Author Topic: Mortal Sin (Read 1357 times)

Conspiracy_Factist · « **on:** May 09, 2014, 09:00:21 PM »

I had an interesting discussion with a novus order priest today , when talking about who goes to hell , whenever I would bring an example, atheists, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs he would respond it depends on whether the sinner has knowledge that the sin violates God's law
If we look at the Baltimore Catechism we read

What does "sufficient reflection and full consent of the will" mean?

A. "Sufficient reflection" means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and "full consent of the will" means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

also

Why is it wrong to judge others guilty of sin?

A. It is wrong to judge others guilty of sin because we cannot know for certain that their sinful act was committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

I don't believe that any atheist or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ can go to heaven but according to the priest's interpretation of the catechism I can not state for 100% certainty that they will go to hell? I mean how could a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ commit the act without knowing it is sinful? But for those you don't think it's sinful , does this mean they get a get out of jail free card because they're not too bright? Am I missing something here?

62myer · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2014, 02:18:50 AM »

Romans Chapter 1.

The natural law.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2014, 02:24:27 AM »

Sins against the natural law, which sodomy and atheism are (to the most significant degree) cannot claim the ignorance of the one committing them. The natural law is written on all men's hearts.

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:32:46 AM »

If I think back to my childhood and remember the first exposures to mortal sin, I do remember being horrified even though I had almost no catechesis. I dare say every child is similarly effected when they're first exposed to mortal sin, even if the sinners are their own loved ones. The moment they commit the same sin, although they might have forgotten that they once were horrified by it, nonetheless, they are responsible.

soulguard · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:55:08 AM »

if ignorance is a defence then some people dont need to repent

So there are fαɢɢօts in heaven?
So sins that cry to heaven for vengance and bring down the wraith of God on mankind are just ignored by him and he says sure go to heaven because you never read the catechism or heard the church.

In that case we would be damning people like these by telling them it is wrong, and if that priest was right then we shuold let them sodomise each other so they dont read a bible and go to hell.

This is BS reasoning, and typical of a novus ordo, making excuses for everything.

BUT THERE ARE NO EXCUSES BEFORE GOD

MyrnaM · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:07:02 AM »

God is Just!

62myer · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2014, 01:39:55 PM »

that priest needs prayer and repentance.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2014, 09:04:15 PM »

Quote from: 62myer

that priest needs prayer and repentance.

yes but I'd rather give him some catholic teaching that clearly points to his error

Matto · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2014, 09:09:33 PM »

I think Mithrandylan is right. Man is not born a blank slate. The natural law is written in all men's hearts so when they commit most sins they know they are doing wrong and they will be punished for it.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2014, 09:29:26 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I think Mithrandylan is right. Man is not born a blank slate. The natural law is written in all men's hearts so when they commit most sins they know they are doing wrong and they will be punished for it.

But this was written in the catechism

A. "Sufficient reflection" means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and "full consent of the will" means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

So I guess there are occasions when the person is not guilty because of ignorance but I don't see how ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and atheism can be included with that...but I need something more to really bring the point home to him

Mabel · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2014, 09:40:34 PM »

There are a lot of moral theology manuals available online and I think most of them cover the natural law, you should read up on it to prepare yourself to deal with this person.

crossbro · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2014, 11:01:16 PM »

A) you can only be saved if you are baptized and believe.

B) That takes atheists out of the picture.

That novus ordo priest is wrong- we can call it a sin if it is a sin in the Bible, not just in someone's mind.

That is why St Paul can tells us not to associate with the sɛҳuąƖly immoral.- we can in fact judge their lifestyle and sin.

That is why when it says judge not it goes on to tell us how to admonish the sinner leading up to kicking them out of the community.- Jesus said it.

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2014, 05:05:23 AM »

I don't know how wise it is to preach to a priest because he's already had plenty of opportunity to study these things. He knows it's controversial and he's already adopted his position. He's very unlikely to change. But it's up to you. It's not impossible that he could change his mind, and if he did, you'd both be rewarded most abundantly, but there'd be a huge price for him to pay (and maybe for you too).

I suppose you could tell him about James Cardinal Gibbons and his views on ecuмenism. He was responsible for the Baltimore Catechism, which is considered by many trads to be problematic on the issue of what's necessary for salvation.

poche · « **Reply #13 on:** May 11, 2014, 11:51:06 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Why is it wrong to judge others guilty of sin?

A. It is wrong to judge others guilty of sin because we cannot know for certain that their sinful act was committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

I don't believe that any atheist or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ can go to heaven but according to the priest's interpretation of the catechism I can not state for 100% certainty that they will go to hell? I mean how could a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ commit the act without knowing it is sinful? But for those you don't think it's sinful , does this mean they get a get out of jail free card because they're not too bright? Am I missing something here?

Objectivly you can determine the objective guilt or innocence of anyone based on what they have openly done.
Subjectively there is no way to know the guilt or innocence of anyone because you do not know what they were thinking, what they knew what they didn't know, or the vincibility or invincibility of their understanding of the moral law.
There is anecdotal evidence that people who were excommunicated and thought of as in Hell were in all actuality saved by their final repentence. There are those who by their past actions we can conjecture as being in Hell but we could be wrong. The only time that the Catholic Church declares as to the final destination of someone is when a saint is canonized.

poche · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2014, 11:53:55 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Why is it wrong to judge others guilty of sin?

A. It is wrong to judge others guilty of sin because we cannot know for certain that their sinful act was committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

The Fathers of the desert used to say; "The same God who said 'Thou shalt not fornicate." also said, 'Thou shalt not judge.'"