Catholic Answers Forums - Apologetics

Is it "easy" or "hard" for a person of good will to fall into mortal sin?

DavidFilmer — Mon, 20 May 2013 07:12:30 GMT

Modern Catholic theologians are divided on the question of whether it is "easy" or "hard" for a person of good will to fall into mortal sin. By "good will," I mean a person who might sin, but recognizes that his sin is a fault and regrets it, and wishes that he could overcome it (even if he does not do so in actuality). I do not include those who are obstinately sinful with no regrets (think mobsters, etc).

To my knowledge (and I'm pretty darned sure I'm right about this), the Magesterium has not taught one way or another. In the past, theologians seemed to prefer the "easy" answer, but in more modern times, theological opinion seems to be shifting to the "hard" answer.

Permit me to quote - at length - the Magesterium's actual teaching regarding mortal sin. From Part 3, Article 8 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:

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, 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.

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."

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." 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 heart 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."

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.

The phrases, "full knowledge" and "complete consent" are where the disagreement arises. I think the consent clause is the most questionable. Apparently, habitual sin (ie, a longstanding affinity for drugs/alcohol/porn/etc) can diminish "complete consent."

So I am interested in the opinion of the "theologians" (meaning anybody) on this Forum. What say you?

"Christ decended to Hell"

xCelticx — Mon, 20 May 2013 03:53:28 GMT

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in section 2, chapter 2, article 5, paragraph 1. It states that Jesus went down to Hell and freed the just from Hell. He also stayed there for 3 days right? So why did the Christ say to the thief, "truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in paradise".

I'm just a little confused on where the thief goes and whats happening in this verse.

Thanks.

How to defend John14:13-14?

Kirk O — Sun, 19 May 2013 22:23:34 GMT

In a discussion with an atheist and he brought up how can God be real if Ge doesn't answer all of our prayers when according to the Bible He will. I told him that God answers our prayer not like wishes that we receive everything what we ask for but with Grace which truly takes cares of our prayer/need. But he refers to John 14:13-14. Which I could see how that could be a stumbling block for someone trying to believe in God.

Christology

AveChriste11 — Sun, 19 May 2013 18:05:12 GMT

Okay so I think I'll post just one question (subject line) per thread, so it can be covered greater. That was at least the suggestion given to me on my other read "A few questions about what the Church teaches."

Why is Christ a person, and not a state of consciousness (as per the New Agers)? That no one can be the Christ, except Jesus alone.

A few questions about what the Church teaches

AveChriste11 — Sat, 18 May 2013 20:57:26 GMT

Does Catholicism have a concept of an inward Light or divine spark? What I mean is, at your core there is perfection and holiness. Life is a process of purging yourself of the passions, so that the inner Light can manifest through you and help yourself and others. If it does have such a concept, how does this differ from the New Age understanding of those terms as I described?

Does the Catholic Church believe that we can manifest the same potential as Jesus did? I remember the Bible stating that the works Jesus has done, we can do too and even greater works than those can we do because Christ is ascending unto the Father, "unto my God and your God". Also, why does Jesus have to be the only son of God? Was it ever possible in the eyes of the Church for people to find their way to Heaven without the death and resurrection of Christ? I can see how some people might assume this was just a way for the religious authorities to "make stuff up", so they don't lose control over the minds and hearts of the people. Yet I'm not one for conspiracies, as I would rather know the facts.

I was also wondering, what does it mean when the Church states that Jesus died for the sins of the world. When I look at the Old Testament, and I see examples of where the Israelites had sinned against God -- there was retribution. It's as if Israel had a lesson to learn because they missed the mark, and they learned it whether by the Babylonian exile, the Assyrian exile, or in other ways. So if Jesus takes on the "sins of the world" when he dies on the cross, if Jesus "dies" for my sins -- then how will I ever learn anything? Does this mean that there are no consequences for what we do, until after death if we've rejected Christ in thought, word, and deed?

I know there are a lot of knowledgeable people, and I've been very confused about those things. I was wanting to know what the Church has said on these subjects, and if you guys can help me find those answers?

Sincerely,
Andrew

No Salvation Doctrine: Since when?

JMJCatholic — Sat, 18 May 2013 19:05:40 GMT

Can someone make an argument that No Salvation Outside the Church was not infallibly declared before it's recent interpretation that allows for exceptions?

JMJ

How God's forgiveness works?

fabio rocha — Sat, 18 May 2013 18:39:33 GMT

Sin has two 'faces': the guilt part and the penance/atonement part.

a) Why in the NT Jesus, when forgiving someone's sins, never said like "but/by the way, do this 'sacrifice'/penance"?

b) Jesus died on the cross for our sins, for our salvation. Are we talking about sin's two 'faces' being removed or just the first one?

I've hear this comparasion: a boy is playing soccer outside and by mistake he kicks the ball and breaks the neighbour's window. He goes there to say sorry to the owner and the owner says "Son, you're forgiven, I'm not mad at you. But you have to replace the glass and pay the costs".

Now, the boy represents us, breaking the glass is us sinning, the owner is God.

c) Why God doesn't say "Son, you're forgiven, I'm not mad at you. I'll replace the glass and pay the costs"?

Purgatory: "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still , are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven" (CCC 1030).

d) Doesn't being in God's grace assured of being totally purified?

Could God find better things to do with unrepentent sinners than let them go to hell?

NowHereThis — Sat, 18 May 2013 16:51:26 GMT

There are potentially a lot of souls going to waste here. Who is being helped when unrepentent sinners burn in hell? Their pain won't change the past, nor will it relieve any of the continual suffering here on Earth. God is missing out on an opportunity to do a lot of good in a way that he normally restricts himself from.

Why doesn't God personally intervene to make people be good? Free will, right? But free will is only relevant for the purposes of judging the moral character of the free will bearer. It makes their moral choices meaningful.

Whose moral choices aren't meaningful anymore? The condemned, unrepentant sinners. They've already been judged and the verdict rendered. Given that their free will choice right after the judgment is most likely not to go to hell, it's safe to say that their free will is no longer being respected. So why not sentence them to an eternity of compulsory do-gooding? They are still punished by being stripped of their freedom, and God can now use them to do all the good he wants to do, free of concern for their free will.

Potential objections: first, that this will not serve as enough of a deterrrent to immorality in this life. Second, that this is impossible, as the condemned no longer have physical bodies in order to do good deeds with. Third, that this gives the condemned a nobility that they do not deserve.

Considering the motivations behind sin, we see that an eternity of do-gooding is quite a sufficient deterrent. After all, the original sinner was Satan himself, and his sin was pride. He could not bear to be ranked beneath humans. Imagine how Satan would have felt if he knew that his punishment would be compelled obedience in the service of the very creatures he loathes? Pride is therefore at the root of all sins, and having it injured in this way would be a horror for the prideful sinner.

But how are people supposed to do good when they have no bodies, and doesn't the Bible say that we die once, and then the judgment? The first is easily answered: God could resurrect them, just as he did for Jesus. How horrible, though, to give condemned sinners the same glorious treatment that Jesus received, right? Yet lots of people not personally worthy to kiss Jesus's feet will also be resurrected. The Bible says there no one righteous, no not one, for all have fallen short of the glory of God. And as for the idea that we die once, and then the judgment, the scenario I'm describing fits that requirement, since the sinners are still judged after one death.

Finally, isn't it unfair to give condemned, unrepentant sinners the power to do good that we here on Earth have to continually struggle for? Why should they have it easy? In fact, though, they receive no personal merit from their compelled deeds for precisely that reason. The deeds are still good, because they have good outcomes, but that goodness is for the recipient of the deed. It has no effect on the character of the condemned. We who struggle see our characters altered to conform with Christ. The condemned do not receive that gift.

Bottom line: it just makes more sense to use judged sinners to continue doing good, than it does to punish them forever in hell.

The Voice of God and the Word of God

Zackeera — Sat, 18 May 2013 15:24:52 GMT

I found a gem of a quotation in Pinterest (Words to Live By) a couple of days ago. I don't know the source, but it goes like this: �The voice of God will never contradict with the Word of God�. I truly believe those words. How about you?

Are people in OT who performed miracles considered saints?

SBristow — Sat, 18 May 2013 05:33:57 GMT

Are people in OT who performed miracles considered saints? For instance, Moses turned his staff into a snake and turned the river into blood.

Can someone other than a Christian saint perform miracles? For instance. . .

SBristow — Sat, 18 May 2013 05:25:32 GMT

Can someone other than a Christian saint perform miracles? For instance, a woman says her doctor cured her cancer and it was a miracle. Her doctor is Jewish; he is not Christian. Can people outside Christianity/catholicism perform miracles?

Purgatory is a lie, from my Protestant friend

Big BC — Fri, 17 May 2013 20:26:02 GMT

My Brothers and Sisters in Faith,

I have a protestant friend who commends Pope Francis on the following statement

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/1100116.htm

Basically that Purgatory is a process, not a place.

But my protestant friend then says that if that is the case, the Catholic church has been in error for thousands of years, teaching error. Or that it knew the truth, but willfully allowed its believers to burn in hell for such belief. And therefore it's leaders were Angels of Satans for allowing such belief to occur among it's believers.

I'm not the greatest apologist for the faith. Anyone want to take this one on?

Your Brother in Christ,
Big BC

Could punishment lessen in Hell over time?

Sultan Of Swing — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:44:18 GMT

While Hell is eternal, could the punishments within Hell lessen over time?

Say for example, a person dies as a big liar. Now he will presumably have a punishment fitting for his sin as well as the main state of separation from God. Is it possible that after a certain point, the punishment for this sin lessens as justice for that particular sin is satisfied and eventually the sinner is left with the base punishment of separation from God?

Now it seems sort of clear according to the church that there will be different degrees of punishment in hell. Now if what I said above isn't true, then does that mean that a murderer would be punished for all eternity at a higher degree than a liar would... for all of eternity? I thought the eternal consequence of being separated from God was mainly due to our deprived nature because of original sin. If our personal sins can be atoned for as stated by Aquinas, could the punishment in Hell account for this? After all, Aquinas does say that punishment is medicinal in nature, and I do not see eternal punishment for a particular sin as very medicinal. I am not trying to say in any way that people will come out of Hell, but rather would their punishments lessen over time?

Tactics for defending faith on Social Networks?

upbeatjonm — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:14:34 GMT

There is an old addage about not discussing religion and politics with friends and relatives (if you want to remain friends).

With that assumption, what is the best way to defend the Catholic faith, traditional marriage, pro-life, etc., on FB or other social networks? How can I do this without alienating a sizable portion of the friends and relatives that read it, and come accross as an out of touch extremist?

I tend to be the kind of person who gets tired of cute puppy videos, and would like to discuss "meatier" topics, especially in the death culture we live in. We seem to be obsessed with trivial topics, where we are eating, kids pictures, etc., along with the usual slams against conservatives in general and Catholics in particular.:shrug:

Was John the Baptist ethnically Jewish?

Guy355 — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:28:47 GMT

Hello I have a question and I'm not trolling I just really don't know... I'm still not Catholic but I'm planning to start the initiation very soon after reading the bible etc. Now my question is: Was John the Baptist ethnically Jewish? I guess he is because he was the cousin of Jesus and I know Jesus came to this world through Mary and Mary was Jewish. So I just wanted to confirm so can anyone please answer me? Much appreciated, thanks and God bless. :)

I have a question...

Guy355 — Fri, 17 May 2013 09:49:57 GMT

I talked to a rabbi and he said that:

1. "How can Jesus be both the son of God and son of David?"

2. "God didn't need to come into flesh."

3. "If Christians say that the new testament is the end of the cycle of the new testament, why then don't they follow the teachings such as:eating kosher food, resting on the Sabbath etc."

4. "Why does he need to come a 2 times and this coming from the dead thing sounds Pagan to me"

Can someone please answer me those questions so that I could tell him?

Thanks and god bless. :)

Tough Question About Seeking God - How Can We Without Believing in Him ?

SpeakKindly — Fri, 17 May 2013 07:37:31 GMT

I was recently speaking with someone about faith, and I used an analogy I saw someone from this board.

The analogy goes:

You're on a ship, you fall overboard, and the crew throws you a life saver. (The rings that float). The life saver is faith, and in order to be saved from drowning, we must accept (receive) this life saver by grabbing onto it.

In response to this analogy, they said:

"It is not a choice. I cannot grab the ring because I cannot see the ring. If I am even drowning, neither God nor you nor anyone else has made this clear enough to me. If it was clear that I was drowning and that the ring was my salvation I would take it in an instant. Instead God (in the context of Christianity being true) has chosen for me to go to hell by not revealing himself to me. My mother says "seek God and he will reveal himself to you" but their definition of the word "seek" implicitly requires a belief in God. To me, to seek means to pick up a stone looking for God and to, most probably, see that he is not there. To them seeking means submission to God; to pray to him and ask him for forgiveness and devote myself to him and just sort of "see if that works out for me" I guess. But I can't pray to something I do not believe in... that is the entire problem, you see."

How should I respond to this ? How CAN we seek God without first believing in Him ? :shrug:

Thanks in advance! :)

Is ACT of CONTRITION fully efficacious ...

brb3 — Fri, 17 May 2013 01:41:33 GMT

If a priest is not present ? If we use it to confess straight to God ... in private ?

Thought experiment: what might Satan do to attack Christ's Church over the past 2000 years?

snarflemike — Fri, 17 May 2013 00:59:09 GMT

Any and all thoughts welcome.

Who defeats Satan?

Jordan Rizk — Fri, 17 May 2013 00:52:39 GMT

I don't really understand who defeats Satan as Revelations says the Virgin Mary, the "woman" is in war with the dragon, St. Michael the Archangel is in battle with the dragon and so is Jesus.
So in the end, who defeats Satan?

What if Jesus hadn't died?

Sultan Of Swing — Thu, 16 May 2013 21:36:45 GMT

I've always been a fan of penal substitution and so my answer for this question would have been that we would be doomed to hell. Recently, however, after considering Catholicism I have also discovered that the Church's view on the matter is Aquinas or Anselm's satisfaction doctrine.

So, what if Jesus hadn't died, according to the Church's view? St Thomas Aquinas tells us that the issue is not personal sin, which can be atoned for, but the stain of our sinful nature from original sin that was needed to be taken away by the atonement of Christ. So if one lived like one of the many great prophets of old, and lived a good life and atoned for their sin, we can say that the personal sin is pretty much accounted for. Now, what remains and is not atoned for is the original sin, which separates us from the perfect union with God.

So then, after we died, would we be in a similar state to how Abraham and the other righteous were before Christ came to earth? Would we be in a sort of 'Abraham's bosom', and we would be happy but we would ultimately still be in Sheol and not able to have that perfect union with God?

And secondly; why can we satisfy God and atone for our personal sin all on our own but we cannot atone for the stain of original sin? What's the difference? Why was Christ necessary to remove original sin?

If you had to sum up Catholicism in a few minutes

WD615 — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:01:08 GMT

So, yesterday while I was at work the conversation turned to religion. My boss happened to ask me what religion I was. We live in the Bible Belt, so Christianity is pretty much assumed as someone's religion, but she was asking what denomination.

I responded I was Catholic, while my family were members of the churches of Christ. (One of my coworkers was amazed to hear that I had switched churches) She was curious about it (she said she had never talked to a Catholic about their faith before). By the way, my boss was born a Methodist, and has attended a non-denominational church before, but goes to a Baptist church. My co-worker is just a lifelong attendee of black Baptist churches.

She asked me what Catholicism was and how I would describe it. All of this was in a respectful, conversational tone, of course.

So I was wondering what you would say if you had to give a short description of Catholicism. I know I would want to explain it in the most attractive way possible, so how would you phrase your response?

All responses are welcome!

Bible Canon and Orthodox

fisherman carl — Thu, 16 May 2013 06:32:54 GMT

One thing I don't understand is about the canon of scripture and the Orthodox. The canon was decided on at the council of Rome in 382 AD and then confirmed at other councils like Carthage and Hippo. Did the early Orthodox accept this canon and then later change it? Or were they never part of these councils and if so why not?

Help please... answering daughters "saved" question

tortilla5 — Thu, 16 May 2013 05:00:21 GMT

My daughter told me that she and her friends had started an informal bible study at lunch on fridays. I was so pleased that she wanted to be a part of a bible study with her friends and they had all planned it on their own and put it in place.

She told me that last friday they were talking about when they were saved. Each girl had her own story. The stories are usually very dramatic, lots of crying, lots of praying and lots of support leading one onto the altar to announce that they have been saved.

My daughter 13 yrs old asked me when are we saved. I explained that Jesus died for our sins and saved us from original sin. It is also up to us to continue to live the way He wants us to live. If we fall at times then we go to confession. Also her confirmation was kind of her moment when she will announce that she agrees to the promises made on her behalf at baptism, only then she will be old enough top speak for herself.

I am not very good at explaining things and I know that many of you here are. How can I explain the difference between her friends "being saved" and what the Catholic church teaches us about being saved. Also what should she tell these girls when they ask her "Have you been saved?" The girls are very nice friends of hers but I am sure at some point they wil;l ask her.

Thank you for any input.

Did the Early Church fall into Apostasy when the Apostles died off?

yogosans14 — Thu, 16 May 2013 02:20:12 GMT

Thats a strong belief in the LDS and JW religion.

How do Catholics answer this claim?

Limbo

DonnaCos — Wed, 15 May 2013 23:18:14 GMT

Does the Catholic Church still subscribe to the idea of Limbo for babies who die before they are baptized and was/is Limbo discussed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Mediatrix of All Graces

godisgood77 — Wed, 15 May 2013 18:20:01 GMT

Hello, not sure if this question should be brought to this forum or not....

This past weekend my Pastor focused his homily on Mary as "Mediatrix of All Graces". Further, he stated that the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium declared this formally and gave her the title. Now, I've read several books about the Council and Lumen Gentium and know that the Council fathers very purposefully stopped short of giving Mary this title and that a commission was formed in 1996 at the request of the Holy See to explore this topic and that it was unanimously decided that it should not be declared that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

My understanding is that some Catholics give her this title, but that Church does not. I know that there has been a handful of Popes that have used this title in talks, but never declared this formally. Further, I believe there is a petition to dogmatically declare this, but that only about 8 million signatures have been gathered.

My question is two fold... 1) Does the Church teach that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces and 2) If not, should I answer my conscience and talk to my Priest about the this as I believe he misstated the Church's teaching on this... somewhat of a fraternal correction.

Thank-you for your input.
Dan

Purgatory - and reasons it exists

Daniel Lysinger — Wed, 15 May 2013 17:14:46 GMT

Purgatory is a controversial topic, and though some protestants would deny that it exists, there are very many good reasons for its existence.

1. It was supported by the Church Fathers.

Clement of Alexandria, d. 215: " Accordingly the believer, through great discipline divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. he is tortured then still more-not yet or quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness." - Stromata, 6:14 (ante A.D. 202)

Ambrose, d. 397: "Blessed shall both of you be [departed Gratian and Valentinian], if my prayers can avail anything. No day shall pass you over in silence. No prayer of mine shall omit to honor you. No night shall hurry by without bestowing on you a mention in my prayers. In ever one of the oblations I will remember you." De obitu Valent (A.D. 387)

Epiphanius, d. 403: " Useful too is the prayer fashioned on their behalf [of the dead], even if it does not force back the whole of guilty charges laid to them. And it is useful also, because in the world we often stumble either voluntarily or involuntarily, and thus it is a reminder to do better. Panarion, 75:8 (A.D. 375)

Origen, d. 254: " For if on the foundation of Chris you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones, but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heave with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; of on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials, for our god to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works. Homilies on Jeremiah, PG 13:445,448 (A.D. 244)

2. It has strong Biblical support

2 Timothy 1:16-18: "May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me-may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day-and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus."

If purgatory exists, then this passage is completely logical. However, it is hard to explain away this one, because Paul himself implores the Lord to grant mercy to Onesiphorus, for any sins he may have committed.

Hebrews 12:22-24: "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel."

Purgatory also fits well with this verse. What could Paul mean by "Just men made perfect"?

1 Peter 1:6-7: "In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

1 Peter 4:12-13: "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed."

2 Maccabees 12:41-45: " So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have be superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

3. It is supported by reason.

As Origen has previously stated, it is both unjust to cast into the eternal flames those who have done many good works, and it is also unjust to put a person who is imperfect in heaven, because of all the good works. The imperfections must be cleansed before someone can enter into the happiness and great joy of heaven. MUCH thanks to "The Biblical Basis for Purgatory" by John Salza. For further reading, I highly recommend that book.

The CFs: SS or STC

Koineman — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:41:27 GMT

I'm starting this thread because Fr of Jazz wanted to explore what the church fathers (CFs) had to say about SS (sola scriptura) or STC (Scripture-Tradition-Church).

Fr, how would you like to go about doing this? I suggest examining one passage at a time rather than posting extremely long lists of CF quotes. What do you think?

Jeremy

How do we know that Mary was without sin and forever a virgin.

LennyFL — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:39:01 GMT

If it is so important that Mary was sinless why doesn't the bible just come out and say it. The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967, Vol. VII, pp. 378-381 acknowledges "...the Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in Scripture... The earliest Church Fathers regarded Mary as holy but not as absolutely sinless... It is impossible to give a precise date when the belief was held as a matter of faith, but by the 8th or 9th century it seems to have been generally admitted..." The bible says "Well then, sin entered the world through one man [Adam}, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned." (Rom. 5:12, JB)

How do we know that she remained a virgin after Jesus was born? The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) regarding the Greek words a-del-phoi' and a-del-phai', used at Matthew 13:55, 56, that these "have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek speaking world of the Evangelist's time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th century Helvidius in a work now lost pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of larger families. St. Jerome, motivated by the Church's traditional faith in Mary's perpetual virginity, wrote a tract against Helvidius in which he developed an explanation... that is still in vogue among Catholic scholars"
Mark 3:31-35, JB: His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing outside, sent in a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting round him at the time the message was passed to him, 'Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you. He replied, Who are my mothers and my brothers? And looking round at those sitting in a circle about him, he said, Here are my mothers and my brothers. Anyone who does the will of God, that person in my brother and sister and mother.' " (here a clear distincion is drawn between Jesus' natural brothers and his spiritual brothers, his disciples.

All this information comes from "Reasoning from the Scriptures" published by Jehovah's Witnesses
Where in the bible does it say that Mary was a perfect virgin for all her life. If everyone sins wouldn't she too be a sinner. And if she was married, wouldn't she be aloud to have relations with her husband? I am converting to the Catholic faith and this is one of the things I need answered sense it is a very big deal in the Church. Thank you

Variety within Catholicism

Eliise789 — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:38:57 GMT

Hi!

I`m new here and have lot`s of questions about Catholicism, Christianity and faith in general.
If the questions have already been answered elsewhere, I would be grateful for links.

How large is the variety among worldviews and practices of Catholics?
What is the level of flexibility of the relationship between personal faith and Catholicism?
What joins different Catholics and where are the limits?
When can you say that someone who says they`re Catholic, actually is not?

It would be really great if you could bring examples from real life or imaginary situations and reflect on your own understanding:)
Thank you!

Modern miracles?

rachella14 — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:29:23 GMT

I'm having a discussion with someone who describes himself as agnostic. One of the questions he has about the Church is, why, now that we have modern science and people are generally more skeptical, do we not have so many miracles like those described in the Bible and by earlier Church histories? He sees this as evidence that those so called miracles could be explained away by ignorance and that now it doesn't happen because we know more about psychology and how the world works, etc.

I told him that I think that there *are* miracles that happen even now, but I'm not read up enough on them to give him any convincing arguments for them. Does anyone know of any modern miracles, especially those that have been rigorously examined and still found to be true or at least unexplainable other than as a miracle?

No need to pray for others?

HydanCelare — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:21:07 GMT

This is an excerpt from the book "Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence:

"That as for the miseries and sins he [Brother Lawrence] heard of daily in the world, he was so far from wondering at them, that, on the contrary, he was surprised there were not more, considering the malice sinners were capable of: that for his part, he prayed for them; but knowing that GOD could remedy the mischiefs they did, when He pleased, he gave himself no further trouble."

My understanding of this is that Brother Lawrence no longer prayed for sinners because God could easily do help them whether or not he prayed for them. So doesn't that mean that we too should also no longer bother ourselves with such a task?

help, i want to save our marriage and our souls. My husband beleives in the jehovah's witness religion.

claricrisd — Tue, 14 May 2013 22:05:59 GMT

I was baptized and brought up catholic by my parents. My husband was brought up by his JW mom and educated in the JW faith. As you can imagine he is extremely stubborn and he actually knows a lot more about his religion that I know about mine. Even though I've been catholic my whole life (going to church every Sunday, having done my holy communion, and confirmation) I essentially know nothing, and I feel so lost when I try to defend my faith. I have forgot almost everything and feel as if I need to relearn and study the catholic faith. Still, I'm so passionate when it comes to Catholicism. I can't explain it but I'm really drawn to it. It seems to be a deep and beautiful faith and I believe it is the one true religion. My parents have been an excellent example of a catholic marriage to me. Their love and service to god has really inspired me. I really want that with my husband. The big problem in our marriage is our drastically opposing views on religion. How do I stump a JW? How do I respond to our belief in the trinity? And about the truth of Jesus Christ and why he died for us. (They believe he's the archangel micheal???) How do I open his eyes? Can anyone give advice or refer to any articles, books, ect. that will help me? I want to be able to go up against even his mom. My ultimate goal is to convert my husband and get married by the church. I have a feeling it will be a long, heartbreaking battle but the last thing I want is to end up divorced to the man I truly love and adore. That is my biggest fear. Please pray for us!*
FWI my husband is baptized Catholic, so I'm hoping the holy spirit within will guide him towards the truth. He is not currently going to bible studies or to the JW's assemblies. We both grew apart from our religions when we met and got married.

When did the current sacramental economy take effect?

sw85 — Tue, 14 May 2013 18:14:35 GMT

Something I've always been curious about is when the present sacramental economy of salvation became efficacious. That is, at what point in history could we say that, for instance, baptism would affect the remission of sins, including original sin?

Did it take effect piecemeal, i.e., as each sacrament was instituted by Jesus? Or did it take effect all at once at some point in his life, i.e., at the moment of his death, or his resurrection, or his ascension, or Pentecost?