Fr. Z: Am I obliged to receive communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
philipl said:
No, some one asked a question and then someone else answered it. Your reply to that answer uncalled for, period.
Click to expand...
If you actually read both posts, you would have seen that mine was completely unrelated to the one above it. Posts have been removed from this thread by the moderators, as anyone who has been following the thread would know.

Which means that you just took it upon yourself to treat completely unrelated posts as related, as an excuse to throw out an insult.
If you’d like to discuss “rude,” you might want to look in the mirror.
 
Last edited:
People sometimes refer to grave sins as mortal sins. All mortal sins are of grave matter but not all sins of grave matter are mortal.
 
It has been established that the Canon in question does not speak of “mortal sin”. It says “grave sins”.

You say JPII said they were “practically the same”.
Most people understand that to mean they are in fact different but for lay persons they should treat them as the same 95% of the time. This subtle theological issue looks like the 5% time.

Further, if they are to be treated the same what does that actually mean?
Does it mean we should think of “mortal sins” as “venial sins of grave matter” or should “venial sins of grave matter” be treated like “mortal sins”.

I think its fairly clear it doesn’t make sense to treat mortal sins as if they were venial sins for Confession would never be obligated.

However it does make sense to treat some venial sins (those of grave matter) like mortal sins with Confession also being obligated.

Afterall, all sins that involve breaching the Commandments are grave sins and merit bring to Confession even if we think they might only be venial.

Which seems to be exactly what Canon law implied between 1917 and 1983 when “consciousness of mortal sins” got changed to “grave sins”
 
Last edited:
Tatum said:
Afterall, all sins that involve breaching the Commandments are grave sins and merit bring to Confession even if we think they might only be venial.
Click to expand...
It’s mortal sins that must be brought to confession, not “venial sins with grave matter.”
 
There’s been an element of ‘thinkers’ in the last couple of decades trying to make a differentiation between sins as ‘mortal, grave, and venial’ with the idea that a sin of objective grave matter doesn’t meet the criteria for mortal sin it isn’t mortal sin if the other 2 criteria aren’t met.

And the main thrust along with is usually that people cannot POSSIBLY FULLY KNOW anything, therefore --even if it’s grave matter, it’s not a mortal sin!
Or the person cannot POSSIBLY FULLY CONSENT --there is always some factor, psychological or emotional or societal or coercive --so even if it’s grave matter, it’s not a mortal sin!!

It’s not really the grave matter that’s a problem. People have known since day 1 that three conditions are necessary. However, in modern society there’s been a systematic push to eliminate as much knowledge as possible to start with (witness the abysmal state of catechesis) and couple it with a push to surround people with pills and pressure and medical ‘diagnoses’ etc. in order to weaken them physically, emotionally, and spiritually, to help with exactly this kind of situation. Now they are trying to lessen the grave, and since there is no way of saying something evil is not objectively evil, the push is to make it not evil due to SITUATION, and to package it in Catholic terms and rely on fuzzy feelings, ambiguity, and the above-mentioned longstanding destructions of knowledge, truth, virtue, etc. to push this into something that LOOKS doctrinal but isn’t.
 
Tatum said:
Afterall, all sins that involve breaching the Commandments are grave sins and merit bring to Confession even if we think they might only be venial.
Click to expand...
semper_catholicus said:
It’s mortal sins that must be brought to confession, not “venial sins with grave matter.”
Click to expand...
SC I believe others have noted that you attempt to settle a reasoned discussion merely by repeating the very conclusion that has been legitimately brought into question.

Please quote the Canon you refer to…you will find it does not say “mortal sins”.
 
Last edited:
It’s because grave sins in this case means mortal sin. It’s quite obvious that that is the case.

We don’t have to confess our “venial sins with grave matter which are really “grave sins,” but aren’t mortal sins.” We have to confess our “mortal sins.”
 
semper_catholicus said:
It’s because grave sins in this case means mortal sin. It’s quite obvious that that is the case.
Click to expand...
If it was “quite obvious” then more people would be agreeing with you here. That doesn’t seem to be happening.
If it was “quite obvious” the Canon would not have departed from the 1917 Code which did State only “mortal sins”. Why did they muddy the waters and suddenly move to “grave sins”.

Do you believe breaking the commandments with less than full culpability is not a serious sin?
 
If you do not understand the concept of a sin that is not fully culpable but still a breaking of the Commandments that would explain your unusual position.

Noone denies grave sin includes mortal sins.
The issue is whether it means more besides.
 
Last edited:
The reason I asked was because it seems to be a hit or miss on this thread.

It is not strictly necessary to confess venial sins in confession as the Council of Trent said. It is only necessary to confess our Mortal sins. I’ve already showed that Pope St. John Paul II said that there isn’t a third type of sin and that “grave sin” means “mortal sin.”
 
I believe I read it in my missal. If you’re really interested, feel free to message me privately.
 
I prefer to appeal to the current Code and the Current Catechism which does not speak of “mortal sins”. Why do you appeal to a Council 100s of years ago that spoke in Latin when the phrase was defined slightly differently from today? Are you a latin scholar?
I’ve already showed that Pope St. John Paul II said … “grave sin” means “mortal sin.”
Click to expand...
No you haven’t. You simply ignored three reasoned objections above to your assumption here without proving your case at all.

It is more likely he said “mortal sin” means “grave sin” given the 1917 Code went from “mortal sin” to “grave sin” in the 1985 Code. The same with Trent.
 
Last edited:
The Council of Trent is still relevant today, you do realize?

And I did provide quotes from Pope St. John Paul II.
 
semper_catholicus said:
The Council of Trent is still relevant today, you do realize?
Click to expand...
I prefer to appeal to the current Code and the Current Catechism which does not speak of “mortal sins”. Why do you appeal to a Council 100s of years ago that spoke in Latin when the phrase was defined slightly differently from today? Are you a latin scholar?
And I did provide quotes from Pope St. John Paul II.
Click to expand...
That is not enough. You need to argue that your interpretation is correct.
You simply ignore reasoned objections above (four times now) to your assumptions here without proving your case at all.
It is more likely he said “mortal sin” means “grave sin” given the 1917 Code went from “mortal sin” to “grave sin” in the 1985 Code. The same with Trent.

SC how do you expect to influence anybody on this topic that you truly speak for the Church if you just keep repeating your disputed position without answering reasonable objections to your personal interpretations of what the Church says.

The Canon in question does not use the phrase “mortal sin”.
If it only meant full culpability when breaking the Commandments then the only phrase that accurately expresses that in modern times is “mortal sin” - yet the Magisterium intentionally did
 
Last edited:
The Council of Trent is above Canon Law my friend.

Quotes from the Supreme Ponitff, the Vicar of Christ here on earth in the for of an Apostolic Constitution which carries the full weight of his teaching authority in the Ordinary Magisterium isn’t enough?

I’ve already given you the reasons why there isn’t a third type of sin that’s been existent only since after Vatican II.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top