Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[Jack_Bauer]

But TrueLight, Eastern Catholics are Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Some Orthodox would argue that Eastern Catholics are just that, Catholic and not Orthodox. I tend to disagree with that subscription.

Theology exists to explain that something believed is rational, not to prove that it is truth. There are different theologies that point to the same belief. Hope I said that right.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

Some Orthodox would argue that Eastern Catholics are just that, Catholic and not Orthodox. I tend to disagree with that subscription.

Theology exists to explain that something believed is rational, not to prove that it is truth. There are different theologies that point to the same belief. Hope I said that right.

Mr. Bauer, I just wanted to say that it is an honor to speak with you, and I want you to know how big a fan I am of your work. Thank you for undergoing what most people couldn’t handle in a lifetime in just twenty-four hours. You make us all proud. However, when you make decisions such as cutting off a man’s head and putting it on a platter to save you a few extra hours to save the nation is immoral and cannot be justified.

Sincerely,

Miles.

 

[Formosus]

Because I do not believe into splitting the church into two, east and west. Further these martyrs and those who suffered did not suffer as ‘Latin Catholics’ but as Roman Catholics it was not for the so called ‘Latin Church’ they suffered but for the whole church.

I don’t beleive in splitting the church in two either. There is a lot more diversity then just “East and West”. I hate to break it to you though, but Latin Church is synonymous to Roman Church ( or Latin Catholic= Roman Catholic). My Church is not the Roman Church, it is the Ukrainian one, a member of the Catholic Church. The Roman one is merely one among many.

Its not antiquarianist to look back to the first millennium. The ecclesial policies of the second millennium have been a clear failure as far as the relationship between the Eastern churches and the Roman church. Frankly they have been a clear failure within the Western Church (protestantism comes to mind). In the 1st millennium, things definitely weren’t perfect, but there was an ideal of church unity based on mutual respect and love that was lost mostly due to Rome’s ambitions for supremacy over the entire Church. By looking to the first thousand years of the Church, we can learn how real unity existed in that time and learn from the mistakes that lead to the painful schisms that plague Christ’s Church today.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I don’t beleive in splitting the church in two either. There is a lot more diversity then just “East and West”. I hate to break it to you though, but Latin Church is synonymous to Roman Church ( or Latin Catholic= Roman Catholic). My Church is not the Roman Church, it is the Ukrainian one, a member of the Catholic Church. The Roman one is merely one among many.

I agree, although the term “Roman church” makes me think of the diocese of Rome, i.e. the particular church of which the pope himself happens to be the proper bishop.

Because of that mental connection in my mind, I generally think “Roman church” is best used when referring to the pope’s diocese, whereas “Latin Church” unequivocally conveys that one is speaking of the whole western church.

Frankly they have been a clear failure within the Western Church (protestantism comes to mind).

That doesn’t make a lick of sense in my estimation. Protestantism cannot be laid at the feet of gradually centralized papal authority in the Latin Church.

In the 1st millennium, things definitely weren’t perfect, but there was an ideal of church unity based on mutual respect and love that was lost mostly due to Rome’s ambitions for supremacy over the entire Church.

I definitely agree about the first millennium, but to lay the blame for the enduring East-West Schism at the feet of the Church of Rome and her bishop is precisely the sort of simplistic blame game that hinders the nuance and humility necessary at every step for working toward reunion. You know quite well that there has been pride and even atrocities committed on both sides. Politics (the creation of the “Holy Roman Empire,” for instance) and the complications of Byzantine imperial involvement with the Church are at least as much to blame, as is that whole mess between the orthodox Christians in the East and the iconoclasts.

Honestly, it seems clear to me that the ever-increasing power of Rome in the West was due far less to papal ambition than to the fact that after a few centuries there was neither a secular emperor nor additional Apostolic Sees in the West to take up greater authority when needed.

The pope was all they had. Pope Gregory the Great, for instance, experienced a great expansion of papal power even politically not due to religious ambition but because he simply did a way better job of caring for the poor in Rome than the secular authorities in Constantinople could ever have fairly been expected to. It only makes sense that the people began looking to the pope for leadership that they (quite understandably, given the great distance) simply weren’t able to get from the imperial authorities in the East.

By looking to the first thousand years of the Church, we can learn how real unity existed in that time and learn from the mistakes that lead to the painful schisms that plague Christ’s Church today.

Well said.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Some Orthodox would argue that Eastern Catholics are just that, Catholic and not Orthodox. I tend to disagree with that subscription.

Theology exists to explain that something believed is rational, not to prove that it is truth. There are different theologies that point to the same belief. Hope I said that right.

Very good sir, and very true!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I don’t beleive in splitting the church in two either. There is a lot more diversity then just “East and West”. I hate to break it to you though, but Latin Church is synonymous to Roman Church ( or Latin Catholic= Roman Catholic). My Church is not the Roman Church, it is the Ukrainian one, a member of the Catholic Church. The Roman one is merely one among many.

Its not antiquarianist to look back to the first millennium. The ecclesial policies of the second millennium have been a clear failure as far as the relationship between the Eastern churches and the Roman church. Frankly they have been a clear failure within the Western Church (protestantism comes to mind). In the 1st millennium, things definitely weren’t perfect, but there was an ideal of church unity based on mutual respect and love that was lost mostly due to Rome’s ambitions for supremacy over the entire Church. By looking to the first thousand years of the Church, we can learn how real unity existed in that time and learn from the mistakes that lead to the painful schisms that plague Christ’s Church today.

:clapping:

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Just thought I’d point out the logical disconnect, you accuse steve of setting the standards and then you claim that any catechism that mentions mortal/venial sins must be latinized and therefore wrong. Seems like you’re setting the standards

Actually, my Latin friend, Rome is the one who set the standards for us to return to our Eastern (not Romanized) theological heritage.

Unless you can show me where Rome encouraged Eastern Catholics to become more Latin in their theology and traditions, you are completely wrong here.

Both Steve and yourself, in good Latin trad fashion, seem to have difficulty accepting standards other than the Roman ones as being valid. That is for a separate discussion, but until we come to terms on that, we will just be talking in circles.

On the score of the mortal/venial distinction, it is not spiritually helpful and, to the East, appears part of the Roman “legalism” and spiritual accountancy perspective.

Lest you think the East makes no distinction between sins, the Eastern canonical law from the Seven Councils lists all manner of sins to be penanced by various canonical penances. Whenever we make the conscious choice to sin, to disobey God - we are doing just that, disobeying God and that act cuts us off from God. It matters not that it is a small matter. It is our will that determines to disobey God - sin is simply disobedience.

And all sin, without your “mortal/venial” distinction, is a grave offence against God precisely because we determine to disobey and therefore offend God.

The various penances, including excommunication for a time, are intended to help heal the soul from its spirit of disobedience. The heaviness of the penance is related to the heaviness of the sin which indicates how wide-spread that disobedience is in the soul.

Disobeying God in small matters and calling it “venial sin” is RIDICULOUS. It is the spirit of disobedience alone, irrespective of what we choose to call a “small matter” that is the culprit and which puts us outside God’s love. In the Scriptures our Lord refers to His good servant in the parable who was faithful in “small matters” and who, as a result, will be put in charge over larger ones. Venial sin is no small matter therefore the distinction is a particularly false one, nomatter which catechism has it listed as such.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Mr. Bauer, I just wanted to say that it is an honor to speak with you, and I want you to know how big a fan I am of your work. Thank you for undergoing what most people couldn’t handle in a lifetime in just twenty-four hours. You make us all proud. However, when you make decisions such as cutting off a man’s head and putting it on a platter to save you a few extra hours to save the nation is immoral and cannot be justified.

Sincerely,

Miles.

Sir, what are you talking about?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Ah, I see. But the part I quoted - “thinking things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences” - was not part of his original misunderstood proposal, but part of the clarification he issued.

Ah, I see now. I agree with you in general and with the implications of this first point. It’s part of the reason for what I said: that the Orthodox Church (i.e. the eastern Orthodox Communion) does not actually function the exact same way the first millennium church did.

We’ve changed the way we function too, though. That is, I think, what justifies the words of Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger in suggesting that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (i.e. communion of eastern Orthodox churches) work things out into a new praxis that honors Catholic teaching *and *the example of the first millennium.

To be fair, I think it’s remaining relatively stable in North America and South America. It’s declining in Europe and is growing in Asia and Africa.

Well, I was responding to Steve’s rather ridiculous attack against the Orthodox. The Orthodox Church in Russia especially is really flowering (as is the UGCC in Ukraine). Religious fervour abounds there in a way we can only pray for in the Americas. South America has a Catholic culture, but whether it is truly Catholic in spirit is another matter and this flows from the colonial period of Catholicism there. In North America, Catholicism will have pockets of fervour and then pockets of something other than. It’s a matter for another discussion. The growth of Christianity in Africa is phenomenal - unfortunately, it’s not all Catholic and Islam is on the upswing there too. In Asia, Christianity has yet to make any significant inroads and its doubtless because of the whole inculturation issue.

I disagree on this. Watching Marduk on this very forum actually use the nuances of Trent in defending the eastern view on original sin, and the nuances of Vatican I in defending an eastern view of Roman primacy, certainly convinces me otherwise. (And Vatican II definitely counts as much as the other thirteen, Alex!)

I respect Marduk very much - as I do yourself (and Steve and JMJ too, don’t get me wrong). But taking nuances from Trent to defend anything that is Eastern won’t work because those nuances are simply incidental. Trent was about addressing the Protestant Reformation and the crisis it caused in the Western Church (period). Defending an “Eastern view of the papacy” on the basis of Vatican I is perhaps doing an abdominal stretch of great proportions, wouldn’t you think? Marduk does very intelligent theological explications, but will they play in Peoria or among Eastern theologians or Roman Catholic theologians who are experts on Eastern theology? They would find the idea to be not to their liking . . . Vatican II’s decreed on the EC Churches is a great leap forward, to be sure! However, even EC commentators have said that it is a Latin document about the Eastern Churches. That document isn’t the source of the current tension between Rome and the UGCC - Rome’s ecumenical praxis with Russian Orthodoxy is. In the end, rather than see the absence of anything like the Roman magisterium in Orthodoxy as an indicator that Orthodoxy is bereft of something - why can’t we Catholics appreciate the way in which the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Orthodox Local Councils have guided their spiritual life, including the witness of their Martyrs, until today? Rome not only resolved theological problems/crises with its later Councils, but also created new ones. That is part of the speculative spirit of the RC Church - but the fact that that is not the patrimony of the East should not be held against it. Thus my comment to Steve and JMJ that unless we can accept other ecclesial/theological paradigms than Roman Catholic ones as being valid, there is no use even talking about these matters.

I think you greatly overstate the problem… but perhaps I’m simply blessed to live in a diocese where reverent Masses in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite are readily available.

(By the way, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite can be done in Latin, ad orientem, with the Canon of the Mass, etc. Do it that way, and it’s really not that different from the Extraordinary Form…)

Generally speaking, everyone, I feel we’ve begun to play a very sad rhetorical game here: whose church and whose theological patrimony is better, more spiritually advanced, holier, etc. I really think that’s a sad argument to have, and I for one do not doubt the spiritual wisdom, beauty, and holiness of either the western or eastern traditions…

Yes, and if I’ve contributed to that in any way - I am deeply sorry. If I were a Roman Catholic in my area today, I would belong to the Extraordinary Rite. I can’t speak for the Novus Ordo elsewhere, but it is just a disaster here. I’ve also seen lax Latin Catholics begin to attend the Extraordinary Rite and become transformed as die-hard and committed Roman Catholics - a very good thing!

 

[Hesychios]

Sir, what are you talking about?

Alex

It’s a reference to a television show (I have not seen it but I think it’s very popular), sort of a joke.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, and if I’ve contributed to that in any way - I am deeply sorry. If I were a Roman Catholic in my area today, I would belong to the Extraordinary Rite. I can’t speak for the Novus Ordo elsewhere, but it is just a disaster here. I’ve also seen lax Latin Catholics begin to attend the Extraordinary Rite and become transformed as die-hard and committed Roman Catholics - a very good thing!

Alex, another reason to move to the West Coast Archbishop Miller has done a fantastic job with the Roman Catholic Church here. While I can’t conclusively say that every RC parish celebrates the OF reverently, Archbishop Miller has led by example and the RC Cathedral here is one of the best places to go to the OF Mass.

C’mon Alex, how many more times do I need to petition you go head west?

 

[Formosus]

That doesn’t make a lick of sense in my estimation. Protestantism cannot be laid at the feet of gradually centralized papal authority in the Latin Church.

…

I definitely agree about the first millennium, but to lay the blame for the enduring East-West Schism at the feet of the Church of Rome and her bishop is precisely the sort of simplistic blame game that hinders the nuance and humility necessary at every step for working toward reunion. You know quite well that there has been pride and even atrocities committed on both sides. Politics (the creation of the “Holy Roman Empire,” for instance) and the complications of Byzantine imperial involvement with the Church are at least as much to blame, as is that whole mess between the orthodox Christians in the East and the iconoclasts.

Honestly, it seems clear to me that the ever-increasing power of Rome in the West was due far less to papal ambition than to the fact that after a few centuries there was neither a secular emperor nor additional Apostolic Sees in the West to take up greater authority when needed.

The pope was all they had. Pope Gregory the Great, for instance, experienced a great expansion of papal power even politically not due to religious ambition but because he simply did a way better job of caring for the poor in Rome than the secular authorities in Constantinople could ever have fairly been expected to. It only makes sense that the people began looking to the pope for leadership that they (quite understandably, given the great distance) simply weren’t able to get from the imperial authorities in the East.

Well said.

Yet the over-centralized power of the Roman pontiff is one of the main reasons why the protestants split and continue to separate themselves today.

I never said that atrocities were not committed on both sides, or that the East is purely blameless. BUT you speak of “political” matters like the Holy Roman Empire (German Empire), who was the one that gave Charlemagne the title “Emperor of the Romans”? It was the Pope in Rome. Rome usurped the perceived universal authority of the Emperor, and to place himself as the universal Bishop. And yes its true the west lacked apostolic sees, but non-apostolic sees can be just as effective at governance of local areas as an apostolic one. Arles, Milan, etc were just as capable of governing their metropolitanate as any Apostolic see, and they did so for quite awhile.

Rome, under Gregory, expanded into territories in Northern Europe that were not under his power before. Areas such as England. His Roman missionaries came and pushed out the Celtic churches that held historic jurisdiction there, and added their lands to Papal jurisdiction. Really he is the one that started the trend of suppressing historical Metropolitanates, and replacing them with the papacy. Perhaps Rome needed to temporarily take control of these metropolitans in order to rechristianize these areas, I don’t know. The fact that Rome took the power isn’t the big issue, its that Rome took it and didn’t give it up. It became the first step among many towards Universal jurisdiction, papal supremacy, and Papal infallibility.

And yet the East was ok with these policies of Rome. It didn’t interfere with the historical patriarchates, Rome hadn’t yet claimed universal jurisdiction over every Bishop. That is the main problem here. If Rome had never tried imposing its will over the other Patriarchates, then there probably wouldn’t be a schism today. There is nothing on the Eastern side that Rome truly objected to except its refusal to accept Rome’s authority. This has constantly been the Roman position since before Lyons. That is why the fault lies mostly with Rome. Rome created that problem and continues to create that problem with its modern General Councils like VI and even VII. I don’t want to play the blame game either, but we have to be honest about history and what led to the current ecclesial situation we all find ourselves in today.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex, another reason to move to the West Coast Archbishop Miller has done a fantastic job with the Roman Catholic Church here. While I can’t conclusively say that every RC parish celebrates the OF reverently, Archbishop Miller has led by example and the RC Cathedral here is one of the best places to go to the OF Mass.

C’mon Alex, how many more times do I need to petition you go head west?

Steve and JMJ are turning me totally off all things “west” right now . . .

Kidding . . .

Alex

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Sir, what are you talking about?

Alex

It’s a joke based on that poster’s screen name; it’s a character in the television show 24.

Not a fan of the show myself, but what TeutonicKnight said just there was pretty funny.

Yet the over-centralized power of the Roman pontiff is one of the main reasons why the protestants split and continue to separate themselves today.

It was one of many reasons, and all but that particular one are present in Orthodox Christianity as well. Once I checked out a fundamentalist Protestant forum to see if they viewed Orthodox Christianity as significantly different from Catholic Christianity. The ones who were even aware of the former’s existence basically did not. One called Orthodox Christianity “absolutely pagan.”

I never said that atrocities were not committed on both sides, or that the East is purely blameless. BUT you speak of “political” matters like the Holy Roman Empire (German Empire),

(I did put “Holy Roman Empire” in quotes for a reason… )

who was the one that gave Charlemagne the title “Emperor of the Romans”? It was the Pope in Rome. Rome usurped the perceived universal authority of the Emperor, and to place himself as the universal Bishop.

You honestly don’t think the papacy sincerely desired more geographically local secular protection? Obviously the “Holy Roman Emperor” wasn’t the actual Roman emperor, but the real (Byzantine) Roman emperor was by nature a secular authority, so his role in things should not be considered sacrosanct…

Also, I believe that the pope was never supposed to be regarded as “the universal bishop.” That sounds too absolutist, as if the pope’s universal jurisdiction is of the same kind as a bishop’s authority in his diocese. It is not; one could say the pope is a “universal head bishop,” but I firmly believe that it is not at all as if the entire Church is his diocese… that’s just untrue even from the Ultramontanist perspective.

And yes its true the west lacked apostolic sees, but non-apostolic sees can be just as effective at governance of local areas as an apostolic one. Arles, Milan, etc were just as capable of governing their metropolitanate as any Apostolic see, and they did so for quite awhile.

Fair enough; I agree.

Rome, under Gregory, expanded into territories in Northern Europe that were not under his power before. Areas such as England. His Roman missionaries came and pushed out the Celtic churches that held historic jurisdiction there, and added their lands to Papal jurisdiction. Really he is the one that started the trend of suppressing historical Metropolitanates, and replacing them with the papacy. Perhaps Rome needed to temporarily take control of these metropolitans in order to rechristianize these areas, I don’t know. The fact that Rome took the power isn’t the big issue, its that Rome took it and didn’t give it up. It became the first step among many towards Universal jurisdiction, papal supremacy, and Papal infallibility.

I believe in those three things too - properly understood, that is…

And yet the East was ok with these policies of Rome. It didn’t interfere with the historical patriarchates, Rome hadn’t yet claimed universal jurisdiction over every Bishop. That is the main problem here. If Rome had never tried imposing its will over the other Patriarchates, then there probably wouldn’t be a schism today. There is nothing on the Eastern side that Rome truly objected to except its refusal to accept Rome’s authority.

That is still the case today, even after a millennium. I truly believe that everything else is a red herring, or at least not constitutive of a barrier to unity.

This has constantly been the Roman position since before Lyons. That is why the fault lies mostly with Rome. Rome created that problem and continues to create that problem with its modern General Councils like VI and even VII.

I understand what you’re saying better now; thank you for the clarification.

I personally agree and disagree with you. Rome, I think, is obligated to clarify the papacy’s claims to universal jurisdiction. On this forum I’ve watched many debates evolve between proponents of what many posters here call an “Absolutist Petrine” view and a “High Petrine” view. Some eastern Catholics here enthusiastically believe that Rome quite clearly - at least today - endorses a more High Petrine interpretation, while others think that it only keeps that High Petrine option open grudgingly…

Clarification on Rome’s part would do wonders.

On the other hand, I think Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have done a very good job with ecumenism with the East in the sense that they really want the application of the papal dogmas to be “on the table” so to speak.

Obviously, though, the Catholic Church is not going to give up claims of Roman supremacy and universal authority in every sense. Nor do I believe they should, as I believe in them too.

 

[jmj1984]

Actually, my Latin friend, Rome is the one who set the standards for us to return to our Eastern (not Romanized) theological heritage.

Disobeying God in small matters and calling it “venial sin” is RIDICULOUS. It is the spirit of disobedience alone, irrespective of what we choose to call a “small matter” that is the culprit and which puts us outside God’s love. In the Scriptures our Lord refers to His good servant in the parable who was faithful in “small matters” and who, as a result, will be put in charge over larger ones. Venial sin is no small matter therefore the distinction is a particularly false one, nomatter which catechism has it listed as such.

Alex

Standards other than Rome’s? Why would I want them? Rome is after all the see of purity, the fountainhead of the church, the head of the church on earth.

As for your examples you clearly don’t understand the western concept of venial and mortal sin at all, your calling them ridicalous is a gross insult easterners would never tolerate prone as they are to go on about western triumphalism, latinizations etc…

Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Reply to Faustus XXII.27) as “Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam”, i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act. As it is a defect or privation it may be defined as an aversion from God, our true last end, by reason of the preference given to some mutable good. The definition of St. Augustine is accepted generally by theologians and is primarily a definition of actual mortal sin. It explains well the material and formal elements of sin. The words “dictum vel factum vel concupitum” denote the material element of sin, a human act: “contra legem æternam”, the formal element. The act is bad because it transgresses the Divine law. St. Ambrose (De paradiso, viii) defines sin as a “prevarication of the Divine law”. The definition of St. Augustine strictly considered, i.e. as sin averts us from our true ultimate end, does not comprehend venial sin, but in as much as venial sin is in a manner contrary to the Divine law, although not averting us from our last end, it may be said to be included in the definition as it stands. While primarily a definition of sins of commission, sins of omission may be included in the definition because they presuppose some positive act (St. Thomas, I-II:71:5) and negation and affirmation are reduced to the same genus. Sins that violate the human or the natural law are also included, for what is contrary to the human or natural law is also contrary to the Divine law, in as much as every just human law is derived from the Divine law, and is not just unless it is in conformity with the Divine law. Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. Some sins admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy, hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo), unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.
Imputability

That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. When the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three conditions are verified:

first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.

Catholic encyclopedia

 

[jmj1984]

Error and ignorance in regard to the object or circumstances of the act to be placed, affect the judgment of the intellect and consequently the morality and imputability of the act. Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin. Vincible ignorance does not, although it renders the act less free (see IGNORANCE). The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely desired, although less freely, and the disturbance caused by the passions may be so great as to render a free judgment impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself (I-II:6:7, ad 3um). Consequent passion, which arises from a command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity, temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin. From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.
Malice

And now venial sin

Venial sin is essentially different from mortal sin. It does not avert us from our true last end, it does not destroy charity, the principle of union with God, nor deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and it is intrinsically reparable. It is called venial precisely because, considered in its own proper nature, it is pardonable; in itself meriting, not eternal, but temporal punishment. It is distinguished from mortal sin on the part of the disorder. By mortal sin man is entirely averted from God, his true last end, and, at least implicitly, he places his last end in some created thing. By venial sin he is not averted from God, neither does he place his last end in creatures. He remains united with God by charity, but does not tend towards Him as he ought. The true nature of sin as it is contrary to the eternal law, repugnant namely to the primary end of the law, is found only in mortal sin. Venial sin is only in an imperfect way contrary to the law, since it is not contrary to the primary end of the law, nor does it avert man from the end intended by the law. (St. Thomas, I-II.88.1; and Cajetan, I-II, Q. lxxxviii, a. 1, for the sense of the præter legem and contra legem of St. Thomas).
Definition

Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, venial sin as it is a voluntary act may be defined as a thought, word or deed at variance with the law of God. It retards man in the attainment of his last end while not averting him from it. Its disorder consists either in the not fully deliberate choosing of some object prohibited by the law of God, or in the deliberate adhesion to some created object not as an ultimate end but as a medium, which object does not avert the sinner from God, but is not, however, referable to Him as an end. Man cannot be averted from God except by deliberately placing his last end in some created thing, and in venial sin he does not adhere to any temporal good, enjoying it as a last end, but as a medium referring it to God not actually but habitually inasmuch as he himself is ordered to God by charity. “Ille qui peccat venialiter, inhæret bono temporali non ut fruens, quia non constituit in eo finem, sed ut utens, referens in Deum non actu sed habitu” (I-II:88:1, ad 3). For a mortal sin, some created good must be adhered to as a last end at least implicitly. This adherence cannot be accomplished by a semi-deliberate act. By adhering to an object that is at variance with the law of God and yet not destructive of the primary end of the Divine law, a true opposition is not set up between God and that object. The created good is not desired as an end.

The distinction between mortal and venial sin is set forth in Scripture. From St. John (1 John 5:16-17) it is clear there are some sins “unto death” and some sins not “unto death”, i.e. mortal and venial. The classic text for the distinction of mortal and venial sin is that of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3:8-15), where he explains in detail the distinction between mortal and venial sin. “For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it; because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” By wood, hay, and stubble are signified venial sins (St. Thomas, I-II:89:2) which, built on the foundation of a living faith in Christ, do not destroy charity, and from their very nature do not merit eternal but temporal punishment. “Just as”, says St. Thomas, [wood, hay, and stubble] “are gathered together in a house and do not pertain to the substance of the edifice, so also venial sins are multiplied in man, the spiritual edifice remaining, and for these he suffers either the fire of temporal tribulations in this life, or of purgatory after this life and nevertheless obtains eternal salvation.” (I-II:89:2)

That I believe clearly outlines the reasonableness of the division into mortal and venial sin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Steve and JMJ are turning me totally off all things “west” right now . . .

Kidding . . .

Alex

Same, plus a recent event in my life. Maybe I’ll PM it to you Alex and tell me what you think.

 

[TrueLight]

Same, plus a recent event in my life. Maybe I’ll PM it to you Alex and tell me what you think.

Pm it to me too. Just for the heck if it.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Mr. Bauer, I just wanted to say that it is an honor to speak with you, and I want you to know how big a fan I am of your work. Thank you for undergoing what most people couldn’t handle in a lifetime in just twenty-four hours. You make us all proud. However, when you make decisions such as cutting off a man’s head and putting it on a platter to save you a few extra hours to save the nation is immoral and cannot be justified.

Sincerely,

Miles.

Glad to be of assistance. Promoting one senseless vile death at a time for the sake of my country. What patriot have to go through. All in a days work.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

It’s a reference to a television show (I have not seen it but I think it’s very popular), sort of a joke.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ejackbauer2.jpg/120px-24thegamejackbauer2.jpg

There’s my animated picture. Oh, better go, the president just called and I have 24 hours to stop the next nuclear bomb from destroying Loving County Texas. Oh~ Never mind. There’s only 65 people there anyway. I’ll probably kill that many innocent people just trying to get there.