Mortal versus Venial Sin

Home Forums All Things Catholic Mortal versus Venial Sin

This topic contains 30 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Ron K 8 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 31 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1631

    weather
    Member

    A serious, grave or mortal sin is the knowing and willful violation of God’s law in a serious matter, for example, idolatry, adultery, murder, slander. These are all things gravely contrary to the love we owe God and, because of Him, our neighbor. As Jesus taught, when condemning even looking at a woman lustfully, sin can be both interior (choices of the will alone) or exterior (choices of the will carried into action). A man who willfully desires to fornicate, steal, murder or some other grave sin, has already seriously offended God by choosing interiorly what God has prohibited.

    Mortal sin is called mortal because it is the “spiritual” death of the soul (separation from God). If we are in the state of grace it loses this supernatural life for us. If we die without repenting we will lose Him for eternity. However, by turning our hearts back to Him and receiving the Sacrament of Penance we are restored to His friendship. Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion if they have unconfessed mortal sins.

    Venial sins are slight sins. They do not break our friendship with God, although they injure it. They involve disobedience of the law of God in slight (venial) matters. If we gossip and destroy a person’s reputation it would be a mortal sin. However, normally gossip is about trivial matters and only venially sinful. Additionally, something that is otherwise a mortal sin (e.g. slander) may be in a particular case only a venial sin. The person may have acted without reflection or under force of habit. Thus, not fully intending the action their guilt before God is reduced. It is always good to remember, especially those who are trying to be faithful but sometimes fall, that for mortal sin it must not only be 1) serious matter, but 2) the person must know it is serious and then 3) freely commit it.

    These two categories of sin are explicitly to be found in Sacred Scripture. In the Old Covenant there were sins that merited the death penalty and sins that could be expiated by an offering. This Law was a teacher that prepared the way for the faith (Gal. 3:24). In the New Covenant these material categories are replaced by spiritual ones, natural death by eternal death. There are thus daily faults for which we must daily ask forgiveness (Mt. 6:12), for even the “just man falls seven times a day” (Prov. 24:16), and mortal faults that separate the sinner from God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) for all eternity.

    http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp

    #8020

    Ron K
    Member

    Mr. WEATHERS claims:[quote:43wwfsje]
    A serious, grave or mortal sin is the knowing and willful violation of God’s law in a serious matter, for example, idolatry, adultery, murder, slander. These are all things gravely contrary to the love we owe God and, because of Him, our neighbor. As Jesus taught, when condemning even looking at a woman lustfully, sin can be both interior (choices of the will alone) or exterior (choices of the will carried into action). A man who willfully desires to fornicate, steal, murder or some other grave sin, has already seriously offended God by choosing interiorly what God has prohibited. [/quote:43wwfsje]
    But Mr. Weathers what the Bible says is that “sin is not permitted into Heaven” – Rev.21:27 And James 2:10,11 tells us if we commit one sin we are guilty of all! Romans – 6:23 – “the wages of SIN (singular) is death” So where do you get this “venial” stuff from?
    [quote:43wwfsje]
    Mortal sin is called mortal because it is the “spiritual” death of the soul (separation from God).[/quote:43wwfsje]
    And venial doesn’t??? Read those verses I quoted above again please.

    [quote:43wwfsje] If we are in the state of grace it loses this supernatural life for us. If we die without repenting we will lose Him for eternity. However, by turning our hearts back to Him and receiving the Sacrament of Penance we are restored to His friendship. Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion if they have unconfessed mortal sins. [/quote:43wwfsje]
    there you are – your sacramentalism again, nothing have been even mentioned about simeone’s faith in what Jesus did at Calvary! Why??
    [quote:43wwfsje]
    Venial sins are slight sins. They do not break our friendship with God, although they injure it. They involve disobedience of the law of God in slight (venial) matters.[/quote:43wwfsje]
    Now where does your church get that from? Again read verses from above and tell us what? give us a break!

    [quote:43wwfsje] If we gossip and destroy a person’s reputation it would be a mortal sin. However, normally gossip is about trivial matters and only venially sinful. Additionally, something that is otherwise a mortal sin (e.g. slander) may be in a particular case only a venial sin. The person may have acted without reflection or under force of habit. Thus, not fully intending the action their guilt before God is reduced. It is always good to remember, especially those who are trying to be faithful but sometimes fall, that for mortal sin it must not only be 1) serious matter, but 2) the person must know it is serious and then 3) freely commit it. [/quote:43wwfsje]
    Might be better to use your Bible to find out what God says instead of here!
    [quote:43wwfsje]
    These two categories of sin are explicitly to be found in Sacred Scripture. In the Old Covenant there were sins that merited the death penalty and sins that could be expiated by an offering. This Law was a teacher that prepared the way for the faith (Gal. 3:24). In the New Covenant these material categories are replaced by spiritual ones, natural death by eternal death. There are thus daily faults for which we must daily ask forgiveness (Mt. 6:12), for even the “just man falls seven times a day” (Prov. 24:16), and mortal faults that separate the sinner from God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) for all eternity. [/quote:43wwfsje]
    Maybe if you’d read my article you’d understand the difference –
    http://www.angelfire.com/crazy3/glm/article25.shtml

    http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp
    Expert? yea right! That’s what they’d like you to believe -Just more circular reasoning?

    #8031

    weather
    Member

    Now where does your church get that from? Again read verses from above and tell us what? give us a break!

    [color=blue:28s1pbth]Ron,you should not say “your church” it is “The Church”[/color:28s1pbth]

    #8033

    Ron K
    Member

    Mr. Weathers asks:

    [quote:hwnhea5o]Ron,you should not say “your church” it is “The Church”[/quote:hwnhea5o]

    Sorry sir but if your church was “The Church” it wouldn’t teach about venial sins as if they were a simple whoops nor many, many other examples. I’ve listed the Scriptures – so why do you ignore them?

    #8034

    weather
    Member

    Your reply [color=darkred:1k8y9l5c]”The Church” it wouldn’t teach about venial sins as if they were a simple whoops nor many, many other examples. [/color:1k8y9l5c]

    [color=blue:1k8y9l5c]1John 5
    16
    If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
    17
    All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.[/color:1k8y9l5c]

    #8035

    Ron K
    Member

    Mr. Weathers, you quote 1 John 5

    [quote:36tmthcg]1John 5
    16
    If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
    17
    All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.[/quote:36tmthcg]

    So I know all about those verses, but what about those verseI pointed out to you? God’s word is truth and there aren’t any contradictions in Scriptures. As my artuicle points out – the sins of 1 John are [u:36tmthcg][b:36tmthcg]physically they die[/b:36tmthcg][/u:36tmthcg] as in Acts 5 -with the two that lied about what
    they were giving to the Church and 1 Corinthians 11:30 where Paul said
    [color=red:36tmthcg][i:36tmthcg]For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.[/i:36tmthcg][/color:36tmthcg]

    Do you doubt? then look at Uzza in 1 Chronicles 13:8-10 –
    [color=red:36tmthcg]8 Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets.
    9 And when they came to Chidon’s[a] threshing floor, Uzza put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen stumbled. 10 Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against Uzza, and He struck him because he put his hand to the ark; and he died there before God.[/color:36tmthcg]

    would you say his sin was only venial? yet the Lord took his life! Or Adam and Eve eating the fruit – yet they and the whole world were separated from God because of that “little” sin.
    Now you take James verses and see if you can make sense about venial sins. Most likely you will ignore it, simply because you can’t make sense out of your situation.

    #8036

    weather
    Member

    Ron,without getting a bunch of Bible verses back,In your OWN mind what does 1John 5:15,16 say to you?
    P.S I have a Lutheran friend and there Bible says exactly the same.

    #8037

    Ron K
    Member

    No Mr.Weathers it isn’t about –

    [quote:5pi7ga49]Ron,without getting a bunch of Bible verses back,In your OWN mind what does 1John 5:15,16 say to you? [/quote:5pi7ga49]

    what I say isn’t the point, which is why I use Scriptures. The important thing is what does God say in His word and I’ve shown you
    James 2:10+11 [color=red:5pi7ga49] For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.”Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law[/color:5pi7ga49]
    and Rev. 21:27 – [color=red:5pi7ga49]But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.[/color:5pi7ga49]

    So much for yoyur church’s teachings about not only Purgatory but also the “venial sins” issue. And so much more if you’d put down the “I’m a Catholic – I must be right idea” So very much more.

    Besides, how often am I told to keep things in context – so one should not take isolated Scriptures if they would contradict others Scriptures.

    #8038

    weather
    Member

    I guess wont get a straight answer from you,I have a ? when you study and read the Bible do you take the readings as “gospel truth” or did you everythink those verses might mean something else?After all they were written almost 2000 years ago and went through many translations.Dont get me wrong I do read and believe what the Bible says but the Apostle’s wrote the books by memory and I think they wrote what they thought Jesus meant.For instance 1 John may be dated toward the end of the first century.

    #8039

    LARobert
    Participant

    [quote:21dddlbg]would you say his sin was only venial? yet the Lord took his life! Or Adam and Eve eating the fruit – yet they and the whole world were separated from God because of that “little” sin.
    Now you take James verses and see if you can make sense about venial sins. Most likely you will ignore it, simply because you can’t make sense out of your situation.[/quote:21dddlbg]

    Once again Ron, you misrepresent the teachings of Christ, and His Church. The way you represent only one aspect of a teaching of the Church would be akin to selling a windshield and a set of tail lights and calling it a car.

    Adam and Eve’s eating of the fruit of the Tree was not a simple act of eating a fruit, but a direct act against the will of God. An action that they where aware was a breach of their covenant with God. One of the conditions for a sin to be Mortal is that one knows one is offending God and one wills to do it anyway. Note I said one, as you proport to know what the Church teaches and to instruct us here (albeit usually with major errors in what you state the Church teaches) I’ll let you find other things that qualify a sin as mortal or venial.

    Reaching out and Touching the Ark was another deliberate act forbidden by God.

    Catholics do not deny that the wages of sin are death, the classification of sins into two categories as pointed out by Weather in the verse you wish to deflect comment from. Just as you reject what the followers of Christ have always believed because you narrow what God can do to only what is in the Bible. Even when the Bible does not support that it is the only source of God’s revelation, nor the only thing that Jesus taught, (see the final verses of St. John’s Gospel, or the mention of when Christ takes the Apostles aside after preaching to the crowd and instructs them further). Even when the abreviated Bible you use does not conform to the Scriptures taught by Christ and the Apostles, (Quotes our Lord and the Apostles make in the NT are taken from the Septuagent translation which include the books rejected by Protestants 1500 years after the fact.) You decry all history based on either it not being Scripture therefore invalid, or based on the paranoid theories of early Protestants that there is some grand plot by the same people who not only chose, (the Catholic Chruch, with the guidance of the Holy Ghost) those books that would be included in the NT out of the hundreds of writings that where circulating in the early Church, and accepted by some as Scripture and others as non-Scriptural.

    Two thousand years of the Catholic Church preserving the Bible, even making copies by hand before the first Bible printed on movable type, (A Catholic Bible), two thousand years preserving the teachings of the Apostles. The Preservation of the sermons and letters of the direct deciples of the Apostles and thier deciples, telling us what the Apostles instructed them, so we can know what the early Church taught Vs. five hundred years of rejecting books of the Bible because it did not fit in with the new found religious and political ideas of the men who founded the various Protestant sects which all disagree with each other over the Bible, because a spirit, (one that teaches and moves men to dissent) tells them they are correct and two thousand years of holding fast to the traditions taught by St. Paul are false.

    [quote:21dddlbg]Besides, how often am I told to keep things in context – so one should not take isolated Scriptures if they would contradict others Scriptures.[/quote:21dddlbg]

    Keeping things in context includes many things when discussing the Scriptures. Included in them and rejected by most private interpretation Protestants are… Context within the original tounges that the scriptues where written. Context to the cultures and times that they where written in. Context to what the early Church taught. Based on a rejection of these concepts the scriptures do (and even moreso from the Protestant reckoning of things) contradict themselves. Protestants decry the use of images in Catholic Churches based on the Protestant numbering of the ten Commandments. Catholics putting the Commandments into the perspective of the Old Testament follow God’s commandments. Protestants by reordering what God said reject what God commanded and become iconoclasts, much like their fifth century heretical forebearers, they bring back the long dead errors.

    As it is said, “Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.”

    #8040

    Ron K
    Member

    Mr. Weathers states:
    [quote:2lpymmck]
    I guess wont get a straight answer from you,[/quote:2lpymmck]
    You certainly do. But why do you not give me an answer to my question about – if 1 John was your way how would you have James 2:10+11 to be truthful? Or if Jesus took my sins to the cross, how do you figure that there is a Purgatory?
    [quote:2lpymmck]
    I have a ? when you study and read the Bible do you take the readings as “gospel truth” or did you everythink those verses might mean something else?[/quote:2lpymmck]
    I usually find that the best answers to a hardquestion is found in Scriptures themselves. So for this type of question I’ll just quote
    part of 1 Chronicles 28:9 – [color=red:2lpymmck]If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever[/color:2lpymmck]
    so why not search the Scriptures for your answers instead of going to “Catholic Answers” or your catechism after all Scriptures are truth and will not fail to do what they are meant for. Jesus Himself said “you error not knowing Scriptures” (Matthew 22:29)

    [quote:2lpymmck]After all they were written almost 2000 years ago and went through many translations.Dont get me wrong I do read and believe what the Bible says but the Apostle’s wrote the books by memory and I think they wrote what they thought Jesus meant.For instance 1 John may be dated toward the end of the first century. [/quote:2lpymmck]
    You fail to see one important item – the Holy Spirit was taking charge of what was or wasn’t put in the book, so it doesn’t matter what the apostles felt like or did or didn’t know, it came out the way God wanted it to come out, and as II usually ask Catholiics, since you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, can you tell me what other book has that type of messages from God? I never get any good answers yet!

    #8041

    LARobert
    Participant

    Ronald:

    No Catholic who knows his Faith would deny that the Bible is Inspired of God, a work of the Holy Ghost, by the cooperation of men. My question to you is this.

    How do you come to accept as canonical those books that are in the Bible, or Bibles (you’ve never really expounded on what translation you use, and aside from the many vernacular translations acceptable for Catholics, including the fifty or so that where availible to Catholics before Luther and other founders of Protestant Churches rejected portions of the Bible that did not fit his own doctrine.) If you accept the KJV Which one, as very first edition had the books now rejected from the canon. As there where other epistles of St. Paul, and other books that where read during the early liturgical services of the Church in some areas and accepted by some Churches as inspired and others that are included in the current canon (those NT books accepted by both Catholics and Protestants) that where rejected by some early Churches. Further as you do not accept the authority of Peter as the Vicar of Christ, nor the Apostles (or their legitimate successors) as having authority given the by Christ to decide on issues that don’t appear in the Scriptures, or to explain further what was only breifly described in the Scriptures, (Christ Himself went on to explain to those jews who came close to the Sola Scriptura position what the hidden meanings of the scriptures where, and even commented on how difficult some things where to understand.) So how did the canon come to be, by what authority do you accept the books you do. Can a “Believer” reject a book or two because it does not seem inspired to him, as Luther wanted to do?. This is not a trick question, but as you continue to attack the Catholic Church and her teachings, while not disclosing what denomination or sect you adhere to, nor are you straightforward about the sources of your interpretation of the Scripture, (your website muddles and contradicts itself on this matter) I in order to answer your accusations and attacks at the Body of Christ, just want to know.

    #8042

    Ron K
    Member

    Hello LARoberts, I wondered how you were doing and how long before you’d speak up again. So this is your idea, to get the Cathlic Church out from under the Light AND TO CHANGE THE FOCUS away?

    You stated–[quote:66v4md8o]
    No Catholic who knows his Faith would deny that the Bible is Inspired of God, a work of the Holy Ghost, by the cooperation of men. My question to you is this. [/quote:66v4md8o]
    BY “His faith” you obviously mean a Catholic that knows “Catholicism” as you wished it was, don’t you?
    [quote:66v4md8o]
    How do you come to accept as canonical those books that are in the Bible, or Bibles (you’ve never really expounded on what translation you use, and aside from the many vernacular translations acceptable for Catholics, including the fifty or so that where availible to Catholics before Luther and other founders of Protestant Churches rejected portions of the Bible that did not fit his own doctrine.) [/quote:66v4md8o]
    Now what does that matter except to build your religion by tearing me down? (Not to mention how you slyly include your so called Apocrapha Books as if they were to be Biblical)

    [quote:66v4md8o]If you accept the KJV Which one, as very first edition had the books now rejected from the canon.[/quote:66v4md8o]
    Now the attempt to question my Bible? that isn’t the first time I’ve seen that type of diversion. Have I been misquoting a verse Mr. LAR? If we both know that Scriptures are by God and I haven’t been misquoting, then why such a question?
    [quote:66v4md8o]
    As there where other epistles of St. Paul, and other books that where read during the early liturgical services of the Church in some areas and accepted by some Churches as inspired and others that are included in the current canon (those NT books accepted by both Catholics and Protestants) that where rejected by some early Churches. [/quote:66v4md8o]
    How we got the Bible doesn’t really matter as long as one uses it to find Jesus and since we both agree on the New Testament books, I feel you are just trying to be evasive.

    [quote:66v4md8o]Further as you do not accept the authority of Peter as the Vicar of Christ, nor the Apostles (or their legitimate successors) as having authority given the by Christ to decide on issues that don’t appear in the Scriptures, or to explain further what was only breifly described in the Scriptures, (Christ Himself went on to explain to those jews who came close to the Sola Scriptura position what the hidden meanings of the scriptures where, and even commented on how difficult some things where to understand.) So how did the canon come to be, by what authority do you accept the books you do. Can a “Believer” reject a book or two because it does not seem inspired to him, as Luther wanted to do?. This is not a trick question, but as you continue to attack the Catholic Church and her teachings, while not disclosing what denomination or sect you adhere to, nor are you straightforward about the sources of your interpretation of the Scripture, (your website muddles and contradicts itself on this matter) I in order to answer your accusations and attacks at the Body of Christ, just want to know.
    _________________[/quote:66v4md8o]

    Peter never was a pope as Scriptures show he was a very importanyt apostle, but as Acts 15 shows James was also part of yhe early Church ( and another person as well) And Galations 2 shows Paul rebuking Peter
    so much for his vicarship!
    The rest is just you building a diversionary from the topic at hand – [i:66v4md8o][u:66v4md8o][b:66v4md8o]is Catholicism God’s Church?[/b:66v4md8o][/u:66v4md8o][/i:66v4md8o]

    How do you figure my website muddles or contradicts itself is what I just want to know?

    #8043

    LARobert
    Participant

    Yup I’m back, I have a break in my schedule between the radiation and the Chemotherapy, so I’ll be reading and getting the replies to your questions that I promised you end of Lent in due course. Not to mention uniting the unplesant side effects of the treatment to those of Christ on the Cross for the intention that the fetters are unloosed and people find their way back to Christ and His Church.

    I do however find it interesting that like your individual quotes out of context from the Scriptures, you also select and narrowly misrepresent from Catholic documents. It would seem that the sources you get them from are Anti-Catholics rather than the sources themselves. Regarding the Catechism, I’ve at least once mentioned that the Catechism is a condensation of the Truths taught by the Church, not an exhaustive treaties. A similar anology would be that your yet to be named denomination probably has a Children’s Sunday or Sabbath School. The children do not learn (I would assume) the Greek Texts and the historical content of the bible times, as someone of more advanced age and study should. So too the Catechism is a basic overview of the Faith that will hopefully spur a Catholic on to a deeper study and understanding of the Faith, of which the Bible, (which Catholics are encouraged to read, and exposed to every time they assist at Mass) is a part of. Anyone who reads through Catholic theological works, Dogmatic decrees or Council Documents will see that Scripture is used to support the documents, rather than trying to hammer scripture into conformity to what we want it to say, we look to what the early Church said and see if we are in confomity with what the Apostles and their successors taught.

    It would seem that based on your statements in the past that historical facts would just muddy up the waters and disprove the inventions of 16th Century Protestants. I’ve asked you before, and ask again by what authority do we have the canon of Scripture, and what denomination you are a member of, (you don’t have to give the specific local parish) as well as what sources you use to attack the Church because it will help in understanding what bias you are coming from. I ask you this because (once again) your attacks are not novel, but simply (in most cases) word for word attacks from other writers who have been shown misleading and false. A careful read of your web pages will show you where you contradict yourself, I’m not going to blurt it out, you find the contradictions and I’ll continue to read it….

    Deflecting questions and discounting them rather than answer them seems to be your MO mr. Ron. You lump Catholics with the Pharasaical party, but it seems that you like them like to attack Christ’s teaching by a narrow interpretation of the Law. It would seem you would rather attack, and close your eyes to discussion. Most of all the points that you cannot answer. I see little use of discussing, let alone debating topics if you can’t respond to questions, jump to conclusions, and attempt with a limited knowledge base to define Catholic teachings by looking at them from a limited and poorly researched perspective.

    New question to ignore by you Mr. Ron. How about the proscription against divorce. Christ says that it was a concession allowed by Moses who was bending to the will of the people, and that it would not be tolerated, but Protestants disobey Christ in allowing it.

    Since I am not the administrator of this board, I’ll just make observations. You Ronald come into a Catholic Board and start slinging your anti-catholic rhetoric, you tell us that you know the Bible, and nobody else here does, you tell us that the historical documents, and history of the Church are lies and brainwashing. You tell us not to tell you about how the Bible Canon was formulated, that it is not important, yet you give nothing to support any of these accusations, no alternate history (from credible sources) nor do you reply to those questions that you deem unimportant perhaps because you cannot find an answer to them. It is important to understand where the canon of the Bible came from. If you can find another answer aside from the historical truth, I’d like to hear that. So far no answer from you on this and other topics, just attacks based on the writings of others, and not fully fact checked in the full context of the subject by yourself.

    #8045

    Ron K
    Member

    Answering Mr. LARoberts:

    [quote:38137k3x]Yup I’m back, I have a break in my schedule between the radiation and the Chemotherapy, so I’ll be reading and getting the replies to your questions that I promised you end of Lent in due course. Not to mention uniting the unplesant side effects of the treatment to those of Christ on the Cross for the intention that the fetters are unloosed and people find their way back to Christ and His Church. [/quote:38137k3x]
    No need to mention it ,but since you did, I might as well remind you that you need to get saved as well just as I have done.
    I suppose you’ll tell me that Paul was referring to the “Roman Law” in Romans 3:27+28?
    [quote:38137k3x] you also select and narrowly misrepresent from Catholic documents.[/quote:38137k3x]
    Do you have any examples that you’d like to share that I’ve done or is it that they’re just different then what you’d like them to say?
    [quote:38137k3x] It would seem that the sources you get them from are Anti-Catholics rather than the sources themselves.[/quote:38137k3x]
    I’d prefer to view it as pro-Jesus instead of Anti-Catholic.
    [quote:38137k3x] Regarding the Catechism, I’ve at least once mentioned that the Catechism is a condensation of the Truths taught by the Church, not an exhaustive treaties.[/quote:38137k3x]
    Truths? Such as its view of Muslims in item 841 or the ‘Mother of God’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs -971 – I’m not sure you know what truth means.
    [quote:38137k3x] A similar anology would be that your yet to be named denomination probably has a Children’s Sunday or Sabbath School. The children do not learn (I would assume) the Greek Texts and the historical content of the bible times, as someone of more advanced age and study should.[/quote:38137k3x]
    Some day I may tell you, but you’ll use that info to nitpit that denomination and we’d never get back to the falsehood of Catholicism – been there done that – and it goes nowhere.
    [quote:38137k3x] So too the Catechism is a basic overview of the Faith that will hopefully spur a Catholic on to a deeper study and understanding of the Faith, of which the Bible, (which Catholics are encouraged to read, and exposed to every time they assist at Mass) is a part of. Anyone who reads through Catholic theological works, Dogmatic decrees or Council Documents will see that Scripture is used to support the documents, [/quote:38137k3x]
    You see, that’s what I mean. You use the Bible secondarily instead as it is meant to be – the authoritive book as God’s Book- where one tries to do as it says
    [quote:38137k3x]rather than trying to hammer scripture into conformity to what we want it to say, we look to what the early Church said and see if we are in confomity with what the Apostles and their successors taught. [/quote:38137k3x]Here is another example – who of your church is infallible? The Bible I know is and I’ve yet to meet any human that was!
    [quote:38137k3x]It would seem that based on your statements in the past that historical facts would just muddy up the waters and disprove the inventions of 16th Century Protestants.[/quote:38137k3x]
    Again, I know Scriptures are truth, but not necessarily humans, so I just follow Paul’s advice of Galatians 1:7-9 – [color=red:38137k3x]which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. [/color:38137k3x]
    [quote:38137k3x] I’ve asked you before, and ask again by what authority do we have the canon of Scripture,[/quote:38137k3x]
    That is debateable, not sure just what you mean. I think you would like to say Matthew 16:18 but that is “taken out of context.”
    [quote:38137k3x] and what denomination you are a member of, (you don’t have to give the specific local parish) as well as what sources you use to attack the Church because it will help in understanding what bias you are coming from. I ask you this because (once again) your attacks are not novel, but simply (in most cases) word for word attacks from other writers who have been shown misleading and false. A careful read of your web pages will show you where you contradict yourself, I’m not going to blurt it out, you find the contradictions and I’ll continue to read it…. [/quote:38137k3x]
    I am a Bible believer, so if you wouldn’t mind, be a little more specific about where I’ve mislead or been false!
    [quote:38137k3x]Deflecting questions and discounting them rather than answer them seems to be your MO mr. Ron. [/quote:38137k3x]
    You mean just as some of my questions are avoided and not answered?
    [quote:38137k3x]You lump Catholics with the Pharasaical party, but it seems that you like them like to attack Christ’s teaching by a narrow interpretation of the Law. [/quote:38137k3x]
    Such as? Prove this please – as I use His teachings and often times am told not to quote Scriptures, so how do you figure?
    [quote:38137k3x]It would seem you would rather attack, and close your eyes to discussion. Most of all the points that you cannot answer. I see little use of discussing, let alone debating topics if you can’t respond to questions, jump to conclusions, and attempt with a limited knowledge base to define Catholic teachings by looking at them from a limited and poorly researched perspective. [/quote:38137k3x]
    I’m ready – which topic should we start with?
    [quote:38137k3x]New question to ignore by you Mr. Ron. How about the proscription against divorce. Christ says that it was a concession allowed by Moses who was bending to the will of the people, and that it would not be tolerated, but Protestants disobey Christ in allowing it. [/quote:38137k3x]
    There are two instances in which we can be legally and Biblically correct to get divorced and remarry. 1 – in case of spouses adultery and 2 if a unbeliever decides to divorce a believer! (And BTW, I don’t see any Biblical annulments)
    [quote:38137k3x]Since I am not the administrator of this board, I’ll just make observations. You Ronald come into a Catholic Board and start slinging your anti-catholic rhetoric, you tell us that you know the Bible, and nobody else here does, you tell us that the historical documents, and history of the Church are lies and brainwashing. You tell us not to tell you about how the Bible Canon was formulated, that it is not important, yet you give nothing to support any of these accusations,[/quote:38137k3x]
    What would you call my quoting Scriptures?
    [quote:38137k3x] no alternate history (from credible sources) nor do you reply to those questions that you deem unimportant perhaps because you cannot find an answer to them.[/quote:38137k3x]
    Perhaps we should rely on God’s Word as we should do? Or do you know of another source that is as reliable?
    [quote:38137k3x] It is important to understand where the canon of the Bible came from. [/quote:38137k3x]
    I think God, who do you think?
    [quote:38137k3x]If you can find another answer aside from the historical truth, I’d like to hear that.[/quote:38137k3x]
    See Galatians 1 again, how do I know how truthful your history is when much of your “religion” isn’t
    [quote:38137k3x] So far no answer from you on this and other topics, just attacks based on the writings of others, and not fully fact checked in the full context of the subject by yourself.[/quote:38137k3x]
    In your opinion maybe, but that is not as a factual point!

    #8046

    LARobert
    Participant

    Hit the enter key too early see next post.

    #8047

    LARobert
    Participant

    [quote:1o4hbiqp]It is important to understand where the canon of the Bible came from.

    I think God, who do you think? [/quote:1o4hbiqp]

    Just another example of your misleading dirision. By your reply you imply the Catholic Church and it’s members, (the body of Christ) do not believe the Bible to Be God’s word. You prove yourself to be misled by your Protestant Anti-Catholic training. Fruit that was spiled and cut off from the vine, soured and now inedible.

    As far as Sola Scriptura, it is a false idol, an anti-biblical arugument, and one that leads people to a false Christ rather than the balm which is found in His body, the Church. You can call yourself Pro-Jesus all you want, but the preaching of the False Christ you and all followers of the 16th Century man made invention of so called Biblical Christianity is not the answer. Nor are your evsions of the questions. Following the fruits of Sola Scriptura, (as we are told we will know them by their fruits) the only logical conclusion is that Sola Scriptura makes God a liar. How so? Well each new sect that spins off as it interprets the Scriptures differently and forms itself with it’s new doctrines ipso facto denies the truth has been held by it’s mother church. As each new sect forms and denies the truth is held by the prior they tell us that nobody understood the Scriptures, and therefore Christ did not hold true to His promise to remain with His Church to the consumation of the Earth.

    One point you have failed in is that you insist on “Bible Proof” Aside from (among the many passages) following the Bible by remembering that St. Paul admonished the Chruch when he wrote, “hold fast to the traditions I gave you” I can’t waste time by being sucked into your Sola Scriptura errors. So far you have not convinced me to return to the old errors I once held that the Bible alone is our source of direction and the only means God has given us to behold the truth. While I do have the Evangelical Free Church to thank for my introduction to Christianity, (although it was an edited and incomplete Christianity, limited by those beliefs, (both biblical and orad tradition) which they took with them when they broke off with other Protestants who they disagreed with over Sola Scriptura interpretations of the Sciptures, they at least retained a few Catholic Truths, which brought me finally to the Catholic Church, and the understanding of the entire Truth as revealed by Christ Jesus. So far what they retained from Catholic teachings, even if by their own ignorance, I am grateful that God’s grace kept me on the path to His Church. Rather than waste time writing about things you are predjudiced against by your Hislop styled taskmasters, and false sect leaders who supply your twising of Scipture, I’ll spend the time adding a decade or two of the rosary to intentions for the scales to be removed from your eyes, while you ponder this site….hopefully with an honest heart open to the moving of the Holy Ghost…[url:1o4hbiqp]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html[/url:1o4hbiqp]

    Don’t limit yourself, read the entire site. While you are doing that I’ll do something more worthwhile than arguing with someone invested in attacking without thinking things through, I’ll add another decade or two to the rosary for you.

    #8051

    Ron K
    Member

    Mr. LARoberts has this to say:

    [quote:exfu8twx]Just another example of your misleading dirision. By your reply you imply the Catholic Church and it’s members, (the body of Christ) do not believe the Bible to Be God’s word. [/quote:exfu8twx]
    They certainly don’t believe it to be THE authoritive Book that it is indeed,
    as we can see in the rest of your little note here.
    [quote:exfu8twx]You prove yourself to be misled by your Protestant Anti-Catholic training. Fruit that was spiled and cut off from the vine, soured and now inedible. [/quote:exfu8twx]
    Wait a minute! Your last post was about debating, now you just turned bitter. Why? Or is it as that old saying goes – the truth hurts???
    [quote:exfu8twx]As far as Sola Scriptura, it is a false idol, an anti-biblical arugument, and one that leads people to a false Christ rather than the balm which is found in His body, the Church.[/quote:exfu8twx]
    Okay then tell me where there is anything from God that compares to the Bible, just one (truthful) thing mr. LAR
    [quote:exfu8twx]You can call yourself Pro-Jesus all you want, but the preaching of the False Christ you and all followers of the 16th Century man made invention of so called Biblical Christianity is not the answer.[/quote:exfu8twx]
    I don’t think you understand that I don’t need your approval or your religion since God’s word will do nicely (as in John 8:31-32)
    [quote:exfu8twx]Nor are your evsions of the questions.[/quote:exfu8twx]
    because I didn’t tell you what denomination I was? I’m a believer of what Jesus did at Calvary for my sins, so lets discuss that????
    [quote:exfu8twx] Following the fruits of Sola Scriptura, (as we are told we will know them by their fruits) the only logical conclusion is that Sola Scriptura makes God a liar. How so? Well each new sect that spins off as it interprets the Scriptures differently and forms itself with it’s new doctrines ipso facto denies the truth has been held by it’s mother church. As each new sect forms and denies the truth is held by the prior they tell us that nobody understood the Scriptures, and therefore Christ did not hold true to His promise to remain with His Church to the consumation of the Earth. [/quote:exfu8twx]
    Ihat is your story but I don’t buy it as I have friends who are fellow believers in many denominations. As long as they have the basic Gospel down straight, I could care less about where they go.
    [quote:exfu8twx]One point you have failed in is that you insist on “Bible Proof” Aside from (among the many passages) following the Bible by remembering that St. Paul admonished the Chruch when he wrote, “hold fast to the traditions I gave you” [/quote:exfu8twx]
    yes the same ones that we see in the Bible. Is that so hard to understand?[quote:exfu8twx]
    I can’t waste time by being sucked into your Sola Scriptura errors. So far you have not convinced me to return to the old errors I once held that the Bible alone is our source of direction and the only means God has given us to behold the truth.[/quote:exfu8twx]
    learning the truth is hardly a waste of time!
    [quote:exfu8twx] While I do have the Evangelical Free Church to thank for my introduction to Christianity, (although it was an edited and incomplete Christianity, limited by those beliefs, (both biblical and orad tradition) which they took with them when they broke off with other Protestants who they disagreed with over Sola Scriptura interpretations of the Sciptures, they at least retained a few Catholic Truths, which brought me finally to the Catholic Church, and the understanding of the entire Truth as revealed by Christ Jesus. So far what they retained from Catholic teachings, even if by their own ignorance,[/quote:exfu8twx]
    there are many truths in Catholicism, its their poison that kills
    [quote:exfu8twx]I am grateful that God’s grace kept me on the path to His Church.[/quote:exfu8twx]
    so you say (what was that part about ignorance????)
    [quote:exfu8twx] Rather than waste time writing about things you are predjudiced against by your Hislop styled taskmasters, and false sect leaders who supply your twising of Scipture, I’ll spend the time adding a decade or two of the rosary to intentions for the scales to be removed from your eyes,[/quote:exfu8twx]
    The rosary? The Bible (yes that again) says much against repititious praying, about praying to others etc. why not do some serious Bible sudy?
    [quote:exfu8twx] while you ponder this site….hopefully with an honest heart open to the moving of the Holy Ghost…http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html [/quote:exfu8twx]
    I’ll peek at it, okay?[quote:exfu8twx]
    Don’t limit yourself, read the entire site. While you are doing that I’ll do something more worthwhile than arguing with someone invested in attacking without thinking things through, I’ll add another decade or two to the rosary for you.[/quote:exfu8twx]
    I thought you were going to not waste your time?

    What else do you want to discuss, Mr. LARoberts?

    #8052

    LARobert
    Participant

    [quote:245pzrbf]yes the same ones that we see in the Bible. Is that so hard to understand?[/quote:245pzrbf]
    I really don’t think I’m the one that misunderstands this passage.

    [quote:245pzrbf]Wait a minute! Your last post was about debating, now you just turned bitter. Why? Or is it as that old saying goes – the truth hurts??? [/quote:245pzrbf]
    Nope, just thought I was debating with an adult, guess you have proved me wrong on that presumtion.

    [quote:245pzrbf]so you say (what was that part about ignorance????)[/quote:245pzrbf]
    Tempting to stoop to your level, but someone has to be an adult here. As you are a guest in a Catholic forum, I’ll try and be one.

    [quote:245pzrbf]Okay then tell me where there is anything from God that compares to the Bible, just one (truthful) thing mr. LAR [/quote:245pzrbf]

    I’ve seen little truth in your postings, simply evasion and mis-direction.

    I stated before and I’ll say it again, I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura I have studied and taught the Scriptures at a University level to both Catholics and Protestants and I just have found it to be false. Based on a study of the Scriptures in the Original languages, both as a foundation as a Jew (Sephardic as I mentioned early on in my time here on the board) through my early adulthood, my few years at the Evangelical Free Chruch, and a study of the facts presented by Bart Brewer and his buddies attacking the Church, only to find out they misrepresented it at every turn, (Thanks be to God for the night Bart taught, “You have to be like wolves in sheeps clothing and attack Catholics who are ignorant of what their Church teaches” for making me go to the source and have him expel me when I asked him questions based on facts I learned from reading authentically Catholic books.

    I do believe what the Early Church believed, that there are two forms of Tradition; oral and written (Sacred Scripture). That they hold equal weight. That the Holy Ghost which was promised by Christ Jesus has led the Catholic Church from the day of Penticost and that the Church has never taught as formal dogma anything that is untrue. You may find that hard to swallow, as you have to trust in the word and work of Christ Jesus when he gives His authority to men, and promises to remain with them. But I’d rather base my life on Christ’s promises, and trust that He will keep them than my own personal interpretation of His word based on the writings of men who fifteen hundred years after the fact decided to abandon what had been taught by the Apostles both within the context of Scripture and through oral tradition. You Ron have been tedious about the fact that you reject what the early Church held, and hold to Sola Scriptura, but I just can’t buy it.

    Who would I cast my lot with, someone who decides his personal interpretation of Scripture is correct, or the Apostles their desciples and their direct successors. Great scholars and saints like Irenaeus, Cyprian,
    Cyril of Jerusalem, or Ron who tells me that isolated in the 20th and 21rst Centuries with all on his own he understands an english translation of a Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts written in the Middle East at a time long ago, with cultural and religious ideas that he is not familar with? I’d say I would trust the former, and I’d say that having the facility to read the Hebrew and Greek on my own, as well as the Latin text of commentaries written by men much more learned and holy than myself, (note that unlike yourself I don’t speculate or postulate on the status of your soul before God, simply the errors and hate that you spread around the internet, although they seem to be mitigated by the apparent superficial knowledge of the Catholic Faith and your often stated lack of interest in historical facts.) So in view of your lack of reasonable response I would say it is you who does not want an honest debate, but simply a place to vent your anger at the Church, and feel just a little bit superior to everyone else. I’m sorry if someone who was a member of the Church hurt you or your feelings when you where younger, but then again the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a spa for saints, (at least in this lifetime.)

    One last question/comment before I let you get back to frothing at the mouth, and myself to dealing with people who want to engage in honest debate and praying that through the intecession of Our Lady and All the Saints God’s grace works it’s way into your soul and gives you the peace that only He and appointed body the Church can give, you never replied to the question about divorce. You simply deflected with a non issue asking what the Bible says about Annulments. So if you would please, tell us what the divorce answer is, and (once again without cutting and pasting from a Catholic online source) tell us what Annulments are. Remember as Catholics the Bible is not the only source of authority, so you can’t suck me into a false argument that annulments are not mentioned in the Bible. And I’ll keep praying for you

    #8053

    Ron K
    Member

    [quote:i8dvec6f]
    yes the same ones that we see in the Bible. Is that so hard to understand?

    I really don’t think I’m the one that misunderstands this passage. [/quote:i8dvec6f]

    [b:i8dvec6f]Naturally you wouldn’t, you don’t know better on that either[/b:i8dvec6f]
    [quote:i8dvec6f]
    Wait a minute! Your last post was about debating, now you just turned bitter. Why? Or is it as that old saying goes – the truth hurts???

    Nope, just thought I was debating with an adult, guess you have proved me wrong on that presumtion. [/quote:i8dvec6f]Quote:
    [b:i8dvec6f]No problem doing that – Its trying to get you to swallow your pride that is difficult[/b:i8dvec6f][quote:i8dvec6f][quote:i8dvec6f]
    so you say (what was that part about ignorance????)

    Tempting to stoop to your level, but someone has to be an adult here. As you are a guest in a Catholic forum, I’ll try and be one. [/quote:i8dvec6f][/quote:i8dvec6f]Wow are you impressive now, or what? Now that we have that settled, lets see who is following God’s instruction sheets – The Bible
    [quote:i8dvec6f]Quote:
    [b:i8dvec6f]Okay then tell me where there is anything from God that compares to the Bible, just one (truthful) thing mr. LAR [/b:i8dvec6f]
    I’ve seen little truth in your postings, simply evasion and mis-direction. [/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]Then answer the question instead of being “simply evasive and mis-directed” as you suggest I am.[/b:i8dvec6f]
    [quote:i8dvec6f]I stated before and I’ll say it again, I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura I have studied and taught the Scriptures at a University level to both Catholics and Protestants and I just have found it to be false. Based on a study of the Scriptures in the Original languages, both as a foundation as a Jew (Sephardic as I mentioned early on in my time here on the board) through my early adulthood, my few years at the Evangelical Free Chruch, and a study of the facts presented by Bart Brewer and his buddies attacking the Church, only to find out they misrepresented it at every turn, (Thanks be to God for the night Bart taught, “You have to be like wolves in sheeps clothing and attack Catholics who are ignorant of what their Church teaches” for making me go to the source and have him expel me when I asked him questions based on facts I learned from reading authentically Catholic books.
    [/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]They might be catholic but I highly doubt that they are filled with facts![/b:i8dvec6f]

    [quote:i8dvec6f]I do believe what the Early Church believed, that there are two forms of Tradition; oral and written (Sacred Scripture). That they hold equal weight.[/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]Which is it – the early way or today’s Catholic?[/b:i8dvec6f]

    only if they say the same Biblical point such as Galations 1
    [quote:i8dvec6f]That the Holy Ghost which was promised by Christ Jesus has led the Catholic Church from the day of Penticost and that the Church has never taught as formal dogma anything that is untrue.[/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]Jesus has never led anyone in lies – I guess that leaves out the RCC as His Church![/b:i8dvec6f]
    [quote:i8dvec6f]You may find that hard to swallow, as you have to trust in the word and work of Christ Jesus when he gives His authority to men, and promises to remain with them. But I’d rather base my life on Christ’s promises, and trust that He will keep them than my own personal interpretation of His word based on the writings of men who fifteen hundred years after the fact decided to abandon what had been taught by the Apostles both within the context of Scripture and through oral tradition.[/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]Matthew 22:29 in referrance to this[/b:i8dvec6f].
    [quote:i8dvec6f]
    You Ron have been tedious about the fact that you reject what the early Church held, and hold to Sola Scriptura, but I just can’t buy it. [/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]I just tell you the facts – you have a free will to accept or reject what Christ accomplished at Calvary to follow your whatever…[/b:i8dvec6f][quote:i8dvec6f]
    Who would I cast my lot with, someone who decides his personal interpretation of Scripture is correct, or the Apostles their desciples and their direct successors. Great scholars and saints like Irenaeus, Cyprian,
    Cyril of Jerusalem, or Ron who tells me that isolated in the 20th and 21rst Centuries with all on his own he understands an english translation of a Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts written in the Middle East at a time long ago, with cultural and religious ideas that he is not familar with? I’d say I would trust the former, and I’d say that having the facility to read the Hebrew and Greek on my own, as well as the Latin text of commentaries written by men much more learned and holy than myself, (note that unlike yourself I don’t speculate or postulate on the status of your soul before God, simply the errors and hate that you spread around the internet, although they seem to be mitigated by the apparent superficial knowledge of the Catholic Faith and your often stated lack of interest in historical facts.) So in view of your lack of reasonable response I would say it is you who does not want an honest debate, but simply a place to vent your anger at the Church, and feel just a little bit superior to everyone else. I’m sorry if someone who was a member of the Church hurt you or your feelings when you where younger, but then again the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a spa for saints, (at least in this lifetime.) [/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]To late LAR – you already are mixed up[/b:i8dvec6f]

    [quote:i8dvec6f]One last question/comment before I let you get back to frothing at the mouth, and myself to dealing with people who want to engage in honest debate and praying that through the intecession of Our Lady [/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]Here is another fact – Mary isn’t going to intercede for you or anyone. Lots of luck![/b:i8dvec6f][quote:i8dvec6f]and All the Saints God’s grace works it’s way into your soul and gives you the peace that only He and appointed body the Church can give,[/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]This much of your prayer has already happened, time now to start working on your salvation[/b:i8dvec6f]
    [quote:i8dvec6f] you never replied to the question about divorce. [/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]Didn’t I say tht there were only two ways to get divorced Biblically?[/b:i8dvec6f]

    [quote:i8dvec6f]You simply deflected with a non issue asking what the Bible says about Annulments.[/quote:i8dvec6f]
    [b:i8dvec6f]Okay[/b:i8dvec6f]

    [quote:i8dvec6f]So if you would please, tell us what the divorce answer is, and (once again without cutting and pasting from a Catholic online source) tell us what Annulments are. Remember as Catholics the Bible is not the only source of authority, so you can’t suck me into a false argument that annulments are not mentioned in the Bible. And I’ll keep praying for you[/quote:i8dvec6f]

    [b:i8dvec6f]Annulments – The Church tells (for a small fee) that one’s marraige was never acceptable in God’s eyes for a number of reasons and declares it to never have happened[/b:i8dvec6f]

    Now what?[/b]

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 31 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.