Is the floor of Hell paved with the skulls of bishops?

Gloria Romanorum ^ | February 3, 2024 | Florentius

[ealgeone]

"...but if you have sinned as bishop, you are lost."

Then I guess Chrysostom is lost as well. Why?

Because everyone sins everyday.

It may be an inerrant thought or an actual physical sin like stealing or coveting.

Only one person has lived a sinless life: Jesus Christ.

[Antoninus]

Then I guess Chrysostom is lost as well. Why? Because everyone sins everyday.

Which is why Catholics make a distinction between venial sins (those minor faults of everyday life) and mortal sins (willful, grave errors). It is also why the Church recommends frequent sacramental confession.

[ealgeone]

While Rome may make this distinction Scripture does not.

[Antoninus]

While Rome may make this distinction Scripture does not.

Oh really?

For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

Research how the Fathers of the ancient Church interpreted this passage...

[Antoninus]

While Rome may make this distinction Scripture does not.

I would also point you to Augustine, writing in the early 400s AD from Carthage in north Africa, who clearly makes distinctions between mortal and venial sins. For example, in his treatise on Marriage and Concupiscence, he says:

"Sed tamen aliud est, non concumbere nisi sola voluntate generandi, quod non habet culpam; aliud, carnis concumbendo appetere voluptatem, sed non praeter conjugem, quod venialem habet culpam."

Or to translate:

"It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin."

Source.

[conserv8]

Did The Giver of Prey say that?

[Antoninus]

Sorry, forgot to include the reference. That would be First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 3:11-15.

[Old Yeller]

"It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin."

So sex for pleasure between a husband and a wife is a “venial” sin. This would explain why they claim Mary did not have sex with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born. Because she would not have been sinless if she had sex with her husband, or a remain a virgin. Poor Joseph. The Roman religion sure can convolute itself with their stories.

[ealgeone]

Note the context of the passage....this is not about salvation but how our lives will be evaluated for rewards in Heaven.

The concept of mortal and venial sins is a Roman Catholic construct to excuse the "small sins" committed by their members.

But what is missing is the notion that sin, that is all sin, whether the individual thinks it's a "big" or "small" sin, is a sin against God. And as such is sufficient to deny one Heaven apart from faith in Christ, and only Christ.

What the ECFs say on this topic is really irrelevant. It's their opinion much as the commentaries we have today. Their work is not inspired.

I can imagine a day, say 500 years from now, when a Roman Catholic will try and justify the writings of the current pope....no doubt some will try and say, the church (Roman Catholic) has always believed everywhere.....

[Texas_Guy]

Just like Protestants trying to justify their rebellion 500 years later?

A god who damns you for a minor transgression that is not willful or grave matter is a tyrant. That’s why Protestants view God as wrathful and out to get you with a surprise death.

That’s not what Jesus says though.

[ealgeone]

Actually it is Roma Catholicism that views God in thie manner you describe. It’s why they appeal wrongly to Mary who is seen as more forgiving than God.

However, if you read Romans or Ephesians you’ll see we’re already condemned from the beginning. God in His love and mercy gave us Christ as a propitiation for our sins for those called and who believe.

[ealgeone]

"It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin."

That is an unbiblical position taken by Augustine. I think it's more of a confession of his sins as a youth.

There is no biblical injunction against two married people having sex within the bounds of marriage for the fun of it.

However, as far as lust goes, this is another Roman Catholic deviation from Scripture. Roman Catholics seem to think adultery only counts if its the actual physical act; whereas Jesus clarified the true meaning to include the thought of lust as being equal to adultery.

This would nullify the RC position on the venial and mortal sin idea.

As I've said earlier...all sin, no matter how "big" or "small" you may think it is is sin in the eyes of God and is sufficient to keep one out of Heaven. Only faith in Christ, and only Christ, can forgive your sins enabling you to gain Heaven.

[Antoninus]

That is an unbiblical position taken by Augustine.

Oh, that's one of the best things I've ever heard! Someone 2,000 years distant from Christ with only a modicum of scriptural knowledge calling a teaching by one of the greatest minds in human history and a man totally immersed in Sacred Scripture "unbiblical."

The hubris is simply too, too much.

[Antoninus]

However, as far as lust goes, this is another Roman Catholic deviation from Scripture. Roman Catholics seem to think adultery only counts if its the actual physical act; whereas Jesus clarified the true meaning to include the thought of lust as being equal to adultery.

That's not anything like what the Catholic Church teaches. Sorry, try again.

[Antoninus]

So sex for pleasure between a husband and a wife is a “venial” sin.

Formal Church teaching is that sexual congress should have a uniative and procreative aspect. The uniative includes the pleasurable. Having intercourse merely for pleasure while attempting to negate the procreative aspect is why artificial birth control is considered sinful.

And given the state of Western society since the introduction of chemical birth control in the 1960s, I would think that Christian attempts at argument in favor of birth control would be conceded as huge error by this point.

[ealgeone]

E1: That is an unbiblical position taken by Augustine.

A: Oh, that's one of the best things I've ever heard! Someone 2,000 years distant from Christ with only a modicum of scriptural knowledge calling a teaching by one of the greatest minds in human history and a man totally immersed in Sacred Scripture "unbiblical."

The hubris is simply too, too much.

*****

For starters, Augustine did not know the Greek. I've studied the Greek in seminary. We have access to far more information that Augustine or Aquinas or any of the ECFs ever had.

Two, time elapsed from the time of Christ is immaterial. It is a Roman Catholic fallacy that we cannot understand scripture as well as someone in say the 2nd or even 4th century.

It's some what akin to what I've seen from your fellow Roman Catholics who claim we cannot understand the Greek because, well, we're not Greek. IF that were true no one could ever understand a foreign language.

IF that is the case then the teachings of Roman Catholicism that are further from the time of Christ must be called into question; if we were to use your "logic".

So your argument is rejected.

[ealgeone]

E1: However, as far as lust goes, this is another Roman Catholic deviation from Scripture. Roman Catholics seem to think adultery only counts if its the actual physical act; whereas Jesus clarified the true meaning to include the thought of lust as being equal to adultery.

That's not anything like what the Catholic Church teaches. Sorry, try again.

Sorry, that argument has been made by some of your fellow Roman Catholics.

And there is this from Integrated Catholic Life:

Are All Sexual Sins Mortal? Are There Grades Of Sexual Sin?

The bottom line answer is no, not all sexual sins are mortal. There are grades of sexual sin. To help illustrate how this might work, we have provided four scenarios that reflect various grades of sexual sin with an emphasis on how they might play out in our minds. In all these cases, we will assume full knowledge of the gravity of the sinful thought:

Scenario 1: The thought crosses my mind. I reject it and direct my attention elsewhere. This is not sin.

Scenario 2: The thought crosses my mind. I entertain it or dwell on it for a moment, and then reject it. Now I have embraced a sinful thought and engaged it with my will. This embrace, even if only slight, can place us within venial sin territory.

Scenario 3: The thought crosses my mind. I entertain or dwell on it and continue to do so deliberately. I relish and enjoy the thought and embrace it whenever it pops up. Now we are in mortal sin territory.

Scenario 4: The thought crosses my mind. I entertain and dwell on it. I then act or attempt to act on it. Now we are unquestionably in the realm of mortal sin.

And from catholicleader.com

Looking at a woman lustfully in this context means desiring to have sexual relations with a woman other than one’s wife. The very desire, if it is more than just a passing thought, is already the sin of adultery in the heart, and it would be a mortal sin.

[StAnDeliver]

"Looking at a woman lustfully in this context means desiring to have sexual relations with a woman other than one’s wife. The very desire, if it is more than just a passing thought, is already the sin of adultery in the heart, and it would be a mortal sin."

Άντε γαμήσου Jimmuh Carter, I thought you were dead!

[conserv8]

Could be why the husbands’ club started

[Antoninus]

Looking at a woman lustfully in this context means desiring to have sexual relations with a woman other than one’s wife. The very desire, if it is more than just a passing thought, is already the sin of adultery in the heart, and it would be a mortal sin.

So according to your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture, is the passing thought a sin or not? Exactly how much time must elapse before it becomes a sin? Does that sin, once committed, immediately put the sinner in danger of perdition?