Mortal Sins?

[Mikhail]

What makes a sin mortal? Are sins different in the eyes of God? If so, where did Christ say this?

[Apotheoun]

The distinction between mortal and venial sin is founded upon the teaching of the Apostle John in sacred scripture: "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." [1 John 5:16-17]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 17 2005, 07:26 PM']What makes a sin mortal?
[right][snapback]614956[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The mortal character of a sin is based upon its object; in other words, if the object of the action is grave matter (e.g., murder, adultery, idolatry, etc.), and if the person performs the action with full knowledge of its sinful character, and with complete consent, he sins mortally.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 17 2005, 07:26 PM']Are sins different in the eyes of God?
[right][snapback]614956[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Certainly the moral or immoral quality of actions differ. The theft of a penny is not the equivalent of the mass murder of millions of people.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 17 2005, 07:26 PM']If so, where did Christ say this?
[right][snapback]614956[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Christ made this distinction through the inspired writing of the Apostle John.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 17 2005, 09:26 PM']What makes a sin mortal? Are sins different in the eyes of God? If so, where did Christ say this?
[right][snapback]614956[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote]Mortal 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.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. (CCC 1855)[/quote]

[quote]Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then 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. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial. (CCC 1856)[/quote]

[quote]Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. (CCC 1861)[/quote]

Appy quotes the proper scripture.

[Mikhail]

You trying to get your post count up? Why the multiple posts?

I believe when John said mortal sin, he was refering to Jesus's words in Mark 3:28-29 "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation."

At any rate, that one verse is a weak foundation for calling one sin worse than another. In fact, it seems that Jesus taught quite the opposite, equating lust with adultery and hate with murder. I disagree 100%. Stealing a penny is just as bad as mass genocide in God's eyes. Sin is sin.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 18 2005, 01:49 AM']You trying to get your post count up? Why the multiple posts?

I believe when John said mortal sin, he was refering to Jesus's words in Mark 3:28-29 "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation."

At any rate, that one verse is a weak foundation for calling one sin worse than another. In fact, it seems that Jesus taught quite the opposite, equating lust with adultery and hate with murder. I disagree 100%. Stealing a penny is just as bad as mass genocide in God's eyes. Sin is sin.
[right][snapback]615119[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Also, in support of my catechetical position, we can add these scriptures:

[quote]That the children of Israel may not approach any more to the tabernacle, nor commit deadly sin (Numbers 18:22)[/quote]

This would assume that there are some sins which are worse than others, otherwise there would be no need to say deadly sin, but simply sin.

Also, this is which is most telling....as to the seriousness of one sin over another:

[quote]If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.  All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. (1 Jn 5:16-17)[/quote]

There is deadly sin, mortal sin.....and there is sin that is not deadly, venial.

[Mikhail]

Yes, in the old testament some sins were worse than others, and as people were stoned for certain sins and they couldn't be forgiven. Each sin had a different punishment. However, you didn't address my point about Christ equating all sins and you merely requoted the verse from John.

It appears no one around here knows how to debate logically. If we are going to debate something, we bring up points supporting our position from sources that both parties consider valid. In this particular debate, it would be scripture. You can't use anything the Catholic church says as proof when debating with me. For example, if you were trying to prove that God exists to an atheist, you couldn't use anything God said as proof that he exists, as it would not only be circular reasoning but would mean nothing to the athiest. In the same way, you can't use the Catholic church as proof since it means nothing to me, therego it becomes circular reasoning to use the Catholic church to prove something that the Catholic church believes.

[Dudette]

Michael, you should learn how to respect how other's debate, instead of trying to have it your own way.

(everybody else, don't mind this.)

[Aloysius]

well, with the first post you didn't make it clear whether or not you were Catholic or what. there was a clarification of the Catholic position in order regardless. that's what we're going to defend scripturally, and we have with St. John's letter.

now you made the erroneous claim that Jesus dealt with all sin equally but have shown no proof. I ask you how did you come to the conclusion that Jesus dealt with all sin EQUALLY?

[Dudette]

he's not Catholic.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 18 2005, 02:33 PM']Yes, in the old testament some sins were worse than others, and as people were stoned for certain sins and they couldn't be forgiven. Each sin had a different punishment. However, you didn't address my point about Christ equating all sins and you merely requoted the verse from John.

It appears no one around here knows how to debate logically. If we are going to debate something, we bring up points supporting our position from sources that both parties consider valid. In this particular debate, it would be scripture. You can't use anything the Catholic church says as proof when debating with me. For example, if you were trying to prove that God exists to an atheist, you couldn't use anything God said as proof that he exists, as it would not only be circular reasoning but would mean nothing to the athiest. In the same way, you can't use the Catholic church as proof since it means nothing to me, therego it becomes circular reasoning to use the Catholic church to prove something that the Catholic church believes.
[right][snapback]615495[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You then concede that there are worse sins than others.....therefore where is the disconnect. All we are talking about now is terminology.....but we both fundamentally believe that there are sins that are worse than others.....call them what you like....I call the worst sins mortal and the lesser sins venial.

What say you about 1 John? We still have not received an answer about that.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 18 2005, 12:33 PM']Yes, in the old testament some sins were worse than others, and as people were stoned for certain sins and they couldn't be forgiven. Each sin had a different punishment. However, you didn't address my point about Christ equating all sins and you merely requoted the verse from John.

It appears no one around here knows how to debate logically. If we are going to debate something, we bring up points supporting our position from sources that both parties consider valid. In this particular debate, it would be scripture. You can't use anything the Catholic church says as proof when debating with me. For example, if you were trying to prove that God exists to an atheist, you couldn't use anything God said as proof that he exists, as it would not only be circular reasoning but would mean nothing to the athiest. In the same way, you can't use the Catholic church as proof since it means nothing to me, therego it becomes circular reasoning to use the Catholic church to prove something that the Catholic church believes.
[right][snapback]615495[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The reason that Cam42 brought up the verse from 1 John again, is because you haven't addressed that quotation; instead, you have simply given a quotation from Jesus, while making a vague reference to what Jesus said in relation to the root causes of sins (lust / adultery and hate / murder), and then expressed your opinion on the nature of Christ's teaching without any evidence to support your position. Your opinion is not a logical argument; instead, it is simply your opinion and no one has to share your private judgment on the meaning of a given text.

The quotation from Jesus that you gave, about the "blasphemy" or "sin" against the Holy Spirit from the Gospel of Mark is held by Catholics to refer to the sin of impenitence, i.e., the rejection of forgiveness, which if it lasts to the end of a man's life will lead to his damnation. Thus, you haven't logically shown that there is any connection at all between Christ's statement in Mark's Gospel and the text from 1 John; instead, you have, as a matter of private opinion, asserted a connection.

Moreover, you have asserted that Jesus equates all sins as identical, but once again you have not proven this to be the case; instead, you have simply asserted something as a matter of fact, which is in reality only your opinion, and of course no one is obliged to share your opinion on the matter in question. That Jesus spoke of a connection between disordered desires and sinful actions is clear, because obviously lust, if acted upon, leads to fornication and adultery, and hate, if acted upon, leads to murder and other sins against one's brother, but that is not the same thing as saying that adultery and murder are identical sins; instead, Christ has pointed to the root cause of each sin, and has said that a man who experiences the various root causes of sin has already, at least in his heart, committed the sin connected with the disordered desire that is its source. In other words, Jesus is showing that the underlying cause of a sin must itself be rooted out if a man is to avoid committing the sin connected with that cause. Consequently, a man must avoid sin by addressing the causes of sin within his own heart, and this is clearly the teaching of Jesus, and not what you have asserted.

Fundamentally a Catholic and a Protestant approach Scripture differently, and that is why the likelihood that we will agree on the meaning of particular texts of Sacred Scripture is very low. A Catholic holds that Scripture must be read in the light of Tradition and under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium, while a Protestant holds that his private opinion determines the meaning of Scripture. A Catholic is bound to accept a judgment that is outside of his own subjective interpretation, while a Protestant assigns meaning to the texts of Scripture simply based on his own private judgment.

If you really want to have a logical discussion of these matters, it will be necessary to examine the underlying presuppositions of each side in the debate. So far you have not shown a desire for a logical dialogue, and have instead simply asserted your private opinion about the interpretation of various texts of Sacred Scripture, and have assigned to your private views an absolute and objective character that is in fact not present within them.

One last point, your view on the nature of a logical discussion, which involves a Catholic discounting everything ever said by the Catholic Church, assumes that the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is true. Clearly a Catholic cannot agree to the presuppositions that form the basis of that position. Scripture cannot be separated from Tradition or the Church, for these three things form a single complexus, a single living whole, and so to separate Scripture from its proper context within the life of the Church is to divest Scripture of any objective content by making its interpretation a matter of private judgment. This is why we must first deal with the presuppositions underlying the Protestant and Catholic views of the nature of Scripture (e.g., its authority, inspiration, canonical status, etc.). Unless that is done, there can be no real dialogue between a Catholic and a Protestant. Moreover, I feel it is important to remind you that you have decided, by an act of your own free will, to come to a Catholic forum in order to debate Catholics about the meaning of Sacred Scripture. As a consequence, the burden is on you to show that the Catholic position is incorrect. As a Catholic I should not have to divest myself of that which makes me Catholic in order to accommodate you in the discussion.

[Mikhail]

Miriam, I am not trying to have things my own way. I am a student of debate and there is a proper form a debating. Each side brings up points from sources that are accepted by both sides. Each side has to have a common ground by which to debate from. You bring out your point in the form of premises and then end with a conclusion. This is how logical debates have been carried out for centuries. It's not [i]my[/i] way. Besides, what do you care? You already told me what you think of me. I'm already the lowest of the low. Nothing I say will raise me in your eyes, so what do you expect out of a person like me?

(everyone else can ignore this)

I am not a Protestant. I noticed in another debate that someone made fun of the fact that Protestants are still called Protestants. I believe they said, "what are they still protesting?" However, it is Catholics that insist on calling all non-Catholic Christians Protestants. Since people with my beliefs were persecuted by Protestant churches, to call me Protestant is quite insulting. If you must have another name for me rather than Christian, call me a Pentacostal.

As for your posts, it's a matter of interpretation. The Catholic church defends it's right to interpret scripture by interpreting certain scriptures certain ways. As I said before, this is circular reasoning and is fallacious. You have to establish a common ground. As I have questioned before, isn't this for inter-faith dialouge? Yet in every post people express shock that I am not Catholic and say that my remarks don't matter as such. I have a great many Catholic friends and have great respect for their faith. I have been "burned" by many Protestant and Pentacostal churches and am a honest seeker. But so far nothing on this site has presuaded me that the Catholic church is any better (Although my individual Catholic friends have). Instead, I'm told that since I'm not Catholic, nothing I say is valid.

I prefer not to debate with such (I got attacked for using this word before, but it's not a personal attack, it's a discriptive phrase that describes some of the members I have encountered here) bigots. Look up the defininition if you want to know what I mean by that. I also find the format of this forum confusing and hard to follow. The threads you are active in are hard to find, etc. Someone mentioned that some people would be willing to go to another board and debate with me. Towards that end, I am building a forum solely for friendly debate. If anyone is interested in helping run it and in joining, they are free too. I'll post it as soon as I get it up and running.