Couldn't sleep at 2am, so I did the logical thing and made a blog, of course. I will post questions and answers to the faith from a historical and catechetical perspective free of charge. Have a question you want to see published? Comment at or tag me on X

I believe you are conflating icons with idols As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, The Holy Angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments and so on, and exhibited on the walls of churches and the homes and all conspicuous places by the roadside and everywhere to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototype. The Second Council of Nicea 787 AD

Brava.

@ThaddeusPapist Also which is it? You have said two things which contradict. Either ignorance excuses infinite culpability or the sin is not infinite in the first place. You cannot have both.

@ThaddeusPapist You cannot reduce infinity. God can pardon.

@ThaddeusPapist You're missing a piece. A sin is not a finite action because it has lasting effects that are unknown to us and it is done against God.

Ignorance doesn't excuse sin, it would reduce culpability insofar as we are no longer infinitely culpable due to Christ's sacrifice. What you suppose makes Christ's sacrifice unnecessary since only His deity was able to pay the infinite debt owed to God by sin and His humanity gave it to men's account. If sin's due is finite, Christ's infinite, once and for all sacrifice would not be required. Consider an imperfect analogy, if you were to strike your brother you might get in some trouble with your parents but it is unlikely that you would have legal consequences. If you struck a police officer, you would go to jail. And if you even attempt to strike the President, you may lose your life in the process. The same action has different levels of severity based on who the target is. When we sin, our target is God, and He is infinite. Therefore justice demands that the consequences are infinite. Only mercy saves us.

Can anyone source the claim that the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantiniople III) "expressly noted that Constantine and Pope Sylvester assembled the Council of Nicea"? I have seen this on Catholic Answers and I'm the writings of Bishop Hefele, but I can't find it in any original document.

@farmingandJesus @dalepartridge The G usually comes attached to the OB.

@UntoldFortune Not that I disagree, but this isn't much stronger than somebody five hundred years from now looking at a child's obituary from our time that reads "has gone to be with the Lord." and insisting that must be a doctrinal statement

@redeemed_zoomer "Whoever says, 'I know him,' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him".

@DenisJa24606223 @Jolz_Aust What church do you belong to?

@DenisJa24606223 @Jolz_Aust Hard to get personal here. I just hope you are reading and studying scripture and the Catechism because it seems like you may be missing some information.

@DenisJa24606223 @Jolz_Aust 16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

JD Vance is definitely number 48

RT @StJude_OPN: @Jolz_Aust There doesn't need to be knowledge as to why something is wrong, only knowledge *that* something is wrong. And…

There doesn't need to be knowledge as to why something is wrong, only knowledge *that* something is wrong. And stressors, habits and immaturity may mitigate but do not eliminate consent. None of us can read each others souls, which is why we cannot judge each other and cannot say if any specific sin is mortal or just grave. But if there were any doubt, why not just confess it? I seriously think it is terrible spiritual advice to tell someone mortal sin is "rare". Sounds like a path straight to hell.

@Jolz_Aust Full knowledge and deliberate consent. What do you view to be full knowledge? I would submit that this simply requires grave matter, which is all over the place, the knowledge that something is a sin, and the free choice to commit it. Those criteria are easily met.

@peterdamianent1 @Jolz_Aust They are extraordinarily commonplace. Deliberate consent requires that you considered two or more options and chose sin. And full knowledge doesn't require you to be an expert on the sin. It requires that you know that it was a sin. You have very easily met the three criteria.

CCC 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 Full knowledge does not mean you are a scientific expert on the sin. You know that it is a sin. There's no confusion about the matter. Your consent is deliberate, meaning using the faculty of reason you considered more than one option and chose the sinful one. That doesn't sound like mortal sin is difficult to commit.