Deliberate venial sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edward_george is a priest, you are a ???. Now that you know that, if you didn’t before, might you just want to defer to someone with superior knowledge. If not, this could get interesting…….
 
I know very well the structure of the theological sums, and I did not mention the objections they present at the beginning, but I gave his opinion
 
I knew it since, it is not you who informe me, here at CAF one is anonymous, and one must convince by arguments and not by titles
 
Last edited:
I looked up what you quoted. It was the objections section of Part I-II, Question 88, article 4.
 
Also read his conclusion where he gives his opinion. I did not even read the objections to this question, I directly read the conclusion
 
Personally, as a “Joe Sixpack” layman, how can a venial sin become mortal.

Something has to be grave matter to be mortal. I would think no matter how intentional and thought out, something that is not grave matter can never be mortal.

A venial sin is also grave matter but intentionality and sufficient reflection are missing. Sins of passion often fall in this category. It has always been my understanding that you cannot commit a mortal sin in retrospect. You can’t one hour later say that the three conditions for mortal sin existed, when at the time the offense was committed, they weren’t all evident.

Just wonderin’…
 
Mboo said:
I knew it since, it is not you who informe me, here at CAF one is anonymous, and one must convince by arguments and not by titles
Click to expand...
And your arguments are superior to that of an ordained priest who spent years studying such questions? As to anonymity, we know who e-g is, you are a ?. Like I said, if this goes on, it could get interesting. Get out the 🍿
 
Last edited:
No, it’s not going to go on, because I’m done posting. I’ve made my argument and cited sources and our friend here wants to continue telling me I’m wrong. That’s fine. I’m not sure why he continues telling me I’m wrong and talking to me disrespectfully, but that’s on him. I’m finished here. Any questions from anyone, please PM me.
 
joeybaggz said:
And your arguments are superior to that of an ordained priest who spent years studying such questions?
Click to expand...
it is you who approach things that way. I am not here for that. If an argument convinces me, I bow.
 
Mboo said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
And your arguments are superior to that of an ordained priest who spent years studying such questions?
Click to expand...
it is you who approach things that way. I am not here for that. If an argument convinces me, I bow.
Click to expand...
And the contributions of an ordained Catholic priest don’t convince you. Interesting…………
 
Last edited:
I did not disrespect you, I have the theological sum before me! the text I quoted is in the conclusion and not in the objections. It is now that I read the objections and the objection you have mentioned, I have never quoted it.
 
Sorry, but if a math teacher gives me a Pythagorean theorem that is different from what I read in all maths books, I’ll trust what I read in math books. I have learned to read since I was 5 years old.
 
Yes. Definitely.
And something one doesn’ t observe outside these forums.
And thanks to this sort of…absurd? attitude and disrepect, we have lost the oppportunity to keep learning from our priests and deacons here more than once.
Question answered.
 
Last edited:
Well, I’m a priest, whom you’ve been arguing with, insisting that I’m wrong about… I’m not sure what. Are you comparing me to Luther? And as for feeling scorned, no one can accuse you of having a scornful motivation, since we can’t read hearts. But your actions and words are on public display, and you can’t fault the way anyone else might receive them.

-Fr ACEGC
 
I do not compare you to Luther (oh it’s really hard to be well understood), I invalidated just a reasoning by showing a counter-example, that’s all!
The problem is that you say something that I did not do! so I have never judged your science, but the bad judgment that you have made on an act that I have not make: You say that I read the objections of Thomas, while I did not read them!
 
I do admit that I misread your post initially, as I was very busy that day–it was Sunday and I had much to do in my parish amidst our discussion. I didn’t notice until after the fact that you had, in fact, not posted the objections from the argument in the Summa. My mistake. Mistakes happen, even for priests. However, there still remain two problems with your replies to me:
  1. You seem to not quite understand how the Summa works; St. Thomas is not giving his “opinion” on anything, he is rather evaluating a series of statements on both sides of an argument, and coming out with the strongest argument to arrive at the truth. And his opinion is not that a venial sin becomes a mortal sin always, but there are some circumstances in which something which might be a venial sin could be a mortal sin, provided something was different about how the act was carried out. It’s a basic principle of moral theology: every act has three parts, its object, its intentions, and its circumstances. A “venial sin which becomes a mortal sin” then means that you have some action which might be a venial sin, say, because it is a grave matter, but the act lacked one or both of the other two essential conditions for a mortal sin, but then given the introduction of one of those conditions into another, separate act, it would be a mortal sin. In other words, an act once committed is either mortal or venial, it cannot be venial and then later judged to be mortal. Aquinas is talking about these things in terms of how the variables might be different, but not in some way that a sin I committed on, say, April 15, which was venial then, later somehow “morphs” into a mortal sin after the fact. Once an act is committed, it is committed, and the nature of it does not change–this much Aquinas actually directly says.
  2. The bigger problem I have is the way you’ve been talking to me. I identify as a priest. The principle of charity has it that you assume I am telling the truth, unless it is somehow proven otherwise. I am not only a priest, I am a priest with a decade of education, including two undergraduate level degrees in Philosophy, and a Master’s in Theology. So when you tell me I’m wrong in how I apply the principle of non-contradiction (which one learns on day 1 of Logic 101) or immediately shoot back that I’m wrong about this or that other thing, saying you’re being given “a different Pythagorean theorem” or whatever, it’s a little disrespectful. I’m yet to figure out exactly what your objection to what I’ve written on here is. All you have demonstrated is that if I say something, you’re going to gainsay it. And so you can’t begrudge me for feeling disrespected.
-Fr ACEGC
 
Last edited:
I apologize for the lack of respect I had towards you. I have never denied what you say about venial sin, what you say is how I understood it myself after reading Thomas, maybe my expression have suggested the opposite.
I have denied the fact that, I would have drawn my conclusion from the objections of St. Thomas, when I drew them from his conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top