Posted on 07/19/2018 7:39:46 AM PDT by Salvation
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches,
[M]ortal 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. In mortal sin the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end. As such, the sin is mortal by its very object whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1855-1856).
Many people today scoff at the idea that mortal sin is a turning away from God. They doubt that people directly intend to turn away from God, as if the fornicator or the murder or the thief would say, “I hate God and so I am going to turn away from Him by sinning.”
That is not what catechism says, however. Rather, it says that our preference for an inferior good to God by a grave violation of His law is what turns us away from Him.
It says that in mortal sin we set our will upon something we know to be incompatible with our ultimate end. Although our first thought may not be that we are rejecting God, we set our will on something incompatible with God. In so doing, we are preferring something or someone to God.
This poisons our heart if we do not repent because we feed a desire in our heart for what is not God and we starve our heart from Him and what He offers. Soon enough we prefer the darkness to the light. We prefer the trinkets of this world to God and come to regard Him as a thief who comes to take what we want and keeps us from doing what we want to do. God becomes our enemy.
If we die in this state, the warmth of God and Heaven seem overwhelming, wrathful, and like a consuming fire. We cannot endure and so we turn away finally and permanently to a place that we strangely prefer, but which is hellacious because it is not that for which we were made. It lacks the one thing necessary: God.
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light and does not come into the Light (John 3:19-20).
In mortal sin it is not that we directly turn from God — at least not at first — but that we turn to the lesser things of the darkness and come to hate Him who is the Light.
And no, my screenname is not a mortal sin. Maybe your God’s name is “Badass;” mine is not.
I used definitions from a Roman Catholic source. The examples are mine but are real life situations that align with the definitions. I try to bring clarity to the definitions to help the reader really understand what is being said.
If I understand you, you are saying you don't do any of those things....ever?
Some would say your FR handle is cursing...though I imagine you would disagree.
Actually, the more I think about your handle name it is really one of pride which would also be a mortal sin.
Something to think about.
BTW, why the need to post to metmom
She has an interest in these conversations.
Why? Because your definitions of the sins described in the Catechism are not even remotely similar. If you can’t recognize that, I can’t help you. I would say you are being deliberately hyperbolic, but that would be uncharitable. I have a good grasp of what the CCC defines as sin, and how it applies to my own life. There’s something quite off-putting about how you post as if you have some kind of greater insight to it than the average Catholic. Pretty arrogant, really.
Hit home with that one didn't I?
Most Roman Catholics don't like to be called out on their "mortal sins".
I’m conversing with you, not her.
How precious.
They are real life examples. I can understand why you as a Roman Catholic don't like them.
If you can’t recognize that, I can’t help you. I would say you are being deliberately hyperbolic, but that would be uncharitable. I have a good grasp of what the CCC defines as sin, and how it applies to my own life. There’s something quite off-putting about how you post as if you have some kind of greater insight to it than the average Catholic. Pretty arrogant, really.
All I do is offer real life examples of the "mortal sins" to show how encompassing the definitions really are.
You want to keep them at arm's length to make yourself feel good....go right ahead. That's your call.
It's an open forum...I can ping whomever I wish to the conversation as can you.
How so?
Is there an official Vatican approved interpretation of the CCC for comparison purposes?
Excuse me if I do not accept your definition of mortal sin. Let me ask you, can someone commit these sins with impunity and still be saved?
No, the "whole" point of Sola Fide is NOT to deny that holy living is a product of genuine faith it is that faith alone justifies us because we are not saved by our holy living/good works, but by the grace of God THROUGH faith. When you add our good works to the equation of what saves our soul, you cease trusting in the grace of God and the finished sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and make salvation rest upon what WE do for God instead of what God has done for us. The cross then becomes inadequate to save without our contribution.
Let me put it this way...can I look at a professed Christian's lifestyle and know that he/she is genuinely saved? I would say, no, because I can only see the outward appearance whereas God alone sees the heart (I Samuel 16:7). People can and do fool us, but God is never fooled.
Then your belief is not far from that of Catholics. Catholics do not believe that we must be perfect in keeping from sin. We know that this is impossible. When we do sin, however, we are called to repent: to have sorrow/contrition for our sins, to have a firm purpose of amendment, i.e. to strive to sin no more, and ask God for forgiveness. Where we would differ is that, in the case of mortal sins, Catholics are called to seek forgiveness through the sacrament of Confession, whereas I would think that you would have the person do this directly to God. This changes the mode in which a person expresses their sorrow to God but it does not change the relationship between faith and works. Catholics do not believe that we earn salvation through the merits of our own works.
The one question remains, what of the following case: a person expresses their faith in Jesus Christ and strives to live a good life, perhaps even an exemplary life. However, near the end of his life he falls for the temptation of adultery and remains adamant in it. Unfortunately, such cases do exist. I would take it that you would say that for all of his life he was not saved. I would hold that he had been but lost it through his falling back into sin.
He's not talking about believers.
Not so. This is shown by verse 13:
For you were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love.We are not still sinners hoping to hang on by the skin of our teeth until the end to maybe find out if we were good enough and made it or not.
Nor is this Catholic teaching. Through faith, even the greatest sin can be forgiven just by asking. This is the whole point of Confession.
metmom: One minor correction. It is not likely that he is saved.
Clarification, please.
But at no point does the sin ever cost us our salvation in spite of the damage in the lines of communication with our heavenly Father.
How does this reconcile with your opening statement that the person who only sins occasionally and then has sorrow for this and repents, seeking to live according to the will of God is likely not saved? Which is it?
Combined with grave matter, this is the definition of a mortal sin: sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. If ones dies without repenting of such sin then he will not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Leaving aside the question of sacramental Confession, how does what you present as Lutheran teaching differ from Catholic?
I would also say that I appreciate that you have returned to the question. I must appreciate that it is often difficult to present the Catholic position against what are multiple Protestant ones. You should also appreciate that there are some Protestants, at least from my point of view, who seem to take an absolute view that no sin would loose them their salvation.
A few thoughts; they’re likely not strictly connected to each other.
Perhaps the two of us as people have similar theology in regards to unrepentant sin, but I’ve never seen ‘mortal sin’ defined as willfully unrepentant sin before today.
Last I checked, Rome still demands ‘merits’ for salvation, or at least that’s what the Catechism said when I read it.
Whereas Scripture says, “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not the result of works, so that no man may boast.”
And yes, I have seen some Christians embrace a once-saved-always-saved theology. I don’t think they’re exactly correct because Scripture does mention those who had faith and then turned away from it.
However, I tend not to pay that much attention, mostly because works-righteousness is a greater danger to salvation than a discussion about whether those who have fallen away have lost their faith or whether they never had faith in the first place.
I know that Protestants have a few different beliefs on a few different sticking points. And trust me, that bugs me when I talk with my fellows about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
But to be fair, Catholics have differences between each other too; they’re simply not out on the surface as much. I suspect, at least on this board, it’s because we LOVE debating people with Scripture because it’s that important to us.
You may note that all of the list of "mortal sins" in my post are from a Roman Catholic website. The examples are mine.
I posted the examples as real life illustrations of what those sins could encompass.
Roman Catholics have excused divorce through the non-Biblical concept of an annulment. One could make the argument that in itself is a "mortal sin" as Rome has copied the Pharisees in how they attempted to keep the Law while skirting it.
I don't think many Roman Catholics have thought through exactly how encompassing these "mortal sins" are. The Pharisees were teaching the people about adultery that as long as you weren't doing the physical part you were ok. Jesus explained the true meaning of the prohibition to include looking upon a woman to lust after her and He called that adultery. The thought of adultery was equated to be the same as the act of adultery. Now, the earthly consequences are different between the two!
That's the part of the idea of sin I don't think most Roman Catholics grasp. It seems they think if they aren't actually doing the sin, then they're "ok". The NT teaches otherwise.
Let me ask you, can someone commit these sins with impunity and still be saved?
By Paul's own admission he struggled with something. What...we don't know.
We could also appeal to Abraham and David as examples of men who sinned with impunity and are considered to be saved.
Both committed adultery. Abraham did this after God had credited righteousness to him.
David plotted murder and committed adultery.
Paul and James both appeal to Abraham in their writings.
Sarah participated in adultery in that she encouraged Abraham to have sex with Hagar.
Moses murdered an Egyptian.
Rahab was a prostitute.
All are noted in the Hebrews Hall of Faith as some call Hebrews 11.
I don't offer these examples in an attempt to excuse any behavior. Only to show that these people are all considered to be forgiven...and saved.
James tells us if we break one part of the Law....just one...it's as if we've broken the entire Law.
This is why I continue to say you have to look at a verse in context to get its meaning. If 1 John is discussing mortal sins, then he is contradicting James and Paul and I think we both agree the Scriptures don't contradict themselves.
I will commend petrosius for posting on the thread. Your posts have been an example of good, honest and open debate.
We do not see that too often from your fellow Roman Catholics.
If I understand you correctly (please correct me if I a wrong), if someone continues in sin without remorse or desire of reform, then he was not *LIKELY* saved in the first place.
IOW, he probably wasn't saved in the first place.
How does this reconcile with your opening statement that the person who only sins occasionally and then has sorrow for this and repents, seeking to live according to the will of God is likely not saved?
I never said that.
You were talking about unrepentant, blatant sin without remorse. Big difference.
That is so well written I'm saving it for later! Brillaint, m'Lady, just BRILLIANT.
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.