Protestants and mortal sin

[clem456]

No, the category of mortal sin (vs. non-mortal sin) is right there in the Bible, in 1John 5:16-17:

If anyone sees his brother commiting a sin [lit. ‘sinning a sin,’ *ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν

] which isn’t deadly, he shall pray, and God will give him life, to those who commit sin which isn’t deadly. There is sin which is deadly; I do not say that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which isn’t deadly.

And the point of it all is not to merely establish the prohibitions.
The point is to have abundant life in Jesus Christ.
As the passage you quote refers, “mortal” indicates “death”. Only in Christ do we have life. Mortal sin separates us from Christ. It kills the life of the soul by rejecting Christ himself.
This life is not something the Catholic Church “creates” or invents, as was asserted.

 

[KjetilK]

It was OK as far as I understood it in my protestant faith. Our Churches had no objections to it.

But that doesn’t make the sin itself OK. It is not OK to take an abortion, yet many people don’t know that it isn’t OK. God may not hold them accountable, but that doesn’t mean that talking an abortion is OK.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

But that doesn’t make the sin itself OK. It is not OK to take an abortion, yet many people don’t know that it isn’t OK. God may not hold them accountable, but that doesn’t mean that talking an abortion is OK.

That’s definitely not what I am saying. Sin is sin, it becomes GRAVE sin or mortal by meeting the conditions of mortal sin stated by the Church, which include FULL knowledge.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

No other person can claim to know another’s personal culpability before God. We can make general formulaic statements about what constitutes sin. We can promote Christian morality. But we do not exercise judgment that belongs to God.

What is -not- an excuse for sin is “I don’t agree with the morality”. If that were the case, anything and everything could be excused.

It’s hard to claim ignorance and lack of consent when you’ve
1 been told it’s wrong
2 consent to do it anyway

Incorrect belief does not excuse rejection

There’s also degrees of gravity. You can hardly compare OT dietary laws with things like abortion or birth control.
The Catholic Church’s fasting rules, for instance, are disciplines and precepts which are binding on Catholics under possible pain of sin, depending on the circumstances.
On the other hand, participation in abortion, for instance, is a direct assault against the life and dignity of a human being.
Birth control gets into a much more serious realm than “you eat pork and I do not” etc…because the object is the existence and flourishing of human beings.

I find the relativistic comparisons a little disturbing.

I actually quoted from the Catechism:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13801570&postcount=92

What that says, I am in total agreement with and I would hope you are too.

God is a perfect and just judge and the Church has very clearly pointed out to us the difference between venial sin and grave sin that would potentially damn us to hell. You need full knowledge. And the Catechism is in agreement with Jesus who distinguished between sin (John 19:11 and Matthew 12:32) And Jesus also said that having knowledge matters John 9:41

Faithful protestants are serving the Lord to the best of their ability. However, many of them use BC. Are we ready to damn them to hell when the Church herself is not? Nobody is telling them it’s wrong over there and that’s my point.

And you know, as I am typing this I’m thinking of all the uncatechized Catholics out there. Some using BC, others divorced and remarried with no annulment. Will they be held accountable for that if they did not know?

Pax

 

[commenter]

But that doesn’t make the sin itself OK. It is not OK to take an abortion, yet many people don’t know that it isn’t OK. God may not hold them accountable, but that doesn’t mean that talking an abortion is OK.

True.
In the long run, ignorance is not bliss. Women who have had abortions often have psychiatric problems, even if they never heard there was anything wrong with abortion, morally or otherwise. Unawareness of problems of drunkenness doesn’t mean drunken drivers are exempt from accidents. They harm others, and themselves, too. The Christian Faith contains information that is useful, for a happy life for yourself and others.

It’s not like, “I wish I had not heard that moral teaching in Religion Class, now I can’t enjoy myself like my lucky atheist buddy”. Christianity offers the solution to guilt, but it did not create it. The law written on men’s hearts hints at the good, and evil, Christianity better informs us, and guides us. It doesn’t replace conscience, nor create conscience.

“Evil” actions like missing Mass, don’t apply to persons not involved with Church. But just because some moral teachings happen to be proclaimed by the Church, does not mean the harm done to self and others only applies to Christians. Intentional homosexual acts (not orientation) had been almost universally recognized as objectively wrong. Whether most people today agree with this, or not, does not affect whether it is harmful to persons, believers or non believers alike. It is. Even if only a few religious groups oppose it, that does not reduce the harm done to people who do it, whether they are religious or not.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

True.
In the long run, ignorance is not bliss. Women who have had abortions often have psychiatric problems, even if they never heard there was anything wrong with abortion, morally or otherwise. Unawareness of problems of drunkenness doesn’t mean drunken drivers are exempt from accidents. They harm others, and themselves, too. The Christian Faith contains information that is useful, for a happy life for yourself and others.

It’s not like, “I wish I had not heard that moral teaching in Religion Class, now I can’t enjoy myself like my lucky atheist buddy”. Christianity offers the solution to guilt, but it did not create it. The law written on men’s hearts hints at the good, and evil, Christianity better informs us, and guides us. It doesn’t replace conscience, nor create conscience.

“Evil” actions like missing Mass, don’t apply to persons not involved with Church. But just because some moral teachings happen to be proclaimed by the Church, does not mean the harm done to self and others only applies to Christians. Intentional homosexual acts (not orientation) had been almost universally recognized as objectively wrong. Whether most people today agree with this, or not, does not affect whether it is harmful to persons, believers or non believers alike. It is. Even if only a few religious groups oppose it, that does not reduce the harm done to people who do it, whether they are religious or not.

Consciences are formed…and they are formed differently in our Churches compared to the Protestant Churches.

They honestly don’t know that BC is wrong and think we are crazy for producing too many kids.

It’s not a matter of ignorance being bliss, it’s a matter of Church teaching that says ignorance matters in regards to sin classification and divine judgement.

 

[commenter]

Consciences are formed…and they are formed differently in our Churches compared to the Protestant Churches.

They honestly don’t know that BC is wrong and think we are crazy for producing too many kids.

It’s not a matter of ignorance being bliss, it’s a matter of Church teaching that says ignorance matters in regards to sin classification and divine judgement.

Artificial birth control isn’t a Catholic issue. It was historically opposed equally by all Christian groups up to 1930, as well as by Jewish and Muslim groups, some of whom still regard it as wrong, as do some Protestants.
In recent years most Protestant groups moved away their historic position to artificial birth control, and many other things. But I would evaluate Protestant and Catholic positions based on their historical perspective. In the United States, anti-birth control state laws were put into effect in the 1800s at a time when those legislatures were heavily Protestant, sometimes specifically anti-Catholic.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Artificial birth control isn’t a Catholic issue. It was historically opposed equally by all Christian groups up to 1930, as well as by Jewish and Muslim groups, some of whom still regard it as wrong, as do some Protestants.
In recent years most Protestant groups moved away their historic position to artificial birth control, and many other things. But I would evaluate Protestant and Catholic positions based on their historical perspective. In the United States, anti-birth control state laws were put into effect in the 1800s at a time when those legislatures were heavily Protestant, sometimes specifically anti-Catholic.

It’s definitely been a evolved process for them.

But I must say, as a protestant I did not know it was wrong. It wasn’t until I objectively examined the Catholic position that my mind changed and conscience became properly formed.

 

[clem456]

I actually quoted from the Catechism:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13801570&postcount=92

What that says, I am in total agreement with and I would hope you are too.

God is a perfect and just judge and the Church has very clearly pointed out to us the difference between venial sin and grave sin that would potentially damn us to hell. You need full knowledge. And the Catechism is in agreement with Jesus who distinguished between sin (John 19:11 and Matthew 12:32) And Jesus also said that having knowledge matters John 9:41

Faithful protestants are serving the Lord to the best of their ability. However, many of them use BC. Are we ready to damn them to hell when the Church herself is not? Nobody is telling them it’s wrong over there and that’s my point.

And you know, as I am typing this I’m thinking of all the uncatechized Catholics out there. Some using BC, others divorced and remarried with no annulment. Will they be held accountable for that if they did not know?

Pax

I didn’t quote your post to disagree with it.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I didn’t quote your post to disagree with it.

My apologies, It seemed like that. I am having a bad week i guess lol

 

[commenter]

It’s definitely been a evolved process for them.

But I must say, as a protestant I did not know it was wrong. It wasn’t until I objectively examined the Catholic position that my mind changed and conscience became properly formed.

Now that the Country Music Awards are over, I plan to watch the Euphemism Awards. The first sentence above will be one of the nominees.
On many moral subjects

(No offense meant for the poster)

 

[clem456]

My apologies, It seemed like that. I am having a bad week i guess lol

Now that I reread, the only thing I might differ about is what constitutes full knowledge. It seems to me that knowledge and agreement are two different things.

If I told you when you were protestant that birth control is not ordered to God’s goodness and can be a sin, you have the knowledge. You are free to reject it.

The fact that you disagreed at that time does not wipe away the knowledge and the consent. Is that full knowledge? I dunno.

Personal culpability before God is not ours to determine.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Graceful_Lamb View Post
I do not have difficulty understanding that you don’t need to follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc.

the REPLY

Then why do I feel as if Catholics expect non-Catholics to adopt what you believe to be sinful? Am I mistaken?

MY COMMENTS [PJM]

So a question for both of you

Can GOD [all good things perfected] hold differing faith beliefs on the same defined issues?

Asked differently; CAN GOD hold Catholics to one set of Laws and Protestants to a different set of Laws?

Blessings,

PJM

 

[PJM]

I don’t know what Buddhism teaches about sin. I would say that the Catholic Church’s view of sin would not apply to Buddhists.

And WHY is that?

Is truth [as in THEE-Truth different for Buddhist than Christians or Catholics?

Pope Benedict XVI said this:

“There cannot be your truth and my truth or ther would be NO truth”; to which I add: AMEN!

Certainly right understanding CAN [& does] differ; BUT how does that reality change the TRUTH:shrug:

Blessings

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by ComplineSanFran View Post
Then why do I feel as if Catholics expect non-Catholics to adopt what you believe to be sinful? Am I mistaken?

You do not have an obligation to follow what the Catholic Church teaches.

OFF COURSE THEY DO

Truth does NOT change simply because it is unknown, or denied.

The 10 Commandments were not given by GOD just to Catholics Nor were the Beatitudes

That one freely chooses [at GREAT Risk] to ignore or deny or to self-interpret .GOD"S Commands, Precepts and Laws; does NOT invalidate them or make those choosing to do so less culpable, less guilty of offending GOD. Amen

We don’t determine what is right or wrong; GOD does. We only choose to DO what is right or wrong

Blessings

 

[PJM]

Originally **Posted by ComplineSanFran **View Post
That is very reassuring to me. Thank you for saying that. What you consider sinful is not an obligation for those outside your Church

.

REPLY

To my simple way of thinking though if the Catholic Church is the only one true church that Jesus started and that God the Father desires then what is considered sinful within the Catholic Church is sinful for every human being in the world.

MY Comment to ComplineSanFran

That is at best a wrong position.

On WHAT basis do you make such a claim?

CAN Truth change just because you choose to deny it:shrug: OF COURSE NOT!

God in order to be GOD must and WILL make judgment on each of us based NOT on our personal beliefs; RATHER on what He GOD makes POSSIBLE foe each of us o know.

God Bless you

PJM

 

[PJM]

Depends on what it is. If its something divinely established, every human is with full knowledge and mental capacity is liable; something ecclesially required is not necessarily bound on every non-Catholic because they are not aware of its significance.

IGNORANCE is ONLY an excuse accepted by God; When and IF, He [GOD] has not made it POSSIBLE for one to know His Truth; which MUST be singular per defined Issue

It need NOT be accepted, and it can be denied which also does not negate its authority.

The issue is culpability:

CULPABLE. Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.) [Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary]

 

[PJM]

So if I understand correctly not all sin is divinely established, some sin is determined to be so by the determinations of man?

NO!

What is a sin is always a sin!

Circumstances can and may change the level of seriousness of the action, but a wrong remains WRONG.

The issue is culpability [see above post], which can increase or lessen the fault, but not the very nature of the sin.

 

[PJM]

Hi Wannano

I’d say yes and no.

The church teaches that In order for a sin to be mortal, three conditions have to be met:

1.) Grave matter
2.) Consent
3.)** Full knowledge**

So if a protestant is taking birth control, to the best of her knowledge this is OK. So while the matter is serious and sinful, it’s not something
God will hold her to account for.

Which is VERY True:thumbsup:

However what is a SIN is a SIN. Only the degree of culpability can change, NOT the nature of the sin itself. Further one need NOT personally agree or disagree with what is the truth. As Truth can only be single per defined issue.

There are also actions that are every time a Mortal sin, termed “Intrinsic” evils such as murder, abortion, marriage infidelities, Slander, or missing Mass on Sunday and Holidays on purpose.

Acts such as these are presumed to be grievous [serious] enough so that EVERYONE Ought to know that doing these tings are a Mortal sin

1John.1 Verses 8 to 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. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

1John.5 Verses 16 to 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; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

**John.20 Verses 20 to 23"**On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. 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."

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Lenten_ashes View Post
Hi Wannano

I’d say yes and no.

The church teaches that In order for a sin to be mortal, three conditions have to be met:

1.) Grave matter
2.) Consent
3.) Full knowledge

So if a protestant is taking birth control, to the best of her knowledge this is OK. So while the matter is serious and sinful, it’s not something
God will hold her to account for.

NO

See my above post.

Contraception is a MORTAL is always because everyone OUGHT to know [its a Intrinsic-Evil] that GOD Alone insist on controlling both Life and Death issues.

GOD in the 1st book of the bible TEACHES that we ar to “GO FORTH & Multiply” some 15 TIMES in the 1st 3 chapters.

And if that is not sufficiently clear, then READ THIS carefully and prayerfully:

It really does center on who’s in charge of our lives. NOT recognized or acknowledged is that GOD IS; EVEN WHEN WE WISH THAT HE WASN’T.

Factually

It is [or ought to be] common knowledge that:

Sex is reserved MORALLY for married couples [a man- & his wife]

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.

That REASON being that 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.

But those categories of mortal sin are created by the Roman Catholic Church and no other group of people, religious or not.

How can non-Catholics be bound to that list? Even if the subject matter is agreed upon (for instance, honoring one’s father and mother), other faiths/cultures have different standards on how to enact this behavior and the penalties for not enacting this behavior.

It is NO coincidence that this NEXT Teaching is found in that very same 1st BOOK of the Bible; and this is from GOD, not the RCC!

****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!]

One agreeing or disagreeing does not, cannot change the seriousness of this sin

God Bless you, seeking others to agree with what you WANT, also does not change the facts of the matter. Amen!