Catechism of the Catholic Church and Mortal Sin with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II etc.

Catechism of the Catholic Church and Mortal Sin
Catechism of the Catholic Church

MORTAL SIN
1857 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."

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Grave matter :
It is the denial of the Nicene Creed when it is said that we believe in not one baptism; the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sin but three visible baptisms.The baptism of desire and blood being also visible.(and of course exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation).

It includes the denial of Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) on all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 on all needing to enter the Church as through a door, all need faith and baptism (AG 7) is also being denied.

The denial of all the three (above) with alleged claims of being able to see the dead who are now saved and who are physically visible EXCEPTIONS, to the above three documents and citations is grave matter.

full knowledge:

The priest on the Internet Discussion Board, True Catholic, in Sydney Australia, has full knowledge of this issue.

and complete consent.

He is giving his consent freely and publicly on this discussion board to heresy and mortal sin.

He has been informed, he knows and he freely rejects a subject which is grave matter.
-Lionel Andrades
http://members7.boardhost.com/TrueCatholic/msg/1363096269.html

Lionel,

Let's not drag other discussion threads from other boards onto this one, okay? In the end, Truth will take care of itself. The good father in Australia may not believe you, however, when he stands before the King of Heaven, I think that his attitude will be different. Until then, let him be; if you've told him once, even indirectly, your duty towards him has been discharged.

We, of course, have only a tiny amount of time in relation to Eternity to wait until the Truth asserts itself, which it, inevitably, will.

Lionel,

That is not for you or anyone else to judge. As I said, a billion or more modernists cannot change a single eternal Truth.

Why cannot we judge ? There are objective conditions for judging.
Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor indicates we can judge. It says a mortal sin is a mortal sin.

Contrary to the modernists, it says, the outward action indicates the inner intentions.

Here are some objective signs:
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects.
Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. -Gal 5,19-21 Dhouy Rheims Bible

Lionel,

Your no one's judge on Earth, and it is not your responsibility to publicly censor anyone, even implicitly. Write to the priest's bishop, if you want and/or to the CDF. Ultimately, it is Jesus Christ alone who will judge.

Then just ignore him.

Sometimes. Even the various medieval Inquisitions ignored petty heretics and/or schismatics. Question is, "Is it your place to investigate this priest?" Or, does that job fall upon the shoulders of his bishop, and ultimately, Rome itself?

For me the issue stil is : is sin objective ?
If sin is objective then it means we can identify it. It means we can judge it is a sin.

If it is objective then it can be pointed out to the person committing the sin. We can then also inform the priest etc.

According to Veritatis Splendor sin is objective. There is visible mortal sin.

Lionel,

Pope Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam:

Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle...

You, as a Catholic layman, cannot possibly sit in judgment of someone whom the Church has not judged, or has judged but found worthy. To claim otherwise would be an act of schism. If you have brought the matter to the attention of the priest's bishop, then your duty is clearly discharged. However, since you are not in the diocese of the priest, you don't even have an obligation; such is the responsibility of those in the diocese. For that alone, you are at least a material schismatic, as you have no business interfering in the matters of a diocese of which you are not a member.

We are told that it is a Spiritual Act of Mercy to correct the sinner.

We are told that we have a duty to admonish the sinner.

To Counsel and educate are gifts of the Holy Spirit.

There has been dissent in moral theology and now there is a thinking that we cannot judge any body, since we do not know his motivation there is the fundamental option theory etc. This was put out by Fr. Charles Curran etc and the liberals made it popular. It was being taught in the universities etc.

So Pope John Paul II issued Veritatis Splendor, an encylical on moral theology.

It says we can judge. We can judge the motivation of a sinner. There are some sins that are objective and wrong. There are some sins that are intrinsically evil.The outward action shows the inner intention etc.

The saints thought that they had an obligation to judge and correct someone in sin. It was a moral duty.

You can't judge him when his Bishop has not; that's schism, and that's a grave and mortal sin. You can take the matter to Rome, if you wish; but that's where it can and must end, Lionel. Until then, stop bringing this matter up in the external forum. Okay?