Seriously. Baloney Sandwich.
For a person who's much entertained by absurdity, this is priceless.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52088791/bologna_bite.0.jpeg)
Posted on 08/18/2018 10:09:46 AM PDT by Salvation
The Bible and the Church never praise lying, even when there are good intentions behind the act Msgr. Charles Pope
Is lying always wrong?
Question: We are told not to lie, but the Bible says Rahab the prostitute lied to protect the Jewish spies. The Bible later praises her as being justified for doing this. Does Scripture praise lying, which is a sin? — Tamarah E. Jones, La Plata, Maryland
Answer: No. We should be careful to recall that the Bible records many things that are not praiseworthy. There are murders, rapes, theft, polygamy, adultery and the like. The mere reporting of these behaviors is not approval of them. In many cases, such behavior becomes an object lesson to illustrate what happens when such bad behavior ensues. In other cases, the sinful behavior simply goes unremarked. But silence is not the same as approval.
It is true that Rahab lied. Here is the account of it: “So the king of Jericho sent Rahab the order, ‘Bring out the men who have come to you and entered your house, for they have come to spy out the entire land.’ The woman had taken the two men and hidden them, so she said, ‘True, the men you speak of came to me, but I did not know where they came from. At dark, when it was time to close the gate, they left, and I do not know where they went’” (Jos 2:3-5).
The incident is simply recorded. And while the two Hebrew spies benefit from her lie and even promise her reward for her protection, there is no explicit praise in the text for the lie itself.
Later in the Scriptures there is praise of Rahab, but there is no mention of her lie, only her act of receiving the spies and sending them out by a protected way. Here are those texts: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with the disobedient, for she had received the spies in peace” (Heb 11:31). “And in the same way was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?” (Jas 2:25).
Hence we should be careful not to say that the Scriptures affirm lying in this matter. There is a care in the sacred text to focus the praise on her overall benevolence, not the lie. St. Augustine affirms this stance: “That therefore which was rewarded in them was, not [her] deceit, but [her] benevolence; benignity of mind, not iniquity of lying” (“To Consentius, Against Lying,” 32).
I don't know if the Baltimore Catechism is a valid one or comparable to the "official" one at the vatican [to be clear...I'm not accusing you of posting false info here].
So much of Roman Catholic theology has changed over the years it's hard to keep up with the changes and what is still "valid" for the Roman Catholic.
I did find this from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston which seems to shed some different light on the topic than what you presented.
God, who created the sacraments for our salvation, is Himself not bound by them. Our sins are first forgiven, of course, through the sacrament of baptism. For post-baptismal sins, the Church has always taught that, for example in a danger of death situation without the possibility of recourse to the sacrament of confession, God could forgive our sins if we pray to him with perfect contrition.
The reality is, however, that we can never know if we’ve made a perfect act of contrition.
The Church teaches, therefore, that “individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession” (CCC 1484). The great gift of this sacrament is that, if we confess all our serious sins with sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment, we do not need to doubt whether our sins have been forgiven. God created this sacrament so that we might know that he has forgiven us through the ministry of priests.http://www.thelightisonforyou.org/confession/faq/
Additionally, when you consider all of the other things the Roman Catholic has to believe it's hard to really know. I know there are a whole bunch of Roman Catholics who don't recognize any popes since V2.....some certainly don't recognize the current one.
To me they're in violation of Unam Sanctam which I would think would be a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic. I cannot find where that has ever been repealed.
Then one has to consider if a Roman Catholic is really a follower of Christ. Those Roman Catholics who've pledged themselves wholly and completely to Mary or who've taken up wearing the false idol of the scapular or miraculous medal are not following Christ. They've gone after another Gospel.
You know I don't believe the NT teaches venial or mortal sins...ALL sin apart from Christ condemns us.
So to be honest, rich.....I don't know from a review of Roman Catholic sources if a Roman Catholic can really know if they've been forgiven.
***************
I will say though, if a person is a follower of Christ, their sins are forgiven and rubbed out (Col 2:13-14). But this means the person is only following Christ and worshiping and serving Him and Him only.
The Greek behind this, and other places, indicates when you place your faith in Christ you are cleansed from all sins....all of them, past, present and future.
It's what's called the security of the believer.
Chuckle.
“Christ emptied Himself and took on a human form
He remained God.
“1 Co 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Context.
"Are you hiding Jews in your attic?"
No (it's not "my" attic, I rent the place)
No (I don't have an "attic"...it's an upper storage room)
No (I didn't "hide" them...I let them sleep up there)
No (I don't KNOW that they are Jewish)
AKA...evading, quibbling, hedging
Nope. Lying is a self preservation instinct.
Wife: “Do I look fat in these jeans?”
Husband: “Nope. Not in those jeans....wait....crap...I mean....STOP HITTING ME!!!”
The Husband’s Self Preservation Instinct Lie: “Never! Not at all, dear.”
Exactly! "Bearing false witness against your neighbor." meant BEING a false witness against them about a crime. Having two or more witnesses brought against you was required to prosecute someone for a criminal act. It, of course, meant lying about them but the intent was to do them harm UNJUSTLY and that was the sin.
Mind-reading and personal abuse.
This reply should be deleted.
I think the context is missing here. Most likely, the Born Again preacher is contending that ALL sin is "mortal" in the sense that sin means "missing the mark" and the "wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and "mortal" means "subject to death". It is about our inability to BE sinless and holy on our own. Scripture tells us that even a LIE will prohibit a soul from entering heaven (Revelation 21:27)). Yes, there are levels of sin - some more evil than others - but we are ALL sinners deserving of death but saved by the grace of God.
Yes....I agree....what she posted was mind-reading and personal abuse. If you're following the thread you'll see she doubled down on her comments.
I used language, so I think it’s even.
That said, mortal sin requires full knowledge of the transgression’s transgressiveness, and I consider my comments to be a only failure of manners.
I consider the matter closed. I think all would be best served if we left it at that. n'est-ce pas?
As do I.
Seriously. Baloney Sandwich.
For a person who's much entertained by absurdity, this is priceless.
There are several versions of the Baltimore Catechism. I quoted from one that was readily available on the internet.
The quote I gave is consistent with what is written in paragraph 1452 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.51
Footnotes 50 and 51 are references to the Council of Trent, as follows:
50 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1676.
51 Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1677.
The references are to the Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent (1551), “On the Most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction,” ch. 4, “On Contrition”:
“The council teaches furthermore, that though it happens sometimes that this contrition is perfect through charity and reconciles man to God before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to the contrition itself without a desire of the sacrament, which desire is included in it.”
I realize that you disagree with the necessity of confession to a priest. But given that the Church has been consistent in saying that perfect contrition reconciles man to God before going to the priest, would you please stop writing that Catholics who commit “mortal” sin will keep their priest right by their side to “receive their forgiveness”?
But doesn’t that exception apply in cases where death is in view and the RC can’t get to a priest or vice versa?
while in the next breath saying that there is no such thing as mortal and venial sins!
I’m late to this thread, so apologies for repeating what has already been discussed.
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.