doctrine on mortal sin

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 09:18 AM']hmm, unless one was to guess that there are additional consequences of sin other than the loss of sanctifying grace.

While that loss is a major one and of the highest necessity to regain, there would be other consequencesas well. (not necessarily through God end of things. I mean like the soul's attachment to the sin grew, or its objections lessened. Thus a consequence of sin because it is harder to not commit the sin.)However, is it not  reasonable to assume that there are other punishments from God?
[right][snapback]627335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's why I said you can compound your reprobate status.

Certainly there can be different degrees of punishment in hell, just as there are different degrees of glory in heaven. So yes, it is reasonable to assume that one who becomes habituated to sin, and who commits more and more sins, will suffer more in hell.

[jezic]

um i don't know that any soul could suffer more than just being in hell.

It might be that i can't even comprehend what hell could be like, because life without God is meaningless, but your statement makes no sense at all.

I don't think they need degrees of hell. The place itself is bad enough.

if there are degrees of sin, are there degrees of grace?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 09:26 AM']um i don't know that any soul could suffer more than just being in hell.

It might be that i can't even comprehend what hell could be like, because life without God is meaningless, but your statement makes no sense at all.

I don't think they need degrees of hell. The place itself is bad enough.
[right][snapback]627347[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would say that there are different degrees of suffering in hell, and the idea conforms to things that the Church has taught in the past. For example the teaching that unbaptized babies go to hell. Now, this teaching never meant that unbaptized babies went to the hell of the damned, to the hell of suffering; instead, their existence in hell involved no suffering of punishment, but simply a suffering of loss, i.e., loss of the beatific vision. So, I would say that the Church has indicated that there will be different degrees of suffering in hell, just as there are different degrees of glory in heaven.

[jezic]

that makes some sense. I guess i think hell would be bad enough and getting worse than just basic life without God registers as a not possible.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 09:26 AM'][. . .]
if there are degrees of sin, are there degrees of grace?
[right][snapback]627347[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, in a sense there are degrees of grace. Grace is objectively present in the sacraments of the Church, but you will only receive what you are prepared to receive. In other words, you can, if you are not properly disposed for the reception of grace, obstruct the action of grace in your soul.

[Didacus]

My mother always told me that it was written in the bible that no one can be dammed alone.

I struggled with this a little, and could never find the passage refering in the least to this statement.

Is there any founding to this? Is there any citation from the bible where this can be seen?

Edited June 29, 2005 by Didacus

[jezic]

what do you mean damned alone?

for children, it would seem to be a lot harder to commit mortal sin, especially the youngest ones because they are not at the stage of full conscious thought nor do they understand God's law to the extent that an adult does.

[Didacus]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 12:36 PM']what do you mean damned alone?

[snip][right][snapback]627478[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My mother means that no one can take part in mortal sin unless someone takes part in the sin with them, or bring thems to this sin (and thus plays their part in it).

Her ogic goes something like this:

Since a child is essentially pure and good, someone has to teach the child to be hateful and sinful. And if this is taught to the point that the child commits mortal sin, he or she that has taught the child to sin thus shares in the mortal state of that sin.

Her logic stems from her belief that a child (aside from original sin) is innocent untilthe child is taught to be evil.


I don't know how much water this 'theory' holds... i'm asking the question remember... I don't claim to have the anwser.

[jezic]

i am not sure. You might have to ask cam about that.

[Didacus]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 01:11 PM']i am not sure. You might have to ask cam about that.
[right][snapback]627546[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[b]WHAT DO YOU THINK I'M DOING?!?!!?!?!?[/b]

[i]Asking you? Don't be silly now...[/i]






















Sorry, you just set yourself up too well for that one....










Terribly sorry... I feel bad...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 29 2005, 12:48 PM']My mother means that no one can take part in mortal sin unless someone takes part in the sin with them, or bring thems to this sin (and thus plays their part in it).

Her ogic goes something like this:

Since a child is essentially pure and good, someone has to teach the child to be hateful and sinful.  And if this is taught to the point that the child commits mortal sin, he or she that has taught the child to sin thus shares in the mortal state of that sin.

Her logic stems from her belief that a child (aside from original sin) is innocent untilthe child is taught to be evil.
I don't know how much water this 'theory' holds...  i'm asking the question remember... I don't claim to have the anwser.
[right][snapback]627511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I disagree. People (with fallen human nature) are more than capable of mortally sinning on their own. I think many people put way to much stock in the supposed goodness and innocence of children. It's more a comforting and sentimental myth than reality.

This is not to deny guilt to those that influence others to evil, but it's simply wrong to say no one can commit mortal sin unless someone else "made" them do it. (Who led Satan to sin?) Anyone with free will can choose evil, and one of the effects of original sin is an inclination to evil.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 29 2005, 01:41 PM']I disagree.  People (with fallen human nature) are more than capable of mortally sinning on their own.  I think many people put way to much stock in the supposed goodness and innocence of children.  It's  more a comforting and sentimental myth than reality.

This is not to deny guilt to those that influence others to evil, but it's simply wrong to say no one can commit mortal sin unless someone else "made" them do it.  (Who led Satan to sin?)  Anyone with free will can choose evil, and one of the effects of original sin is an inclination to evil.
[right][snapback]627585[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The idea is not to transfer the blame, but to share it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 29 2005, 01:48 PM']My mother means that no one can take part in mortal sin unless someone takes part in the sin with them, or bring thems to this sin (and thus plays their part in it).

Her ogic goes something like this:

Since a child is essentially pure and good, someone has to teach the child to be hateful and sinful.  And if this is taught to the point that the child commits mortal sin, he or she that has taught the child to sin thus shares in the mortal state of that sin.

Her logic stems from her belief that a child (aside from original sin) is innocent untilthe child is taught to be evil.
I don't know how much water this 'theory' holds...  i'm asking the question remember... I don't claim to have the anwser.
[right][snapback]627511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

First off, sin is a very personal act. It is something that others can participate in, but it is important to understand how.

[quote name='CCC #1868']Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #1869']Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."[/quote]

However, the thing that we must remember is that the sin ultimately is a personal one. Why? Because that sin lies in man's heart. That is what makes it personal. That is what is judged. However, as we cooperate, social sins become more and more prevalent.

A good example is abortion. It is a personal sin of two persons.
1. The expectant mother.
2. The Doctor.

However, this cooperation leads to a social sin that is pervasive.....the abortion industry.

But the personal sins remain upon the doctor and the expectant mother. It is the personal sins which allow for society to "slip" as it were.

Can I be culpable as a proponent of abortion (if that were the case)? No, not in the action itself. Because sin is a personal act, but I can be culpable for the social sin.

So, does your mother's analogy work? Almost. People sin, based upon their free will. If they are coierced into the sin, then they may not be culpable. The conditions for being a cooperator are listed above. People are sinful in and of themselves. They are not taught sin, it is inside all of us:
[quote name='CCC #1850'] Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.[/quote]

If man were good, then there would be no need for Christ, His PDR and the Church.

St. Paul says:
[quote name='Romans 11:32'][i]conclusit enim Deus omnia in incredulitatem ut omnium misereatur.[/i][/quote]
or
[quote name='Romans 11:32']For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.[/quote]

[scardella]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 29 2005, 12:33 PM']My mother always told me that it was written in the bible that no one can be dammed alone.

I struggled with this a little, and could never find the passage refering in the least to this statement.

Is there any founding to this?  Is there any citation from the bible where this can be seen?
[right][snapback]627468[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If a child were in a theoretical vacuum growing up, then he could still sin mortally by violating natural moral law, eg. murder. Is this correct? Then again, if he grew up in a theoretical vacuum, one would say that he never had Sanctifying Grace in the first place.

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 1 2005, 12:33 PM']If a child were in a theoretical vacuum growing up, then he could still sin mortally by violating natural moral law, eg. murder.  Is this correct?  Then again, if he grew up in a theoretical vacuum, one would say that he never had Sanctifying Grace in the first place.
[right][snapback]629335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

On the first part, you are correct. On the second, wrong.....he could have sanctifying grace......

[quote name='CCC #2000']Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love.....[/quote]

It is a gift given by God freely. So it is possible, because of God's unending love that He would give said grace to that child. Sanctifying grace is God's to give and man's to cultivate, once given.