No Mortal Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brooklyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You hit the nail on the head. There are only a few in the church who are concerned about the faithfulness of their church or of their doctrines. There may be concern that “those liberal churches” are unfaithful to God or that this “cult” is bad. A good example has been divorce and remarriage. While I was a practicing Catholic during the 70’s and early 80’s that was my major complaint. It seemed like every Catholic couple we knew was getting divorced. The Bible clearly commands that the husband is bound to his wife until death (I Corinthians 7:39, Romans 7:1-3). Therefore, there is not to be divorce and remarriage. But, how many times have we seen divorcees have there marriage annulled by a liberal priest, then kick their heels, and go find a new partner?
I don;t know any marriages that are annuled by a liberal Priest. They usually require a whole Tribunal. A Priest cannot annull a marriage.
 
You hit the nail on the head. There are only a few in the church who are concerned about the faithfulness of their church or of their doctrines. There may be concern that “those liberal churches” are unfaithful to God or that this “cult” is bad. A good example has been divorce and remarriage. While I was a practicing Catholic during the 70’s and early 80’s that was my major complaint. It seemed like every Catholic couple we knew was getting divorced. The Bible clearly commands that the husband is bound to his wife until death (I Corinthians 7:39, Romans 7:1-3). Therefore, there is not to be divorce and remarriage. But, how many times have we seen divorcees have there marriage annulled by a liberal priest, then kick their heels, and go find a new partner?

Liberal Priests, or any one Priest for that matter cannot annul a marriage. That requires a Whole Tribunal.

.
 
If a Catholic rejects the authority of the Church, haven’t they in effect removed themselves from the Church, and are in a state of separation, and therefore in a state of mortal sin, whether they accept that fact or not?

The Church is not a democracy, we don’t get to vote on these issues. We either accept the teachings of the Church, or we’re out. At least, that’s how I understand it.

Mary
Mary you are the one person who is making sense here, reading some other posts I am getting the impression that you can do as you please when you please no foul!

To say in this day and age that Catholics are ignorant of the fact that A) Abortion is going against what the Church teaches,
B) Not going to Mass on Sunday
C) Insert any Church teaching here.
Is not a mortal sin, that is total and pure hogwash. They don’t want to admit they know so they can do their own thing, but they are not fooling anyone especially not God.
 
Sufficient knowledge for a mortal sin is that the Catholic KNOWS what the Church teaches, not that they assent to it or thoroughly understand it. There is no requirement to understand WHY the Church teaches as she does. There is no requirement to undertstand the nuances of infallibility. The Catholic who uses birth control (intentionally, of course) knowing that the Church teaches that it is seriously sinful is commiting a mortal sin.
My point seems to be getting missed here.

I’m contending that if a person disagrees with the Church, yet believes they are correct and the Church is wrong, is not of “full knowledge”. I’m not, at all, suggesting the matter is not grave. I’m suggesting they truly believe thier opinion on the matter is that they are not sinful, in spite of what the church teaches.

These (hypothetical) people, do not understand or chose not to believe that the teachings of the church are infallible. They believe that the Catholic Church is simply another path to God. One of which they can agree or disagree with.

I’m not making excuses for these people. I am simply stating the fact that many (I contend the vast majority) feel this way. Furthermore, in thier own mind they are correct.

Let’s look at this from the opposite perspective. We have viewed this matter from the “legal” (if you would allow me) perspective. If a person is adverse to the teaching of the CC in some matter and know that the church teaches otherwise, they are in mortal sin. Most people posting here feel this to be the case. Some have posted that salvation is at issue here. I agree. However, the vast majority (again this is my honest obeservation, the vast majority) of Catholics do not follow the teachings of the church. Even the more knowledgeable Catholic friends I have who go to church more often then most (but far from every Sunday), feel they are in accordance with the faith (by thier standards).

I’m simply suggesting this is where “full knowledge” might be compromised.

I ask, what is the subsequent idea to the concept that a Catholic who is not in accordance with the church and know it? If you are honest with yourself, I feel you must say that most Catholics are (without an extraordinary display of mercy) going to hell.

True or false?
 
My point seems to be getting missed here.

I’m contending that if a person disagrees with the Church, yet believes they are correct and the Church is wrong, is not of “full knowledge”. I’m not, at all, suggesting the matter is not grave. I’m suggesting they truly believe thier opinion on the matter is that they are not sinful, in spite of what the church teaches.

These (hypothetical) people, do not understand or chose not to believe that the teachings of the church are infallible. They believe that the Catholic Church is simply another path to God. One of which they can agree or disagree with.

I’m not making excuses for these people. I am simply stating the fact that many (I contend the vast majority) feel this way. Furthermore, in thier own mind they are correct.

Let’s look at this from the opposite perspective. We have viewed this matter from the “legal” (if you would allow me) perspective. If a person is adverse to the teaching of the CC in some matter and know that the church teaches otherwise, they are in mortal sin. Most people posting here feel this to be the case. Some have posted that salvation is at issue here. I agree. However, the vast majority (again this is my honest obeservation, the vast majority) of Catholics do not follow the teachings of the church. Even the more knowledgeable Catholic friends I have who go to church more often then most (but far from every Sunday), feel they are in accordance with the faith (by thier standards).

I’m simply suggesting this is where “full knowledge” might be compromised.
I ask, what is the subsequent idea to the concept that a Catholic who is not in accordance with the church and know it? If you are honest with yourself, I feel you must say that most Catholics are (without an extraordinary display of mercy) going to hell.

True or false?

Full knowledge does not been we have the option of accepting the Church’s teachings or not. We are to give our assent to what the Church teaches. Your ideology opens the door to every sin known to man—which then – there would be no need for remorse or repentance.
 
I ask, what is the subsequent idea to the concept that a Catholic who is not in accordance with the church and know it? If you are honest with yourself, I feel you must say that most Catholics are (without an extraordinary display of mercy) going to hell.

True or false?
None of us are in a position where we can judge the state of another soul. Only God can do that. But as a Catholic, I do believe that we must accept the authority of the Church as the Apostolic authority on earth. That in effect means that I must accept all of the Church’s teachings, and the infallibility of those teachings, or I am in a state of sin, and separated not only from the Church but from God, and if I do not repent, yes, I will lose my salvation. Remember, the Protestants do not believe we can lose our salvation, but the Catholic Church most definitely teaches that it is possible.

I have been around long enough to remember a time when Catholics were afraid to go against the teachings of the Church because they had a healthy fear of God. On The Journey Home last night, they replayed an interview with Mother Angelica in which she said there is no fear of God anymore, and I think that is at the heart of this whole matter. We think we know better than the Church and thus, better than God. We all need to truly be praying for the Church. Yes, I do believe many souls are in jeopardy. That is what Our Lady of Fatima warned about.

Mary
 

Full knowledge does not been we have the option of accepting the Church’s teachings or not. We are to give our assent to what the Church teaches. Your ideology opens the door to every sin known to man—which then – there would be no need for remorse or repentance.
AKA…the new catechism…(and not church endorsed)
 
My point seems to be getting missed here.

I’m contending that if a person disagrees with the Church, yet believes they are correct and the Church is wrong, is not of “full knowledge”. I’m not, at all, suggesting the matter is not grave. I’m suggesting they truly believe thier opinion on the matter is that they are not sinful, in spite of what the church teaches.

These (hypothetical) people, do not understand or chose not to believe that the teachings of the church are infallible. They believe that the Catholic Church is simply another path to God. One of which they can agree or disagree with.

I’m not making excuses for these people. I am simply stating the fact that many (I contend the vast majority) feel this way. Furthermore, in thier own mind they are correct.

Let’s look at this from the opposite perspective. We have viewed this matter from the “legal” (if you would allow me) perspective. If a person is adverse to the teaching of the CC in some matter and know that the church teaches otherwise, they are in mortal sin. Most people posting here feel this to be the case. Some have posted that salvation is at issue here. I agree. However, the vast majority (again this is my honest obeservation, the vast majority) of Catholics do not follow the teachings of the church. Even the more knowledgeable Catholic friends I have who go to church more often then most (but far from every Sunday), feel they are in accordance with the faith (by thier standards).

I’m simply suggesting this is where “full knowledge” might be compromised.

I ask, what is the subsequent idea to the concept that a Catholic who is not in accordance with the church and know it? If you are honest with yourself, I feel you must say that most Catholics are (without an extraordinary display of mercy) going to hell.

True or false?
I understand your point. There are indeed, I think, a great many ignorant Catholics. Hopefully, their ignorance reduces their culpability to some degree so that they will be saved and will not end up in hell. There are, however, many Catholics who seem to ignore the teaching on contraception. They know full well what the Pope and the Church have to say on the matter, they choose to disregard it as incorrect. It would seem in this case, they have full knowledge as described in the Catechism: “It (mortal sin) presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”(1859). Many know that the Church teaches of the opposition of contraception to God’s law. True, there are many that do not know, either.

May God have mercy on our souls!
 
My point seems to be getting missed here.

I’m contending that if a person disagrees with the Church, yet believes they are correct and the Church is wrong, is not of “full knowledge”. I’m not, at all, suggesting the matter is not grave. I’m suggesting they truly believe thier opinion on the matter is that they are not sinful, in spite of what the church teaches.

These (hypothetical) people, do not understand or chose not to believe that the teachings of the church are infallible. They believe that the Catholic Church is simply another path to God. One of which they can agree or disagree with.

I’m not making excuses for these people. I am simply stating the fact that many (I contend the vast majority) feel this way. Furthermore, in thier own mind they are correct.

Let’s look at this from the opposite perspective. We have viewed this matter from the “legal” (if you would allow me) perspective. If a person is adverse to the teaching of the CC in some matter and know that the church teaches otherwise, they are in mortal sin. Most people posting here feel this to be the case. Some have posted that salvation is at issue here. I agree. However, the vast majority (again this is my honest obeservation, the vast majority) of Catholics do not follow the teachings of the church. Even the more knowledgeable Catholic friends I have who go to church more often then most (but far from every Sunday), feel they are in accordance with the faith (by thier standards).

I’m simply suggesting this is where “full knowledge” might be compromised.

I ask, what is the subsequent idea to the concept that a Catholic who is not in accordance with the church and know it? If you are honest with yourself, I feel you must say that most Catholics are (without an extraordinary display of mercy) going to hell.

True or false?
UH! Catholics who go to Church only some Sundays who feel they are in accordance with the faith?
What faith? and how is that even possible, if they are Catholic and going to Church some Sundays, First why even bother, Secondly. The fact that missing Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin is something one learns as a child. You cannot claim ignorance on that issue not possible, sure you can disagree if you wish but you are definately commiting a mortal sin..

If a person disagrees with The Church, they most certainly are in full knowledge. They must decidedly know what they are disagreeing with to disagree., So therefore have decided to go against the Church. That is what is known as free will and to do so with full knowledge is a mortal sin. no if ands or buts.
 
I ask, what is the subsequent idea to the concept that a Catholic who is not in accordance with the church and know it? If you are honest with yourself, I feel you must say that most Catholics are (without an extraordinary display of mercy) going to hell.

True or false?
Romans Chapter Eight always pops up, not church law:

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1,2)

.
 
We also must remember that the Natural Law is written on the souls of all men. We require no cathechesis in the natural law.

Anyone who murders (abortion), steals, commits adultery, etc. is in mortal sin, regardless of their faith or lack of it.

God Bless
 
Originally Posted by Mijoy2

I ask, what is the subsequent idea to the concept that a Catholic who is not in accordance with the church and know it? If you are honest with yourself, I feel you must say that most Catholics are (without an extraordinary display of mercy) going to hell.

True or false?

Romans Chapter Eight always pops up, not church law:

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1,2)

.

Not sure what you are implying with that scripture. Are you saying that a person who believes they walk with spirit —if they commit a sin—will not be held accountable by God.
 
None of us are in a position where we can judge the state of another soul. Only God can do that.
I knew this was coming in response to what I posted. However, when we state this we are, in a way, speaking out of both sides of our mouths.

One side - We cannot judge the state of another’s soul, only God can do that

The other side - A soul in a state of mortal sin (which we do seem to judge) when life ends, goes to hell.

I’m not trying to be difficult. Declaring what is and what is not mortal sin, when all my family and friends fall into this catagory, is more then a little distressing. It’s enough to cause one to seriously question his faith.

Actually, it appears the faithful protestant has a higher probability for salvation then the uninformed Catholic. Given the responses thus far. When I cam back to the faith and brought my entire family with me, I was torn on just where to go. I sometimes feel I did them a grave misjustice by introducing them to Catholicism. If the Catholic misses mass on sunday he/she is in mortal sin. If the faithful protestant never goes to mass his/her soul is less culpable to this sin.

Something is wrong.
 

Not sure what you are implying with that scripture. Are you saying that a person who believes they walk with spirit —if they commit a sin—will not be held accountable by God.
I just posted a similar comment but saw yours and deleted it! you beat me to it!🙂
 

Not sure what you are implying with that scripture. Are you saying that a person who believes they walk with spirit —if they commit a sin—will not be held accountable by God.
That verse didn’t say “will not be held accountable by God”, it said “no condemnaton to them which are in Christ Jesus.”

.
 
We also must remember that the Natural Law is written on the souls of all men. We require no cathechesis in the natural law.

Anyone who murders (abortion), steals, commits adultery, etc. is in mortal sin, regardless of their faith or lack of it.

God Bless
Which is what I stated earlier. It would be very hard to claim ignorance of “the Big Ten” or the cultural equivalent. It is the sins that don’t get front billing that people can be ignorant of.

I’m somewhat surprised no one has brought up the third qualification a sin must posses to be mortal, Full consent of the Will.
This one is even more murky and grey than number two. There are even cases where the natural laws are broken, but the sin is not mortal because of this. Classifying sin is far less black and white than many people realize.
In the end, the decision to hold someone accountable belongs to Christ, though the ministry of the Church, not to us. We will never know all the details surrounding a sin, and cannot make a judgement without them.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
I knew this was coming in response to what I posted. However, when we state this we are, in a way, speaking out of both sides of our mouths.

One side - We cannot judge the state of another’s soul, only God can do that

The other side - A soul in a state of mortal sin (which we do seem to judge) when life ends, goes to hell.

I’m not trying to be difficult. Declaring what is and what is not mortal sin, when all my family and friends fall into this catagory, is more then a little distressing. It’s enough to cause one to seriously question his faith.

Actually, it appears the faithful protestant has a higher probability for salvation then the uninformed Catholic. Given the responses thus far. When I cam back to the faith and brought my entire family with me, I was torn on just where to go. I sometimes feel I did them a grave misjustice by introducing them to Catholicism. If the Catholic misses mass on sunday he/she is in mortal sin. If the faithful protestant never goes to mass his/her soul is less culpable to this sin.

Something is wrong.
Cardinal Ratzinger spoke to this very issue several years ago:
I first became aware of the question with all its urgency in the beginning of my academic teaching. In the course of a dispute, a senior colleague, who was keenly aware of the plight to being Christian in our times, expressed the opinion that one should actually be grateful to God that He allows there to be so many unbelievers in good conscience. For if their eyes were opened and they became believers, they would not be capable, in this world of ours, of bearing the burden of faith with all its moral obligations. But as it is, since they can go another way in good conscience, they can reach salvation. What shocked me about this assertion was not in the first place the idea of an erroneous conscience given by God Himself in order to save men by means of such artfulness—the idea, so to speak, of a blindness sent by God for the salvation of those in question. What disturbed me was the notion that it harbored, that faith is a burden which can hardly be borne and which no doubt was intended only for stronger natures—faith almost as a kind of punishment, in any case, an imposition not easily coped with. According to this view, faith would not make salvation easier but harder. Being happy would mean not being burdened with having to believe or having to submit to the moral yoke of the faith of the Catholic church. The erroneous conscience, which makes life easier and marks a more human course, would then be a real grace, the normal way to salvation…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top