From: MX%"black@eng.usf.edu" 13-FEB-1997 Subj: Re: "Mortal" sins Hello, On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 nemo@ludens.elte.hu wrote: > :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. In the KJV love seems to be called charity, so I decided to use both terms. God never ceases to love us, but we can pull away from God by choosing to do what we won't regardless of what He wants. It is important to have a close relationship with God, but we need to choose whether to have that or to do our own will (if it runs contrary to God's). > :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? It's not a matter of your conscience complaining, but if you were taught what is right and wrong, and you choose to do wrong, regardless of your situation, then it is a mortal sin. Venial sins seem to be mainly when you don't know that something is wrong. > 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. Regardless we are taught that selling drugs is contrary to God's wishes (anything done to excess is wrong, and excess is [almost by definition] anything that is done too much as to not be beneficial), so even if this person confessed and got right with God (restored to grace), if he went and sold drugs afterwards, then he still is out of grace, as that would have been a mortal sin. > :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. That is true, the distinction is left up to God, but the priest, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit should be able to help us to restore our relationship with God (which is what much of the Sacrament of Confession is about, BTW). This is built on the Bible, and I believe I already mentioned the verses that would be appropriate for this. > 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. I spent 11 yrs in Fundamentalist churches because I felt that the hypocracy in the RCC was wrong, but through studies I was led back to the RCC, as I learned that sola scriptura is not Scriptural. I still have problems with parts of the RCC (praying to saints and Mary, for example), but the core of the beliefs I believe to be correct, so I just go on from there, and continue to learn. > :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. 1John 5 16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. If a person commits murder I can pray that God will help them out, as I can pray for anything that I want, and I believe that this does show the distinction, as it shows that there are two types of sins, one unto death and one that is not (mortal and venial). Venial sin deserves only temporal punishment, whereas mortal sins deserves eternal punishment, so for the former we can pray for them, and they are not separated from God, but with the latter they must go through Confession, as they have severed (willingly) their relationship with God, and that relationship must be restored. For RC members they must go through Confession for this, but for others in different religions, they may not practice the Sacraments, so that is not required, but I do not know the difference between what happens if you do and don't go through the Sacraments. > :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. First, there is what Paul (I believe) wrote about having run the good race. Christianity is a test of endurance, regardless, as there are going to be spiritual challenges before us, and we should seek to overcome each one of them, but if we fall, then we should go before God, repent, do what we must to pay for out sin, and go on. That is what Confession is all about. If you read what I wrote, I did not say we do good to remain in grace, as doing good does not earn us grace. That was a gift freely given, paid for by the Blood of Christ. Grace is a gift which we cannot earn, but we can choose to reject if we so choose (by willfully choosing to disobey God, which is like turning our back on Him, and walking away). > 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. The idea of sola fide is that once you are saved, no matter what heinous acts you do afterwards, you are still saved; so I could get saved now, then commit 5 acts of adultery every day until I die, and I won't lose my salvation (slight change on what Luther stated in a sermon, BTW). Many Protestants that I have known do what they can to "get into" Heaven, as that is their goal. They don't care to do good because of love for others (or God), but to keep on God's good side, and that is the wrong idea, as, if we do good to get something from man, then we already got our reward, and God will not reward us for that, as we should be willing to do good because of love for others, as we should be filled with love from God. > :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. Infant baptism is another topic, and one I don't care to add onto here, BTW. First, through the Blood Atonement we have the chance to get into Heaven, but there is still the part that we must do, and that is to accept God's gift to us. Jesus stated that "if we love me then you will follow my commandments" and the corollary is, if we don't follow His commandments, then we don't love Him. There are basically two: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul and Love your neighbor as yourself. These form the crux of Christianity, as it was out of love that Christ died for us, and it was out of love that God sent His son to do this. By grace are we saved, and we do nothing to earn that, as it is a gift, but as any gift, we can reject it. When we don't know something is wrong, and so we sin, then we will not lose salvation for that, but it will have a small effect on our soul; but if we know we are doing wrong, and we do it, then we have chosen to ignore God, and we pick Hell over Heaven, at that point, and that action is a mortal sin. > :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. Without love good works don't matter. Faith is an action word, and by living our faith we will do God's will, and that will be good works by definition (as God can't do anything but good). The Sacraments were instituted by Christ so that as we grow in faith and understanding, then we can do more, or go further in our faith. You don't teach a baby every- thing, but as that child grows and learns, then you teach them more, and that is what the Sacraments are like. We don't get ready for Confession until we reach a point where we start to know right and wrong, because before that we won't commit any mortal sins, as we don't know what is right (this is an example). We don't set aside Christ, but sola fide is a trap that is dangerous. > 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. The Mass is not a Sacrament, but a coming together and remembrance of what Christ did for us. We remember the Death and Resurrection every Sunday. The Sacraments are: Baptism, Penance, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick. The fourth and last ones are the only ones that I would have trouble showing in the Bible, but then I would turn to Aquinas for help on that, as my knowledge is limited, compared to others. For more on infant baptism, you can look at: http://www.sky.net/~mntssyst/infant.html > :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. Aquinas wrote an incredible document, as he logically shows each point, and then goes on, and he used not only the Bible but man's philosophy to make his point (that was his main contribution). The purpose for punishment is to serve as a deterrent. We don't pay for our sins, so that we can earn our way into Heaven, as that is not possible, but from what Aquinas explains, in order to correct the wrong that is done (the chaos that is brought into the universe by disobeying God) there must be something done to correct that, and that is what the penance is for. > 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. Penance is where we do something as a sort of temporal punishment, and repentance is where you are repentant for the sin, and part of that is a desire not to do that act again. > :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. If we decide that we did nothing wrong, and we live that way, and sin because we want to, then it won't be pardoned, as we are not repentant. God wants us to feel sorry for having disobeyed Him, much as our sins causes Jesus pain, as He paid the price for them. What Aquinas was saying in the last sentence is that we can forgive someone without there being any change in that person, but when God forgives, then there will be a change in that person. > :Now the offense of mortal sin is due to man's will being turned > :away from God, through being turned to some mutable good. > > 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. :I don't understand what you mean by leave the second unimpaired. :Grace :is just a gift, and it does not do anything to us (as the Holy Spirit :does, for example). Grace is a state (we are in grace or we are not). :When we choose to sin it is to do something that will bring us pleasure :(usually), or that we want (which will generally be pleasureable or good, :to us). Grace will not change that, but through the power of the Holy :Spirit we can be given strength to resist temptation, but regardless, if :we choose to do what we want, then we will have committed a mortal sin. > :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. What we call priests was originally presbyters(sp) [elders], and they did exist, but not called priests. The binding and loosening is part of the Apostolic Authority from Jesus (what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven). That is another topic (Apostolic Succession). > :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. Penance is punishment for discipline. > :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). While I was out of the RCC I adopted different ideas that what I was taught, and since I returned to the RCC, I find that I cannot just blindly follow any teachings, but must examine each of them, and there are a few that I just don't feel comfortable with (personally). > If these things are possible then what is the very thing which withholds > you from following this practice in praying for the dead? It is just a difficult idea for me to feel comfortable with. I don't care to force myself to believe anything, but to pray and study and wait until I gain more understanding. > 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. From what I remember, Jerome later decided that they should be included, also. If you want I can look for the reference. > 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. Actually 'under grace' just means that we have restored our relationship with God. If we do wrong, and we just say, 'I am sorry', and that is it, and we do nothing to atone for our sin, then we really haven't learned anything. Rituals don't get us into Heaven, as that is legalism, and that is wrong (and I won't deny that there are Catholics and Protestants that seem to believe that there are formulas for salvation). > 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. Actually Christ is still involved, as it is through Him that we even have a chance to get into Heaven. Regardless, the Pope is not going to be present during the Last Judgement, but Jesus will be. > :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. Actually previously Aquinas explains about the remnants of sin. > 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. You would need to look at the rest of Aquinas' writings to see how he handles much of this, as he dealt with many of these issues earlier, and then went on. > :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"? He didn't dismiss the instantaneous ones, but explains that both types are used by 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? The idea is that if a vicious man does a good act, that won't remove the evil he did by just one act, but if he consistently does good, then gradually he will remove the evil acts. That will not earn him salvation, as we can't earn that, but he is paying a price for his sins, and is learning discipline. For more of an explanation on Sacraments, you may look at: http://www.sni.net/advent/cathen/13295a.htm. I will include the first part of it below: Sacraments Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification (Catechismus concil. Trident., n.4, ex S. Aug. "De Catechizandis rudibus"). The subject may be treated under the following headings: I. The necessity and the nature of the sacramental system II. The nature of the sacraments of the new law III. The origin (cause) of the sacraments IV. The number of the sacraments V. The effects of the sacraments VI. The minister of the sacraments VII. The recipient of the sacraments Baptism http://www.sni.net/advent/cathen/02258b.htm One of the Seven Sacraments of the Christian Church frequently called the "first sacrament", the "door of the sacraments", and the "door of the Church". The subject will be treated under the following headings: I. Authoritative Statement of Doctrine II. Etymology III. Definition IV. Types V. Institution of the Sacrament VI. Matter and Form of the Sacrament VII. Conditional Baptism VIII. Rebaptism IX. Necessity of Baptism X. Substitutes for the Sacrament XI. Unbaptized Infants XII. Effects of Baptism XIII. Minister of the Sacrament XIV. Recipient of Baptism XV. Adjuncts of Baptism XVI, Ceremonies of Baptism XVII. Metaphorical Baptism [...] Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (prfcepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation cannot be attained, The second (prfcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and prfcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ, In John, iii, He declares: "Unless a man be born againof water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants.