T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Mortal sin = grave matter + knowledge + consent
- Status
T
Tatum
Guest
The issue isn’t whether a Council of 500 years ago is above the current Code or Catechism.
The issue is whether you personally understand how they are consistent with each other.
You have not responded whether or not you are a Latin Scholar - I therefore presume you aren’t despite your avatar. unfortunately that means you are not qualified to assert the meaning of “mortal sin” as used then is exactly the same as it is defined in the CCC now.
It is very interesting that the Magisterium now prefers to use the phrase “grave sin” to better communicate the disciplinary statements of Trent re Confession.
I am afraid not when you misunderstand them and are unable to explain the difficulties with your personal understanding of them.
Last edited:
T
Tatum
Guest
Sorry, where did I say that?
I believe I effectively said mortal sin seems to be a subset of grave sin not an equivalent of grave sin.
“Grave sin” appears to refer to all sinful breaking of the Commandments - even when culpability is not full (when its full we call such breaches of the Commandments mortal sins).
I believe I effectively said mortal sin seems to be a subset of grave sin not an equivalent of grave sin.
“Grave sin” appears to refer to all sinful breaking of the Commandments - even when culpability is not full (when its full we call such breaches of the Commandments mortal sins).
Last edited:
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
You have to be kidding me.
He said it pretty clearly. There isn’t three types of sin. There’s two.
T
Tatum
Guest
That isn’t a reasoned response that goes anywhere SC.Tatum:
You have to be kidding me.
The issue is what is “serious sin”.
If you can find a Magisterial quote that states breaking of the Commandments with less than full culpability is not serious, not grave, then I am willing to discuss this further.
If you cannot then it seems there is nothing more we can discuss.
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
Just to be clear, you believe that there are three types of sin, yes or no?
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
I’m afraid the meaning of basic moral principles, such as mortal sin, don’t change over time.
And also, just in case you’ve forgotten the quote:
“During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.”
-Pope St. John-Paul II
Last edited:
T
Tatum
Guest
I don’t believe in “have you stopped beating your wife yet” type rhetoric which goes nowhere as is not helpful in harmonising the issues here.
In fact you can take your pick of 1 2 or 3 depending on how you view the issues involved or which Magisterial texts one chooses to cherry pick.
Thus we have the following possible answers:
(a) There is only one true sin - mortal sin
(b) There are various two-fold ways of viewing sin: mortal/venial, material/formal, light/grave, actual/original and so forth.
[c] Threefold: mortal, venial, original.
It all depends on the angle one takes.
Blinkered “proof-texting” of words used in different contexts is not helpful.
The issue is what do we mean by “serious sin”.
In fact you can take your pick of 1 2 or 3 depending on how you view the issues involved or which Magisterial texts one chooses to cherry pick.
Thus we have the following possible answers:
(a) There is only one true sin - mortal sin
(b) There are various two-fold ways of viewing sin: mortal/venial, material/formal, light/grave, actual/original and so forth.
[c] Threefold: mortal, venial, original.
It all depends on the angle one takes.
Blinkered “proof-texting” of words used in different contexts is not helpful.
The issue is what do we mean by “serious sin”.
Last edited:
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
What do you believe “serious sin” means?
T
Tatum
Guest
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
What do you believe is the correct way to interpret the quotes from Pope St. John Paul II?
T
Tatum
Guest
Please reread my posts
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
Hold on. You’re the one challenging the status quo. I’ve already showed you why “grave sin” means “mortal sin.” I’d like to see some magisterial docs supporting your position.
T
Tatum
Guest
Please reread my posts (and others) - answered four times but you simply ignore.
Last edited:
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
“1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.”
CCC
Now, I would like some Magisterial Docs supporting your position.
CCC
Now, I would like some Magisterial Docs supporting your position.
T
Tatum
Guest
You just proved my very point.
Breaking the Commandments even short of full culpability is still a serious sin.
Last edited:
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
You are correct.
We are obligated to receive the Holy Eucharist during the Easter Season. Therefore, if we have committed grave sin (ie mortal sin), we will have to confess it in order to meet the Easter obligation. Canon Law did not change from 1917 to 1983.
Edited to add this link
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Catholic Dictionary defines Grave Sin as
The transgression of a divine law in a grievous matter with full knowledge and consent.
The matter may be serious either in itself (as blasphemy) or because of the circumstances (as striking one’s father or mother) or on account of its purpose (as telling a lie in order to destroy a person’s character). Sufficient knowledge of the serious nature of a sinful action is present if one is clearly conscious that the act is mortally sinful, say because the Scriptures or the Church identify certain acts as seriously offensive to God. It is enough that one knows that what one intends to do may be a mortal sin, but does it anyhow. Indifference to the laws of God is equivalent to disobeying them.
Full consent is present when one freely wills to commit an action although one clearly knows it is gravely sinful. No sin is committed if one does not will the deed, no matter how clear one’s knowledge may be. After all, the essence of sin is in the free will. Thus, too, a person does not sin who, with the best of will, cannot dispel obscene or blasphemous thoughts and desires, even though he or she well knows they are gravely sinful. The resolution to perform an action is not the same as the pleasure or satisfaction experienced in the emotions, nor the same as a compulsive idea, “I like the sin.” One sign of partial knowledge or not full consent would be the fact that a person does not complete an action when this can easily be done, or is so minded that the person would rather die than commit a grave sin.
www.catholicculture.org
We are obligated to receive the Holy Eucharist during the Easter Season. Therefore, if we have committed grave sin (ie mortal sin), we will have to confess it in order to meet the Easter obligation. Canon Law did not change from 1917 to 1983.
Edited to add this link
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Catholic Dictionary defines Grave Sin as
The transgression of a divine law in a grievous matter with full knowledge and consent.
The matter may be serious either in itself (as blasphemy) or because of the circumstances (as striking one’s father or mother) or on account of its purpose (as telling a lie in order to destroy a person’s character). Sufficient knowledge of the serious nature of a sinful action is present if one is clearly conscious that the act is mortally sinful, say because the Scriptures or the Church identify certain acts as seriously offensive to God. It is enough that one knows that what one intends to do may be a mortal sin, but does it anyhow. Indifference to the laws of God is equivalent to disobeying them.
Full consent is present when one freely wills to commit an action although one clearly knows it is gravely sinful. No sin is committed if one does not will the deed, no matter how clear one’s knowledge may be. After all, the essence of sin is in the free will. Thus, too, a person does not sin who, with the best of will, cannot dispel obscene or blasphemous thoughts and desires, even though he or she well knows they are gravely sinful. The resolution to perform an action is not the same as the pleasure or satisfaction experienced in the emotions, nor the same as a compulsive idea, “I like the sin.” One sign of partial knowledge or not full consent would be the fact that a person does not complete an action when this can easily be done, or is so minded that the person would rather die than commit a grave sin.
Dictionary : GRAVE SIN
GRAVE SIN The transgression of a divine law in a grievous matter with full knowledge and consent. The matter may be serious either in itself (as blasphemy) or because of the circumstances (as striking one's father or mother) or on account of its purpose (as telling a lie in order to destroy a...
www.catholicculture.org
Last edited:
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
Okay, so I’m NOT going mad. Thank you.
T
Tatum
Guest
Elizabeth where does your article state that transgression of a grievous matter with less than complete knowledge and consent is not a serious sin?
- Status