Ask A Catholic II

[timtofly]

Has this whole "mortal vs. venial" sin thing been discussed already? I might have missed it. I was raised Protestant, so the idea of two 'types' of sins isn't intuitive to me. Secularly, I can separate sins into "victimless, harm yourself, and harm others", and so I can grade the 'severity' of sins along that axis.

If it hasn't been discussed, how couldn't failing to proactively do "the whole of the law" NOT be a mortal sin? It seems pretty clear, in light of Jesus's other teachings!

Jesus was the only one who could fulfill the law. In His humanity, He did that, and in His God form He died to pay it's penalty. We are not under the law, but under grace. Not to be free to sin, but to be free of sin. We still are free to make choices, but we are not bound by the sin we do, unless we continue in sin and let it enslave us.

 

[Takhisis]

Domination, this is not 'tell Catholics what they believe in and speculate out loud', man.

I'd like to point out that the Church only recognizes ecclesiastical marriage

This, otherwise I could marry a bunch of orchids.

Actions can be sin, inactions can't be sin (AFAIK)

Wrong. If you stand by while someone's being killed then it's a sin.

Ok, Folks, after reading the epistles of Ignatius, I have re-converted myself back to being a Catholic. Until the thread changes to RCC or Orthodox, I seem to have the ability to answer here. I also can answer in the Protestant thread, due to the fact I protest against the RCC and Orthodox versions. If you do not want my post, then please also kick Ignatius out of your answerings. IMO he is not a reliable source to defend either the RCC or Orthodox views on certain things that I doth protest about.

Ummm… no. No, no, no, no. You're either one or the other. You can't say 'Hey, I'm a Catholic and a Protestant'.

 

[timtofly]

Ummm… no. No, no, no, no. You're either one or the other. You can't say 'Hey, I'm a Catholic and a Protestant'.

Are you giving up Ignatius to the "Protestants" then?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Domination, this is not 'tell Catholics what they believe in and speculate out loud', man.

I didn't, I asked a question.

 

[civ_king]

Yeah, isn't fornication the correct word?



What if the marriage is in a Church, but not a Catholic one? Say a Protestant is married in a Protestant Church and then converts to Catholicism. Do they have to remarry?




There are certainly sinful thoughts.



So, how does that work? Is it possible that an unrepentent person will be forgiven, that they can repent after death, or are you suggesting something else altogether?

And another question:

Augustine taught exclusivism (Basically, if you weren't Catholic Christian, no matter the reason, you were condemned, even if you had never heard.)

The modern Catholic Church teaches that non-Christians and non-Catholic Christians can be saved, just that the Catholic Church is the best means for Salvation and basically the only one that's 100% guaranteed to get you there (Correct me if this is off.)

As far as I know, the Catholic beliefs on Salvation is a dogma (Again, correct me if I am wrong) and so Catholics must believe it.

So; how did Augustine get it wrong?

a building is always lowercase
It may be valid, but they usually reconfirm the vows, OTOH Catholic/Protestant marriage need a dispensation from the bishop and must be done in a Catholic ceremony.

I said inactions not thoughts

no

Still not quite getting it right, Jehoshua will have to elaborate

Has this whole "mortal vs. venial" sin thing been discussed already? I might have missed it. I was raised Protestant, so the idea of two 'types' of sins isn't intuitive to me. Secularly, I can separate sins into "victimless, harm yourself, and harm others", and so I can grade the 'severity' of sins along that axis.

If it hasn't been discussed, how couldn't failing to proactively do "the whole of the law" NOT be a mortal sin? It seems pretty clear, in light of Jesus's other teachings!

Here is an article on mortal and venial sin

Are you giving up Ignatius to the "Protestants" then?

 

[GhostWriter16]

no

Still not quite getting it right, Jehoshua will have to elaborate

Care to explain what I got wrong? I have no doubt I did, I don't know a ton about Catholic teaching, and most of it is what I remember of what Catholics on here have told me. I'm just not aware of what I missed.

Care to explain what I got wrong and answer the rest?

 

[Butterball]

I the discussion regarding sin ... where does "self abuse" as it was called when I was in school, fit in?

 

[El_Machinae]

It looks like mortal sins are defined by the Catholic Church? Why the heck would they rule that failing to follow the Golden Rule wasn't a "grave matter, done without compulsion, and without ignorance"? It seems to be all three!

 

[timtofly]

It looks like mortal sins are defined by the Catholic Church? Why the heck would they rule that failing to follow the Golden Rule wasn't a "grave matter, done without compulsion, and without ignorance"? It seems to be all three!

Not the Catholic Church, but as a heresy that crept in and was not eradicated by the two children of her.

 

[jojorah]

im sorry if this has been asked but, where in the bible does it tell the Catholics to put a pope in-charge, though im certaintly no bible schooler i dont know of any verses that tell christians to do so, could you please provide a verse from the bible to teach me? All the best from the one-who-changed-his-name.

 

[Luckymoose]

im sorry if this has been asked but, where in the bible does it tell the Catholics to put a pope in-charge, though im certaintly no bible schooler i dont know of any verses that tell christians to do so, could you please provide a verse from the bible to teach me? All the best from the one-who-changed-his-name.

Matthew 16:18-19. Jesus appointed Peter as the first pope basically.

 

[_random_]

im sorry if this has been asked but, where in the bible does it tell the Catholics to put a pope in-charge, though im certaintly no bible schooler i dont know of any verses that tell christians to do so, could you please provide a verse from the bible to teach me? All the best from the one-who-changed-his-name.

I don't believe in Papal primacy, but keep in mind that Sola Scriptura is a uniquely Protestant idea, so you can't ask non-Protestants for Biblical justification for any given doctrine. That being said, the passage Luckymoose cited is often used to support the doctrine, even though it doesn't state it outright.

 

[timtofly]

Peter was an Apostle. The LOCAL churches had a Bishop. This was the person who shepherded the flock like Jesus did. There were presbyter who represented the apostles. Then there were deacons that helped take care of the needs. Each local church did this. They sent epistles back and forth to keep "track" of each other and keep heresy out of the church. Peter was not a Bishop, nor was he a pope. The pope was not "thought" of until after Constantine "centralized" the RCC. The church was never supposed to be centralized nor a pope needed.

So you will not find anything in Scripture to back it up. Not even when Jesus told the disciples that Jesus was the Rock upon which the Church would be founded. The apostles were the pillars, but the Bishops were the Local leaders and the Epistles were the Word of God that prevented heresy and the gates of hell to come in. BTW, we still have God's Word today.

 

[innonimatu]

Matthew 16:18-19. Jesus appointed Peter as the first pope basically.

He's didn't stay around for much longer to appoint all the later popes, did he? So the catholic church has a system of government and claims universal jurisdiction supposedly based on a rock metaphor by a carpenter's son with messianic delusions. Is there any real theological justification for it? The way it broke apart when secular power withdrew its alliance to it in the 16th century suggests to me that there isn't

Why not admit that it was always, has always been, just a power grab, and drop the flimsy mythical excuse? Lost of old institutions don't even attempt to have such excuses.

 

[_random_]

Peter was an Apostle. The LOCAL churches had a Bishop. This was the person who shepherded the flock like Jesus did. There were presbyter who represented the apostles. Then there were deacons that helped take care of the needs. Each local church did this. They sent epistles back and forth to keep "track" of each other and keep heresy out of the church. Peter was not a Bishop, nor was he a pope. The pope was not "thought" of until after Constantine "centralized" the RCC. The church was never supposed to be centralized nor a pope needed.

The Church wasn't as formally organized in the first century as it became shortly after, and bishops and priests are pretty much indistinguishable in the New Testament. Taking these facts and declaring that the Church was NEVER supposed to have episcopal government (which, for the record, predates St. Constantine) is a huge leap in logic.

So you will not find anything in Scripture to back it up. Not even when Jesus told the disciples that Jesus was the Rock upon which the Church would be founded. The apostles were the pillars, but the Bishops were the Local leaders and the Epistles were the Word of God that prevented heresy and the gates of hell to come in. BTW, we still have God's Word today.

And you can't appeal to a lack of scriptural evidence unless you can come up with some serious evidence for Sola Scriptura.

 

[civ_king]

Peter was an Apostle. The LOCAL churches had a Bishop. This was the person who shepherded the flock like Jesus did. There were presbyter who represented the apostles. Then there were deacons that helped take care of the needs. Each local church did this. They sent epistles back and forth to keep "track" of each other and keep heresy out of the church. Peter was not a Bishop, nor was he a pope. The pope was not "thought" of until after Constantine "centralized" the RCC. The church was never supposed to be centralized nor a pope needed.

So you will not find anything in Scripture to back it up. Not even when Jesus told the disciples that Jesus was the Rock upon which the Church would be founded. The apostles were the pillars, but the Bishops were the Local leaders and the Epistles were the Word of God that prevented heresy and the gates of hell to come in. BTW, we still have God's Word today.

Actually what it is is ordained bishops are successors to the Apostles with the Bishops of Rome holding the leadership position equivalent to Peter with the Primacy of Peter.

Constantine did not centralize the Roman Catholic Church

 

[Ajidica]

I'm still waiting for an answer on how gay sex is adultery and that having gay sex is worse then being a glutton while coveting your neighbors wife.

 

[civ_king]

I'm still waiting for an answer on how gay sex is adultery and that having gay sex is worse then being a glutton while coveting your neighbors wife.

Did I say this? Did anyone say this?

 

[Ajidica]

You didn't say this, but look at the last page, starting at post 429.

 

[de Maistre]

Still not seeing how it is adultery if no married persons are involved. While it may be breaking other church rules involving premarital sex, I fail to see how it is adultery.

I'm still waiting for an answer on how gay sex is adultery and that having gay sex is worse then being a glutton while coveting your neighbors wife.

Nikoagonistes didn't say that homosexual sex is adultery, he said that it is forbidden by the commandment against adultery.