Yeah…it happened. But do you think that single incident was indicative of their overall relationship? Do you think Peter thought things through and said to himself “I no longer care about Jesus”? Or – my interpretation – he acted out of weakness and made a mistake. And then he was sorry about it. It wasn’t the end of their relationship.

 

[With_Questions]

You are not alone. I go through that too. the catch is not to get to step 2.

Easier said than done.

Like Peter, when my priorities are out of whack, too often I find myself blowing it. If my priorities are in check, then usually I am safe.

I would hate to think that my eternal destiny, heaven or hell, fluctuates like a lightbulb, on and off, on and off, because of the normal ups and downs of life.

 

[PerryJ]

But you are not two. At some point, you must accept responsibility for your actions. Paul would say you must stop acting like a child, thinking like a child, and be an adult.

It is not easy, but it is our calling.

Mortal sin is not throwing a temper tantrum. There is no two-year old equivalent. It is more like stealing the car and running away. Even then, mortal sin, by the fact that you know it is a sin and choose to do it, is a wilfull defiance of God.

As Adam did. The offence is defined by the “willful defiance” of God.

 

[ralphinal]

Easier said than done.

Like Peter, when my priorities are out of whack, too often I find myself blowing it. If my priorities are in check, then usually I am safe.

I would hate to think that my eternal destiny, heaven or hell, fluctuates like a lightbulb, on and off, on and off, because of the normal ups and downs of life.

Ok, let me post it this way. Is every sin you commit serious matter? Not to brag, but I can go a long time between mortal sins. Not that I always do, but I have before.

 

[With_Questions]

You keep mentioning Peter denying Jesus. Yeah…it happened. But do you think that single incident was indicative of their overall relationship? Do you think Peter thought things through and said to himself “I no longer care about Jesus”? Or – my interpretation – he acted out of weakness and made a mistake. And then he was sorry about it. It wasn’t the end of their relationship.

Then, let’s work with Peter since this is a Biblical example we are all familiar with.

Based on the answers I have received thus far, if Peter had croaked between the time he had denied Christ and the cock crowed, well too bad for Pete. He bakes in the lake. Just like my hunter.

Now you are saying wait a minute, that is not the case, that the relationship he had with Christ overrides the period of momentary weakness he was in when he fell.

This is totally a horse of a different color. Because the Peter cycle is the cycle I find repeating in my life over and over again in different forms.

Now I happen to agree with you, but that is not the answer I have received from others here.

 

[PerryJ]

Then, let’s work with Peter since this is a Biblical example we are all familiar with.

Based on the answers I have received thus far, if Peter had croaked between the time he had denied Christ and the cock crowed, well too bad for Pete. He bakes in the lake. Just like my hunter.

Now you are saying wait a minute, that is not the case, that the relationship he had with Christ overrides the period of momentary weakness he was in when he fell.

This is totally a horse of a different color. Because the Peter cycle is the cycle I find repeating in my life over and over again in different forms.

Now I happen to agree with you, but that is not the answer I have received from others here.

Let us extend the thought to include Judas. Peter loved the Lord. Failed him and repented. The Lord accepted his repentance.

Judas failed the Lord. Instead of repenting he turned away from God and killed himself. (I am not going to judge him and state if he was forgiven or not as I do not know.) The actions though are different.

Peter was remorseful and repented. Note this was also not the first time Peter failed Christ. Did he not request that Jesus not to go to Jerusalem. Christ said Satan get behind me. Yet Peter’s relationship with Christ was strong.

 

[With_Questions]

But you are not two. At some point, you must accept responsibility for your actions. Paul would say you must stop acting like a child, thinking like a child, and be an adult.

It is not easy, but it is our calling.

Mortal sin is not throwing a temper tantrum. There is no two-year old equivalent. It is more like stealing the car and running away. Even then, mortal sin, by the fact that you know it is a sin and choose to do it, is a wilfull defiance of God.

No I am not two.

But somehow I think the following ratio is true

My moral development / God righteousness and holiness

=

The moral development of my two year old / My moral development.

Actually, I think I am giving myself way too much credit in this equation, but you get the drift.

Anyway you seem to think that if Peter had croaked between the time he fell and the time the cock crowed, that Peter would go straight to hell. To bad for Pete.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[ralphinal]

No I am not two.

But somehow I think the following ratio is true

My moral development / God righteousness and holiness

=

The moral development of my two year old / My moral development.

Actually, I think I am giving myself way too much credit in this equation, but you get the drift.

Anyway you seem to think that if Peter had croaked between the time he fell and the time the cock crowed, that Peter would go straight to hell. To bad for Pete.

I respectfully disagree.

I am not 100% sure Peter freely chose to deny him. There was a mob there, and that may be indication that he felt duress.

 

[With_Questions]

Let us extend the thought to include Judas. Peter loved the Lord. Failed him and repented. The Lord accepted his repentance.

Judas failed the Lord. Instead of repenting he turned away from God and killed himself. (I am not going to judge him and state if he was forgiven or not as I do not know.) The actions though are different.

Peter was remorseful and repented. Note this was also not the first time Peter failed Christ. Did he not request that Jesus not to go to Jerusalem. Christ said Satan get behind me. Yet Peter’s relationship with Christ was strong.

Agreed there is a big difference between Peter and Judas. I am asking about Peter because although it is the same as the hunter analogy, it is one we are all well familiar with.

Specifically I am asking about the time interval between the time he fell and the time that he repented.

My question could then be what if Peter had died between the time he fell and the time the cock cried and he saw Jesus and repented.

According to answers I received initially, he would go straight to hell. According to answers I am receiving now, well I am kind of confused, but apparantly to some…that is not the case.

This is key because I see Peter in myself. I hope I don’t see Judas.

 

[With_Questions]

I am not 100% sure Peter freely chose to deny him. There was a mob there, and that may be indication that he felt duress.

But wait a minute.

Denying him was a grave matter.

Certainly Peter knew it was a grave matter.

Isn’t that what mortal sin is?

Peter was under duress because he was not where he should have been in the first place. And he was deliberately ignoring the warnings of Christ received just a few hours ago.

So why give Peter a pass?

This is very confusing to me.

From some answers I get here, I tend to think that my eternal status is random and I had better hope that I don’t croak at an unlucky time.

For other answers that I get I think that maybe in real life mortal sin per Catholicism is just a hypothetical possibility that in real life amongst ordinary Christians rarely if ever occurs.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am just asking these questions to point out the logical inconsistencies in what I am receiving for answers. The cutoff point problem is logically big and real when the consequences for missing cutoff are heaven and hell.

Actually, what I have seen in this thread is the forcing of Church teaching into a legalistic caricature of what it is not. As I already noted, you could do the same with Paul or Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc… You simply choose not to.

 

[PerryJ]

From some answers I get here, I tend to think that my eternal status is random and I had better hope that I don’t croak at an unlucky time.

For other answers that I get I think that maybe in real life mortal sin per Catholicism is just a hypothetical possibility that in real life amongst ordinary Christians rarely if ever occurs.

How do you get that they are random? The Lord states one should always be ready.

A person makes a choice. When one choses to sin that person will be held accountable. If one is repentant that person will be forgiven. The person may still have temporal punishment to deal with; but, they are forgiven. If one is repentant of a mortal sin one must go to confession at the earliest possible time. If that person remains unrepentant than they are not forgiven. There is nothing random.

Are you trying to prove predestination?

Mortal sin is not hypothetical. It is in the Bible.

 

[With_Questions]

How do you get that they are random? The Lord states one should always be ready.

A person makes a choice. When one choses to sin that person will be held accountable. If one is repentant that person will be forgiven. The person may still have temporal punishment to deal with; but, they are forgiven. If one is repentant of a mortal sin one must go to confession at the earliest possible time. If that person remains unrepentant than they are not forgiven. There is nothing random.

Are you trying to prove predestination?

Mortal sin is not hypothetical. It is in the Bible.

So I may surmise that you believe that if Peter had croaked between the point where he fell and the point where the rooster crowed, that he would have gone to hell.

 

[PerryJ]

So I may surmise that you believe that if Peter had croaked between the point where he fell and the point where the rooster crowed, that he would have gone to hell.

Let someone a little better trained address this. I copied this from the forums today from Father Vicent Serpa. I don’t want to misguide you.

If a person is near death & there is no preist around (for example, passengers are aware their airplane is going down), can an ordinary person hear a person’s confession? I’ve heard this is acceptable, obviously only in extreme situations. Although, someone else told me the ordinary person can listen, but cannot forgive any “mortal” sins - since they can’t administer the sacrament of penance…???. So is the confession “valid?”

Only a priest has the power to forgive sins (Canon 965). If one is in danger of death and no priest is available, one should try to make a perfect act of contrition, i.e., asking for God’s mercy out of love for Him rather than out of fear of punishment.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[With_Questions]

Actually, what I have seen in this thread is the forcing of Church teaching into a legalistic caricature of what it is not. As I already noted, you could do the same with Paul or Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc… You simply choose not to.

Actually sir, I am trying to understand this because because I am getting mixed messages in this thread.

According to some answers I am getting, Catholicism seems to be a sort of hyper Arminian system like some holiness Pentecostal groups I have seen where your eternal status with the Lord flickers like a light bulb…on and off and on and off.

According to some other answers I am getting, Catholicism seems to be close to maybe just another Arminian type of group like perhaps traditional Methodists or more normal Pentecostal groups.

I find this very confusing because I am getting mixed messages.