JP II saved the RCC from from going the way of the Anglican Communion

[Wyatt]

Jettisoned by the Catholic faithful.  In the States the Catholic bishops' Secretariat for Family Planning estimates that 97% of Catholic marrieds are using forms of contraception considered mortally sinful by their Church.  That's an enormous number of Catholics on their way to hell.

Do you deny that this is the teaching of the Catholic Church:

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."

Note that it says that all three conditions much by met for a sin to be mortal. Also note that I'm not asking whether you agree or disagree with it, just whether it is the teaching of my church.

Are you really trying to tell me that the millions of Catholics who use contraception in the United States are unaware that the CCC teaches that it is a mortal sin to use artificial contraceptives?

This is like someone saying in 2011, "But, I didn't know smoking causes cancer!"

Not all of them, but I would not be at all surprised if a considerable chunk of them did not know. Of course there are Catholics who are well versed in the CCC and Church teaching in general, but then there are also many Catholics who primarily look to their pastor when it comes to doctrinal matters. That is where people are probably getting into trouble as far as being ignorant of Church teaching when it comes to contraception. Not only are there many priests who just don't talk about unpopular subjects like abortion, artificial contraception, etc., but there are even priests that tell couples it is okay to use artificial methods. Can all those people who either are unfamiliar with the CCC and Humanae Vitae or have been explicitly told it is okay to use artificial contraception be held as accountable as those who are fully aware of the teaching but then decide to ignore it?

[Peter J]

Bull. 

Actually, I believe Humanae Vitae was an Encyclical Letter.

(Btw, in order for the sentence "smoking causes cancer" to be true, it would have to cause cancer in everyone who has smoked or currently is a smoker.  And that just ain't the case.  And yes, I know...I'm a nit-picker  )

Fine, Mr. Pedant.  I amend my comment to read, "Smoking can cause cancer." 

Your original statement was perfectly correct. Saying "smoking causes cancer" isn't the same as saying "smoking always causes cancer".

[Peter J]

1.  If a Catholic does not know it is a sin, mortal or venial, to use contraception, then no sin is committed.

This is basically what 4 (I think) different posters have been trying to tell you. (I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I never meant for this to turn into such a big discussion.) So then the question is, how can you claim that "In the States the Catholic bishops' Secretariat for Family Planning estimates that 97% of Catholic marrieds are using forms of contraception considered mortally sinful by their Church."?

[J Michael]

Bull. 

Actually, I believe Humanae Vitae was an Encyclical Letter.

(Btw, in order for the sentence "smoking causes cancer" to be true, it would have to cause cancer in everyone who has smoked or currently is a smoker.  And that just ain't the case.  And yes, I know...I'm a nit-picker  )

Fine, Mr. Pedant.  I amend my comment to read, "Smoking can cause cancer." 

Your original statement was perfectly correct. Saying "smoking causes cancer" isn't the same as saying "smoking always causes cancer".

Oh, thank God!!! I'm not the *only* pedant here  .  I'm thinking of starting a new 12-step group--Pedants Anonymous  .

[stashko]

I don't see It.....That John Paul the second Saved The Catholic Church From Anything, I Know Him More For  His Ecumenism, Bowing to Altypes Of Spiritual Leaders ,Pagans and Some Really Strange Groups, The Message he seems be sending to catholics and Orthodox was, Your All Right I'm all right ,In His Travel's Around The world And they Could be saved Without Christ......And didn't some of the Catholics Groups Incorporate some of the Pagan, Non  Catholic Practices into there Own Religious Practices.......

I Can't And won't Accept Him as Blessed or a Future Saint......But as a Sower of Confusion ........

[Jharek Carnelian]

I don't see It.....That John Paul the second Saved The Catholic Church From Anything, I Know Him More For  His Ecumenism, Bowing to Altypes Of Spiritual Leaders ,Pagans and Some Really Strange Groups, The Message he seems be sending to catholics and Orthodox was, Your All Right I'm all right ,In His Travel's Around The world And they Could be saved Without Christ......And didn't some of the Catholics Groups Incorporate some of the Non Catholic Practices in there Own Religious Practices.......

I can't And won't Accept him as Blessed or a Future Saint......But a Sower of Confusion........

If you put in 'kissing the Q'uran' you would fit in nicely in some traditionalist Catholic forums I have had the occassion to peruse at times 

[Peter J]

I'm not sure what Damian Thompson is thinking here but there was never really any chance that the Catholics would go down the Anglican road. Their besetting sins simply aren't our besetting sins.

Good post.

I guess the "JP II saved the RCC from from going the way of the Anglican Communion" thing shouldn't be taken too literally. (One would have to ask "Then who saved the EOC from from going the way of the Anglican Communion"?)

[Papist]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

[elijahmaria]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

[Wyatt]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

[Papist]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

haha!!!

[elijahmaria]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

 

[Justin Kissel]

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

I need to find one of those fabled modernist priests that traditionalists are always decrying.

"Masturbation? Lust? God doesn't care! Have fun!" - Fr. Vasily the New

[elijahmaria]

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

I need to find one of those fabled modernist priests that traditionalists are always decrying.

"Masturbation? Lust? God doesn't care! Have fun!" - Fr. Vasily the New

Ooops!!

[Shlomlokh]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

God spare us if we hear you or Papist bemoaning the Orthodox for "anti-Latinism" again (whatever that means). I think this was over the line. Good job. I hope you're proud of your clever "jokes."

In Christ,
Andrew

[Peter J]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

God spare us if we hear you or Papist bemoaning the Orthodox for "anti-Latinism" again (whatever that means). I think this was over the line. Good job. I hope you're proud of your clever "jokes."

In Christ,
Andrew

I'm going to hope that they aren't proud of them.

[Wyatt]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

God spare us if we hear you or Papist bemoaning the Orthodox for "anti-Latinism" again (whatever that means). I think this was over the line. Good job. I hope you're proud of your clever "jokes."

In Christ,
Andrew

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

[Peter J]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

God spare us if we hear you or Papist bemoaning the Orthodox for "anti-Latinism" again (whatever that means). I think this was over the line. Good job. I hope you're proud of your clever "jokes."

In Christ,
Andrew

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position.

I wasn't aware of that. (I don't read every single thread, obviously.)

[Wyatt]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

God spare us if we hear you or Papist bemoaning the Orthodox for "anti-Latinism" again (whatever that means). I think this was over the line. Good job. I hope you're proud of your clever "jokes."

In Christ,
Andrew

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position.

I wasn't aware of that. (I don't read every single thread, obviously.)

Probably a good idea not to presume to know my intentions before you have all the facts then.

[Justin Kissel]

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Out of curiosity, would you say the same thing ("reprehensible") if I could produce quotes from Church Fathers calling the act sinful? What about quotes claiming that showed a lack of control or holiness?

[Wyatt]

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Out of curiosity, would you say the same thing ("reprehensible") if I could produce quotes from Church Fathers calling the act sinful? What about quotes claiming that showed a lack of control or holiness?

Yes, because not every single thing the Church fathers said is binding. You guys should know by the way you downplay everything St. Augustine ever taught (and probably other Western Fathers).

[Justin Kissel]

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Out of curiosity, would you say the same thing ("reprehensible") if I could produce quotes from Church Fathers calling the act sinful? What about quotes claiming that showed a lack of control or holiness?

Yes, because not every single thing the Church fathers said is binding. You guys should know by the way you downplay everything St. Augustine ever taught (and probably other Western Fathers).

Sts. Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian, and Ambrose of Milan are three of my favorite saints. I've also spent time vigorously defending the saintly status of Augustine, on this forum and elsewhere. Thanks for asking But returning to the other topic, the question is not whether everything a Church Father says is binding, but whether you would be so audacious as to call them reprehensible. For example, I do not agree with Sts. Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Caesarius of arles, and other saints regarding some of their views concerning sexuality, but I wouldn't call them reprehensible.

[Shlomlokh]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

God spare us if we hear you or Papist bemoaning the Orthodox for "anti-Latinism" again (whatever that means). I think this was over the line. Good job. I hope you're proud of your clever "jokes."

In Christ,
Andrew

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Surely, you missed my point. You and Papist are constantly whining about Orthodox doing this or that to you and offending you for one reason or another, yet given an opportunity, you hasten to take potshots at the Orthodox, mocking them any chance you get, yet no one is calling you "anti-Orthodox." Let's be honest here, Wyatt.

I find your potshots at your perception of Orthodoxy to be reprehensible and disturbing. Surely, you know that "I saw it on the internet" just doesn't cut it. I talked with my priest about this very subject that you're mocking and he had something to say that was different from what you are trying to characterize as the Orthodox position. So please spare us the justification for your crude "joke."

In Christ,
Andrew

[Wyatt]

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Out of curiosity, would you say the same thing ("reprehensible") if I could produce quotes from Church Fathers calling the act sinful? What about quotes claiming that showed a lack of control or holiness?

Yes, because not every single thing the Church fathers said is binding. You guys should know by the way you downplay everything St. Augustine ever taught (and probably other Western Fathers).

Sts. Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian, and Ambrose of Milan are three of my favorite saints. I've also spent time vigorously defending the saintly status of Augustine, on this forum and elsewhere. Thanks for asking But returning to the other topic, the question is not whether everything a Church Father says is binding, but whether you would be so audacious as to call them reprehensible. For example, I do not agree with Sts. Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Caesarius of arles, and other saints regarding some of their views concerning sexuality, but I wouldn't call them reprehensible.

Reread what I said. What I actually said was that "I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible." I said the fact was reprehensible, not the Christian group, not Eastern Orthodoxy, the fact. I was very careful not to say that I found Eastern Orthodoxy to be reprehensible. I find the teaching reprehensible. I wouldn't call any of the Fathers of the Church reprehensible just as I would not call the Eastern Orthodox Church (which my Church holds in very high regard) reprehensible.

[Wyatt]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

God spare us if we hear you or Papist bemoaning the Orthodox for "anti-Latinism" again (whatever that means). I think this was over the line. Good job. I hope you're proud of your clever "jokes."

In Christ,
Andrew

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Surely, you missed my point. You and Papist are constantly whining about Orthodox doing this or that to you and offending you for one reason or another, yet given an opportunity, you hasten to take potshots at the Orthodox, mocking them any chance you get, yet no one is calling you "anti-Orthodox." Let's be honest here, Wyatt.

I find your potshots at your perception of Orthodoxy to be reprehensible and disturbing. Surely, you know that "I saw it on the internet" just doesn't cut it. I talked with my priest about this very subject that you're mocking and he had something to say that was different from what you are trying to characterize as the Orthodox position. So please spare us the justification for your crude "joke."

In Christ,
Andrew

And surely you also know that the internet does not give one the green light to just say whatever they want, either. Obviously it doesn't or else you wouldn't be lashing out at me right now. If someone says that a nocturnal emission would be considered a sin by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that person happens to say it on an internet forum, what am I to think? Am I just supposed to assume it absolutely isn't true solely because it was stated on the internet?

[Justin Kissel]

Wyatt, going back over the posts, I can see that I have misunderstood what you meant and falsely attributed something to you, so I apologize for that.

[Wyatt]

Wyatt, going back over the posts, I can see that I have misunderstood what you meant and falsely attributed something to you, so I apologize for that.

I forgive you. I was about ready to apologize myself actually because, before rereading my post, I was afraid I had inadvertently phrased something wrong and gave the impression that I was saying something other than what I intended to say.

[Shlomlokh]

As for people on the way to hell, only God is the judge of their souls.

I think this is too facile and it discredits Catholic teaching.  The Popes equate the sin of contraception and its eternal penalties with the gravity of murder and adultery.

Now if 97% of your young people were engaged in either of these activities, I doubt if you would brush it away so casually.

Take ownership of your doctrines!  Face the consequences!

97% of males have masturbated. Does that mean the prohibition against it in the Orthodox Church is no good?

I didn't know it was a sin in Orthodoxy...Probably get a pass from the passtor...

Only nocturnal emissions are.

God spare us if we hear you or Papist bemoaning the Orthodox for "anti-Latinism" again (whatever that means). I think this was over the line. Good job. I hope you're proud of your clever "jokes."

In Christ,
Andrew

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Surely, you missed my point. You and Papist are constantly whining about Orthodox doing this or that to you and offending you for one reason or another, yet given an opportunity, you hasten to take potshots at the Orthodox, mocking them any chance you get, yet no one is calling you "anti-Orthodox." Let's be honest here, Wyatt.

I find your potshots at your perception of Orthodoxy to be reprehensible and disturbing. Surely, you know that "I saw it on the internet" just doesn't cut it. I talked with my priest about this very subject that you're mocking and he had something to say that was different from what you are trying to characterize as the Orthodox position. So please spare us the justification for your crude "joke."

In Christ,
Andrew

And surely you also know that the internet does not give one the green light to just say whatever they want, either. Obviously it doesn't or else you wouldn't be lashing out at me right now. If someone says that a nocturnal emission would be considered a sin by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that person happens to say it on an internet forum, what am I to think? Am I just supposed to assume it absolutely isn't true solely because it was stated on the internet?

People on the internet say all kinds of things. If I believed half the things I heard, I'd be a mess!  

*sigh* Perhaps, I am expecting too much out of people these days. Doing a little research for oneself could go a long way to dispel myth, increase understanding and perhaps foster charity and respect for another group that you might not agree with. A novelty!

You made an inaccurate statement, in a very uncivil, rude and condescending way that could very well have offended any number of people (including anyone who might be lurking) and I am now holding you to it. IMHO, you do yourself a great disservice to your church for those lurking and might be on the fence and seeing your words. Again, just my opinion.

In Christ,
Andrew

[xariskai]

I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible,[1] and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

I haven't seen any documentation for this thing that supposedly proves Eastern Orthodoxy is "reprehensible"[1] being a dogma of the Church (like contraceptive use being a mortal sin in the CCC), but let that pass for the time being.

I still don't get how this is suppose to be equivalent to use of contraceptives as a mortal sin which obliterates all sanctifying grace in the souls of those using it while knowing it is wrong according to the CCC in an age when 97% of married Catholics are doing that in the U. S.

At least in Orthodoxy the only mortal sin is refusal to repent. We all sin daily in thought, word, and deed; perhaps a simple Jesus Prayer, or the sheer mercy of God due to the intercessions of the saints could suffice for the Orthodox in such a case.
___________
[1]EDIT -apology noted, and qualification above (cross-posting prevented my seeing it sooner)

[Wyatt]

People on the internet say all kinds of things. If I believed half the things I heard, I'd be a mess!  

*sigh* Perhaps, I am expecting too much out of people these days. Doing a little research for oneself could go a long way to dispel myth, increase understanding and perhaps foster charity and respect for another group that you might not agree with. A novelty!

You made an inaccurate statement, in a very uncivil, rude and condescending way that could very well have offended any number of people (including anyone who might be lurking) and I am now holding you to it. IMHO, you do yourself a great disservice to your church for those lurking and might be on the fence and seeing your words. Again, just my opinion.

In Christ,
Andrew

And I have explained already what I meant by what I said. If you want to continue to attack my character and claim I am being uncivil and rude then that is your choice.

[Shlomlokh]

People on the internet say all kinds of things. If I believed half the things I heard, I'd be a mess!  

*sigh* Perhaps, I am expecting too much out of people these days. Doing a little research for oneself could go a long way to dispel myth, increase understanding and perhaps foster charity and respect for another group that you might not agree with. A novelty!

You made an inaccurate statement, in a very uncivil, rude and condescending way that could very well have offended any number of people (including anyone who might be lurking) and I am now holding you to it. IMHO, you do yourself a great disservice to your church for those lurking and might be on the fence and seeing your words. Again, just my opinion.

In Christ,
Andrew

And I have explained already what I meant by what I said. If you want to continue to attack my character and claim I am being uncivil and rude then that is your choice.

Wyatt, I am not attacking your character at all. Please do not misunderstand. I made it clear that I thought you were behaving uncivilly and rudely, meaning your actions were rude and uncivil. In spite of all this, we both have something in common: we don't like it when people make inaccurate statements about our faith. Let's try to move beyond this, with God's grace.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Wyatt]

People on the internet say all kinds of things. If I believed half the things I heard, I'd be a mess!  

*sigh* Perhaps, I am expecting too much out of people these days. Doing a little research for oneself could go a long way to dispel myth, increase understanding and perhaps foster charity and respect for another group that you might not agree with. A novelty!

You made an inaccurate statement, in a very uncivil, rude and condescending way that could very well have offended any number of people (including anyone who might be lurking) and I am now holding you to it. IMHO, you do yourself a great disservice to your church for those lurking and might be on the fence and seeing your words. Again, just my opinion.

In Christ,
Andrew

And I have explained already what I meant by what I said. If you want to continue to attack my character and claim I am being uncivil and rude then that is your choice.

Wyatt, I am not attacking your character at all. Please do not misunderstand. I made it clear that I thought you were behaving uncivilly and rudely, meaning your actions were rude and uncivil. In spite of all this, we both have something in common: we don't like it when people make inaccurate statements about our faith. Let's try to move beyond this, with God's grace.

In Christ,
Andrew

I apologize. Clearly this has not been the best of nights for me and I think I better sign off while I am ahead. My being cranky due to drowsiness plus apparently poor reading comprehension (also due to drowsiness) is not a good thing. 

[Shlomlokh]

People on the internet say all kinds of things. If I believed half the things I heard, I'd be a mess!  

*sigh* Perhaps, I am expecting too much out of people these days. Doing a little research for oneself could go a long way to dispel myth, increase understanding and perhaps foster charity and respect for another group that you might not agree with. A novelty!

You made an inaccurate statement, in a very uncivil, rude and condescending way that could very well have offended any number of people (including anyone who might be lurking) and I am now holding you to it. IMHO, you do yourself a great disservice to your church for those lurking and might be on the fence and seeing your words. Again, just my opinion.

In Christ,
Andrew

And I have explained already what I meant by what I said. If you want to continue to attack my character and claim I am being uncivil and rude then that is your choice.

Wyatt, I am not attacking your character at all. Please do not misunderstand. I made it clear that I thought you were behaving uncivilly and rudely, meaning your actions were rude and uncivil. In spite of all this, we both have something in common: we don't like it when people make inaccurate statements about our faith. Let's try to move beyond this, with God's grace.

In Christ,
Andrew

I apologize. Clearly this has not been the best of nights for me and I think I better sign off while I am ahead. My being cranky due to drowsiness plus apparently poor reading comprehension (also due to drowsiness) is not a good thing. 

Apology accepted! Please forgive me, as well. I'm getting rather drowsy myself! 

In Christ,
Andrew

[Robb]

According to the Didiach of the Apostles there are only really three Mortal sins, Murder, Adultery, and Apostasy.  A lot of the sins listed in RC Catholicisms and confession primers are probably just speculations from moral theologians.  In fact I would say that, given the criteria I've mentioned the vast majority of baptized believers may have never even committed a mortal sin in their lives. 

I was really happy to hear that B XVI was thinking about loosening the rules for the use of contraception in the RCC towards the end of last year.  I thought to myself "finally", but then he had to go and retract his statements (Or did he, I think the retraction was made only by the CDF, but correct me if I'm wrong). 

[Robb]

I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible,[1] and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

I haven't seen any documentation for this thing that supposedly proves Eastern Orthodoxy is "reprehensible"[1] being a dogma of the Church (like contraceptive use being a mortal sin in the CCC), but let that pass for the time being.

I still don't get how this is suppose to be equivalent to use of contraceptives as a mortal sin which obliterates all sanctifying grace in the souls of those using it while knowing it is wrong according to the CCC in an age when 97% of married Catholics are doing that in the U. S.

At least in Orthodoxy the only mortal sin is refusal to repent. We all sin daily in thought, word, and deed; perhaps a simple Jesus Prayer, or the sheer mercy of God due to the intercessions of the saints could suffice for the Orthodox in such a case.
___________
[1]EDIT -apology noted, and qualification above (cross-posting prevented my seeing it sooner)

As a Catholic I never knew much about sanctifying grace, what it was, or how I got it.  Like most Catholics I just tried to live my life and do what was right and, if I made a major sin then to confess it to a priest.  The whole idea of collecting things like grace and merits never caused much concern for me and I doubt that the vast, vast majority of RC's around the world really think or know much about it anyway.  The whole idea of collecting sanctifying grace in ones soul sounds too much to me like being evangelistic, or even superstitious.  What is grace?  Can we feel it?  Is it something we can collect In a  jar like butterfly's?  I don't know what this grace is and really have never given too much thought about how to get it.  I just, as said before try to live my life as best I can and be a good person, helping others as I can along life's journey.  If this way of living can't produce grace then who needs it? 

[xariskai]

As a Catholic I never knew much about sanctifying grace, what it was, or how I got it.  Like most Catholics I just tried to live my life and do what was right and, if I made a major sin then to confess it to a priest.  The whole idea of collecting things like grace and merits never caused much concern for me and I doubt that the vast, vast majority of RC's around the world really think or know much about it anyway.  The whole idea of collecting sanctifying grace in ones soul sounds too much to me like being evangelistic, or even superstitious.  What is grace?  Can we feel it?  Is it something we can collect In a  jar like butterfly's?  I don't know what this grace is and really have never given too much thought about how to get it.  I just, as said before try to live my life as best I can and be a good person, helping others as I can along life's journey.  If this way of living can't produce grace then who needs it?  

This is a huge question which the Orthodox tradition answers in a *completely* different way Latin tradition (cf. RC Nature/Grace dualism). In Orthodox Christianity the Grace/Gift of God (grace literally means gift) is nothing less than God Himself:

"In short, the Orthodox understanding of the nature of Grace is that it is the very energies of God Himself. Through the Trinitarian ministry of the Holy Spirit—a ministry involving both general and special activities—these energies are mediated to mankind. This stands in contrast to the Latin view flowing mainly from the anti-Pelagian writings of Saint Augustine. For Roman Catholics, Grace is a created intermediary between God and man"  (Patrick Barnes, The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church. (Salisbury, MA, Regina Orthodox Press, 1999), p. 4).

Cf. also Vladimir Lossky: [The] theology of the Eastern Church distinguishes in God the three hypostases, the nature or essence, and the energies. The Son and the Holy Spirit are, so to say, personal processions, the energies, natural processions. The energies are inseparable from the nature, and the nature is inseparable from the three Persons. These distinctions are of great importance for the Eastern Church’s conception of mystical life:…  3) The distinction between the essence and the energies, which is fundamental for the Orthodox doctrine of grace, makes it possible to preserve the real meaning of Saint Peter’s words “partakers of the divine nature” [2 Peter 1:4]. The union to which we are called is neither hypostatic—as in the case of the human nature of Christ—nor substantial, as in that of the three divine Persons: it is union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature, without our essence becoming thereby the essence of God. In deification [theosis] we are by grace (that is to say, in the divine energies), all that God is by nature, save only identity of nature... according to the teaching of Saint Maximus. We remain creatures while becoming God by grace, as Christ remained God in becoming man by the Incarnation... Eastern tradition knows no such supernatural order between God and the created world, adding, as it were, to the latter a new creation. It recognizes no distinction, or rather division, save that between the created and the uncreated. For [the] eastern tradition the created supernatural has no existence. That which western theology calls by the name of the supernatural signifies for the East the uncreated—the divine energies ineffably distinct from the essence of God. . . . The act of creation established a relationship between the divine energies and that which is not God... [However,] the divine energies in themselves are not the relationship of God to created being, but they do enter into relationship with that which is not God [i.e., His creation], and draw the world into existence by the will of God" (Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (London: James Clark and Co., 1957), pp. 85-86, 87-88).

I must say for my own part that re-reading the NT where it speaks of things like Gift of God, in Christ, the Glory of God, partakers of the Divine Nature etc. is completely transformed by the Orthodox Way, which opens to us nothing less than encounter -ontological, not just legal- with the Living God Himself! This seems so much more powerful and profound than something like a "storehouse of merit" as if in some celestial bank vault or something.

According to the Didiach of the Apostles there are only really three Mortal sins, Murder, Adultery, and Apostasy.  A lot of the sins listed in RC Catholicisms and confession primers are probably just speculations from moral theologians.  In fact I would say that, given the criteria I've mentioned the vast majority of baptized believers may have never even committed a mortal sin in their lives.  

I was really happy to hear that B XVI was thinking about loosening the rules for the use of contraception in the RCC towards the end of last year.  I thought to myself "finally", but then he had to go and retract his statements (Or did he, I think the retraction was made only by the CDF, but correct me if I'm wrong).  

I have seen Latin Catholic sources trace this to the Didache, but I don't recall seeing it there specifically (the sins you mentioned do occur in a more generalized discussion of the way of light and the way of darkness). Do you (or does anyone) have an exact quote from the Didache in mind as *explicitly* (rather than inferentially) affirming a mortal/venial distinction for particular offenses rather than ways of life? My current understanding is the mortal/venial demarcation is not a dogma of the Orthodox Church but only an opinion (theologoumenon) sometimes of obvious Latin derivation, and one which I often see specifically denied among Orthodox writers.

According to Fr. Allyne Smith, "While the Roman Catholic tradition has identified particular acts as 'mortal' sins, in the Orthodox tradition we see that only a sin for which we don't repent is 'mortal" (Fr. Allyne Smith, in G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Bishop Kallistos Ware, trs., Phylokalia: The Eastern Christian Spiritual Texts (Skylight Press, 2000), p. 2).

This understanding is also reflected in the OCA website's article "Sin":

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins. A "venial" sin, according to this line of thinking, did not jeopardize one's salvation. While stealing a car might be considered a "mortal" sin, stealing a candy bar was not. While a "venial" sin did not jeopardize one's salvation, it still needed to be confessed and still may have had time in purgatory attached to it. Another way to see this distinction in Roman Catholic teaching -- and here I simplifyy a tremendously complex line of reasoning -- is as follows: If one commits a mortal sin and dies before confessing it, one would go straight to hell. If one commits a venial sin and dies before confessing it, one would not go straight to hell, but would have to spend time in purgatory before entering heaven. [The Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching on purgatory that developed in more recent times in Roman Catholicism.] These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church. Sin is sin.

Concerning Confession, having a list of deadly sins could, in fact, become an obstacle to genuine repentance. For example, imagine that you commit a sin. You look on the list and do not find it listed. It would be very easy to take the attitude that, since it is not on a list of deadly sins, it is not too serious. Hence, you do not feel the need to seek God's forgiveness right away. A week passes and you have completely forgotten about what you had done. You never sought God's forgiveness; as a result, you did not receive it, either. We should go to Confession when we sin -- at the very least, we should ask God to forgive us daily in our personal prayers. We should not see Confession as a time to confess only those sins which may be found on a list." "Sin," Orthodox Church in America website: http://www.oca.org/qa.asp?id=153&sid=3

[Irish Hermit]

I consider it a miracle that the constant teaching on contraception was not jettisoned during this chaotic time.

Jettisoned by the Catholic faithful.  In the States the Catholic bishops' Secretariat for Family Planning estimates that 97% of Catholic marrieds are using forms of contraception considered mortally sinful by their Church.  That's an enormous number of Catholics on their way to hell.

So during the long pontificate of Pope John Paul more Catholics went to hell than any other period of history.

That is assuming that 100% of those who artificially contracepted had full knowledge that what they were doing is wrong. Full knowledge is one of the requirements for a sin to be mortal.

And then there's the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  We also don't know how many availed themselves of that after using artificial contraception with full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong.

We're always on dangerous ground when we pronounce who is or isn't going to hell.

The Roman Catholic teaching used to be (is it still?) that mortal sin removes sanctifying grace from the soul.  It is dead.   The consequence of that is that it must go to hell. 

There are then two ways to avoid hell:

1.  Confession and sacramental absolution from a priest
2.  An act of perfect contrition.


Is this still the teaching?

This was rock solid Roman Catholic teaching in the 1950s and 1960s.
 
Nobody has answered the question if it still is?  Do Catholics not know?

[elijahmaria]

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Out of curiosity, would you say the same thing ("reprehensible") if I could produce quotes from Church Fathers calling the act sinful? What about quotes claiming that showed a lack of control or holiness?

Yes, because not every single thing the Church fathers said is binding. You guys should know by the way you downplay everything St. Augustine ever taught (and probably other Western Fathers).

You are WAY over the edge on this one Wyatt.

Nocturnal emissions are indeed indicative of an over-active libido.  You can through prayer do something about that and you can CONFESS it so that you may gain the graces to fight that internal spiritual warfare.

If all you are is a Sunday Catholic...fine...but don't mock others because they seek something deeper and richer.

I am sorry to be mean about this but you need to swallow that pride of yours and admit that you may be in way over your head here.

Mary

PS: I missed your sign off note but my comments still stand.   I pray you come back more clear headed on this particular thread and more relaxed and rested in general !!

[stashko]

What Has Nocturnal emmisions have to do with the Subject ,JP II saved the RCC from from going the way of the Anglican Communion , Start Another Thread About it ......

[elijahmaria]

I consider it a miracle that the constant teaching on contraception was not jettisoned during this chaotic time.

Jettisoned by the Catholic faithful.  In the States the Catholic bishops' Secretariat for Family Planning estimates that 97% of Catholic marrieds are using forms of contraception considered mortally sinful by their Church.  That's an enormous number of Catholics on their way to hell.

So during the long pontificate of Pope John Paul more Catholics went to hell than any other period of history.

That is assuming that 100% of those who artificially contracepted had full knowledge that what they were doing is wrong. Full knowledge is one of the requirements for a sin to be mortal.

And then there's the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  We also don't know how many availed themselves of that after using artificial contraception with full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong.

We're always on dangerous ground when we pronounce who is or isn't going to hell.

The Roman Catholic teaching used to be (is it still?) that mortal sin removes sanctifying grace from the soul.  It is dead.   The consequence of that is that it must go to hell. 

There are then two ways to avoid hell:

1.  Confession and sacramental absolution from a priest
2.  An act of perfect contrition.


Is this still the teaching?

This was rock solid Roman Catholic teaching in the 1950s and 1960s.
 
Nobody has answered the question if it still is?  Do Catholics not know?

Lying, stealing, gossiping over the back fence and fornicating are all grave matter...Most of us do one of those things regularly in one form or another and we justify it as well...taking our behaviors right off the sin-map.

IF your logic were to rule then there would be no point in keeping the Decalogue up and running either.

So you are just a puff of bluster here as far as the reality of sin is concerned.

[podkarpatska]

What Has Nocturnal emmisions have to do with the Subject ,JP II saved the RCC from from going the way of the Anglican Communion , Start Another Thread About it ......

I agree, it seems that many, many threads about the relationships and differences between Orthodoxy and the Church of Rome frequently get derailed on issues about sex, contraception and the like. 

[Papist]

The funniest part about it is the fact that it isn't a joke. I find the fact that a nocturnal emission could ever be considered a sin by any Christian group to be reprehensible, and it has been indicated by at least one on this forum that that is the Eastern Orthodox position. I don't understand what any of this has to do with anti-Latinism, other than the fact that that is another thing that is reprehensible about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Out of curiosity, would you say the same thing ("reprehensible") if I could produce quotes from Church Fathers calling the act sinful? What about quotes claiming that showed a lack of control or holiness?

Yes, because not every single thing the Church fathers said is binding. You guys should know by the way you downplay everything St. Augustine ever taught (and probably other Western Fathers).

You are WAY over the edge on this one Wyatt.

Nocturnal emissions are indeed indicative of an over-active libido.  You can through prayer do something about that and you can CONFESS it so that you may gain the graces to fight that internal spiritual warfare.

If all you are is a Sunday Catholic...fine...but don't mock others because they seek something deeper and richer.

I am sorry to be mean about this but you need to swallow that pride of yours and admit that you may be in way over your head here.

Mary

PS: I missed your sign off note but my comments still stand.   I pray you come back more clear headed on this particular thread and more relaxed and rested in general !!

ElijahMaria, I have to stay that I usually think that your posts are fantastic, and I often disagree with you more. That being said, I cannot disagree more with the post above. Noturnal Emission are a natural physical process that eliminate excess or old bodily fluids. They akin to a woman's menstraul cycle. When a person is young, they have quite a an excess of hormones in their systems and so they are likely to produce more semen than is necassary, and this needs to be eliminated. This is not their fault. This is not because of some sinfulness in themselves. It is simply the result of physical development.
Young men, and even middle aged men, are not at fault for their bodies functioning properly and eliminating excess bodily fluids. People are only  at fault when they engage in lust, fantisize about sexullly explicity ideas, practice auto-eroticism, sex outside of the confines of the marriage between a man and a woman, etc...

[Wyatt]

You are WAY over the edge on this one Wyatt.

Oh yeah?

Nocturnal emissions are indeed indicative of an over-active libido.  You can through prayer do something about that and you can CONFESS it so that you may gain the graces to fight that internal spiritual warfare.

Really? I thought it was just indicative of having male reproductive organs.

If all you are is a Sunday Catholic...fine...but don't mock others because they seek something deeper and richer.

Wow...really? So now you know my heart and know how devout of a Catholic I am?

I am sorry to be mean about this but you need to swallow that pride of yours and admit that you may be in way over your head here.

Kind of like how you need to swallow the pride that compels you to presume you know my innermost being. You are not the Holy Trinity.

PS: I missed your sign off note but my comments still stand.   I pray you come back more clear headed on this particular thread and more relaxed and rested in general !!

I pray that you come to a greater understanding of the male body and cease to believe that involuntary functions of the penis are dirty and evil.

[quester]

Nocturnal emissions are male business. I've had them along with vivid dreams at times when I was not indulging in self-abuse and did not have lustful feelings at all. Did I sin because I dreamed of having sex? I'd be willing to consider that such dreams can be brought about by demons but who's to say that has to be the case? Moreover, you don't have a strong libido by choice, unless you take testosterone perhaps, and that's not advisable unless you suffer from testosterone deficiency. I agree with the poster who said that to consider nocturnal emissions a sin is reprehensible, and I'm not Roman Catholic but an Orthodox catechumen. And yes, I have talked about the issue to my priest.

[Mickey]

The "Prayers of Purification" are widely used, and in particular in the event of a nocturnal emission. This is absolutely standard practice, as you might imagine, in monasteries, where this is the one bodily sexual concern for monks. Now, such an occurrence, if it does not involve the willful entertainment of lascivious thoughts during the day (which can lead to nocturnal emissions), is not considered a sin, as such, but a manifestation of our fallen state (see the fourth Canon of St. Dionysios of Alexandria). Yet, despite the fact that willful sin is not at issue in most instances, the prayers for purity are read, after a nocturnal emission, precisely because they are effective in controlling the passions. And the monastic life, which is about just that (control over the fallen passions), encourages asceticism even in innocence, since it is such an appropriate and Grace-filled and Grace-endowing tool.
Archbishop Chrysostomos

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: JP II saved the RCC from from going the way of the Anglican Communion