Communion W/out Confession

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1275185913' post='2120477']
Actually, the code does. Read the explanation underneath it.[/quote]

The only thing under Can. 1364 §1 in the [i]Code of Canon Law[/i] itself is Can. 1364 §1, which states, "If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state." Now, you may have a commentary which gives an interpretation of Can. 1364, but that commentary is not part of the text of the [i]Code[/i] itself.

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1275185913' post='2120477']
So, someone who is 3 years old, and is a Protestant, is committing a sin? You can be in heresy without knowing it, and while trying to follow Truth the best you know how. And maybe there's a sin involved at that level, but surely not for those who couldn't possibly know better.
[/quote]

A person who is under the age of reason is not capable of intellectually denying a truth of the faith. Such a person is, thus, not able to be a heretic, since, by definition, heresy is denial of a truth of the divine and Catholic faith. (CIC, can. 751).

Edited May 30, 2010 by Resurrexi

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Catholic Fox' date='29 May 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1275186010' post='2120478']
Yes, they are committing a sin. Their culpability may be reduced, but they are still committing a sin.
[/quote]

Resurrexi made the comment that "Being a Protestant is a grave sin [i]per se[/i]." That's what I'm arguing with. It can be, but it certainly isn't a mortal sin for a 3 year old who has never heard of the Catholic Church to be Protestant. And I have a hard time believing that it's any sin at all, since it's not a choice made by them. In fact, let's analyze that.

How can a sin be venial? First, the sin itself is not a grave sin (mortal), or second, (if it is seriously wrong) the sinner must not be aware that the sin is seriously wrong, or must not give full consent to the sin. If a child doesn't know it's wrong in the first place, they certainly can't be committing a grave sin, which completely nullifies the argument that "Being a Protestant is a grave sin [i]per se[/i]."

What is a sin? Any WILLFUL thought, desire, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God. The 3 year old is not aware that what they are doing is forbidden by the law of God. Therefore, it is not willful. Therefore, it is NOT a sin.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1275186953' post='2120482']
Resurrexi made the comment that "Being a Protestant is a grave sin [i]per se[/i]." That's what I'm arguing with. It can be, but it certainly isn't a mortal sin for a 3 year old who has never heard of the Catholic Church to be Protestant. And I have a hard time believing that it's any sin at all, since it's not a choice made by them. In fact, let's analyze that. [/quote]

As I said above, though, a three-year-old cannot technically be a Protestant.

Protestantism is a heresy
Heresy is a denial of a truth that must be believed with the divine and Catholic faith.
Ergo, Protestantism is a denial of truths of the divine and Catholic faith.

It is an act of intellect to deny a truth.
A person without use of reason is not capable of making an act of intellect.
Ergo, a person without the use of reason is not capable of denying a truth.

Q.E.D. no three-year-old (unless he obtained use of reason much earlier than most children) is capable of truly being Protestant.

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1275186953' post='2120482']
What is a sin? Any WILLFUL thought, desire, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God. The 3 year old is not aware that what they are doing is forbidden by the law of God. Therefore, it is not willful. Therefore, it is NOT a sin.
[/quote]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (together with SS. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) defines a sin as, "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law." ([i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], no. 1849; St. Augustine, [i]Contra Faustum[/i], 22; St. Thomas Aquinas, [i]Summa Theologiæ[/i], I-II, 71, 6.)

Even if not willfully done, an "utterance, deed, or desire contrary to the eternal law" is a sin, albeit a material (as opposed to a formal) one.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Resurrexi

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='29 May 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1275186383' post='2120480']
The only thing under Can. 1364 §1 in the [i]Code of Canon Law[/i] itself is Can. 1364 §1, which states, "If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state." Now, you may have a commentary which gives an interpretation of Can. 1364, but that commentary is not part of the text of the [i]Code[/i] itself.



A person who is under the age of reason is not capable of intellectually denying a truth of the faith. Such a person is, thus, not able to be a heretic, since, by definition, heresy is denial of a truth of the divine and Catholic faith. (CIC, can. 751).
[/quote]

And underneath 751, it states: "Those baptized persons who have fallen into heresy or schism in good faith do not incur this censure; CF. [i]UR[/i] 3, and [i]Ad totam Ecclesiam[/i] 19, 14-05-1967 (AAS 59 [1957] 581; CLD 6 [1963-1967] 723)." This might not be coming from an actual precept of the [i]Code of Canon Law[/i], but it still comes with the authority of the Church, and from official Church documents. It is the truth, and must be believed, even if it has not been defined in [i]ex cathedra[/i].

You're right, that a person who is under the age of reason is not capable of intellectually denying a truth of the faith. So then, the line for when it becomes a sin is drawn when the child reaches the age of reason? The Church recognizes that age, or used to, as age 7. So, let's take an 8 year old, who still has no control over where he goes to Church. More than that, he still trusts his parents, who don't go to Church at all, and have told him that it's meaningless. Are you saying that he is committing a grave sin? No. My point still stands. Being Protestant is not a grave sin, in itself.

Let's take another example. In the East, let's say China, before people there even knew about Christianity, they had their own beliefs. And then along came Pastor Joe, who was Protestant. Many people were converted to Protestantism before they even knew about the Catholic Church. They were certainly past the age of reason. Is that a grave sin for them, to convert to Christianity (Protestantism)?

But I'm glad you're starting to see the light here. You had made the comment that being a Protestant is a grave sin. Now you're admitting that it only includes those who are past the age of reason. Might we also include those who don't know any better, by virtue of their circumstances?

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='29 May 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1275187782' post='2120492']
As I said above, though, a three-year-old cannot technically be a Protestant.

Q.E.D. no three-year-old (unless he obtained use of reason much earlier than most children) is capable of truly being Protestant.

[/quote]

Thank you.

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='29 May 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1275187782' post='2120492']

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (together with SS. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) defines a sin as, "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law." ([i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], no. 1849; St. Augustine, [i]Contra Faustum[/i], 22; St. Thomas Aquinas, [i]Summa Theologiæ[/i], I-II, 71, 6.)

Even if not willfully done, an "utterance, deed, or desire contrary to the eternal law" is a sin, albeit a material (as opposed to a formal) one.
[/quote]

My definition was from the Baltimore Catechism, which still stands.

[fides' Jack]

[quote]“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”[/quote] [url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=6670684"]Source[/url]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1275188283' post='2120507']
And underneath 751, it states: "Those baptized persons who have fallen into heresy or schism in good faith do not incur this censure; CF. [i]UR[/i] 3, and [i]Ad totam Ecclesiam[/i] 19, 14-05-1967 (AAS 59 [1957] 581; CLD 6 [1963-1967] 723)."[/quote]

It is true that, under current canon law, only those who were raised Catholic (or who converted to the Catholic religion), and then later committed heresy fall under ecclesiastical censure (the censure in question being [i]latæ sententiæ[/i] excommunication). This means that, under current canon law, a person who was raised Protestant does not fall under any canonical penalty for being Protestant. However, this does not mean that Protestants do not commit heresy (either material or formal) by their denial of one or more truths of the Catholic faith.

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1275188283' post='2120507']
This might not be coming from an actual precept of the [i]Code of Canon Law[/i], but it still comes with the authority of the Church, and from official Church documents. It is the truth, and must be believed, even if it has not been defined in [i]ex cathedra[/i].[/quote]

While the quotation in question is certainly an authoritative legislative statement, it seems like you are placing it on the same level as a dogmatic teaching, which it is not.

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1275188283' post='2120507']
You're right, that a person who is under the age of reason is not capable of intellectually denying a truth of the faith. So then, the line for when it becomes a sin is drawn when the child reaches the age of reason? The Church recognizes that age, or used to, as age 7. So, let's take an 8 year old, who still has no control over where he goes to Church. More than that, he still trusts his parents, who don't go to Church at all, and have told him that it's meaningless. Are you saying that he is committing a grave sin? No. My point still stands. Being Protestant is not a grave sin, in itself.[/quote]

Whether or not one chooses to commit heresy, the action of committing heresy is in and of itself a sin of grave matter. It is no different than how adultery is [i]per se[/i] a grave sin. Obviously there may be circumstances during which adultery may be material rather than formal (if, for example, someone slept with a woman who was not his wife, thinking that she actually was his wife). However, even if one is not culpable for a sin, that does not change the fact that the action itself is sinful.

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1275188283' post='2120507']
But I'm glad you're starting to see the light here. You had made the comment that being a Protestant is a grave sin. Now you're admitting that it only includes those who are past the age of reason.
[/quote]

Actually, what I said was that those under the age of reason can't be Protestant because being Protestant is an act of intellect.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1275189019' post='2120516']
[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=6670684"]Source[/url]
[/quote]

I do not necessarily agree with Joseph Ratzinger's opinion as a private theologian (nor am I under any obligation to agree with it). It is important to note, though, that he never states that Protestantism is not a heresy, canonically speaking. What he states is that "Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense." Obviously the "traditional" sense of [i]heresy[/i] is not the same as the technical and canonical sense of that word.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='29 May 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1275189404' post='2120520']
It is true that, under current canon law, only those who were raised Catholic (or who converted to the Catholic religion), and then later committed heresy fall under ecclesiastical censure (the censure in question being [i]latæ sententiæ[/i] excommunication). This means that, under current canon law, a person who was raised Protestant does not fall under any canonical penalty for being Protestant. However, this does not mean that Protestants do not commit heresy (either material or formal) by their denial of one or more truths of the Catholic faith.



While the quotation in question is certainly an authoritative legislative statement, it seems like you are placing it on the same level as a dogmatic teaching, which it is not.



Whether or not one chooses to commit heresy, the action of committing heresy is in and of itself a sin of grave matter. It is no different than how adultery is [i]per se[/i] a grave sin. Obviously there may be circumstances during which adultery may be material rather than formal (if, for example, someone slept with a woman who was not his wife, thinking that she actually was his wife). However, even if one is not culpable for a sin, that does not change the fact that the action itself is sinful.



Actually, what I said was that those under the age of reason can't be Protestant because being Protestant is an act of intellect.
[/quote]


S'mores, you're changing your story.

This thread has turned into a childish argument (I admit, I am guilty). Therefore, I am not responding because it is accomplishing nothing.

Thank you, though, for fighting for what you believe to be true. In fact, you remind me of myself, when I was your age.

Edited May 30, 2010 by fides' Jack

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1275190104' post='2120530']
S'mores, you're changing your story. [/quote]

No, I am not. I have consistently affirmed throughout this thread that heresy is a grave sin [i]per se[/i], that Protestantism is a heresy, and that those under the age of reason are not able to be Protestant.

Additionally, demeaning names are not appreciated by most people (and I count myself among that number).

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1275190104' post='2120530']
This thread has turned into a childish argument (I admit, I am guilty). Therefore, I am not responding because it is accomplishing nothing.
[/quote]

I like to argue for the sake of arguing. I enjoy it, and I consider it good practice.

[Resurrexi]

Let my make myself clear so that all may see that I have said the same things throughout this entire thread:

I affirm that being Protestant is always a sin of grave matter [i]per se[/i], for committing heresy is always a grave sin in and of itself. Obviously, however, in many circumstance, heresy can be a material sin rather than a formal one.

I affirm that committing heresy in an act of intellect. It is, thus, completely impossible for a person under the age of reason to be a Protestant since a person under the age of reason cannot make an act of intellect. There is no such thing as a three-year-old Protestant, at least in any meaningful sense.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Resurrexi

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='29 May 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1275190515' post='2120533']
Additionally, demeaning names are not appreciated by most people (and I count myself among that number).
[/quote]

I am sorry for that - blame that one on me (obviously, he wasn't even around on this phorum back then). It was meant as an endearment. I did not know you would take that to be demeaning.

S'mores are tasty.

[Luigi]

"I like to argue for the sake of arguing. I enjoy it, and I consider it good practice."

Most people argue for the sake of convincing other people. There are enough serious arguments in the world that few people really want to engage it in as mere swordplay. If you consider arguing for the sake fo argument good practice, then you ought to also practice the etiquette of argument - granting points that have been made well, knowing when to conclude, and doing so gracefully.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Luigi' date='29 May 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1275193930' post='2120572']
Most people argue for the sake of convincing other people. [/quote]

You clearly have little experience with competitive debate.

[Luigi]

Point taken. But then, I'm not a very competitive person. I always think that more can be accomplished through cooperation thatn through competition.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Luigi' date='30 May 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1275195731' post='2120587']
Point taken. But then, I'm not a very competitive person. I always think that more can be accomplished through cooperation thatn through competition.
[/quote]

I am the exact opposite: very competitive, but completely uncooperative.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='MissScripture' date='28 May 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1275082634' post='2119854']
With the sins involving addiction, I have always understood that it isn't a mortal sin after it's become an addiction, but the steps leading to it being an addiction are. Because by definition of it being an addiction, the person is not able to fully exercise their free will, but they were able to use their free will to put themselves into the addiction in the first place. And, nonetheless, it wouldn't be BAD for them to abstain from communion until they'd recieved absolution, and then there would be no question.

And I agree, there is no situation in my life that I can conceive where it would be better to recieve communion with a mortal sin on my soul than to wait until after confession.
[/quote]

I've heard this opinion, but I [i]think[/i] I disagree with it. I think that sin is by its very nature addictive, and far from being a mitigating circumstance addiction only drags the poor soul deeper away from Our Lord. If a sin has become habitual it has entrenched itself in the soul and begun to turn that soul away from God. This is why we are [i]freed [/i]by grace from the [i]slavery[/i] of sin; if a sin is habitual it is only more grave because it twists the passions, will, and intellect even further from grace than if it was a one-time occurrence. Habitual sin is a pitiable place to be, and those enslaved by sin should pray to break the addiction to evil.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1275186380' post='2120479']
Why are we even arguing? This is pointless. We're all agreeing that Communion without confession (in the state of mortal sin) is bad, right?
[/quote]

Yes, but for the reasons given above, I don't think grave sin should automatically equal mortal sin. Ignoring the conditions for mortal sin leads to a scrupulosity. The Catechism informs us about full knowledge and full consent of the will. We should consider them when examining our conscience (along with having a good confessor, etc.).

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='30 May 2010 - 02:12 AM' timestamp='1275196347' post='2120595']
I've heard this opinion, but I [i]think[/i] I disagree with it. I think that sin is by its very nature addictive, and far from being a mitigating circumstance addiction only drags the poor soul deeper away from Our Lord. If a sin has become habitual it has entrenched itself in the soul and begun to turn that soul away from God. This is why we are [i]freed [/i]by grace from the [i]slavery[/i] of sin; if a sin is habitual it is only more grave because it twists the passions, will, and intellect even further from grace than if it was a one-time occurrence. Habitual sin is a pitiable place to be, and those enslaved by sin should pray to break the addiction to evil.
[/quote]

I would distinguish between each particular instance of sin and the addiction itself. Being in a state of habitual sin is the more grave situation, but rather than point to the particular instances as the mortal sin, I believe it would be the failure to repent against the addiction through Confession, removing occasions of sin, etc. The sin that finally cuts a person from grace may not be the pornography or the drinking, but rather despairing against the Holy Spirit that forgiveness and repentance from those sins is possible, or despairing about the existence of God. It's in the depth of despair that the real life-and-death decision is made, then fought out in battling against the attendant grave sins.

This is based on my own self knowledge and examination of conscience over the years than anything, but I feel like grave sins are considered grave because of how powerful they are and addictive they can be. For the same reason, for most of us who struggle with the beginning of keeping the flesh obedient to the spirit, I don't think grave sins are usually mortal because we haven't yet won over our free will. Our will is still compromised. But the sin is still grave because even if it isn't mortal, it is the grave sins that will cause a faithful Catholic to stray and tempted to falling away. Venial sins lead to grave sins which lead to mortal sin.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='31 May 2010 - 07:58 AM' timestamp='1275310692' post='2121113']
I would distinguish between each particular instance of sin and the addiction itself. Being in a state of habitual sin is the more grave situation, but rather than point to the particular instances as the mortal sin, I believe it would be the failure to repent against the addiction through Confession, removing occasions of sin, etc. The sin that finally cuts a person from grace may not be the pornography or the drinking, but rather despairing against the Holy Spirit that forgiveness and repentance from those sins is possible, or despairing about the existence of God. It's in the depth of despair that the real life-and-death decision is made, then fought out in battling against the attendant grave sins.

This is based on my own self knowledge and examination of conscience over the years than anything, but I feel like grave sins are considered grave because of how powerful they are and addictive they can be. For the same reason, for most of us who struggle with the beginning of keeping the flesh obedient to the spirit, I don't think grave sins are usually mortal because we haven't yet won over our free will. Our will is still compromised. But the sin is still grave because even if it isn't mortal, it is the grave sins that will cause a faithful Catholic to stray and tempted to falling away. Venial sins lead to grave sins which lead to mortal sin.
[/quote]

You are making a false dichotomy between grave sins and mortal sins. The two terms are fairly synonymous.