Yep RCs believe love is conditional.
Justification
- Thread starter RayneBeau
- Start date
Isn't your "summary" the exact opposite of what the catechism says? The catechism's saying something is a sin if you intend to do it and "even though you don't actually do it" becomes "NOT A SIN is no action is taken" in your summary. This is assuming that you define "action" as a only physical actions, and not mental actions.
I don't know Greek but I'd be interested in the original. Did he say "just having the thought" as in having a stray thought enter your mind and pass through your mind because you reject it, of did he say "just thinking it" as in using your Will to accept the thought and carry out the action of thinking/imagining/mentally carrying out that thought. In "just having the thought," the Will has done nothing, except to reject the thought. In "thinking it," the Will is accepting and thinking the thought, and held responsible for it, "even though you don't actually do it" physically. Mental actions are still actions, and the Will is held responsible for its actions, whether mental or physical.
Why not look up the catechism on sin, so that can be clarified. Evidence is needed.
My reply quoted the same Catechism that the poster said he was summarizing.
The poster quoted this:
A Catechism for Adults
Q.#13: Are you guilty of sin if you intend to do something wrong, even though you don't actually do it?
A.#13: Yes, because the intention to offend God is in itself a sin.
No you didn't a citation of quote and it is a part quote. Why not go to the full catechism? I was taught by the nuns sin by thoughts, words and deeds.
catechism:
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."
1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.
1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate's cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas' betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter's denial and the disciples' flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world, the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.
III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS
1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."
1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.
IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
OK, so here is a fuller quote from the poster:
"RCC's as a whole, falsely believe that If you don't follow through with the thought, then there is no sin. So let Stella have her old RCC which ALWAYS makes up their own rules as they go along, claiming their origin is in Christ, when in fact, the truth is that their teaching comes from their "Magisterium" with the help of Roman Catholic Spin doctors, in making up their "Catechism for Adults" for the Roman Catholic Church.
A Catechism for Adults
Lesson #10
Mortal and Venial Sins
Q.#1: WHAT IS SIN?
A.#1: "Sin is any thought, word, desire, action or neglect forbidden by the law of God."
Q.#13: Are you guilty of sin if you intend to do something wrong, even though you don't actually do it?
A.#13: Yes, because the intention to offend God is in itself a sin.
In summary: Stella and RCC believe and argue that it is NOT A SIN if only the thought to harm someone is there, but no action is taken."
So the poster is saying that if you think something..."but no action is taken"...then the RCC teaches that it was not a sin. And yet the catechism quote that the poster cites says that the thought alone is indeed a sin. I then explained that the Will is held responsible for any action that it does, whether a mental action or a physical action.
That's right. You can sin by thoughts. Even if you do not follow them through or carry them out as physical deeds.
What do you make of the definition of sin, that something is sinful for you if it damages or destroys the love that you have in you?
So if you had to destroy the love (agape) in you to commit a particular sin, then you are left without love. Since this love was from the Spirit, from Christ, and God's own life...you are also left without spiritual life. You are now spiritually dead. However, if you committed a sin against someone but still hold some love for that person, so that you haven't killed your love but your love has survived, then you still have love (agape) in you, which means you still have God's life...and are not spiritually dead, but still alive - so the sin will turn out not to have led to death, and so was not mortal but non-mortal (aka venial).
It does not matter how much you repost things. Stella is one of the RCs that I see as all talk and her actions speak volumes that are different to her words.
Well let us look at RC practices - they have leaders who do not expose sin and allowed the sheep to be continue to be harmed, then there were those who raped nuns, fathered children outside marriage and worse still harmed children, then they lied about those victims. I mean so many RCs have said no one is to judge them, but we judge their fruit not their final destination. But according to what you have posted haven't they destroyed agape love? One RC priest in this country went to 1500 confessions (I am not reposting the article, I have done so many times). If these leaders have destroyed agape love, how were they allowed to continue to celebrate mass and touch the real presence?
To me RCs are great at telling non RCs how much better they are and that their standards are higher but I don't care about the words I look at the fruit. It is something I learnt from being brought up RC, words are meaningless without being put into practice.
I don't know the details of what happened and also don't know the details of how the Church hierarchy deals with canon law in these issues. They have their legal procedures just like our secular law courts. That said, Catholic teaching would tell such priests that if they really did those things, then they destroyed their agape love and it led to spiritual death. They can think what they want, and can be deluded as to whether they still have love in them, but if they do not in fact have agape love in them (as a residing, constant, indwelling force), then they are dead. How can they regain the love that is also their spiritual life? Through repentance and contrition and confession.
I suppose if compared to an antinomian, the RC standard is higher. It demands that we not be murderers or adulterers or like those who Paul says will not inherit the kingdom. But compared to the non-RCs, I think the standard is lower. We do not apply the standard of the torah Law, which demanded perfection. We apply the law of Christ, which is intrinsically forgiving and simply asks that a person have love in them (enough not to be a murderer or adulterer, etc).
Stella1000
Well-known member
1 John 3 10 The children of God and the children of the devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love a brother or sister.
Can you give your interpretation of a teaching like this? Not what it doesn't mean but what it does mean.
Amazing always an I don't know anything. I am one of the three wise monkeys. Ignorance is no excuse. You cannot do a pontius pilate act, all RCs know that these men where moved from parish to parish. It appears that the didn't tell these priests any such things. The RC proves by its actions its standards are in the gutter.
I remember having a discussion with a family friend about 15 years ago, when a lot of this was coming out. She was in Opus Dei and was horrified at these priests. I told her that the priests were certainly horrible, but that the blame lay even more so with the bishops.
They are judged by their own teaching. The teaching remains true. The definition of sin remains.
Yep the RCC is judged by its own teachings.
Read broken rites, read Pell's testimony, read what you bishops have done. These latest scandals are just the continuation of unChristlike actions by the RCC over the centuries.
I can give my interpretation but I do not accept any constraints regarding how I do this. If I sense that a text is being misinterpreted, I will also point out in what way I think the interpretation is in error (i.e., what the text does not say). To begin with, it appears that you quote from the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. Just like the NIV, it takes some liberties with the Greek text. The phrase "all do not do what is right" translates the Greek πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην which literally means "all who do not do righteousness." Moreover, I think the NET Bible gets it right by regarding the final καί ("and") as epexegetical (which gives the word the sense "that is" rather than "nor" or "and"). So with these two details taken into consideration:
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are revealed: Everyone who does not practice righteousness—the one who does not love his fellow Christian—is not of God. (1 John 3:10, NET Bible)
This is the core of the matter. Those who are born of God will love their siblings in Christ. Those who hate other Christians are not born of God. This is the judgment scene in Matt. 25:31–46 all over. The sheep are recognized by their mutual love and the goats are identified by not displaying fraternal love. However, it is not our mutual love that saves us. It shows that He has saved us.
Nondenom40
Well-known member
Good post. I like how they want to constrain our interpretation from the get go. Do it this way, not this way. Maybe thats how their church teaches them but proper exegesis should take into account what words don't mean, i.e. prayer = talking.
The RCC and its followers are all about controlling the people, controlling the narrative, in reality controlling God.
Stella1000
Well-known member
A couple of questions first.
Is your interpretation is that the command to 'practice righteousness' is limited only to 'loving fellow Christians'?
Your interpretation of the judgment scene of Matthew 25 is confusing. Are you saying that the sheep and goats will not be determined by their loving acts in general but by their self identity as Christians first and foremost? Can you explain further what distinguishes a sheep from a goat in your interpretation?
In this context, that is what John is referring to by this expression, yes. That is what is meant by "epexegetical": an expression B adjacent to an expression A that explicates A. "Please meet William, my dear friend." In that sentence, "my dear friend" is epexegetical in relation to "William."
It appears to me that everything I say that is not interpretable as self-righteousness or righteousness by works is "confusing" to you. Because you have already made up your mind about what these texts "ought to" mean. I am saying that you do not become a sheep or a goat because of your behavior but that the sheep and goats are recognized by their behavior. A sheep is what is also called an "elect," i.e., someone chosen by God to receive His salvific grace. People are sheep and goats according to what God has made them into, just like in nature. The sheep are first and foremost recognizable by their faith. As Jesus says:
"I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." (John 10:25–26)
Last edited:
Stella1000
Well-known member
So a person who wants to believe they are a sheep or 'elect' and therefore born of God, would need to look at those who do righteous deeds ie feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome strangers. By that we can tell they are the elect and if we imitate them, we know that we are also sheep. Is that what you contend? All goats can be recognised by their failure in these works?
No Stella;
they both are doing the same works
and both speaking the same things
and the Foolish Woman says
the Wise Woman saith
Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither:
as for him that wanteth understanding,
she saith to him,
Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.
The Foolish Woman, a thief and a Robber
says
Whoso is simple,
let him turn in hither:
and as for him that wanteth understanding,
she saith to him,
17 Stolen waters are sweet,
and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
wonder from whom she """Stole""" that water and Bread from ????????
whose Bread and water; ahhhh wine it was ????????
they both are doing the same works
and both speaking the same things
Proverbs 9:1
Wisdom hath builded her house
.
She hath killed her beasts;
she hath mingled her wine;
she hath also furnished her table.
3 She hath sent forth her maidens:
she crieth upon the highest places of the city,
(and says)
4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither:
as for him that wanteth understanding,
she saith to him,
5 Come, eat of my bread,
and drink of the wine
which I have mingled.
and the Foolish Woman says
A foolish woman is clamorous:
she is simple, and knoweth nothing.
14 For she sitteth at the door of her house,
on a seat in the high places of the city,
15 To call passengers who go right on their ways:
16 Whoso is simple,
let him turn in hither:
and as for him that wanteth understanding,
she saith to him,
17 Stolen waters are sweet,
and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
the Wise Woman saith
Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither:
as for him that wanteth understanding,
she saith to him,
Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.
The Foolish Woman, a thief and a Robber
says
Whoso is simple,
let him turn in hither:
and as for him that wanteth understanding,
she saith to him,
17 Stolen waters are sweet,
and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
wonder from whom she """Stole""" that water and Bread from ????????
whose Bread and water; ahhhh wine it was ????????
It is quite remarkable how unattentively you read my posts. No wonder they make you "confused."
1. I wrote that the sheep are first and foremost recognized by their faith.
2. The judgment scene in Matt. 25 is not about how we find out whether we belong to the sheep or not. It indicates how the sheep and goats will be recognized on the day of judgment.
3. The strangers, prisoners etc. in Matt. 25 are not just any victims but Christians (for instance, persecuted believers). That is recognized by the fact that He calls the victims "these brothers and sisters of mine."
4. There is a great risk of interpreting Matt. 25 in crudely literal, physical terms (just like the Decalogue). Surely, there is a clear spiritual side to this as well. We were naked until Christ clothed us in His righteousness. We were prisoners, enslaved to sin, until He set us free. We were hungering and thirsting for His righteousness until He (figuratively) gave us His body and blood to eat and drink. Likewise, we are supposed to bring souls to His comfort, preaching His redemption and forgiveness. The latter are good works that unbelievers are unable to perform.