Wrong views about Mortal Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No disrespect meant, but I don’t understand how you can’t see I’m saying those practices were/are (because they still go on; literature is rife with them) outlandish and more than over the top. Screen snip:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

There is no need to destroy someone’s mental health in the name of teaching about sin.

“Change under a sheet - you might touch yourself - and you don’t want to tempt yourself to sin.”

Overkill, plain and simple. What was she supposed to do during her menstrual period? Nuns bleed once a month just like the rest of us if they’re healthy and of childbearing age.

What about showering and other personal hygiene practices necessary to maintain health? You HAVE to touch yourself to maintain yourself and remain healthy. When you tell people things like this, it breeds problems. And if you tell a child this (I know your housekeeper wasn’t a kid), it can be considered emotional abuse, and is usually a part of abuse.
 
Last edited:
The link to Blackfriar was removed when you edited his post…I’ve come close to doing that as well. When you triple back, I see what you’re saying.

When you edited, you erased the verbiage that tells the system to go back to HIS post.

So the system believed you were the original poster, and it’s unfortunately not something I can account for when I hit reply.
 
Last edited:
It is not a “given” that one can correctly make an act of perfect contrition. It cannot be forced.

It is a grace from God.
 
I would say everything is a grace from God - including Confession.
Can confession be forced?

So it probably isn’t helpful to split hairs between different types of grace.
In the end we all work out our salvation “in fear and trembling” calling on mercy even in our works.
 
Pup7 said:
The link to Blackfriar was removed when you edited his post…I’ve come close to doing that as well. When you triple back, I see what you’re saying.

When you edited, you erased the verbiage that tells the system to go back to HIS post.

So the system believed you were the original poster, and it’s unfortunately not something I can account for when I hit reply.
Click to expand...
My post 115 has the link to BlackFriar 112, so it must have been edited out later not by me.
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn’t, actually. I screenshot it and posted it.

Who would be editing posts? This isn’t the Conspiracy Answers Forum.

You just held delete down too long or cut a bit too much. It happens.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
No, it doesn’t, actually. I screenshot it and posted it.

Who would be editing posts? This isn’t the Conspiracy Answers Forum.

You just held delete down too long or cut a bit too much. It happens.
Click to expand...
You have to click the little down arrow to see it. It looks like a v, otherwise it it not shown, yet exists. I did not edit it out.
 
The system took it as YOUR post. I can’t help that. All I did was hit reply. Take it up with mods. Holy smokes. I can’t account for server error.

If you’re accusing me, then accuse me. But I can assure you I didn’t set you up - I wouldn’t even know how.
 
Pup7 said:
The system took it as YOUR post. I can’t help that. All I did was hit reply. Take it up with mods. Holy smokes. I can’t account for server error.

If you’re accusing me, then accuse me. But I can assure you I didn’t set you up - I wouldn’t even know how.
Click to expand...
Not accusing you of anything, just saying I did not edit it. Working as designed.
 
Then I can’t understand why you keep saying it was edited. I can’t do that. I stated what likely happened in my mind, and as you say you didn’t do it, okay. Server error, I guess. I’m not technical. I couldn’t tell you one way or the other.

It happened. We clarified it.
 
Pup7 said:
Then I can’t understand why you keep saying it was edited. I can’t do that. I stated what likely happened in my mind, and as you say you didn’t do it, okay. Server error, I guess. I’m not technical. I couldn’t tell you one way or the other.

It happened. We clarified it.
Click to expand...
I only wrote about edit once:
Vico said:
My post 115 has the link to BlackFriar 112, so it must have been edited out later not by me.
Click to expand...
It was after that that I discovered the reason for the sceenshow not showing because of the collapse. The little v was not selected to show my content. Now you and I know about the collapse expand function!
 
Last edited:
YouCat’s note is helpful but not comprehensive:
Masturbation is an offense against love, because it makes the excitement of sexual pleasure an end in itself and uncouples it from the holistic unfolding of love between a man and a woman. That is why “sex with yourself” is a contradiction in terms. [2352]

The Church does not demonize masturbation, but she warns against trivializing it. In fact many young people and adults are in danger of becoming isolated in their consumption of lewd pictures, films, and Internet services instead of finding love in a personal relationship. Loneliness can lead to a blind alley in which masturbation becomes an addiction. Living by the motto “For sex I do not need anyone; I will have it myself, however and whenever I need it” makes nobody happy.
Click to expand...
(YOUCAT stands for “Youth Catechism”. It is an official youth catechism recommended by Pope Benedict XVI and compiled under the direction of the primary editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna.)
Some people object that YOUCAT doesn’t specifically call masturbation “sin” or a “grave offense”. But YOUCAT expresses the same idea in a different way. It presents masturbation as seriously wrong, but it also explains why it is wrong, in light of the way God created men and women, not simply that it is wrong. It explains that masturbation “makes the excitement of sexual pleasure an end in itself and uncouples it from the holistic unfolding of love between a man and a woman” (no. 409). It explains, “That is why ‘sex with yourself’ is a contradiction in terms.” (additional info not in YOUCAT but in the FAQ section, linked to here)
Click to expand...
 
That I can get onboard with - because it’s the demonization that is the problem. Thank you for sharing that.
 
Pup7 said:
I actually did…but that’s not what happened. Moving on.
Click to expand...
Just so that you understand, your screen shot shows the two marks V ↑ proving that is was not expanded. When expanded it has ^ ↑

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
But back to the topic more generally on mortal sin:

Scripture surely teaches a concept as Mortal Sin, and it has been the constant teaching of the Church. The notion of “Once Saved Always Saved” is not biblical or part of the apostolic faith.

My worry is simply how we understand this concept of Mortal Sin. There are surely unhealthy views that exacerbate scrupulosity and legalism and that negate God’s mercy and love and even human nature.
Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And we will do this, if God permits. For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt. Hebrews 6:1-6
Click to expand...
Here the writer of Hebrews envisions cases where people fall away, but is rather severe: he suggests that repentance is even “impossible.” Surely this view of Mortal Sin does not imply a bouncing in-and-out of Grace.
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Click to expand...
Paul suggests that habitual grave sins, embodied in a certain lifestyle, are not compatible with the Kingdom of God and salvation. This may or may not have implications about each individual grave act, but it’s not as straightforward as Paul equating these individual acts as “Mortal Sins.”
 
All I did was hit reply. And as I’ve never seen it do that before, I can’t account for it. It’s not a blame game.
 
Pup7 said:
All I did was hit reply. And as I’ve never seen it do that before, I can’t account for it. It’s not a blame game.
Click to expand...
So, after all that, what did you think of what I posted on the one you replied to:

It means to avoid it if possible. Baltimore Catechism shows four occasions:

Q. 774. How many kinds of occasions of sin are there?

A. There are four kinds of occasions of sin:
  1. Near occasions, through which we always fall;
  2. Remote occasions, through which we sometimes fall;
  3. Voluntary occasions or those we can avoid; and
  4. Involuntary occasions or those we cannot avoid. A person who lives in a near and voluntary occasion of sin need not expect forgiveness while he continues in that state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top