Purgatory And Prayers For The Dead.

[Valletta]

It is a similar thing with mortal and venial sins. What were mortal sins in the not-so-recent as well as distant past are now considered to be venial sins and vice verse.

As I've asked you so many times before, please quote the Catholic Catechism when expressing Catholic teaching. I have corrected your renditions on Catholic teaching many times before. In this case I find your statement misleading--this is not the first time you've attacked the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In the past you seemed to be hung up on missing mass and the particulars of confession. I'll discuss the mass requirement as an example. You must understand that God does not change, and forgiveness of sin comes from God. If you know that Jesus is the head of the Church, and that Jesus gave the keys to popes and their successors, then it is a grave sin to deliberately violate the authority passed down from Jesus out of defiance, that is, without any good reason. What the pope decides is the particular edict of the day may change. For example, if the early popes under persecution from the Roman Empire did not even think of requiring a person to participate in the breaking of the bread every Sunday, perhaps likely because it might risk death to attend, not attending mass was not even a sin. However, if a later pope decided that people were falling away because of a lack of receiving the Eucharist (John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; RSVCE) he might have declared attending mass every Sunday was required by the Church and it is a grave sin not to do so.

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 8

 

[bbbbbbb]

As I've asked you so many times before, please quote the Catholic Catechism when expressing Catholic teaching. I have corrected your renditions on Catholic teaching many times before. In this case I find your statement misleading--this is not the first time you've attacked the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In the past you seemed to be hung up on missing mass and the particulars of confession. I'll discuss the mass requirement as an example. You must understand that God does not change, and forgiveness of sin comes from God. If you know that Jesus is the head of the Church, and that Jesus gave the keys to popes and their successors, then it is a grave sin to deliberately violate the authority passed down from Jesus out of defiance, that is, without any good reason. What the pope decides is the particular edict of the day may change. For example, if the early popes under persecution from the Roman Empire did not even think of requiring a person to participate in the breaking of the bread every Sunday, perhaps likely because it might risk death to attend, not attending mass was not even a sin. However, if a later pope decided that people were falling away because of a lack of receiving the Eucharist (John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; RSVCE) he might have declared attending mass every Sunday was required by the Church and it is a grave sin not to do so.

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 8

Thank you for quoting the relevant passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would actually have done so had I believed that it was relevant to my point.

My point is that like dogmas of the Catholic Church, mortal and venial sins are not spelled out at all in any place in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Thus, if one seeks to know which specific sins are mortal and which specific sins are venial there is absolutely nothing to go by.

If you followed my conversation with Xeno.of.Athens concerning dogma you will see that the official stand of the Catholic Church is that it does not specify which doctrines are actually dogmas and vice versa.

The same is actually true concerning mortal versus venial sins. I have been unable to locate any official list of mortal sins. Whether or not there ever has been a detailed list may be a matter for a historian to research, but as of this moment, I cannot locate one.

If you can find one provided directly from the Catholic Church and not merely the opinion of some well-meaning Catholic folks, which do differ from each other, please provide it. As it is, what you provided is the definitions of mortal and venial sins.

To take this to a personal level, one might contend that lying is a sin. Whether it is a mortal sin or a venial sin is open to debate. In the Bible Rahab the harlot told a barefaced, outright lie and was commended in the book of Hebrews as an example of a faithful woman. If her lie was a mortal sin then she would be far from commendable. Even if it was a venial sin, there was not the slightest indication on her part of confession or penance for that sin.

So, please provide an official, detailed list of mortal sins so we can continue this discussion.

This does relate to the OP in that mortal sins for Catholics get them a direct ticket to hell with no time in Purgatory.

 

[Valletta]

Thank you for quoting the relevant passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would actually have done so had I believed that it was relevant to my point.

My point is that like dogmas of the Catholic Church, mortal and venial sins are not spelled out at all in any place in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Thus, if one seeks to know which specific sins are mortal and which specific sins are venial there is absolutely nothing to go by.

If you followed my conversation with Xeno.of.Athens concerning dogma you will see that the official stand of the Catholic Church is that it does not specify which doctrines are actually dogmas and vice versa.

The same is actually true concerning mortal versus venial sins. I have been unable to locate any official list of mortal sins. Whether or not there ever has been a detailed list may be a matter for a historian to research, but as of this moment, I cannot locate one.

If you can find one provided directly from the Catholic Church and not merely the opinion of some well-meaning Catholic folks, which do differ from each other, please provide it. As it is, what you provided is the definitions of mortal and venial sins.

To take this to a personal level, one might contend that lying is a sin. Whether it is a mortal sin or a venial sin is open to debate. In the Bible Rahab the harlot told a barefaced, outright lie and was commended in the book of Hebrews as an example of a faithful woman. If her lie was a mortal sin then she would be far from commendable. Even if it was a venial sin, there was not the slightest indication on her part of confession or penance for that sin.

So, please provide an official, detailed list of mortal sins so we can continue this discussion.

This does relate to the OP in that mortal sins for Catholics get them a direct ticket to hell with no time in Purgatory.

Jesus wrote nothing down to be passed on to us. What he did leave, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, was the authority of the Church. The specifics were left to the Church. For instance, was Baptism only to be performed in a certain area? Jesus said nothing about baptizing in North America.
We are told:
1 John 5:16-17 16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God[a] 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. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. RSVCE

But you are correct, God gave us no list. There are an infinite number of circumstances in regard to sin. Likewise the truths of God, dogma, a number of which are are expressed in the Apostles Creed, could be broken up and numbered many ways, again God gave us no list. As to sins, as much as God gives us guidance, God is our final judge. You will just have to accept that God did not give us a list and it is impossible for humans to specify every circumstance. The difference between venial and mortal should be obvious most of the time, like walking down a hallway and hearing a noise for venial sin, while mortal sins have been described like walking down a hallway and meeting a roaring lion. But when it is not clear a Catholic should simply confess it along with known mortal sins and ask for God's forgiveness. God is not out to catch a person and say you thought that was a venial sin and it was really mortal so you are going to hell. You do your best as a human being and trust in God's mercy.

III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS
1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127
1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.
IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 8

 

[JM]

All of the Apostolic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East) pray for the dead. Even some Anglican, Lutherans, and Methodist offers prayers for the dead. Ancient Jews and Jews today have always prayed for the dead. Jesus never spoke against it.

Purgatory only makes sense. We are never perfect on earth, but must be perfect in heaven.

***It must be noted Purgatory is ONLY RC doctrine. No other Churches accept it.

@RileyG "However, you should pray in such a way that you let it remain uncertain and say, 'Dear God, if the soul is still in the state that it can be helped, then I pray that You would be gracious to it.' When you have done that once or twice, then cease and commend the soul to God."

Luther on Prayer for the Dead and Communication with Spirits

The following excerpt from Martin Luther’s 1522 sermon provides the reformer’s commentary on prayer for the dead and communication with spirits.

blog.cph.org

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jesus wrote nothing down to be passed on to us. What he did leave, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, was the authority of the Church. The specifics were let to the Church. For instance, was Baptism only to be performed in a certain area? Jesus said nothing about baptizing in North America.
We are told:
1 John 5:16-17 16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God[a] 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. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. RSVCE

But you are correct, God gave us no list. There are an infinite number of circumstances in regard to sin. Likewise the truths of God, dogma, a number of which are are expressed in the Apostles Creed, could be broken up and numbered many ways, again God gave us no list. As to sins, as much as God gives us guidance, God is our final judge. You will just have to accept that God did not give us a list and it is impossible for humans to specify every circumstance. The difference between venial and mortal should be obvious most of the time, like walking down a hallway and hearing a noise for venial sin, while mortal sins have been described like walking down a hallway and meeting a roaring lion. But when it is not clear a Catholic should simply confess it along with known mortal sins and ask for God's forgiveness. God is not out to catch a person and say you thought that was a venial sin and it was really mortal so you are going to hell. You do your best as a human being and trust in God's mercy.

III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS
1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127
1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.
IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 8

Once again I thank you for posting the unabridged segments of the Catechism of the Catholic Church addressing mortal and venial sins. We are in complete agreement that there is no list of specific mortal sins nor of venial sins to be found in the Catholic Church.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that over the lengthy history of the Catholic Church some sins which have been presented as being mortal in nature later were not viewed as such, and vice versa. In fact, we are seeing this evolutionary process at work even now. There was the time, not terribly long ago, where women were forbidden completely from participating at the altar during the mass. Moreover, they were required to cover their heads during mass. Such is no longer the case.

 

[prodromos]

@RileyG "However, you should pray in such a way that you let it remain uncertain and say, 'Dear God, if the soul is still in the state that it can be helped, then I pray that You would be gracious to it.' When you have done that once or twice, then cease and commend the soul to God."

Luther on Prayer for the Dead and Communication with Spirits

The following excerpt from Martin Luther’s 1522 sermon provides the reformer’s commentary on prayer for the dead and communication with spirits.

blog.cph.org

If we love someone, we will continue to pray for them long after their repose, just as we would continue to pray for the salvation of a loved one who seemed unrepentant. Love does not give up easily.
Praying for our reposed loved ones also keeps their memory alive. Love does not forget.

 

[JM]

If we love someone, we will continue to pray for them long after their repose, just as we would continue to pray for the salvation of a loved one who seemed unrepentant. Love does not give up easily.
Praying for our reposed loved ones also keeps their memory alive. Love does not forget.

Nah.

 

[Valletta]

Once again I thank you for posting the unabridged segments of the Catechism of the Catholic Church addressing mortal and venial sins. We are in complete agreement that there is no list of specific mortal sins nor of venial sins to be found in the Catholic Church.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that over the lengthy history of the Catholic Church some sins which have been presented as being mortal in nature later were not viewed as such, and vice versa. In fact, we are seeing this evolutionary process at work even now. There was the time, not terribly long ago, where women were forbidden completely from participating at the altar during the mass. Moreover, they were required to cover their heads during mass. Such is no longer the case.

You're welcome! As I said, there are an infinite amount of circumstances in regard to sin, so please try and accept that the Word of God tells us there are sins that are mortal and sins that are not, and instead of questioning why there is not a list, try and realize that God's ways are far about those of man. Please don't confuse people about Catholic teachings. God does not change, and God is our final judge. There is no evolutionary process as to what is a mortal sin and what is not. You should not confuse sin with various practices, a good understanding of the Bible should make the difference clear. Electric lights are often used today in place of candles, that's a practice, that has nothing to do with sin.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You're welcome! As I said, there are an infinite amount of circumstances in regard to sin, so please try and accept that the Word of God tells us there are sins that are mortal and sins that are not, and instead of questioning why there is not a list, try and realize that God's ways are far about those of man. Please don't confuse people about Catholic teachings. God does not change, and God is our final judge. There is no evolutionary process as to what is a mortal sin and what is not. You should not confuse sin with various practices, a good understanding of the Bible should make the difference clear. Electric lights are often used today in place of candles, that's a practice, that has nothing to do with sin.

I am not confusing practice with doctrine. There is no doubt that lying is, and always has been, a sin.

 

[prodromos]

There is no doubt that lying is, and always has been, a sin.

Even if it is to protect the innocent from evil men?
Were German Christians sinning when they hid Jewish families from the Nazis and lied about it?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Even if it is to protect the innocent from evil men?
Were German Christians sinning when they hid Jewish families from the Nazis and lied about it?

That you will need to take up with God.

Revelation 21:27 And nothing common, nor that maketh an abomination and a lie, shall at all enter into it; but those only who [are] written in the book of life of the Lamb.

According to this verse (you can read it in context, if you wish) nobody who tells a lie will enter heaven.

However, as I noted previously, we have examples such as Rahab the harlot who told a whopper of a lie and who was commended for it, not condemned.

 

[Valletta]

There was the time, not terribly long ago, where women were forbidden completely from participating at the altar during the mass. Moreover, they were required to cover their heads during mass. Such is no longer the case.

I am not confusing practice with doctrine. There is no doubt that lying is, and always has been, a sin.

Women covering their heads or serving at mass are practices, not sins.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Women covering their heads or serving at mass are practices, not sins.

That is true.

 

[Fervent]

Women covering their heads or serving at mass are practices, not sins.

Those practices were based on theories of what is and isn't sinful, so the changing practices show that teaching on sin has changed. Theological teachings can't be neatly separated from religious practices, especially not those that center on how worship is properly conducted.

 

[bbbbbbb]

........................................qu

Those practices were based on theories of what is and isn't sinful, so the changing practices show that teaching on sin has changed. Theological teachings can't be neatly separated from religious practices, especially not those that center on how worship is properly conducted.

Quite true. You can only imagine the furor a century ago if some priest had, instead of an altar boy, an altar girl.

A similar thing exists today concerning priestly celibacy. Some liberal Catholics might say that celibacy is simply a traditional practice limited to the Roman Catholic Church. However, there is intense (to put it very mildly) resentment in Great Britain over the former married Anglican priests who have become Catholic priests and have been permitted to remain married with their children.

 

[Fervent]

........................................qu

Quite true. You can only imagine the furor a century ago if some priest had, instead of an altar boy, an altar girl.

A similar thing exists today concerning priestly celibacy. Some liberal Catholics might say that celibacy is simply a traditional practice limited to the Roman Catholic Church. However, there is intense (to put it very mildly) resentment in Great Britain over the former married Anglican priests who have become Catholic priests and have been permitted to remain married with their children.

Yep, and it's only really a knock against the Catholic church because of their insistance on "tradition" as a guiding light. Because if tradition is subject to development, then it is not truly tradition at all and it can't arbitrate disputes because it is subject to change. It's ok for the church to learn and grow, especially in our understanding of sin as we are lead by the Holy Spirit and grow to know God's heart better.

Which I think is part of the disconnect in these kinds of discussions, because our Catholic brothers and sisters view any criticism of church traditions as an attack on holy tradition because of a false idea that the tradition has been fixed. Any indication to the contrary must be rationalized and explained away, because if the tradition is not suitably rigid it cannot serve as a guiding light.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yep, and it's only really a knock against the Catholic church because of their insistance on "tradition" as a guiding light. Because if tradition is subject to development, then it is not truly tradition at all and it can't arbitrate disputes because it is subject to change. It's ok for the church to learn and grow, especially in our understanding of sin as we are lead by the Holy Spirit and grow to know God's heart better.

Which I think is part of the disconnect in these kinds of discussions, because our Catholic brothers and sisters view any criticism of church traditions as an attack on holy tradition because of a false idea that the tradition has been fixed. Any indication to the contrary must be rationalized and explained away, because if the tradition is not suitably rigid it cannot serve as a guiding light.

That has been my understanding, as well. There is an enormous chasm between the concept of a church which is unchanging and the concept of a church which is continuing to develop and to change.

 

[Valletta]

Those practices were based on theories of what is and isn't sinful, so the changing practices show that teaching on sin has changed. Theological teachings can't be neatly separated from religious practices, especially not those that center on how worship is properly conducted.

I bet there was no discussion of "theories" of what is "sinful" in the wearing of a veil. That is a matter of reverence, clothing differs from culture to culture.

Which I think is part of the disconnect in these kinds of discussions, because our Catholic brothers and sisters view any criticism of church traditions as an attack on holy tradition because of a false idea that the tradition has been fixed. Any indication to the contrary must be rationalized and explained away, because if the tradition is not suitably rigid it cannot serve as a guiding light.

Here you intermingle the word "tradition" with what Catholics refer to a part of the Word of God, Sacred Tradition. Protestants have regular traditions, such as using the order of books the Catholics chose back in the 300s while deleting seven. You have used the same 66 books of the Bible, in the same order chosen by Catholics, since the reformation. That is a Protestant tradition. Catholics use candles at mass, that is a regular tradition. As to the Word of God, which for convenience we break up into Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, while the Word of God does not change, nor does God change, we can and we have come to a greater understanding of what was passed down from Jesus. That is the way it has been since the beginning of Christianity. For example, the Apostles themselves did not immediately know that Baptism replaced circumcision because Jesus did not tell them specifically, but they came to that understanding. In summary, regular traditions within the Catholic Church do indeed change, and while Sacred Tradition does not change some of the deeper meanings are revealed to Christ's Church over time. You won't find any details of the Assumption in the Bible, but much through Sacred Tradition, in this case more specifically the Liturgy passed down, the Church came to the understanding of the Assumption. As I recall there was a poll of bishops and almost all had come to that conclusion before that dogma was declared by the pope.

 

[Fervent]

I bet there was no discussion of "theories" of what is "sinful" in the wearing of a veil. That is a matter of reverence, clothing differs from culture to culture.

Simply because the theory wasn't discussed, doesn't mean that it wasn't the understanding/teaching. Is liturgy not theology in practice? For most of the history of the church, the primary manner in which people were instructed was not through systematized education and philosophical debates, but through instruction in practice. So there's no way to cleanly delineate what the church taught and what its practices were.

Here you intermingle the word "tradition" with what Catholics refer to a part of the Word of God, Sacred Tradition. Protestants have regular traditions, such as using the order of books the Catholics chose back in the 300s while deleting seven. You have used the same 66 books of the Bible, in the same order chosen by Catholics, since the reformation. That is a Protestant tradition. Catholics use candles at mass, that is a regular tradition. As to the Word of God, which for convenience we break up into Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, while the Word of God does not change, nor does God change, we can and we have come to a greater understanding of what was passed down from Jesus. That is the way it has been since the beginning of Christianity. For example, the Apostles themselves did not immediately know that Baptism replaced circumcision because Jesus did not tell them specifically, but they came to that understanding. In summary, regular traditions within the Catholic Church do indeed change, and while Sacred Tradition does not change some of the deeper meanings are revealed to Christ's Church over time. You won't find any details of the Assumption in the Bible, but much through Sacred Tradition, in this case more specifically the Liturgy passed down, the Church came to the understanding of the Assumption. As I recall there was a poll of bishops and almost all had come to that conclusion before that dogma was declared by the pope.

Declaring something that changes "Sacred Tradition" is exactly what is the issue with making such a thing an authority. Because it's not actually tradition, as if it is what has been taught throughout the entire history of the church back to the Apostle's. It is innovations that have been treated as authoritative, some of them good and some of them not so good. So there's a false sense in the Catholic church that the teachings have a deep history and have been unchanged when in fact that is anything but the case. The church has evolved and changed over time, such that it is out of step with both actual tradition by way of councilatory decrees and Biblical revelation. If the teachings of modern churches were actually in line with what is written among the earliest Christian authors rather than the cherry picked, revisionist histories that they rely on I would be the first to join a traditional church. A tradition that changes is not a tradition at all, at least not such that it can be relied upon as a safeguard against destructive innovation. So all your rationalizing of the innovations that have been raised to the status of sacred tradition is only going to be convincing to someone who has already decided that what the Roman Catholic church has to say is authoritative rather than being compelling to someone offering criticism.(In other words, the only person you're convincing that this is so is yourself)

 

[RileyG]

@RileyG "However, you should pray in such a way that you let it remain uncertain and say, 'Dear God, if the soul is still in the state that it can be helped, then I pray that You would be gracious to it.' When you have done that once or twice, then cease and commend the soul to God."

Luther on Prayer for the Dead and Communication with Spirits

The following excerpt from Martin Luther’s 1522 sermon provides the reformer’s commentary on prayer for the dead and communication with spirits.

blog.cph.org

I continue to pray for the dead. Long after I pray for them twice. For the rest of my life, even. I disagree with Luther.