jaredad7

I believe this is going to be a question prone to generating opinion-based answers. The reason is that the two correct answers to the two kinds of problems of evil - free will and God bringing good out of evil - are correct, no matter how you feel about them. You'll never be totally satisfied with these answers, though, because the problem of evil is not an intellectual problem, but an emotional one. I've written more on this here: sonofsaintcatherine.substack.com/p/on-suffering

'The point being, I can't plug "mortal sins" and "confessions" into a function and get out a reliable result whether or not someone is Saved. I can get an indicator, yes, but not a reliable result.' We agree here. Thomas Aquinas teaches this. We can't know with certainty whether we are saved, but there are certain indicators, and one of them is that we are not conscious of any unconfessed mortal sin.

There are certainly invisible members of the Church who would not call themselves Catholic who will nevertheless be saved by extraordinary grace. So too are there visible members who presume upon their visible membership for salvation. Yet, I don't believe that Jesus would say it is better to remain outside the visible Church when He founded it. I'll stay silent until you've finished responding to everything so as not to clutter the chat.

I don't see how mortal sin being unforgiveable follows from this.

" if you do X and don't do Y, you are Saved, otherwise you aren't." Isn't every serious and orthodox Christian, Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic, convinced of this. If you do X (sin) and don't do Y (repent), you aren't saved, right?

You think a knee-jerk reaction that does not actively harm another person, but is merely a temporary and unconscious disordered disposition of the heart would damn someone if they don't explicitly repent of it, or you think that they only need to implicitly repent of it?

In fact I think the need for a cut-off is rooted in the desire to fit everyone neatly into boxes. For in-between situations, you should seek guidance from the priest in confession. If it's a morally gray space, you err on the side of caution and confess the sin.

Yeah, if you keep willfully engaging in the fantasy, then you've hated the person, and you need to confess it.

'but what is "real hatred"?" Intentional willing evil for another. If it's just a knee-jerk reaction, that's not hatred.

The issue is that many protestants deny that distinction (even though the answers to the question you shared affirm the distinction).

I agree with you that 1 John doesn't necessitate a Catholic interpretation, only that it necessitates a distinction between some kinds of sins, some of which lead to death and some of which do not, and that those which do not can be forgiven because of other people's prayers, not just your own.

I just think that cannot be a reasonable interpretation of Matt 5. Jesus is saying that hatred is a kind of murder, and if it's real hatred (wishing evil on your neighbor), it is murder. Being angry at your neighbor for cutting you off in traffic and actively wishing grave harm upon him (hatred) are different things.

Venial sins are implicitly repented of by the man in grace who even merely lifts his mind to God in humble confidence, whether he has them all in mind or not. They can be repented of in this way precisely because he has not turned completely away from God, but only partially.

No one thinks that venial sins are okay, only that they don't damn you if they are not explicitly repented of. Whereas mortal sins must be explicitly repented of.

Out of curiosity, why would you consider Orthodoxy?

Sorry, I just assumed.

@Matthew can I ask which Lutheran sect you belong to? My full experience with Lutheranism is from the LCMS, and I really only know what I was taught in confirmation classes and Sunday school, which included reading from Luther's Small Catechism and lectures from a pastor or lay-assistant. I'm a Catholic now.

I should really say did Luther believe that confession was an ordinary means of grace, by which I mean that God has promised (as He does with the sacraments) to dispense certain particular graces through the act of confessing sins and receiving absolution which are effected ex opere operato.

@Matthew I was raised Lutheran (LCMS) and was taught in confirmation classes that only baptism and communion were sacraments. Later, I was taught by the pastor at the Lutheran church I attended during college (also LCMS) that there was a debate between Lutherans as to whether or not confession counts as a sacrament. Nevertheless, no Lutheran church I ever attended ever offered confession or really talked about it (though that same pastor offered it by appointment). There's an absolution during the beginning of the Lutheran service, but it's a general absolution without particular confession.

@Matthew did Luther believe that any kind of ordinary grace was dispensed through confession?

Since the Lutheran Church doesn't see confession as sacramental, what would be the purpose of offering regularly scheduled confession times? I doubt many people would attend.

@MikeBorden but why do we agree on the 66?

@MikeBorden we could get deep in the weeds on this, lol. But on a high level, there are progressive and traditional factions within the Church, and the progressives tried unsuccessfully to hijack Vatican II, and did successfully hijack the liturgical reforms and the culture of the Church after V2, to impress progressivism on Catholics. Today, young Catholics are becoming more traditional as that generation dies out and we see the bad fruits of their policies and practices.

Is intention really all that matters? Does sihkism therefore save because they intend to worship the one true God? Or are they damned on a technicality that they (at least in some instances) simply never heard of Jesus?

@MikeBorden I also think this is a strange definition of idolatry. There are non-abrahamic faiths, like Sikhism and certain flavors of Hindusm, which purport to worship the one true God, but I would certainly say these commit idolatry because I believe the name something which is not the one true God as the one true God. If you think the bread does not become our Lord, and yet I say that it is our Lord, the one true God, how could you not conclude that this is idolatry?

@MikeBorden it's strange to me for you to be sure of others' salvation while also acknowledging that you don't really know if they have believed in their hearts and confessed with their mouths the Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for their sins, and that God raised Him from the dead. I do believe and confess this, but your inability to know my interior life means you shouldn't be certain, if we mean absolute certitude, that I believe it (you can verify that I confess it).

What is "necessary for salvation" is cooperation with saving grace, whether ordinary or extraordinary, but I'd say one who comprehends this doctrine and rejects it obstinately is a heretic and therefore very likely in mortal sin, ie they do not cooperate with saving grace.

@MikeBorden you can thank the hippie bishops from the second half of the 20th century. They have wrought untold damage on the faithful by ignoring their divine mandate to teach, and in many cases teaching contrary to the faith. Not all of them, but many, and they will have to answer for it to God. We should pray that He has mercy on them.