Fr. Z: Am I obliged to receive communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you simply invent your asserted “facts” instead of researching SC?

“Veinal” does not mean “less serious”, it does not mean “light”.
What it does mean is “easily pardonable”.

The issue is not whether a sin is easily pardoned.
The issue is whether it is serious.

The seriousness of a sin depends on two factors.
The objective nature of the conduct (eg breaking the Commandments) and the degree of culpability.

The most serious sin is that which objectively breaks the Commandments and is also fully imputable (mortal sins).

That does not mean that breaking of the Commandment with less than full culpability is not still serious. “Serious” is about more than just losing sanctifying grave just as walking on a tightrope between two skyscrapers is still a deadly business even if one has not yet fallen.

Therefore the term “grave sin” refers to seriousness that does not always involve full culpability but is still very risky.
 
Last edited:
Tatum said:
The most serious sin is that which objectively breaks the Commandments and is also fully imputable
Click to expand...
with full knowledge and consent of the will
Tatum said:
The seriousness of a sin depends on two factors.

The objective nature of the conduct (eg breaking the Commandments) and the degree of culpability.

The most serious sin is that which objectively breaks the Commandments and is also fully imputable (mortal sins).

That does not mean that breaking of the Commandment with less than full culpability is not still serious. “Serious” is about more than just losing sanctifying grave just as walking on a tightrope between two skyscrapers is still a deadly business even if one has not yet fallen.

Therefore the term “grave sin” refers to seriousness that does not always involve full culpability but is still very risky.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering where you got all of this. Someone has already given a source with the definition of grave sin. Pope St. John Paul II has said that there isn’t a third category of sin. I don’t understand what’s so difficult about it.
 
Commander901 said:
A question was asked; so how is replying to it being rude?
Click to expand...
One more time: Please note that Kathleen18’s post above mine shows there are no replies to it.

If you had actually been following this thread – instead of jumping in days later to falsely attack a total stranger for some unknown reason – you would know that posts had been removed from this thread by the moderators, posts to which I and others had responded. In fact, if you actually read my post, you would see that I did not respond in any way to her post, much less call it rude. And knowing Kathleen18, if I had been rude to her, she would have called me on it at the time.

Please go find someone else to attack, since that’s apparently how you find your entertainment.
 
Last edited:
semper_catholicus said:
Someone has already given a source with the definition of grave sin.
Click to expand...
Where does that non Magisterial article state that transgression of a grievous matter with less than complete knowledge and consent is not a serious sin?
The most serious sin is that which objectively breaks the Commandments and is also fully imputable
Click to expand...
with full knowledge and consent of the will
Click to expand...
Do you understand what “fully imputable” means?
Pope St. John Paul II has said that there isn’t a third category of sin.
Click to expand...
You seem to miss posts here that respond to your questions. You don’t need to keep restating them. Just respond to our responses. Here it is:
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”.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No, I think it’s time for you to give me some Magisterial documents supporting your view.
 
So now we have “serious sin” “mortal sin” and “grave sin”?

I think you would do best by simply defining what these each mean, and provide some proper Catholic resourse for your conclusion.
 
Then you believe “grave sin” is sin of grave matter commited venially?

So the Church still uses the term “Mortal Sin” then?

It seemed that you were saying the term has just been replaced.
 
semper_catholicus said:
Okay, so I’m NOT going mad. Thank you.
Click to expand...
No. You’re not going mad. Your understanding is correct.
Tatum said:
Elizabeth where does your article state that transgression of a grievous matter with less than complete knowledge and consent is not a serious sin?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say that because serious sin isn’t defined as “actions involving grave matter without full consent and knowledge.” Those would be venial sins. Serious sin is mortal sin (grave matter, full consent, knowledge) and is what has to be confessed each year before Easter IF it will prevent you from your Easter obligation to receive the Holy Eucharist

www.catholic.com

What is the requirement regarding yearly confession?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that one must confess serious sins at least once a year (CCC 1457). Here's what you need to know about confession.
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church statement, “after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year” (CCC 1457), includes a footnote reference to the Code of Canon Law: “After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year” (CIC 989). “Grave sins” here means “mortal sins” so, accordingly, “serious sins” in the Catechism are to be understood as mortal. Keep in mind that for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met: grave matter, full knowledge, and complete consent (cf. CCC 1857). A sin of grave matter which lacks either of the other conditions is not a mortal sin. In such a case the matter is grave but the sin is not. The Catechism explains, “One commits venial sin . . . when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent” (CCC 1862).
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Elizabeth. It seems our modern world is allergic to absolutes and craves the wooliness of words which claim to clarify but instead erode, narrow, and ‘excuse’.

I’ll take my ‘wooly’ in YARN, thank you, and not in theology and a perverted kind of emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABle type of perspective.

Honestly, it is so sad that well-intentioned, intelligent people are so concerned with the supposed FRAGILITY of humanity that instead of trying to strengthen them so they can advance, they’d rather water down, distort, or even deny the truth because they think the problem is the truth is too STRONG, instead of realizing that the pablum and the excuses and the redefinitions are making the already burdened WEAKER and LESS able to 'bear the cross".

Last I knew, we were told about crosses and carrying them as an expected part of Christian life, and to help others to carry them as well, not to try to pretend they weren’t there, or telling people to put them down and walk away instead. . .
 
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.
 
Breaking of the Commandments with less than full culpability is also rightly judged “serious” and “grave” because the gravity of a sin is primarily judged by reason of its matter then by degree of culpability.

We all get it that specific individuals may not be fully culpable. But “seriousness” is generally a matter of objective judgement re the matter of a sin not subjective culpability (mortal sin) in individual cases.
 
We can all cherry pick those who agree with us Elizabeth.
Your source is not Magisterial.

As far as I know Jim Blackburn is a layman with no pastoral experience or expert training in Canon Law.

The Pontifical Commission charged with revising the Code itself discussed the matter concluding:
“Itemque agitata est quaestio de locutione peccata mortalia loco peccata gravia, sed textus servatur prouti iacet: res potius remittenda est ad commentatores.”

It is therefore not a black and white issue.
 
Last edited:
Thats fine.

Is “serious” an adjective or a term together with “sin”?

Are serious sin and grave sin the same thing?

I understand a sin, in itself, is mortal or venial, and a mortal sin needs knowledge, consent to kill sanctifying grace.
 
I need somebody to distill this down for me. What are you all actually disagreeing about here?

Dan
 
So go to the Latin, “peccata gravia”.
Its an ancient expression going back to the Church Fathers.

It has not traditionally been identified as exactly the same as “peccata mortalia”
 
Last edited:
If one is conscious of grave sin and does not confess the grave sin I wonder if they are then in mortal sin for not confessing the grave sin. I say all this with tongue in cheek.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top