> :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). Oh, then let me come up with another simile. Let "charity" be the synonym of our relationship with God. But then, "grace" in your sacramental theology is not even a fuel which drives our engine towards God. You (plural) have, for example, baptism. Usually that of babies. It is said to be the first infusion of sanctifying grace. And other "sacraments" are said to "increase" this sanctifying grace, or restore us into the state of sanctifying grace after out having fallen out of it. This granted, my simile is the following. We sit in a car, on flat terrain. God in the infant baptism started us move towards Him in our car, and if we break down, He helps us and gives us motion again. But neither one of your "sacraments" have ever been absolutely necessary for salvation except for baptism. Annual auricular confession was made a law no sooner than under the bloodthirsty pope Innocent III. Eating and drinking the Lord's body and blood are by no means necessary; one has just to be there. Confirmation isn't absolutely necessary for all, which is mirrored by the fact that infants are not required to undergo it. The other "sacraments" are even less important. So your whole sacramental system is built on baptism, and other "sacraments" are professed to be its inaugurations or restorations. Seems like my car simile on flat terrain, where the motion continues (due to the primary momentum given to us in baptism) until we deliberately sin, ie. pull the brake. Then the "sacrament" of confession comes around to restart us. But if we manage not to sin, then the "sacraments" are not needed at all. This is not blasphemy even in your Church: weekly Communion is only "advised", not commanded. Auricular confession, as I mentioned, was not made compulsory for a long time. The "sacraments" after baptism serve as mere lubricants for you, and if someone is good enough not to commit "mortal" sin even once (which is asserted regarding "Mary") then he can wholly do without such lubricants. The other side seems like this. We sit in a car, and drive up a mountain road. Fuel is absolutely necessary, on a daily basis, and we cannot carry too much with us. So we have to beg it from God daily. We cannot say "I am in the state of sanctifying grace, so if I don't commit a >mortal< sin then I'll end up in Heaven" - this saying befits those who need not climb up any slope, and the mere torpid inertia will help them reach the goal. But we, knowing that God is upwards, have to go on. And we know that God will provide us with fuel. And as you, not needing grace daily (as the primary infusion at baptism will carry you to the end of the flat track if you don't pull the brake), can do without your (maximum five) other "sacraments" very well after having received infant baptism, a ritual which has nothing to do with express faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. Indeed, your other "sacraments" are alleged to increase "sanctifying grace" in you. But I doubt that the "sacraments", as interpreted and used in your denomination, with their "ex opere operato" working, can induce any love in us. They rather breed up in us a mechanistic view of God: that He con- fines Himself to the seven "sacraments" (six when it comes to individuals, as "priests" must not live in holy wedlock, and married men are prohibited to become "priests"), usually practiced by tonsured representants of your denomination, thus He acts as the "priests" command Him. This is the mean- ing of "ex opere operato": that it is not the personal quality of the "priest" which makes the "sacrament" valid and effective but Christ's act in the "sacrament". Furthermore, the Word of God is not declared to be a "sacrament", so the only thing which could at best withhold the high priests of RCism from wantoning against the truth of God at their own caprice, is buried as a non-sacrament. This fact speaks volumes. > :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. You haven't perceived my question. I try to elucidate it again below. > 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. My example was intended to show a case when the sinner goes heretical, then confesses, then commits a "mortal" sin in the state of ignorance because he hadn't regained >knowledge< on any particular deed's moral aspects. It is self-contradiction in your terms, as "mortal" sins are wilful. But he, in the absence of elaborate knowledge, cannot discern whether a particular deed is sin at all, so he is still ignorant. Thus your notion of "mortal" sin exempts even Hitler from the burden of sin, as it can be objected that he was ignorant of whether what he was doing was in or not. This way of evading moral labyrinths is called "probab- ilism" and is a distinctively Jesuitish method. Literally, a Hungarian RC book on moral theology (Kuno Evetovics S.O. Cist., 1940 - two Nihil Obstats, book I, p.127, translation from Hungarian) says: "According to probabilism a man can decide at his will in favour of freedom, "ie. against law, if the opinion questioning the compulsory nature of the "law has a firm probability based on serious foundation. He can follow this "opinion as well if the other opinion is also probable, nay, even if it's "more probable (probabilior) provided it doesn't harm the probability of the "probable opinion [ie. that one against the law -- FN], and thus it remains "probable. This probable opinion, indeed, renders the law doubtful (dubiam "reddit); and the unsure, doubtful law doesn't bind (lex dubia non obligat), "so I can freely opt against observing the law which thus became doubtful. And: "A theoretical doctrinal opinion, testifying for the allowedness of a "particular deed, can become probable only by the authority of five or "six serious teachers of moral theology. The Church provides an exclusive "rank to St. Alphonsus, by whose teaching we may conduct ourselves, except "for the propositions marked [as erroneous] by the Church. Otherwise the "opinion of a singular moral teacher can make an opinion probable in this "scope only based on thorough study and painstaking literary investigation. (Ibid, p. 129. Alas, I don't have a clue as to which Alphonsus is mentioned above. Probably that of Liguori.) > :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 "Whatever you bind" etc. isn't it? Calvin had long ago refuted its RC usage (wresting this passage to the confession): then by the Holy Spirit, the "priests" would have to be practically infallible! But practice shows they aren't. So the auricular confession ventures to perform something which is not promised to it; it is promised to preaching. Faithful preaching accomplishes God's will on earth, so it is infallible. This was what Calvin realized, when he interpreted "binding and loosing" as preaching plus church discipline (and not auricular confession). :(which is what much of the Sacrament of Confession is about, BTW). "Whatever you bind" etc. must be absolute, and it cannot be replaced by the "priest"'s knowledge which is, in your system, crucial in absolving someone. If the priest is deceived then he looses something on earth which ought to be bound in heaven. Preaching, on the other hand, is really absolute: it relies on the objective Gospel of God. Thus Calvin's interpretation is better than the Roman Catholic one. :This is built on the Bible, and I believe I already :mentioned the verses that would be appropriate for this. It is not built on the Bible. Your prooftexts (I don't remember you having sent any) are not cogent, whatever you have in mind. > 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. Please prove it. Last time I sent you a refutation of your article to this effect - it was written by someone of Japanese name. The other article posted by you onto src. - "The Eight Logical Steps" - I found brilliant but miserably flawed at one point. Alas, due to a catastrophe in my PC it was exploded together with my remarks. Were you so kind to mail it to me directly, I would be grateful - and studious, in refuting it again. Perhaps Sola Scriptura isn't that unscriptural after all. So, what about a good discussion on this? :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. You have to learn, just as I have to. But your "learning" inevitably means your buying into the present RC doctrines, without any real opportunity of challenging them. You mustn't be a semi-Roman Catholic and reject half of the beliefs - then you'll live in "mortal" sin. My learning, on the other hand, means intelligent study. > :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, No, you can't. If you interpret 1John 5:16 as supporting your gratuitous distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins then you are expressly forbidden to pray for a murderer. :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). So, you are at this very place urged not to pray for him. On any account. :Venial sin deserves only temporal punishment, In your belief system. But one thing is noteworthy: that neither "venial sin" nor "temporal punishment" are Biblical. They are accomplices in false- hood, being set up to back up each other - yet the Word of God denies all help to them. :whereas mortal sins deserve 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. You managed to avoid confronting your former statement that you CAN pray for a murderer with your interpretation of 1Jn 5:16-17, which classifies murderers among those not to be prayed for. Also, Jews were often charged with having murdered Christ, which, through generations, has been even exacerbated since then - and your liturgy still went on praying for them: "Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis", that the Lord removed the veil from their heart. It was on Good Friday. The term "perfid" was removed by the good pope, John XXIII. :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. This betrays nothing but the hollowness of your sacramental system. Formerly it was argued that sacraments are necessary for salvation - even recent RC controversialists venture to excuse pope Boniface VIII, the Black Monster, for having said "obedience to the pope is necessary for the salvation of every human creature", by asserting that he meant it to the "sacraments", the Church under the pope being the only valid dispenser of them, thus whoever wanted to attain salvation had to subject himself to the pope, at least virtually. And now you come up with this theory of certain men ending up in heaven without your "sacraments"! This dispos- ition necesarily results in saying the same about RCs. Indeed, the mind of your denomination in the Middle Ages was to perform the bare minimum of salvation with the "lay", and restrict the "imitation of Christ" to the "clergy", and when they failed, then to the monks. > :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, And if we manage to overcome them, let us realize that it was the mercy of God that we still stand. Nothing on our part in which we could boast. :but if we fall, then we should go before God, repent, do what we must :to pay for ou[r] sin, and go on. That is what Confession is all about. We mustn't show forth our grieved heart as something propitiating God, but we must refer only to Christ's atonement. Your blasphemous assertion about our payment for our sin excludes Christ from the act of God's for- giveness for our sins - as when we are required to pay for our sins then for what did Christ pay on the cross? In my opinion, you are close to Paganism. :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). And if we choose to accept grace - is it out of grace or out of works? You got nowhere by placing your hope in another act of man: in the Middle Ages it was "satisfaction for our sins", now it is "accepting grace". It is just a human act to boast ourselves on; a more subtle branch of the vile old heresy called Pelagianism. The RCC from the 12th century, from the time of Aquinas, has become more and more Pelagian. > :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). The idea of sola fide is that we should attribute our salvation solely to faith and not to works. Works only make faith manifest. What you abhor is not "sola fide" but "once saved, always saved". And note that Luther wasn't a pope, so Protestants can revoke some of his exaggerations. What concerns me, I do it keenly. :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. Being on God's good side necessarily urges us to do good. So if someone cares solely about his own salvation then he is not Christ-like but rather selfish, callous, and Corinthian. This does not mean that he acts out of pride before men but that he doesn't do good because he loves himself exceedingly. > :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. Right. Let it pass. Sola Scriptura is more relevant. :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. And after our conversion we learn with astonishment that it wasn't us to have done a meritorious act but God having opened our heart. You, on the other hand, are making our faith a work. :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. This is an attribute of love towards God, not a prerequisite of it. :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, Nope. This is the "Law and the Prophets", as Jesus Himself expounded it. The gist of Christianity is the following: Christ died for us, was buried, was resurrected, and went up to heaven. You are making our efforts the crux of Christianity: that Christ died for us so that we could keep some kind of New Law, and by that go to heaven. Whereas the commandments of old were first given in order to make us see our wretchedness and incapacity to love God and our neighbour; then Christ came to redeem us and cause us to believe; and then He causes us to make our faith manifest through good deeds towards God and men. :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. Oh yes, but His love precedes our love. You ought to realize that you can't make the great commandment of the >Law< the crux of >Christianity<. :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. So "grace" is a material again, and not the undeserved favour of God towards us sinners. The semi-Pelagian RC doctrine attributes the efficacy of "grace" to our acceptance of it, while Biblical doctrine ascribes our conversion to grace. One must not hesitate which one to choose. :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; Whence have you learned this gratuitous distinction? Is our knowledge the measuring-reed of all sins? :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. A scholastic quibble. "We do good, God rewards us. We do wrong, God punishes us". Christ is nowhere in this system - He acts only as an example to teach us how we can become our own saviours by good works. > :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 Two of them. The others are false sacraments. :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 everything, 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). With this same logic you ought to deny the necessity of infant baptism. If God doesn't impute "mortal" sin unless conscious, then why sprinkle babies? :We don't set aside Christ, but sola fide is a trap that is dangerous. Sola fide (not your preconception but the Biblical doctrine) is the only way to recognize God's sheer mercy on us. "Once saved, forever saved" is dangerous, as we don't know our predestination. > 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. Your Mass is alleged to be an expiatory sacrifice, not just a commemoration. :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). And his weak point, as human philosophy is fallible. :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. Then, for what did Christ die? To teach us how to redeem ourselves? > 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, Thus you give away that your "sacrament" of penance relies chiefly on our satisfaction, and thus we are the ones who make up this "second plank after shipwreck" (ie. confession - the Fathers used this simile) for us. Thus, Christ redeemed us only for one occasion, further we have to redeem ourselves by meritorious works. Have you seen Ed Thorne's sig on src? It goes like this: "Time of penance has come so that we redeem our sins". It's, to say the least, suggestive of Pelagianism. :and repentance is where you are repentant for the sin, and part of :that is a desire not to do that act again. So you yourself corroborate me on the distinction between repentance and penance. And your angelic doctor uses "penance" in two senses. He dwells on "penance as a virtue" without which there is no pardon of sins, :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. and says that :I answer that, It is impossible for a mortal actual sin to be pardoned :without penance, if we speak of penance as a virtue. [...] :But the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (88, 3), is perfected by :the priestly office of binding and loosing, 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, how- :ever, He did not forgive without the virtue of penance: [...] And the heading doesn't make this distinction. So the way is open to say >one has to undergo the "sacrament" of penance at least once a year, in order to have his sins pardoned<. Only a bit of wish of obfuscation was required of pope Guilty III. to have had it decreed some years before: (From: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner) | Fourth Lateran Council : 1215 | Introduction | During the pontificate of Innocent III (1198-1216) there appears to | have occurred much growth in the reform of the church and in its | freedom from subservience to the empire as well as in the primacy of | the bishop of Rome and in the summoning of ecclesiastical business to | the Roman curia. Innocent himself, turning his whole mind to the | things of God, strove to build up the christian community. Spiritual | things, and therefore the church, were to have first place in this | endeavour; so that human affairs were to be dependent upon, and to | draw their justification from, such considerations. | | The council may therefore be regarded as a great summary of the | pontiff's work and also as his greatest initiative. He was not able, | however, to bring it to completion since he died shortly afterwards | (1216). [...] | The seventy constitutions would seem to give proof of the council's | excellent results. The work of Innocent appears clearly in them even | though they were probably not directly composed by him. He regarded | them as universal laws and as a summary of the jurisdiction of his | pontificate. Few links with earlier councils survive, those with the | third Lateran council being the only relevant ones of which we know. [...] | Canon 21. On yearly confession to one's own priest, yearly communion, | the confessional seal | All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of | discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful | manner to their own priest at least once a year, and let them take | care to do what they can to perform the penance im posed on them. Let | them reverently receive the sacrament of the eucharist at least at | Easter unless they think, for a good reason and on the advice of their | own priest, that they should abstain from receiving it for a time. | Otherwise they shall be barred from entering a church during their | lifetime and they shall be denied a christian burial at death. Let | this salutary decree be frequently published in churches, so that | nobody may find the pretence of an excuse in the blindness of | ignorance. If any persons wish, for good reasons, to confess their | sins to another priest let them first ask and obtain the permission of | their own priest; for otherwise the other priest will not have the | power to absolve or to bind them. The priest shall be discerning and | prudent, so that like a skilled doctor he may pour wine and oil over | the wounds of the injured one. Let him carefully inquire about the | circumstances of both the sinner and the sin, so that he may | prudently discern what sort of advice he ought to give and what remedy | to apply, using various means to heal the sick person. Let him take | the utmost care, however, not to betray the sinner at all by word or | sign or in any other way. If the priest needs wise advice, let him | seek it cautiously without any mention of the person concerned. For if | anyone presumes to reveal a sin disclosed to him in confession, we | decree that he is not only to be deposed from his priestly office but | also to be confined to a strict monastery to do perpetual penance. So Thomas made the necessary distinction between "penance as a virtue" and "penance as a sacrament" because even he could not find any priestling in the NT to whom Christ sent those He forgave their sins for further con- fession. But his dictum was dangerous: he said "It is impossible for a mortal actual sin to be pardoned without penance, if we speak of penance as a virtue". Guilty III, this sanguinary and truculent pope, omitted the clause "if we speak of penance as a virtue" in order to establish his innovation in the 21st canon: | All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of | discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful | manner to their own priest at least once a year [...] Thomas dared only to define "penance as a virtue" as the necessary thing after his master had declared penance as a "sacrament" as such. It betrays the modesty and reverence of a literate man toward the Word of God, and the unscrupulous temerity of the pope in the face of the Word of God. So we see in what factory the RC law of auricular confession was made. In a factory of obfuscation, of lax logic, and of greed for worldly power. Sapienti sat. > :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. Our sins are pardoned not because of our tears but because of Christ's blood. :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. But this change is the result, and not the prerequisite, of forgiveness. > :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. The first is "turning away from God", the second is "turning to some mutable good". How can we restored from "being turned away from God" if we still cling to a mutable good? And it is not a strawman argument: your master says that the second is not removed by "grace" at once. It's the subterfuge to which he betakes himself in order to create the so-called purgatory. So in order to create this mock-hell for his denomination and pope, he blasphemed God's grace as being able to make us stop from turning away from God, and yet unable of taking our eyes off the mutable good. You should have read those passages first which you sent to me as argument, for maybe there are some debatable allegations in the quoted material. Here is the part of the Summa to which I am raising objections in denouncing Thomas. He indeed depicts "grace" as something which puts away the first but leaves the second unimpaired, as I said. Check if my charges are valid: ) Summa Theologica; Third Part; Question 86; Article 5; ) Whether the remnants of sin are removed when a mortal sin is forgiven? ) 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. ) 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. ) 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. ) 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). ) 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. ) 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. -------- :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). Oh, then I was not doing a tasteless mockery when I depicted it as one sitting in a bath-tub, but I characterized it very fittingly. My other simile (a care rolling on flat road) is even more descriptive: we know that in physics the even motion (in the absence of dissipative effects) doesn't require a sustaining cause. We are in the state of motion (state of "grace"), so all we have to do is to avoid pulling the brake. Quite a sad picture, Christianity being a travel on flat road, with God being reduced to the role of the lubricant. :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. Again, you confirm my initial suspicion that "grace" is nothing but an ability of us to do good and redeem ourselves by resisting temptation. > :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 [elders], and they :did exist, but not called priests. It is an ample specimen of circular argument. You assert the very thing which I doubt. In the NT there were no such "priests" as the present RC ones. :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). It isn't. It is either preaching (opening the gate of Church for former unbelievers, and closing it for the obstinate ones) or Church discipline (opening the gate for those who repent, and closing it for those who remain unrepentant). The high-flighted pretensions of your "clergy" are nowhere hinted at (making laws, defining dogmas, 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). :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). RCism is not a matter of conscience but of obedience. As once a curial cardinal wrote to a theologian who was overcame by doubt concerning some RC dogma: "The Church is not ONE FAITH - the Church is ONE DISCIPLINE!" Or in the First Vatican Council the pope answered Cardinal Guidi - who raised objections to the novelty of papal infallibility, and referred to the testimony of ancient church history to the contrary effect - with the pompous words: "THE TRADITION IS ME!" > 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. You mustn't pray about these things but accept them blindly. Your prayers may end up denying the usefulness of this customs, so they are dangerous, granted your denomination has already spoken "infallibly" on these matters. > 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. You can't find anything apart from his acceptance of additions to Daniel, but he never accepted eg. 2Mac. Moreover, if you accept 2Mac, you are inevitably bound to accept prayer for unrepentant dead idol worshippers. Those in 2Mac were doing this, and were commended by the author. So they were praying for those in HELL. And your present denomination confines herself on the mild application of this sordid apocryphal prooftext to the so-called purgatory! This is a problem whose solution I have never come across in RC apologetics yet - maybe you have the clue. If not - then reject 2Mac quickly! > 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. Isn't the shame that befells us when learning the reality of our misdeed enough to teach us a lesson? And why should we atone for our sins if Christ has already atoned for them? > 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. "Through Him" is a mere empty label: the label of "our having a chance". But He is deprived of the dignity of our ONLY advocate, as it's us to pay for our guilt. So we are our own redeemers. > 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. These excerpts you provided didn't make a good case for him. He has committed many elementary logical errors, as pointed out in my letter. > :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. He relies on exceptional instances in physical healing and makes out of them a spiritual law which is alleged to serve as the basis of the auricular confession. > :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 by several ones. This is the way of self-redemption. :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. So many good deeds will make up a white robe. Christ is not needed, only that we "learnt discipline" and "paid a price for our sins". Congratulations, that is the Law of Moses, in the worst pharisaic exposition. Or do you think otherwise? I'm waiting for the answer. P.S. Again, the vitriolic tone is due to the dogmas of your denomination, and is not directed towards you personally.