Communion W/out Confession

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 May 2010 - 09:12 AM' timestamp='1275318758' post='2121163']
You are making a false dichotomy between grave sins and mortal sins. The two terms are fairly synonymous.
[/quote]

No they're not. "Grave sin" is a term which describes a sin that is grave matter. "Mortal sin" describes a sin that is grave matter, AND is made with full knowledge of it's sinfulness and full consent. All three conditions are important, and it does make a difference. They are not synonymous, even if all mortal sins are grave sins, all grave sins are not, in and of themselves, mortal sins, unless the other two conditions are also met. Even if the terms are used interchangeably, that doesn't mean it's really accurate to use them as such.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 May 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1275318758' post='2121163']
You are making a false dichotomy between grave sins and mortal sins. The two terms are fairly synonymous.
[/quote]

They may have been regarded as synonymous before Vatican II, but I understand this to be one of the common abuses about our understanding of sin that the Council sought to heal. I give you that we are now enduring the opposite extreme, in which our attitude toward sin is too relaxed, but that doesn't mean we should return to the prior extreme. Our Catechism does, in fact, distinguish between sins of grave matter and mortal sins. For a mature and well disciplined Catholic with a properly formed conscience, I agree that committing a grave sin is on par with committing mortal sin because knowledge and consent are not lacking. However, what of us who are in a daily battle with an addictive grave sin? If you honestly believe every instance of grave sin is completely cutting me off from God's grace, I can only imagine that you and I do not believe the same Gospel.

But, if you some teaching on this matter from reputable and orthodox bishops since Vatican II, I am open to their authority on this. Otherwise, we may just go round and round. I'm glad you're not in my shoes, but I hope you have some empathy for the deep struggle that breaking free from a grave sin really is.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='31 May 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1275327122' post='2121240']
They may have been regarded as synonymous before Vatican II, but I understand this to be one of the common abuses about our understanding of sin that the Council sought to heal.[/quote]

Show me the conciliar document and paragraph number in which it is stated that the faithful's understanding of sin needed to be changed.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='31 May 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1275327122' post='2121240']
I give you that we are now enduring the opposite extreme, in which our attitude toward sin is too relaxed, but that doesn't mean we should return to the prior extreme. Our Catechism does, in fact, distinguish between sins of grave matter and mortal sins. [/quote]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the term "mortal sin" to describe particular sins objectively:
"If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin (Latin [i]editio typica[/i]: peccatum est mortale)." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2302)

Additionally, the 1983 Code of Canon Law uses the term "grave" to describe the type of sin which prevents a person from going to Communion:
A person who is conscious of grave sin (Latin [i]editio typica[/i]: Qui conscius est peccati gravis) is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession. ([i]Code of Canon Law[/i], can. 916)

From this, it can be seen that the terms "grave sin" and "mortal sin" are fairly interchangeable.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='31 May 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1275319983' post='2121172']
No they're not. "Grave sin" is a term which describes a sin that is grave matter. "Mortal sin" describes a sin that is grave matter, AND is made with full knowledge of it's sinfulness and full consent. All three conditions are important, and it does make a difference. They are not synonymous, even if all mortal sins are grave sins, all grave sins are not, in and of themselves, mortal sins, unless the other two conditions are also met. Even if the terms are used interchangeably, that doesn't mean it's really accurate to use them as such.
[/quote]

ZZ, though some today may find it necessary to make a distinction between the terms "mortal sin" and "grave sin," it has always been that the term "mortal sin" has been used to describe concrete actions. This can be seen all throughout the [i]Summa[/i].
"Therefore blasphemy is a mortal sin (original Latin: peccatum mortale)." (St. Thomas Aquinas, [i]Summa Theologiæ[/i], II-II, Q. 13, Art. 2)
"Therefore drunkenness is a mortal sin (original Latin: peccatum mortale)." (St. Thomas Aquinas, [i]Summa Theologiæ[/i], II-II, Q. 150, Art. 2)

There is nothing wrong with saying a particular action is, from an objective standpoint, a mortal sin. One could say, "Murder is a mortal sin" and be just as correct as when he states that "mortal is a grave sin."

In a like manner, the Code of Canon Law says that one who is conscious of "grave sin" may not receive Communion, while one could just as correctly state that one who is conscious of mortal sin may not receive Communion.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

The only time when I think it would be inappropriate to interchange the terms "mortal sin" and "grave sin" is when one is talking about the gravity of a particular sin actually committed by another (as opposed to talking about the gravity of a sin according to its genus). It would, thus, be inappropriate to state, "You committed a mortal sin when you did this or that." One could, however, say, "You committed a sin that is mortal according to its genus but that may have only been venial in this particular circumstance because of lack of full knowledge or deliberate consent."

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 May 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1275343802' post='2121545']
One could, however, say, "You committed a sin that is mortal according to its genus but that may have only been venial in this particular circumstance because of lack of full knowledge or deliberate consent."
[/quote]

Thank you.

[LouisvilleFan]

And it's right [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1862.htm"]here[/url] in black and white: CCC Paragraph 1862: One commits venial sin when ... he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2352.htm"]Paragraph 2353[/url] specifically addresses masturbation. The bottom line is still to consult a good confessor and trust his judgment about approaching Communion.

Edited June 1, 2010 by LouisvilleFan

[Ziggamafu]

I'm reminded of a post from Jimmy Akin's blog:

[quote]
Grave Sin = Mortal Sin

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

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."

What if a sin has been committed that has grave matter but lacks the knowledge and consent needed to make it mortal? How might one refer to such a sin?

Since it has grave matter, one might refer to it--logically--as a grave sin. That would seem pretty straightforward: Sin with grave matter is grave sin. Add the needed knowledge and consent and it becomes mortal. Right?

Well, you'd think that. Only you wouldn't be right.

For some years it's been clear (to me, anyway) that ecclesiastical documents like the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church regularly use the phrase "grave sin" to mean "mortal sin."

But until recently I haven't had an explicit statement documenting this fact. Now I do (CHT to the reader who provided it!)

The statement is found in a post-synodal apostolic exhortation by John Paul II from 1984. The synod of bishops had been held the previous year on the theme of reconciliation and penance, and in the resulting exhortation,

During the synod, some apparently proposed a spectrum of sins consisting of venial, grave, and mortal sins--apparently using the middle category not the way proposed above but as a sin that is worse than venial but less than mortal. This is perhaps related to the mistranslation of "grave" as "serious" in English that was common for a long time.

In any event, that kind of division would be wrong, and so John Paul II wrote:

During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.

And so (here comes the money quote) . . .

Considering sin from the point of view of its matter, the ideas of death, of radical rupture with God, the supreme good, of deviation from the path that leads to God or interruption of the journey toward him (which are all ways of defining mortal sin) are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin's objective content. Hence, in the church's doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.

So. Glad we've got that cleared up.
[/quote]

[mortify]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='01 June 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1275399976' post='2122037']
I'm reminded of a post from Jimmy Akin's blog:
[/quote]

That was a great post, TY!

[Paddington]

[quote name='mortify' date='01 June 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1275408219' post='2122101']
That was a great post, TY!
[/quote]

It would be better if it applied to Louisville or Zunyshnn's posts.

[LouisvilleFan]

We all understand that objectively speaking, there's no distinction between mortal and grave sin because the only objective criteria of mortal sin is its grave matter. Knowledge and consent are abstract, but they are necessary nonetheless. It is against God's nature to condemn us when we commit sin in ignorance or under duress. That Good News and I'm surprised nobody seems joyful about that. Is this place like Shawshank, where everybody here's innocent?

Since we all understand grave matter, it is the discernment of knowledge and consent that affect one's decision about approaching Communion, the necessity for Confession as soon as possible, and that kind of thing. That's why I'm focusing on the abstract rather than the obvious. I'm not going liberal about the seriousness of grave sin; there's just no conversation to be had about the grave matter.

Besides, I don't know about you guys, but if grave matter were the only criteria, I'd have a daily appointment at the confessional.

Edited June 2, 2010 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

Is it useless to have a discussion about knowledge and consent in terms of mortal sin? Seems like if something can't be quoted word for word out of a catechism, you all don't want to delve into it.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='02 June 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1275522788' post='2122915']
Is it useless to have a discussion about knowledge and consent in terms of mortal sin? Seems like if something can't be quoted word for word out of a catechism, you all don't want to delve into it.
[/quote]

Most moral theologians I've read, when speaking of the gravity of sins in general (as opposed to particular instances of sins being committed by individuals), will refer to actions as being either mortally sinful or venially sinful. For example, as cited above, St. Thomas Aquinas says quite frankly that "Blasphemy is a mortal sin." From this, it can be seen that it is perfectly correct to say that "It is a mortal sin to murder someone" or "Adultery is mortally sinful." This is completely different from saying that "When Camillus killed Alexander, Camillus incurred the guilt of mortal sin on his soul" or that "Jane is now in the state of mortal sin because she cheated on her husband."

[LouisvilleFan]

Yet a lot of people do judge specific sins as mortal solely on the basis of its gravity. Keeping in mind that all grave sin needs to be confronted and eliminated regardless of circumstances, ignoring the role of knowledge and consent (especially in the habitual sins we seem to confess every time) makes for a poor examination of conscience that doesn't help a faithful Catholic increase in grace. While I see the practical necessity of regarding grave and mortal sin as virtually equivalent, pastorally I feel like we should take greater care to look at the context of the sin.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 June 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1275524336' post='2122926']
Most moral theologians I've read, when speaking of the gravity of sins in general (as opposed to particular instances of sins being committed by individuals), will refer to actions as being either mortally sinful or venially sinful. For example, as cited above, St. Thomas Aquinas says quite frankly that "Blasphemy is a mortal sin." From this, it can be seen that it is perfectly correct to say that "It is a mortal sin to murder someone" or "Adultery is mortally sinful." This is completely different from saying that "When Camillus killed Alexander, Camillus incurred the guilt of mortal sin on his soul" or that "Jane is now in the state of mortal sin because she cheated on her husband."
[/quote]

Yes. This is an important and often overlooked point.

[Luigi]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 June 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1275524336' post='2122926']
Most moral theologians I've read, when speaking of the gravity of sins in general (as opposed to particular instances of sins being committed by individuals), will refer to actions as being either mortally sinful or venially sinful. For example, as cited above, St. Thomas Aquinas says quite frankly that "Blasphemy is a mortal sin." From this, it can be seen that it is perfectly correct to say that "It is a mortal sin to murder someone" or "Adultery is mortally sinful." This is completely different from saying that "When Camillus killed Alexander, Camillus incurred the guilt of mortal sin on his soul" or that "Jane is now in the state of mortal sin because she cheated on her husband."
[/quote]

I always thought, when I read statements like, "Blasphemy is a mortal sin," that the writer (Aquinas or other) was assuming that the other two conditions (knowledge and will) were met; in other words, they were talking about the sin under normal circumstances - it sounds odd to talk about sin having 'normal circumstances,' but you know what I mean - the matter is grave, and for the sake of clarity we will assume that the person knows it and goes ahead anyway.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Luigi' date='02 June 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1275538990' post='2123027']
I always thought, when I read statements like, "Blasphemy is a mortal sin," that the writer (Aquinas or other) was assuming that the other two conditions (knowledge and will) were met; in other words, they were talking about the sin under normal circumstances - it sounds odd to talk about sin having 'normal circumstances,' but you know what I mean - the matter is grave, and for the sake of clarity we will assume that the person knows it and goes ahead anyway.
[/quote]
I believe that we generally talk about sin in the abstract. In an abstract sense the sin is mortal, but when we get into real life scenarios, there are two other factors that have to be considered... which is what Rexi said above anyway. "This is completely different from saying that "When Camillus killed Alexander, Camillus incurred the guilt of mortal sin on his soul" or that "Jane is now in the state of mortal sin because she cheated on her husband.""

Edited June 3, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='02 June 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1275529248' post='2122970']
While I see the practical necessity of regarding grave and mortal sin as virtually equivalent
[/quote]

Grave sin is completely synonymous with mortal sin, as I have shown above. The [i]Code of Canon Law[/i] states that the faithful "conscious of [i]grave[/i] sin" may not receive holy Communion. A sin of grave matter committed without full knowledge or deliberate consent is not a grave sin; rather, it is a venial sin.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Resurrexi

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='03 June 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1275539667' post='2123033']
Grave sin is completely synonymous with mortal sin, as I have shown above. The [i]Code of Canon Law[/i] states that the faithful "conscious of [i]grave[/i] sin" may not receive holy Communion. A sin of grave matter committed without full knowledge or deliberate consent is not a grave sin; rather, it is a venial sin.
[/quote]

Okay, I was under the impression that grave sin is simply a sin of grave matter, regardless of knowledge and consent. Seems like common sense... why have two words that mean exactly the same thing? I suppose in the Latin the distinction is more clear?

I happened across an article "Virtue and Vice" in this month's "Columbia" magazine by Bishop William Lori. He writes, "Mortal sins ... deprive us of sanctifying grace. If we fail to repent of them, we risk losing eternal life." It had been my understanding that mortal sin -- which only God can judge -- definitely causes the loss of eternal life, but he doesn't word it that way. One can lose sanctifying grace while still losing justification. The thing I've always struggled to "get" is how one can be expected to seek the sacrament of Reconciliation if they are totally cut off from grace, but a Catholic could have mortal sin on their soul and still be justified, so by that grace he would seek Reconciliation and restored to sanctifying grace.

[HisChildForever]

From what I understand, grave sin is not the same as mortal sin. One can commit grave sin without having full knowledge and/or full consent, and the sin is venial.

Edit: Or am I confusing "grave sin" with "grave matter"?

Edit again: I pretty much said what Rex just said. I think.

Edited June 6, 2010 by HisChildForever