R
rinnie
Guest
Exactly and at the last supper Jesus said one of you among me is a DEVIL. You either believe Judas is a devil because Jesus said, or you reject the teaching of Jesus and say he was a nice guy!
- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
We cannot or do not know the minds of others. Only Jesus knows our minds. You want to know why Judas betrayed Jesus and turned to the devil. We cannot answer that. Only Judas can. ALL we know is that he did betray Jesus and was evil because Jesus told us.
THe devil can tempt anyone. But it is our freewill to let him enter.
V
Vico
Guest
The Baltimore Catechism gives this insight into why:
Q. 259. {46} What other effects followed from the sin of our first parents?
A. Our nature was corrupted by the sin of our first parents, which darkened our understanding, weakened our will, and left in us a strong inclination to evil.
Q. 260. What do we mean by “our nature was corrupted”?
A. When we say “our nature was corrupted” we mean that our whole being, body and soul, was injured in all its parts and powers.
Q. 261. Why do we say our understanding was darkened?
A. We say our understanding was darkened because even with much learning we have not the clear knowledge, quick perception and retentive memory that Adam had before his fall from grace.
Q. 262. Why do we say our will was weakened?
A. We say our will was weakened to show that our free will was not entirely taken away by Adam’s sin, and that we have it still in our power to use our free will in doing good or evil.
Q. 263. In what does the strong inclination to evil that is left in us consist?
A. This strong inclination to evil that is left in us consists in the continual efforts our senses and appetites make to lead our souls into sin. The body is inclined to rebel against the soul, and the soul itself to rebel against God.
Q. 264. What is this strong inclination to evil called, and why did God permit it to remain in us?
A. This strong inclination to evil is called concupiscence, and God permits it to remain in us that by His grace we may resist it and thus increase our merits.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Sorry, Curtish! No “subject changing” is intended, not at all! I am delving a little deeper into questions, because simple “yes” and “no” answers do not elaborate enough to clarify statements and discuss definitions.
“Knowing” has a broad range of definition. There is a big difference between, “Oh yeah, I heard that the Church thinks that is wrong.” and “That is wrong because it hurts God’s wonderful creation, it hurts this person who is of infinite value and I love as I love myself.”
So please, if I did not “finish something”, bring it back! I thought I was working toward a finish, but you are seeing it differently, no problem!
O
OneSheep
Guest
We don’t have to work on Judas, no problem. It was all about speculation, but I think you don’t want to do it. That’s okay.
What I have said from the beginning is that I have yet to observe an example of how mortal sin can happen. I am open to the possibility, but I have yet to encounter an example of anyone having “full knowledge” when they do any type of sin. Now, if one equates the definition of “full knowledge” with “superficial knowledge” in the definition of mortal sin, then people probably regularly commit mortal sins. I ask that you respect my reading of “full knowledge” as meaning much more than simple hearing, that it involves incorporation into the conscience, which is a life-long process.
Here is my suggestion: You stay with “full knowledge” as the same as “superficial knowledge”, that seems to work for you. In the mean time, if you can come up with an example, fictional or real, of anyone knowingly or willingly rejecting God, let me know.
Oh, and if you can think of an example of “intentional ignorance” that is not in itself a matter where ignorance is a key factor, let me know on that one too.
In the mean time, to me, the question remains begging the question. Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God? I have yet to find an example, and no one has brought one forward that finishes the investigation. Does this mean I win? Do I get a prize now?
Oops, no, Rinnie has some challenging ones. Maybe those will pan out in her favor.
God bless you, Vico, thanks again for your responses.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good morning, Rinnie, thanks for responding.
Were you in a hurry?
Why would you, in this scenario of adultery, reject God even though you want God? Or, are you saying “I no longer want God” in the act itself?
The reason why this raises a contradiction in the Gospel itself is that when I forgive someone completely, at the deepest level I can, I understand where they are coming from and see their ignorance, I realize that I am just as capable of doing what they did. At that point, I cannot use words like “devil” or “wicked” about the other person because I can no longer use the word to contrast against me or anyone else! If that other guy is evil, then I am evil, and everyone is evil. However, I know from relationship with Him that we are all loved unconditionally, and God sees us as good, just the way He made us. When I forgive, as called to do, I no longer see a person as “evil”.
So, the way I work it out is that Jesus makes very human statements sometimes, and we can relate to this humanity. After all, on the cross He said “why have you abandoned me?”. What? God abandon Himself? It makes no sense. Instead, He makes a statement from His humanity, all of us feel abandoned sometimes, and He Suffers With Us. We can look at the cross and remember Him saying this when we suffer.
In contrast, let us look at “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Jesus did not call them devils; He forgave. He was speaking from a deeper level, from a level of understanding and forgiveness.
Another option, of course, is that some things get lost (or added) in the translations.
Oh, I do love when conversations go from philosophy to spirituality.
I look forward to your responses, dear!
Okay, let’s look into this further. Why do you suppose he snapped? Remember, were just guessing here, and that is okay. If you want to come up with several options, that is okay.
Uh… oh oh…
Were you in a hurry?Sounds pretty solid, but let’s look a little deeper.
Why would you, in this scenario of adultery, reject God even though you want God? Or, are you saying “I no longer want God” in the act itself?
Why would you refuse to confess the sin or refuse to quit the sin?
Why would you not care who you hurt? What is happening in your mind?
Was Jesus teaching, or was He reacting, as any fully human person would react? That is the question. Believe me, I have pondered a great deal the times when Jesus condemned Pharisees, made reference to “wicked men” and called someone a devil.Exactly and at the last supper Jesus said one of you among me is a DEVIL. You either believe Judas is a devil because Jesus said, or you reject the teaching of Jesus and say he was a nice guy!
The reason why this raises a contradiction in the Gospel itself is that when I forgive someone completely, at the deepest level I can, I understand where they are coming from and see their ignorance, I realize that I am just as capable of doing what they did. At that point, I cannot use words like “devil” or “wicked” about the other person because I can no longer use the word to contrast against me or anyone else! If that other guy is evil, then I am evil, and everyone is evil. However, I know from relationship with Him that we are all loved unconditionally, and God sees us as good, just the way He made us. When I forgive, as called to do, I no longer see a person as “evil”.
So, the way I work it out is that Jesus makes very human statements sometimes, and we can relate to this humanity. After all, on the cross He said “why have you abandoned me?”. What? God abandon Himself? It makes no sense. Instead, He makes a statement from His humanity, all of us feel abandoned sometimes, and He Suffers With Us. We can look at the cross and remember Him saying this when we suffer.
In contrast, let us look at “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Jesus did not call them devils; He forgave. He was speaking from a deeper level, from a level of understanding and forgiveness.
Another option, of course, is that some things get lost (or added) in the translations.
Oh, I do love when conversations go from philosophy to spirituality.
I look forward to your responses, dear!
R
rinnie
Guest
Yes you got me there, I was in a hurry.
Okay let me make this easy, real easy okay
When we choose what is right over what is wrong, and we all do it, we are choosing evil over good do you not agree? Okay! Now we all sin.
Why do we sin? Easy no matter what the case we are putting what WE want over what God or another wants, and will do whatever we can do get it. But then there comes limits.
Say I want a piece of property real bad, and I kill to get it. That is indeed mortal sin. Now say I never regret it, I wanted it, I did it, for whatever reason I want to convince myself I am right.
That is when a person gets separated from God and get into real trouble. That you begin to deny sin altogether, and convince yourself you are not a sinner. You become your own God and rely on yourself and your wants your needs, and ignore all else.
That is when you don’t care about anyone or anything only what makes you happy.
You see it everday in this world. People kill for life insurance money, people kill for drugs, people kill for lust. All a example of getting what THEY want no matter what.
Going against your own conscience is going against God. And after awhile, you convince yourself you are right and God and your conscience is wrong.
And you continue to live out your life accordingly. That is knowingly and willingly rejecting God.
A Man or women who will marry for money, power, to get what they want. And even when they get caught, they are not sorry, only sorry they got caught.
You see it everyday, turn on the news. Scams, anything to get what you desire, and could care less of the pain you did to others.
The Enron scam, remember, those people got off the hook, destroyed the lives of others. Well they may be drinking, having a ball, because as my Dad said, this is their world. But its okay, the ones who Lost, and suffer, they will get their Justice, but not until the next world. ANd that’s forever.
But for the scammers who laugh, enjoy life, enjoy this is their world, its temporary, but look out in the next, they will answer to God.
Okay let me make this easy, real easy okay
When we choose what is right over what is wrong, and we all do it, we are choosing evil over good do you not agree? Okay! Now we all sin.
Why do we sin? Easy no matter what the case we are putting what WE want over what God or another wants, and will do whatever we can do get it. But then there comes limits.
Say I want a piece of property real bad, and I kill to get it. That is indeed mortal sin. Now say I never regret it, I wanted it, I did it, for whatever reason I want to convince myself I am right.
That is when a person gets separated from God and get into real trouble. That you begin to deny sin altogether, and convince yourself you are not a sinner. You become your own God and rely on yourself and your wants your needs, and ignore all else.
That is when you don’t care about anyone or anything only what makes you happy.
You see it everday in this world. People kill for life insurance money, people kill for drugs, people kill for lust. All a example of getting what THEY want no matter what.
Going against your own conscience is going against God. And after awhile, you convince yourself you are right and God and your conscience is wrong.
And you continue to live out your life accordingly. That is knowingly and willingly rejecting God.
A Man or women who will marry for money, power, to get what they want. And even when they get caught, they are not sorry, only sorry they got caught.
You see it everyday, turn on the news. Scams, anything to get what you desire, and could care less of the pain you did to others.
The Enron scam, remember, those people got off the hook, destroyed the lives of others. Well they may be drinking, having a ball, because as my Dad said, this is their world. But its okay, the ones who Lost, and suffer, they will get their Justice, but not until the next world. ANd that’s forever.
But for the scammers who laugh, enjoy life, enjoy this is their world, its temporary, but look out in the next, they will answer to God.
O
OneSheep
Guest
We choose a perceived good. We always intend to do something that gives life in some way. I know, that is a very broad statement. Yes, though we intend well we hurt ourselves or others in the process, we sin.Yes you got me there, I was in a hurry.
Okay let me make this easy, real easy okay
When we choose what is right over what is wrong, and we all do it, we are choosing evil over good do you not agree? Okay! Now we all sin.
Yes, the “convincing myself I am right” part is denial. The underlying question is, “why does the person kill even though he knows it is wrong”? The answer I have found is, “because they do not know what they are doing.” If you respond to my post 747, we can look into this. Or, we can work on this example instead. Your choice.
This is topic of another discussion: does anything separate us from God? St. Paul thought otherwise.
Yes, denial may include the person not thinking he is a sinner. This is a matter of ignorance. We are all sinners. Why would a person not care about anyone or anything except their own happiness? If you respond to my questions in post 747, we can investigate.
So many examples, Rinnie! Do you want to work on one of these, or stick with what we started and I replied in post 747? We cannot assert “knowingly and willingly” without looking at why the choices are being made.
Otherwise, it is you saying they were K&WRG and me saying they were not K&WRG, which is a bit superficial, is it not? Making assertions proves nothing.
Thanks for your response, Rinnie. I do hope you are willing to look a little deeper into one of the examples.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I want to add something of importance to addressing the question, “Why do People Sin?” as part of “do people knowingly and willingly reject God?”
My mind says “Don’t go there”. It says "The reason doesn’t matter, all you need to know is that it is bad and people who sin are to be condemned. Never let go of this condemnation, never. That is the voice of the mechanism of a functional, healthy conscience. The conscience guide our behavior, it works.
However, it is worth it to Go There, and it takes a bit of reflection and prayer to do so. Like I said, the mind resists. The resistance comes from the part of the mind that protects our deepest guilt and uses this guilt to motivate us to behave.
The question is, Why Bother?
I was set on this path when I went to a priest while carrying a lot of condemnation toward others in my heart. The priest gently told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”
I took his words to heart, and when I did so, I discovered a new and deeper forgiveness, I felt a oneness with people who had I formerly condemned. It took a lot of time, prayer, and a good deal of very painful admissions, which is a very humbling experience.
As a result, I find very valuable this investigation, and I invite people to join me in discovery. Sin happens when we are slaves to our nature. The conscience, too, the mechanism by which we condemn ourselves and others is part of our nature. I am not talking about content, here, I am talking about our own capacities and compulsions to blame and condemn, which have their place. Anyway, what I am also saying here is that when we hold grudges, continue to hold anything against anyone, we are slaves to the mechanistic aspect of the conscience. Capacities to blame and condemn have their place, but they can also be enslaving.
Understanding why people sin, and the resulting forgiveness and reconciliation within, is a way out of the slavery.
My mind says “Don’t go there”. It says "The reason doesn’t matter, all you need to know is that it is bad and people who sin are to be condemned. Never let go of this condemnation, never. That is the voice of the mechanism of a functional, healthy conscience. The conscience guide our behavior, it works.
However, it is worth it to Go There, and it takes a bit of reflection and prayer to do so. Like I said, the mind resists. The resistance comes from the part of the mind that protects our deepest guilt and uses this guilt to motivate us to behave.
The question is, Why Bother?
I was set on this path when I went to a priest while carrying a lot of condemnation toward others in my heart. The priest gently told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”
I took his words to heart, and when I did so, I discovered a new and deeper forgiveness, I felt a oneness with people who had I formerly condemned. It took a lot of time, prayer, and a good deal of very painful admissions, which is a very humbling experience.
As a result, I find very valuable this investigation, and I invite people to join me in discovery. Sin happens when we are slaves to our nature. The conscience, too, the mechanism by which we condemn ourselves and others is part of our nature. I am not talking about content, here, I am talking about our own capacities and compulsions to blame and condemn, which have their place. Anyway, what I am also saying here is that when we hold grudges, continue to hold anything against anyone, we are slaves to the mechanistic aspect of the conscience. Capacities to blame and condemn have their place, but they can also be enslaving.
Understanding why people sin, and the resulting forgiveness and reconciliation within, is a way out of the slavery.
S
simpleas
Guest
Just reading these posts reminded me of what our priest said at the weekend. He talked about how Simon peter was the first to know that Jesus was the Christ : so that was simon knowing who Jesus was. And Jesus say’s he will give him the keys to the kingdom.
Then, as my priest put it, he messes up big time, he denies that he even knew Jesus :
Even though he knew who Jesus was, and denies him, Jesus still went ahead a gave him the keys to the kingdom.
So simon peter, knowing who God was, rejects him, but God still sees within him that he will be the rock on which he will build his church.
Then, as my priest put it, he messes up big time, he denies that he even knew Jesus :
Even though he knew who Jesus was, and denies him, Jesus still went ahead a gave him the keys to the kingdom.
So simon peter, knowing who God was, rejects him, but God still sees within him that he will be the rock on which he will build his church.
R
rinnie
Guest
Bottom line you can make any excuse you choose to explain away your sin or anothers. If you choose to sin and not repent the sin and ask for forgiveness of that sin, you will not have eternal life in Christ.
Just like a person can make any excuse in the world for why a person sold drugs, had a bad home life, got hooked on them, they needed the money.
Some people will listen with compassion, some will not. Regardless that person is getting jail time.
Just like a person can make any excuse in the world for why a person sold drugs, had a bad home life, got hooked on them, they needed the money.
Some people will listen with compassion, some will not. Regardless that person is getting jail time.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Rinnie!
Were you thinking that my questions were about making excuses for people? I’m sorry, we had already covered that ground earlier in the thread, you probably missed it.
Excuses are not the same as explanations. This thread is about explanations. “Making excuses” implies that the goal is to escape punishment of some kind. Sin has its own consequence, there is no excusing ourselves out of the consequences.
Understanding is not the same as condoning or excusing. It is an important distinction to make. If I ask, “Why did the lion kill the antelope?” there is no aspect of “excuse” in the human mind, at least not ordinarily. The same objective approach can be applied to human behaviors, but a person has to let go of the “making excuses” aspect, which is part of the “Don’t go there” resistance I referred to in a post I made today.
So, when you get a chance, perhaps we can work on one of the examples you presented.
For now, I gotta run. I might be able to get back to this tonight.
V
Vico
Guest
If this is phrased as you intend it: “I have yet to observe an example of how mortal sin can happen”, then it is very odd, because there have been many examples given in this thread of how a mortal sin can happen*.* Yet the topic of the thread is why not** if or how**.We don’t have to work on Judas, no problem. It was all about speculation, but I think you don’t want to do it. That’s okay.
What I have said from the beginning is that I have yet to observe an example of how mortal sin can happen. I am open to the possibility, but I have yet to encounter an example of anyone having “full knowledge” when they do any type of sin. Now, if one equates the definition of “full knowledge” with “superficial knowledge” in the definition of mortal sin, then people probably regularly commit mortal sins. I ask that you respect my reading of “full knowledge” as meaning much more than simple hearing, that it involves incorporation into the conscience, which is a life-long process.
Here is my suggestion: You stay with “full knowledge” as the same as “superficial knowledge”, that seems to work for you. In the mean time, if you can come up with an example, fictional or real, of anyone knowingly or willingly rejecting God, let me know.
Oh, and if you can think of an example of “intentional ignorance” that is not in itself a matter where ignorance is a key factor, let me know on that one too.
In the mean time, to me, the question remains begging the question. Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God? I have yet to find an example, and no one has brought one forward that finishes the investigation. Does this mean I win? Do I get a prize now?
Oops, no, Rinnie has some challenging ones. Maybe those will pan out in her favor.
God bless you, Vico, thanks again for your responses.
However, what I posted a few weeks earlier included examples in scripture of Adam and fallen angels, etc., and why is discussed, along with how it happened.
We do have teaching on Judas from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity of the pains of hell. The torments of the damned shall last forever and ever (Revelation 14:11; 19:3; 20:10). They are everlasting just as are the joys of heaven (Matthew 25:46). Of Judas Christ says: “it were better for him, if that man had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). But this would not have been true if Judas was ever to be released from hell and admitted to eternal happiness. Again, God says of the damned: “Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched” (Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:43, 45, 47). The fire of hell is repeatedly called eternal and unquenchable.
Hontheim, J. (1910). Hell. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
The Church states in more than one place that full knowledge means of the character of the sinful act or omission. Also that a second way to sin is through culpable ignorance.
V
Vico
Guest
Catechism has : “As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).”[56]
Concupiscence is goodness seeking, which may be in opposition to Divine Law, and it can also includes unruly desires of the will, such as pride, ambition, and envy.
By sin death, death, and by death sin entered the world. Man has choosen to oppose Divine Law, which is primary. Conscience is the intellectual apprehension of the Divine Law and for this reason, Divine Law is primary. The primacy of conscience having the final word on what ought to be done does not allow for dissent from Church teaching on particular issues due to disagreement or thinking it wrong to do what the Church says is correct.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, yes there have been many examples of mortal sin happening if the “full knowledge” is the same as “superficial knowledge” as you stated. I’m okay with your definition. It doesn’t work for me, but it works for you, and I cannot argue against that.
Again, what I am saying is that in my observations people only sin when they do not know what they are doing, but I am using “know” in a broader sense, in the way that Jesus used it from the cross, in my view.
And yes, the nerve of me for pointing out your diversions from the topic when I am also!
But actually, maybe you missed it, I said that the question begs the question, there is an assumption in the question “Why”. Do you see what I mean? The question assumes an “if” that I am saying never seems to happen. I am pursuing the “if” question that is begged. Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God? My answer: possibly, but I have never observed such.Yes, but all of those figures are depicted as omniscient, which means that they are a little different than the humans we know and love, right? The “anyone” in the question makes the assumption that we are addressing people like you and me. That is why I wanted to work on Judas, but you did not want to speculate on what was going on in Judas’ mind. You probably work on a lot of other threads, and I am just reminding you of all this because you must have a lot to keep track of.
Yes, and its opposition to God’s law. Full knowledge “of the character” and “opposition to God’s law” means something much deeper, to me, than “superficial knowledge”, but you are the one who said full knowledge=superficial knowledge. Are you changing your mind on that wording? No problem. I misstatementify often things myself.
If so, what does “full knowledge of the character of the sin” and “opposition to God’s law” mean to you? If not we can keep our original places on the differences in definition.I bolded the section that makes an assumption that is not supported by everything else I have read about the Church’s position. It is my understanding that the Church has never asserted that anyone is in hell. However, that is a topic for the other thread, in which I pretty much said my piece and left. With God, anything is possible. Anything. A loving possible.
All ignorance is culpable, all behavior are culpable, remember my saying? Ideally, we should be able to answer for everything we do. Nobody makes us do anything. All behaviors, except maybe a seizure or sneeze, or something like those, are matters of personal choice.
I am afraid I am starting to sound like a broken record. I understand where you are coming from, and I can accept your position. Can you understand mine? I am not refuting Church teaching, I am only saying that certain aspects of it do not make sense to me in light of my own personal experience of understanding why people sin, forgiveness, and my own relationship with Abba. If you do not understand my position, and you do not want to try to either, that is okay. It is your choice, and I accept your decision.
I’m getting sleepy. Good night, my friend.
C
curtish1947
Guest
Hi Again,Well, yes there have been many examples of mortal sin happening if the “full knowledge” is the same as “superficial knowledge” as you stated. I’m okay with your definition. It doesn’t work for me, but it works for you, and I cannot argue against that.
Again, what I am saying is that in my observations people only sin when they do not know what they are doing, but I am using “know” in a broader sense, in the way that Jesus used it from the cross, in my view.
And yes, the nerve of me for pointing out your diversions from the topic when I am also!
Yes, but all of those figures are depicted as omniscient, which means that they are a little different than the humans we know and love, right? The “anyone” in the question makes the assumption that we are addressing people like you and me. That is why I wanted to work on Judas, but you did not want to speculate on what was going on in Judas’ mind. You probably work on a lot of other threads, and I am just reminding you of all this because you must have a lot to keep track of.
Yes, and its opposition to God’s law. Full knowledge “of the character” and “opposition to God’s law” means something much deeper, to me, than “superficial knowledge”, but you are the one who said full knowledge=superficial knowledge. Are you changing your mind on that wording? No problem. I misstatementify often things myself.
I bolded the section that makes an assumption that is not supported by everything else I have read about the Church’s position. It is my understanding that the Church has never asserted that anyone is in hell. However, that is a topic for the other thread, in which I pretty much said my piece and left. With God, anything is possible. Anything. A loving possible.
All ignorance is culpable, all behavior are culpable, remember my saying? Ideally, we should be able to answer for everything we do. Nobody makes us do anything. All behaviors, except maybe a seizure or sneeze, or something like those, are matters of personal choice.
I am afraid I am starting to sound like a broken record. I understand where you are coming from, and I can accept your position. Can you understand mine? I am not refuting Church teaching, I am only saying that certain aspects of it do not make sense to me in light of my own personal experience of understanding why people sin, forgiveness, and my own relationship with Abba. If you do not understand my position, and you do not want to try to either, that is okay. It is your choice, and I accept your decision.
I’m getting sleepy. Good night, my friend.
Please allow me the pleasure of sounding completely off topic. Hopefully this will be nothing of the sort.
One day, God asked a person: “Do you believe” The person knew totally what was meant. What was meant was: “Do you believe in God and the dogma, The teachings of the Holy Catholic Church” The person said what he truly believed, not what he was supposed to say, not what might not make trouble, but totally honestly: “No not without proof”
Now this sounds a great deal like you. You are honest. That person also answered honestly and was worried about the answer they had just given to God, but that person at the time never knew that it was God that asked that question. That person just worried later about maybe saying a wrong thing, even to the point of wanting to retract the statement later, but out of fear and not out of total honesty. Fear can do that to a person.
I would like to tell you that this is a made up story. It is not. This is a real person and this is a real event that took place, and maybe like you, you also need proof. Well, God nicely actually gave this person proof, who honestly but fearfully had given that response to Him, God, and also of that subject, what the The Holy Roman Catholic Church, teaches.
Later and I hate to say this publicly, for fear of misleading others, God was proven, by God of course, to be totally Real to this person, and Totally what He is, however the church was by proof to this person, shown to be much much much more accurate by an 85/15 ratio, more accurate than any other church on the planet about God, but it was still only 85% accurate, absolutely of and on what it says about God. {Here my fright is paramount. What if others read this and say, The church has errors, therefore I will believe nothing. Do not change the words. Do not change the meaning. Being 85% right on an absolute, not a relative scale is extremely high. Note that. And note what it means.}
I hope you get your proof from God, for all you are seeking, and what is that, is it Absolute Knowledge of what is true and what is not true within the Catholic Church. Is it that? I hope it is. Hopefully for you, I hope He gives you all the insight and information you need, and by proof if necessary.
With this person, a seeker still later in life, still did not have proof of God, and this person like you is asking if full knowledge is ever possible, but in your case I am thinking if those words are actually used in the CCC, then they might be wrong, therefore what you are really seeking is absolute knowledge of God on the subject of sin, and I do hope God gives that to you one day. I do.
To be an expert, you must know all there is on a subject, and which of it is false.
…Curt/K…
V
Vico
Guest
It came from your post, One Sheep, you name for “it is wrong because the Church says so”, I am not retracting. If " knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law" is simply the person superficially knowing “it is wrong because the Church says so”, then we don’t really have a discussion. You would see it one way, and I would see it the other, we agree to disagree. It seems to me though, that the words “full knowledge” and “God’s law” and “knowing the character of the sin” involve much, much more than such superficial knowing. But the topic of this thread is “Does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God” and the aspect of the occurrence of mortal sin is a subcategory.Well, yes there have been many examples of mortal sin happening if the “full knowledge” is the same as “superficial knowledge” as you stated. I’m okay with your definition. It doesn’t work for me, but it works for you, and I cannot argue against that.
Again, what I am saying is that in my observations people only sin when they do not know what they are doing, but I am using “know” in a broader sense, in the way that Jesus used it from the cross, in my view.
And yes, the nerve of me for pointing out your diversions from the topic when I am also!
Yes, but all of those figures are depicted as omniscient, which means that they are a little different than the humans we know and love, right? The “anyone” in the question makes the assumption that we are addressing people like you and me. That is why I wanted to work on Judas, but you did not want to speculate on what was going on in Judas’ mind. You probably work on a lot of other threads, and I am just reminding you of all this because you must have a lot to keep track of.
Yes, and its opposition to God’s law. Full knowledge “of the character” and “opposition to God’s law” means something much deeper, to me, than “superficial knowledge”, but you are the one who said full knowledge=superficial knowledge. Are you changing your mind on that wording? No problem. I misstatementify often things myself.
I bolded the section that makes an assumption that is not supported by everything else I have read about the Church’s position. It is my understanding that the Church has never asserted that anyone is in hell. However, that is a topic for the other thread, in which I pretty much said my piece and left. With God, anything is possible. Anything. A loving possible.
All ignorance is culpable, all behavior are culpable, remember my saying? Ideally, we should be able to answer for everything we do. Nobody makes us do anything. All behaviors, except maybe a seizure or sneeze, or something like those, are matters of personal choice.
I am afraid I am starting to sound like a broken record. I understand where you are coming from, and I can accept your position. Can you understand mine? I am not refuting Church teaching, I am only saying that certain aspects of it do not make sense to me in light of my own personal experience of understanding why people sin, forgiveness, and my own relationship with Abba. If you do not understand my position, and you do not want to try to either, that is okay. It is your choice, and I accept your decision.
I’m getting sleepy. Good night, my friend.
When the Church teaches us that an act is wrong it meets the requirement. Full consent is another matter that also involves knowledge, as clearly expounded by the many other posts from the various Catechisms and Cardinal, etc…
You wrote: “Yes, but all of those figures are depicted as omniscient, which means that they are a little different than the humans we know and love, right?”
No, there were several examples and only the angels were non-human.
You wrote: “All ignorance is culpable, all behavior are culpable, remember my saying?”
Yes, and it is opposes the meaning that the Church has. There is according to the Catholic Church both inculpable and culpable ignorance.
Regarding: “But this would not have been true if Judas was ever to be released from hell and admitted to eternal happiness.”, the Catholic Encylopedia was certified as free from doctrinal errors.
The examples are not directly the topic of this thread so you should probably create a new one, rather it is about causes “Why does …”.
You always have the common example of the fallen away Catholic that marries without approval of the Church and then returns, and refuses to separate from the spouse, even without children, and knowing that it is gravely sinful, and no longer is able to receive communion and does not do so.
You have the example of the person that steals an item thought to be of small value, and has been taught the stealing is wrong, but upon discovering that it is very valuable, refuses to return it, thus committing a grave sin intentionally.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Can we judge others and condemn or condone them?
Your priest was absolutely correct. It is not our perogative to condemn or condone. We are not to judge others. Especially in the area of mortal sin we are told by the Church to “stay out of it”. Only God knows what is in the hearts and minds of men and women when they sin. We cannot possibly know whether they K&W commit the sin. We are asked to love them and forgive them, period.
But, mortal sin is an extremely important concept to understand when considering our own impending individual final judgment at death. The Church tells us that there are serious sins that when committed K&W constitute a complete break in charity and can result in the loss of eternal happiness. Did we ever truly K&W commit mortal sin? We can’t even judge ourselves! We can only seek reconciliation at all times and pray for God’s mercy.
Can we commit mortal sin?
So, what is Church teaching on the issue?
Although “full knowledge” is the shorthand phrase used to describe the second requirement for mortal sin, the full expression of the requirement is clearly defined in the CCC:
1859 It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law…
*Using a broad definition of knowledge ends the discussion. This is not because it is not the Church’s definition. It is because of the impossibility of this level of knowledge. The very definition would proclude any person of ever having sufficient knowledge. *
What does “complete consent” mean?
1859…a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.
From New Advent:
- first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
- second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
- third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.
The Church teaches that mortal sin is a “radical possibility”.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. (1742, 1033)
This statement, IMO, acknowledges the fact that we cannot know whether any individual at the moment of judgment at death has ever been held fully culpable by God for the commission of mortal sin. We simply can’t know. We cannot claim that it has ever happened, nor can we claim that it never happened. It is theoretically possible.
Why do we commit mortal sin?
St. Thomas Aquinas tells us:
The evil act adequately considered has for its cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true last end.
New Advent:Causes of sin
…Here we have to consider only the efficient cause or causes of sin. These are interior and exterior. The complete and sufficient cause of sin is the will, which is regulated in its actions by the reason, and acted upon by the sensitive appetites. The principal interior causes of sin are ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice. Ignorance on the part of the reason, infirmity and passion on the part of the sensitive appetite, and malice on the part of the will. A sin is from certain malice when the will sins of its own accord and not under the influence of ignorance or passion.
The exterior causes of sin are the devil and man, who move to sin by means of suggestion, persuasion, temptation and bad example. …One sin may be the cause of another inasmuch as one sin may be ordained to another as an end. The seven capital sins, so called, may be considered as the source from which other sins proceed…Original sin by reason of its dire effects is the cause and source of sin in so far as by reason of it our natures are left wounded and inclined to evil. Ignorance, infirmity, malice, and concupiscence are the consequences of original sin.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
I would add one very important step in this process of reconciliation…Mark 14:72
And immediately a cock crowed a second time. Then Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times.” He broke down and wept.
Peter received the Keys despite his rejection, but after he recognizes his sin. Mortal sin is absolutely forgivable if we turn back to God effectively rescinding our rejection.
V
Vico
Guest
The Sessional from the Byzantine Catholic Matins for Holy and Great Friday, following Antiphon 3, Verse 2:Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and for ever. Amen.
While feeding Your disciples at super,
You exposed Judas; for You knew he would betray You,
and also knew that he would not repent.
You revealed to all the You let Yourself be sold
that You might free the world from the Evil One.
O long suffering Lord, glory be to You.
And the Toparion before it is:
While the glorious disciples were enlightened at the washing of their feet at the supper,
the unholy Judas was blinded by his love for silver.
He delivered You to unjust judges, O Most High Judge.
All you lovers of riches meditate on this:
love from money drove a man to take his own life.
We must flee from greedy souls who would betray the Master.
O Lord, so benevolent to all, glory be to You.
and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and for ever. Amen.
While feeding Your disciples at super,
You exposed Judas; for You knew he would betray You,
and also knew that he would not repent.
You revealed to all the You let Yourself be sold
that You might free the world from the Evil One.
O long suffering Lord, glory be to You.
And the Toparion before it is:
While the glorious disciples were enlightened at the washing of their feet at the supper,
the unholy Judas was blinded by his love for silver.
He delivered You to unjust judges, O Most High Judge.
All you lovers of riches meditate on this:
love from money drove a man to take his own life.
We must flee from greedy souls who would betray the Master.
O Lord, so benevolent to all, glory be to You.
- Status