Since it's been asked of Protestants...

[steve_b]

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.

I think the attempt was to show that the EO teach (all the references provided and documented) that there is a state after death and before heaven where a soul goes through quite an ordeal. This ordeal can last a very long time or it can be short and souls can be helped along the way by prayers and almsgiving by loved ones on earth.

How can EO argue with Catholics about purgatory and indulgences when you have the same, you just call it toll booths etc.
dz:

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.

This was right from the EO website (summarized)

• Fire that doesn’t consume,
• torment and punishment of the soul that is temporary not eternal,
• prayers, masses, almsgiving + the souls suffering in fire, can spring a soul from their state and move them along to heaven.
• Therefore the soul must be clean after this process, because nothing uncleen shall enter heaven.

What do you call this process and where does it take place?
dz:

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.

IOW the EO can talk about purgatory and indulgences to Catholics but Catholics can’t talk about the process you have, that’s like purgatory and indulgences,… because?
dz:

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.

okay
dz:

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

okay
dz:

somemetimes (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 make a distinction. No ONE speaks for EO. There doesn’t appear to be any official source, Just like no ONE can speak for Protestants.

However not so for Catholics

The Vatican website, the Catechisn of the Catholic Church, to name 2 sources speak for the Catholic Church world wide. That’s because we are ONE Church.It’s also what it means to be Catholic. Everyone is in union with Peter, world wide.

 

[SSTeacher]

can we agree that mortal and “lead to death”, are synonomous?

Well, yes, but as I’ve already gone to some trouble to avoid using the term “mortal sin” because to Catholics it carries a doctrinal understanding that non–Catholics are unlikely to accept, is there anything to be gained by pursuing this line?

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 referring to another type of death?

Yes.

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?

I’ve discussed this passage on occasion with fellow Evangelicals (mostly SOLO Scriptura like me) and there was never universal agreement as to what it meant. So I guess I’d class it as one of those obscure passages. The understanding inside Evangelicalism is to be wary of those who seek to build doctrines upon obscure Bible verses or passages. It’s somewhat illogical for somebody with a SOLO Scriptura mindset to take such a position but SOLO Scriptura has little in common with logic. Course, now I’m Orthodox, that’s all behind me.

this begs a couple of questions.
which is a deadly sin and which is not. scripture gives lists

OK.

If you can’t pray about mortal sin, how does one get mortal sin forgiven?

You’ve changed your terminology from “deadly sin” to “mortal sin.” We are going to end up talking past each other, aren’t we? In fact, I don’t even know why you’re engaging me. You haven’t even said if you considered my analysis to have any substance. Did you consider it to be a valid objection?

Do you know why missing mass on purpose on Sunday or holyday of obligation is a mortal sin?

Yes, because the Catholic Church says so. Is it not true to say that if the Catholic Church formally designated missing Mass on Sunday as a venial sin instead of a mortal sin, Catholics would align their ideas accordingly? Isn’t that what happened with the “eating meat on Friday is a mortal sin” rule? The mark of a good Catholic, as the Catholic theologian Frank Sheed has indicated, is to do as the Catholic Church teaches. Can we agree on that?

It’s not arbitrary you know.

Obviously there has to be leeway for spiritual counselors but that’s somewhat beside the point, don’t you think?

Have you ever checked out why it’s mortal?

Yes, because the Catholic Church says so. The term “mortal sin” is singularly Catholic. The Catholic Church defines the terms and the doctrines and Catholics submit to the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. Can we agree on that, as well?

Scripture lists them. Want to see where?

Sure, why not?

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

Q.E.D. :bounce:

Cordially,
Mick

 

[dzheremi]

Steve B: With all due respect, I don’t really want to continue this argument with you. I’d only ask that you not confuse anything I’ve said here with what the Orthodox teach or believe (i.e., all the “what about what you guys believe about X, Y, Z?”). I said in that post and I think also in previous posts that I am not Orthodox. I just want to make that explicit here in case it wasn’t obvious.

 

[steve_b]

Well, yes, but as I’ve already gone to some trouble to avoid using the term “mortal sin” because to Catholics it carries a doctrinal understanding that non–Catholics are unlikely to accept, is there anything to be gained by pursuing this line?

you liked the “lead to death” translation. I have no problem with that.

but I asked you if we can agree that mortal and “lead to death” and deadly are synonomous, and you said yes. ergo we aren’t talking past each other with either expression…agreed?
sst:

I’ve discussed this passage on occasion with fellow Evangelicals (mostly SOLO Scriptura like me) and there was never universal agreement as to what it meant. So I guess I’d class it as one of those obscure passages.

But you don’t still feel that way do you?

whats obscure about the passage for Evangelicals is they don’t buy degrees of sin. If one comes to scripture with that particular mindset, the fallout is, sections like the one we’re talking about get skipped over.
sst:

You’ve changed your terminology from “deadly sin” to “mortal sin.” We are going to end up talking past each other, aren’t we? In fact, I don’t even know why you’re engaging me. You haven’t even said if you considered my analysis to have any substance. Did you consider it to be a valid objection?

I think I answered this in my opening remarks. If I didn’t, let me know
sst:

Yes, because the Catholic Church says so. Is it not true to say that if the Catholic Church formally designated missing Mass on Sunday as a venial sin instead of a mortal sin, Catholics would align their ideas accordingly?

here’s the argument

Heb 10**:**

22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. 26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God

1. 
   *]Don’t fail to meet as is the habit of some. Especially as you see Sunday (the Day)approaching
   *]If we deliberately keep sinning (missing mass on the Day Sunday) after we receive knowledge of truth, (i.e. after being warned not to purposefully miss mass) then no sacrifice for sin is left for THEM but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God
   
   does missing mass on Sunday sound serious, as in deadly?
   sst:
   

   Yes, because the Catholic Church says so. The term “mortal sin” is singularly Catholic. The Catholic Church defines the terms and the doctrines and Catholics submit to the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. Can we agree on that, as well?

   Yes 1 John is a “Catholic epistle”. If that’s what you mean I agree.
   
   here are some sins that keep you out of heaven. By definition, that makes them deadly
   
   Ephesians 5: 3-5 fornication, covetousness…… 5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
   
   Hebrews 10:25-26 missing mass deliberately, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but fearful judgement and fire .
   
   Hebrews 12: 16 - 17 immoraliy, is selling your inheritance
   
   Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
   
   Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
   
   1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
   
   Just to name a few.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother 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)”.

95% of the time, I’ve found that when evidence is given to non-Catholics for the sake of similarity and they deny it, it is not that they are denying what is on the face of that evidence. Rather the denial is based on strongly ingrained misunderstanding of the Catholic belief.

I often don’t trust when a non-Catholic states, “Oh, I’ve studied Catholicism, and I know what it’s about and reject it.” Instead, what more likely occurs is that they have studied Catholicism through the lens of non-Catholic and even anti-Catholic authors. I became Catholic, I could only become Catholic, after I stopped reading these second and third-hand reports about Catholicism, and instead went directly to the source.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

The OPs question was about relations between individual members of the OC and CC, and so I gave my observations on individual’s reactions, not those of the CC and OC
themselves.

I do regularly see defensiveness when individual Catholics who see the Orthodox as being a part of the Church but in schism (as the CC teaches) discover that the Orthodox do not think that way themselves.

I guess they tend to assume when they are taught this that the Orthodox see things the same way. They see themselves as being much closer to the Orthodox than to Protestants. In a way though it should occur to them that the other side might not agree - after all, many Protestants see themselves as being in schism from the CC,but the CC says they are in a sense outside the Church, so they have a ready example of such a situation.

It is always hurtful and a bit embarrassing that when you assume someone is a close friend and they then make it clear that they don’t see it that way. It tends to make people feel angry and defensive.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think using deadly sin is probably a better idea for such a discussion, since mortal has conotations that are themselves the subject of the discussion. Using the word mortal could easily lead to circular arguments.

To my mind, the difficulty with making a kind of specific hierarchy or code of mortal and venial sins is that sin operates very much at the level of the individual, whereas a code is always a kind of generalization. When Paul tells us that the Law is what creates sin this is a strong clue.

And I actually think that much of what the CC says about deadly sin it fine. That it is a sin that creates a real separation between ourselves as individuals and God, that we cannot heal. That it requires full knowledge and full consent.

But I don’t know why they don’t leave it there, because even murder, a very bad sin, could be less than a deadly sin, so far as the individual sinner is concerned. It would be unusual for an adult not to appreciate the gravity of murder, but a child of ten might not fully appreciate what it means. Or someone that grew up in a violent and disordered situation - say someone that had been a child soldier. And there are a variety of ways a murderer might not have given full consent - we understand a crime of passion to be less serious for this reason.

I am not sure what is gained by categorizing sins so specifically, and I think there are real problems to come of it. If we say that in every case the “code” must be examined to see if it applies to the individual situation, it isn’t much of a code any more. More of a guideline.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I don’t view Catholics as kindred spirits. Knowing what I know now, if there were suddenly to be no Orthodoxy, I’d give the Catholic Church a very wide berth and either return to Evangelicalism or Methodism or become a Lutheran.

Do you mind expounding on this statement?

 

[SteveVH]

I think using deadly sin is probably a better idea for such a discussion, since mortal has conotations that are themselves the subject of the discussion. Using the word mortal could easily lead to circular arguments.

To my mind, the difficulty with making a kind of specific hierarchy or code of mortal and venial sins is that sin operates very much at the level of the individual, whereas a code is always a kind of generalization. When Paul tells us that the Law is what creates sin this is a strong clue.

And I actually think that much of what the CC says about deadly sin it fine. That it is a sin that creates a real separation between ourselves as individuals and God, that we cannot heal. That it requires full knowledge and full consent.

But I don’t know why they don’t leave it there, because even murder, a very bad sin, could be less than a deadly sin, so far as the individual sinner is concerned. It would be unusual for an adult not to appreciate the gravity of murder, but a child of ten might not fully appreciate what it means. Or someone that grew up in a violent and disordered situation - say someone that had been a child soldier. And there are a variety of ways a murderer might not have given full consent - we understand a crime of passion to be less serious for this reason.

I am not sure what is gained by categorizing sins so specifically, and I think there are real problems to come of it. If we say that in every case the “code” must be examined to see if it applies to the individual situation, it isn’t much of a code any more. More of a guideline.

I really don’t see what all the whoopla is about the word “mortal”. When someone receives a mortal wound, what does that mean? It means they died. Mortal (deadly) sin does more than separate us from God, it completely cuts us off from God. We become spiritually dead. That is why it is so important to know that there is sin that kills.

For some of the reasons you stated above, only God can ultimately judge whether we are spiritually dead based upon our spiritiual disposition, knowledge, maturity, psychological soundness and other mitigating factors unique to each person. That does not take away from the fact that there is sin that is deadly and those that shirk this off as something that is not of great importance are in grave danger.

The Church urges us to make frequent use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, where we receive sanctifying grace making us spiritually alive again. All sin separates us from God to one degree or another; mortal sin leaves us spiritually dead. We can argue about the most appropriate word to use or how we should or should not categorize sin, but more importantly we should be very aware of sin’s reality and its consequences.

 

[The_Reginator]

I don’t view Catholics as kindred spirits. Knowing what I know now, if there were suddenly to be no Orthodoxy, I’d give the Catholic Church a very wide berth and either return to Evangelicalism or Methodism or become a Lutheran.

Do you mind expounding on this statement?

Yes, SSTeach, that remark got me curious too.
Especially since one cannot physically receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord outside the CC and the EO why would anyone go anywhere else?

 

[Bluegoat]

I really don’t see what all the whoopla is about the word “mortal”. When someone receives a mortal wound, what does that mean? It means they died. Mortal (deadly) sin does more than separate us from God, it completely cuts us off from God. We become spiritually dead. That is why it is so important to know that there is sin that kills.

For some of the reasons you stated above, only God can ultimately judge whether we are spiritually dead based upon our spiritiual disposition, knowledge, maturity, psychological soundness and other mitigating factors unique to each person. That does not take away from the fact that there is sin that is deadly and those that shirk this off as something that is not of great importance are in grave danger.

The Church urges us to make frequent use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, where we receive sanctifying grace making us spiritually alive again. All sin separates us from God to one degree or another; mortal sin leaves us spiritually dead. We can argue about the most appropriate word to use or how we should or should not categorize sin, but more importantly we should be very aware of sin’s reality and its consequences.

The only reason they are avoiding the word mortal is that there are specific Catholic doctrines applied to it, to the point that when we read the phrase “mortal sin” we think of those doctrines, not just the idea as expressed in Scripture. Saying deadly sin avoids that problem. When the discussion is trying to justify that Catholic doctrine it makes the discussion simpler and less confusing.

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes, SSTeach, that remark got me curious too.
Especially since one cannot physically receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord outside the CC and the EO why would anyone go anywhere else?

Well, the Orthodox don’t usually think that the Eucharist is available in the CC either, so that is a moot point.

But as far as leaving the EO Church, if it was somehow annihilated, it would tend to suggest that it wasn’t really the True Church. So one would have to look elsewhere.

 

[The_Reginator]

1) Well, the Orthodox don’t usually think that the Eucharist is available in the CC either, so that is a moot point.

2) But as far as leaving the EO Church, if it was somehow annihilated, it would tend to suggest that it wasn’t really the True Church. So one would have to look elsewhere.

1. I know precious little about the EO Church, but how does the Orthodox Church figure that the Catholic Church lost Apostolic Succession? I have never heard of this before and find it rather surprising.
2. How could a church, such as the Lutherans, be the One True Church when it is only about 500 years old? Historically, it was established by a man, Luther, not by Jesus.
   What I cannot wrap my head around is why someone that believes that God instituted One Church would choose to join some other church.

(I hope this doesn’t sound rude or condescending. I’m trying to understand. If I’ve misunderstood you please enlighten me.)

 

[Bluegoat]

1. I know precious little about the EO Church, but how does the Orthodox Church figure that the Catholic Church lost Apostolic Succession? I have never heard of this before and find it rather surprising.
2. How could a church, such as the Lutherans, be the One True Church when it is only about 500 years old? Historically, it was established by a man, Luther, not by Jesus.
   What I cannot wrap my head around is why someone that believes that God instituted One Church would choose to join some other church.

(I hope this doesn’t sound rude or condescending. I’m trying to understand. If I’ve misunderstood you please enlighten me.)

You don’t sound rude at all.

1. The Orthodox do not understand the validity of orders in the same way Catholics do. Instead, they understand that all Sacraments must exist within the Church, and the Church for them means Orthodoxy. A priest in the Catholic Church is always a priest and can consecrate the Eucharist as long as he does it properly. For the Orthodox, once the priest becomes hetrodox he can no longer consecrate the Eucharist. So once the West became heterodox, they lost the ability to validly ordain priests, create bishops, or perform the Eucharist. Some Orthodox do not even accept Baptisms done outside of the Orthodox Church. Sometimes they will accept Holy Orders or Baptisms from other Christian groups based on what they call ekonomia, but that does not change the principle.
2. It is common to hear this on CAF about Lutheranism and other Reformation movements, but it isn’t really accurate. For one thing, those reformers saw themselves as exactally that, not as beginning anything new. They did not see themselves as departing from catholicity, but rather as restoring it. They thought that it was being lost, destroyed, or obscured. Many of them thought that the Catholic Church was the thing that was really no longer the One True Church - by abandoning true doctrine, teaching, and practice. (Most today would not say that the CC wasn’t part of the Church, but would see themselves as being in schism from each other). No Protestant thinks they are part of a “different” Church - they all believe there is one Church as well.

As far as your final question - if someone believed God instituted One True Church, and his Church was destroyed completely, it would be pretty clear that it hadn’t really been the One True Church. The person would have to either decide that status belonged to some other group, that God hadn’t instituted One True Church after all, or that One True Church means something different than what he thought before.

In the case of the poster who said he would prefer to return to Protestantism, I would guess that there are some beliefs within Catholicism which for him seem incompatible with it being the One True Church. So he would come to the conclusion perhaps that One True Church should be understood more in the way the Protestants look at it, rather than the way he saw it as an Orthodox Christian. This may seem strange on the surface, but some Protestant doctrines could be argued to be closer to an Orthodox viewpoint than a Catholic one.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I don’t view Catholics as kindred spirits. Knowing what I know now, if there were suddenly to be no Orthodoxy, I’d give the Catholic Church a very wide berth and either return to Evangelicalism or Methodism or become a Lutheran.

Why would you say that?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[shondrea]

Ok, so, these answers make me curious.

If oone were to be caught choosing between being Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic, and honestly found them 100% equal, woulnd’t it just be safer to be Orthodox? Since RC’s seem to think more highly of EO than EO think of RC. Like a, Well, I don’t know which one is better, but it seems safer to be EO, just in case.

 

[Bluegoat]

Ok, so, these answers make me curious.

If oone were to be caught choosing between being Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic, and honestly found them 100% equal, woulnd’t it just be safer to be Orthodox? Since RC’s seem to think more highly of EO than EO think of RC. Like a, Well, I don’t know which one is better, but it seems safer to be EO, just in case.

Hedging one’s bets?

Interestingly, when an Orthodox person marries a Catholic, the Catholic Church recommends they be married by the Orthodox, because they accept Orthodox marriages but the reverse isn’t true.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6612906:

Well, yes, but as I’ve already gone to some trouble to avoid using the term “mortal sin” because to Catholics it carries a doctrinal understanding that non–Catholics are unlikely to accept, is there anything to be gained by pursuing this line?

you liked the “lead to death” translation. I have no problem with that.

but I asked you if we can agree that mortal and “lead to death” and deadly are synonomous, and you said yes. ergo we aren’t talking past each other with either expression…agreed?

If the term “mortal sin” is employed I think there is a danger that we will talk past each other.

SSTeacher;6612906:

I’ve discussed this passage on occasion with fellow Evangelicals (mostly SOLO Scriptura

like me) and there was never universal agreement as to what it meant.But you don’t still feel that way do you?

Embracing the Ancient Faith hasn’t turned me into a biblical scholar and even if it had done the passage would still read the same as it always did, would engender as much discussion as it always had, and would remain as obscure as it always was.

whats obscure about the passage for Evangelicals is they don’t buy degrees of sin. If one comes to scripture with that particular mindset, the fallout is, sections like the one we’re talking about get skipped over.

I have two comments.

Firstly, although most of the Evangelicals I encountered did not accept that there are degrees of sin I did meet some who did accept that idea. That isn’t surprising. It’s generally acknowledged that Evangelicals agree to disagree with each other about any number of issues. So, although it’s probably tempting to try to add weight to the argument by representing Evangelicals as being united in their view, it’s not really helpful to do so.

Secondly, I’d like to draw attention to the term “skipped over” that you’ve used. Again, it’s probably tempting from a Catholic perspective to suppose that this is what is happening i.e. Evangelicals are carefully ensuing that certain verses in the Bible “get skipped over” because they know deep down in their hearts that these particular verses reveal that the Catholic Church is indeed righter than rain – but I respectfully submit that common sense and refined sense strongly suggest that this is a very unlikely scenario.

SSTeacher;6612906:

You’ve changed your terminology from “deadly sin” to “mortal sin.” We are going to end up talking past each other, aren’t we? In fact, I don’t even know why you’re engaging me. You haven’t even said if you considered my analysis to have any substance. Did you consider it to be a valid objection?

I think I answered this in my opening remarks. If I didn’t, let me know

I’ll assume, then,
a) That we’re going to drop the term “mortal sin” and
b) That you regard my objection as valid.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6612906:

Yes, because the Catholic Church says so. Is it not true to say that if the Catholic Church formally designated missing Mass on Sunday as a venial sin instead of a mortal sin, Catholics would align their ideas accordingly?

here’s the argument

You appear to have overlooked my question. Anyway, to your argument.

Heb 10**:**

22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. 26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God

1. 
   *]Don’t fail to meet as is the habit of some. Especially as you see Sunday (the Day)approaching
   *]If we deliberately keep sinning (missing mass on the Day Sunday) after we receive knowledge of truth, (i.e. after being warned not to purposefully miss mass) then no sacrifice for sin is left for THEM but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God
   
   does missing mass on Sunday sound serious, as in deadly?

1. 
   Well, there’s no mention of Mass in Hebrews and I point that out simply to remind you that I am a non–Catholic and that all non–Catholics miss Mass every Sunday as a matter of routine. That’s because non–Catholics do not read into Scripture anything about compulsory attendance at Mass. I will, however, agree with (what I am supposing is) the main point i.e. that the wages of sin is death.
   
   Biblically,
   Mick
   

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6612906:

Yes, because the Catholic Church says so. The term “mortal sin” is singularly Catholic. The Catholic Church defines the terms and the doctrines and Catholics submit to the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. Can we agree on that, as well?

Yes 1 John is a “Catholic epistle”. If that’s what you mean I agree.

No, that’s not what I meant. Ah, well.

here are some sins that keep you out of heaven. By definition, that makes them deadly

Ephesians 5: 3-5 fornication, covetousness…… 5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Hebrews 10:25-26 missing mass deliberately, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but fearful judgement and fire .

Hebrews 12: 16 - 17 immoraliy, is selling your inheritance

Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven

Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming

1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Just to name a few.

Indeed. The wages of sin is death.

Agreeably,
Mick