Mortal Sin Question

[With_Questions]

Dear With Questions, you seem to be confident that our representation of the Truth is as you say, ambiguous. If you recall, you wanted to now a little something about what the Church teaches about Mortal sin. This has been given you. You reject it and give your reasons. This is your opinion. You also have mentioned that you are shall I say, somewhere else at this point in your spiritual journey. You seem to be at a time in your life when you are undecided about certain points and are obtaining information about different religious practices. That is good. We are all seekers. You also seem to be relatively lucid in your comments so, I can assume you have a rudimentary grasp of what the Church teaches about Mortal sin. In your opening post, you gave a specific example knowing ahead that your scenario involved mortal sins. This was your acknowlegement that you already know the difference between Mortal and venial sins. Did you do this to provoke us? Perhaps. But that isn’t important.

In looking through your various comments on this thread it is obvious that you have chosen to reject the Church’s teachings and are basically on your own trying to live your “personal truths.” That is your will. I just wonder why you came here in the first place, is there something in you that may actually be being drawn to the Church? I think so. Maybe you’ll take some of your intelligently formed opinions and place them on hold for awhile. I can hope so. In the meantime I will pray for you.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. I once heard a joke that Fr. Corapi shared. I think it may go well here - forgive my telling it badly. A man sitting in a pew besides an old woman in a lecture on the 4 last things whispered to the old woman sitting next to him, “I don’t believe in Hell,” and smiled. The old woman looked at him and said without blinking, “You will when you get there!”

So instead of actually engaging in what I am saying, you instead choose to be condescending. Thanks a lot.

 

[With_Questions]

TO: WITH QUESTIONS
**I do not think you were understanding what the Catechism is saying. **
I can read thank you you very much and do have at least a 10th grade reading comprehension level. I do think that reading comprehension level qualifies me to read a document and make an intelligent determination as to what the document is and is not saying thank you.

Anyway, another choice of condescension instead of engagement.

Thanks.

 

[With_Questions]

Heres another analogy, like your hunter one, but with something extra just to bring it closer to the sense of the thing from our perspective.

You are married, the story begins, and you find yourself at home relaxing one stormy evening, and your wife calls out to you from the hallway that she is going to drive into town for something or other, you hear the door bang and an engine start.

Twenty minutes later you get a phone call from your wife, whom you love dearly let me add here, she drove through a stream on the way which stalled the car, the water rose quickly because of heavy rain in the mountains and as it rose it shorted the electrics, the doors are locked and stuck the windows won’t work and the water is near the roof of the car, - can you come and help her.

Your hunter in your story would think about this and say to himself, well, my wife is twenty miles away, and frankly I think that is an unreasonable request and an unreasonable distance to travel. Goodbye my love, see you next week.

You on the other hand will take the heroic option, which you see simply as your duty, it is a sweet duty and one you love, and you rush to your love who is calling you. Neither storm nor darkness nor distance nor wild animals nor hunting trips are any obstacle - you will get to her in good time wherever she is.

For the sin part; you can judge for yourself if abandoning your love to a flooded river, or abandoning her at all when she wants you, is a serious matter, and if you had full knowledge of what that would mean - you’ve often seen pictures on tv of dead people pulled out of cars in the water, and if you consented freely to leaving her in her predicament - ‘bye honey, see you next week!’.

You go to mass only because you want to be there with ‘her’ and ‘she’ wants you there with her, there is no point in going otherwise.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:

(Greek eucharistia, thanksgiving). Other titles are used, such as “Lord’s Supper” (Coena Domini), “Table of the Lord” (Mensa Domini), the “Lord’s Body” (Corpus Domini), and the “Holy of Holies” (Sanctissimum), to which may be added the following expressions, and somewhat altered from their primitive meaning: “Agape” (Love-Feast) - NA.

Thing.

Thanks for not being condescending. I appreciate that.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Your post seems to imply that I question the seriousness of sin. That is not the issue at hand.

I am just examining the phrases “full advice and consent” and wonder what exactly they mean and if there is a possible interpretation that could at least be close to something that I believe.

Considering the responses I am getting (not from you) I am questioning whether this is worth the bother or whether I should just pack up and leave.

From looking at this thead, I sort of think that you all are just as bad as us non-Catholics. You are totally convinced that your own private, personal interpretation of your faith is the definitive, correct one, and it totally escapes you that there are other perfectly legitimate readings of your very own source documents that might disagree with you.

But that is not a response to this specific post, of which I am not getting the point.

 

[Thing]

Thing.

Thanks for not being condescending. I appreciate that.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Your post seems to imply that I question the seriousness of sin. That is not the issue at hand.

I am just examining the phrases “full advice and consent” and wonder what exactly they mean and if there is a possible interpretation that could at least be close to something that I believe.

Considering the responses I am getting (not from you) I am questioning whether this is worth the bother or whether I should just pack up and leave.

From looking at this thead, I sort of think that you all are just as bad as us non-Catholics. You are totally convinced that your own private, personal interpretation of your faith is the definitive, correct one, and it totally escapes you that there are other perfectly legitimate readings of your very own source documents that might disagree with you.

But that is not a response to this specific post, of which I am not getting the point.

Your hunter analogy dealt with a situation where you felt there was some discrepancy in Catholic thought. When was it a sin and is the decision on the boundaries of sin ambiguous, arbitrary and were there overlapping grey areas where mortal sin might exist in some type of legal-wrangling parallel universe with non-sin.
I thought my post was super-duper clear, at least it was to me, anyway.
Your hunter analogy was deficient in one area if you don’t mind my saying, he was not a representative of the species, he was sort of a chop it and chance it Catholic so he had no alternative but to attempt to rationalize his actions. He would not attempt that unless he already felt he was wrong.
In an effort to rebalance the analogy I put the motive of Love on the character. Love does not seek to short change its beloved nor does it run from an opportunity to meet its beloved.
Thats all, that is how the mass [eucharist] ought to be viewed. Attempting to find the boundary of sin becomes meaningless when the motive force is love but it becomes all important when the motive is not love.
Love beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Where Love fails sin begins.

BTW Do you mean Full Knowledge and Full Consent, not full advise and full consent.

 

[With_Questions]

Your hunter analogy dealt with a situation where you felt there was some discrepancy in Catholic thought. When was it a sin and is the decision on the boundaries of sin ambiguous, arbitrary and were there overlapping grey areas where mortal sin might exist in some type of legal-wrangling parallel universe with non-sin.
I thought my post was super-duper clear, at least it was to me, anyway.
Your hunter analogy was deficient in one area if you don’t mind my saying, he was not a representative of the species, he was sort of a chop it and chance it Catholic so he had no alternative but to attempt to rationalize his actions. He would not attempt that unless he already felt he was wrong.
In an effort to rebalance the analogy I put the motive of Love on the character. Love does not seek to short change its beloved nor does it run from an opportunity to meet its beloved.
Thats all, that is how the mass [eucharist] ought to be viewed. Attempting to find the boundary of sin becomes meaningless when the motive force is love but it becomes all important when the motive is not love.
Love beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Where Love fails sin begins.

BTW Do you mean Full Knowledge and Full Consent, not full advise and full consent.

Ah, now I know what you are saying.

I was not trying to address the boundaries of sin / not sin.

Yes I meant full knowledge and consent.

Again, I was looking at the phrase “full knowledge and consent” which actually is a quite ambiguous phrase and asking the apparantly very silly questions on how much this is actually done and how much the interpretations of this phrase in this thread are personal, private interpretations as opposed to official doctrine.

 

[Thing]

Again, I was looking at the phrase “full knowledge and consent” which actually is a quite ambiguous phrase and asking the apparantly very silly questions on how much this is actually done and how much the interpretations of this phrase in this thread are personal, private interpretations as opposed to official doctrine.

Maybe someone should list all the interpretations of that phrase from this thread, and we can have a look at them.

"…how much this is actually done… " on how much … like an examination of conscience, but I’m not sure what you meant.

"We must not, however, doubt concerning the sinfulness or lawfulness of everything we do; for that would be foolish and lead us to be scrupulous. If we doubt at all we should have some good reason for doubting, that is, for believing that the thing we are about to do is or is not forbidden. When, therefore, we have such a doubt we must seek information from those who can enlighten us on the subject, so that we may act without the danger of sinning. It is our intention that makes the act we perform sinful or not. Let me explain. Suppose during Lent a person should mistake Friday for Thursday and should eat meat-that person would not commit a real sin, because it is not a sin to eat meat on an ordinary Thursday. He would commit what we call a material sin; that is, his action would be a sin if he really knew what he was doing. On the other hand, if the person, thinking it was Friday when it was really Thursday, ate meat, knowing it to be forbidden, that person would commit a mortal sin, because he intended to do so. Therefore, if what we do is not known to be a sin while we do it, it is no sin for us and cannot become a sin afterwards. But as soon as we know or learn that what we did was wrong, it would be a sin if we did the same thing again. In the same way, everything we do thinking it to be wrong or sinful is wrong and sinful for us, though it may not be wrong for those who know better. Again, it is sinful to judge others for doing wrong, because they may not know that what they do is sinful. It would be better for us to instruct than to blame them. The best we can do, therefore, is to learn well all God’s laws and the laws of His Church as they are taught in the catechism, so that we may know when we are violating them or when we are not, i.e., when we are sinning and when we are not. "

"To steal is a sin. Now, if you steal only a pin the act of stealing in that case could not be a mortal sin, because the “matter,” namely, the stealing of an ordinary pin, is not grievous. But suppose it was a diamond pin of great value, then it would surely be “grievous matter.” “Sufficient reflection,” that is, you must know what you are doing at the time you do it. For example, suppose while you stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin. "Full consent:’ Suppose you were shooting at a target and accidentally killed a man: you would not have the sin of murder, because you did not will or wish to kill a man.

Therefore three things are necessary that your act may be a mortal sin:

The act you do must be bad, and sufficiently important;
You must reflect that you are doing it, and know that it is wrong;
You must do it freely, deliberately, and willfully.
"

If thats any help…

 

[Nordar]

So instead of actually engaging in what I am saying, you instead choose to be condescending. Thanks a lot.

Where do you get that the post was condescending?

The poster was just being truthfull, you don’t like what she said fine. .but there was nothing comdescending about it.

You say you are not getting your questions answered, and are frustrated. You are getting the answers you just choose to dismiss them.

As to your original questions ( and someone already answered). I am a practicing Catholic who loves my Faith and God.

Knowing full well as a Catholic that purposefully, deliberately choosing going Hunting ( Because at that time Hunting is more important than God) instead of going to Mass, is a Mortal sin and separation from God. You can bet there is no way I would be going hunting. There is nothing more important to me than my relationship with God certainly not Hunting.

The same goes for going on vacation, I would make absolutely sure that wherever I was going I would be able to attend Mass or I simply would not go. Again there is no vacation that is more important than my relationship with God.

No one is perfect, we all sin, and we all commit mortal sins, If I do commit a mortal sin my first thought is to get to confession.
No one is telling you or saying that because you commit mortal sin and die before you are able to get to confession, you will go to Hell. If you have sincere contrition in your heart for your sin, your enternal destination ( so to speak) is in God’s hands.

 

[Genesis12345]

It seems that you viewers do n ot know what mortal sin is. You must have missed that day in your CCD when it was taught.

It simply is a separation from God–you are cut off from God until you REPENT!

What is so taxing in understanding this?

Go to confession and if you are sincere, you are forgiven. There really is nothing more to say about mortal sin.

Remember, God loves the sinner, NOT THE SIN.

 

[Nordar]

It seems that you viewers do n ot know what mortal sin is. You must have missed that day in your CCD when it was taught.

It simply is a separation from God–you are cut off from God until you REPENT!

What is so taxing in understanding this?

Go to confession and if you are sincere, you are forgiven. There really is nothing more to say about mortal sin.

Remember, God loves the sinner, NOT THE SIN.

What “viewers” are you speaking about?
Except for one or two, no one is disputing, what you are saying, however for people who are not Catholic it is very taxing to understand!

 

[Genesis12345]

Dear Nordar:

I apologize. I thought you were Catholic. I answer so many questions that I just assumed you were a Catholic. Please forgive me.

It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic or not, God is a unconditional loving person and loves you just as He loves me.

God bless you, Nordar.

Genesis12345

 

[Nordar]

Dear Nordar:

I apologize. I thought you were Catholic. I answer so many questions that I just assumed you were a Catholic. Please forgive me.

It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic or not, God is a unconditional loving person and loves you just as He loves me.

God bless you, Nordar.

Genesis12345

I think that you should read the posts before you answer., I am Catholic!

 

[thirdn6]

Mortal sins sever our relationship with God. If committed over and over it will lead to the destruction of our soul meaning eternally separated from Him. They can be forgiven thru the sacrament of reconciliation, true contrition and by acts of penance. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach, as far as I know, that mortal sinners are automatically condemn to hell at the instant the sin was committed, nor she meant it that way. So it is NOT on-again, off-again into hell as you might be thinking. If we are alive, there is always a chance.

I have an account of committing mortal sins in the past, myself. I thank God for His infinite mercy and grace He allowed me to turn, look back, and listen to His voice- the Catholic Church. Even then, although believing that I was forgiven, I am still humble to believe and accept that certain punishments (I hope to me only, personally) I will have to suffer. For there are consequences of sinning- no doubt about that. Better be in this life than on the next. A friend told me I am on a spiritual rehab right now… I think I’m in purgatory!!!

Your ‘hunter’ died in the accident. Either he had a chance of repenting or had eternally broken his relationship with God at his moment of death. No one knows if he ends up in hell for such a single commission of sin. That’s my opinion. Other Catholics here know better…:tiphat:

I don’t have anything more to say but, “that we all must always be ready for we know not the hour…”

 

[PerryJ]

Well, God does now owe us anything.

He didn’t have to send Jesus to die on the Cross but he did.

I guess this is where I disagree with Catholicism.

Catholicism says that at the point of performing a grave sin, provided you know it is grave and you know what you are doing, that you immediately go to hell. At the point of repentance your eternal salvation returns. Until the next point in time you commit a mortal sin. Then your eternal salvation disappears, until the next point in time where you repent.

I disagree.

This creates a scenario where one’s eternal status is like a light bulb. On, off, on, off. A badly timed death can send a genuine believer who in his heart loves the Lord Jesus Christ to hell because this believer entered a temporary period of disobedience.

I disagree.

I believe that the only way that the eternal status of a genuine believer in the Lord Jesus Christ can flick from on back to off is if this believer walks away and turns his back to the Lord. I do believe that sin can harden the heart of a genuine believer and eventually lead him to the point of turning his back on the Lord (see the book of James). However I do not believe that this happens at the point of sin, instead I believe that this is a progression abd that death occurs at the point of turning back on the Lord.

This is the traditional Arminian position that the church I attend teaches. II believe there is some merit to the Calvinistic position when one looks upon all of this from the perspective of a sovereign God. I just don’t think that this perspective should be the perspective through which all of Scripture is viewed through.

I understand that Catholics disagree with us and think we are presuming upon the grace of God. I understand that some Protestants disagree with us and believe this all is works oriented salvation. So be it.

I think I understand Catholicism better through this discussion. If I don’t understand it, I am open to be corrected.

I just disagree.

Your statement above are the same as Catholic thought. I believe you thinking that sin causes man to go to Hell. We are discussing mortal sin; which, is the turning away from God intentionally. Just as how you have it defined above.

 

[With_Questions]

Your statement above are the same as Catholic thought. I believe you thinking that sin causes man to go to Hell. We are discussing mortal sin; which, is the turning away from God intentionally. Just as how you have it defined above.

Now you are confusing me again.

Just when I was concluding that either (1) Catholicism was just another religion with their unique set of rules to be right with God or (2) Many Catholics do not understand their faith all that well.

Actually I was leaning towards 2 because I google searched this and found another thread in another forum on the same topic where the prevailing Catholic opinion was much different than here (and much more acceptible along the lines of classic Arminianism). Actually it was a Catholic / Orthodox discussion and even though where they differed I preferred the Orthodox perspective, still the Catholic perspective was no presented in nearly as an atrocious manner as it was being presented here. BTW the Catholics in that thread seemed very nice and never adopted a condescending tone that you often see here.

Anyway, then how come the almost universal opinion was that my hunter scenario is condemned to hell?

Nowhere did I say that he was “rejecting God”. Nowhere did I say that he said in his heart "I want nothing more to do with the Lord Jesus Christ from this day forth. Therefore from here on I am going to be doing my thing, not God’s thing. Starting with missing mass.

No, I thought I was clear that he was not sinning from “rejecting God”. The underlying cause was that which is common to Christians, which is bad heart attitudes probably stemming from spiritual immaturity. Stuff like anger, unforgiveness, misplaced priorities, fear, etc.

 

[Nordar]

Nowhere did I say that he was “rejecting God”.
**No you were asking if as a Catholic was he commiting a mortal sin, As Catholics we answered you, “by deliberately choosing to go Hunting instead of going to Mass HE was rejecting God”. **
Nowhere did I say that he said in his heart "I want nothing more to do with the Lord Jesus Christ from this day forth. Therefore from here on I am going to be doing my thing, not God’s thing. Starting with missing mass.
No one said that you did!

No, I thought I was clear that he was not sinning from “rejecting God”.
It does not have a thing to do with whether or not YOU are clear. You asked this question to Catholics (or am I wrong here?) He most certainly was sinning from rejecting God, that is what mortal sin is. You however seem to want to change that.
The underlying cause was that which is common to Christians, which is bad heart attitudes probably stemming from spiritual immaturity. Stuff like anger, unforgiveness, misplaced priorities, fear, etc.

No he underlying cause was that he chose to go hunting instead of going to Mass therefore rejecting God

 

[With_Questions]

No he underlying cause was that he chose to go hunting instead of going to Mass therefore rejecting God

OK now I have it.

You were saying that because it was mortal sin, he was therefore rejecting God. I thought you were saying it is not mortal sin until you are actively rejecting God.

Of course I strongly disagree. And I have found another forum and other Catholic writings where the Catholics seem to disagree.

But I know, you all are right and they are wrong.

So I am done beating dead horses.

 

[Nordar]

OK now I have it.

You were saying that because it was mortal sin, he was therefore rejecting God. I thought you were saying it is not mortal sin until you are actively rejecting God.

Of course I strongly disagree. And I have found another forum and other Catholic writings where the Catholics seem to disagree.

But I know, you all are right and they are wrong.

So I am done beating dead horses.

LOL of course you are!

 

[GailMac]

Dear With Questions - You state:"You were saying that because it was mortal sin, he was therefore rejecting God. I thought you were saying it is not mortal sin until you are actively rejecting God.

Of course I strongly disagree. And I have found another forum and other Catholic writings where the Catholics seem to disagree."

I’m itching to ask what YOU think is a mortal sin and what are it’s consequences. Or what should they be?

Peace,

Gail

 

[With_Questions]

I’m itching to ask what YOU think is a mortal sin and what are it’s consequences. Or what should they be?

I’m done beating dead horses here. But I will answer questions. This is a good question.

I believe in one sense there is but one mortal sin, if I want to use your words. That mortal sin would be the sin of walking away from the Christian faith and becoming a non-Christian.

Although I am not Lutheran, this I think close to the Lutheran view.

In another sense, I believe that all sin is mortal. First of all outside of Christ, any sin will separate us from Christ. That is why our righteousness is apart from the law. There is no way that we can attain to the righteousness of Christ by keeping the law.

Also, in another sense, any sin has the potential of hardening my heart (Hebrews 3:13) and if that process goes unchecked, any sin could have the potential of ending up in death (James 1:15). However the death comes when we turn away from the Christian faith.

I do believe that it is possible to inwardly turn from the Christian faith and at the same time outwardly hold to a form of godliness.
However, that is something that only God sees and can be the judge of.

Finally I do believe that not all sins are of the same seriousness except in the narrow sense that all sins separate from Christ outside of His grace. For example if during the last week I (1) had an affair outside of my marriage (2) yelled at my kids, I would suspect that God’s priority would be in dealing with sin 1.

That having been said, I don’t believe in two classifications of sin, just that all sins do not have the same seriousness (except in a very narrow sense).

 

[Sir_Knight]

I believe in one sense there is but one mortal sin, if I want to use your words. That mortal sin would be the sin of walking away from the Christian faith and becoming a non-Christian.

This belief of your’s is contrary to the Word of God …

*Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.
*

-- ** 1 Corinthians 6:9-10**​