Mortal and Venial Sin

When i was a catholic, i've learned that mortal sins are words or deed contrary to the commandments of God that can be forgiven, while venial sins are thoughts, words, or deed contrary to the laws of God that can be pardoned.

In the bible, sin is any transgression against the law of God. All sins can be forgiven, except that of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

Hmmmm.... Southernbaptist in 43 years as a Catholic I have never heard this definition. What is the difference between forgiven and pardoned? Maybe you think pardoned means overlooked. And the Catholic Church does say that all sins can be forgiven except for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you didn't pay attention in your catechism classes.

Now a mortal sin is a sin of grave nature, usually specifically against the 10 commandments, done with full knowledge and consent of will. They are said to deprive the soul of the life of grace that has been given it in Baptism. Veniel sin does not kill the soul (i.e. remove the life of grace) but damages it. It is like a small cut rather than a slicing of an artery. Scripturally the main verse (though there are others) is in John's letters:

1 John 5:16
If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death.

Certainly you can see the difference between stealing a cookie and intentionally and willfully stealing a car. That is primarily the difference.
All need the grace of Jesus Christ, won for us on the cross to be forgiven but mortal sins specifically require confession to a priest in which Christ through the priest forgives the sin. Veniel sins can be forgiven through a perfect act of contrition as well as confession or at Mass.


If you want more information there is an excellent little book below.

http://www.catholicparents.org/oxcart/examination.html

Hope that helps.

[ May 06, 2003, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

Hi thessalonian,

I'm not southernbaptist but southeastbaptist.

Thanks for correction, maybe i did'nt pay attention at a cathechism or maybe i'm not interested at all during that time.

I've read in the Bible about sin unto death and sin not unto death but i've never read that i should confess my sin to any priest. What i have read is that 1Jn 1:9 "If we confess our sin, He (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all our unrighteousness"
We are also to "Confess your faults one to another
and pray one for another, that ye may be healed" Jas. 5:16.

Where can i find in the Holy Scriptures "confessing to any priest". Also where can i find in the NT any special ordained priesthood. What i read is Jesus Christ the high priest "Heb. 10:21" and all believers are a royal priesthood "1Pet. 2:9"

How can you interpret:

"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sin" Heb. 10:11

 

Hi SE Baptist

First I would like to say that as Catholics we believe in the Priesthood of believers however this priesthood is different than priests of the church. Priests where given their authority directly from Jesus who singled out a group of men and breathed on as they received the Holy Spirit. This Jesus did not do to everyone.

Yes, it is easier to go to God, and probably this is why Christ did not chose this method.

We confess to a man, not because he himself has the power to forgive sins, but because he acts as an agent, or a judge, in the name of God, and forgives sins in His name.

The words of institution show that Christ intended specific confession of sins:


"He, therefore, said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent me, I also send you.' When He had said this, He breathed upon them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'." St. John 20:21, 22
By these words Christ gave to His Apostles the power EITHER to forgive OR to retain. In order to exercise this judicial power it is necessary for the sinner to accuse himself specifically of his sins. Most sins are committed in secret and the priest-judge would have no other way of knowing these sins, except by specific confession.
Furthermore, the priest as a judge must give a penance or work of satisfaction which is proportionate to the sins and helpful to the sinner. This he can do only if he knows what sins have been committed.

The fact that the priest is a sinner, as are all men, does not affect the power which he exercises. The power comes to him from his office. The same is true with a President or with a judge in our civil courts. The private lives of these individuals does not affect the authority which they have under the Constitution.

This brings up another point, since we must do penance for our sins, how does someone who does not go to confession know what his or her penance should be?

I go to confession about every 2-3 weeks and there is nothing nicer than to here the words of absolution and your conscience feels so good afterwards.

I imagine a lot of protestants looks at this as a very difficult thing to do, but this act makes us humble as we should be when we confess our sins. In addition we are less likely to commit these sins again because we know we will have to go back to confession. Saying a quick I'm sorry to God does not give the same confirmation of forgiveness.

It is said that if everyone went to confession there would be no need for psychiatrists. This is because of the freeing of ones conscious of guilt.

Jesus knows what is best for us and that is why he instituted confession, we know not everything he commands is easy, only that it is the best thing for us.

Yours in Christ
Daniel @---}---

 

Southeastbaptist,

Rather than taking the thread off topic:

Do you believe that all sin is equal in God's eyes?

What would be an example of "sin unto death"?

Ron

 

Southeastbaptist,

That's another division of the 62 Baptist denominations that I had not heard of apparently.
Thanks for your questions.

"Where can i find in the Holy Scriptures "confessing to any priest"."

Well, scripturally the practice is commanded by Jesus just after he rose from the dead and appeared to the Apostles in the upper room. It is a verse that I rarely have quoted to me by non-catholics when forgiveness of sins is brought up but then I can understand why they might shy away from it. Interestingly enough it has the same author as your favorite verse on forgiveness.

John 20:21-23
So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

Note two important things. First he breathed on them. There is only one other time that God breathed on man. It was in genesis when he gave physical life to Adam. In this case he gives spiritual life through the forgiveness of sins to mankind, all made possible of course by his death and resurrection. Second: he says RECIEVE THE HOLY SPIRIT. It is a power of God given to them, which they have delegated to their successors, the Bishops and priests of the Catholic Church (quite historically supportable if you want to see the details, let me know) and it is bound in heaven, meaning that when they forgive God forgives.

"Also where can i find in the NT any special ordained priesthood. What i read is Jesus Christ the high priest "Heb. 10:21" and all believers are a royal priesthood "1Pet. 2:9" "

Let me start with the last part first. The two verses you site do not rule out priesthood. In 1 Pet 2:9 Peter is just reaffirming the priesthood of the faithful that was supposed to have been in effect in the OT.

Exodus 19:6
and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.".

Hebrews 10:21 says that Jesus is the high priest. That does not rule out that there are no other priests either and in fact that would be contradictory to what you are trying to with 1 Peter 2:9. Further Jesus did not become the high priest in the New Testament, but is the Eternal high priest for this concept was not foreign to the Jews of the Old Testament:

Psalms 110:4
The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
"You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek."

Once again this did not rule out there being Aaronic and Levitical priests in the Old Testament. So what we have is non-sequitors. Priests in the New Testament are called prebyters or elders.

1 Timothy 5:17
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

James 5:14
Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

Now I am sure you will disagree that these are preists but historically that has been the way theese verses have been taken.

"How can you interpret:

"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sin" Heb. 10:11 "

Well, it is quite clear that this verse is talking about the sacrifice of goats and lambs in the Old Testament. Now I don't recall going to confession and having the priest take out the knife and slit the throat of a goat I brought along. Jesus Christ on the Cross is the sacrifice by which he as a minster of reconcilliatoin can forgive sins.

2 Corinthians 5:18
Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

I might add that it is not apart from Christ or his sacrifice that all of this happens. For the priest is there in the person of Christ and we know that when we confess our sins he is faithful and is there through the preist forgiving us. It is quite a blessing and a weight off my shoulders when I go and then walk out, knowing that I can forget about the things that I have done and start over.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my faith about confession of sins.

God bless.

 

Nice little jab. I love how the RCC always claims to be one big happy family. Give me a break.

Neal

 

Hello Neal --

Hey, the Catholic Church may be filled with schizmatics, liberals, communists, and masons, and unbelievers, but it is still ONE CHURCH with one specific and officially sanctioned set of doctrines, to which we Greek Catholics also subscribe. There is nothing akin to the divisions on major doctrines and teachings which are seen in the various shades of Protestantism.

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,

Brother Ed

 

Nice little jab. I love how the RCC always claims to be one big happy family. Give me a break.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry for the offense Neal. No, we are not always a big happy family, for the Bible does say "there will be divisions among you". The difference is that there is an official teaching to help discern which side of the division you should be on. It also does not say "there will be denominations among you" nor does it say that there will be two christian Churches across the street from eachother with a different name on the door, teaching conflicting doctrines.
Yes, there are people who do not accept Catholic teaching, some because they don't understand and some because they reject authority. Yet in multi-denominational Protestantism authority becomes a bit of a, well, I won't say it, because everyone claims to follow the same Bible but yet teach conflicting things. In Catholicism the official teaching is what should be taught. There is a chain of command and reprecussions if someone is not teaching according to the doctrines passed down for thousands of years. That is the difference.

Blessings

 

Hi all,

Sorry for late response, I was busy until today.

I'm not fom another group of Baptist but just happen to be from Southeast Asia. Our church is an independent bible believing baptist church. I feel that you look down at the diversity of baptist churches.

This is our heritage. We believe in the locality and independence of every local church as practice in the early churches. Every church is under the Headship of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing in the Bible as pope, cardinal, arcbishop, etc. These are man's devices. The Orthodox church is nearer than the Roman Catholic church in this aspect. Their patriarchial type of church government speak of their slight deviation from the early practice.

 

"There is no such thing in the Bible as pope, cardinal, arcbishop, etc. "

Is it the word's not being in there that bothers you?

 

I'm not fom another group of Baptist but just happen to be from Southeast Asia. Our church is an independent bible believing baptist church. I feel that you look down at the diversity of baptist churches.

Jesus said that He would establish ONE Church. Y'all say you should establish ONE THOUSAND or even ONE MILLION "churches".

Who should I believe?

This is our heritage. We believe in the locality and independence of every local church as practice in the early churches.

The Early Churches did not practice "independence" as you state. If that were true, they would have told St. Paul and St. Peter to go pound sand when they wrote their epistles of correction and admonition. St. Paul even appealed to his leadership and authority and warned them that he would come to them either with a spirit of meekness or a spirit of power.

Every church is under the Headship of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing in the Bible as pope, cardinal, arcbishop, etc. These are man's devices.

You obviously have no grasp upon the hierarchial nature of covenantalism nor the authority structure which our Lord set up in the Bible. St. Peter ALONE was given the keys to the kingdom. Those keys speak of his authority over and above all others, including the other apostles. This is the office of the papacy in its primal state. The pope is the holder of that office and of the keys and authority which goes with that office.

Furthermore, Scripture speaks of such things in the Body of Christ as head, arms, legs, etc. Each part of the body has a different function, BUT -- there can only be ONE head. A many headed body such as you propose for the Church is a monstrousity and belongs in a circus freak show. That is what Protestantism has become, and even the most cursory glance at the lineup of Sunday charlatans will verify this. No one reigns these men in because they have no "head" other than themselves and their massive egos. (Of course, the Roman Church is not exactly leading the way in discipline nowadays either, are they? Seems like no one wants to spank the disobedient children).

The Orthodox church is nearer than the Roman Catholic church in this aspect. Their patriarchial type of church government speak of their slight deviation from the early practice.

Oh Man!!! PLEEEEEEASE......don't make those kind of ludicrous statements while I have a mouthful of food. I darn near choked myself laughing.

You ARE kidding, right?

I mean, you really cannot actually be serious with that statement, seeing that the Eastern Churches for 1000 years until the lamentable schizm of 1054 were not only in communion with Rome but appealed to and accepted the judgments and disciplinary measures if the Roman Pontiff This is historical fact and easily verifiable by reading Church history.

Of course, Protestants are not too keen on Church history, are they? After all, if they really studied Church history and with a conscience which was determined to follow the teachings the found in the Early Church, they couldn't remain Protestants any longer, could they?

What I don't find, cannot find, and haven't seen ANY evidence of in the writings of the first 1000 years is that of Baptist doctrines. There is no evidence from the writings of the Early Fathers, the discussions and canons of the councils, or any other source.

I dunno. Maybe if I git out my dog earred copy of TRAIL OF BLOOD and drink enough single malt scotch I might be able to pull it off....at least until my head starts pounding the next morning.

Brother Ed -- still laughing.

Baptist history....always good for a laugh!!

 

Now Now Brother Ed, you make way too much of that 1700 year or gap between when the last Apostle died and the first Church actually called itself Baptist. Paulicians after all were Baptist even though of course they had a good God and evil God and rejected most of scripture as inspired.

SEB could you please fill in that 1700 years. Where were those baptist Churches that have come down through the centuries? Or did true Christianity disappear for a time or just hide out for 1700 years because it was scared out of it's wits?


Blessings.

 

Thessalonian --

Well, I didn't include the cults and fringie groups because I was talking about "orthodox" Baptist belief, per se. Yes, I suppose you could possibly include the Paulicians and others, but then we would hear it said "But they were not REAL Baptists"

Anyhow....nice to see someone else wastin' his afternoon at the keyboard.

Brother Ed

 

Hi Thess,

Not only the words, but the whole idea of it. The Lord Jesus Christ taught the disciples that there should be equality among believers, He spake against the practice of hierarchical church government when He said that all believers are equal. Only Christ should have the preeminence.

 

S.E.B.&gt;The Lord Jesus Christ taught the disciples that there should be equality among believers, He spake against the practice of hierarchical church government when He said that all believers are equal. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

yes, I remember that! He said that in the Gettysburg address, right? Or was that Father Abraham? or Isaac? whatever.....

 

Hmmmm. I find this kind of odd since Paul says:

Ephesians 4:11
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

1 Timothy 5:17
The ELDERS who RULE WELL are to be considered worthy of DOUBLE HONOR, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

Hebrews 13:17
OBEY YOUR LEADERS and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.


Also of course he said to Peter:

Of course leaders in the Church should be servantile and think themselves as nothing compared to Christ but this does not mean we don't have leaders.

Matthew 16:18-19
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Who else do you know that Jesus specifically gave the keys to. And if there were no leader of the Apostles as your claim implies then why, whenever the Apostles were asked questions did Peter answer?

Mt. 16:18, John 6 about vs. 68, Acts 2:38, Acts 4 can't recall the verse. I mean wouldn't you expect if all were equal in all senses of equality (i.e. no hierarchy of leadership) that he would answer perhaps once in four or on the outside twice in 4 but not 4 out of 4. And there are many more lists of Apostles in which Peter is always listed first. If the Bible intended to put accross that there was no hierarchy why would it always list him first (and Judas last by the way) every time. I would expect 1 out of 12 times he would end up first.


Oh, there is much more I could say that shows that what you have been taught isn't quite right but perhaps I should let you get going on this list.

Peace.

[ May 07, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

Thanks for response even if it appears to be some sort of redicule.

Whom shall i believed:

your opinion? or Cardinal Hosious who says " Were it not that the Baptist were cut off with the knife during the past 1200 years, they would swarm in greater no. than the reformers".
I believed Cardinal Hosious told a fact since He is the president of councul of trent during that year 1524.

 

I apologize if it seems I am riduling you. I truly don't mean to. It is interesting that there are two quite different versions of the Cardinal Hosious statement floating around and not one version of it in his writings which exist. The Cardinal Hosious statement has been shown to be conjured up.

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html

Even if not, it is rather thin evidence for 1800 years.

God bless.