N
notsmart
Guest
Thanks VC, I need to hear I am on track if I am.
- Status
B
brigid12
Guest
Thank Dave. I think its wise to use it then, even if its just a ton of venial sins. I brush my teeth for the same reason. I don’t need to, but I don’t want decay. And, for the sake of others I do.
It sounds like you’re very on track.
Not going to confession often can mean that not only is it possible (if we don’t have perfect contrition) that we can’t worthily receive Our Lord in communion, but that at our earthly death (which may be 20,30,40 years away or may be in the next moment) we may spend the remainder of time in purgatory or even :bigyikes:. I love Him and the idea that I might spend all of eternity without Him scares me silly!!!
Sure, if you think it would be helpful (it looks like Dave and Judith, et al have it well handled).
At any rate, please be gentle with me. I don’t have the intellect that it seems you and others on this thread seem to be blessed with.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
It might be helpful. I’m not sure that Dave or Judith have really spoken to this point, although Dave approached when mentioning the idea of “objective” sin and jmcrae approached when she mentioned grave matter.ISure, if you think it would be helpful (it looks like Dave and Judith, et al have it well handled).
Tut! Is that a bit of Irish blarney/modesty?
I’m sure you’ve got the chops to handle anything I dish out. As far as your allegation about me having an intellect, well. . . I’ve been accused of laxity, being a pharisee, nitpicking, and *now *I’m being accused of being blessed with an intellect! Will these unfounded allegations never end?! 
The thrust of the Catechism passage (CCC 1856) is that mortal sin is incompatible with the virtue of Charity. The theological virtue of Charity and sanctifying grace are somewhat like two sides of the same coin: when an action is incompatible with the virtue of Charity, we lose sanctifying grace; and when we lose sanctifying grace, we don’t have the virtue of Charity (although Hope and Faith *may *remain, if the sinful act does not directly attack those virtues).
CCC 1856 quotes from the Summa in order to illustrate this point. Is isn’t quoting from the Summa in order propose a way to identify mortal sins. The way to identify mortal sin is discussed in the following paragraph, CCC 1857, where it lists the three well-known components: grave matter, sufficient knowledge, and full consent.
So, to my mind, this passage of the Catechism helps us better understand what Canon Law means by “grave sin”. There are only two categories of sin: those that cause the loss of sanctifying grace and those that do not. When we look at sins that cause the loss of sanctifying grace under the aspect of the loss of grace we call it “Mortal sin”. When we look at those same sins under the aspect* being incompatible with Charity* we call them “Grave sin.”
Same sin, different names for it.
VC
N
notsmart
Guest
VC, Are you a CCD teacher or a priest or some religious?
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
B
brigid12
Guest
VC,
Are you perchance (you can tell I’ve been reading a lot of older English
) trying to find an objective difference between mortal and venial sins that can be ascertained by the sinner who isn’t actually * in persona christi* (or God Himself)? If so, I believe we can only get “in the ballpark” about whether our sins are mortal or venial (whether they are truly contrary to the love of God or if they are not really opposed to the love of God and neighbor, but of their nature are disorders, in our circumstance), and the rest we need to leave to Him. Humans are constantly prone to self-deception. A person’s spiritual director may be able to get closer, however still may be very wrong. This is the reason that we need to frequent confession, IMO.
If this wasn’t what you were getting at -
Are you perchance (you can tell I’ve been reading a lot of older English
) trying to find an objective difference between mortal and venial sins that can be ascertained by the sinner who isn’t actually * in persona christi* (or God Himself)? If so, I believe we can only get “in the ballpark” about whether our sins are mortal or venial (whether they are truly contrary to the love of God or if they are not really opposed to the love of God and neighbor, but of their nature are disorders, in our circumstance), and the rest we need to leave to Him. Humans are constantly prone to self-deception. A person’s spiritual director may be able to get closer, however still may be very wrong. This is the reason that we need to frequent confession, IMO.If this wasn’t what you were getting at -
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Hi Brigid,VC,
Are you perchance (you can tell I’ve been reading a lot of older English
I think that’s right, but I wouldn’t say “in the ballpark” in the sense that we don’t really know. There are levels of certainty – and while we can’t know the state of our soul with absolute certainty, I think we can know with moral certainty if we’ve committed a mortal sin or not. This really has to be the case, otherwise we should go to confession every time we approach communion. But we don’t, do we? I think this is because we can know with moral certainty that we haven’t committed a mortal sin.
So, I don’t think the absence of absolute certainty about whether or not we have committed a mortal sin would mean that Canon 989 couldn’t be requiring someone to confess once a year if they are in mortal sin, in case that’s what you meant. That “if” would mean “if you are morally certain” not “if you are absolutely certain”.
But you point about why we need frequent confession is well taken.
What do you think?
VC
D
Dtmccameron
Guest
Umm, off topic, sorta, but, is it at all odd that I have (HAVE) to go…on a weekly basis? And I’d jump at the chance for a daily sort of thing, but they have it only on Saturdays and by appointment. And I’d rather risk a few days that waste Father’s time.
For me at least, it’s inconceivable that anyone would
A Not NEED to go more that once a year
and
B Not WANT to go more than once a year.
I regret that I need to go, but even were I to maintain a state of grace for seven days (I’m working my way up to four) I’d still go that day. Abosolution! God’s mercy poured out! And in that state of grace that follows, I can then recieve the Most Blessed Sacrament!
I pesonally can’t stand to be near Our Lord’s flesh when mine own is so filthily stained, so wretchedly marred. My thoughts so perverted, my heart so twisted, and my soul so evil!
For me at least, it’s inconceivable that anyone would
A Not NEED to go more that once a year
and
B Not WANT to go more than once a year.
I regret that I need to go, but even were I to maintain a state of grace for seven days (I’m working my way up to four) I’d still go that day. Abosolution! God’s mercy poured out! And in that state of grace that follows, I can then recieve the Most Blessed Sacrament!
I pesonally can’t stand to be near Our Lord’s flesh when mine own is so filthily stained, so wretchedly marred. My thoughts so perverted, my heart so twisted, and my soul so evil!
G
GailMac
Guest
Dear PeteZaHut - Has your original post question been answered sufficiently and are you frequenting the Sacrament more often? I hope so.
Peace,
Gail
Peace,
Gail
B
brigid12
Guest
I don’t think it’s odd, the more frequently you go the more sensitive you are to your own need for His Mercy and the more you realize the difference in yourself of venial vs mortal sin (as long as your confessor is aware that you are feeling this need and isn’t worried that scrupulosity has a significant part to play in this - if so your conscience isn’t necessarily more sensitive, just disordered without growing closer to Him after all). The respect you show to Him - including when He’s Present in the Eucharist - is admirable and I wish more of our country felt the reverence toward His Commandments that you seem to have.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I think that the more one understands the theology of this sacrament, the more one would desire it. Unfortunately, many Catholics don’t understand the Divine purpose and power of the sacraments, so they think of it (at least this one) as a burden, instead of an opportunity to recieve supernatural, sanctifying grace from the hand of God Himself. With better catechesis from parents principally, and catechists and clergy as well, I think more Catholics would find great joy to find themselves standing in a long line for Confession every week.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
For those following this thread, I thought I’d share some thoughts as well as collate together some of the sources that I’ve mentioned.
It *seems *to me that Canon 989 and, now that I think more about it, the precept of the Church regarding confession both require the faithful, at a minimum, to **confess mortal sins once per year.
**The precept, as related in the Catechism, doesn’t qualify the requirement to only mortals sins, but that seems to be the proper understanding given the requirements of the law (or else one seems faced with a contradiction and redundancy).
There has been a question as to whether the phrase “grave sin” used in Canon 989, means something other than “mortal sin” as we traditionally understand it. There doesn’t seem to be a difference.
In support of this position:
6. Fr. John Hardon’s *Moral Theology *(Ch. 3):The annual Confession is self-explanatory. It need not be made at Easter time, and strictly speaking it does not oblige those who (although they have not been to confession for a year) are not conscious of having during that time committed a **mortal sin.**While I was researching this topic, I discovered something interesting. It seems that ever since the Lateran Council’s obligation on annual confession was promulgated there has been a debate whether or not it bound one to confess anything other than mortal sins. Some theologians and saints said yes, you must confess all sins – others said no, you are only bound by the precept if you’ve committed a mortal sin.
St. Thomas Aquinas, interestingly enough, took somewhat of a middle ground position (and to mind an eminently reasonable one). Whether are all bound to confession?
A man is bound to confess his venial sins, not in virtue of the sacrament, but by the institution of the Church, and that, when he has no other sins to confess. We may also, with others, answer that the Decretal quoted above does not bind others than those who have mortal sins to confess. This is evident from the fact that it orders all sins to be confessed, which cannot apply to venial sins, because no one can confess all his venial sins. Accordingly, a man who has no mortal sins to confess, is not bound to confess his venial sins, but it suffices for the fulfillment of the commandment of the Church that he present himself before the priest, and declare himself to be unconscious of any mortal sin: and this will count for his confession. (III supp, 6, 3, Reply to Objection 3)
We should note that this controversy seemed to be an open question even up until modern time. The 1917 Code of Canon Law restated, for the most part, the Lateran decretal, and so it did not provide clear guidance.
Given the history and controversy, it would seem that the new and current Code of Canon Law, which added the phrase “his or her grave sins”, clears it up. By so doing, it would seem that the Church has made its positive law command no more than Divine Law (i.e. only mortal sins need be confessed).
Any thoughts on the above? Dave, Brigid, jmcrae, Genesis, Pete (and others?)
VC
It *seems *to me that Canon 989 and, now that I think more about it, the precept of the Church regarding confession both require the faithful, at a minimum, to **confess mortal sins once per year.
**The precept, as related in the Catechism, doesn’t qualify the requirement to only mortals sins, but that seems to be the proper understanding given the requirements of the law (or else one seems faced with a contradiction and redundancy).
There has been a question as to whether the phrase “grave sin” used in Canon 989, means something other than “mortal sin” as we traditionally understand it. There doesn’t seem to be a difference.
In support of this position:
- Fr. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, on Mortal Sin: The terms mortal, deadly, grave, and serious applied to sin are synonyms. . . the Church never distinguishes among these terms as though they represented different kinds of sins.
- The *Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:*305. When is a person obliged to confess mortal sins?
- The National Directory for Catechesis, 36, B, 1iocese and parishes should present catechesis for the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation that. . .calls attention to the obligation to celebrate the sacrament whenever one has committed mortal sin, at least once a year.
- The Baltimore Catechism #3:293. What is meant by the commandment to confess our sins at least once a year?
6. Fr. John Hardon’s *Moral Theology *(Ch. 3):The annual Confession is self-explanatory. It need not be made at Easter time, and strictly speaking it does not oblige those who (although they have not been to confession for a year) are not conscious of having during that time committed a **mortal sin.**While I was researching this topic, I discovered something interesting. It seems that ever since the Lateran Council’s obligation on annual confession was promulgated there has been a debate whether or not it bound one to confess anything other than mortal sins. Some theologians and saints said yes, you must confess all sins – others said no, you are only bound by the precept if you’ve committed a mortal sin.
St. Thomas Aquinas, interestingly enough, took somewhat of a middle ground position (and to mind an eminently reasonable one). Whether are all bound to confession?
A man is bound to confess his venial sins, not in virtue of the sacrament, but by the institution of the Church, and that, when he has no other sins to confess. We may also, with others, answer that the Decretal quoted above does not bind others than those who have mortal sins to confess. This is evident from the fact that it orders all sins to be confessed, which cannot apply to venial sins, because no one can confess all his venial sins. Accordingly, a man who has no mortal sins to confess, is not bound to confess his venial sins, but it suffices for the fulfillment of the commandment of the Church that he present himself before the priest, and declare himself to be unconscious of any mortal sin: and this will count for his confession. (III supp, 6, 3, Reply to Objection 3)
We should note that this controversy seemed to be an open question even up until modern time. The 1917 Code of Canon Law restated, for the most part, the Lateran decretal, and so it did not provide clear guidance.
Given the history and controversy, it would seem that the new and current Code of Canon Law, which added the phrase “his or her grave sins”, clears it up. By so doing, it would seem that the Church has made its positive law command no more than Divine Law (i.e. only mortal sins need be confessed).
Any thoughts on the above? Dave, Brigid, jmcrae, Genesis, Pete (and others?)
VC
- Status