Protestants and Mortal sin

[Fantine]

There is always the act of perfect contrition.

 

[christinepro]

There is always the act of perfect contrition.

What is that?

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

What is that?

One of the most impossible things on earth for an imperfect human being to experience; it is a deep and genuine sorrow for one's sin motivated only by the love of God (not fear of hell, or disgust that stems from spiritual pride, or any other self-centered reason.)

Well, I have heard it is almost impossible anyway. I wonder about that though. Sometimes when I sin, my first thought is not "Oh no! Now I need to go to confession or I'm in big trouble with God!" or "Great, I blew my recent holy streak, " but "Oh my God, I love you! Why am I capable of failing you so?" I'm not suggesting that is anything close to perfect contrition, but it's certainly a different motivation. The thing is, we can never know whether our contrition was perfect or not.

 

[christinepro]

One of the most impossible things on earth for an imperfect human being to experience; it is a deep and genuine sorrow for one's sin motivated only by the love of God (not fear of hell, or disgust that stems from spiritual pride, or any other self-centered reason.)

Well, I have heard it is almost impossible anyway. I wonder about that though. Sometimes when I sin, my first thought is not "Oh no! Now I need to go to confession or I'm in big trouble with God!" or "Great, I blew my recent holy streak, " but "Oh my God, I love you! Why am I capable of failing you so?" I'm not suggesting that is anything close to perfect contrition, but it's certainly a different motivation. The thing is, we can never know whether our contrition was perfect or not.

That is beautiful!! It sucks to be so imperfect. I guess that is where grace comes in. We could only do our best to please G_d. I have a long way to go but I'll keep trying.

 

[D'Ann]

That is beautiful!! It sucks to be so imperfect. I guess that is where grace comes in. We could only do our best to please G_d. I have a long way to go but I'll keep trying.

Yes, I agree, it does suck to be sooo imperfect. What hurts my heart more than anything is knowing how imperfect I am and knowing all of my failings and if it hurts my heart, I can only imagine how I've displease our heavenly F-ather. You are right too, that is when grace comes in and by His grace, we have hope for our salvation. I think we all have a long ways to go, but we all keep trying because we truly and sincerely do love G-d and want to please H-m and be holy as He has called us to be.


Welcome to the OBOB.

G-d bless you and Shalom,

Debbie

 

[christinepro]

Yes, I agree, it does suck to be sooo imperfect. What hurts my heart more than anything is knowing how imperfect I am and knowing all of my failings and if it hurts my heart, I can only imagine how I've displease our heavenly F-ather. You are right too, that is when grace comes in and by His grace, we have hope for our salvation. I think we all have a long ways to go, but we all keep trying because we truly and sincerely do love G-d and want to please H-m and be holy as He has called us to be.


Welcome to the OBOB.

G-d bless you and Shalom,

Debbie

Thank you. G_d Bless and Shalom to you too. It's nice to visit.

 

[JCrawf]

But Jesus said to confess to his priests, so why do you disobey Him?

Panderson was talking about confessing to Jesus, who is indeed the High Priest for all times. In that sense, Panderson is not disobeying Christ by coming to Christ as high priest for forgiveness.

Do we as Catholics disobey if we pray the Act of Contrition in our prayers to Christ? Of course not. But we also know that we can go to a priest who, because of the aspect of alter Christi, is in the role of Christ in order to perform his duties as Priest, having been made a father through the Gospel. The whole understanding of Confession rests on knowning that indeed priests are in their role "ambassadors" of Christ and have been granted by ordination what has been handed on from Christ to the apostles - the power to loose and bind, to forgive sins essentially.

So really, the issue is not necessarily about obedience as much as how well one understands apostolic succession and what are the main duties of the Priest while acting in the role of Christ. But even that is still a simplified understanding of the argument. But considering this much may at least help to scratch the surface.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

Is sin that leads to death the only sin that has to be confessed to a priest? If so how is this sin defined?

Mortal sin especially must be confessed because it does lead to the second death if not confessed and repented of. However, one can confess venial sins, it's just that it is not really necessary, being that the Eucharist can take care of those sins. It may be a good idea to confess venial sins when they become more habitual and start to lead toward more serious sin. However, to be overwhelmed by venial sins and feeling a constant necessity to confess them as if they were mortal sins can lead to scruples.

Annanias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit, which caused their death. Are thier others?

Yes, the major ones are the Ten Commandmensts, though also the seven deadly sins are considered as well. These are sins that are adversarial to the seven virtues.

They had no opportunity to confess to the priest before dying.

Actually, they were right there before St. Peter, an apostle and of whom we call the first Pope. The Pope is indeed a priest, and Annanias and Sapphira lied before him as well as the Holy Spirit. As far as I know, such an event has not happened since then, so one has to wonder if this account, being a one time thing, was done in order to express the gravity of mortal sin. But to say they did not have an opportunity to confess to their sins is not quite true, for they had that moment right in front of St. Peter to come clean about what they had done.

To Say Annanias and Sapphira had no chance to confess would be equivalent to saying that Adam and Eve didn't either. Adam and Eve were right in the pressence of God and yet Adam made an excuse rather than a confession. Would things have been different if Adam had just confessed that he ate the fruit he was told not to? We don't know. Nor do we know if the situation with Annanias and Sapphira would have been different if they had just come clean about what they had done. But they certainly had an opportunity to confess.

Would habitual sin of any kind fall into this category?

Habitual sin becomes a vice. Like the trap, it means it is something hard to come out of and, in a sense, something that a person doesn't have their full will to deal with it. A person snared in a trap may want to get out of it, but wanting to and actually getting out of the trap are two differnt things. Considering that a person wants to get out of habitual sin means that there is a certain ammount of culpability that is lessened in as much as the person seeks to escape from the habit.

It has also been said here and agreed to by many that Jesus is our High Priest and the theif recieved special consideration because of his confession directly to the Savior. That being said, would confession to Christ Himself fullfil the command to confess your sin?

Well, it's not as simple as a "special consideration" as much as the thief fulfilled what was needed for perfect contrition right in front of our Lord. Moreso, in Confession, a person is confessing their sins directly to Christ, so to say the thief necessarily had any more of a special consideration than any other person who makes their confession to Christ (be it in the Sacrament of Reconciliation or in prayer to Christ) is not quite true. In going to Confession, it is considered that the person is already going there with the intent on making a perfect contrition to the Lord. So there isn't a special martyr discount on where a person can get away from actually making the confession in order to have perfect contrition. For who suffers the greater pennance, the one who goes to Confession, makes the Act of Contrition and does a certain pennance as the priest prescribes; or the one who has makes the confession to the Lord before he is sent to his death?

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[D'Ann]

Mortal sin especially must be confessed because it does lead to the second death if not confessed and repented of. However, one can confess venial sins, it's just that it is not really necessary, being that the Eucharist can take care of those sins. It may be a good idea to confess venial sins when they become more habitual and start to lead toward more serious sin. However, to be overwhelmed by venial sins and feeling a constant necessity to confess them as if they were mortal sins can lead to scruples.



Yes, the major ones are the Ten Commandmensts, though also the seven deadly sins are considered as well. These are sins that are adversarial to the seven virtues.



Actually, they were right there before St. Peter, an apostle and of whom we call the first Pope. The Pope is indeed a priest, and Annanias and Sapphira lied before him as well as the Holy Spirit. As far as I know, such an event has not happened since then, so one has to wonder if this account, being a one time thing, was done in order to express the gravity of mortal sin. But to say they did not have an opportunity to confess to their sins is not quite true, for they had that moment right in front of St. Peter to come clean about what they had done.

To Say Annanias and Sapphira had no chance to confess would be equivalent to saying that Adam and Eve didn't either. Adam and Eve were right in the pressence of God and yet Adam made an excuse rather than a confession. Would things have been different if Adam had just confessed that he ate the fruit he was told not to? We don't know. Nor do we know if the situation with Annanias and Sapphira would have been different if they had just come clean about what they had done. But they certainly had an opportunity to confess.



Habitual sin becomes a vice. Like the trap, it means it is something hard to come out of and, in a sense, something that a person doesn't have their full will to deal with it. A person snared in a trap may want to get out of it, but wanting to and actually getting out of the trap are two differnt things. Considering that a person wants to get out of habitual sin means that there is a certain ammount of culpability that is lessened in as much as the person seeks to escape from the habit.



Well, it's not as simple as a "special consideration" as much as the thief fulfilled what was needed for perfect contrition right in front of our Lord. Moreso, in Confession, a person is confessing their sins directly to Christ, so to say the thief necessarily had any more of a special consideration than any other person who makes their confession to Christ (be it in the Sacrament of Reconciliation or in prayer to Christ) is not quite true. In going to Confession, it is considered that the person is already going there with the intent on making a perfect contrition to the Lord. So there isn't a special martyr discount on where a person can get away from actually making the confession in order to have perfect contrition. For who suffers the greater pennance, the one who goes to Confession, makes the Act of Contrition and does a certain pennance as the priest prescribes; or the one who has makes the confession to the Lord before he is sent to his death?

Pax Tecum,

John

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JCrawf again.
​

You Rock!

 

[JCrawf]

and we are no longer under those obligations. correct?

Well, we are more or less under the Noahide covenant, which the gentile converts to Judaism were under at the time of Christ. If you remember in Acts, St. Peter had to first be told by Jesus in certain mystical visions that it was okay for him to eat certain things that were not coshure for Jews to eat. And St Paul in his letters had essentially said that going by such dietary laws was fine, but they made that person no more holier than a person that didn't follow those dietary laws.

But the Law and the Prophets still are upheld, and certainly how Christ taught - through loving the Lord our God with all one's heart, mind, and soul; and to love one's neighbor as themselves - for these are what Christ taught as being what upholds the Law and the Prophets. So certainly the Ten Commandments are important, and we certainly are obliged to uphold them for both the love of God and humanity. Or is it okay now to go out and murder and steal from people and blaspheme the Lord?

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

One of the conveiniences of these forums is easy information

But it is also the drawback of these forums, being that easy information doesn't necessarily answer the hard questions. Those take much more work and research than easy information can provide. I'd never think of these forums as a means to an end, but scratchinging the surface and potentially bringing to light a sort of "gateway" to many more things to ponder.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[PETE_]

Mortal sin especially must be confessed because it does lead to the second death if not confessed and repented of. However, one can confess venial sins, it's just that it is not really necessary, being that the Eucharist can take care of those sins. It may be a good idea to confess venial sins when they become more habitual and start to lead toward more serious sin. However, to be overwhelmed by venial sins and feeling a constant necessity to confess them as if they were mortal sins can lead to scruples.



Yes, the major ones are the Ten Commandmensts, though also the seven deadly sins are considered as well. These are sins that are adversarial to the seven virtues.



Actually, they were right there before St. Peter, an apostle and of whom we call the first Pope. The Pope is indeed a priest, and Annanias and Sapphira lied before him as well as the Holy Spirit. As far as I know, such an event has not happened since then, so one has to wonder if this account, being a one time thing, was done in order to express the gravity of mortal sin. But to say they did not have an opportunity to confess to their sins is not quite true, for they had that moment right in front of St. Peter to come clean about what they had done.

To Say Annanias and Sapphira had no chance to confess would be equivalent to saying that Adam and Eve didn't either. Adam and Eve were right in the pressence of God and yet Adam made an excuse rather than a confession. Would things have been different if Adam had just confessed that he ate the fruit he was told not to? We don't know. Nor do we know if the situation with Annanias and Sapphira would have been different if they had just come clean about what they had done. But they certainly had an opportunity to confess.

very true, I guess I see it today as allowing those sins to bring you to death(such as addiction or sexual impurity) I also think God may take His own if they stray as to cause harm to His Kingdom. But He knows our heart and can deal with us as He wills.



Habitual sin becomes a vice. Like the trap, it means it is something hard to come out of and, in a sense, something that a person doesn't have their full will to deal with it. A person snared in a trap may want to get out of it, but wanting to and actually getting out of the trap are two differnt things. Considering that a person wants to get out of habitual sin means that there is a certain ammount of culpability that is lessened in as much as the person seeks to escape from the habit.



Well, it's not as simple as a "special consideration" as much as the thief fulfilled what was needed for perfect contrition right in front of our Lord.

Moreso, in Confession, a person is confessing their sins directly to Christ,

This is where i find trouble. If ultimately we are confessing to God, why do we need a middleman. I acknowledge that confessing to a priest or other Christians adds accountability and support, but I do not see it commanded like Baptism and The Lord's Supper.

so to say the thief necessarily had any more of a special consideration than any other person who makes their confession to Christ (be it in the Sacrament of Reconciliation or in prayer to Christ) is not quite true. In going to Confession, it is considered that the person is already going there with the

intent on making a perfect contrition to the Lord.

This should be the state in which we all seek forgiveness for all sin.

So there isn't a special martyr discount on where a person can get away from actually making the confession in order to have perfect contrition. For who suffers the greater pennance, the one who goes to Confession, makes the Act of Contrition and does a certain pennance as the priest prescribes; or the one who has makes the confession to the Lord before he is sent to his death?

Pax Tecum,

John

.
This has been very informative. To think they were thinking of cutting it off.

 

[JCrawf]

One of the most impossible things on earth for an imperfect human being to experience; it is a deep and genuine sorrow for one's sin motivated only by the love of God (not fear of hell, or disgust that stems from spiritual pride, or any other self-centered reason.)

Well, I have heard it is almost impossible anyway. I wonder about that though. Sometimes when I sin, my first thought is not "Oh no! Now I need to go to confession or I'm in big trouble with God!" or "Great, I blew my recent holy streak, " but "Oh my God, I love you! Why am I capable of failing you so?" I'm not suggesting that is anything close to perfect contrition, but it's certainly a different motivation. The thing is, we can never know whether our contrition was perfect or not.

The Act of Contrition says it all best:

O my God, I am heartily sorry
for having offended you.
I detest all my sins because
I dread the loss of heaven
and the pains of hell.
But most of all because
they offend you my God,
who are all good
and deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve
with the help of Your grace
to sin no more
and to avoid the near occasion of sin.

For without God, nothing is possible.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[Romanseight2005]

Priests have the power to forgive sins. To say sins can be forgiven without a priest is to cheapen and make useless the Sacrament.

It would be like saying baptism isnt necessary.

Jesus is our High Priest. It is through Him that we are forgiven and brought into relationship with Jehovah. We are not in need of any man to recieve forgiveness. Penance sounds to me like a way to earn forgiveness, which was freely given. There is nothing we can do to earn forgiveness.

 

[PETE_]

But it is also the drawback of these forums, being that easy information doesn't necessarily answer the hard questions. Those take much more work and research than easy information can provide. I'd never think of these forums as a means to an end, but scratchinging the surface and potentially bringing to light a sort of "gateway" to many more things to ponder.

Pax Tecum,

John

I do agree it must been taken with caution, but you can get a broader spectrum of information because of the numbers. I attend a Baptist church but do not consider myself to be a Baptist. I do not agree with some things they teach but I think the essential message of Christ is there. I am sure the same applies with many Catholics, they may not agree totally with the church, or me, but Christ's message is there. Being able to discuss such matters with many has allowed me to see past some of these petty differences and see them more as brothers and sister in Christ and not denominational advisaries.

 

[JCrawf]

I guess I see it today as allowing those sins to bring you to death(such as addiction or sexual impurity) I also think God may take His own if they stray as to cause harm to His Kingdom. But He knows our heart and can deal with us as He wills.

Addiction is kind of a modern term for a vice. The main problem, though, is the common view about the addiction is that a person is completely incapable of getting out of it, which is quite false.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "God may take his own if they stray..." If you wish, could you elaborate?

But I do agree that God knows our hearts and does deal with us as He wills. We are His creation afterall.

Quote

Moreso, in Confession, a person is confessing their sins directly to Christ,

This is where i find trouble. If ultimately we are confessing to God, why do we need a middleman. I acknowledge that confessing to a priest or other Christians adds accountability and support, but I do not see it commanded like Baptism and The Lord's Supper.

For me, This question of why we need a "middleman" rests at the heart of the Incarnation. For why, if God could forgive sins and we could just bring it to the Father alone, why did Christ, the Son of God have to come down from heaven to be born, to minister as the Word of God made flesh and then die for our sins? He is, afterall, and as the High Priest, the main "middleman" between us and the Father. Why, if we can just go straight to the Father, did Christ have to suffer for our sins and become our intercessor? Baptism and the Last Supper are founded on Christ's sacrifice - so if we need no middleman, then not only is Christ's sacrifice null and void, but also the sacraments founded by Christ. All the seven Sacraments rest upon Christ's sacrifice being a necessity for our salvation and that Christ intercedes for us and has not left us to have to fend for ourselves.

Quote

intent on making a perfect contrition to the Lord.

This should be the state in which we all seek forgiveness for all sin.

Yes, we should come with a perfect contrition, but as sinners, we do fall short of the glory of the Lord. We try, but it takes more than personal effort to live in the life of the Spirit. For one thing, it takes faith in the love and mercy of God and to understand that we may not always understand, but we still believe and try to further turn toward the Will of the Father.


.

This has been very informative. To think they were thinking of cutting it off.

Thank you, but remember that these forums are only a starting point. The main reason they almost cut this thread short has to do with worries about major debates, which do happen in these types of threads. In general, it is asked that non-Catholics on the thread keep to fellowship discussions and asking questions. How this is enforced varies from thread to thread, and even from denominational forum to denominational forum. The main aspect is to keep discussion as civil as possible. So far and by my personal standards, the discussion has been going just fine. But it's not up to me, but the moderators to make the ultimate decision on whether to close a thread or not. So far, there have been two warnings/reminders to keep to civil discourse.

Anyways, good discussion so far, but remember that these forums can only provide so much. A person still has to make their own investigations and decisions on these matters.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

Jesus is our High Priest.

Indeed. So where there is a high priest, does it not make sense that there are priests below Christ that also do the work of God as they have been ordained to do so?

It is through Him that we are forgiven and brought into relationship with Jehovah.

Indeed.

We are not in need of any man to recieve forgiveness.

No man at all? If so, then that rules out even our Lord who is fully Man as well as fully God. Is it not at least agreed that we at least need the God-Man Jesus Christ to recieve forgiveness?

Penance sounds to me like a way to earn forgiveness, which was freely given. There is nothing we can do to earn forgiveness.

Nothing at all - not even confessing our sins? Sorry, but the Bible says quite the opposite. We do have to do something, we actually have to pray, which indeed is a work, and we also have to confess our sins to God, for "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (I John 1:8).

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[PETE_]

[/B][/I]

Addiction is kind of a modern term for a vice. The main problem, though, is the common view about the addiction is that a person is completely incapable of getting out of it, which is quite false.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "God may take his own if they stray..." If you wish, could you elaborate?

But I do agree that God knows our hearts and does deal with us as He wills. We are His creation afterall.
[/B]

For me, This question of why we need a "middleman" rests at the heart of the Incarnation. For why, if God could forgive sins and we could just bring it to the Father alone, why did Christ, the Son of God have to come down from heaven to be born, to minister as the Word of God made flesh and then die for our sins? He is, afterall, and as the High Priest, the main "middleman" between us and the Father. Why, if we can just go straight to the Father, did Christ have to suffer for our sins and become our intercessor? Baptism and the Last Supper are founded on Christ's sacrifice - so if we need no middleman, then not only is Christ's sacrifice null and void, but also the sacraments founded by Christ. All the seven Sacraments rest upon Christ's sacrifice being a necessity for our salvation and that Christ intercedes for us and has not left us to have to fend for ourselves.

[/B]

Yes, we should come with a perfect contrition, but as sinners, we do fall short of the glory of the Lord. We try, but it takes more than personal effort to live in the life of the Spirit. For one thing, it takes faith in the love and mercy of God and to understand that we may not always understand, but we still believe and try to further turn toward the Will of the Father.
[/I]

.


Thank you, but remember that these forums are only a starting point. The main reason they almost cut this thread short has to do with worries about major debates, which do happen in these types of threads. In general, it is asked that non-Catholics on the thread keep to fellowship discussions and asking questions. How this is enforced varies from thread to thread, and even from denominational forum to denominational forum. The main aspect is to keep discussion as civil as possible. So far and by my personal standards, the discussion has been going just fine. But it's not up to me, but the moderators to make the ultimate decision on whether to close a thread or not. So far, there have been two warnings/reminders to keep to civil discourse.

Anyways, good discussion so far, but remember that these forums can only provide so much. A person still has to make their own investigations and decisions on these matters.

Pax Tecum,

John

For me, This question of why we need a "middleman" rests at the heart of the Incarnation. For why, if God could forgive sins and we could just bring it to the Father alone, why did Christ, the Son of God have to come down from heaven to be born, to minister as the Word of God made flesh and then die for our sins? He is, afterall, and as the High Priest, the main "middleman" between us and the Father. Why, if we can just go straight to the Father, did Christ have to suffer for our sins and become our intercessor? Baptism and the Last Supper are founded on Christ's sacrifice - so if we need no middleman, then not only is Christ's sacrifice null and void, but also the sacraments founded by Christ. All the seven Sacraments rest upon Christ's sacrifice being a necessity for our salvation and that Christ intercedes for us and has not left us to have to fend for ourselves.

I see Christ's role as intercessor, and High Priest. Pastors/Priests are there to help guide us but we are ultimately responsible for our own relationship with God. Being too dependant on any human spiritual leader can be dangerous, where they may fail, Jesus remains the same.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Indeed. So where there is a high priest, does it not make sense that there are priests below Christ that also do the work of God as they have been ordained to do so?

Jesus took the place of the Priests in the
OT. You are right to assume Priests under Him. They are all of us who are in Christ Jesus.

No man at all? If so, then that rules out even our Lord who is fully Man as well as fully God. Is it not at least agreed that we at least need the God-Man Jesus Christ to recieve forgiveness?

Are you really trying to say that Jesus is the same as any man? While He came as a man, He is God. No other can be compared to Him. I stated that He forgives us, and in fact already has. He said, it is finished. That means nothing more needs to be done.

Nothing at all - not even confessing our sins? Sorry, but the Bible says quite the opposite. We do have to do something, we actually have to pray, which indeed is a work, and we also have to confess our sins to God, for "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (I John 1:8).

He forgave us so that we can be in relationship with Him.
We must receive this forgiveness. But you hit the nail on the head, the bible tells us how to acknowledge the forgivenss he has given us, so that He can inturn change us. The Bible also speaks of working to try to earn forgiveness, and it is called being bound by the law. This is in opposition to receiving His free gift of forgiveness, and eternal life.

 

[plainswolf]

Jesus took the place of the Priests in the
OT. You are right to assume Priests under Him. They are all of us who are in Christ Jesus.

I think you may be missing a distinction here. There is a distinction between the priesthood of the faithful and the sacerdotal priesthood. In the old Testament, the temple was divided into three parts, an outer court, and inner court, and the holy of holies. The priests functioned in the inner court, but only the high priest had function in the inner most part - the holy of holies. Very similar to the structure of Catholic Churches in which the priesthood of the faithful take place in the inner court, but only the sacerdotal priest functions in the inner most part - sanctuary and altar.

Are you really trying to say that Jesus is the same as any man? While He came as a man, He is God. No other can be compared to Him. I stated that He forgives us, and in fact already has. He said, it is finished. That means nothing more needs to be done.

He forgave us so that we can be in relationship with Him. We must receive this forgiveness. But you hit the nail on the head, the bible tells us how to acknowledge the forgivenss he has given us, so that He can inturn change us. The Bible also speaks of working to try to earn forgiveness, and it is called being bound by the law. This is in opposition to receiving His free gift of forgiveness, and eternal life.

If a man feels remorse for his sins and goes to the sacrament of Confession, it is because Our Lord called him there. Even the priest is powerless without Christ whom he stands in for. Our Lord Commissioned His duly Appointed Apostles to carry on His mission in every way, especially that of forgiving sins: "Then He breathed on them and said Recieve ye the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them. And whose sins you retain they are retained."

The Sacraments remind me of the time when Jesus healed the blind man. Jesus was God and could have just instantly willed or commanded the man to see, but instead He mixed His spittle with dirt and rubbed it into the man's eyes to heal him.. Why did Christ do this? Because this was a way in which our physical senses could understand. It was a visible sign of something taking place invisibly.