doctrine on mortal sin

[jezic]

so then to be restored to the state of sanctfying grace, God would have to grant that (usually through direct Confession to a priest) right?

[Guest Eremite]

As Benedict XVI explains, cited above:

[quote]The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.[/quote]

The Catechism gives no greater weight to a doctrine than it already possesses. If something is not taught infallibly, then the Catechism does not make it infallible. If it is taught infallibly, then it is infallible, but not because the Catechism teaches it, but because it already possesses that weight.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:53 AM']And what do you think the Catechism is?  The Catechism is a declaration of the Pope and the whole Episcopal College.  John Paul II made that statement.
[right][snapback]627309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is an authentic or authoritative act of the Magisterium, but it is not in itself an infallible definition or an infallible declaration of either the Pope or the Pope and Episcopal College.

As I have said, it does contain infallible dogmas and doctrines, but they were infallibly defined or declared prior to the issuance of the Catechism.

[jezic]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 29 2005, 10:53 AM']And what do you think the Catechism is?  The Catechism is a declaration of the Pope and the whole Episcopal College.  John Paul II made that statement.

And as Eremite quotes:
[quote name='Pope Benedict XVI'] The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church.[/quote]

The Catechism is part of the infallible Magisterium, because the teachings contained within are infallible. You can't separate the two.
[right][snapback]627309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

if you would like to debate the merits of the catechism could you start a new thread?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:56 AM']so then to be restored to the state of sanctfying grace, God would have to grant that (usually through direct Confession to a priest) right?
[right][snapback]627312[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Restoration to a state of deifying grace requires individual auricular confession to, and absolution by, a priest.

The Sacrament of Penance is the ordinary means for restoring a man to grace.

[jezic]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 29 2005, 10:59 AM']Restoration to a state of deifying grace requires individual auricular confession to, and absolution by, a priest.

The Sacrament of Penance is the ordinary means for restoring a man to grace.
[right][snapback]627317[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

what does auricular mean?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 09:04 AM']what does auricular mean?
[right][snapback]627320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It has to be heard by the priest.

[jezic]

then, if sanctifying grace is lost in one mortal sin, what happens after two? (or more)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 09:13 AM']then, if sanctifying grace is lost in one mortal sin, what happens after two? (or more)
[right][snapback]627331[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, you can't lose what you don't have, but you can compound your reprobate status I suppose.

[jezic]

hmm, unless one was to guess that there are additional consequences of sin other than the loss of sanctifying grace.

While that loss is a major one and of the highest necessity to regain, there would be other consequencesas well. (not necessarily through God end of things. I mean like the soul's attachment to the sin grew, or its objections lessened. Thus a consequence of sin because it is harder to not commit the sin.)However, is it not reasonable to assume that there are other punishments from God?

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

[jezic]

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

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

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

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

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

[jezic]

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

[Apotheoun]

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

[Didacus]

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

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

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

Edited June 29, 2005 by Didacus

[jezic]

what do you mean damned alone?

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

[Didacus]

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

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

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

Her ogic goes something like this:

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

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


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

[jezic]

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

[Didacus]

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

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

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






















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










Terribly sorry... I feel bad...