View of Confession

[Mordocai]

Thank you for the verses I will studing them.
I would like to throw one at you if I can
In James 2: 10-11
10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet (S)stumbles in one point, he has become (T)guilty of all.

11For He who said, “(U)DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “(V)DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

This to me says clearly that to commit one sin you are guilty of all sins. In Catholic terms someone who commits a vernial sin is guilty of a mortal sin.
I would not disagree that in human reason some sins would be greater or maybe better said more harmful to our Faith. But clearly at least in this passage God views sin all the same or said if you commit one you commit all.
One verse I can responed to is James 1:15
Is not James saying here that if we do not change our ways and let our sin grow ( continue on without repentance)we will be dead in sin.

God Bless you

In Catholic terms if someone who commits a venial sin he is not guilty of a mortal sin. As John the Apostle said in his first epistle “There is sin that is not mortal (deadly)” which is referring to venial sin. As Jesus said to Pontius Pilate when he said those who handed him over to him had the greater sin.

I would encourage you to read the entire chapter 2 of the book of James. you had shown a couple verses, but the surrounding verses are actually quite relevent. then we can discuss that, i think it will be better that way.
as for james 1:15, yes when we steep ourselves in venial sin, we become so weakened then we become liable to commit mortal sin. sin in full matury (which implies that sin at some point would not be in full matury yet still be sin.) is mortal sin, i.e. satan’s plan for all of us. we are weakened by venial sin and thus, sin must grow and be cultivated in full maturity. but no amount of venial sin can make one mortal sin, this is why james says “sin, in its full maturity, gives birth to death”
sin itself (and note he doesnt say a lack of faith, but sin) gives birth to death.
in ch 1 james gives the “plan of attack” of sin, and how it works. how sin enters and how it grows.
ch 1
12 Blessed is the man who perseveres in temptation, for when he has been proved he will receive the crown of life that he promised to those who love him. 13 No one experiencing temptation should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death.
we desire to sin, so we do, then the sin gives birth to death of the soul.
blessed is the man who perseveres in temptation.
then it says the man has faith! because he says “I am being tempted by God” this means the man understands A.) he is going through temptation (one without faith does not care about temptation) and B.) that he thinks God is doing it! but he is in error on the second point, James points that out.
but each person who is trying to persevere in holiness, is tempted, but if he gives in to sin in its full maturity, he dies spiritually.
so James is actually saying that a man with faith can lose his salvation through mortal sin

God Bless
Mordocai

 

[dylanschrader]

The statment you make on this does not make sense.

“If I go to confession, I don’t have to worry about whether I feel forgiven or feel guilty or whatever, I can trust that the sacrament is objectively efficacious because of the authority of Christ himself. The sacrament exists so that we can rely on God rather than on ourselves.”

Are you stating that you can go to confession and not feel guilty and you are still forgiven just because you partake in a Sacrament.
Studing the Catholic Catechism and Church doctrine that idea does not come in line while taiking any of the Sacraments.

It is not just an act.

God Bless
.

It’s not a matter of feeling guilty for my sins, it’s a matter of being sorry for them–of “having contrition” for them. Even though feelings are frequently involved, an act of the will–regretting that I have committed sin and intending not to sin again–is what is required.

Christ established a sacrament for the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism in part so that we could have assurance of being forgiven rather than merely feeling forgiven, so that we could recognize the primacy of his grace before our own efforts.

 

[jmcrae]

I would like to know why you would feel that God would forgive your venial sins coming to him through Jesus Christ but would deny you forgiveness for a mortal sin without a Priest.

When we commit a mortal sin, we have literally killed our soul. (This is what the term “mortal” meaning “deadly” is referring to - the death of the soul of the person who commits the sin.)

If one’s soul is dead, he cannot pray to Christ and be heard, unless he be raised from the dead.

This is why Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession) - so that dead souls could be raised up to new life.

Jesus then works through the priest to raise your soul up to new life from the dead, when you confess your mortal sins to the priest in kind and number.

What for the person who is injuried and will not get to confess to a Priest?

God Himself will supply the supernatural means, if the person makes a perfect Act of Contrition.

Would God deny a faithful Christian eternal live because a man (Priest) was not there to give absolution at the last hour.

No.

If God would forgive him without a Priest, would he not at other times even when it was not your last hour?

If I would give the contents of my refrigerator to a family that is starving to death, then why do I not give the contents of my refrigerator to every healthy and able-bodied beggar that shows up at my door?

I ask you that in order to illustrate that, during normal times, we must use the normal means of grace that God has given to us. Not to do things God’s way during ordinary times shows a kind of laziness, or a kind of attitude that, okay - God can come and be with us - as long as He follows our rules. We like to treat God like that unpopular little kid down the street who is always trying to join in where he isn’t wanted. We tolerate Him, but we don’t like Him to ever have anything His way - we like to dictate the terms under which He will get to hang around with us.

As Catholics, we take very seriously the idea of God as King and Ruler of our lives, and we like to make sure we are doing things His way - even if He would, in fact, be glad to do things our way, if only we would let Him hang around with us. We want to honour God, and let Him take the lead - not merely tolerate Him, and make Him do things our way.

Please to not get me wrong. I respect your faith and I’m not saying you are wrong or trying to change your mind, I just do not understand the reason behind a Priest being needed.

A Catechist friend of mine once put it this way:

When you commit a mortal sin, you have driven a shovel through your “telephone line” to God. When you go to the priest in Confession, the act of making your confession to the priest “repairs” your “telephone line” and puts you back in contact with Him again. Think of the priest as a kind of splice that connects your half of the phone line to God’s half of the phone line.

 

[zcharry]

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “In Catholic terms, someone who commits a venial sin is guilty of a mortal sin.” I’m not sure what gave you that understanding, so I don’t really know how to help you clear it up. That’s not my understanding at all. Venial sins are those of a less serious nature. Mortal sins are alway of grave matter and entered into with full consent and full understanding that the act is wrong.

God Bless you

I just got done studying James but I will go back and read Chapter two again.
You explaination does seem to be in context.

The catholic terms statement did not convey what the point I was trying to get across, and I understand in your view one that commits a venial sin has not commited a mortal sin.
Please excuse any confusion as these words( Venial and Mortal) are new to me in the way they are used with sins. I understand them and the difference as much as I can.

Thanks for you help and if I disagree with you on the context of James I will write back.

I have always felt that the more info one can obtain the better off one will be.

In Christ

 

[dylanschrader]

I just got done studying James but I will go back and read Chapter two again.
You explaination does seem to be in context.

The catholic terms statement did not convey what the point I was trying to get across, and I understand in your view one that commits a venial sin has not commited a mortal sin.
Please excuse any confusion as these words( Venial and Mortal) are new to me in the way they are used with sins. I understand them and the difference as much as I can.

Thanks for you help and if I disagree with you on the context of James I will write back.

I have always felt that the more info one can obtain the better off one will be.

In Christ

Don’t worry. We Catholics have had two thousand years to come up with technical terms for everything!

 

[Mordocai]

I just got done studying James but I will go back and read Chapter two again.
You explaination does seem to be in context.

The catholic terms statement did not convey what the point I was trying to get across, and I understand in your view one that commits a venial sin has not commited a mortal sin.
Please excuse any confusion as these words( Venial and Mortal) are new to me in the way they are used with sins. I understand them and the difference as much as I can.

Thanks for you help and if I disagree with you on the context of James I will write back.

I have always felt that the more info one can obtain the better off one will be.

In Christ

I agree in part.
The more information the better.
But! The more correct information the better, I would say.
It makes sense that God intended something specific when He inspired the authors of the Bible. But the devil also knows how to twist the Scriptures (like when He tempted Jesus)
There is so much division and twisting.
The earliest Christians were lucky!
All they had to do was ask an Apostle.
So the question is, how much more nowadays do we need an authority to look to that can settle these matters?
There wasn’t anywhere near the amount of division in the early Church as there is today.
So there are all sorts of interpretations - but we as Christians only need to ask one question - What is God’s interpretation? It is His Word after all!
So has Christ established a way of handing on the faith faithfully (no pun intended) and without error? I’m sure Christ foresaw divisions. And I’m sure that correct doctrine is the last things God wants us to worry about. In fact, Christ prayed that “they be one” when He prayed to the Father in the garden before the Passion. And Paul exhorts us to “be of one mind” to “have no division among you.” God wants no obstacles in our way of coming to Him and bringing others to Him. Only truth comes from God. Anything that is not truth does not come from God. So, how is a Christian supposed to differentiate between what is truth and what is not truth? Many theologians study and analyze the contents of the Bible, but who’s the smartest? Who’s got the right interpretation?
Besides, if it is Christ’s Church, isn’t it infallible by necessity? He is the Master Builder, so how could anything that He builds (Matthew 16:18 when He says *"***I **will build my Church") contain error? It can not! It is we who accept the lies and distortions from the father of lies, the devil. But Christ continues to build.
We as humans simply need an authority to look to, just as the early Christians needed the Apostles and their Disciples to settle matters. Again, how much more nowadays do we need such an authority?

“I will not leave you orphans”
Jesus promised.

Just some thoughts,

God Bless
Mordocai

 

[zcharry]

I agree in part.
The more information the better.
But! The more correct information the better, I would say.
It makes sense that God intended something specific when He inspired the authors of the Bible. But the devil also knows how to twist the Scriptures (like when He tempted Jesus)
There is so much division and twisting.
The earliest Christians were lucky!
All they had to do was ask an Apostle.
So the question is, how much more nowadays do we need an authority to look to that can settle these matters?
There wasn’t anywhere near the amount of division in the early Church as there is today.
So there are all sorts of interpretations - but we as Christians only need to ask one question - What is God’s interpretation? It is His Word after all!
So has Christ established a way of handing on the faith faithfully (no pun intended) and without error? I’m sure Christ foresaw divisions. And I’m sure that correct doctrine is the last things God wants us to worry about. In fact, Christ prayed that “they be one” when He prayed to the Father in the garden before the Passion. And Paul exhorts us to “be of one mind” to “have no division among you.” God wants no obstacles in our way of coming to Him and bringing others to Him. Only truth comes from God. Anything that is not truth does not come from God. So, how is a Christian supposed to differentiate between what is truth and what is not truth? Many theologians study and analyze the contents of the Bible, but who’s the smartest? Who’s got the right interpretation?
Besides, if it is Christ’s Church, isn’t it infallible by necessity? He is the Master Builder, so how could anything that He builds (Matthew 16:18 when He says *"***I **will build my Church") contain error? It can not! It is we who accept the lies and distortions from the father of lies, the devil. But Christ continues to build.
We as humans simply need an authority to look to, just as the early Christians needed the Apostles and their Disciples to settle matters. Again, how much more nowadays do we need such an authority?

“I will not leave you orphans”
Jesus promised.

Just some thoughts,

God Bless
Mordocai

If we only look at what we think is correct how are we every to get a clear picture of the truth. We would never be able to use checks and balances to make sure we stay on the correct path. Without all info that goal would never be obtained, and our beliefs could run the risk of wandering without any outside prespective since we all are sinful.

God Bless

God Bless

 

[JimR-OCDS]

We must be clear here.

If you commit a mortal sin(see the requirments for a sin to be mortal), and you repent with your whole heart to God, through Jesus Christ, you are forgiven. If you die, before you get to confession, you will not go to hell. Your sin is forgiven have no doubt about it.

However, you can not receive Communion until you are reconciled to the Church, through the sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance, AKA Confession.

Jim

 

[Mordocai]

If we only look at what we think is correct how are we every to get a clear picture of the truth. We would never be able to use checks and balances to make sure we stay on the correct path. Without all info that goal would never be obtained, and our beliefs could run the risk of wandering without any outside prespective since we all are sinful.

God Bless

God Bless

There was a time when there were no wrong ideas to do checks and balances with.
I do see what you are saying though. I am not saying to not read about and study other views because, after all, we have to be able to defend the truth of the Gospel. Like Paul became all things to all men that he might save some. But the truth is what our intellects are designed for. It is what we feed off of, so to speak. The Truth is not some thing, the Truth is Somebody, His name is Jesus
And so we both know that, we both agree, but the reality is simply this, when it comes to beliefs and morals, we can very definitely say “The Truth is out there”
But where?
yes, we can read all 100 opinions, but 99 of them are wrong and one of them is from Christ.
It is something that, I think, all Christians need to consider more often.

So yes, anyway, looking at other views is helpful. It can solidify what we already know to be true, it can correct our false beliefs, or it can run the risk of having us fall into wrong beliefs, into lies.
I can not teach myself, nor do I intend to, nor does God intend me to teach myself.
If I were a mormon or jehova witness, i could be saying all these same things and still mean them very much, but i might very well be wrong in my actual beliefs.

So the question again must be posed and considered, to whom are Christians supposed to look for the truth in doctrine? After all, Christ came and taught specific things for certain reasons. It is not fair to say “We must analyze the Bible and study it more in depth and pray about it” because every person really does claim to do that.
How do we even know that the book of James ought to be in the Bible?
By whose authority do we make the claims that we do as Christians?
We can say “i accept it on faith” but on what basis? “My parents told me it is the Word of God” alright, good. Who told your parents? Their parents, their pastor. and on and on, back and back in time, until you get to that one authority who decided that it was the Word of God.
And who declared that it was the Word of God?
And if this authority declared it to be the Word of God and is correct because God was acting through it, shouldn’t it also have the authority to determine what the scriptures contained therein are actually saying?

Just questions to consider.

As for Confession, im not sure if i remember what your view on John 20:21-23 was? When Jesus gives the authority to forgive and retain sins to the Apostles. He says “Whos sins you forgive are forgiven indeed, whose sins you retain are retained indeed”
How can the Apostles know which sins to forgive and retain unless the sins are confessed to them?

God Bless you
Mordocai

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Mordocai

As for Confession, im not sure if i remember what your view on John 20:21-23 was? When Jesus gives the authority to forgive and retain sins to the Apostles. He says “Whos sins you forgive are forgiven indeed, whose sins you retain are retained indeed”
How can the Apostles know which sins to forgive and retain unless the sins are confessed to them?

It isn’t so much sins confessed to the apostles that Jesus gave authority to, but authority to define what constitutes sin or not.

The fact is, Confession as we know it today, didn’t exist during the time of the Apostles or the early Church. The only form of confession in the early Church consisted of standing up before the congregation and confessing publicly your sins. However, there were only two or three types of sin which had to be confessed in this way. One was apostasy. During the persecution of the Church, many Christians, in order to avoid death or torture, denied the faith. Such a sin required public confession before the congregation in order to be reconciled.

Private confessions for many years were prohibited, by mandate from the Pope. That didn’t change until the persecution of the Church in Ireland, where the only way a person could talk to a priest, was to go into a small room built on the outside wall of a monastery, where the person could talk to the priest through a window. The benefits of this form of spiritual direction as well as confession, it became the norm.

Jim

 

[zcharry]

There was a time when there were no wrong ideas to do checks and balances with.
I do see what you are saying though. I am not saying to not read about and study other views because, after all, we have to be able to defend the truth of the Gospel. Like Paul became all things to all men that he might save some. But the truth is what our intellects are designed for. It is what we feed off of, so to speak. The Truth is not some thing, the Truth is Somebody, His name is Jesus
And so we both know that, we both agree, but the reality is simply this, when it comes to beliefs and morals, we can very definitely say “The Truth is out there”
But where?
yes, we can read all 100 opinions, but 99 of them are wrong and one of them is from Christ.
It is something that, I think, all Christians need to consider more often.

So yes, anyway, looking at other views is helpful. It can solidify what we already know to be true, it can correct our false beliefs, or it can run the risk of having us fall into wrong beliefs, into lies.
I can not teach myself, nor do I intend to, nor does God intend me to teach myself.
If I were a mormon or jehova witness, i could be saying all these same things and still mean them very much, but i might very well be wrong in my actual beliefs.

So the question again must be posed and considered, to whom are Christians supposed to look for the truth in doctrine? After all, Christ came and taught specific things for certain reasons. It is not fair to say “We must analyze the Bible and study it more in depth and pray about it” because every person really does claim to do that.
How do we even know that the book of James ought to be in the Bible?
By whose authority do we make the claims that we do as Christians?
We can say “i accept it on faith” but on what basis? “My parents told me it is the Word of God” alright, good. Who told your parents? Their parents, their pastor. and on and on, back and back in time, until you get to that one authority who decided that it was the Word of God.
And who declared that it was the Word of God?
And if this authority declared it to be the Word of God and is correct because God was acting through it, shouldn’t it also have the authority to determine what the scriptures contained therein are actually saying?

Just questions to consider.

As for Confession, im not sure if i remember what your view on John 20:21-23 was? When Jesus gives the authority to forgive and retain sins to the Apostles. He says “Whos sins you forgive are forgiven indeed, whose sins you retain are retained indeed”
How can the Apostles know which sins to forgive and retain unless the sins are confessed to them?

God Bless you
Mordocai

I agree expect for one point

Just look at this tread and you will see a host of different views on confession from Catholics alone. Some are somewhat in line with each other, but not exactly, and some disagree completely. If the truth or our human reason for the truth was that black and white it would be a simple matter of wrong or right. However it is not, and I think God in His almighty power knew this and that is way we have a Bible that is so complexed.

In Christ

 

[dylanschrader]

Mordocai

It isn’t so much sins confessed to the apostles that Jesus gave authority to, but authority to define what constitutes sin or not.

Whether a certain act is sinful is not something changeable or something that can be arbitrarily defined. An act is either good or evil because of the nature of the act itself and not a nominal judgment.

No one has the authority to define what constitutes sin or not. Not even God can change what constitutes sin because he cannot change his own nature as the greatest good to which all other goods must be oriented.

The fact is, Confession as we know it today, didn’t exist during the time of the Apostles or the early Church. The only form of confession in the early Church consisted of standing up before the congregation and confessing publicly your sins. However, there were only two or three types of sin which had to be confessed in this way. One was apostasy. During the persecution of the Church, many Christians, in order to avoid death or torture, denied the faith. Such a sin required public confession before the congregation in order to be reconciled.

Private confessions for many years were prohibited, by mandate from the Pope. That didn’t change until the persecution of the Church in Ireland, where the only way a person could talk to a priest, was to go into a small room built on the outside wall of a monastery, where the person could talk to the priest through a window. The benefits of this form of spiritual direction as well as confession, it became the norm.

The Church has the authority to change the way in which the sacrament is celebrated, but she has never and cannot change the quasi-matter (the confession of all serious sins by the penitent) and the form (the absolution given by the bishop/priest) of the sacrament.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Whether a certain act is sinful is not something changeable or something that can be arbitrarily defined. An act is either good or evil because of the nature of the act itself and not a nominal judgment.

No one has the authority to define what constitutes sin or not. Not even God can change what constitutes sin because he cannot change his own nature as the greatest good to which all other goods must be oriented.
.

The Church has the authority to evaluate, what constitutes mortal or venial sin, and has in fact done so.

III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm#III

The Church also has the authority to define what is sinful, i.e. artificial birth control.

Jim

 

[Mordocai]

I agree expect for one point

Just look at this tread and you will see a host of different views on confession from Catholics alone. Some are somewhat in line with each other, but not exactly, and some disagree completely. If the truth or our human reason for the truth was that black and white it would be a simple matter of wrong or right. However it is not, and I think God in His almighty power knew this and that is way we have a Bible that is so complexed.

In Christ

It is not that we Catholics disagree with Church teaching, if we do, we are simply wrong.
Discussion about doctrine is a good thing, because it allows us to see it from different angles (as you had touched on) but to come out (as a Catholic) and say “The Church is wrong about Confession” is really to be wrong.
The simple truth of it is that Catholics need not turn to this or that person, but to the Church. A Catholic can ask “What is the true doctrine?” And the Church responds “This is” Just like Jesus taught many specific doctrines as did the Apostles. For example, confession yes, or communion, or just on what the Bible is teaching on anything in particular.
So Catholics can discuss, but (as all the Catholics here ought to agree) a Catholic need only turn to the Church. It’s kind of like a family, where all the kids talk about a thing and then after a long debate, one of them decides “I’ll ask mom” and mom responds that A is true and not B and then the children ought to stop debating. They should discuss, but not debate. If a child leaves the family because he doesnt like mom’s answer, well that doesn’t change the fact that A still remains to be true and B still remains to be false. That child could even turn to the others and say “Well mom is wrong” but the truth is, mom is right.
‘When truth is called a lie, the lights go out, darkness falls and indeed, if your light is darkness, how very deep will the darkness be.’ - Fr. John Corapi
But Jesus is the light of the world. And the kingdom of Heaven is like a city set high upon a hill for all to see. God’s makes the Church visible. I know of only one Church that is that visible and that has fulfilled Jesus’ mandate to proclaim the good news to all nations. The Catholic Church.
And as for the Catholic teaching on Confession, it is true, not because I have assented to understanding it, or even because I’ve experienced it to be true, it simply is true.
The Apostles forgave and retained sins because they were given the power and authority. (Also see Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18) It is Christ who acts through them, and through modern day Bishops and Priests (the Apostles’ successors through the laying on of hands) to forgive sins. If Jesus intends for us to go to confession, if we’re bold enough to approach His mercy in the first place, as was said by someone else, ought we not to approch His mercy as He asks?
Just a cool little side note, I always thought it was cool to think that each Priest and Bishop has a direct touch-link back to Christ. Since ordination is through the laying of hands, this bishop had another bishop lay hands and ordain him, and back and back to Peter, to Christ. Not that it has any doctrinal weight, I just always thought it was cool.

God’s Blessings
Mordocai

P.S. the Catholics discussing confession on this particular thread are not in disagreement by the way, we are just discussing different aspects of how the Sacrament has been used in the Church’s history. I would challenge you to find a time in the early centuries of the Church where confession of sins was not the reality. Have you ever read the writings of the earliest Christian leaders? You can google “Early Church Fathers” if you are interested.

 

[dylanschrader]

The Church has the authority to evaluate, what constitutes mortal or venial sin, and has in fact done so.

The Church can make authoritative evaluations, that is, give definitive pronouncements on morals, by all means, but the pronouncement itself does not make the act either sinful or not but only illuminates what is independent of the Church’s evaluation.

The Church also has the authority to define what is sinful, i.e. artificial birth control.

Jim

The Church points out what is the truth (defines) but does not create the truth herself. The use of contraception is sinful whether the Church defines it as such or not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Church can make authoritative evaluations, that is, give definitive pronouncements on morals, by all means, but the pronouncement itself does not make the act either sinful or not but only illuminates what is independent of the Church’s evaluation.

The Church points out what is the truth (defines) but does not create the truth herself. The use of contraception is sinful whether the Church defines it as such or not.

Agreed!

I can see that we’re saying the same thing, only different.

In Christ
Jim

 

[dylanschrader]

Agreed!

I can see that we’re saying the same thing, only different.

In Christ
Jim

I began to suspect that as well.

 

[Deidre]

So Catholics can discuss, but (as all the Catholics here ought to agree) a Catholic need only turn to the Church.

It took me many years of being a Catholic before I realized this. And once I discovered it, I felt like I had discovered a treasure! I want to share the news with everyone - but not everyone wants to hear it of course! I guess it’s just something people have to discover in whatever time God appoints!

 

[Deidre]

If we only look at what we think is correct how are we every to get a clear picture of the truth. We would never be able to use checks and balances to make sure we stay on the correct path. Without all info that goal would never be obtained, and our beliefs could run the risk of wandering without any outside prespective since we all are sinful.

God Bless

God Bless

I agree with you here. But one important thing the Church teaches is that to properly understand Sacred Scripture, you have to interpret it alongside Sacred Tradition. Without that information, you’re missing an important tool with which to do your checks and balances. That is a reason you will find the writings of the Early Church Fathers helpful. They help to fill in the missing pieces. They give a more complete understanding of how the church has always interpreted and taught scripture.

I can sense that you are on a journey and I suspect your trip is being guided by God! He took me on a similar trip and all I can say is - buckle up - it’s a wild and wonderful ride! (Make sure you let Him drive though! It’s much smoother that way:thumbsup: )

 

[guanophore]

Before I post a reply, I would like you to back up your statements from either scripture or your catechism. You say there is a difference in mortal sin and venial sin forgiven during communion where is that stated

The statment you make on this does not make sense.

“If I go to confession, I don’t have to worry about whether I feel forgiven or feel guilty or whatever, I can trust that the sacrament is objectively efficacious because of the authority of Christ himself. The sacrament exists so that we can rely on God rather than on ourselves.”

Are you stating that you can go to confession and not feel guilty and you are still forgiven just because you partake in a Sacrament.
Studing the Catholic Catechism and Church doctrine that idea does not come in line while taiking any of the Sacraments.

It is not just an act.

God Bless
.

You are right that it is not just action. But feelings are not required either. A person can acknowlege that what he has done is wrong and sinful, make and act of confession, and receive absolution even if it is not accompanied by a lot of feeling. Granted, an integrated, healthy person will feel grief over offending God with sin, and it is a more perfect contrition if it is accompanied by remorse. But the sacrament is not less effective without feelings.