D
DAML72
Guest
Again, this is not true. This is your own private view which has no basis whatsoever in the teachings of the Church.
- Status
J
JewishCatholic
Guest
OP
I meant no disrespect or discouragement. I looked up information and found out I was wrong. It is indeed possible for those outside of the church to make it into heaven. My sincere apologies.
John 3:16
I meant no disrespect or discouragement. I looked up information and found out I was wrong. It is indeed possible for those outside of the church to make it into heaven. My sincere apologies.
John 3:16
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
I see. So no C.S. Lewis. Nor any of the Eastern / Coptic saints. Nor the Cappadocians. I am very partial to Gregory of Nyssa and Macrina and was sincerely hoping to see them in heaven.
Nor I guess Martin Luther King, nor will we see George Frideric Handel conducting the ‘Hallelujah Chorus’… nor will we have the honor of seeing John Donne nor the wonderful mystic Evelyn Underhill. I’m sure that Dietrich Bonhoeffer will be sad he is not with our Lord. Composer John Tavener recently died and his music is sung in many churches; I understand he was a devout and holy man.
How very sad to hear this news.
J
JewishCatholic
Guest
I was very wrong. I am sorry
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Not trying to sound unruly or sarcastic, but Catechism is relatively cheap. I bought one for 10 dollars, plus it’s online for free.
This will help shape us all into good apologists; reading the CCC.
Pax
G
Graceful_Lamb
Guest
Here is part of the CCC regarding sin: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
As for birth control not being a sin, in the Catholic church using birth control is a sin. (Unless one is using it for a medical reason and the secondary effect would be contraception.)
Also, just because someone from a particular religion does not insist that people do or don’t eat X does not make it a sin or not a sin. I would think that it would go by what that religion believes in, based on their laws, teachings, scripture, etc.
K
KjetilK
Guest
The question, of course, is what do you mean by ‘Protestants’? It has become such a broad term, it is basically useless, which is why I don’t use it myself.* Furthermore, I do think that most ‘Protestants’ actually do believe in mortal sin, even if they do not use the term. I certainly do, and I did believe in it long before I encountered the term. And it is found in the Bible, in 1John 5:16-17.
And here we encounter the first problem with the term. As Lutherans, we DO have confession. It is even considered sacramental (though with reference to baptism). If you read Confessio Augustana, it is found in article XI, right after baptism (article IX) and the Eucharist (article X).
So no, not all ‘Protestants’ have that problem. We Lutherans don’t.
That is not a problem for ‘Protestants’ alone, but also for Catholics. Catholics can also be ignorant of these things. For a sin to be mortal, according to the CCC (#1857) it has to be grave (for instance murder), and it has to be “committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” So yes, a grave sin can be mortal for a Protestant if he knows that it is grave, yet still commits it, “with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” But that applied equally to all.
- I would also point out that the original usage of the word ‘Protestant’ doesn’t apply to me either. It applied explicitly, and exclusively, to those Lutherans in Germany who protested against Holy Roman Emperor Charles V’s enforcement of the Edict of Worms. (See here for an English Wikipedia article on the Diet of Worms, where the Edict was produced. See here for a German Wikipedia article on the Edict itself.) As members of the Church of Norway, and thus outside the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire, we were never called ‘Protestants.’ Later the term has evolved into a term that is basically useless, as it now encompasses everything from Lutherans to Baptists. I was once asked by a Roman Catholic man why I, as a ‘Protestant’ believed in the real presence. I said to him that I was a Lutheran, and that we have always believed in the real presence.
K
KjetilK
Guest
The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach that baptisms in Pentecostal churches as invalid (unless they are Oneness Pentecostals, where they do not baptise ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’).
D
DAML72
Guest
It strikes me, Kjetilk, that there may be some disjointedness between what certain terms mean in Norway and what they are generally taken to mean here in the US. While your posts are interesting, I’m not sure they really address the OP’s concerns.
As far as determining the validity of a baptism, Jennifer132, that is usually a judgment call made by the parish priest. Some dioceses are more strict than others in the proof they require, and when there is any doubt, the priest will perform a “conditional baptism” - he baptizes you again with the understanding that it only “takes” if you weren’t validly baptized in the first place. I believe this is usually done in private, and not at the Easter Vigil when others are originally baptized.
As far as determining the validity of a baptism, Jennifer132, that is usually a judgment call made by the parish priest. Some dioceses are more strict than others in the proof they require, and when there is any doubt, the priest will perform a “conditional baptism” - he baptizes you again with the understanding that it only “takes” if you weren’t validly baptized in the first place. I believe this is usually done in private, and not at the Easter Vigil when others are originally baptized.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
That’s who I am referring to.
K
KjetilK
Guest
My point is that the way it is used in the US, it has become utter useless. It doesn’t tell you anything about the person who is given the title. It just tells you that he isn’t in communion with the Roman Pontiff, and that he isn’t Eastern Orthodox. As I said. I know American Lutherans who time and time again has to explain that yes, they do believe in the real presence.
J
Jennifer132
Guest
I actually agree with you that the term is somewhat meaningless because there are so many denominations who all hold differing beliefs. As a Protestant, I never described myself as a Protestant until I started conversing with Catholics because that’s how they seemed to refer to me. Also, that’s why in my OP I tried to explain what I personally had been taught as a Protestant and what has been my general experience, so people could get an idea of where I was coming from.
P
PJM
Guest
Its a precise biblical teaching
1John.1: 8 - 10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1John.5: 16 - 17 "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal;
John.20: 20 - 23 "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
[1] YES
[2] This is a recent innovation of the Reformation; NOT the manner Christ Himself desired or instituted
[3] The TRUTH is we just don;t [can’t] know for sure. God desires that all be saved; BUT is quite specific of just HOW He, God intends for that to be accomplished. Saying “its so” DOES NOT assure that it actually is so.
That is precisely WHY I term Sacramental Confession [Instituted by Jesus Himself] as the Sacrament of KNOWN Forgiveness.
The Eucharist [Jesus Himself] and Sacramental Confession are 2 irrefutable reason to be a informed & practicing Catholic.
3 conditions MUST [normally] exist for an action to be a mortal sin
- Serious matter: Contraception is
- One must know before doing the act that doing it would be a Mortal sin**
- Then one has to freely choose to want to do it anyway
There is a factor termed “intrinsic evils”; that Contraception can easily fall under. This teaching is that an action that everyone OUGHT to know is an evil act of itself [NOT conforming to God’s Will] by its nature a Mortal sin.
WHY?:
- Every adult KNOWS that not every sexual act results in an automatic pregnancy: WHY?
- Anyone who has read the bible as most if not all P’s claim to have done can, & should be aware that GOD demands to be the author of both all life & death decisions
And that NOT every "unprotected]"sexual act automatically results in a pregnancy
WHY is that? It is because God has built into man-women intimacy HIS OWN method of Birth-Control. [The NATURAL method]
Logically
It ought to obvious that God CREATED His own method for Birth Control for at least ONE very easy to understand reason.
GOD desires; DEMANDS his Sovereign RIGHT as our Creator the the only sustainer of ALL life forms; Both life and death issues; ALL of them are God’s EXCLUSIVE domain.
**to cf. GO Forth & Multiply is found at least 15 TIMES in the 1st 3 chapters of Genesis alone!
ADD to that this clear & precise warring from God HIMSELF**
**Gen.38: 6-10 **“And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah [the Father of both sons] said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. **And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also” ** MEANING GOD KILLED HIM BOTH PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY [condemned to ETERNAL Hell!]
- Contraception is an INVENTION of the 20th Century. Both Catholics and P’s prior to that KNEW that it was a grievous sin.
One’s 1st Confession is NORMALLY, a “General Confession”, not sin-specific in type or quantity. What the priest seeks is a TRUE “Repent and Convert” attitude. This might vary; BUT would be by far the exception.
As for sins already “Confessed” directly to God: ONLY GOD knoes of He is willing to accept such a confession.
GOD IS ALL GOOD THINGS PERFECTED
Then asking are being “just”; being “fair” “good things?” Obviously they are so we can know that God MUST in an absolute sense be BOTH “just & fair.”
Then ask:
Is it truly just & fair that God would permit P’s to confess directly to Him; WHILE at the SAME TIME holding Catholics to a much higher standard? a Standard that God Himself has Ordained and Commanded and made POSSIBLE for ALL to know:shrug:
Is it possible; yes.
Is it guaranteed as taught and widely accepted? NOT by a long shot
Easter Blessings,
Patrick
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Patrick, as a protestant this verse was very confusing.
It was one of those that nobody could really figure out…so many different theories I heard.
The major problem was the mistranslation.
Here is what my protestant bible read::
See the difference there? Makes it look like the sin unto death is a single sin in particular. :tsktsk:
But that pronoun, A, was a translator addition. Even protestants acknowledge this:
probe.org/what-is-the-sin-unto-death-michael-gleghorn/
So here is another verse that made little to no sense in protestant theology, but perfect sense in Catholic theology.
Thanks be to God.
C
chimo
Guest
Jennifer, God takes in account what you know and what you do not know. Since Catholics know more they are responsible for more. Protestants are not taught Catholic beliefs so God would not hold them responsible to what they do not know. So if a Catholic commits a mortal sin they are required from what they are taught to go to Confession. Since Protestants are not taught the Sacrament of Confession I am sure God would receive their repentance when they are sorry for their sins. This is how God approaches those Protestants who may have committed mortal sins. Since there is no confessional in Protestantism God would accept the sorry that comes from the heart. Anyway this is how it is practice in the Catholic and Eastern Churches even before we go to the Confessional. The sorry must be present in the heart before we go to the Confessional. All Confession does is to cap it off. Sorry for sin can occur before Confession.
As an American Lutheran, I can’t find anything in Father K’s post to be desjointed, or different from what I understand the terms to mean. The part of the Lutheran Tradition that I grew up in, and the part that I am currently a member of, both have their roots in Germany. In the strict, historic sense of the word, my Lutheran synod is “protestant”. The Edict of Worms and the Second Diet at Speyer are part of my synod’s history, not Father K’s.
the problem is the word has come to mean something that often doesn’t apply to Lutheranism, as we believe in infant Baptism, Baptismal regeneration, confession/Holy Absolution, and the real presence. We reject perseverance of the saints, limited atonement, and a lot of other teachings that are considered, “protestant”.
I also completely agree with Father K about the Lutheran understanding of Confession.
Jon
M
mattp0625
Guest
To answer your questions, you would confess and do the best you can to remember. When the priest performs the absolution in the presence of the Church and Jesus Christ, he says I absolve you of ALL your sins. The important part is that you have true contrition and the intention to repent.
Can you pray for forgiveness? Of course, God can do whatever he wants by extraordinary means. However, God revealed ordinary means of forgiveness to us via confession through scripture (e.g. John 20) and through the establishment of the Church through Jesus Christ and His apostles.
That said, there is indeed a historical Protestant Church. It has historical events, doctrines, and founders. Luther was excommunicated and any other ordained priests likely would have been defrocked. Calvin was a lawyer and theologian. The Reformation originated in 16th century Europe through a series of traceable events and evolved into the many Protestant denominations you see today.
One cannot have sacraments without actual succession from the apostles of Christ.
Can you pray for forgiveness? Of course, God can do whatever he wants by extraordinary means. However, God revealed ordinary means of forgiveness to us via confession through scripture (e.g. John 20) and through the establishment of the Church through Jesus Christ and His apostles.
That said, there is indeed a historical Protestant Church. It has historical events, doctrines, and founders. Luther was excommunicated and any other ordained priests likely would have been defrocked. Calvin was a lawyer and theologian. The Reformation originated in 16th century Europe through a series of traceable events and evolved into the many Protestant denominations you see today.
One cannot have sacraments without actual succession from the apostles of Christ.
P
PJM
Guest
Thanks, that is a great point.
King James Version
1 John 5:16-17
16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask , and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
1 John 5:16-17
16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death.** There is a sin unto death.** For that I say not that any man ask.17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.
Personally, I think the passage is clear enough except WHEN one is NOT taught its significance, which is COUNTER to OSAS philosophy.
As a prior poster mentioned; cf. the NATURE [seriousness] of the sin is meaningless when God supposedly HAS already done everything “necessary” for an “assured salvation”
. There then is NO motive to know anymore about sin and what God actually commands.So in looking at just “A” possible Mortal sin;with the 10 Commandments as the reference; is it reasonable that MURDER is the ONLY Mortal sin possible? To hold seriously such a position seems to ME to be very-Far -fetched:shrug:
Easter Blessings, your point though is very valid in the context that you placed it.
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
WHILE THIS IS TRUE,
Nevertheless, God in order to BE-God … “Just & Fair” will make Judgment upon EACH of us based on what He has made POSSIBLE for us to know; NOT just what we choose to accept to know. That dear friends is a Critical and serious DIFFERENCE
To presume that God relies on infused - knowledge to learn His Truth is a unrealistic expectation. Amen!
Further:
To hold this tenet because the founders of the Reformation** Invented** manners easier and simpler than what God AND His Bible teach for ones possible salvation; even generations AFTER the contradictory BUT knowable positions that God [even in the OT He used priest for Sin Forgiveness.] WILL allow P’s to be judged on a totally different standard than HIS Catholic Church is at best a VERY High Risk position to take…
In EFFECT the P’s position is dictating to God exactly how He [God] MUST forgive them. It is presumptuous in the extreme to feel assured that God will actually do so… It MIGHT be possible? It certainly is not assured.
For a Catholic to claim God will understand is simply NOT a known FACT. GOD certainly did not understand or even one time accept competing Faith-beliefs ANYWHERE in the entire Bible. So I [ME} see no room for confidence in such a envisioned position.
Lev.5: 13 “[COLOR=“blue”]Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed in any one of these things, and he shall be forgiven. And the remainder shall be for the priest, as in the cereal offering." … Lev.6:7 “and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things which one may do and thereby become guilty."
God Bless you,
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Apology accepted
Here is what the RCC teaches
From our Catholic Catechism
1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
**846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
**
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. END QUOTES
Welcome to CAF!
We’re gald you joined us.
Patrick
- Status