Ask A Catholic II

[GhostWriter16]

There is actually no list of what is venial and what is mortal. It is simply considered that grave violations of the natural law and the faith made in full knowledge of their gravity are mortal because they separate the soul from God and constitute willful rejection of God.

Venial sin is basically sin that isn;t so serious to kill your soul, say that you steal a cent to feed your starving family, Your hardly going to go to hell for that. It still taints your soul but your not so tainted as to be incapable of achieveing the beatific vision. They are still serious though because they turn the soul away from God and increase the inclination to grave sin.

So, if I understand correctly, venial sin is when you have a valid justification, and mortal sin is if you do it without justification? Is this accurate?

Policy matters can be changed and it naturally can be less than perfect in those policy matters. In regards to married men being ordained priests (actually ordained priests are forbidden to marry and that is unchangeable) the Church could permit it in the latin rite (its always been permitted in the eastern catholic Churches) tomorrow and that would be perfectly fine, it would not violate dogma. I could even advocate that view and still be a catholic in good standing. Its not like disciplines are dogma and unchangeable

OK that makes sense.

As for this talk of mortal sin causing a loss of Salvation, what do Catholics make of these texts?:

John 10:25-29

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.

The Bible seems to be teaching that nothing can snatch a Christian out of his Father's hand. Thus, if Salvation were to be lost, it would have to be by full choice, with full knowledge that Salvation was being lost by your actions. How do you reconcile this with the Catholic teaching?

Hebrews 6: 4-6

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[a] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

The Bible is teaching that, if there were a person who could lose his Salvation, he could never get it back again. How do you reconcile this to the Catholic teaching that Salvation can be lost by mortal sin and returned again through repentance to a priest?

As I ask these questions, please understand I am NOT trying to prove the Catholic faith wrong, I am trying to understand how they get their interpretation of the Bible.

Advice to Catholic: Sleep is far more important than answering questions this evening.

I disagree

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You would.

 

[Jehoshua]

Advice to Catholic: Sleep is far more important than answering questions this evening.

That depends on what answering questions could potentially lead too. The catholic Church holds that it is better for the entire world to be destroyed in uttermost agony than that one soul should go to hell.

 

[kochman]

Im not saying that at all.

unrepentant heresy isn;t the only thing that leads to damnation Kochman and I never said that it was, Mortal sin leads to damnation if unrepented, and heresy is just one amongst many grave matters which can be mortal sins.

Of course it isn't the only thing...
I was asking about that, and used condoms for an example... unrepentant "sin".

Using contraception could potentially lead to damnation as it violates the natural law and the purpose of the sexual act and if conducted in full consciousness of the gravity of the violation and it is unrepented at time of death then it is possible that the person will be damned due to lack of repentance. (although as I said no man can judge that as they may have repented in perfect contrition in the moments before death.)

So, you do agree, condom usage is a damnable offense. That was all I was looking for.

Kochman, I would suggest reading our answers before making claims which have no logical relation to our responses. If you make claims that are simply ignorant in an aggrssive manner I am forced to conclude that you are simply here to attack the Church, or alternatively that you are simply lacking in intellect.

Figure whatever you like. If your wording is poor, or your answers contradict another seemingly learned catholic theologian (and the RCC is supposed to be united in its teachings), prepare for tough/odd questions.

You have reversed yourself regarding condoms, as I see it, when called out on this.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That depends on what answering questions could potentially lead too. The catholic Church holds that it is better for the entire world to be destroyed in uttermost agony than that one soul should go to hell.

I think that this is true.

It leads to another question though, and I admit that the question is "Unfair" since I hold to similar beliefs that you do on Hell and I can't answer the question either beyond speculation, but I'm curious what you think about it.

Why must God send sinners to burn in Hell? Why can he not simply annihilate them?

So, you do agree, condom usage is a damnable offense. That was all I was looking for.

I think the point he's making is that any sin can be a damnable offense depending on whether you had knowledge of its gravely immorality when you did it or not. I could be wrong about that, but that's what it seems like it implies.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That depends on what answering questions could potentially lead too. The catholic Church holds that it is better for the entire world to be destroyed in uttermost agony than that one soul should go to hell.

"this evening."

There's always tomorrow. So barring a rapture tonight, we're peachy.

 

[kochman]

I think the point he's making is that any sin can be a damnable offense depending on whether you had knowledge of its gravely immorality when you did it or not. I could be wrong about that, but that's what it seems like it implies.

I think the RCC's position on condoms is famous enough that we can toss out that idea someone might not know about it and mistakenly use condoms with their wife.

 

[Jehoshua]

So, if I understand correctly, venial sin is when you have a valid justification, and mortal sin is if you do it without justification? Is this accurate?

No. venial sin is sin that is not soul destroying, so it could be calling someone an idiot, or being greedy, or some minor sin which may or many not have justification, but isn;t somethign your going to be damned for but which is sinful. Mortal sin requires the act to be gravely immoral and literally destroys the soul because it constitutes a breach between the man and God. Mortal sin is a willful rejection of Gods eternal law and the natural law that is inscribed within all mankind.

OK that makes sense.

As for this talk of mortal sin causing a loss of Salvation, what do Catholics make of these texts?:

John 10:25-29

The Bible seems to be teaching that nothing can snatch a Christian out of his Father's hand. Thus, if Salvation were to be lost, it would have to be by full choice, with full knowledge that Salvation was being lost by your actions. How do you reconcile this with the Catholic teaching?

Hebrews 6: 4-6

The Bible is teaching that, if there were a person who could lose his Salvation, he could never get it back again. How do you reconcile this to the Catholic teaching that Salvation can be lost by mortal sin and returned again through repentance to a priest?

As I ask these questions, please understand I am NOT trying to prove the Catholic faith wrong, I am trying to understand how they get their interpretation of the Bible.

Firstly the bible is a coherent whole and picking and choosing sections out of it is no way to use the bible. It very clearly calls for confession and penance elsewhere.

In regards to first quote keep in mind that this is my opinion on it and not official Church teaching, (and it is exceedingly late) but considering the context that is prior to christianity itself came into being (ie he is preaching to jews). I think he is referring to those disposed to listen to God's voice. That is God will always call people who are disposed to him to his truth and that nothing will separate God from doing that and giving his fatherly care to them. That does not neccesarily mean they won't sin, which is basically erring on the path not total rejection (otherwise as soon as someone commited mortal sin they would never go to confession) however, merely that God will never cease in calling to those disposed to him and guiding them towards truth. This indeed includes penance as like a father he absolves his wayward sons from their error in the guidance towads holiness. Not my best answer but im basically catatonic atm. I might edit this section tomorrow if I get the chance.

As to the second, sin is not abandoning the faith, it simply erring and falling as all men are wont to do. What this passage is likely reffering to is the sin of unbelief. That is the unforgivable sin that a soul that has known Christ and recieved the holy spirit then rejects Christ and the Holy Spirit and thus denies the very vehicle of salvation. God thus respects their choice and they are now unable to be saved as God's grace is withheld as according to their choice.

-

Not my best answer as it is now 1:00 am, I am now going to sleep, so that my answers can actually be coherent tomorrow (and so I can help at a fundraising thing tomorrow morning without falling asleep)

 

[GhostWriter16]

"this evening."

There's always tomorrow. So barring a rapture tonight, we're peachy.

Or one of us dying

I think the RCC's position on condoms is famous enough that we can toss out that idea someone might not know about it and mistakenly use condoms with their wife.

Yeah, that's true...

 

[Jehoshua]

I think the RCC's position on condoms is famous enough that we can toss out that idea someone might not know about it and mistakenly use condoms with their wife.

Your presuming everyone knows exactly what you do. I know plenty of people who had no idea of the position until i mentioned it to them.

anyways im going to sleep now.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No. venial sin is sin that is not soul destroying, so it could be calling someone an idiot, or being greedy, or some minor sin which may or many not have justification, but isn;t somethign your going to be damned for but which is sinful. Mortal sin requires the act to be gravely immoral and literally destroys the soul because it constitutes a breach between the man and God. Mortal sin is a willful rejection of Gods eternal law and the natural law that is inscribed within all mankind.



Firstly the bible is a coherent whole and picking and choosing sections out of it is no way to use the bible. It very clearly calls for confession and penance elsewhere.

In regards to first quote keep in mind that this is my opinion on it and not official Church teaching, (and it is exceedingly late) but considering the context that is prior to christianity itself came into being (ie he is preaching to jews). I think he is referring to those disposed to listen to God's voice. That is God will always call people who are disposed to him to his truth and that nothing will separate God from doing that and giving his fatherly care to them. That does not neccesarily mean they won't sin, which is basically erring on the path not total rejection (otherwise as soon as someone commited mortal sin they would never go to confession) however, merely that God will never cease in calling to those disposed to him and guiding them towards truth. This indeed includes penance as like a father he absolves his wayward sons from their error in the guidance towads holiness. Not my best answer but im basically catatonic atm. I might edit this section tomorrow if I get the chance.

As to the second, sin is not abandoning the faith, it simply erring and falling as all men are wont to do. What this passage is likely reffering to is the sin of unbelief. That is the unforgivable sin that a soul that has known Christ and recieved the holy spirit then rejects Christ and the Holy Spirit and thus denies the very vehicle of salvation. God thus respects their choice and they are now unable to be saved as God's grace is withheld as according to their choice.

-

Not my best answer as it is now 1:00 pm, I am now going to sleep, so that my answers can actually be coherent tomorrow (and so I can help at a fundraising thing tomorrow morning without falling asleep)

You must be tired since you said 1:00 PM instead of AM

As for your actual answer, feel free to respond tomorrow, but, I thought Catholics taught that mortal sin makes you lose your salvation, and then repentance makes you get it back again?

 

[Jehoshua]

I think that this is true.

It leads to another question though, and I admit that the question is "Unfair" since I hold to similar beliefs that you do on Hell and I can't answer the question either beyond speculation, but I'm curious what you think about it.

Why must God send sinners to burn in Hell? Why can he not simply annihilate them?

God doesn;t throw sinners into hell, they throw themselves in of their own volition because having rejected God, they in their own sinfulness can't stand to be in teh presence of the divine love, it burns far greater than any hellfire. Thus they thow themselves into hell to escape that love. Hell is actually God's mercy, not God's punishment.

I think the point he's making is that any sin can be a damnable offense depending on whether you had knowledge of its gravely immorality when you did it or not. I could be wrong about that, but that's what it seems like it implies.

One must be aware of the immorality yes. The natural law however is inscribed on every human soul (conscience) so awareness in many cases is a guarantee although not in all.

 

[Jehoshua]

You must be tired since you said 1:00 PM instead of AM

As for your actual answer, feel free to respond tomorrow, but, I thought Catholics taught that mortal sin makes you lose your salvation, and then repentance makes you get it back again?

I have no idea what your talking about

And yes if you sin mortally you will go to hell if you die in that state.

I will answer questions properly later today (as it is in the morning technically)

 

[kochman]

Your presuming everyone knows exactly what you do. I know plenty of people who had no idea of the position until i mentioned it to them.

anyways im going to sleep now.

Whatever, I made it clear in my question that the guy KNEW and continued doing this, so this nonsense about "maybe the guy didn't know" is a moot point.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I have no idea what your talking about

And yes if you sin mortally you will go to hell if you die in that state.

I will answer questions properly later today (as it is in the morning technically)

Well, to me its 11:17 AM so to me its DEFINITELY today still

But my point was about Hebrews 6, according to the writer of Hebrews, once Salvation is lost (If such a thing were possible) it could never be restored. Catholic teaching teaches that salvation can be lost by mortal sin and then be restored by repentence to a priest. How do you explain the difference in doctrine? (You don't need to answer right now, feel free to answer tomorrow.)

Whatever, I made it clear in my question that the guy KNEW and continued doing this, so this nonsense about "maybe the guy didn't know" is a moot point.

Well, within Catholic doctrine this makes sense, as the guy is knowingly sinning and according to Catholicism this type of thing will make you lose your salvation, so yeah, you got your answer. I could nitpick it, but I see little point, as this is Ask a Catholic not Prove Him Wrong.

 

[kochman]

Well, within Catholic doctrine this makes sense, as the guy is knowingly sinning and according to Catholicism this type of thing will make you lose your salvation, so yeah, you got your answer. I could nitpick it, but I see little point, as this is Ask a Catholic not Prove Him Wrong.

Yeah, I was just looking for a clear answer... Civ King provided that... then it was contradicted, to then be supported...
Just wanted a clear answer on married folks using condoms despite knowing it isn't authorized.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, I was just looking for a clear answer... Civ King provided that... then it was contradicted, to then be supported...
Just wanted a clear answer on married folks using condoms despite knowing it isn't authorized.

I think they also have to understand the gravity of the sin to be damned, meaning they have to understand that not only does the Catholic Church condemn their actions, but they must truly understand that what they are doing is a grave sin. Simply knowing the Church's stance is not enough to condemn them.

At least, I'm basing that on other answers I've received on here. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know

 

[civ_king]

I was talking about a specific church which is being taught by heretics, not the Catholic Church in general.

As for your last line, is church teaching always in line with what God wants?

If it is possible for the Church to be wrong, why must Catholics follow them even if they are wrong?

If it is impossible for the Church to be wrong, why would anyone disagree?





The line is "The Wages of Sin Is Death." Nowhere does the Bible teach that heresy is inherently a damnable offense. Why pretend to quote the Bible when you are obviously quoting something else?

The make sure to use lower case on "church," lower and upper case have meaning in this setting

Yes

n/a

because they don't understand it or perhaps their conscience was malformed

heresy is mortal sin, mortal sin prevents entering the kingdom of eternal life, the opposite of eternal life is eternal death, I'm not quoting anything.

1) It was a question, not a statement.
2) Your words, to me, are contradictory... so, stupid question arose from poor wording.


So, if you use a condom with your wife, though you know it is "wrong"... you are going to have eternal death, even if you follow every other rule?

One must be aware of the gravity of your actions

And if that is a mortal sin, why even have mortal and venial sin at all?

It seems to me that Catholics with their system of mortal and venial sin; it definitely "Feels" like the list was made by man. I don't know if Catholics believe Christ inspired the list or not, so maybe you could clear that up, but I mean, it definitely feels man made. The sins that most people think "Seem" more bad are mortal, and bring eternal death if never repented, and yet the sins that most people try to justify away are "Venial." I simply cannot wrap my head around this concept.

In actuality, no sin is "Venial" because ANY sin is serious, and the Bible is clear on it. And other than blasphemy of the Spirit, any sin can be forgiven by God.



What about policy matters? Can the Church be wrong in them? And if not, why have they changed? For instance, at one time, the Church allowed priests to marry, and now they don't. Was the Church formerly "Wrong" or not necessarily?

Here is a nice article about sin

The RCC has never ever ever... ever let priest marry, on the other hand it has let married men be ordained. Not letting married men be ordained is a discipline not a dogmatic teaching, it could be changed tomorrow and there would be nothing wrong with doing that, also there are exceptions made.

OK, so, which is it, since RC is united in teaching.
Eternal death, or not, for using condoms with one's wife, though you know it is wrong?
Jehoshua seems to be saying no, because it isn't spreading false doctrine.
Civ King seems to be saying yes... because it is unrepented sin.

Which is it?

Heresy must be willful and persistent

I think the RCC's position on condoms is famous enough that we can toss out that idea someone might not know about it and mistakenly use condoms with their wife.

Actually I have had to explain this to people along with birth control and other things

Yeah, I was just looking for a clear answer... Civ King provided that... then it was contradicted, to then be supported...
Just wanted a clear answer on married folks using condoms despite knowing it isn't authorized.

It wasn't contradicted

 

[kochman]

Jehoshua somewhat contradicted you...
Regardless, my question was, the guy wearing the condom knows it's a sin, does it anyways.

We eventually answered the VERY simple question... the RCC teaches that this individual is going to suffer damnation as a result.

 

[Arakhor]

It's no less ridiculous than teaching that homosexuals, adulterers or suchlike will burn in hell.