On Salvation, Works, Purgatory, etc

[Ron_Conte]

Our Lord replies (in summary), “obey the law.” And the man says he has kept the commandments from his youth.

And the Gospel says that Jesus “loved him.” But he asked one more thing: sell everything you have, give it to the poor, and follow me.

The man went away sad, unwilling to give up everything.

Are you saying that this man has no possibility of salvation?

He was asked to do more than required for salvation. He kept all the commandments, i.e. the positive precepts and the negative precepts. So he had no mortal sin of omission or commission. But he was unwilling to do more, to strive for perfection, to strive to do the whole will of God.

 

[steve_b]

Mortal sins of omission are common in society today: no longer practicing the Catholic Christian Faith, no longer going to Mass, no longer going to Confession, no longer praying, living a completely self-centered life, with no concern for people in need. I can’t judge how many of these persons are committing an actual mortal sin, but these sins of omission are objectively grave.

It needs to be said

Committing mortal sin only requires knowledge that a sin is mortal, and sufficient consent in committing the sin for it to be a personal choice. That’s all. No mystery. One could say, mortal sin is a cinch to commit.

Re: one’s ignorance

It needs to be absolutely innocent to get one off the hook. 1791

 

[Nita]

…
Re: one’s ignorance

It needs to be absolutely innocent to get one off the hook. 1791

This is so important that I thought it should be printed out.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”** In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.**
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P62.HTM#1L

 

[DavidFilmer]

This is so important that I thought it should be printed out.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”** In such cases, the person is culpable **for the evil he commits.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P62.HTM#1L

To quote it another way (without added emphasis), to check out my Catechism quoting program (a work in progress, gradually escaping the CAF Sandbox forum):

CCC 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”[sup]59[/sup] In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
__________59 GS 16.

SteveB is, of course, absolutely correct when he cites this paragraph (without benefit of my magical Catechism citing program). But then he says something rather inexplicable:

It needs to be absolutely innocent to get one off the hook.

But I think that Steve does not really believe in venial sin. He believes in the concept, but he doesn’t think it happens, or that it is rare. Thus, culpability = mortal sin.

Ahem, we can be culpable for venial sin ALSO. I know this is a strange concept to some people, but it is the Doctrine of the Church.

 

[Ron_Conte]

It needs to be said

Committing mortal sin only requires knowledge that a sin is mortal, and sufficient consent in committing the sin for it to be a personal choice. That’s all. No mystery. One could say, mortal sin is a cinch to commit.

Re: one’s ignorance

It needs to be absolutely innocent to get one off the hook. 1791

You are contradicting the teaching of the Church. The Church has never said that full deliberation requires only “sufficient consent” for the act to be “a personal choice”. That description of consent fits the definition of actual venial sin, not actual mortal sin. Also, I don’t agree with your opinion that “full knowledge” is constituted merely by the knowledge that an act is considered to be mortal. One must understand the grave immorality of the act.

The Church has never said that one must be “absolutely innocent” for invincible ignorance to apply. We are all fallen sinners. No one is absolutely innocent. In the case of an objective mortal sin, one might be negligent in seeking moral truth to the extent of a venial sin, while invincible ignorance prevents the sin from being an actual mortal sin.

Things like the social and cultural conditions in which people live can result in invincible ignorance.

 

[steve_b]

You are contradicting the teaching of the Church.

Where?

I quote Church docs copiously.
R:

The Church has never said that full deliberation requires only “sufficient consent” for the act to be “a personal choice”.

1. 
   *] I didn’t use the term deliberation.
   *]I was paraphrasing the following
   
   (all emphasis mine)
   
   1859
   Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
   
   It’s just as I said, and keep saying
   
   knowledge a sin is grave, and one makes the choice to do it. That’s it. It’s not rocket science.
   
   The problem is, most people, if they DO read the CCC, stop reading at the first period.
   R:
   

   That description of consent fits the definition of actual venial sin, not actual mortal sin.

   read again 1859
   R:
   

   Also, I don’t agree with your opinion that “full knowledge” is constituted merely by the knowledge that an act is considered to be mortal. One must understand the grave immorality of the act.

   I quoted my source. It’s not my opinion.
   
   One only has to know a sin is defined as grave matter and then chooses to do it. That’s it.
   R:
   

   The Church has never said that one must be “absolutely innocent” for invincible ignorance to apply.

   If a person’s ignorance is not innocent then they are guilty for what they do, read the link 1791
   R:
   

   We are all fallen sinners. No one is absolutely innocent.

   Actually That depends on how low one’s I.Q. is, as in the severely mentally challenged
   R:
   

   In the case of an objective mortal sin, one might be negligent in seeking moral truth to the extent of a venial sin, while invincible ignorance prevents the sin from being an actual mortal sin.
   
   Things like the social and cultural conditions in which people live can result in invincible ignorance.

   invincible ignorance pleas open the link #14

 

[DavidFilmer]

The problem is, most people, if they DO read the CCC, stop reading at the first period.

And the problem with other people is they read more into the next sentence than the Church teaches. The second sentence does not contradict or diminish the first.

You read the words “consent sufficiently deliberate” and conclude that it allows for imperfect (but “good enough”) consent. That’s how you understand the word “sufficiently” (“good enough”) but that is NOT what the Church teaches. That statement doesn’t mean the consent must only be “good enough” - it means the consent required for mortal sin cannot be diminished in any way by external involuntary factors, such as coercion or desperation. Many theologians believe that physical dependency (such as drugs or alcohol) diminish consent, and if the consent is diminished just a TINY BIT by anything that is not an immediate personal choice then the sin cannot be moral in nature.

The Catechism teaches that mortal sin requires “COMPLETE consent,” not “good enough consent” (all emphasis original):

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart[sup]133[/sup] do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
__________133 Cf. Mk 3:5-6; Lk 16:19-31.

Or, in [Latin](http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s1c1a8_lt.htm#ARTICULUS 8* PECCATUM) (emphasis still original):

Peccatum mortale plenam cognitionem requirit plenumque consensum

Hmm, where have I seen that latin root word? Oh yeah, “Ave María, gratia plena,”

It means FULL of Grace, not “good enough Grace.”

 

[mackbrislawn]

Are you saying that is a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing? I think it’s a good thing. It beats the alternative (that nobody does anything at all).

Cause celebre: He means that some people take up a cause because it is popular and they want to look good in front of their neighbor. To be popular within the culture. And that is not at all the motivation that Jesus desires. And how about the popular cause of “a woman’s right do do what she wants with her body.” Is supporting this cause a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Cause celebre: He means that some people take up a cause because it is popular and they want to look good in front of their neighbor. To be popular within the culture. And that is not at all the motivation that Jesus desires.

I understand, but I think a good thing done for a bad (wrong) reason is better than nothing done at all.

And how about the popular cause of “a woman’s right do do what she wants with her body.” Is supporting this cause a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing?

I fully support a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. If she wants to get tattoos or strange and diverse piercings, I think that’s crazy, but I would not deny her the right.

Oh, wait - did you mean in regards to do what she wants with regards to her unborn child? Well, that’s not her body. That’s another body (which apparently has financial value for its organs and parts).

BTW, I appreciate that you realize that Good Thing and Bad Thing can be proper nouns.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Where?

I quote Church docs copiously.

Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I understand, but I think a good thing done for a bad (wrong) reason is better than nothing done at all.

I agree, from a worldly perspective. But Jesus wants us to store up treasures in heaven, not on earth. And treasures on earth don’t have to be just money and property, but worldly acclaim and popularity as well. So if one supports a cause celebre just because it is a cause celebre, to acquire popularity in the eyes of the world, it might be storing up treasures on earth, but it is not storing up treasures in heaven. From yours, and the world’s, standpoint, that is better than doing nothing at all I suppose, but from a heavenly standpoint, it is the same as doing nothing at all.

I fully support a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. If she wants to get tattoos or strange and diverse piercings, I think that’s crazy, but I would not deny her the right.

Oh, wait - did you mean in regards to do what she wants with regards to her unborn child? Well, that’s not her body. That’s another body (which apparently has financial value for its organs and parts).

You’re being cute. You, and the world, know well that “a woman has a right to do with her own body what she wants” is worldly code for abortion. Another euphemism is "a woman’s right to choose."

BTW, I appreciate that you realize that Good Thing and Bad Thing can be proper nouns.

Yep, when it’s capitalized it is by definition a proper noun. Now, is it a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing?

 

[steve_b]

You read the words “consent sufficiently deliberate” and conclude that it allows for imperfect (but “good enough”) consent. That’s how you understand the word “sufficiently” (“good enough”) but that is NOT what the Church teaches. That statement doesn’t mean the consent must only be “good enough” - it means the consent required for mortal sin cannot be diminished in any way by external involuntary factors, such as coercion or desperation.

What part of the following simple explanation is so hard to understand?

CCC 1859

“presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice”
D:

The Catechism teaches that mortal sin requires “COMPLETE consent,” not “good enough consent” (all emphasis original):

The statement is simple

“presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice”
D:

Or, in [Latin](http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s1c1a8_lt.htm#ARTICULUS 8* PECCATUM) (emphasis still original):

Hmm, where have I seen that latin root word? Oh yeah, “Ave María, gratia plena,”

It means FULL of Grace, not “good enough Grace.”

There’s no mystery here.

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

**1791 **ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits
D:

Many theologians believe that physical dependency (such as drugs or alcohol) diminish consent, and if the consent is diminished just a TINY BIT by anything that is not an immediate personal choice then the sin cannot be moral in nature.

Getting drunk and getting high are grave sins.

When people know what alcohol and drugs do, (they can’t pretend after the fact, not to know) , and they give their consent, as in they make a personal choice to take such substance(s), then they take responsibility for any evil they do as a result.

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

**1791 **ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits

 

[steve_b]

SteveB is, of course, absolutely correct when he cites this paragraph (without benefit of my magical Catechism citing program). But then he says something rather inexplicable:

But I think that Steve does not really believe in venial sin. He believes in the concept, but he doesn’t think it happens, or that it is rare. Thus, culpability = mortal sin.

Only you have a problem with this whole concept of sin.

culpability involves both mortal and venial.
D:

Ahem, we can be culpable for venial sin ALSO. I know this is a strange concept to some people, but it is the Doctrine of the Church.

What’s strange is your persistent and willful taking people out of context to make your off the wall narratives.

 

[DavidFilmer]

What part of the following simple explanation is so hard to understand?

CCC 1859
“presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice”

The statement is simple

And, yet, you continue to mis-apply it.

You see the word “sufficient” and think it means “enough.” You conclude that incomplete consent can lead to mortal sin (despite the fact that the Catechism explicitly says otherwise, and emphasizes with italics, which is uncommon in the CCC). That’s why you paraphrased the Catechism’s teaching as requiring “sufficient consent” while implying that “complete consent” is somehow not required.

But the Catechism is saying the consent must be sufficient in nature (a personal choice), not in quantity.

Anything LESS than complete consent (and full knowledge) cannot be mortally sinful.

You don’t seem to be able to comprehend that “sufficient” does not mean that a person may have incomplete consent and commit mortal sin. Without complete consent (as a personal choice) mortal sin is not possible.

 

[AndrewZ22]

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

It seems to me that in the first sentence the word complete is used as a modifier to quantify how much consent is needed. In the third sentence the term sufficiently modifies deliberate, not consent. (Merriam-Webster defines sufficient as: enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end
b :being a sufficient condition.
As an adjective Merriam-Webster defines deliberate as: 1 :characterized by or resulting from careful and thorough consideration
2 :characterized by awareness of the consequences <deliberate falsehood)

So having established the need for “complete consent” in the first sentence the CCC then reinforces this need by saying that a consent “sufficiently deliberate”(i.e. One that has been thoroughly, and completely been considered) is required to commit mortal sin.

 

[steve_b]

And, yet, you continue to mis-apply it.

You see the word “sufficient” and think it means “enough.”

That’s true. It’s in the definition of sufficient. How is it that YOU don’t know that?
Definition

a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end
D:

You conclude that incomplete consent can lead to mortal sin (despite the fact that the Catechism explicitly says otherwise, and emphasizes with italics, which is uncommon in the CCC).

you’re real good at misrepresenting the other guys position, rather than quote them. Then you attack your misrepresentation of them as if they actually take your misrepresented position of them. That’s the classic definition of a sophomoric straw man argument.

You talk about comprehension. What is it about our past conversations on this same subject that isn’t getting through to you?

#14 , #17

Your constant straw man arguments is getting old.
D:

That’s why you paraphrased the Catechism’s teaching as requiring “sufficient consent” while implying that “complete consent” is somehow not required.

Here’s what I posted
“presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice”
D:

But the Catechism is saying the consent must be sufficient in nature (a personal choice), not in quantity.

It says

“presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice”

What part of that simple statement do you not understand?
D:

Anything LESS than complete consent (and full knowledge) cannot be mortally sinful.

It doesn’t say “Anything LESS than complete consent”. It says consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice

presupposing knowledge of the sinful character of the act, and its opposition to God’s law.

**then If what a person does is their deliberate personal choice, then guess what? They gave sufficient consent to do it or they wouldn’t have done it in the first place

**

 

[dmftx]

We need to look at the teachings of the Saints. I can’t think of one who was without much sin. It is through how we humbly acknowledge our sin that we desire to be closer to God, it is through active penance that we move closer to God, and through our daily words, deeds, and prayers that we show our desire to ammend our lives and to live with God in eternity. Sin is all too easy, including mortal sin, but our response and growth through sin may very well be the path to heaven.