Canon Law: Catholics please

[onfire4him77]

From certain sources i have heard that in the Canon law that 'Priest are allowed to lie in the intrest of teh church' now is this true?
If so, how can this be allow to happen?
A Direct opposition to one of the 10 commandments?

 

[JCrawf]

Well, if you want to be sure your sources have any validity, you can search through the Code of Canon Law for yourself.

Making a quick skim of the headings, I could not find anything that resembles what you are referring to. But, maybe you might be able to confirm or refute your sources' validity with a closer examination.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[a_ntv]

There exist a moral principle that say: "in front at two evils, you have to choose the less evil"

For exemple, on sunday you shall go to church, but what happens if there is your mother at home ill?
There are two chances:
- you dont go church, that is evil
- you go to church but dont take care of your ill mother, that is evil
The principle says that you shall choose the less evil

In fact many books were written about this principle, to take care of many facts:
- how can I weight the evils
- what happen if the big evil is not sure, while the little evil is sure?

Canon Law say NOthing about lies of priests, but you can be sure that anyone (not only priests) in front of two evils:
- to lie, that is evil
- to impair the Church, that is evil
will choose the less evil, according to principle of moral, to be choosen case by case

 

[onfire4him77]

There exist a moral principle that say: "in front at two evils, you have to choose the less evil"

For exemple, on sunday you shall go to church, but what happens if there is your mother at home ill?
There are two chances:
- you dont go church, that is evil
- you go to church but dont take care of your ill mother, that is evil
The principle says that you shall choose the less evil

In fact many books were written about this principle, to take care of many facts:
- how can I weight the evils
- what happen if the big evil is not sure, while the little evil is sure?

Canon Law say NOthing about lies of priests, but you can be sure that anyone (not only priests) in front of two evils:
- to lie, that is evil
- to impair the Church, that is evil
will choose the less evil, according to principle of moral, to be choosen case by case

Ok That explanation is more to what I am getting at.
I actually attend a catholic highschool and are familiar with this morality system.

Now, let me present this:
As Christians we are called to acknowledge our faults and with the help of others and Lord, restoration can begin:
9 Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: 10 If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up! 11 Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? 12 Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
Ecc. 4:9 - 12

Two working together can produce spiritual fruit (vs. 9), spiritual restoration (vs. 10)

Another Issue:
Where in the bible does it distinct evils? Yes I know there are verses that say people will be judged harsher for this and that....but Sin is sin
Whether you lie or murder...it is still a sin
Whether you call it mortal or venial, lesser or greater, it is still a sin and all sin is ugly in the Eyes of God no matter what it is, so who are we to put labels on it?
Thats like sending a messege, "Its not that bad to lie to your parents Johnny, its only a venial sin, you won't be punished as bad" WRONG
Although you may not outright say it, by putting proportions on evil acts that is whats happening...and that is what kids are thinking.
Although I am not catholic, I have gone to catholic school all my life, and thats was my impression when I was younger, and im sure is many others.
I know this isn't going to change the popes mind, but perhaps someone can try and justify this.

 

[JCrawf]

Another Issue:
Where in the bible does it distinct evils? Yes I know there are verses that say people will be judged harsher for this and that....but Sin is sin
Whether you lie or murder...it is still a sin
Whether you call it mortal or venial, lesser or greater, it is still a sin and all sin is ugly in the Eyes of God no matter what it is, so who are we to put labels on it?

Well, St, John in his epistle states the following:

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)
​

This is essentially where the concept of mortal and venial sin comes from. One concept you will not find anywhere in the Bible is that "sin is sin." That is not to say that one sin is not sin, and another is (for St. John clearly states that all wrongdoing is indeed sin) but rather there is no scripture that states that sin is not to be distinguished between a lesser sin and one that is mortal. In fact, our Lord himself had stated that:

[A]ll sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin. (Mark 3:28-29)
​

Thats like sending a messege, "Its not that bad to lie to your parents Johnny, its only a venial sin, you won't be punished as bad" WRONG

Indeed, and a very bad analogy. Consider during WWII when Germany was sending Jews (and even Catholics and other Christians) to concentration camps and eventually to their death. Suppose you were a person helping to hide a Jew or many Jews and a German soldier asked you if it was true that you were doing such things? Would you lie to the German soldier? Remember, you are operating under the notion that "sin is sin", so thus to lie to the German soldier is to commit a sin. But wouldn't it equally be a sin to tell the German soldier the truth? Wouldn't there be many sins committed in doing so, such as betraying your Jewish friends and essentially being responsible for their essenitally being murdered? Can you still say that there is no such thing as a "lesser of two evils", or are all sins equal, and thus you could just as equally deserve being condemned to hell for lying to the German soldier as you would for betraying your Jewish friends and sending them to their graves?

Although you may not outright say it, by putting proportions on evil acts that is whats happening...and that is what kids are thinking.

That's possible, but since I didn't go to Catholic school, but a public school, I can tell you with reasonable certainty that if a kid thinks he has a reason to lie, he is likely to rationalize it no matter what. Plus, this sort of teaching of the lesser of two evils is an important concept - important enough that both St. John and our Lord brought up the subject in the Bible.

Although I am not catholic, I have gone to catholic school all my life, and thats was my impression when I was younger, and im sure is many others.

An impression is not the same as grasping the reality behind what was actually taught.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[a_ntv]

Anyway in the moral, as teached bu the church, there is a principle more important of "lesser of two evils".

It is: The aim do NOT justify the ways

So we have before to think at:
- the aim do NOT justify the way
only later to think at:
- the lesser of two evils

But this base principle was not involved in the question of this thread, as I have understood

 

[onfire4him77]

Well, St, John in his epistle states the following:

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)

​

This is essentially where the concept of mortal and venial sin comes from. One concept you will not find anywhere in the Bible is that "sin is sin." That is not to say that one sin is not sin, and another is (for St. John clearly states that all wrongdoing is indeed sin) but rather there is no scripture that states that sin is not to be distinguished between a lesser sin and one that is mortal.

That is what I was saying. Sin is not distinguished between lesser and greater, because all wrong doing is sin in the eyes of God.

My mistake,I should have been more clear, I was speaking mroe on the teachings behind the classificatons of sins.

Mortal Sins are defined as- completly severing your relationship with God and seperating you from his divine love

But this Scripture says:
38And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from his love. Death can't, and life can't. The angels can't, and the demons can't. Our fears for today, our worries about tomorrow, and even the powers of hell can't keep God's love away. 39Whether we are high above the sky or in the deepest ocean, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-Romans 8:38-39

Your right, the one mortal sin that leads to death are thosewho have an attitude of defient hostility towards God, that prevent them from accepting forgiveness. Those who don't want it, are the ones that wont get it.

Indeed, and a very bad analogy. Consider during WWII when Germany was sending Jews (and even Catholics and other Christians) to concentration camps and eventually to their death. Suppose you were a person helping to hide a Jew or many Jews and a German soldier asked you if it was true that you were doing such things? Would you lie to the German soldier? Remember, you are operating under the notion that "sin is sin", so thus to lie to the German soldier is to commit a sin. But wouldn't it equally be a sin to tell the German soldier the truth? Wouldn't there be many sins committed in doing so, such as betraying your Jewish friends and essentially being responsible for their essenitally being murdered? Can you still say that there is no such thing as a "lesser of two evils", or are all sins equal, and thus you could just as equally deserve being condemned to hell for lying to the German soldier as you would for betraying your Jewish friends and sending them to their graves?

That is where faith comes in. Humble yourself before the Lord and trust above all things, he will provide.

" You may never know that Jesus is all you need, until Jesus us all you have."
-Corrie ten boom, Nazi concentration camp survivor

Im sure you have read that book in teh catholic bible, Macabees? The woman didn't lie about her belief in God while watching her children murdered right in front of her.
What would you do?

 

[JCrawf]

That is what I was saying. Sin is not distinguished between lesser and greater, because all wrong doing is sin in the eyes of God.

Yes, all wrongdoing is sin. But there are sins that are mortal and there are others that are not. That is why there is a distinguishment between mortal and venial. Both should be avoided as much as possible - mortal especially. Venial sins can pile up and lead to mortal sin.

Mortal Sins are defined as- completly severing your relationship with God and seperating you from his divine love.

Yes, this is the gravity of mortal sin, and thus the necessity that whose in it must confess and reconcile before God, otherwise they may suffer condemnation.

But this Scripture says:

And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from his love. Death can't, and life can't. The angels can't, and the demons can't. Our fears for today, our worries about tomorrow, and even the powers of hell can't keep God's love away. 39Whether we are high above the sky or in the deepest ocean, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-Romans 8:38-39

Yes, nothing can separate us from God's love, save if one willfully rejects it. But that has more to do with free will and one's ability to choose (or not to choose) to do something. If one chooses to follow God, then no obstacle is able to break the bond.

Your right, the one mortal sin that leads to death are thosewho have an attitude of defient hostility towards God, that prevent them from accepting forgiveness. Those who don't want it, are the ones that wont get it.

Indeed. And that goes back to free will - though from the negative aspect. For on the positive side, those that choose to follow Christ and seek forgiveness are certain of the Promise. Our faith indeed is one where we are rewarded in the long run by staying the course with our Lord. And if we get off track, we ask Him for a guiding light to steer us back on course. Otherwise, we're no better off than a raft in the sea being tossed about by the waves. Sometimes even such persons might be saved if they persevere to keep their heads above water, though certainly they are in a desperate struggle for life.

Im sure you have read that book in the catholic bible, Macabees? The woman didn't lie about her belief in God while watching her children murdered right in front of her.
What would you do?

Yes, I have read that story. It is one aspect of courage. Though it is sometimes also considered in war, it is not a millitary judgement, and thus not required for winning battles. Rather, as J. R. R. Tolkien describes it, it is the understanding that there is honor in having "faith in the value of doomed resitance" (Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics).

At the same time, though, your reasoning would seem to mean that it is never appropriate to lie. Thus, the person in my last example would have to tell the German soldier of the whereabouts of the Jews that trusted the person to secrecy. That would lead to treachery, much like that of Judas. Of all the people potentially in Hell, Judas is considered among them, with the common view that this was because he did betray the Lord. It would seem that you are evading this problem by contending that one should consider the the situation more like that of a martyrdom, where doom is more certain, rather than betrayal, where there was hope and refuge that was doomed by a reliance on a person who turned out to be a false in their good will. If we took this sort of false honor, not only would the holocaust have been far greater, but slavery would have prevailed and Christianity would have died out in the first century.

There are times when a person has to die a martyr's death for the glory of God, but there are also times when a person has to lie to aid in preserving others that put trust in you. This also can be done for the greater glory of God, especially when one considers a friendship involved, as well as that we are called to love one another. And sometimes that call to love may mean to be deceptive to a common enemy.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[onfire4him77]

Yes, all wrongdoing is sin. But there are sins that are mortal and there are others that are not. That is why there is a distinguishment between mortal and venial. Both should be avoided as much as possible - mortal especially. Venial sins can pile up and lead to mortal sin.

Yes I am aware, but why the technicality of it. Do people really expect you to sit there and go through all the classifications to see if it is mortal or not according to the catchisim?
I still find this teaching puzzling and having little biblical evidence. If you believe what you did did not follow up with what the bible teaches, then to just sincerly ask God for forgiveness and move on.

Yes, nothing can separate us from God's love, save if one willfully rejects it. But that has more to do with free will and one's ability to choose (or not to choose) to do something. If one chooses to follow God, then no obstacle is able to break the bond.

Well then why isn't it in a different category?
Say someone who had grown up catholic al her life,followed God, recieved all her sacrements, but became pregnant at some point and got an abortion at her own choice. This would be a mortal sin correct? So you would tell her that because of this God no longer loves you? You can no longer recieve divine love?
That doesnt seem a bit wrong?

At the same time, though, your reasoning would seem to mean that it is never appropriate to lie. Thus, the person in my last example would have to tell the German soldier of the whereabouts of the Jews that trusted the person to secrecy. That would lead to treachery, much like that of Judas. Of all the people potentially in Hell, Judas is considered among them, with the common view that this was because he did betray the Lord. It would seem that you are evading this problem by contending that one should consider the the situation more like that of a martyrdom, where doom is more certain, rather than betrayal, where there was hope and refuge that was doomed by a reliance on a person who turned out to be a false in their good will. If we took this sort of false honor, not only would the holocaust have been far greater, but slavery would have prevailed and Christianity would have died out in the first century.

There are times when a person has to die a martyr's death for the glory of God, but there are also times when a person has to lie to aid in preserving others that put trust in you. This also can be done for the greater glory of God, especially when one considers a friendship involved, as well as that we are called to love one another. And sometimes that call to love may mean to be deceptive to a common enemy.

Pax Tecum,

John

...Judas betraying Jesus was the best thing for mankind.
As for the WW2 analogy, again I say taht is where faith comes in, You dont have to say anything at all to those soliders. You are limiting God with that kind of talk. God is not of this world, and he would not let those things happen...you are reasoning with based only human strength, where in the bible it says we can not live in our own strenght alone. With God on our side, we will always have the victory. If the Lord can lead whole armys in defeat of other whole armys, I will surly entrust him with my victory over a couple German soilders. Jesus never felt the need to be deceptive to spread the Gospel, or spread the love. And since we should strive to be christ like- neither should we.

 

[JCrawf]

Yes I am aware, but why the technicality of it. Do people really expect you to sit there and go through all the classifications to see if it is mortal or not according to the catchisim?

Well, the Catechism is a good place to find the difference. The seven vices are indeed mortal and even testified about in St. Paul's list of things that could keep a person from Heaven. In that sense, the Catechism merely re-states what is already taught about sin as related in the Bible. Would you then say that one should not be concerned about the similar classifications that are found in the Bible?

I still find this teaching puzzling and having little biblical evidence. If you believe what you did did not follow up with what the bible teaches, then to just sincerly ask God for forgiveness and move on.

I guess we read what Jesus and the Apostles teach differently, being that I can see it found in many places in the Bible, particularly in St. Paul. But Jesus was the one who brought up the classification for mortal sin.

Yes, nothing can separate us from God's love, save if one willfully rejects it. But that has more to do with free will and one's ability to choose (or not to choose) to do something. If one chooses to follow God, then no obstacle is able to break the bond.

Well then why isn't it in a different category?

I'm not sure I follow what you are asking. What are you asking is/isn't in a different category? Do you mean free will?

Say someone who had grown up catholic al her life,followed God, recieved all her sacrements, but became pregnant at some point and got an abortion at her own choice. This would be a mortal sin correct?

Yes, abortion places the person under mortal sin.

So you would tell her that because of this God no longer loves you? You can no longer recieve divine love?

Absolutely not! By choosing to have the abortion, the person chose to reject God's plan for life by putting to death the unborn child in her womb. That choice separated her from God and, as long as she remains unrepentant and does not confess her sin, then she remains in mortal sin. For murder is the way of Cain, not of Christ. God's love is infinite, ours is finite. Thus, and due to free will, we are able in our short sightedness of God's eternity to cut ourselves off from God, which is the consequence of mortal sin. The unrepentant sinner, therefore, remains lost for as long as they remain unrepentant. And the vices are mortal because they are in direct offense to God and may ultimately lead to enslavement to the vice, rather than to the true freedom found in submitting to Christ. This is the basic theology that has been handed down from St. Paul and the Apostles. It is in this tradition that the Catholic Church remains. If you think it unfair, then you ultimately think St. Paul and the Apostles to be unfair and wrong.

...Judas betraying Jesus was the best thing for mankind.

Regardless, Judas is the example of the one condemned. He ultimately became the one prophecied by our Lord to have been the one that was a devil. It is not Judas' betrayal that was the best thing for mankind - it was Christ's sacrifice. Judas' betrayal may have brought about the events of the Passion of our Lord, but Judas ultimately was fated to condemnation for rejecting the Lord by his betrayal. Likewise, Adam's "happy fault" is not so great for Adam and the rest of humanity, being that it was through Adam that came Original Sin. We don't praize Adam, nor the sin, but rather that it anticipated the redemption to come through our Lord.

As for the WW2 analogy, again I say that is where faith comes in, You dont have to say anything at all to those soliders.

But that would be the sin of ommission. And, being that you believe that "sin is sin," the sin of ommission is just as wrong as to tell a lie.

You are limiting God with that kind of talk. God is not of this world, and he would not let those things happen..

If so, then why did the hollocaust happen? Wouldn't it appear that God allowed for it? This gets to the question of why is there suffering in the world, which is an important question in ethics. The answer one has to this can affect their entire life - even their answer to God regarding their sojourning in this suffering world.

...you are reasoning with based only human strength, where in the bible it says we can not live in our own strenght alone.

But the Bible also says to love God with all one's heart soul, and might. In the New Testament, "might" is equated with "mind." Yes, we have limitations under the human conditions, but that is no excuse for neglecting to have strength, especially in God's love. That's part of what comes with the fruits from the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

With God on our side, we will always have the victory.

But that's the thing, one who commits a mortal sin has effectively rejected God. And such a rejection remains for as long as they remain unrepentant. The whole message of the New Testament is to repent and be baptized - that is, repent and convert from the wickedness of one's past. Christ, after forgiving persons commanded of them to go and sin no more. In Confession, out Act of Contrition states, "I firmly resolve, with the help of Your grace, to sin no more, and to avoid the near occasion of sin." For each time we Catholics go to Confession, the stronger our resolve should become to "sin no more" and to "avoid the near occasion of sin." It is in Confession that we come to make our purposes clear to reject sin and to strengthen our relatioship with God, reconciling with Him so we may walk in newness of life. And in this newness of life are we to seek to remain so we might win the race St Paul speaks of and indeed have victory in the Lord.

If the Lord can lead whole armys in defeat of other whole armys, I will surly entrust him with my victory over a couple German soilders.

But can you do that without comitting a sin? If you lie, you comit sin; if you say nothing, you comit sin. There is truth in J. R. R. Tolkien's thoughts related to his son Christopher, telling him, "Your service is, of course, as anybody with with any intelligence and ears and eyes knows, a very bad one....For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed. But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs" (Letters, p. 78).

Even further, Tolkien had noted his reaction against "Americo-cosmopolitanism" in "Qua mind amd spirit...neglecting the piddling fears of timid flesh which does not want to be shot or chopped up by brutal licentious soldiery (German or other)..." (Letters, 65).

Thus, war is not a good, not is it something that represents God, regardless of who claims God on their side. For the Germans as much believed God on their side as England or America. Regardless of the Providence of God, it is not something that advocates war, but rather that despite such things that come from human error, God is still able to bring things about to His end, which is not war (which is evil), but rather to Him who is Good and personifies love.

Jesus never felt the need to be deceptive to spread the Gospel, or spread the love. And since we should strive to be christ like- neither should we.

Depends on what one considers deception. The parables spoken could be considered deceptions, being that they hide their meaning to those who do not have ears to hear them, and thus the true nature is not disclosed to others. Yes, we should be Christ-like, but the perfection of our Lord is not limited to the black and white world you imagine and decieve yourself with.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[onfire4him77]

Well, the Catechism is a good place to find the difference. The seven vices are indeed mortal and even testified about in St. Paul's list of things that could keep a person from Heaven. In that sense, the Catechism merely re-states what is already taught about sin as related in the Bible. Would you then say that one should not be concerned about the similar classifications that are found in the Bible?

From what you provided. It only seemd that one verse mentioned any sort of concept of mortal sin.

I guess we read what Jesus and the Apostles teach differently, being that I can see it found in many places in the Bible, particularly in St. Paul. But Jesus was the one who brought up the classification for mortal sin.

My major dissagreement with the teaching of mortal sin is the fact that you say it seperates you from God's Divine Love, you say no it doesnt, yet you keep contradicting yourself.
Using the abortion example, I understand the whole she choose to reject God's plan from her life. But that is all you said. That has nothing to do with love.
God loves everyone, when you reject him, when you come back to him, and when you reject him again, his love for you will never change.
That is where I see that teaching is lacking, and where you seem to be beating around the bush about.

Depends on what one considers deception. The parables spoken could be considered deceptions, being that they hide their meaning to those who do not have ears to hear them, and thus the true nature is not disclosed to others. Yes, we should be Christ-like, but the perfection of our Lord is not limited to the black and white world you imagine and decieve yourself with.

Scripture and Scripture only lays it out for you. Not the pope, not Tradition.
So you say I am deceived because I follow only scripture? Am I a literalist? Heck no!
Do I need man's guidence to tell me how I should interpret such and such verses? No
"Reflect on these things, and the Lord will give you insight" (2 Timothy 2:7).
Thats what Paul Told Timothy to do...and thats what I intend to do.
I refuse to put my salvation in the hands of a fallible man.
Basically what I am trying to convey is:
-all sin is wrong in the eyes of God
-The only sin God can't forgive is if you reject him and you dont want his forgiveness, if you don't want him, then you wont get him
-Yes Lying is a sin, and we should stray away from it as much as we should any other sin, but that does not mean that we don't do it (ie. WW2 example)

 

[JCrawf]

My major dissagreement with the teaching of mortal sin is the fact that you say it seperates you from God's Divine Love, you say no it doesnt, yet you keep contradicting yourself.

It is not a contradiction, save for the one that denies what the Bible clearly teaches in Paul's letters:

Brethren: do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. (Romans 1:18-22)
​

Is Paul contradictory to your vision of biblical truth here? For does it not sound as if God is separating people from divine love? But that is not the case. For we are in faith supported by the root - that is, Christ. But if WE relinquish our faith in Christ, then WE essentially cut ourselves off. It is not a lack of love on God's part, but on OUR part. For the sin that keeps us from God's love is not committed by God, but by US. It is OUR willful disobedience and OUR willful declining to to repent that gets us broken from the root of our faith. And thus is why we do not boast of our condition in grace, for grace is a humbling matter due to the fact that it is God who grants it to us and not something we merit by anything we do. Yet, if we remain in sin, then we merit what is ultimately the end result of sin - death and separation from God.

Using the abortion example, I understand the whole she choose to reject God's plan from her life. But that is all you said. That has nothing to do with love.

Of course it doesn't because there is nothing of love in abortion. The fruits of abortion is death, as it is with all sin - especially if one is unrepentant and determined not to reconcile.

God loves everyone, when you reject him, when you come back to him, and when you reject him again, his love for you will never change.

Yes, God loves everyone, but not everyone loves God, and thus their hatred burns with that of the father of lies and the murderer from the beginning. And the fate of those who willfuly reject God is the same fate as the one who rejected God in the beginning. It is not a matter of lack of love on God's part. It would be great if everyone who has dispute and something against another person could be able to forgive and allow for love to take hold, but the reality is that this is not so. There is hatred in the world - and the fruit of this hatred is death and separation from God. And again, this is so for those that remain unrepentant and are determined not to reconcile. For how can one say I love God," and hate their brethren? (see 1 John 4:20)

Scripture and Scripture only lays it out for you. Not the pope, not Tradition. So you say I am deceived because I follow only scripture? Am I a literalist? Heck no! Do I need man's guidence to tell me how I should interpret such and such verses? No

As you say. But I thought this was a matter of understanding an ethical question from a Catholic point of view, not to go about quarelling over whether Catholic or Protestant tradition is the more correct (and indeed, Protestantism is made up of many, often contradictory "traditions of men" that ironically all claim to have the infallible interpretation of the Bible). We are all guides for one another in Christ, yet we do not have many fathers. But St. Paul said, "in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me" (1 Cor. 15-16). Likewise is the relation we Catholics have with the Pope, as well as our bishops and priests.

"Reflect on these things, and the Lord will give you insight" (2 Timothy 2:7).

But also consider vv. 1-6:

You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well. Share in suffering like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving in the army gets entangled in everyday affairs; the soldier's aim is to please the enlisting officer. And in the case of an athlete, no one is crowned without competing according to the rules. It is the farmer who does the work who ought to have the first share of the crops.
​

And indeed, "Thats what Paul Told Timothy to do," and that's what I intend to do as a Catholic. Particularly the part about the oral tradition: "be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses" (vv. 1b-2a). The whole aspect of Sacred Tradition is here taught by St. Paul in a most profound way - by his passing on his experiences in Christ to Timothy, and calling for Timothy to do like-wise in entrusting "to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well" (v. 2b). This indeed is the heart of Tradition and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. The Church of St. Paul and the Apostles was not a "me and my Bible" Church - it was a collective body of Christ that passed on her knowledge to her Children of our Lord and Saviour, the head of the Church - Christ Jesus.

I refuse to put my salvation in the hands of a fallible man.

Faith should not rest on another person. We are all to have faith in God. But at the same time: "How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brethren in need and yet refuses help?" (1 John 3:17) We are not in a vacuum, and we do have responsibilities toward each other.

-all sin is wrong in the eyes of God

Yes, this is true.

-The only sin God can't forgive is if you reject him and you dont want his forgiveness, if you don't want him, then you wont get him

Which is what I was saying, but you contend that what I said was contradictory. So now it seems that you are being rather contradictory. And should I pose the same question you did when you claimed that I was being contradictory: does this mean that God doesn't love the person, and are you not saying that the person is separated from God's divine love? If so, then it seems we are both being contradictory, or you are misunderstanding what I had said about mortal sin.

-Yes Lying is a sin, and we should stray away from it as much as we should any other sin, but that does not mean that we don't do it (ie. WW2 example)

Indeed. But, is lying in that case a mortal sin? And how can it be compared, then, with abortion? If "sin is sin" and there is no difference between the sins (such as venial and mortal), then that would mean to lie in the WWII example - even though it seems to be the right thing to do, would ultimately mean that the lie is also a mortal sin. And thus the person who lies for a good cause (to help keep a Jew from the Nazi death camps) is ultimately condemned to the same fate as the person who lies for a bad cause (such as to sneak off in order to get an abortion). Therefore, anyone with a sense of justice can see that the view of "sin is sin" (that is, that there is no distinguishment between a mortal and venial sin) leads to an unjust and perverse vision of God's justice.

But of course, the greatest downfall of these scenarios, and situation ethics in general, is that we are merely speaking in terms of the hypothetical, which does not necessarily take into account a real person's "heart of hearts." That is something none of us can judge save God. For only God knows who is truly reconciled to Him. It is in our faith that we seek to be certain that we in our heart of hearts remain faithful and in God's grace. For it is by the grace of God alone that any of us might be saved.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[onfire4him77]

It is not a contradiction, save for the one that denies what the Bible clearly teaches in Paul's letters:

Brethren: do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. (Romans 1:18-22)

​

Is Paul contradictory to your vision of biblical truth here? For does it not sound as if God is separating people from divine love? But that is not the case. For we are in faith supported by the root - that is, Christ. But if WE relinquish our faith in Christ, then WE essentially cut ourselves off. It is not a lack of love on God's part, but on OUR part. For the sin that keeps us from God's love is not committed by God, but by US. It is OUR willful disobedience and OUR willful declining to to repent that gets us broken from the root of our faith. And thus is why we do not boast of our condition in grace, for grace is a humbling matter due to the fact that it is God who grants it to us and not something we merit by anything we do. Yet, if we remain in sin, then we merit what is ultimately the end result of sin - death and separation from God.

Now I see what you are saying. That is not how I was taught it, it was taught as we are not loved by God anymore. As in every faith, there are hypocrites, so yes now I understand.

As you say. But I thought this was a matter of understanding an ethical question from a Catholic point of view, not to go about quarelling over whether Catholic or Protestant tradition is the more correct (and indeed, Protestantism is made up of many, often contradictory "traditions of men" that ironically all claim to have the infallible interpretation of the Bible). We are all guides for one another in Christ, yet we do not have many fathers. But St. Paul said, "in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me" (1 Cor. 15-16). Likewise is the relation we Catholics have with the Pope, as well as our bishops and priests.

I wasn't trying to bring that out, but you said:

Yes, we should be Christ-like, but the perfection of our Lord is not limited to the black and white world you imagine and decieve yourself with.

And I was saying that Scripture lays it out for you, 'this is wrong, this is right', but since the Catholic Faith has all the written Catechisms and Traditions and encylicals etc...
I was just pointing out that the Bible has everything I need to know about my faith in there, and yet it does seem that the bible does leave some up in the air, in growing in my relationship with Christ, God will reveal to me more.
Yes most Prostestants claim to have infallible interpretations of the bible, but honestly, until we are all in union with God, no one will know and no one will believe who interprets what right. Its all about your personal relationship with God, and how well you can discern the difference between teh spirits. Because Even Satan can use scripture to get you do follow and think the wrong things etc...

But also consider vv. 1-6:

You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well. Share in suffering like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving in the army gets entangled in everyday affairs; the soldier's aim is to please the enlisting officer. And in the case of an athlete, no one is crowned without competing according to the rules. It is the farmer who does the work who ought to have the first share of the crops.

​

And indeed, "Thats what Paul Told Timothy to do," and that's what I intend to do as a Catholic. Particularly the part about the oral tradition: "be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses" (vv. 1b-2a). The whole aspect of Sacred Tradition is here taught by St. Paul in a most profound way - by his passing on his experiences in Christ to Timothy, and calling for Timothy to do like-wise in entrusting "to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well" (v. 2b). This indeed is the heart of Tradition and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. The Church of St. Paul and the Apostles was not a "me and my Bible" Church - it was a collective body of Christ that passed on her knowledge to her Children of our Lord and Saviour, the head of the Church - Christ Jesus

.
Yes I understand all of the Oral tradition and magesterium. Everything is so ritualistic now a days. Nearly every prayer preist read is from a book, where is the heart?
Everything is something you have to do, not a choice.
How can someone be sincere when they have no choice? I suppose that is a whole nother discussion
Thanks for you insight.

Which is what I was saying, but you contend that what I said was contradictory. So now it seems that you are being rather contradictory. And should I pose the same question you did when you claimed that I was being contradictory: does this mean that God doesn't love the person, and are you not saying that the person is separated from God's divine love? If so, then it seems we are both being contradictory, or you are misunderstanding what I had said about mortal sin.

I was misunderstanding




Pax Tecum,

John[/quote]

 

[JCrawf]

Dearest brother in our Lord,

I hope that I was not too offensive in my posts to you, and am sorry for any misunderstandings. But I thank you for your responses and dialogue. So, I will briefly comment:

Now I see what you are saying. That is not how I was taught it, it was taught as we are not loved by God anymore. As in every faith, there are hypocrites, so yes now I understand.

Yes, it is an unfortunate state of catechetics. Like education in general, there are good teachers and, well, not so good ones. Our reliance on one another for information has its ups and downs. For even though we are in some ways guides for one another, not all guides are fully reliable.


Somewhat related, though more in philosophy than anything else, is something I had read in Paul Woodruff's book First Democracy, in which he stated, "democracy travels through our minds shadowed by its doubles - bad ideas that are close enough to be easily mistaken for the real thing" (pg. 3). In a sense, this relates to our faith, as well as the "fallen nature" of humanity. For in the current state, we see dimly through a mirror the reflection of the glory of the Lord; but from the Spirit of our Lord are we being transformed into the same image - from one degree of glory to another - so that we go from knowing only in part to eventually a full knowledge, even to the fact that we have been fully known (see 1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Cor. 3:18). This is all part of the process of revelation. Even further, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in similarity to your natural belief of God's love in regards to revelation:

I. THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD

God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life. (CCC, 1).


​

And I was saying that Scripture lays it out for you, 'this is wrong, this is right', but since the Catholic Faith has all the written Catechisms and Traditions and encylicals etc...

The Catechism is not a replacement for the Bible, but compliments it. I'd suggest reading the chapter "Handing on the Faith: Catechesis" in the Catechism, which states:

Quite early on, the name catechesis was given to the totality of the Church's efforts to make disciples, to help men believe that Jesus is the Son of God so that believing they might have life in his name, and to educate and instruct them in this life, thus building up the body of Christ.7

"Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life."8 (CCC, 4-5)


​

In short, a proper catachesis helps to fulfill the Great commission of our Lord: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:19-20). But, as noted in the above quoted paragraphs of the Catechism, this education is not just for children, but is a life-long education; for the revelation of our Lord is something that develops within us throughout our life time. Even the old hymn "Amazing Grace" notes this in it's final verse:

When we've been here
ten thousand years,
bright shining as the sun;
we've no less days
to sing God's praise
than when we'd first begun.


​

The knowledge of God is infinite, and we, being finite, see only by a veil a glimpse of of this eternity. But in revelation, God wishes to help unveil Himself to us and bring us into eternity with Him.

I was just pointing out that the Bible has everything I need to know about my faith in there, and yet it does seem that the bible does leave some up in the air, in growing in my relationship with Christ, God will reveal to me more.

Likewise, the Catholic Church does understand the impotance of Scripture, but we also see a bond between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as follows:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission


"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43


​

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. (CCC, 80-83)


​

Yes most Prostestants claim to have infallible interpretations of the bible, but honestly, until we are all in union with God, no one will know and no one will believe who interprets what right. Its all about your personal relationship with God, and how well you can discern the difference between the spirits. Because Even Satan can use scripture to get you do follow and think the wrong things etc...

There is much truth in what you say. And this is why we Catholics consider Scripture and Tradition, as the Bible clearly speaks of both. For from our infancy in our faith do we come to know the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make one wise concerning salvation through faith in our Lord Christ Jesus. And thus we learn how all Scripture is inspired by God and useful for catechesis - that is for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. We are called to continue in what we have learned and have become convinced of partially because we know those from whom we learned it are trustworthy. For trustworthy apostles, such as St. Paul have written these instructions so we may know how one ought to behave in the household of God - the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (see 1 Tim. 3:14-15; 2 Tim 3:14-17)

Yes I understand all of the Oral tradition and magesterium. Everything is so ritualistic now a days. Nearly every prayer preist read is from a book, where is the heart?

Well, I don't know about understanding "all" of Tradition and the magesterium. I certainly cannot make that claim, no matter my own insight. But, I find it interesting that, considering your criticism that a priest reads prayers from a book takes away from the heart of the matter. Is not the Bible a book? Yet did you not state that the Bible has everything you need? Consider that, in one sense, you are claiming to rest all your faith on a book, and yet you citicize a priest for using a book as reason for his faith lacking heart. How can this be, and could it then be possible that such may be true for a person who rests in the Bible alone? For where is the heart at when one is reading the Bible? Consider the last question and your answer may help enlighten to how the books of prayer in Christian tradition fit into the whole of revelation and our communion with God.

But you are partially right to criticize ritualism, but mainly wherein it has drifted into hollow ritualism that is either of overzealous superstition or has become merely mechanical "going through the motions." For such things do not focus on the true meaning and spirit animates both the liturgy and the sacraments. And that true meaning and spirit is that of Christ.

Everything is something you have to do, not a choice. How can someone be sincere when they have no choice?

Ah, I see. So you are wondering where free will fits into all this. Well, this relates back to the aspect of the "doubles." For you see, the aspect that being of service or having responsibilities hinders free will and freedom in general is one of those bad ideas that are close enough to be easily mistaken for the real thing. For indeed, having to do things like genuflect or to stand and kneel during a service does indeed seem to hinder freedom. However, free will has to do with choice in that one is free to choose to do or not to do something. And indeed, a person could choose not to "go through the motions." A person could even choose not to go to Church, nor even read the Bible. For all those choices would hinder a person's freedom, at least if we take the logic in those terms.


But you see, those that go to Church, read the Bible, and do all sorts of services for the Lord (or, maybe more imperfectly, out of fear of condemnation/want of salvation - that is, primarily for personal reasons, rather than in the fuller spirit of interaction and communion with God) are also acting out their free will by choosing to do these things. How we choose to use our free will ultimately has consequenses, both good and bad, depending on how we utilize our freedom. For as St. Paul notes:

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. So what advantage did you then get from the things of which you now are ashamed? The end of those things is death. But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life. (Romans 6:16-22)

​

So therefore, the deceptive double of true freedom in which one is of service to God according to the righteousness of God is the false freedom in which one is of service to sin according to the iniquity of sin. When in service to sin, one may be, in a sense, "free." But this freedom's end result is death. However, our service to God is true freedom, and the end result is eternal life.

But ultimately, at least in regards to our own limitations, we cannot tell with absolute certainty who is being sincere or insincere in their faith. That is primarily to be judged by God. Yes, we are able to discern things - and such discernments can help us to consider what is true or false. The main part of this discernment has to due with what we have been taught about Christ, as St. John notes:

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world. (1 John 4:2-3)
​

So therefore, it is by what has been handed on to us and imparted by the Holy Spirit that helps us to discern. This discernment asks much of us (or so it can seem), but at its heart, the emphasis is in knowing that "God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them" 1 John 4:16. But further, St. John notes:

Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. (1 John 4:17-18)
​

Hope this helps in some way.

Pax Tecum,

John