Posted on 09/01/2015 3:53:50 AM PDT by NYer
(I'd bet Trump'll have a few words; in English; to say about this.)
“Catholics are predictable in their behavior and lack of needing ANY thoughts of their own.”
You responded as I knew you would.
Nor have I said that
You did ... go back and reread what you wrote that all sins are mortal.
There are commandments of greater and lesser significance, but nothing in Matthew 5 suggests there are some sins that separate us from God and some that don't.
We are all sinners. There was only one man born without sin and they crucified Him. What is your point?
Echoing YOUR sentiments?
I've found that if I correct the statements that YOU have made; they'll stay posted on FR.
SR: Nor have I said that
NY: You did ... go back and reread what you wrote that all sins are mortal.
Nope, sorry. Didn't. You haven't read me correctly. I never said all sins are equal. I said they are all mortal. There is a huge difference, and I think it is an important part of our inability to agree. What I take to be happening is that because I agree with Paul that the wages of sin is death, you translate that to equality in every possible sense. That's just jumping the rails. I have attempted repeatedly to assure you I do recognize that sins are different in their degree, in their effect on people, and so forth.
But they do share that common theme, that they are by definition mortal, death-causing, both spiritually and physically, because they all cross the Edenic line: They all sacrifice the love of God on the alter of self. They are all rebellion to the same Law-Giver. They are all equal in the effect of pitting us against God and His love, with eternal consequences each and every one. For the love of a fruit, all humankind was damned. But for Christ, we would all stay dead in Adam's sin. Sin kills. Sin is always fatal. Mortal, as you call it.
Two things can be different in many respects but have the same outcome. For example, whether I run over a cat, or shoot it, it still ends up dead. Two different acts, one deadly consequence. What I see in this phony distinction between fatal versus non-fatal sins is the desperate effort to avoid the hard truth that our sin problem is much worse than we'd like it to be. How cool it would be if we could contain it to some short, well-defined list, which, if we avoid, we'll be OK. It's a form of bargaining with God.
But it isn't truthful. Jesus set the standard so high that people should realize they are a hopeless case without a miracle of redemption. As Paul says, the law is our teacher, to lead us to Christ, to our desperate need of Him. I like what CS Lewis said too. He was befuddled by those who thought the Sermon on the Mount was pleasant reading, because to him, it was like being hit in the head with a sledge hammer. He understood. Our sin isn't just a wart here and there we can cut off and be done with it. It runs like a cancer into our deepest parts, and we cannot keep it from killing us without the intervention of a divine miracle. The Sermon on the Mount, in fact the whole law of God, is a mirror in which we should see our terrifying condition and come to God begging for mercy and healing.
But instead, what do we do? We make lists. Much more manageable. Just stay off that really bad list and we''ll probably be OK, especially if we do X, Y, and Z, unlike those wretches over there. Little better than shamanism. And such a disappointment at the end of days.
The Gospel is about resurrection, because it must be. It is the only possible cure.
Peace,
SR
“Echoing YOUR sentiments?”
No, your error.
As opposed to when real Catholics called heretics, "heretics"?
"Nevertheless Martin himself—and it gives us grievous sorrow and perplexity to say this—the slave of a depraved mind, has scorned to revoke his errors within the prescribed interval and to send us word of such revocation, or to come to us himself; nay, like a stone of stumbling, he has feared not to write and preach worse things than before against us and this Holy See and the Catholic faith, and to lead others on to do the same."
"He has now been declared a heretic; and so also others, whatever their authority and rank, who have cared nought of their own salvation but publicly and in all men's eyes become followers of Martin's pernicious and heretical sect, and given him openly and publicly their help, counsel and favour, encouraging him in their midst in his disobedience and obstinacy, or hindering the publication of our said missive: such men have incurred the punishments set out in that missive, and are to be treated rightfully as heretics and avoided by all faithful Christians, as the Apostle says (Titus iii. 10-11)."
Decet Romanum Pontificem
Enjoy your Catholic cafeteria! Pick and choose as you please.
I knew you were gonna say this...
“As opposed to when real Catholics called heretics, “heretics”?”
Martin Luther was a Catholic who choose to be a heretic. Thus, he can be called such.
“Enjoy your Catholic cafeteria! Pick and choose as you please.”
What I pick is what the Church teaches. You, on the other hand, apparently choose to get things wrong again and again.
“I knew you were gonna say this...”
Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and again.
So the OLD Anglicans were the GOOD ones; right?
And just WHAT would constitute one of these??
“So the OLD Anglicans were the GOOD ones; right?”
In what post did I say that? Oh, that’s right - no where.
English: Our Pope is nutty.
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.