Since it's been asked of Protestants...

[blazerdave]

Mick, great job keeping the proper font and formatting alive for SOLO Scriptura!!! If it’s spelled or formatted any other way, it’s a different doctrine (which is no doctrine at all).

As far as the topic of the thread, it seems to me that the groups that are considered “closer” to Catholicism - Lutherans, some of my folks , and primarily the Orthodox - have really strange relationships with Catholicism. It’s somehow both closer and more distant, related and fully estranged.

 

[Reuben_J]

I hope you won’t mind me saying so but you come across like an Evangelical SOLO Scriptura enthusiast – Hey, here it is in the Bible so that proves I’m right!

It’s in the Bible, I do agree, but it’s the Catholic interpretation that causes me to register an objection.

Amiably,
Mick

Right but when it is not as straight forward and difficult to interpret, the Catholic Church always falls back to what the apostles said. Big words but that what it is.There will be no personal interpretation according to our personal taste and feel good. But then again, who can argue with a person when he/she says that the Holy Spirit speaks to him/her?

 

[dzheremi]

As far as the topic of the thread, it seems to me that the groups that are considered “closer” to Catholicism - Lutherans, some of my folks , and primarily the Orthodox - have really strange relationships with Catholicism. It’s somehow both closer and more distant, related and fully estranged.

Think of it this way: The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have certain similarities that are a result of ~1000 years of shared history. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have certain dissimilarities that are a result of ~1000 years of separated history. Some say the first thousand years should trump the second (or at least make it easier to resolve the differences that have cropped up since the Schism), some say that the second thousand years make the first largely irrelevant (or at least do nothing but harm the position of those who invoke it, given the doctrinal developments that have occurred since then).

 

[SSTeacher]

Mick, great job keeping the proper font and formatting alive for SOLO Scriptura!!! If it’s spelled or formatted any other way, it’s a different doctrine (which is no doctrine at all).

As far as the topic of the thread, it seems to me that the groups that are considered “closer” to Catholicism - Lutherans, some of my folks , and primarily the Orthodox - have really strange relationships with Catholicism. It’s somehow both closer and more distant, related and fully estranged.

Thanks, Dave. When I began to explore Holy Orthodoxy I had thought that it was a bit like the “Catholic Church without a pope” and that Orthodoxy and Catholicism must be closely connected. I thought of Catholicism and Orthodoxy as being on one side and “the rest” as being on the “other” side. But I’ve had to come around to seeing Orthodoxy on one side and “the rest” (which, for me, now includes Catholicism) on the other side.

It’s the last thing I would have expected. Ah, well.

Affably,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6608458:

I hope you won’t mind me saying so but you come across like an Evangelical SOLO Scriptura

enthusiast – Hey, here it is in the Bible so that proves I’m right!

It’s in the Bible, I do agree, but it’s the Catholic interpretation that causes me to register an objection.

Amiably,
Mick
:thumbsup:Right but when it is not as straight forward and difficult to interpret, the Catholic Church always falls back to what the apostles said. Big words but that what it is.There will be no personal interpretation according to our personal taste and feel good. But then again, who can argue with a person when he/she says that the Holy Spirit speaks to him/her?

But I’m not advocating a SOLO Scriptura position. I concede that I used to be a SOLO Scriptura adherent. However, I’ve now converted to Holy Orthodoxy. And the Orthodox Church does not agree with the Catholic Church on this idea of mortal sins versus venial sins. So, as an Orthodox Christian, I take the Orthodox view. Catholics naturally take the Catholic view. And not an Evangelical in sight to break the impasse.

Resignedly,
Mick

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for providing the link. I’m unclear as to what comment you expect from me, though.

Cordially,
Mick

40th day of prayer for the dead (from the link emphasis mine)

The Fortieth Day [1]

From earliest antiquity the Holy Church has correctly and devoutly made it a rule to commemorate the departed in the course of forty days, and on the fortieth day in particular. As Christ was victorious over the devil, having spent forty days in fasting and prayer, so the Holy Church likewise, offering for the departed prayers, acts of charity and the Bloodless Sacrifice throughout the forty days, asks the Lord’s grace for him to conquer the enemy, the dark prince of the air, and that he receive the Heavenly Kingdom as his inheritance. St. Macarius of Alexandria, discussing the state of man’s soul after the death of the body, says: “After the second adoration, the Master of all commands that the soul be led to hell and that it be shown the places of torment there, the various parts of hell, and the diverse tortures of the wicked, in which the souls of sinners ceaselessly wail and gnash their teeth. The soul is borne about these various places of torment for thirty days, trembling lest it itself be imprisoned therein. On the fortieth day it is once again borne aloft to adore the Lord God, and it is at this time that the Judge determines the place of confinement proper to it in accordance with its deeds. This is a great day for the deceased, for it determines his portion until the Dread judgment of God, and therefore, the Holy Church correctly commands that fervent prayer be made for the dead on this day.”
The commemoration of the departed at the first opportunity after death is important and essential because it alleviates the passage of the soul of the departed through the so-called toll-booths. [2] St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “At Our soul’s separation from the body, there will stand before us on one side warriors and powers of Heaven, and on the other side the powers of darkness, the princes of this world, the aerial publicans, the torturers, the prosecutors of our deeds… Seeing them, the soul is dismayed, it shudders, and in consternation and horror will seek protection from the angels of God; but being received by the holy angels and passing through the aerial space, lifted on high under their protection, it encounters the toll-booths, as it were, certain gates or toll houses in which taxes are exacted which will bar its way into the Kingdom, will halt and hold back its progress towards it. At each of these toll-booths an account is demanded for particular sins.”
The Venerable Theodora, as she passed through the toll-booths, was greatly aided by the intercession of her elder St. Basil the New, which served to outweigh the torments for those sins not covered by repentance.[3] Thus does commemoration benefit departed sinners.
A commemoration has been established by the Orthodox Church on the twentieth and fortieth days after death, and also on the halfyear and yearly anniversaries of the death.

[snip]

St. John of Damascus relates: “A certain holy man had a disciple who was living heedlessly. And what happened? Death found him in the midst of his carelessness. The merciful Heavenly Father, roused by the tears and cries of the elder, revealed to him the youth burning in flames up to his neck, like the merciless rich man mentioned in the parable of Lazarus. And when the saint subjected his flesh to strict mortification, fervently beseeching God for the forgiveness of his disciple, he beheld him enveloped in flame up to his waist. Finally, when the holy man had increased his ascetic labors yet more, God revealed him in a vision to the elder, removed from the flame and completely free.”

The point is

• Can someone be sprung from hell? No
• toll booths? do you know what these are?
• fire that doesn’t consume which is atemporary punishment not eternal punishment
• this stage of afterlife isn’t the final judgement. This is a state of being between death and final judgement.
• prayer of the faithful and almsgiving helps the soul get to heaven

you’re a former Protestant, what does all that sound like to you?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/prayer_dead.aspx

 

[SSTeacher]

you’re a former Protestant, what does all that sound like to you?

To be honest, it sounds to me as though you’re trying to draw me into an argument and I think I’ll pass.

Tactfully,
Mick

 

[SteveVH]

To be honest, it sounds to me as though you’re trying to draw me into an argument and I think I’ll pass.

Tactfully,
Mick

Wait a minute. That really doesn’t seem fair. You just slam the RCC for beliefs that you also hold (or are suppose to) and have no comment when the evidence is presented? And it was just starting to get entertaining.

 

[dzheremi]

Evidence where? You are trying to lead the discussion where you want it to go. Any “evidence” you have is beholden to the Catholic viewpoint that Mick does not even share. It would be something like if I told you “doesn’t the Trinity show that you worship three gods?” You would say no, because that’s not what it is. Similarly non-Catholics would look at the evidence you have presented and say that it is not proof of what you say it is. You are quoting an Orthodox page (and a rather strident one, from the other articles I have read there) and you think it is proof of the correctness of Catholic doctrine? Forgive me, but this reminds me of the type of argumentation used by Muslims here. Very poor. “Look, I found something in a source from within your religion, and I interpret it to mean what I want it to, therefore that’s what it means regardless of what you say (even though it is your faith, not mine)”.

You can probably do better than this, Steve.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You appear to have misunderstood my comment. What I am suggesting is that a “reunion with Rome" that would involve me accepting as true what Catholics believe is true (and what I do not believe is true) simply because some were intent upon achieving reunion just for the sake of it would amount to belief being imposed upon me. I do not expect Catholics to stop believing in purgatory, Indulgences or the Immaculate Conception or any other singularly Catholic doctrines. I respect their right to believe as they do. But I’m opposed to any reunion between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church that involves, or is based upon, false ecumenism.

Cordially,
Mick

Got’cha

God bless

 

[SteveVH]

Evidence where? You are trying to lead the discussion where you want it to go. Any “evidence” you have is beholden to the Catholic viewpoint that Mick does not even share. It would be something like if I told you “doesn’t the Trinity show that you worship three gods?” You would say no, because that’s not what it is. Similarly non-Catholics would look at the evidence you have presented and say that it is not proof of what you say it is. You are quoting an Orthodox page (and a rather strident one, from the other articles I have read there) and you think it is proof of the correctness of Catholic doctrine? Forgive me, but this reminds me of the type of argumentation used by Muslims here. Very poor. “Look, I found something in a source from within your religion, and I interpret it to mean what I want it to, therefore that’s what it means regardless of what you say (even though it is your faith, not mine)”.

You can probably do better than this, Steve.

Actually I don’t disagree with you and apologize for any offense. While I was mostly taking a stab at humor (which obviously failed miserably) I was truly interested in your answer as the text quoted sure sounded like purgatory to me, but I get it and don’t appreciate it when the same is done to me. Please accept my apology.

 

[dzheremi]

Of course, Steve. I’ve probably used similarly poor argumentation in the past at some point…I guess I wasn’t around to call me out on it…

Anyway, not a problem. Even when people argue in ways that I personally find silly, I know that it is (generally) out of sincere conviction. You’ve got yours, I’ve got mine, it’s good to get along on that level in threads like this.

 

[Reuben_J]

40th day of prayer for the dead (from the link emphasis mine)

The Fortieth Day [1]

From earliest antiquity the Holy Church has correctly and devoutly made it a rule to commemorate the departed in the course of forty days, and on the fortieth day in particular. As Christ was victorious over the devil, having spent forty days in fasting and prayer, so the Holy Church likewise, offering for the departed prayers, acts of charity and the Bloodless Sacrifice throughout the forty days, asks the Lord’s grace for him to conquer the enemy, the dark prince of the air, and that he receive the Heavenly Kingdom as his inheritance. St. Macarius of Alexandria, discussing the state of man’s soul after the death of the body, says: “After the second adoration, the Master of all commands that the soul be led to hell and that it be shown the places of torment there, the various parts of hell, and the diverse tortures of the wicked, in which the souls of sinners ceaselessly wail and gnash their teeth. The soul is borne about these various places of torment for thirty days, trembling lest it itself be imprisoned therein. On the fortieth day it is once again borne aloft to adore the Lord God, and it is at this time that the Judge determines the place of confinement proper to it in accordance with its deeds. This is a great day for the deceased, for it determines his portion until the Dread judgment of God, and therefore, the Holy Church correctly commands that fervent prayer be made for the dead on this day.”
The commemoration of the departed at the first opportunity after death is important and essential because it alleviates the passage of the soul of the departed through the so-called toll-booths. [2] St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “At Our soul’s separation from the body, there will stand before us on one side warriors and powers of Heaven, and on the other side the powers of darkness, the princes of this world, the aerial publicans, the torturers, the prosecutors of our deeds… Seeing them, the soul is dismayed, it shudders, and in consternation and horror will seek protection from the angels of God; but being received by the holy angels and passing through the aerial space, lifted on high under their protection, it encounters the toll-booths, as it were, certain gates or toll houses in which taxes are exacted which will bar its way into the Kingdom, will halt and hold back its progress towards it. At each of these toll-booths an account is demanded for particular sins.”
The Venerable Theodora, as she passed through the toll-booths, was greatly aided by the intercession of her elder St. Basil the New, which served to outweigh the torments for those sins not covered by repentance.[3] Thus does commemoration benefit departed sinners.
A commemoration has been established by the Orthodox Church on the twentieth and fortieth days after death, and also on the halfyear and yearly anniversaries of the death.

[snip]

St. John of Damascus relates: “A certain holy man had a disciple who was living heedlessly. And what happened? Death found him in the midst of his carelessness. The merciful Heavenly Father, roused by the tears and cries of the elder, revealed to him the youth burning in flames up to his neck, like the merciless rich man mentioned in the parable of Lazarus. And when the saint subjected his flesh to strict mortification, fervently beseeching God for the forgiveness of his disciple, he beheld him enveloped in flame up to his waist. Finally, when the holy man had increased his ascetic labors yet more, God revealed him in a vision to the elder, removed from the flame and completely free.”

The point is

• Can someone be sprung from hell? No
• toll booths? do you know what these are?
• fire that doesn’t consume which is atemporary punishment not eternal punishment
• this stage of afterlife isn’t the final judgement. This is a state of being between death and final judgement.
• prayer of the faithful and almsgiving helps the soul get to heaven

you’re a former Protestant, what does all that sound like to you?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/prayer_dead.aspx

Frankly I don’t care much for Orthodox but perhaps that’s because they don’t count much either in my life. However, given the disagreements that seem to be highlighted in some of these threads here at CAF, I am therefore quite surprise that they have this belief (excerpts from the link given):

---

• Examples of the Efficacy of Prayers for the Dead
• Examples of the Efficacy of Alms Distributed in Memory of the Dead

---

Indulgence do you say? Let the beholders decide.

 

[steve_b]

I hope you won’t mind me saying so but you come across like an Evangelical SOLO Scriptura enthusiast – Hey, here it is in the Bible so that proves I’m right!

You admitted distinction between mortal and non mortal sin is there in scripture. Did you admit to that when you were Protestant?

what objections do you have with the distinction NOW? You didn’t say.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. I have observed the same phenomenon. It’s not a two-way street friendship, that’s for sure.

I think Catholics feel hurt and defensive when they find out the Orthodox don’t think of them as another “lung” but as more distant.

I think the Orthodox find it annoying when Catholics assume they are almost the same.

 

[steve_b]

Evidence where? You are trying to lead the discussion where you want it to go. Any “evidence” you have is beholden to the Catholic viewpoint that Mick does not even share. It would be something like if I told you “doesn’t the Trinity show that you worship three gods?” You would say no, because that’s not what it is. Similarly non-Catholics would look at the evidence you have presented and say that it is not proof of what you say it is. You are quoting an Orthodox page (and a rather strident one, from the other articles I have read there) and you think it is proof of the correctness of Catholic doctrine? Forgive me, but this reminds me of the type of argumentation used by Muslims here. Very poor. “Look, I found something in a source from within your religion, and I interpret it to mean what I want it to, therefore that’s what it means regardless of what you say (even though it is your faith, not mine)”.

You can probably do better than this, Steve.

1. I’m the other steve.

SteveVH was responding to Mick, who was responding to me.

I gave Mick the website in question. An EO gave it to me to support a particular position when they were asked for a reference. The site claims to be fully Orthodox. Look at their home page. EO isn’t one Church and no ONE speaks for EO, I get that. But this IS part of EO prayer life, and it is how the EO explain the reasons behind what you do regarding prayers for the dead, almsgiving, and it’s in the DL of the EO as they point out.

1. Mick was the first to bring up Purgatory.
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6607865&postcount=13
   And you both agreed with eachother’s points on that post. So the subject was on the table for discussion. No one is trying to “lead the discussion” as you accused SteveVH of doing. I gave Mick the evidence he asked for from that EO website. That the EO while not subscribing to indulgences and Purgatory, have their own teaching about purification of the soul after death, and indulgences for the dead, to help departed souls enter heaven. Mick a former Protestant, appears to have found some suprises he didn’t know during his investigations of EO, particularly concerning the subject he introduced.
2. I have a question for you dzheremi,

Please read the following and feel free to comment or not.

: (emphasis mine)

Orthodoxy posits a different mentality. Firstly, there exists no bishop with the authority to impose anything. Secondly, there is never any change that has to be implemented. What changes are needed inside Orthodoxy? None. The Orthodox Church “works” just fine. Whatever minor changes have occurred in Orthodoxy over the past thousand years – such as liturgical changes, vestments, music, and so on – these have all happened very gradually from the “bottom up" as part of a gradual, natural process. They have not been imposed.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6607865&postcount=13

Do you agree with that asessment of EO?

• no bishop with the authority to impose anything?
• never change that has to be implemented
• change only comes from the bottom up, i.e. NOT from the top down

You call that website “strident.” If Mick is right in his asessment of EO, that no ONE has authority over EO, then no one in EO has authority to talk down another EO for their views. To the website’s credit, they disclosed ALL ther sources for what they teach.

I’m interested in your thoughts.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6608458:

I hope you won’t mind me saying so but you come across like an Evangelical SOLO Scriptura

enthusiast – ***Hey, here it is in the Bible so that proves I’m right!***You admitted distinction between mortal and non mortal sin is there in scripture. Did you admit to that when you were Protestant?

I wasn’t going to bother to respond at all but I guess not to do so would be considered churlish so I’ll do my best especially as the other Steve was so quick to offer an unqualified apology. I thought that was very commendable.

As far as “mortal” and “non–mortal” or “venial” sins are concerned, I’d like first to point out that these terms are singularly Catholic. So if it’s all right with you I’d prefer to use the translation of the Bible that is found on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as I think that translation renders 1 John 5:16 in a way that may perhaps help me better to outline my difficulty.

If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.

When I was an Evangelical, I favored the New International Version. It uses the phrases “sin that does not lead to death” and “sin that leads to death,” scil:

***If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. ***

In both these versions, then, the terms “venial sin” and “mortal sin” do not appear.

When I was an Evangelical, my understanding of the phrase “sin that leads to death” in this verse was that John might have been thinking of the sins he has urged against throughout this letter: refusal to accept Christ as God’s incarnate Son and habitually disobeying God’s commands. Or perhaps the “sin that leads to death” might simply refer to the persistent failure to love others. And the “sin that does not lead to death” might have been the sins that each and every Christian finds the hardest to battle against – sins of thought and sins of omission. From my SOLO Scriptura perspective, it really wasn’t clear.

I never thought it was an easy verse to understand. I can recall it being discussed in Bible studies and people often coming up with more questions than answers. However, I think it is permissible to infer from this verse is that not all sins are the same i.e. that some sins are more serious than others. John 19:11 seems to endorse this viewpoint:

Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

So, when I was an Evangelical, I accepted that some sins are greater than others and I’d also have accepted the notion that the most serious sin was the one Jesus described as “blasphemy against the Spirit” (cf. Matthew 12:31).

what objections do you have with the distinction NOW? You didn’t say.

I did not and do not have any objections to a distinction being made between sins i.e. to say that some sins are more serious than others is OK with me. Indeed, it seems to me to be wayward to suggest that all sins are the same. It seems more likely that there is a hierarchy of sins. I think it might reasonably be supposed that the apostle Paul believed in a hierarchy of sins. He suggested that he was the worst of sinners (cf. 1 Timothy 1:15). It can at least be inferred that he had an acute awareness of his own sinfulness brought about by his God–given sense of right and wrong.

My difficulty with the Catholic interpretation is that the Catholic Church takes the idea of a hierarchy of sins and then arbitrarily defines which particular sins it considers to be greater and which it considers to be lesser by categorizing certain sins as being “mortal” and other sins as being “venial.” Not only that, it also defines as doctrine a hierarchy of consequences, thereby elevating the idea of mortal and venial sins together with their attendant punishments to the status of a non–negotiable belief. Thus, for example, for Catholics it is a “mortal sin” to miss Mass on Sunday for no good reason. But a Catholic who stops off to get a doughnut on the way to Mass and is five minutes late has apparently committed only a venial sin.

I think it’s right and proper for Christians to examine their consciences and consider their own sins and reflect upon them but I think arbitrarily defining which sins are “mortal” and which sins are “venial” and, moreover, defining as doctrine the consequences for “committing a mortal sin” is not only very unwise but going way too far. I think the specifics in this area are entirely the province of God. For Catholics there is no problem. For them, God and the Catholic Church are synonymous. But for those like me who do not approach with Catholic presuppositions it does appear to constitute a major difficulty.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[dzheremi]

1. I’m the other steve.

SteveVH was responding to Mick, who was responding to me.

I gave Mick the website in question. An EO gave it to me to support a particular position when they were asked for a reference. The site claims to be fully Orthodox. Look at their home page. EO isn’t one Church and no ONE speaks for EO, I get that. But this IS part of EO prayer life, and it is how the EO explain the reasons behind what you do regarding prayers for the dead, almsgiving, and it’s in the DL of the EO as they point out.

Okay.

1. Mick was the first to bring up Purgatory.
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6607865&postcount=13
   And you both agreed with eachother’s points on that post. So the subject was on the table for discussion. No one is trying to “lead the discussion” as you accused SteveVH of doing.

Au contraire, my friend. My problem was not that Steve was trying to prove the Catholic doctrine correct (it’s what I would expect a Catholic to do), but that he was trying to prove it using a source from a Church that does not believe it because he apparently sees something of the doctrine of purgatory in the quoted article. From his reply, he seems to have understood the nature of my objection and agreed with it, so I don’t know what good can come from rehashing it with you. Anything I wrote to him would also apply to you if you argue in the same fashion.

I gave Mick the evidence he asked for from that EO website. That the EO while not subscribing to indulgences and Purgatory, have their own teaching about purification of the soul after death, and indulgences for the dead, to help departed souls enter heaven. Mick a former Protestant, appears to have found some suprises he didn’t know during his investigations of EO, particularly concerning the subject he introduced.

I’ll let Mick answer about any such “surprises”, if he wants to. The Orthodox certainly do have their own teachings regarding purification of the soul. In fact, that’s kinda what I was getting at: It is inappropriate to point to Orthodox expositions on the subject as though they support the uniquely Catholic doctrine of purgatory when the Orthodox Church has for many hundreds of years actively argued against this concept. Please respect the differences between the two communions.

1. I have a question for you dzheremi,

Please read the following and feel free to comment or not.

Ok, I’ve read it and I choose “not”, both out of respect for Mick and for the fact that I am not Orthodox myself.

Do you agree with that asessment of EO?

Irrelevant. Mick’s assessment is what it is regardless of how I or any other non-Orthodox feel about it.

I’m interested in your thoughts.

My thoughts on the EO in general, or on the list you’ve given? In general, I agree with the EO contention that they are to be treated as a separate Church, with their own unique history. They are not another “lung” of the Catholic Church any more than the Catholic Church is another lung of the Orthodox Church (which it could not be, because it does not share the same faith). With regards to that list, it is up to Orthodox Christians to live their faith in accordance with its principles.

I called the website in question “strident” because it seems that way to me sometimes (I have both read and quoted many articles from that site). As far as I know, it is the work of one person publishing a collection of articles and commentary that are in line with their understanding of their own faith. In fact, the introduction to the site says:

“As the Webmaster, in addition to the “mission statement” on the home page, I would like to make some remarks about the orientation of this site. It is my opinion that the articles you will find on my site are entirely faithful to Orthodox Tradition. It goes without saying, however, that I do not presume to speak for the Orthodox Church.”

So I would take what is written there with a grain of salt, just as I would take the personal website of a Catholic with a grain of salt. I have read both more ecumenically-minded and less ecumenically-minded websites from both Catholics and Orthodox. My personal stance that the more ecumenically-minded are a bit easier to slog through (as a non-Orthodox/non-Catholic), though those with other views might view that same tendency as evidence of weak faith or even heresy, as is their right to do (I’ll just skip those, anyway).

 

[steve_b]

I wasn’t going to bother to respond at all but I guess not to do so would be considered churlish so I’ll do my best especially as the other Steve was so quick to offer an unqualified apology. I thought that was very commendable.

As far as “mortal” and “non–mortal” or “venial” sins are concerned, I’d like first to point out that these terms are singularly Catholic. So if it’s all right with you I’d prefer to use the translation of the Bible that is found on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as I think that translation renders 1 John 5:16 in a way that may perhaps help me better to outline my difficulty.

When I was an Evangelical, I favored the New International Version. It uses the phrases “sin that does not lead to death” and “sin that leads to death,” scil:

In both these versions, then, the terms “venial sin” and “mortal sin” do not appear.

When I was an Evangelical, my understanding of the phrase “sin that leads to death” in this verse was that John might have been thinking of the sins he has urged against throughout this letter: refusal to accept Christ as God’s incarnate Son and habitually disobeying God’s commands. Or perhaps the “sin that leads to death” might simply refer to the persistent failure to love others. And the “sin that does not lead to death” might have been the sins that each and every Christian finds the hardest to battle against – sins of thought and sins of omission. From my SOLO Scriptura perspective, it really wasn’t clear.

I never thought it was an easy verse to understand. I can recall it being discussed in Bible studies and people often coming up with more questions than answers. However, I think it is permissible to infer from this verse is that not all sins are the same i.e. that some sins are more serious than others. John 19:11 seems to endorse this viewpoint:

So, when I was an Evangelical, I accepted that some sins are greater than others and I’d also have accepted the notion that the most serious sin was the one Jesus described as “blasphemy against the Spirit” (cf. Matthew 12:31).

I did not and do not have any objections to a distinction being made between sins i.e. to say that some sins are more serious than others is OK with me. Indeed, it seems to me to be wayward to suggest that all sins are the same. It seems more likely that there is a hierarchy of sins. I think it might reasonably be supposed that the apostle Paul believed in a hierarchy of sins. He suggested that he was the worst of sinners (cf. 1 Timothy 1:15). It can at least be inferred that he had an acute awareness of his own sinfulness brought about by his God–given sense of right and wrong.

My difficulty with the Catholic interpretation is that the Catholic Church takes the idea of a hierarchy of sins and then arbitrarily defines which particular sins it considers to be greater and which it considers to be lesser by categorizing certain sins as being “mortal” and other sins as being “venial.”

• can we agree that mortal and “lead to death”, are synonomous?
• can we also agree that death/deadly/mortal is NOT in this context speaking of the body because obviously everyone dies, but not all sin leads to death, therefore, death in that context is refering to another type of death?
• that passage also speaks of being able to pray about the non deadly sins and God will forgive you, but he says he doesn’t recommend praying about the deadly ones. Therefore, there must be a clear understanding, not arbitrary, of which sins fit which category…correct?

this begs a couple of questions.

• which is a deadly sin and which is not. scripture gives lists
• If you can’t pray about mortal sin, how does one get mortal sin forgiven?

SST:

Not only that, it also defines as doctrine a hierarchy of consequences, thereby elevating the idea of mortal and venial sins together with their attendant punishments to the status of a non–negotiable belief. Thus, for example, for Catholics it is a “mortal sin” to miss Mass on Sunday for no good reason. But a Catholic who stops off to get a doughnut on the way to Mass and is five minutes late has apparently committed only a venial sin.

Do you know why missing mass on purpose on Sunday or holyday of obligation is a mortal sin? It’s not arbitrary you know. Have you ever checked out why it’s mortal?
SST:

I think it’s right and proper for Christians to examine their consciences and consider their own sins and reflect upon them but I think arbitrarily defining which sins are “mortal” and which sins are “venial” and, moreover, defining as doctrine the consequences for “committing a mortal sin” is not only very unwise but going way too far. I think the specifics in this area are entirely the province of God. For Catholics there is no problem. For them, God and the Catholic Church are synonymous. But for those like me who do not approach with Catholic presuppositions it does appear to constitute a major difficulty.

Scripture lists them. Want to see where?

 

[Reuben_J]

Bluegoat:

I think Catholics feel hurt and defensive when they find out the Orthodox don’t think of them as another “lung” but as more distant.

I think the Orthodox find it annoying when Catholics assume they are almost the same.

Sorry for this interjection because a much more substantial discussion is going on but I saw this post and must have missed it earlier on, so I thought to comment on it.

The Catholic Church is a hurting Church because she sees disunity and Godlessness from within and without. This is one reason why she is a praying Church too.

The issue of being ‘defensive’ however does not arise. What is there to be defensive about? She does not need the Orthodox to be justified and vice versa. The Church with her more than one billion followers has no need of any approval from any other churches and that apply too to them. But we believe in the same thing so what is there to separate us? This is the Lord’s teaching, what is there to separate us?

However, in reality despite of the sameness we want to be separated, so what is there to say? One may ask, though some Orthodox may deny this, that actually what separate them from us is not so much because of our belief but because of human pride – it happen that we have different human heads and these cannot submit and come together.