Mortal Sin Vs. Grave Sin

[dairygirl4u2c]

there was some good points earlier in the thread about "lack of meeting all criteria for a mortal sin could be called a grave sin"
if it's not mortal, i suppose it would be venial?
it looks like the debate is more complicated than i initially thought.

but, other than that, it's all semantics. i don't thik people really disagree with a whole lot of substance.
al has a point about "incapable of eternal life", there's a point abou t"grave offense" could slimly plausibly mean not "grave sin".
at the level of explanation these documents gave, reading things into them as i said is just semantics or bickering, unless it's leading to a higher understanding of the issues.
semantics, or as is a good word in this case, 'dicta', cauase it's not something that should be rested upon when impliations are all over the place and the words themselves were not fully thought through or meant to be leading one all over the place. the articles are what they are, their points have been made, and the issues at the edges are okay to speculate about, but is mostly semantics if the debate lasts all that long and focuses on terminology.
if a pope clarified it, the substance woudln't change, only the terminology would be cleared up. this illustrates why it's pointless to argue about dicta/semantics etc.

Edited March 13, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[reyb]

.......

Edited April 9, 2009 by reyb