Fr. Z: Am I obliged to receive communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark121359 said:
Once a year confession, huh? With me being the final arbiter as to whether I’ve committed serious sin? Yeah right! Fr. Almire Pichon, S.J. once told St. Therese that she never committed a mortal sin. Nevertheless, she always made frequent confession. That’s because she rightfully knew the graces received through this great Sacrament. Even for venial sin. Google “frequent confession catholic” and read the numerous articles on this subject written by priests and bishops. Better still, read what the popes had to say about the benefits of frequent confession.
Click to expand...
The question has been what is required, not what is recommended. Of course more often than once a year is far better.
 
In fact you misquoted me. Though I generously gave you the benefit of the doubt.
 
As you were advised, the article quoted in the OP tells you where.
Why enter a discussion if one doesnt seriously read the article being discussed.
 
It isn’t “mortal sin”, it is “grave sin”.
The 1983 Code expressly changed the wording of the 1917 Code on this point - and for good reason.
 
BlackFriar said:
It isn’t “mortal sin”, it is “grave sin”.

The 1983 Code expressly changed the wording of the 1917 Code on this point - and for good reason.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Grave sin = Mortal Sin.

A sin of grave matter but without knowledge and/or consent would be a venial sin.
 
Grave and mortal sin are the same thing. 1983 didn’t change anything on this point from 1917.
 
Grave isn’t necessarily mortal. There could be issues of intent or some extenuating circumstance.

I’m guessing that the reason they say “grave” is that the person confessing may not be in a good position to judge whether his sin is mortal or not, but if it’s grave matter such that it could possibly be mortal, he better be confessing it.

If I have that wrong, I’m sure Blackfriar will clarify as we’ve been around the bush on this mortal sin issue before as I recall.
 
BlackFriar said:
It isn’t “mortal sin”, it is “grave sin”.

The 1983 Code expressly changed the wording of the 1917 Code on this point - and for good reason.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can provide the text you are referring to from the 1917 Code.

Dan
 
Grave sin and mortal sin are literally the same thing.
 
Nevermind, beaten to death already.
 
Last edited:
semper_catholicus said:
Grave sin and mortal sin are literally the same thing.
Click to expand...
You base that lay assumption on your years of training in moral theology and Canon law?

Don’t be ridiculous.
Canon lawyers do not change a comma without weeks of debate.
 
I think you have summed the matter up well.
It is making the expression intentionally ambiguous so that it will be brought to Confession whether objectively or subjectively discerned as serious.

Using CCC definitions “mortal sin” clearly involves loss of sanctifying grace. Fully culpable.
“Grave sin” is more broad, it is more about objectively engaging in “grave matter”.
We all know that engaging in grave matter is not always fully culpable.
 
Last edited:
So what’s the difference between grave sin and mortal sin?
 
Can 906. Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquam ad annos discretionis, idest ad usum rationis, pervenerit, tenetur omnia peccata sua saltem semel in anno fideliter confiteri.

I thought you were referring to this canon, the precursor to c. 989 of the 1983 Code. It does not mention “mortal sin” and so, in this canon, there was no change from “mortal sin” to “grave sin.” Instead of looking through the rest of the 1917 Code, I thought I’d simply ask for a reference. I’m sorry I did. I should know better.

Dan
 
They’re two different ways of referring to the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top