To: MX%"black@eng.usf.edu" From: MX%"nemo@ludens.elte.hu" Date: 3-FEB-1997 >: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. >The distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins is unbiblical. >John 5:16 is not cogent. Wouldn't you pray for a murderer? Oh sorry, I wanted to write 1John. :Mortal sins separate us from God, as we choose willfully to disobey what :we know to be right (so charity [love] is destroyed), What? Is "charity" something which we give to God? Or not, and then God ceases to love us? Your notion of "charity" is simply materialistic: you seem to imagine it as a sort of impersonal fuel of the soul, and if we run out of it our plane crashes. :whereas venial sins are sins that we commit when we don't know we are :doing wrong, so the love between us and God is not destroyed, but our :relationship with God is stained (Aquinas mentions how we place a stain :on our soul). It's mere casuistical pharisaism to examine, as if under a microscope, our souls. It begs the question: if one's conscience is perverted by his adherence to a false teaching (eg. libertinism) after his learning the truth then is this a "mortal" sin? I suppose yes. Second, if he commits heinous crimes (eg. selling drugs) in this state, with his blunted conscience not raising any objection, is this a "mortal" sin? And if he, after his going astray, but before his crimes, made a "sacramental confession" and promised to straighten his ways, but out of oblivion (and as he hadn't committed the particular crime yet) failed to ask the priest about drugs specifically, then is his (relatively later) drug-selling a venial sin? If yes, then shall I replace drugs with some more grievous thing? If no, then your frontier drawn along knowledge is overthrown. :We can get back into grace, but while we are willfully doing our will :and breaking God's laws, then we are separating ourselves from God. :I don't believe you understand the distinction that is being drawn here. Thank you for the compliment. Surely, I don't accept your argument because you build it totally on the philosophy you adopted, and not on the Word of God. To me, your argument is no proof. Even the sophistry of Aquinas is insufficient because no man can draw the line between "mortal" and "venial" sins. It would be placing ourselves in the judgment seat of God. But it doesn't mean that I don't understand your intention. Thanks to God, I am not so obtuse as to refute things without previously understanding them. Be sure, I perceived your distinction. It just makes your argument even more out on a limb that I, refuting it, am wholly aware of its implications. :Yes, I would pray for a murderer, 1John 5:16 forbids you to pray for one in "mortal" sin. Or isn't murder a "mortal" sin? :but if he is happy with what he did, then there is a gulf between him and :God, and he will have to move to help close the gulf, as he is the one that :moved away from God (God doesn't leave us). No comment. My purpose with this question was to dispose of your possible prooftexting with 1John 5:16. But if you don't interpret it as one proving your distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins then my goal is fully achieved: you have no support for this distinction apart from speculation. >:To answer your question, you don't obey the commandments to obtain >:grace, but to stay in grace you do. >Bad approach, stimulated only by fear. Another, less grave and more >quickening to good deeds, is that we do good because we received grace. :We do good because we love others, and we want to share the love that we :get from God out of our love for others, but doing good does not give us :grace, Have you never heard of the Augustinian notion of "donum perseverantiae" (the gift of perseverance)? Remaining in "grace" (the quotation marks are due to the gross materialism in your usage of the word, see later), in your belief system, is said to be a grace itself. And you have just said that we do good to remain in grace. To put it in other terms, we do good to obtain a special kind of "grace", that of perseverance. So you are in a trouble anyway with your concept of "grace". If you don't believe Augustine on the above, then there is no other solution to characterize your imagination of grace with the crude materialistic simile of one sitting in a tub of hot water. By moving his limbs to and fro one cannot fall out of the bath-tub (this is "venial" sin), but by leaping he can (this is "mortal" sin). After a "mortal" sin there is a "second plank after shipwreck", as it was proposed by the Tridentine latrocinium (synod of robbers) on patristic prompting, namely, getting up from the floor and climbing back into the tub. This is the "sacramental confession". And of course, one can "do good" to keep the water warm: turn on the shower. This is "remaining in grace". And no "gift of perseverance" is needed, as you (provided you deny Augustine's theology on this) have a plug in the sink to prevent "grace" from leaking away; and this plug is your materialistic depiction and usage of "grace": as a created entity, impersonal, flowing through specific channels, being subject to the unbridled caprice of certain men who handle the taps (eg. in the prohibition of the "heretic" from "fire and water", that is, as in the Middle Ages popes would smite the "heretics" with the "wrath of God, and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul", and tell "the faithful" not to sell anything to them, nor buy anything from them. It reminds me, by the way, of a celebrated passage from the Revelation, but I will desist from quoting it for brevity's sake. :as that would mean we can earn our way into Heaven, and that is not true. Of course not. But evidently you believe it, as you think that by good works we can "remain" in grace. Why I wrote that this approach is fear- motivated was because I foresaw that you would answer something like this. On the other hand, Protestants don't sit in a tub but run towards the goal because 1. Christ had grabbed them, so it's impossible to stand still, and 2. They were promised a reward, so we run in order to achieve it. Note, the reward is not salvation. See Phil 3:12-14. :We can choose to go to Hell (by doing what we want, not as God wills), :but only through grace are we saved, where we can go to Heaven. :Committing mortal sins will lose us grace. Your thoughts are revolving around themselves. Your concept about "grace" makes you elaborate on "mortal" sins. This leads you to treating "venial" sins. Finally you get back to "grace". Christ is nowhere in this system, except for the beginning, ("the first infusion of the sanctifying grace") which, in turn, is impaired by the nefarious effrontery of infant baptism. >:As long as we stay in grace we are justified, so if we fall out of grace >:then we must do what we can to get into grace. >Bad approach, considering "grace" as a special material, instead of the >action of a Person towards us sinners. :Being in Grace is a special condition that we are in, which is possible :through the Blood Atonement (Passion) of Christ, and there is no other :way of receiving Grace. As the Tridentine conciabulum (mock-council) said it, faith is just the gate. Further on one has to secure his remaining on the narrow road by good works. We again see Christ put aside and replaced with the utterly barren system of "sacraments", which are in words declared to communicate Christ's "grace" to us, whereas they the products of a rudely materialistic thinking, ie. that grace is a lake of Bethesda, resting torpidly until the angel stirred it up. In its likeness, in the RC system "grace" is taken out of God's hand and enclosed into the seven "sacraments" which work mainly "ex opere operato", that is, from the virtue of Christ who allegedy performs them - but it would be more fitting to say that these "sacraments" work on their own, as five of them are not sacraments, having no divine promise attached to them, and the remaining two are grievously tampered by evil practices (Mass, infant baptism), thus they are also blasphemy against God. In this scheme not even a hint of predestination is allowed ("I'll have mercy on whom I'll have mercy"), only that of the semi-Pelagian Cassianus, based on foreseen merits. Thomas' milder version is just a modification of this: that the cause of election is God's foreknowledge of our response to the saving grace. :You may want to read what Aquinas wrote on Grace, BTW. I suspect it would be such as materialistic and Pelagian as I have thus far read in Dr. Ludwig Ott's book on dogmatic theology. >:When we ask for forgiveness God will forgive us, but unless you do a >:form of penance (punishment) then you will face that when you die. >Proof? :Below is a snippet from Aquinas, but you can also look at the price that :David paid when he returned back to God, as God said, 'Welcome back, all :it will cost you is your first-born', and so his eldest son died. (2 Kgs. :12:13) It may be 2Sam 12:13. The quotation is quite loose, despite the boastful quotation marks vaunting of accuracy. Actually, as we read in Ezekiel 18 that the sons won't die for the fathers' sins, it is fairly ludicrous to maintain that David's sin "cost" him his son. Further, if Micah 6:7 didn't say explicitly: "Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?", you could argue based on this case for the system of "temporal punishment", that is, a sacrilegious impudence in the face of the cross, in which sin necessarily "costs" the repentant one some expiatory suffering. In refutation of this arrant falsehood, let me but point out to the simple fact that the text goes like this: 2Sam 12:9-25 "Wherefore hast thou despised the word of Jehovah, to do the evil thing in "His eyes? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten by the sword, and his wife "thou hast taken to thee for a wife, and him thou hast slain by the sword "of the Bene-Ammon. "And now, the sword doth not turn aside from thy house unto the age, because "thou hast despised Me, and dost take the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be to "thee for a wife; thus said Jehovah, Lo, I am raising up against thee evil, "out of thy house, and have taken thy wives before thine eyes, and given to "thy neighbour, and he hath lain with thy wives before the eyes of this sun; "for thou hast done [it] in secret, and I do this thing before all Israel, "and before the sun.' "And David saith unto Nathan, `I have sinned against Jehovah.' And Nathan "saith unto David, `Also -- Jehovah hath caused thy sin to pass away; thou "dost not die; only, because thou hast caused the enemies of Jehovah greatly "to despise by this thing, also the son who is born to thee doth surely die.' "And Nathan goeth unto his house, and Jehovah smiteth the lad, whom the wife "of Uriah hath born to David, and it is incurable; and David seeketh God for "the youth, and David keepeth a fast, and hath gone in and lodged, and lain "on the earth. "And the elders of his house rise against him, to raise him up from the "earth, and he hath not been willing, nor hath he eaten with them bread; "and it cometh to pass on the seventh day, that the lad dieth, and the "servants of David fear to declare to him that the lad is dead, for they "said, `Lo, in the lad being alive we spake unto him, and he did not hearken "to our voice; and how do we say unto him, The lad is dead? -- then he hath "done evil.' "And David seeth that his servants are whispering, and David understandeth "that the lad is dead, and David saith unto his servants, `Is the lad dead?' "and they say, `Dead.' "And David riseth from the earth, and doth bathe and anoint [himself], and "changeth his raiment, and cometh in to the house of Jehovah, and boweth "himself, and cometh unto his house, and asketh and they place for him "bread, and he eateth. "And his servants say unto him, `What [is] this thing thou hast done? "because of the living lad thou hast fasted and dost weep, and when the "lad is dead thou hast risen and dost eat bread.' "And he saith, `While the lad is alive I have fasted, and weep, for I said, "Who knoweth? -- Jehovah doth pity me, and the lad hath lived; and now, he "hath died, why [is] this -- I fast? am I able to bring him back again? "I am going unto him, and he doth not turn back unto me.' "And David comforteth Bath-Sheba his wife, and goeth in unto her, and lieth "with her, and she beareth a son, and he calleth his name Solomon; and "Jehovah hath loved him, and sendeth by the hand of Nathan the prophet, "and calleth his name Jedidiah, because of Jehovah. The sentence from which you infer this "costing" speech, is the following: "only, because thou hast caused the enemies of Jehovah greatly to despise "by this thing, also the son who is born to thee doth surely die.' So the death of the lad was not out of compensation for sin (as it was TAKEN AWAY, so that DAVID didn't die) but in order for the Lord to show to people with a deterrent how grievous sin is, so that they didn't do such monstrous things. It's all the more curious that eventually it was not David to have died, but the child. It is not a scapegoat-like event, as the text says David's sin "passed away", not "passed on to the baby". Rather it was a deterrent, as the reference of the text to the mocking ungodly clearly proves it. They needed a sign of God's wrath against sin, not that David had to pay an additional price, his first-born, for his sin, although he had already repented from it. :Summa Theologica; Third Part; Question 86; Article 2 :Whether sin can be pardoned without Penance? :On the contrary, The Lord said (Jer. 18:8): "If that nation . . . shall :repent of their evil" which they have done, "I also will repent of the :evil that I have thought to do them," so that, on the other hand, if man :"do not penance," it seems that God will not pardon him his sin. Repentance and penance are different words. "Repentance" is biblical while "penance" is heavily tainted by the RC false sacrament which is called by the same word. :I answer that, It is impossible for a mortal actual sin to be pardoned :without penance, if we speak of penance as a virtue. Of course, if Thomas had had a correct translation, he could simply write "repentance". But alas, Jerome messed things up with his bad translation, which evil was even exacerbated by the RC emphasis on "penance" as "sacrament". :For, as sin is an offense against God, He pardons sin in the same way :as he pardons an offense committed against Him. Now an offense is :directly opposed to grace, since one man is said to be offended with :another, because he excludes him from his grace. Now, as stated in I-II, :110, 1, the difference between the grace of God and the grace of man, is :that the latter does not cause, but presupposes true or apparent goodness :in him who is graced, whereas the grace of God causes goodness in the man :who is graced, because the good-will of God, which is denoted by the word :"grace," is the cause of all created good. Hence it is possible for a man :to pardon an offense, for which he is offended with someone, without any :change in the latter's will; but it is impossible that God pardon a man :for an offense, without his will being changed. If God wants to pardon a sin, He will lead us to repentance. If not, He will "harden our heart". See the case of the Pharaoh. If we repent, let us realize that it would have been impossible without God's intervention. :Now the offense of mortal sin is due to man's will being turned :away from God, through being turned to some mutable good. From later quotes it will turn out that Thomas advocates the weird opinion that "grace" removes the first aspect (man's will being turned away from God), but leave untouched the second (being turned to some mutable good). Further, he would be obliged to denote by the words "remnants of sin" not just a slightly bad disposition which has left over from the offense of "mortal" sin, but the very instrument of man's turning away from God. Look, your master of acute thinking says that man is turned away from God through his turning to some mutable good. Thus he will be found an unscrupulous liar when he maintains in the face of his above declaration that "grace" puts away the first but leaves the second unimpaired. For in this case "grace" would perform nothing but a symptomatic treatment by not curing the cause (not taking away the very mutable thing which caused the "mortal" sin) but just weakening it to some extent. By this, it cannot be said that "grace" cured the disease - it only suppressed the symptoms. Which is a shame. :Consequently, for the pardon of this offense against God, it is necessary :for man's will to be so changed as to turn to God and to renounce having :turned to something else in the aforesaid manner, together with a purpose :of amendment; all of which belongs to the nature of penance as a virtue. :Therefore it is impossible for a sin to be pardoned anyone without penance :as a virtue. The distinction between "penance as a virtue" and "the sacrament of penance" is evidently a desperate wriggling between the Word of God and man-made traditions. Aquinas didn't want to conspicuously abuse Scripture by forcing the "sacrament of penance" into each and every passage where by Jerome's sluggishness "penance" stood for "metanoia", that is, repentance or conver- sion. But the mistranslation all the same exerts its destructive effect: out of the "sacramental confession", that is, from an outward act, one Scholastic or another could make a divinely instituted sacrament on account that with the same word (penance) does the Word of God denote and urge the conversion of the heart. This was deemed almost necessary for Scholastics, as otherwise the Bible would have callously abandoned them in the labyrinths of this pseudo-sacrament. Nay, no one denied the necessity of conversion. But this necessity is to be understood not so that visible conversion is the prerequisite of God's forgiveness reaching us, but to the contrary, God's action initiates in us the visible metanoia, just as Luke lets us see the motives in action in the conversion of Lydia whose heart the Lord did open. (Acts 16:14). :But the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (88, 3), is perfected by :the priestly office of binding and loosing, Binding and loosing 1. don't refer to the "sacrament of penance" but to a) preaching, and b) church discipline, 2. weren't committed to any class of "priests", such ones entirely being absent from the NT. :without which God can forgive sins, even as Christ pardoned the adulterous :woman, as related in John 8, and the woman that was a sinner, as related :in Luke vii, whose sins, however, He did not forgive without the virtue :of penance: Again, we see Thomas' attempts at merging together the divinely commanded conversion and his filthy auricular confession by calling them by the same name: "penance". Hence one might argue that the "sacrament of penance" contained the "virtue of penance", therefore whispering our sins into the ears of a tonsured man is necessary under normal circumstances. And this was what ensued under the truculent pope Guilty (pseudo-Innocent) the III., who wanted to gain information about the Albigensians by this method. Dared anyone then to whisper a word about Christ having forgiven anyone anything without auricular confession, he would have been even burnt. :for as Gregory states (Hom. xxxiii in Evang.), "He drew inwardly by :grace," i.e. by penance, "her whom He received outwardly by His mercy." If a Protestant were to alter the words by the tenth of what is manifest in the above example, you would call him devil without hesitation! Gregory writes "grace", Aquinas reads "penance" - this is a very easy way of proof. Quite a pity that Luther, when being insulted on his having inserted "sola" before "fide", didn't find this eminent passage "sanctae Thomae". >:When a child does wrong the parent forgives, then punishes, so that they >:child will consider whether to do that act again. When David sinned, and >:came back, God forgave, and I believe slew David's eldest son (a punishment). > >No. Disciplining. :Punishment is for discipline, It's false. Punishment can be out of wrath, damnation, and fury, and also out of discipline due to sons from the father. :but also to make a point, as each action will have a reaction :(when it comes to God it may not be equal to). Go on in the footsteps of Bildad! Proclaim that the life of the wicked is short and wearisome! Oh sure, you'll say that judgment can be delayed until death, and then, the so-called purgatory or hell comes. But then, I have another question: When will my sins committed before my conversion have a reaction? (Not to repeat myself, I am an ex-atheist convert.) Or those of a Roman Catholic ex-atheist? Aren't they washed away in baptism? You should realize that such generalities as "each action will have a reaction" are not at all dogmatic proof. >:On the contrary, It is said (2 Macc. 12:46): "It is a holy and wholesome >:thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." >:Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in heaven, for they >:are in no need; nor again for those who are in hell, because they cannot >:be loosed from sins. >Apparently yes, according to this sordid apocryphal book. >Note that they committed idolatry! :Actually they didn't commit idolatry. Idolatry is when you worship other :gods (dead/plants/etc), and praying for is not the same as worshipping. By "they", I denoted the fallen ones. Here follows an excerpt from my refutation of the ludicrous invention of the so-called purgatory (LISP): | Those verses from the OT which were used by Trent as prooftexts for | forgiveness of sins not necessarily going along with the remission | of the so-called temporal punishment, and further, for the existence | of the LISP, (e.g. plague after David's census, Miriam's leprosy, | death of David's and Bathseba's child, etc.) - | | (a) all speak about earthly disciplinary suffering, | (b) all are OT examples, | (c) there is no teaching attached to them by NT authors which would | allude to the purgatorian conclusion. | | Now, what will they respond to me if I ask: | | (a) Why discipline a dead one? | (b) What happened to the gospel of free grace? Did the Law overcome | it, so one has to "perform this and he will live"? | | The famous text from Maccabees when people pray for the dead is | weak for two reasons: | | (1) this book is apocryphal, labelled "mere fable" by Jerome, | (2) those who were prayed for had committed idolatry, because things | dedicated to idols were found in their pocket. The punishment for | idolatry can hardly be lessened to the level of the LISP. It's hell. | | No room is left for the weak evasion that they "did penance" for | their sins but couldn't "perform the works of satisfaction". | True repentance is always manifest in abhorring our sins, turning | to God's infinite mercy and in throwing away the things dedicated | to the idols. These slaghtered ones, on the contrary, carried their | sordid things under their apparel, thus making clearer than daylight | that they didn't do any "penance" but remained in the state of "mortal | sin" until their death. Thus, by the time they were prayed for, they | were burning in the unquenchable flames of hell. | | So | | (a) the survivors blasphemed God by asserting that they acted in | a godly way when praying for these particular dead people, | (b) the author of the book testified about his utter ignorance | concerning the law when he spoke about this event as something | highly instructive for his readers, | (c) those accepting this apocryphal verse as proof for the LISP | necessarily accept the author's grave doctrinal errors. | | Again, the advocates of the LISP necessarily have to profess that | | (1) the wages of sin isn't death but sometimes heavenly bliss | (for they say that the so-called venial sins, although conscious | and unrepentant, merit not hell but only the LISP, from which | the sinner pops into heaven), | | (2) that our sufferings have more power than that of Christ | (for they assert that although we may believe in the atoning | sacrifice of Christ, rely fully on God's mercy and seek the | forgiveness of sins in His blood, still we have to satisfy | and expiate our sins so that we faced no punishment. As Calvin | once said: "What kind of remission is that when the moneylender | gives a certificate after the loan is repaid fully to him?"), | | (3) that Christ's blood was not sufficient for cleansing us from | all sins (for they voice that the blood of the martyrs "adds | something to the store of this treasure" - quotation from | The Church Teaches, TAN, 1973, p.320, #819, alias Denz. 552: | the bull of pope Clement VI "Unigenitus Dei Filius", 1343.), | | (4) that the Orthodox Christians are damned heretics (for they | don't believe in the LISP, although they were forced to sign | humiliating decrees to this effect at the "union" councils of | Lyons and of Florence), | | etc. :I personally don't pray for the dead (it strikes me as odd), However, it is the age-old doctrine of your denomination in which all your "Fathers" believed explicitly! Perhaps you feel uneasy within your own traditions, then, let me elucidate it with the help of a pope (Paul VI). | APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION on THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES | PAUL BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, FOR EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE | | [...] | | 6. The Church, aware of these truths ever since its origins, formulated and | undertook various ways of applying the fruits of the Lord's redemption to | the individual faithful and of leading them to cooperate in the salvation | of their brothers, so that the entire body of the Church might be prepared | in justice and sanctity for the complete realization of the kingdom of God, | when he will be all things to all men. The Apostles themselves, in fact, | exhorted their disciples to pray for the salvation of sinners. This very | ancient usage of the Church has blessedly persevered, particularly in the | practice of penitents invoking the intercession of the entire community, | and when the dead are assisted with suffrages, particularly through the | offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Good works, particularly those | which human frailty finds difficult, were also offered to God for the | salvation of sinners from the Church's most ancient times. And since the | sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for the law of God were | considered of great value, penitents used to turn to the martyrs, to be | helped by their merits to obtain from the bishops a more speedy | reconciliation. Indeed the prayer and good works of the upright were | considered to be of so great value that it could be asserted the penitent | was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian | people. It was not believed, however, that the individual faithful by their | own merits alone worked for the remission of sins of their brothers, but | that the entire Church as a single body united to Christ its Head was | bringing about satisfaction. The Church of the Fathers was fully convinced | that it was pursuing the work of salvation in community, and under the | authority of the pastors established by the Holy Spirit as bishops to | govern the Church of God. The bishops, therefore, prudently assessing these | matters, established the manner and the measure of the satisfaction to be | made and indeed permitted canonical penances to be replaced by other | possibly easier works, which would be useful to the common good and | suitable for fostering piety, to be performed by the penitents themselves | and sometimes by others among the faithful. If these things are possible then what is the very thing which withholds you from following this practice in praying for the dead? :but I can accept that people do. I am sympathetic of you. Then, in order to avoid your stumbling, I'll be cautious to disagree with this custom based on my private opinion; so out of due respect towards your conscience, I'll rather be intent to show its inherent demonishness from the Word of God, if any further arguments should flare about it. :Hebrews 11:35 is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7, No one disputed that. :and if you notice that means that Maccabbees was thought of well :enough to be referenced by the Apostles (in this case by Paul). And the apocryphal book of Enoch was likewise, even quoted (Judas v. 14); the Assumption of Moses (ibid. v. 9); Greek poets (Acts 17:28, Tit 1:12). Go on, and on the same basis add them to your Bible! So in order not to forget about the gist (as you seem to persistently overlook my refutation of your conclusion, and keep coming up with it as many times as you can), consequent from these examples, BEING QUOTED DOESN'T MEAN BEING INSPIRED. :Luther took out the Apocrypha because it led support to praying for :the dead, No, Luther sent them back to the lower shelf where they were in the early Church. Why do you think your denomination keeps calling them as "deutero- canonicals"? Hint: they were debated for a long time even among the early Christians. Jerome, for example, didn't translate all of them in the Vulgate, so what the monks read in the Middle Ages was added to the Vulgate from the Itala, the old version which was replaced by Jerome's translation. So your denomination actually waited for Jerome to die, and across his just fallen corpse did they push the apocryphal books into the canon. :and as Aquinas shows, if prayer wouldn't help then why do it, :so the prayer must have been beneficial in some way. Apart from what I have already proven with invincible arguments, namely that this custom turns out to endorse prayers to those in hell, another problem remains. I stress it again, your cause is already defeated, but for the sake of argument, let me hear your explanation of the contradiction between your above simplistic argument and Abraham's case with Sodom. How exactly did Abraham's prayers avail the Sodomites? :Hebrews 11:35 is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7 Again, who denied it? But, as I noted, it doesn't prove your point. BEING QUOTED DOESN'T MEAN BEING INSPIRED. See the Greek poets. >:Christ's death atones for our sins, and if we are under grace then we >:will be cleansed, >Christ died for our sins, so if we sin, we have an Advocate in heaven. >If we confess our sins, He is faithful to wash us, not by suffering in >the nefarious invention of the falsely so-called purgatory, but by >Christ's blood. :You may want to read what Aquinas wants, as he covers this well. :The idea is that we have an advocate, but if we choose to sin, and :we don't feel any remorse, or repent (same thing, kind of) for the :sin, then we are in trouble. Perfectly true. But it leaves your point unproven. "Under grace" in your vocabulary is likely to mean that we have performed the prescribed rituals: auricular confession to a "priest", "sacramental absolution", and satisfaction with prayer, alms, and so on. Try to deny this descrip- tion if you dare: I'll defuse your arguments with literal quotations from Dr. Ludwig Ott's book of dogmatic theology. This granted, all what I said was that "We have an advocate", so if we turn to God He will forgive us our sins. Turning means conversion, and not auricular confession. (If you want to come up with "Whose sins you remit" etc. then be prepared for the imminent confutation: the passage in John refers to preaching the gospel, and that in Matthew to the church discipline by rebuke and excommunication.) And you are bound by your very denomination's principles to profess without hesitation that "when we are fallen from the state of sanctifying grace we have to make a confession to a priest, and come home with the strong determination that we'll do everything to amend the results of our misdeeds if possible, further, complete the penitence, and thus do we regain the lost grace." In this framework, no place whatever is left for our mighty Advocate in heaven: the "priest" occupies His place on earth, and without him, we cannot make a petition to God, for we are in the state of mortal sin. The only exception is when there is no priest nearby - then a simple act of "perfect" contrition is enough. This gratuitous system, falsely called "divine economy", is conspicuous for being man-made, as it derives from the Lord's commission to preach and discipline ("whose sins you remit", etc.) an absolute necessity of making auricular confessions. Thus it renders our Lord a lamentable exception to the general rule, as He never made people whisper their sins in the ear of any priestling. Apart from this, the only emergency exit for the doctrine of auricular confession, namely the "perfect" contrition, is impossible, no man of sound disposition can deny, for who can claim to act "perfectly" in his earthly life, how much less if in the state of mortal sin! The wording ("perfect" contrition) immediately betrays that your theologians actually seek the merits in the one who makes the act of "perfect" contrition. Thus in the case when accidentally no priest is near, they ultimately place the meritorious cause of "renewed" justification in the man who is in "mortal" sin. Congratulations, this result is great! :We need to be under Grace, as "by grace are ye saved". Again, you are caught using your materialistic concept of "grace" (which is apparently a supine, torpid entity, like a tree under which we have to hide ourselves from the rain, while it is utterly incapable of moving to or fro) in the first clause, and in the second you grasp for proof in the biblical usage of "grace": God's active saving move towards men. It simply doesn't work: these two cannot be reconciled with one another. >:but against we go back to the temporal punishment, and realize that >:if we haven't been punished, then we will do penance in purgatory >:(as a final cleansing) then go into Heaven. >Pompous assertions. Proof? :Summa Theologica; Third Part; Question 86; Article 5; :Whether the remnants of sin are removed when a mortal sin is forgiven? What are the "remnants of sin"? Things which need further expiation? With this wise definition you would actually avoid the necessity of proof, for it is indeed simple to prove that the things which need further expiation are in no way abolished. Or are these dim "remnants" some psychological factors? They will be revealed by the oracle of Aquino as such. :On the contrary, We read (Mk. 8) that the blind man whom our Lord :enlightened, was restored first of all to imperfect sight, wherefore he :said (Mk. 8:24): "I see men, as it were trees, walking"; and afterwards he :was restored perfectly, "so that he saw all things clearly." Now the :enlightenment of the blind man signifies the delivery of the sinner. Of course, Aquinas begins his "dogmatic" proof with a gratuitous allegory. Allegory is quite a double-edged sword, as it can as well hurt the one using it. For what if I contended that not this miracle, but the other, with the explicit words of Christ, "Your sins are forgiven" (Mk 2:5), is to be applied as counterpart of the forgiveness of sins? And this granted, the vain and audacious sophistry of Thomas is instantaneously overthrown. :Therefore after the first remission of sin, whereby the sinner is restored :to spiritual sight, there still remain in him some remnants of his past :sin. Bad premise, bad conclusion. Apart from this, Aquinas is still in arrears with the definition of "remnants of sin". :I answer that, Mortal sin, in so far as it turns inordinately to a mutable :good, produces in the soul a certain disposition, or even a habit, if the :acts be repeated frequently. This suggests the psychological variant. :Now it has been said above (4) that the guilt of mortal sin is pardoned :through grace removing the aversion of the mind from God. Nevertheless :when that which is on the part of the aversion has been taken away by :grace, that which is on the part of the inordinate turning to a mutable :good can remain, since this may happen to be without the other, as stated :above (4). I badly need this "above" snippet, in the absence of which I can only conclude that it is sheer fallacy, for the reason that if the "aversion" is taken away then obviously the man turns to God consciously. To suppose that in addition he also has an "inordinate turning" towards something else, is suspiciously implausible. "Inordinate", in my dictionary, means "excessive", "beyond all limits", so it has nothing to do with being or not being directed to something. So if we argue from the word "turning", we have to suppose an object of it somewhere in the (mutable) world. But how can Thomas imagine someone in whom the "grace" has already re- stored "charity" (that is, love of God) but he still cleaves to worldly objects? It is written just as if in order to aid my refuting argument: "Whoever loves the world, the love of the Father doesn't abide in him" (John 2:15). :Consequently, there is no reason why, after the guilt has been forgiven, :the dispositions caused by preceding acts should not remain, which are :called the remnants of sin. At last, we learnt that the "remnants" are ones of bad disposition. But the above refutation still holds: How can someone who has an inordinate turning towards the mutable good (in other words, who loves the world), love God (which is to say, how can he have the love, also known as "charity", of God dwell in him?), in the face of the above Joannine passage? :Yet they remain weakened and diminished, so as not to domineer over man, :and they are after the manner of dispositions rather than of habits, like :the "fomes" which remains after Baptism. At least "grace" is alleged to "weaken" and "diminish" them! But still we don't know whether "grace" will ever be able to remove them. :Objection 1. It would seem that all the remnants of sin are removed when a :mortal sin is forgiven. For Augustine says in De Poenitentia [De vera et :falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "Our Lord never :healed anyone without delivering him wholly; for He wholly healed the :man on the Sabbath, since He delivered his body from all disease, and his :soul from all taint." Now the remnants of sin belong to the disease of :sin. Therefore it does not seem possible for any remnants of sin to remain :when the guilt has been pardoned. :Reply to Objection 1. God heals the whole man perfectly; but sometimes :suddenly, as Peter's mother-in-law was restored at once to perfect health, :so that "rising she ministered to them" (Lk. 4:39), and sometimes by :degrees, as we said above (44, 3, ad 2) about the blind man who was :restored to sight (Mt. 8). And so too, He sometimes turns the heart of :man with such power, that it receives at once perfect spiritual health, :not only the guilt being pardoned, but all remnants of sin being removed :as was the case with Magdalen (Lk. 7); whereas at other times He sometimes :first pardons the guilt by operating grace, and afterwards, by :co-operating grace, removes the remnants of sin by degrees. First, this allegorizing has been proven faulty, see supra. Second, under what a pretext does Thomas lean so strongly on the gradual healings, and dismiss the instantaneous ones as the basis of ordinary acts of "grace"? :Objection 2. Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "good is more :efficacious than evil, since evil does not act save in virtue of some :good." Now, by sinning, man incurs the taint of sin all at once. Much :more, therefore, by repenting, is he delivered also from all remnants :of sin. :Reply to Objection 2. Sin too, sometimes induces at once a weak :disposition, such as is the result of one act, and sometimes a stronger :disposition, the result of many acts. The reply is insufficient, as it doesn't deal with the duration of the acquirement of the taint of sin, but with the strength of the bad dis- position. But what could make Thomas think that the "remnants", however weak they are, aren't removed at once, just as SOMETIMES they come, according to the undenied statement ("by sinning, SOMETIMES man incurs the taint of sin all at once"), in one moment? According to Dionysius whom he doesn't dare to condemn, in such cases "grace" must remove all the taint in one moment. Why does he then declare as an ever valid rule that "after the first remission of sin, whereby the sinner is restored to spiritual sight, there still remain in him some remnants of his past sin"? It refers to ANY case. Thus it refers to the above case: when some- one sins suddenly, there still remain some "remnants". But then, good seems to be less efficacious than evil, so Dionysius cannot escape condemnation. By the way, why do any "remnants" remain at all? On account of their strength? Then the "grace" proves to be a very curious soap, as it removes the grave part of the taint (which brings the sinner into hell), and leaves there the petty stain (which throws him into the so-called purgatory). In other words, grace is stronger than hell but weaker than the so-called purgatory. Thus is the miserable fabrication of indulgences unveiled, as those very ones who were quick to deny the purgative effect of the soap, that is, of "grace", with regard to the above inordinate turning to mutable goods (while man lives), eventually decide to give to it this power, too (when man is dead). Now, then, we have to pose the question: what makes the difference? Death? No wise. For to those allegedly suffering in the so-called purgatory, no more "means of grace" are offered (allegedly) than to those living in the flesh. Or the absence of distracting things in the so-called purgatory? Hardly. For mutable good isn't present in heaven either, thus it is useless on the part of the theologians to institute a place called purgatory for this special end, if the good old heaven will suffice. :Objection 3. Further, God's work is more efficacious than man's. Now :by the exercise of good human works the remnants of contrary sins are :removed. Much more, therefore, are they taken away by the remission of :guilt, which is a work of God. :Reply to Objection 3. One human act does not remove all the remnants of :sin, because, as stated in the Predicaments (Categor. viii) "a vicious man :by doing good works will make but little progress so as to be any better, :but if he continue in good practice, he will end in being good as to :acquired virtue." In passing, it is a blasphemous assertion that "a vicious man" can "make" any little "progress to be better" by "doing good works". Even Roman Catholic theologians abhor the proposition that a "vicious" man can do anything of this kind. He needs, they say, "grace", which is, however, as clear from the below statement, not required to such a process. Thus, while theologians maintain that "grace" is needed even to an ignorant pagan to make him any "better" even through his good deeds, Thomas, on the altar of his system, slaughters this requirement without hesitation. Now, if a house is divided, how shall it stand? :But God's grace does this much more effectively, whether by one or by :several acts. Here the aim of Aquinas is to leave open the possibility of some "remnants", remaining on the soul after the "guilt of mortal sin is pardoned through grace", and not to prove that they necessarily remain. But even this thin result is unachieved because on one hand the "guilt of mortal sin is" said to be "pardoned through operating grace", and on the other, this very "grace" itself proves to be insufficient to remove all remnants. Only "co-operating" "grace" can do this, so "grace" has to make use of men's works in order to be "effective". Thus in the RC system, God is not omniscient, and His grace isn't transforming grace, as it has to conform to our caprice. >:2 Maccabees was removed from your Bible (most likely) by Luther, because >:of the idea of Purgatory. >No. Luther's treatment of certain books of the Bible was odd, but in this >case he didn't do so gratuitously, but because the book was added later >to the canon. The Jews don't have it. And the council of Jamnia (~90) is >falsely said to have "decided on the canon". Only two books were debated, >and no solution was achieved there which hadn't been decided formerly. >Jerome rejected them, calling them apocryphal fables. The council of >Laodicea (2nd half of the 4th century) included only Baruch. :Actually it was removed from the Jewish books after the RCC started. :For more on this (for historical references) see: :Canon of the Old Testament :http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/03267a.htm :Canon of the New Testament :http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/03274a.htm I will read them as soon as I can, but I fear they won't give me new reasons for your case apart from weak ones I already know. >:Hebrews 11:35 is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7, as there >:is no other place in the OT/NT that you can find this story, as mentioned >:in Hebrews, so the Apostle Paul felt that this book was something valid. >Then go and learn from various Greek poets your theology, as they were >also quoted by Paul! :The point is that the Apocrypha was felt to be valid by the Apostles, :but not by Luther. BEING QUOTED DOESN'T MEAN BEING INSPIRED. See the Greek poets. :You may want to learn more about the history, rather than just accepting :what you were taught, BTW. It may strike you, but despite my 23 years, I have pretty well developed my faculty of discernment, whether scriptural or historical. :Just as in Acts where the people would verify what they were taught, :so we should not take it on faith, but verify what people tell us. Thank you for the kind exhortation. However, you are handicapped in this matter: you mustn't do the very thing what you suggest me. You have to understand things as your clergy wills, and not as you interpret them privately.