SPLIT: Jesus said nothing about mortal sin

[pageois]

Making a young adult attend Mass against their will reduces the concept of worship to that of denying a child dessert if they don’t eat their greens. To suggest that someone else must worship God in the same way as you do - under pain of being turfed out of home, no less - is the height of conceit and arrogance and has no place in a truly Christian home.

If you want to force your offspring to do something associated with the worship of the Lord, make them do charity work at a local hospice. Or soup kitchen. Or elderly people’s home. THEY are the types of things that Jesus exhorts us to do in the Gospels. He is found where the poor, the sick and the marginilised are found - the ‘least’ of His brothers - not inside stone and glass buildings. But of course, actually performing works of charity is a lot harder and time consuming than attending a nice hour long session at Mass.

As for the comment about mortal sin, Jesus never spoke to that issue. It’s a concept made up by men. Man-made rules, not law from God. As if we on Earth can direct what happens to a person’s soul after death. Again, what conceit and arrogance.

 

[monicatholic]

pageois i dont expect that you should care a wit what the catechism says as you dont profess to be Catholic. furthermore, you have zero understanding of why mortal sin is deemed mortal. (hint: it’s not man-made ideas. it’s God’s Revealed Truth, as evidenced in Scripture. one of several clear references: ***All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. (1 john 5:17) ***)

but there are many Catholics on this site who should be interested in Church teaching. all matter of subjective arguments, victim-based language, consequence-based analsis, and misguided compassion aside, here is the objective truth as taught by the Church:

2181*** The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.***

the good peope CAF who would intentionally allow for this grave sin to occur in their homes would likely NOT allow their adult children to launder money in their homes. why is that? maybe it’s because one is against civil law and could bring down legal reprocussions? so in effect, man’s law has priority over God’s law?

maybe it would help me to remember that participation in another’s sin makes me responsible for them.

***1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

• by protecting evil-doers.***

our (yours and mine) adult children suspect (or are certain) that breaches of civil law would be unwelcome in our home. especially in light of that foundational supposition, the message, “i dont approve of you missing Mass, but I’m willing to abide the grave sin in my home” is tacit cooperation in a grave sin. AND it diminishes God’s law to man’s law, rendering God’s law impotent unless there is some civil law to back it up.

now folks get to choose what they choose. we have free will. but to categorize volunteerism in our adult children’s mortal sins as anything other than cooperation is a BFLTS. (that’s: Big Fat Lie To Self.)

 

[pageois]

pageois i dont expect that you should care a wit what the catechism says as you dont profess to be Catholic. furthermore, you have zero understanding of why mortal sin is deemed mortal. (hint: it’s not man-made ideas. it’s God’s Revealed Truth, as evidenced in Scripture. one of several clear references: ***All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. (1 john 5:17) ***)

As I said, Jesus never spoke to mortal sin and you do not provide any scriptual reference to rebut that. Selectively quoting from John does not negate the argument that the concept of mortal sin is a man made one and not something touched on by Jesus in the Gospels. Humans cannot prejudge the disposition of an other person’s soul according to some arbitrary index of sin. To suggest that ‘lapsed’ Catholics who work in the missions in sub-Sahara Africa but who no longer attend Mass are condemed to an eternity in Hell because of some rule made by men on Earth is at odds witht he Jesus of the Gospels.

 

[monicatholic]

pageois, Jesus didnt write the Gospels. and just as it was men-not-gods who determined that amongst all the ‘gospels’ and spiritual writings, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so too did men-not-gods determine 1 John and 2 John to be likewise inspired and to be " Divinely guaranteed truths." that group of men-not-gods who made such determining was Divinely inspired in doing so. in fact, that collection of men-not-gods is called The Church.

anyway that’s where my Gospels come from. yours?

Humans cannot prejudge the disposition of an other person’s soul according to some arbitrary index of sin.

the ‘index of sin’ isnt arbitrary. God command proper worship. that a man cannot be said to be personally culpable of mortal sin (i.e., to be judged) is true, as you suggest. but*** actions and choices*** can be said to be objectively mortally (gravely/ seriously) sinful. no one can say if another man meets the criteria that makes him culpable of mortal sin. but a man can say it for himself. cooperating in the objectively serious sin of another makes me guilty of sin.

To suggest that ‘lapsed’ Catholics who work in the missions in sub-Sahara Africa but who no longer attend Mass are condemed to an eternity in Hell because of some rule made by men on Earth is at odds witht he Jesus of the Gospels.

you forgot the part where said missionary carries 5 orphans on his back (all at once!!!) uphill every day to the mission commissary to feed them of his own rations.

dude, where in this thread, besides your post, is to be found the phrase “condemed to an eternity in Hell” ???

never a dull moment.

 

[Rascalking]

dude, where in this thread, besides your post, is to be found the phrase “condemned to an eternity in Hell” ???

never a dull moment.

Sometimes people can post in a certain way that makes those of us reading their posts get the wrong impression.

I think it’s important sometimes not to sound self-righteous, like a “know it all” or something along those lines.

 

[pageois]

monicatholic:

the Catechism is pretty much the go-to answers book. ?

No, the Gospels are. Always have been. Always will be. God bless.

 

[mdstanzel]

Making a young adult attend Mass against their will reduces the concept of worship to that of denying a child dessert if they don’t eat their greens. To suggest that someone else must worship God in the same way as you do - under pain of being turfed out of home, no less - is the height of conceit and arrogance and has no place in a truly Christian home.

If you want to force your offspring to do something associated with the worship of the Lord, make them do charity work at a local hospice. Or soup kitchen. Or elderly people’s home. THEY are the types of things that Jesus exhorts us to do in the Gospels. He is found where the poor, the sick and the marginilised are found - the ‘least’ of His brothers - not inside stone and glass buildings. But of course, actually performing works of charity is a lot harder and time consuming than attending a nice hour long session at Mass.

As for the comment about mortal sin, Jesus never spoke to that issue. It’s a concept made up by men. Man-made rules, not law from God. As if we on Earth can direct what happens to a person’s soul after death. Again, what conceit and arrogance.

Your claim on mortal sin not being spoken of by Jesus is a half cocked claim. Scripture sutely does discuss such issues. You’d do well if you actually studied the scriptures in more depth… 1 John 5:16-17, would be a good place to start. Which Protestant denomination are you? COC?

 

[pageois]

Your claim on mortal sin not being spoken of by Jesus is a half cocked claim. Scripture sutely does discuss such issues. You’d do well if you actually studied the scriptures in more depth… 1 John 5:16-17, would be a good place to start. Which Protestant denomination are you? COC?

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘half cocked’ claim. I said that Jesus never speaks to mortal sin in the Gospels. I merely asked for guidance to the part in scripture where He does.

 

[pageois]

monicatholic:

please avoid evasion and deflection. .

Couldn’t agree more. I asked for guidance to the part of scripture in which Jesus speaks to mortal sin. All I read is evasion and avoidance. A simple query from a struggling sinner. Show me the scriptual reference from Jesus which touches on mortal sin. Or just say that Jesus never said anything about mortal sin. It’s one or the other. No trick or trap intended.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Couldn’t agree more. I asked for guidance to the part of scripture in which Jesus speaks to mortal sin. All I read is evasion and avoidance. A simple query from a struggling sinner. Show me the scriptual reference from Jesus which touches on mortal sin. Or just say that Jesus never said anything about mortal sin. It’s one or the other. No trick or trap intended.

That’s the problem. That argument is never won. You believe in scripture alone, so therefore, any Catholic teachings as part of sacred tradition through the apostles you will claim are incorrect. Ask yourself this: Where does it mention ‘Bible alone’ or ‘Scripture alone’ in the Bible? Scripture alone as authority is not sufficient, and nowhere in the scriptures does it say or imply it.

 

[pageois]

That’s the problem. That argument is never won. You believe in scripture alone, so therefore, any Catholic teachings as part of sacred tradition through the apostles you will claim are incorrect. Ask yourself this: Where does it mention ‘Bible alone’ or ‘Scripture alone’ in the Bible? Scripture alone as authority is not sufficient, and nowhere in the scriptures does it say or imply it.

I don’t claim anything is incorrect. I’m just asking where Jesus said anything about mortal sin. If he didn’t, just say so and the matter will be settled. It won’t prove that the concept of mortal sin is not a valid construct with which to consider earthly failings and the eternal consequences of it. Just that it’s not something which Jesus spoke about.

Not sure why people are so afraid of saying, ‘You’re right - Jesus never spoke about mortal sin. It’s something men have created. But it’s a helpful guide for people towards righteous behaviour.’

Talk about evasion and avoidance. Sheesh!

During the sixties, the Church taught that unbaptised babies’ souls went to Purgatory. Now the teaching is different. They go to Heaven. Not sure what happened to the souls who departed this earth prior to the teaching changing. Maybe they were all transferred from Purgatory to Heaven on the day that someone in Rome decided to change the doctrine.

Or not.

Man made rules. Nice for Congress or Parliament. Not so good when claiming divine inspiration.

 

[PiousTemplar]

I don’t claim anything is incorrect. I’m just asking where Jesus said anything about mortal sin. If he didn’t, just say so and the matter will be settled. It won’t prove that the concept of mortal sin is not a valid construct with which to consider earthly failings and the eternal consequences of it. Just that it’s not something which Jesus spoke about.

Not sure why people are so afraid of saying, ‘You’re right - Jesus never spoke about mortal sin. It’s something men have created. But it’s a helpful guide for people towards righteous behaviour.’

Talk about evasion and avoidance. Sheesh!

This is what I mean about ‘scripture alone’ Christians. Just because it is not recorded in the Bible, does not mean he didn’t say it. Jesus didn’t come down to earth to write a Book. He came down to establish an authoritive Church (Matthew 16:18-19) of which his teachings would be taught by the apostles, and passed on throughout the ages (2 Thess. 2:15). No, we will not say ‘You’re right’, because that would be succumbing to the myth of ‘sola scriptura’. As I said before, where does it say in the Scriptures ‘Sola Scripture’ or ‘Bible Alone’. That is a myth invented by the protestant ‘reformers’.

 

[PiousTemplar]

During the sixties, the Church taught that unbaptised babies’ souls went to Purgatory. Now the teaching is different. They go to Heaven. Not sure what happened to the souls who departed this earth prior to the teaching changing.

Ok, fine. Let’s go through this together.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church has never been decisive on this topic. I have no idea where you got your ‘dogmas’ from. Don’t mislead Christians by producing false facts about the Church Christ founded.

 

[pageois]

This is what I mean about ‘scripture alone’ Christians. Just because it is not recorded in the Bible, does not mean he didn’t say it. Jesus didn’t come down to earth to write a Book. He came down to establish an authoritive Church (Matthew 16:18-19) of which his teachings would be taught by the apostles, and passed on throughout the ages (2 Thess. 2:15). No, we will not say ‘You’re right’, because that would be succumbing to the myth of ‘sola scriptura’. As I said before, where does it say in the Scriptures ‘Sola Scripture’ or ‘Bible Alone’. That is a myth invented by the protestant ‘reformers’.

Agreed that Jesus probably said many things which have not been recorded in scripture. He may have decried the sting of the Judean sun at the height of summer to an apostle as they sat together in the shade one day. Or the flies on the backs of lepers. Or the poor quality of Gallilean wine. And, most probably, any reference to the concept of mortal sin. Or Purgatory, another man-made story, the details of which change with the generations.

 

[pageois]

Ok, fine. Let’s go through this together.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church has never been decisive on this topic. I have no idea where you got your ‘dogmas’ from. Don’t mislead Christians by producing false facts about the Church Christ founded.

I can only apologise humbly for getting this wrong. It was not Purgatory to which unbaptised babies souls were condemned by man - it was Limbo. In the fifth century, St Augustine concluded that infants who died without baptism were consigned to hell. But in the 14th century, the poet Dante described limbo as the “first circle of hell” in The Divine Comedy, where such souls were not punished but grieved for their separation from God.

Later, theologians surmised that the “limbo of infants” was a state where they were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of.

But fortunately, after 800 years, babies who die before being baptised will no longer be trapped in limbo following a decision by the Pope to abolish the concept from Roman Catholic teaching. The decision was taken after Benedict XVI was presented with Vatican studies that said there were “serious” grounds that such souls could go to heaven, rather than exist between heaven and hell as they have done for almost 800 years.

The Pope approved the document, titled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, in January after it was presented to him by Cardinal William Levada, the president of the Theological Commission.

“There is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ’s special love for the little ones,” the report said.

Phew! I guess it will take some time, however, for all those souls who went to Limbo over 800 years to be now transferred to Heaven - thanks to a magnanimous gesture by men on Earth.

I guess someone has told God the good news?

 

[PiousTemplar]

Agreed that Jesus probably said many things which have not been recorded in scripture. He may have decried the sting of the Judean sun at the height of summer to an apostle as they sat together in the shade one day. Or the flies on the backs of lepers. Or the poor quality of Gallilean wine. And, most probably, any reference to the concept of mortal sin. Or Purgatory, another man-made story, the details of which change with the generations.

Fine, be narrow minded. While you continue interpreting what you want the Bible to be teaching, or some mix of that with the local politically correct protestant teaching, myself, and other Catholics, shall be affirmed in our faith by the 2000 year old original Christian teachings taught by the Magisterium.

 

[pageois]

Fine, be narrow minded. While you continue interpreting what you want the Bible to be teaching, or some mix of that with the local politically correct protestant teaching, myself, and other Catholics, shall be affirmed in our faith by the 2000 year old original Christian teachings taught by the Magisterium.

And the scriptual reference to mortal sin by Jesus is…?

 

[PiousTemplar]

I can only apologise humbly for getting this wrong. It was not Purgatory to which unbaptised babies souls were condemned by man - it was Limbo. In the fifth century, St Augustine concluded that infants who died without baptism were consigned to hell. But in the 14th century, the poet Dante described limbo as the “first circle of hell” in The Divine Comedy, where such souls were not punished but grieved for their separation from God.

Later, theologians surmised that the “limbo of infants” was a state where they were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of. The Pope approved the document, titled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, in January after it was presented to him by Cardinal William Levada, the president of the Theological Commission.

But fortunately, after 800 years, babies who die before being baptised will no longer be trapped in limbo following a decision by the Pope to abolish the concept from Roman Catholic teaching. The decision was taken after Benedict XVI was presented with Vatican studies that said there were “serious” grounds that such souls could go to heaven, rather than exist between heaven and hell as they have done for almost 800 years.

“There is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ’s special love for the little ones,” the report said.

Phew! I guess it will take some time, however, for all those souls who went to Limbo over 800 years to be now transferred to Heaven - thanks to a magnanimous gesture by men on Earth.

I guess someone has told God?

Some beliefs of the Christian faith are not written in the Bible, but were revealed to us later on. An example of this is the Most Holy Trinity, the core belief of our Faith. Theologians have been debating limbo for years, and guess what - It is not an official Church teaching. Just because a Saint, or theologian gives his opinion on the matter, that does not indicate that it is official Church teaching. Some protestants, such as yourself, seem to think everything a well known theologian or Pope says must be immediately accepted as fact. This is incorrect. We only must accept what a Pope says when he speaks in ‘Ex Cathedra’. And no, if the most common opinion on a non-official teaching changes, that does not change where a soul is present - as the teaching was never definitively official in the first place.

 

[PiousTemplar]

And the scriptual reference to mortal sin by Jesus is…?

Have you even been reading what I have said?

Let me quote from Catholic Answers:

The concept of mortal sin has been an integral part of the Christian message since the very beginning. Literally dozens of passages in the New Testament proclaim it a fearful reality, and these biblical teachings were fully accepted by, and indeed expounded upon, by the early Church Fathers.

It was not until the time of John Calvin that anyone would claim that it was impossible for a true Christian to lose his salvation. That teaching, which was not even shared by Martin Luther and his followers, was a theological novelty of the mid-sixteenth century, a teaching which would have been condemned as a dangerous heresy by all previous generations of Christians. It would drive people to the despair of thinking that, if they had committed grave sins, they had never been true Christians. Further, they would suffer similar anxiety over any subsequent conversion, since their first would not have been genuine, according to this teaching. Or it would drive them into thinking that their grave sins were really not grave at all, for no true Christian could have committed such sins.

In time the “once saved, always saved” teaching even degenerated in many Evangelical circles to the point that some would claim that a Christian could commit grave sins and still remain saved: sin did not injure his relationship with God at all.

Fortunately, most Christians today reject Calvin’s error, acknowledging that there are at least some mortal sins—sins which kill the spiritual life of the soul and deprive a person of salvation, unless he repents. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals—all acknowledge the possibility of mortal sin at least in some form. Only Presbyterians, Baptists, and those who have been influenced by these two sects reject the reality of mortal sin.

The early Church Fathers, of course, were unanimous in teaching the reality of mortal sin. They had to embrace the doctrine of mortal sin precisely because they recognized not only the salvific power of baptism but also the damning power of certain serious sins. The Church taught that “baptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21; see the Catholic Answers tracts Baptismal Grace and Born of Water and the Spirit). However, since during the persecutions some baptized people denied Christ, and since Christ taught that “whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:33), the Church Fathers recognized that it was possible to lose the grace of salvation after baptism.

The idea that one could never lose salvation would have been unimaginable to them, since it was evident from the Bible that baptism saves, that the baptized can deny Christ, and that those who deny Christ will not be saved unless they repent, as did Peter.

It was equally unthinkable to predestinarian thinkers, such as Augustine, who, just two years before he died, taught in his book The Gift of Perseverance that not all who were predestined to come to God’s grace were predestined to remain with him until glory. This was, in fact, the teaching of all the high predestinarians (Augustine, Fulgentius, Aquinas, Luther)—until the time of Calvin.

 

[pageois]

Some beliefs of the Christian faith are not written in the Bible, but were revealed to us later on. An example of this is the Most Holy Trinity, the core belief of our Faith. Theologians have been debating limbo for years, and guess what - It is not an official Church teaching. Just because a Saint, or theologian gives his opinion on the matter, that does not indicate that it is official Church teaching. Some protestants, such as yourself, seem to think everything a well known theologian or Pope says must be immediately accepted as fact. This is incorrect. We only must accept what a Pope says when he speaks in ‘Ex Cathedra’. And no, if the most common opinion on a non-official teaching changes, that does not change where a soul is present - as the teaching was never definitively official in the first place.

Believe me, I do not think that everything a Pope says must be immediately accepted as fact. You may recall that last year the Church elevated the ordination of women to one of the most serious crimes in Canon Law. It is now on the same level as child abuse in the eyes of the Church.

No sir. I don’t accept everything the Pope says as fact. And neither do most Christians.