ALLEN TIMILEHIN OLATUNDE
APRIL 2011
INTRODUCTION
Every religion in the world has the perspective to the word “Sin”. The reactions of the primitive and the contemporary on the concept are still controversial. Sin, in religion, is an act that violates a known moral rule. Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and others accept the facts that sin exists but in different worldview. However, in Christianity, sin is paramount as a vocabulary that must not be seen in the life of a believer yet the concept is varied by denominational doctrines. In the beginning of the church, the apostles had one doctrine and one mind towards that issues that matter in the faith. As soon as the church grew, there was diversity of concept in Roman Catholic in which its hold tenet different from others. The word “sin” has different meaning, categorization and measurement by denominations. This paper shall examine the concept of sin as Roman Catholic observes with consistency and with devotional approach.
To understand the concept of sin from the Roman Catholic view, there is need to understand her identity. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia notes that Roman Catholic Church is the largest single Christian body, composed of those Christians who acknowledge the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome, the pope, in matters of faith. The word catholic (Greek katholikos) means “universal” and has been used to designate the church since its earliest period, when it was the only Christian church. The Roman Catholic Church regards itself as the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken succession of bishops descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ on the 12 apostles. The church has had a profound influence on the development of European culture and on the introduction of European values into other civilizations. Its total membership in the late 1990s was about 1 billion (about 52 percent of the total number of affiliated Christians, or 16 percent of the world population). The church has its greatest numerical strength in Europe and Latin America but also has a large membership in other parts of the world. A Roman Catholic believer holds on to the doctrine without minding what the protestant churches say. This will actually help to dig deep to what, why and how the concept was coined without resemblance with other churches in Christianity.
CONCEPT OF SIN
Since sin is a moral evil, it is necessary in the first place to determine what is meant by evil, and in particular by moral evil. O'Neil (1912), notes that evil is defined by St. Thomas (De malo, 2:2) as a privation of form or order or due measure. In the physical order a thing is good in proportion as it possesses being. God alone is essentially being, and He alone is essentially and perfectly good. According to New Catholic Encyclopedia (2009. 610), sin is both a reality and a mystery. It is one of the central themes of the Bible as well as one of the basic presuppositions which make the whole drama of salvation both necessary and possible. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (1967. 783) also states that sin, according to the classical definition, is lack of conformity to the law of God. The law by which sin is defined is the law of God, not an impersonal and freestanding set of rules. Sin is mistrust of God, betrayal, ingratitude and disloyalty. O'Neil (1912), affirms that evil implies a deficiency in perfection, hence it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good; it is found only in finite beings which, because of their origin from nothing, are subject to the privation of form or order or measure due them, and, through the opposition they encounter, are liable to an increase or decrease of the perfection they have. Online Wikipedia notes also that fundamentally, sin is rebellion against, or resistance to, the direction of supreme authority, and enmity toward, avoidance of, or hatred of the good.
Thompson (2010), states according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, sin is a morally bad act not in accord with the divine law of God, including the seven deadly sins of pride, avarice, gluttony, lust, sloth, envy, and anger. Sin is further divided into different categories, including original and actual, mortal and venial, commission and omission, material and formal, internal and external, and voluntary and habitual (also known as macula peccati reatus culpæ or Ima gonna sinna overa and overa againa).
DIVISION AND MEASUREMENT OF SIN
Mortal and Venial Sin
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (1967. 783) explains the division of sin that a change in the basic theory of sin leads inevitably to a change in the understanding of the two traditional forms of sin, mortal and venial sin. Accordingly, mortal sin is often described by proponents of this new approach as “not only a refusal to give something to God but a refusal to give him myself in action in which I am fully engaged and really involved as a person”; venial sin is seen also as a refusal to give oneself but “a refusal which does not go to the heart of the person, a refusal which is not realized at the center of one’s person.” From www.catholic-pages.com, the concept of the division is better expatiated that mortal sin by a baptized person removes the person from the State of Grace and therefore denies them the reward of Heaven. A baptized person who dies with mortal sin on their soul will go to Hell. Venial sin, on the other hand, while it requires us to do satisfaction for our sin and is deserving of punishment, does not bring us eternal punishment. The concepts of mortal and venial sin are essentially Roman Catholic. Evangelical Christians and Protestants may or may not be familiar with these terms. Working definitions of mortal and venial sins could be these: Mortal Sin is “sin causing spiritual death,” and Venial Sin is “sin that can be forgiven.” Venial sin is invariably used in contrast with mortal sin. Mortal sins are those sins that exclude people from the kingdom; while venial sins are those sins that do not exclude people from it. Venial sin differs from mortal sin in the punishment it entails. Venial sin merits temporal punishment expiated by confession or by the fires of purgatory, while mortal sin merits eternal death.
Venial and Mortal Sins are theological distinctions regarding the severities of various sins and how they relate to the sinner’s punishment in the afterlife while they are not forgiven. Mortal sins are considered to be those that damn people to hell while venial (or “forgivable”) sins are those that do not damn but only result in a “partial loss of grace”. Baker (2009), adds that in the Roman church, the gravity of sin is evaluated based solely on its ethical character. Roman Catholicism wrongly teaches that sins are mortal if they are grave in nature, committed in full knowledge, and with willful intent. They then teach that there are lesser sins that are venial which do not meet these criteria. These philosophical definitions are used in conjunction with the other errors that are found surrounding the Roman Catholic understanding of the confession and absolution of sin. They require that all mortal sins must be formally confessed and absolved or they will send the sinner to hell. They then teach that venial sins add to earthly penance and the time that the sinner is required to spend in purgatory.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church as www.gotquestions.org states, it is found that mortal sin is: “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.’” According to the Catechism, “Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments.” The Catechism further states that mortal sin “results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell.” Mortal sin is an intentional violation of the Ten Commandments (in thought, word or deed), committed in full knowledge of the gravity of the matter, and it results in the loss of salvation. Salvation may be regained through repentance and God’s forgiveness.
Regarding venial sin, the Catechism states the following: “One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of virtues and practice of moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. ‘Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.’” Venial sin may be a violation of the Ten Commandments or a sin of a lesser nature, but it is committed unintentionally and/or without full consent. Although damaging to one’s relationship with God, venial sin does not result in loss of eternal life.
Material and Formal Sin
www.gotquestions.org explains that this distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not. Britannica Online Encyclopedia (2011) explains further that actual sin is subdivided into material and formal. Formal sin is both wrong in itself and known by the sinner to be wrong; it therefore involves him in personal guilt. Material sin consists of an act that is wrong in itself (because contrary to God’s law and human moral nature) but which the sinner does not know to be wrong and for which he is therefore not personally culpable.
Personal and Social Sins
There is a tendency today by some in the Church only to use the word sin when they are referring to the so-called "social sins" like sexism, racism, genocide, oppression of the poor. This view has dangerous consequences: it leads to a diminution of the sense of personal responsibility for sin and personal sinfulness and so the need for personal forgiveness. The Holy Father also deals with this question in Reconciliatio et Paenetentia (no.16):
Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person's freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals' sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person's dignity and freedom, which are manifested - even though in a negative and disastrous way - also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit or virtue or responsibility for sin (http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/sin.asp).
Internal and External Sins
O'Neil, Arthur Charles (2009), explains that sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue:
"Thou shalt not covet", and from Christ's rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to "whited sepulchres... full of all filthiness" (Matthew 23:27). Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed, makes special mention of those that are most secret and that violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that they "sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed". Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished: delectatio morosa, i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it; gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already committed; and desiderium, i.e. the desire for what is sinful.
Capital Sins or Vices
According to St. Thomas (II-II:153:4) "a capital vice is that which has an exceedingly desirable end so that in his desire for it a man goes on to the commission of many sins all of which are said to originate in that vice as their chief source". It is not then the gravity of the vice in itself that makes it capital but rather the fact that it gives rise to many other sins.
ESSENTIALITY OF THE DIVISION
Significantly, O'Neil, Arthur Charles (2009), a Roman Catholic writer affirms that the division of sin into original and actual, mortal and venial, is not a division of genus into species because sin has not the same signification when applied to original and personal sin, mortal and venial. Mortal sin cuts us off entirely from our true last end; venial sin only impedes us in its attainment. Actual personal sin is voluntary by a proper act of the will. Original sin is voluntary not by a personal voluntary act of ours, but by an act of the will of Adam. Original and actual sins are distinguished by the manner in which they are voluntary (ex parte actus); mortal and venial sin by the way in which they affect our relation to God (ex parte deordinationis). Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, it is impossible that sin should be a generic term in respect to original and actual, mortal and venial sin. The true nature of sin is found perfectly only in a personal mortal sin, in other sins imperfectly, so that sin is predicated primarily of actual sin, only secondarily of the others. Therefore we shall consider: first, personal mortal sin; second, venial sin.
ATONEMENT FOR SIN IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM
The provisions made available by the denomination as atonement for the sins are controversial to other churches in the world. The aspect of salvation through the blood of Jesus raises question on the atonement traditionally accepted in the Roam Catholic. The belief in salvation by grace through faith not by works is not fully accepted through the provision of church fathers in Roman Catholic world in Middle Ages such as paying of penance, indulgences, confession, purgatory, praying to the saints, and other soteriological traditions. There is a need to briefly understand the concept of these atonements.
Penance
Webster (1995) writes that at the end of the second and beginning of the third century, penances were introduced as a means of gaining forgiveness of sins and the distinction between mortal and venial sins became prominent. Boettner (1962) states that in the Roman system penance is one of the seven sacraments, the fourth in the series. The Baltmore Catechism defines penance as follows: “Penance is the sacrament by which sins committed after baptism is forgiven through absolution of the priest.” Another catechism says:
“The priest gives penance in Confession, to help me to make up for the temporal punishment I must suffer for my sins. The penance given to me by the priest does not always make full satisfaction for my sins. I should, therefore, do other acts of penance… and try to gain indulgences – remissions of so many days or months or years of punishment in purgatory. In Roman Catholic training book, Instructions for Non-Catholics, we read: “In the sacrament of penance, God gives the priest the power to bring sinners back into the state of grace and to prevent them from falling into the abyss of hell.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) also adds that the Sacrament of penance releases the believer from sin against God and neighbour when there is the will to repent and “…avoid this sin (Jn 8:3). Penance is a wholly different thing from Gospel repentance. Penance is an outward act; repentance is of the heart. Penance is imposed by a Roman Priest; repentance is of the work of Holy Spirit. O'Neil, Arthur Charles (2009) says the evil men do must be atoned for either in this world by penance or in the world to come in purgatory or hell, according as the sin that stains the soul, and is not repented of, is mortal or venial, and merits eternal or temporal punishment. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen expresses this doctrine in the following words:
“Through them, the Church gives her penitents a fresh start. And the Church has a tremendous spiritual capital, gained through centuries of penance, persecution, and martyrdom; many of her children prayed, suffered, and merited more than they needed for their own individual salvation. The Church took these superabundant merits and out them into the spiritual treasury, out of which repentant sinners can draw in times of spiritual depression.”
Harrington (1948) notes the strength of the doctrine from the scripture that it is clear from His very words that our Lord gave the church power to impose burdens or to remove them, and that this includes the power to forgive sins. St. Pacian also proves that this power was not given to the Apostles alone, but was to be passed on to their successors. Harrington quotes St Ambrose saying: “But God who promised mercy to all makes no distinction (between forgiving slight and grave sins), and concedes to his priests the power of forgiveness with no exceptions.
Confession
The second act of penitent is Confession. Webster (1995. 99) observes that Confession in the early Church was public matter that related to grave sin and could be done only once. There was no judicial absolution by a priest. In Roman Catholic, this doctrinal act had created controversial disagreement where it should be private or public confession. Harrington notes this point that in early Church public sins were publicly confessed, publicly punished and publicly pardoned; that gradually the clergy usurped authority over men’s souls and instituted private confession; that this is unnecessary and therefore wrong. The Baltimore Catechism defines confession as: “The telling of our sins to an authorized priest for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness.” An authorized priest is the one who has only the power to forgive sins by reason of his ordination to the priesthood, but also the power of jurisdiction over the person who comes to him. He has this jurisdiction ordinarily from his bishop, or by reason of his office (p. 315 of Baltimore Catechism).
Boettner (1962) writes that the Roman Catholics are required to confess all their mortal sins to a priest who sits as a judge and who claims to have the power to forgive sins in the name of God. The priest forgives the guilt of mortal sins, which saves the penitent from going to hell; but he cannot remit the penalty due for those sins and so the penitent must atone for them by the performance of good works which he prescribes. Priests also receive forgiveness in this same manner. Clement D. Thibodeau in his research notes that for Catholics, morality and immorality cannot be decided merely by consulting a list of approved or forbidden actions. There are no such lists, no matter what some may have thought in the past. In the Middle Ages, when priests were often not well educated in theology, lists of appropriate penances were developed for use in celebrating the sacrament of penance. Devotional handbooks for the faithful a few generations ago provided assistance in the examination of one's conscience in preparation for Confession. The authors of these devotional aids gave what appeared to be lists of sins. These books may have contributed to the notion that there were such lists of sins officially published by the Church. Morality is much more complex than that.
Indulgences
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (2009) explains the term Indulgence, in Roman Catholic practice, to be the full or partial remission before God of temporal punishment for sins that have been forgiven. It is granted by ecclesiastical authority and is considered to be a special form of intercession made by the whole church through its liturgy and prayers for the reconciliation of one of its members, living or dead. In the early Christian church, severe penitential observances were imposed by the local priest or bishop on all who had been guilty of serious sins. It was believed that sins must be atoned for, at least in part, by the sinner in this world rather than in the next. Works of atonement consisted of fasts, pilgrimages, floggings, and other penances of greater or less severity imposed for a specified period of time. Gradually, church authorities substituted lesser works of devotion (such as prayers or almsgiving), accompanied by indulgences equivalent to the corresponding periods of more severe penance. It was not until the 12th century that theological reflection focused on indulgences. At first there was some opposition to the practice, but toward the end of the 12th century the attitude of theologians gradually became more favorable. At the same time, the granting of indulgences became increasingly a prerogative of the pope. Harrington (1967) remarks on the doctrinal backup of indulgence that it has three doctrines involved, the communication of Saints, the existence of a spiritual treasury, and the power of the keys enjoyed by the Church. The saints have often made satisfaction in excess of what they require to atone for their own sins. This satisfactory, not being used for themselves, remains in existence and can be used for others. Angelo di Domenica (1949) adds that the Roman Church claims that the Holy Stairs in St. John Lateran Church in Rome, which has 28 steps, is the real stairs of the court where Jesus was tried before Pilate. The church teaches that those who ascend the stairs on their knees, while they recite certain mechanical recitations, will receive hundreds of years of indulgence from the pope.
Purgatory
McLaughlin (1948) states that in purgatory, souls suffer for a time after death on account of their sins: either for venial sins that are not repented nor forgiven before death; or for sins whose guilt was forgiven in this life, but whose due of punishment is to be completed after death. The Catechism speaks often of bearing punishment for our sins after God has forgiven our guilt. The 254 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith in which purgatory is 251 states that the souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory.
From online book (http://www.scborromeo.org/glad/c6.htm), the word "purgatory" doesn't appear anywhere in Holy Scripture, neither do the words "trinity," "catholic," "protestant," nor "incarnation" but this fact doesn't preclude their existence. Catholic doctrine, based on our Jewish origins, is that at the moment of our death our soul, if perfect, goes straight to heaven; if not quite perfect, it goes to purgatory; if totally imperfect, it goes straight to hell. The concept of purgatory is certainly shown in Holy Scripture, so let's take a look at a few of the words of Jesus:
"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matthew 12:32, KJV)
"Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou has paid the uttermost farthing." (Matthew 5:26, KJV)
"Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:27, NIV)
Even if we have the smallest unrepented sin upon our soul, we are impure, defiled and cannot go straight to heaven. That is because this unrepented sin is a refection of our pride, a lack of total dedication to God. It may be the smallest of all sins, but it still constitutes a stain upon our soul. So how do we get rid of it once we have passed into the "world to come?"
The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:
"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm
McLaughlin (1948) draws attention the state of suffering in purgatory that sometimes the souls in purgatory murmur at their pains, are restless under them, and turn to human intercessors in the hope that their prayers may win God to grant them mercy rather than strict justice. Apart from God’s love the soul has no thought of gaining relief through the intercessors of others. But so far as it is his will that it should be thus aided by others’ prayers, the soul desires this to be done, with the same intensity that it desires his will to be done in all other ways.
CONTRARY VIEWS OF CONTEMPORARY UNIVERSAL CHURCH
The tradition of Roman Catholics which was initially called the Universal Church tradition has become debatable issues in Christianity in which other churches do not accept the doctrine because of the bias on the logicality and biblical stand of the belief. Jesus Christ called the church, one body but the idea has been thwarted by doctrinal difference. What are the worldviews of the contemporary churches on the concept of sin and the atonement? The argument on the desk of theology has a lot of views that can confuse or convince individuals on the belief standing for.
From the theological view of online writer (www.gotquestions.org) states that biblically, the concepts of mortal and venial sin present several problems: first of all, these concepts present an unbiblical picture of how God views sin. The Bible states that God will be just and fair in His punishment of sin and that on the day of judgment some sin will merit greater punishment than others (Matthew 11:22, 24; Luke 10:12, 14). But the fact is that all sin will be punished by God. The Bible teaches that all of us sin (Romans 3:23) and that the just compensation for sin is eternal death (Romans 6:23). Over and against the concepts of mortal and venial sin, the Bible does not state that some sins are worthy of eternal death whereas others are not. All sins are mortal sins in that even one sin makes the offender worthy of eternal separation from God. The result is the same--the window is broken. In the same way, it doesn’t matter if a person commits one small sin or several huge ones. The result is the same--the person is guilty of breaking God’s law. And the Lord declares that He will not leave the guilty unpunished (Nahum 1:3).
Second, these concepts present an unbiblical picture of God’s payment for sin. In both cases of mortal and venial sin, forgiveness of the given transgression is dependent upon the offender making restitution of some type. Is this what the Bible teaches regarding the payment for sin? The Bible clearly teaches that the payment for sin is not found in or based upon the actions of the sinner. Consider words of 1 Peter 3:18, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” Take note of the wording, “Christ also died for sins once for all.” This passage teaches that for the person who believes in Jesus Christ, all of his or her sins have been taken care of on the cross. Christ died for all of them. This includes the sins the believer committed before salvation and the ones he has committed and will commit after salvation.
Barry (1968) states the contribution of one of the early fathers, Athanasius who insisted that none but God himself could be the reconciler of man to God. Atonement starts from God, not from man and still less from a mythological demi-god and it is the movement of God himself to man. “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven and was made man.” That is fundamental to any Atonement doctrine. Heschel (1966) also adds that it is Christ himself who is the Atonement. “Our atonement is real in proportion to the reality of Christ in us.” Barry (1968) states the theology of atonement occur when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, he cam e as deliverer from sin, the creative Logos is also the Redeemer and the Redeemer is the creative Logos. Man has philosophized greatly about the nature of God and His relation to His sinning creatures but has never reached a satisfactory conclusion. Where philosophies of the world failed, the Bible makes it clear. It says that God is just and His justice demands the punishment of the sinner, so there can be not reconciliation without atonement. Encyclopedia of World Religions (1999) says:
The atonement of Christ is alive to provide: satisfaction for the Sins of the world; redemption from the devil; or from the wrath of God; a saving example of truth; a divine victory from the forces of evil. Hebrews 9:26 says, “There is no remission of sin (atonement) without the shedding of (Christ’s) blood” Atonement denotes the work of Christ, who by His perfect obedience, provided salvation for men from the curse of the law and reconciliation to God by the blood of His Cross. It is also said that atonement is a covering for the sinner by the blood of Christ. Punishment is no longer demanded of him. This has been removed and placed upon Christ who was sacrificed for him. It is said also that atonement opened the door for reconciliation between man and God without doing injustice to the holy law of God.
However, universal church do not parallel agreed with the view of categorization of sin and human efforts in removing or reducing strength of penalty over sin. It is only true the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, that was don once and for all. No other means to appease God than that He has done Himself.
CONCLUSION
The attempt to understand the concept of sin in Roman Catholic might create a debatable atmosphere that issues on theological strength of the denomination might be readdressed. Church universal as at Medieval Age had placed priority on self and priestly atonement for purposes that were not scripturally justified, yet the practices are still in progress in Roman Catholic. The concept in review displays the elements of self righteousness and effort to replace or substitute Christ atonement with priestly instructions that might inflict punishment to appease God. Sin is contagious and dreadful to human. God rejected his creature because of sin, yet died to redeem the depraved soul back to himself. Any other attempt cannot be quantified the redemptive work. Atonement is completed in Christ.
The Atonement, which is the most important event in the history of the world, was accomplished through Jesus’ sufferings in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. Although the finite human mind cannot fully understand how Jesus suffered for our sins, the scriptures affirm that in the Garden of Gethsemane, the weight of mankind’s sins caused Him to feel such agony that He bled from every pore (Luke 22:39–44). Later, as He hung upon the cross, Jesus willingly suffered a painful death inflicted by one of the cruelest methods that men ever devised. However, doctrinal matter on this atonement should be resolved by the scripture. Issue of sin has scriptural backup which different theologians have accepted that blood of Christ ultimately did it once. We are only committed to live righteously and be an advocate of the act that did save us. In conclusion, concept of sin in Roman Catholic is objectively wrong to what scripture says. This concept primarily subjects all men to save themselves and to think of eschatological grace of hell even when they die sinner, but Jesus Christ has solved and settled all debt of sin, penance, and indulgence on the cross. Therefore, there is no more charge against those that are in Christ Jesus.
WORKS CITED
Baker, Mike. http://www.n2fisher.com Wednesday 28 of January, 2009 08:23:19 CST . It was accessed on 8th Feb. 2011 by 2.14pm.
Barry, F.R. Knowing Christianity: The Atonement. Liverpool, London: Hodder and Stoughton Press, 1968. 119.
Boettner, Lloraine, Roman Catholicism. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 1962. 254.
Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/369030/material-sin. It was accessed on 8th Feb. 2011 by 2.15pm.
Domenica , Angelo Di, A Protestant Primer on Roman Catholicism, Chicago: Good News Press Inc, 1949.
Harrington, M. A. The Teaching of the Catholic Church. (eds) George, D. & Smith, D.D. London: Burns & Oates, 1948. 956
Herschel, Who is Man? New York: O.U.P., 1966. 76-7.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/sin.asp. It was accessed on 8th Feb. 2011 by 2.34pm.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/sin.asp. It was accessed on 8th Feb. 2011 by 2.23pm.
http://www.gotquestions.org/mortal-sin-venial.html. It was accessed on 8th Feb. 2011 by 2.45pm.
http://www.scborromeo.org/glad/c6.htm. It was accessed on 8th Feb. 2011 by 2.34pm.
McLaughlin. The Teaching of the Catholic Church. (eds) George, D. & Smith, D.D. London: Burns & Oates, 1948. 1141
O'Neil, Arthur Charles. Sin. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912., http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm . It was accessed on 8th Feb. 2011 by 2.15pm.
Sheen, Fulton J. Peace of Soul. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. nd.
Thibodeau, Clement D. The Catechism: #1749 -1761, Caribou, ME, 2011.
Thompson , Vicky , http://www.journeywithspirit.com/christianspirituality_meaning_sin.htm, 2002-2010. It was accessed on 8th Feb. 2011 by 2.18pm.
Webster, William. The Church of Rome at the Bar of History. Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995. 99.
Wendy, Doniger. Encyclopedias of World Religions, Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 1999. 90.
No comments:
Post a Comment