Posted on 10/15/2016 9:36:56 AM PDT by Salvation
Monsignor Pope Ping to column is OSV.
| 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. |
That’s why bad things happen to good people.
But, ever fair, God evens it out by
letting good things happen to bad people.
I’ve been thinking about how I will, at the time of my death, be faced with ALL the consequences of each of my sins.
I would counter that it is likely the strength of the desire for sin that is dealt with, not the specific deeds (revealing those, being humiliated as every secret is revealed before all creation when the books are opened, is possibly the transient punishment for transient deeds).
First, one must remember that the finally damned, when they are in that state, have no possible access to the Holy Spirit whereby the nature they have, which is the same nature they had when they physically died, can be supplanted so that they may be holy, having the new birth.
In essence, what Paul called the body of death is still their only body, all they will evermore be.
Each person has a different level of, um, sin-iness. Some have a raging desire for sin, some weaker. This desire remains a vital aspect of their nature after physical death since there is no One with them to remove it, as I mentioned earlier.
If the function of wrath in the LoF is to restrain the desire of confirmed sinners to have sin anew sin then the sin nurture (not a typo) cannot grow worse because it cannot be indulged by the damned. If that were the case then their “sin-iness” would never grow worse so the wrath they suffer would never need to increase.
Now, about the strength of this desire to sin ... I reason it would not be like many folks imagine. The very worst sinners are not usually the people we consider vile offenders but are those who have been awash in the knowledge that could have saved them but they never were saved.
Think of it as the Judas Iscariot phenomenon. Now, it seems that Judas’ final days aren’t so abbreviated as most believe (there is an argument that he was still with the disciples after the resurrection and hanged himself later), and about his final destiny ... God knows; but, of no one else in all of Scripture that I know of has God ever indicated that it would have been good for them not to be born.
That is a exceedingly harsh judgment.
Like Judas Iscariot the unsaved pew warmers have both the most knowledge of God and the greatest rejection of same. You may note, for example, that it is those who have known about God who are at risk of being turned over to reprobate minds ... not the simply wicked who never knew much about Him.
If you want to establish a hierarchy of sinners’ “sin-iness” I would suppose after them are those who have participated in the spirit of antichrist, whose beliefs contain reference to Christ but are other gospels, or even which deny the gospels entirely but still reference Christ, as Islam does.
(Islam is the single most numerous such system under the spirit of antichrist at this time.)
After these comes pretty much everyone else just down to how vile and consuming their particular passions were.
So the rub is that people we might be tempted to think of as okay, sometimes called Hell’s masterpieces (though Hell is not Satan’s work, but the Lord’s for it was created by Him to hold the demons), are really the worst sinners of all.
But, of course, if you are covered in Grace you won’t.
Amen. Mercy and grace
I remember a conversation I once had with a preacher. It was his contention that the righteous gentiles who hid Jews from the Nazis committed sins as deadly as the Nazis who killed the Jews when they lied to protect them. Lying to save a life is as bad in God’s eyes as taking a life.
I will never understand that kind of thinking.
That’s because its not thinking!
What that preacher was talking about was that breaking any of the law is breaking all of the law, as far as sin. See James 2:10 and I John 3:4. If those righteous gentiles were Christian, their sins were forgiven. Everyone sins, it’s impossible not to.
If that’s what he meant he should have said so.
That story gets at the Jewish vs. Christian understanding of the ‘Ten Commandments’. To Jews, bearing false witness is prohibited in a Jewish court. For non-Jews, the Seven Commandments of the Children of Noah command the establishing of courts of *justice*.
Do you think they repented of their sins? Because without repentance there is no forgiveness. At what point do you suppose they resolved not to sin again by lying to the Nazis?
No, while we are alive, Jesus is total mercy.
At the moment of our death, Jesus become total justice.
No, there are three levels of sin:
Mortal sin
Venial sin
Sins committed by Catholic Democrat politicians.
The last sins are insignificant, because when a Catholic Democrat politician commits them, even though they are mortal sins like abortion or sodomy, the bishops will still support them, give them communion, attend dinners with them, give them annulments, and officiate at their funerals.
If you want to have your mortal sins excused, become a Catholic Democrat politician like Biden, Pelosi, Leahy, Kennedy, etc.
**Sins committed by Catholic Democrat politicians.**
Which would be mortal sins because they knew of the seriousness of the sin and went ahead and did it anyway.
re: Lying to save a life is as bad in God’s eyes as taking a life.... I will never understand that kind of thinking.
I’m with you. Rahab the harlot in the Bible is never condemned for engaging in deception and hiding the Jewish spies in Jericho. She risked her very life in doing so. She is counted among the examples of great faith in the book of Hebrews chapter 11. Rahab ended up marrying one of the Jewish men in the tribe of Judah, and her descendants include King David and Jesus. She is one of only 4 women noted in Jesus’ genealogy. She is considered by many to be a heroine of the Christian faith. I agree.
No penance either. EASY, PEASY. They are on the "easy" path.
I can easily understand why people stay non-Catholic Christians...TOO HARD to be a Catholic. It's the straight and narrow path, with lots of potholes and sins, MORTAL and venial, way too hard.
"Sorry, Lord."
What is difficult to understand is why such folks like
1. Scott Hahn [Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theology at a major Protestant seminary], http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/the-scott-hahn-conversion-story.html
2. and Steve Ray [Evangelical Protestant Minister], both serious men of the cloth,
turn to CATHOLICISM.
Steve Ray explains HIS conversion in his book, CROSSING THE TIBER and has DOZENS OF writings at: http://catholicconvert.com/resources/writings/steve-rays/
O, you non-Catholic Christians, NEVER read those books about the early Fathers of the Church. STAY away from all those Catholic writers, web sites, movies and documentaries...you might get moved to the LIGHT/RIGHT side.
Pardon the rhetoric and drama. It just felt right.
Since I don't know if ANY of those politicians went to confession AND since I wasn't listening in at their confessional, I don't know if they are forgiven or not.
NOT my call.
But, JUDGE AWAY, oldbill, this IS the FREERepublic.
The folks to blame are the morons who voted them in and KEPT them in, KNOWING their pro-Satan agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.