It's Basically Impossible to Commit Grave Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cherub
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cherub

Guest
I was informed by one priest over the weekend that two lies I confessed to weren’t grave – that, indeed, it is nearly impossible since Vatican II for any of us to truly commit a grave sin, due to the three conditions necessary, which are:

Grave matter,
Full knowledge,
Deliberate consent of the will.

Today during an early RCIA class I sat in on, I heard more of the same as the guide explained to us that the reason we see so many people going up for communion and so few in the confessional was because since Vatican II, serious sin was made nearly impossible to commit, therefore it is okay for people to receive the Eucharist without going to confession.
? :eek: Have people forgotten sin and how destructive and dangerous it is? This scares me.
 
This is absurd, and how anyone can believe it for a nanosecond is beyond me. I’m glad you see through it.

The three conditions are frighteningly easy to fulfill. How many people know that missing Mass is grave matter, and yet decide, for no good reason, to not go? How about the requirement to go to confession at least once a year - are they saying that it’s okay to receive without going to confession, when we know that the Church teaches we must?

When I hear people say things like this I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…
 
The priest did a grave disservice to the faithful on this one. I put in my :twocents: over at this thread but in no way is it meant to let someone off the hook. I think there are two extremes: one being making nearly everything mortal sin (especially if someone else is doing it and we don’t) and the other making nothing mortal sin.

I remember hearing a very revered priest in Mother Angelica live talking about sin and he said something about there not being that many people in hell or something (don’t quote me!) because of God’s mercy. I don’t think he gave a very good explanation of this to be really clear. I was surprised to hear that from this priest.
 
The three conditions for mortal sin have been around for a lot longer than Vatican II.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
The three conditions for mortal sin have been around for a lot longer than Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Very good point. Vatican II had nothing to do with it.

Whenever someone says Vatican II (or Canon Law or the Catechism or the Bible) says “whatever” I think the faithful should ask for a citation.
 
I’ve heard folks say that they do not agree that missing mass (or substitute any other serious sin) qualifies as grave matter, therefore they have not met the criteria for committing a mortal sin.

They continue to fool themselves and believe that they, too, are like gods knowing good from evil.
 
I woke up still thinking about your question. Challenge your priest: does he really believe people today cannot or do not sin? If so, he must spend very little time in the confessinal.

does he believe his parishioners do not fornicate or commit adultery, and that when they do they damage themselves and their families? does he not believe his parishioners abort, sterilize and contracept, and that when they do they reject God’s primary gift of life, and they deny the right to exist of God’s creatures?

does he not believe his parishioners exploit their workers or others under their authority, abuse their children or elderly parents, steal from the government, employer, insurance company, or even their own families?

does he not believe his parishioners allow their minds and souls to be warped by pornography, violence and vicious and even demonic influences in the media? does he not see and understand the damage done by this?

does he not believe that his parishioners make political choices that have evil effects in this country and worldwide?

does he not believe his parishioners ignore the rights and needs of the poor at their gates and wordwide?

A story is told of Bishop Sheen and a young priest who complained about all the wealth of the Church, and how it should be sold to benefit the poor. The bishop confronted him privately and asked “How much did you steal?” the young man confessed to taking money from the collection basket. the bishop’s point was that when anyone, but especially a priest, either denies sin, or focuses attention on institutional sins, he is very often covering up or in denial about personal sin.

You certainly have no right to confront your priest about that–you are not his bishop–but you can demand your right to be taught the fullness of truth, about morality as about everything else, from the priest who has been anointed to teach you.
 
Wonder is Adam and Eve asked that----after all they only took a bite out of an apple ?
 
I came across a simliar problem when going through the catechism with my son. If one truly had full knowledge would you willfully turn against God? I used the example of the angels, who have far superior knowledge to us, and yet many of them (a third?) turned against God.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
You certainly have no right to confront your priest about that–you are not his bishop…
Click to expand...
Really?! Luther was a priest. O were it that his parishoners confronted him!

What makes you think that a priest must not be confronted? Is confrontation an immoral act? Why shouldn’t confrontation be considered a work of mercy or at least an act of charity?

Most priests see their bishop but once a year. So if you had your way, at most, they’d only be confronted once a year. Such a neglected person would wither. Healthy people welcome confrontation and grow from it. I find your excessive sense of respect is positively negative.

Is there a priest in the house to settle this?! A deacon will do. Tell us if you would rather your parishioners kept mum about what they didn’t like or confronted you with what they didn’t like. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
A story is told of Bishop Sheen and a young priest who complained about all the wealth of the Church, and how it should be sold to benefit the poor. The bishop confronted him privately and asked “How much did you steal?” the young man confessed to taking money from the collection basket. the bishop’s point was that when anyone, but especially a priest, either denies sin, or focuses attention on institutional sins, he is very often covering up or in denial about personal sin.
Click to expand...
Thanks. You have made some excellent points here, and I have either heard or read this story of Bishop Sheen and the stolen money. Very poignant example of the dangers of sin, and what is at stake when people in high places are in denial.

I actually did call the church office to ask about something else at this parish – the lack of a crucifix in the altar area. (please understand I am new to this parish, having just moved to it last month, and I’m not trying to barge in and stir up trouble…but instead of crucifix, there is a giant statue of the risen Lord. They way this was defended was, when the new building was designed, all but a few parishioners pushed for a risen Christ instead of a crucifix, saying that the glory of Christ is in his resurrection and that they preferred to celebrate that – so they use the processional crucifix for the consecration at each Mass. Trouble is, I’ve been to two Masses here where there were no servers helping this priest, and he didn’t even take the processional crucifix with him. There was NONE present during the consecration. I asked an apologist about this, and was advised that while this didn’t invalidate the consecration, it did cause it to be illicit. So I called to explain to the office manager that this is liturgical abuse. I’ve been invited to the next liturgy committee meeting in January. 😃 here we go…

But anyway, I also found out that the current priest is not a diocesan priest; he is a Benedictine priest who was abbot at a monastic community. He and our other priest are both from the same place, and asked to be placed at the same church together. She explained to me that, as Benedictine brothers, their main concern is in getting themselves to Heaven by doing works like feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc… and that they weren’t very interested in matters of liturgy. One priest even flew into a rage recently because of incense (he says he can’t stand it and it’s not to be used in the church. She thought he meant only during Mass, but it was used in a classroom a couple of weeks ago for the kids to learn something, and he got very upset and lost his temper, she said.) She said the main priest who is our pastor gets similarly upset whenever the word “liturgy” is brought up to him. He has to have a layperson help him with every special ceremony, basically standing there and showing him what to read from.
Are all non-diocesan priests this way? How did we even get a priest who is not a diocesan priest?

But anyway, that’s the story for now. I’ll just have to see how things go and be patient until the committee meets.
 
40.png
Cherub:
I was informed by one priest over the weekend that two lies I confessed to weren’t grave – that, indeed, it is nearly impossible since Vatican II for any of us to truly commit a grave sin, due to the three conditions necessary, which are:

Grave matter,
Full knowledge,
Deliberate consent of the will.

Today during an early RCIA class I sat in on, I heard more of the same as the guide explained to us that the reason we see so many people going up for communion and so few in the confessional was because since Vatican II, serious sin was made nearly impossible to commit, therefore it is okay for people to receive the Eucharist without going to confession.
? :eek: Have people forgotten sin and how destructive and dangerous it is? This scares me.
Click to expand...
I was taught the very same thing in RCIA, back in the 1980’s. I can’t tell you how this teaching got me off to a very bad start as a Catholic, very bad. It took almost 15 years of a very sinful life before I realized the error of what I was taught.
 
I would never goto confession with that priest again…

Some fruit walked into a evangelical church today and shot five people. Jee I guess since he didnt really plan on shooting 5 people. Maybe 1 or a 100. It wasnt a grave sin huh?
 
40.png
Bill_A:
I would never goto confession with that priest again…
Click to expand...
Yet by continuing to support the Church that priest is a member of, you ensure that he will be giving the same bum advice to thousands. Enablers are partially responsible for the evil committed by those they enable.

The only way to stop being an accessory to the crimes being committed by our bishops and priests is to stop contributing money to them and, where the traditional mass is available, stop attending their Novus Ordo Mass. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/
 
In order for a lie to be a grave sin, the lie has to cause serious damage. So if a priest in confession said that a particular lie was not a grave sin, we should assume it is not a grave sin. This does not mean that the lie wasn’t a sin at all. It means that the lie was a venial sin.

Generically speaking, the advice of the priest regarding the impossibilty of committing a mortal sin is incorrect. However, in the confessional, the priest is dealing with one particular penitent. In the case of a scupulous penitent, this advice might be quite correct.

A priest has to take drastic measures with a scrupulous penitent. This is because being scrupulous is one of the surest paths to hell.
 
Chris Jacobsen:
In order for a lie to be a grave sin, the lie has to cause serious damage.
Click to expand...
And how is it that one determines “serious damage”? Telling a slightly plump girl that she’s a fat girl is surely only a slight lie. Yet it is just such an off-handed remark that is known to have lead to the eating disorder and eventual death of Karen Carpenter the singer. The same off-handed slight lie cast at a more mentally stable person would cause no damage at all.

If a slight sin can be rendered into a grave sin because it’s victim is mentally weak, then sin loses its objective character. Grave sin would be the result of my bad luck to sin against someone who, unbeknownst to me, couldn’t handle it. Such a conception of sin makes our guilt a roulette wheel and casts God into the role of a shady casino operator. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
albert cipriani:
Yet by continuing to support the Church that priest is a member of, you ensure that he will be giving the same bum advice to thousands. Enablers are partially responsible for the evil committed by those they enable.

The only way to stop being an accessory to the crimes being committed by our bishops and priests is to stop contributing money to them and, where the traditional mass is available, stop attending their Novus Ordo Mass. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/
Click to expand...
Yeah well there are plenty of other parishs to goto too. The Novous Ordus Mass is based on the Same doctrine as the Tridentine mass. I could go itno a national debate on that but people wont agree. The people and the conference of Bishops says its O Kay so it is now church doctrine.

The only big convern is that Novous Odus Seclurum translates into New World ORder and as long we do not buy into the Global Crak cvilliage with a credit card it doesnt really matter because Jesus will always be there. Jesus loves the Church and Jesus isnt going to send me to hell because my pastor and church was too lazy to instruct me in a dead language.
 
40.png
Bill_A:
The people and the conference of Bishops says its O Kay so it is now church doctrine.
Click to expand...
Church doctrine is decided by neither. – Alice Ciprian the Traditional Catholic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top