A Momentary Life...

[Idolater]

It wasn't a part of my traditions and upbringing in a number of churches, all Christian.

Same here---absolutely. Black-and-white.

But then, they were all Protestant as well.

Me too.

So it must be more of a Catholic instruction, which probably means it was in my Episcopal background as well, but I wasn't a particularly keen member in those days and that was decades ago.

I don't know from Episcopal, but it is absolutely Catholic. The idea is that objectively, sins can be ranked or weighted according to gravity, to their seriousness, just objectively. For instance killing, regardless of intent, is the gravest or at least among the gravest of sins, that's regardless of intent, even justifiable killing is still grave offense.

Then the Church does what the law does, which is she weighs free will. How much freedom does the grave sinner exercise, when they gravely sin? There's a pretty long list of things explicitly suggested by the Church's bishops, concerning circumstances or factors present, that tend to diminish, attenuate, and sometimes nullify altogether, human freedom in a moment of human decision---sometimes, it's not a free choice.

And when it's not a free choice, the offense remains grave, but the culpability or guilt goes along with free choice, and if the freedom is diminished, attenuated, or even nullified altogether, then so goes the guilt that's imputed to the sinner.

So the Church teaches that lighter sins can never be 'mortal' or fatal sins; sins that kill the love that would otherwise dwell within you, as a Christian. But the practical matter is that commission of grave trespasses breaks communion with the Catholic Church, and this is the playing out of the Apostles' moral teaching, that straddles their exposition of the Gospel, they come together in the concept of 'in full communion,' which is like a broad side of a barn for some people, and for many it is a struggle, and so the Church's corrective action for those who struggle, is the confessional, where Christians who have committed grave sin, can reconcile with the Church, authorizing him to once again licitly receive Holy Communion.

His freedom may very well have been null, when he chose grave matter. The Church is only interested in the commission, wrt 'in full communion.' The Church understands, and teaches explicitly, that oftentimes, there are circumstances that diminish, attenuate, or nullify altogether our free will, in our otherwise free will choices, to commit grave moral offense. The commission itself though, breaks 'in full communion,' and necessitates reconciliation in order to not run afoul of 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV & 1st Corinthians 11:29 KJV, and Confession is one of the seven sacraments, and the sacraments are all found in Scripture, but they were instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; His Apostles confirm.

Holy Catholicism is everything I didn't know I was actually desperately searching for as a Protestant.

[Town Heretic]

The idea is that objectively, sins can be ranked or weighted according to gravity, to their seriousness, just objectively.

I get the idea, but to my mind that's conflating moral truth and something else. What I mean is that the wages of sin is death. So every sin carries that sentence and requires grace. To weigh them as a moral proposition is pointless to my mind and a dangerous invitation to personal vanity and the judgement of others.

Holy Catholicism is everything I didn't know I was actually desperately searching for as a Protestant.

Then I am genuinely happy for you and wish you well in your walk.

[annabenedetti]

Starting the day on a note of joy and hope: six boys have been rescued so far by Thai Navy divers. Their bravery (both rescuers and rescued) is breathtaking, especially when you see the graphic of what they had to overcome.

[annabenedetti]

That narrow stretch is only 15 inches in diameter.

I can't imagine.

[The Barbarian]

I have a momentary question:

If lay => laid, why not play => plaid,

They both derive from OE -ede (did) as in "lay-did" or "play-did." Spelling in English was phonetic for a long time; often people would spell their own names in various ways, before orthography became standardized, and dictionaries published. In the 1700s, "plaid" was sometimes used as a spelling for "played."
https://tinyurl.com/ybdo6kav

So it wasn't consistent. And orthography changes over time. "Donut" is becoming more common; it used to be mainly in the United States, but it's becoming used in other English-speaking nations, now.

[Idolater]

I get the idea, but to my mind that's conflating moral truth and something else. What I mean is that the wages of sin is death. So every sin carries that sentence and requires grace.

In the beginning, there was one sin, and its penalty was death.

But Adam and Eve did not die when they sinned. So already, in the garden, there was grace. Their sin was forgiven, and the Christian understanding is that it was forgiven only because of Christ's then future sacrifice, that He would successfully offer to pay the eternal penalty for their sin, and for the sins of the whole world.

Regarding Church, is the idea of 'in full communion,' which is being authorized to receive Holy Communion with the Church. Commission of grave sins breaks that communion, and requires reconciliation, through the sacrament of the same name; aka 'confession' and 'penance.'

The commission of light sins does not break communion with the Church, because light sins are 'forgiven' = 'venial.' It is grace, you're right about that. It is a part of Christ's work, that light sins, even when committed on purpose, with full knowledge and with deliberate consent, do not break communion with His Church.

To weigh them as a moral proposition is pointless to my mind and a dangerous invitation to personal vanity and the judgement of others.

I don't understand what you mean by 'invitation to . . . the judgment of others.' If we take Christ's stance on light sins, and if we apply what He already applies to them, iow if we forgive them automatically, immediately, and out of hand, then how does that invite judgment? I would think it'd do the opposite, and encourage inclusion, acceptance, tolerance, and unity.

Then I am genuinely happy for you and wish you well in your walk.

Unsurprising. I've seen you do apologetics for the faith, and you're excellent at it; it may be a gift of the Spirit for you, which is ultimately given by Him for the sake of us, His Church, those who believe in Christ.

So, I want you to examine Holy Catholicism, to see if it's true, because what I've found in my own experience with apologetics, is that Catholicism is a bulwark that cannot be rhetorically defeated, once you know what you need to know about it.

If Catholicism = Christianity, then arguing for Catholicism = preaching the Gospel.

This is all of course fwiw, I am just advertising that in decades of theological investigation, I've come to conclude what many non-Catholics have found themselves, that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Himself founded.

[Town Heretic]

In the beginning, there was one sin, and its penalty was death.

In the beginning Adam wasn't fashioned to die, but he did surely die. There was the penalty. Among descendants who were born to die in the flesh the penalty exacted would be more or it would be absent.

Regarding Church, is the idea of 'in full communion,' which is being authorized to receive Holy Communion with the Church. Commission of grave sins breaks that communion, and requires reconciliation, through the sacrament of the same name; aka 'confession' and 'penance.'

From this point on you're substituting Catholic teaching for scripture, a thing that Protestants eschew. It's something you believe, but not a belief we share. That said, I won't squabble with those who recognize Christ as God and rely on Him for their salvation.

I don't understand what you mean by 'invitation to . . . the judgment of others.'

When we value one sin over another, odd as that is to even say, we make it easier to say, "Sure, I'm a sinner, but not like Pete. His sins are worse." It invites judgment instead of gratitude and supports the errant notion that men can or will attain something of value by their actions, when our acts have nothing to do with grace, which we cannot earn, but should instead be an expression of our love and desire to follow the example of Christ. And it is human nature to think better of ourselves than we should, within any context. So people tend to believe they're smarter than average when the numbers won't allow for it, and people are the heroes of their own narrative, even within the context of accepting that they cannot be. It's a human impulse that monkeys with our best aims and intentions.

As for Catholicism, it gave me Brother Lawrence and Merton, so that's to the good.

[Idolater]

In the beginning Adam wasn't fashioned to die, but he did surely die. There was the penalty. Among descendants who were born to die in the flesh the penalty exacted would be more or it would be absent.

I don't disagree with this, but my point was that God said, "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Ge2:17KJV). They didn't die that day; that's the grace; and as I said, it's the Christian view that the reason that God extended grace even in the garden, was because of Christ's eventual passion on the cross.

From this point on you're substituting Catholic teaching for scripture

There's a difference between 'substituting' and developing the teaching that is seminally within the Scripture. Each of the Church's seven sacraments find their origin within the Scripture somewhere, whether it's from Christ Himself, as with Baptism and the Eucharist, or with another New Testament writer/bishop, such as James instructing the Church to, "Confess your faults one to another" (Jas5:16KJV), which was developed by the Church into the sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation/Confession, where confessors (usually priests) were the ones mediating the relationship between Christians and the Body of Christ, especially wrt celebrating Communion or the Eucharist.

I personally have found no examples of Catholic teaching contravening what the Christian Bible teaches. Especially not since the Christian Bible teaches of the beginning of the Catholic Church, which was, objectively, the only Church, for about 1000 years.

, a thing that Protestants eschew.

And the notion of eschewing what the Catholic Church's college of bishops teach, is not found in Scripture. That idea was invented in 1517 or thereabouts.

It's something you believe, but not a belief we share. That said, I won't squabble with those who recognize Christ as God and rely on Him for their salvation.

We all believe the Gospel, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

When we value one sin over another, odd as that is to even say

I doubt that you find it odd to say that murder is a graver sin than is a white lie, Town.

, we make it easier to say, "Sure, I'm a sinner, but not like Pete. His sins are worse."

I've found the opposite is the reality. Catholics don't think like that; they rather think that our sins are all our own business, and the business of the confessor (again, usually the priest). The worse the sin, the more grace that is required, and thankfully, the more grace that is offered as well.

It invites judgment instead of gratitude and supports the errant notion that men can or will attain something of value by their actions, when our acts have nothing to do with grace, which we cannot earn, but should instead be an expression of our love and desire to follow the example of Christ. And it is human nature to think better of ourselves than we should, within any context. So people tend to believe they're smarter than average when the numbers won't allow for it, and people are the heroes of their own narrative, even within the context of accepting that they cannot be. It's a human impulse that monkeys with our best aims and intentions.

The notion of 'in full communion with the Church' is one that in my view handles the universal witness of Scripture well, all those exhortations to the Church against sinning, with many sins named that the Church has gone on to categorize as 'grave matter,' which follows the seminal idea that John gives us in 1st John 5, this idea of 'a sin unto death,' and, 'a sin not unto death' (1Jo5:16-17KJV).

As for Catholicism, it gave me Brother Lawrence and Merton, so that's to the good.

I don't know who those people are, but there has been a lot of good to come from the Catholic Church, which, if like me you believe that she is Jesus's actual Church, shouldn't be and isn't surprising.

[Town Heretic]

I don't disagree with this, but my point was that God said, "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Ge2:17KJV). They didn't die that day; that's the grace; and as I said, it's the Christian view that the reason that God extended grace even in the garden, was because of Christ's eventual passion on the cross.

Doesn't look like we're separated on the point.

There's a difference between 'substituting' and developing the teaching that is seminally within the Scripture.

I'd say there's a difference between scripture and what men do with it and how they see and connect it within their own mind. When you do that and create traditions born of that, elevating them to equal authority with scripture I think you have a problem, and the Catholic Church has that problem...though to be fair, it's not only a Catholic problem, merely more obvious and institutionalized.

We all believe the Gospel, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

Amen.

I doubt that you find it odd to say that murder is a graver sin than is a white lie, Town.

I'd say that as a pragmatic matter, it is worse to kill a man than to lie to him. The latter robs him of the truth, the former robs him of any hope to approach it. But given any sin is sufficient to warrant my separation from the perfect and good, it's a distinction that matters more to me than it could to God, whom I will not meet save by grace.

I'm omitting a good deal, but consider it read and I appreciate your sharing your particular beliefs, whether or not we are of one mind.

I don't know who those people are, but there has been a lot of good to come from the Catholic Church, which, if like me you believe that she is Jesus's actual Church, shouldn't be and isn't surprising.

Thomas Merton was a Catalan trappist monk and a profound writer who died in the late 60s. His writings were broadly popular and respected. Among them was the book that introduced me to Merton, The Seven Story Mountain. He was probably the most highly regarded and certainly the most well-known Catholic writer of the last century. Brother Lawrence died in the late 1600s and is known for Practice of the Presence of God, put together by the Abbe de Beaufort, envoy to Cardinal Noailles. The envoy was sent by the Cardinal to investigate Lawrence and they had four conversations that were put into written form. I believe you can find them online for free. It's not a lot of writing, but it's a remarkable thing to read.

[The Barbarian]

Riding the DART line with my granddaughter (her first train ride), and enjoying her amazed face as the scenery rolls by.

[annabenedetti]

I bought two books today: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, and Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Explain Everything About the World. I'm trying to decide which one to start first. Maybe both.

[Town Heretic]

Watching a PBS World production with Jack and, of course I'm doing rifftrax for the fun of it...at one point the subject is manatees and the narrator is describing how in the winter it's crucial for the manatee to find really warm waters. At first he speaks to the majority heading for hot springs, then...


Narrator: But some manatee are heading for a surprising hot-spot.


Me: A small nightclub on the outskirts of Tampa.


Jack: And they dance there.


Me: It could happen.


I love PBS.


Oh, the surprising place actually turned out to be the outflow from an electrical power plant.

[Idolater]

Watching a PBS World production with Jack and, of course I'm doing rifftrax for the fun of it...at one point the subject is manatees and the narrator is describing how in the winter it's crucial for the manatee to find really warm waters. At first he speaks to the majority heading for hot springs, then...


Narrator: But some manatee are heading for a surprising hot-spot.


Me: A small nightclub on the outskirts of Tampa.


Jack: (giggles)...I get it. And they dance there.


Me: It could happen.


I love PBS.


Oh, the surprising place actually turned out to be the outflow from an electrical power plant.

You are such a Democrat. You talk about PBS (and probably NPR if I'm not mistaken) like how I gush on about Catholic TV. Aside from baseball, I don't know of television that is more grabbing for me than Catholic television---with a possible exception being this Netflix I'm watching now; just video of an actual wood fire burning, real time, which is honestly just about the best television ever in some ways. I have stared with intense interest at fires my whole life, and even the most gripping television hasn't had a hold on me like one of God's own creations, fire. I can and have watched it for hours. Even Major League Baseball hasn't held my interest like fire does, not even five Patriots Super Bowls, and three MLB World Series (the last of which I didn't even watch, this is how humdrum world championships have become in Boston), can entrain me like how fire does.

The other matter wrt which you're a Democrat, along with your penchant (de facto French pronunciation) for 'public' television and radio, is gun control. You believe in an inalienable right to bear arms, I believe, like @The Barbarian does, but you don't believe in the Second Amendment, so please stop being dishonest---you think the Second Amendment should be repealed or at least amended.

The only thing that makes you a non-Democrat is that it sounds like you vote Republican on the matter of abortion. You believe that abortion ought to be statutorially outlawed, you just believe in case law to sort out when it ought to be de facto decriminalized. I believe that it ought to statutorially be decriminalized in particular form, like killing people; which is statutorially outlawed as murder among other specific forms, and, in free states, decriminalized in the form of self defense or in defense of other innocent people. And even sometimes, perhaps immorally, in defense of property, even particularly worthless property.

The Catholic Church is Jesus's Church, it's the one He established/founded, and even more importantly than that, because it grounds Jesus Christ in history, she is the Church the Apostles built. The real Apostles. All Twelve of them, including Paul. That Church is the one that spread around the Mediterranean basin from AD 33 to AD 67 or thereabouts, when both Peter and Paul had been immorally put to death in Rome, under Mr. 666 Caesar Nero (gematria). We get the Bible from that Church, who ran largely without any New Testament, with the primary exception being she was pastored by the actual Twelve Apostles, especially once the Apostle James, brother of the Apostle John the Beloved Apostle, was immorally put to death in Jerusalem, the old Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem is the kingdom of God, and the Church is the kingdom of God in seed form, here on earth, in actuality.

Pope Francis said the death penalty is no longer admissible. It was, but it's not any more. Is this a change in Church teaching, in your estimation? Here is what it is. It is what Peter would have done, because he'd have his finger on the pulse of the whole world, which is where the whole Church exists, and he'd know when it's time to change a Church opinion on a matter of public policy, which is not a matter of faith or morals. Pope Francis, the successor of Peter the Apostle, has decided that in an effort to save lives, even lives of murderers and rapists, the Church's official political opinion is that the death penalty ought to be outlawed.

The previous reasoning behind supporting it as admissible is when it is the only thing that can protect innocent lives. Since this is rare now, with the status of prisons, Pope Francis, or Pastor Jorge Mario Bergoglio, or just 'Pastor George,' says that it is no longer moral to permit the death penalty.

If you support the death penalty, then you must realize that Pastor George is right in saying that it is no longer possible realistically for murderers or rapists from murdering or raping again.

As long as Pastor George isn't saying that lethal force is immoral in matters of self defense or defense of other innocent people, then there oughtn't be any difficulty in the Christian agreeing with Pastor George.

America had a President George to begin things, and we had two Presidents George just recently. Pastor George, President George---it's a rank. It's a de jure thing. Among Protestants, it's surely de jure only---they even deny the de jure, something the Orthodox don't, so they're not the same as true, full Protestants.

The Netflix fire is excellent, in part because what you've missed, you feel no need to go back and watch. It's fine right where you're picking it up, right now is a good time to start watching that sucker. It's God's direct creation, fire, and it is like watching Rick Porcello one-hit the Yankees for nine straight innings. There's nothing else like it.

[Idolater]

Doesn't look like we're separated on the point.


I'd say there's a difference between scripture and what men do with it and how they see and connect it within their own mind. When you do that and create traditions born of that, elevating them to equal authority with scripture I think you have a problem, and the Catholic Church has that problem...though to be fair, it's not only a Catholic problem, merely more obvious and institutionalized.


Amen.


I'd say that as a pragmatic matter, it is worse to kill a man than to lie to him. The latter robs him of the truth, the former robs him of any hope to approach it. But given any sin is sufficient to warrant my separation from the perfect and good, it's a distinction that matters more to me than it could to God, whom I will not meet save by grace.

I'm omitting a good deal, but consider it read and I appreciate your sharing your particular beliefs, whether or not we are of one mind.


Thomas Merton was a Catalan trappist monk and a profound writer who died in the late 60s. His writings were broadly popular and respected. Among them was the book that introduced me to Merton, The Seven Story Mountain. He was probably the most highly regarded and certainly the most well-known Catholic writer of the last century. Brother Lawrence died in the late 1600s and is known for Practice of the Presence of God, put together by the Abbe de Beaufort, envoy to Cardinal Noailles. The envoy was sent by the Cardinal to investigate Lawrence and they had four conversations that were put into written form. I believe you can find them online for free. It's not a lot of writing, but it's a remarkable thing to read.

I have to engage you in your non-Catholicism. It's in the nature of the site. 'Theology Online' means, from the start, way back at the beginning, 'We're going to fight about theology.'

Your non-Catholicism is de jure wrong.

[Idolater]

It was scolding, in common parlance, unless 'scolding' is also legal jargon that I don't know about.

No, it wasn't. You just need for it to be so you're digging heels.

Scold: to criticize (someone) severely or angrily especially for personal failings

• He scolded the kids for not cleaning up the mess they had made in the kitchen.

Synonyms of scold
bawl out, berate, call down, castigate, chastise, chew out, dress down, flay, hammer, jaw,keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rag, rail (at or against), rant (at), rate, ream (out),rebuke, reprimand, reproach, score, tongue-lash, upbraid

Those are fairly emotional and sharp. None of that accurately describes the incident, at least my son's part of it.

How was it not a reprimand?
In what way was it not a reprimand.