Missing mass: grave sin or mortal sin?

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, I’m not exactly sure if you are ignoring what we are saying, or if you just don’t understand. catholictiger and I have both said the same thing, and you have done nothing to oppose our opinions but state repeatedly that “mortal” and “grave” are synonymous terms.

I’m sorry, but they are not synonymous terms in English, and until you prove otherwise, they aren’t synonymous in Church teaching, either. A sin, however grave, is NOT mortal until all three conditions are present.

Read that sentence three times. Do you get it?

Catholictiger is agreeing with me

The Church (see the documents above) uses the terms “grave sin”, “mortal sin” and “serious sin” as synonyms. Such is how the Church uses the terms (both in English and Latin etc).

And one can use those terms in an objective or subjective sense.

To rephrase the sentence suggested:

Is this true?

With sin, no matter how grave in matter, one does NOT commit a grave sin until all three conditions are present.

yes of course.

One needs all three: grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent to commit a grave sin (moral sin, serious sin).

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, I’m not exactly sure if you are ignoring what we are saying, or if you just don’t understand. catholictiger and I have both said the same thing, and you have done nothing to oppose our opinions but state repeatedly that “mortal” and “grave” are synonymous terms.

I’m sorry, but they are not synonymous terms in English, and until you prove otherwise, they aren’t synonymous in Church teaching, either. A sin, however grave, is NOT mortal until all three conditions are present.

Read that sentence three times. Do you get it?

Catholictiger… is agreeing with me forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11186380&postcount=41

The Church (see the documents above) uses the terms “grave sin”, “mortal sin” and “serious sin” as synonyms. Such is how the Church uses the terms (both in English and Latin etc).

And one can use those terms in an objective or subjective sense.

To rephrase the sentence suggested:

Is this true?

With sin, no matter how grave in matter, one does NOT commit a grave sin until all three conditions are present.

yes of course.

One needs all three: grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent to commit a grave sin (moral sin, serious sin).

 

[Bookcat]

I’m sorry, but they are not synonymous terms in English, and until you prove otherwise, they aren’t synonymous in Church teaching, either.

Church uses the terms as synonyms.

And what does one HAVE to confess? Grave sins (what is also called mortal sins).

I understand very much the confusion here --it pops up here from time time

One does not commit a grave sin --even if it is grave in matter (objectively grave) --if one lacks the needed knowledge or deliberate consent.

But as to theological terminology it is important to note that the three terms are used to mean the same sin.

---

A Few Examples of the Church interchanging the terms: They are synonyms.

CCC1385: “Anyone conscious of a **grave sin **must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

From: The Compendium of the Catechism issued by Pope Benedict XVI

"304. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of** serious sins **is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness." (see also Canon Law …the term is used there too).

1. What is required to receive Holy Communion?

1385-1389
1415

To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in mortal sin. Anyone who is conscious of having committed a** grave sin** must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to Communion.

(note that one used BOTH to mean the same thing in the same paragraph… for variety in use of language in writing.)

---

“However, it must be remembered that the church, guided by faith in this great sacrament, teaches that no Christian who is conscious of **grave sin **can receive the eucharist before having obtained God’s forgiveness.”

Pope John Paul II Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17

And in a speech from Pope John Paul II

“The sacrament of Penance is meant to take away personal sins committed after Baptism: first of all mortal sins, then venial. If the penitent has committed more than one mortal sin, they can only be remitted all at once. In fact, the remission of **serious sin **consists in the infusion of the sanctifying grace which has been lost, and grace is incompatible with any and every serious sin. Venial sins are to be regarded differently…”

and in ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

“If a Christian’s conscience is burdened by serious sin, then the path of penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation becomes necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”

---

And Pope Benedict XVI in his Catecheses with Children said:

"Only in that case, when you are in a state of “mortal” sin, in other words, grave (sin), is it necessary to go to confession before Communion. This is my first point. " vatican.va/holy_father/be…ildren_en.html

---

grave sin = mortal sin = serious sin

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, I’m not exactly sure if you are ignoring what we are saying, or if you just don’t understand. catholictiger and I have both said the same thing, and you have done nothing to oppose our opinions but state repeatedly that “mortal” and “grave” are synonymous terms.

I’m sorry, but they are not synonymous terms in English, and until you prove otherwise, they aren’t synonymous in Church teaching, either. A sin, however grave, is NOT mortal until all three conditions are present.

Read that sentence three times. Do you get it?

Catholictiger… is agreeing with me now *twas a misreading forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11186380&postcount=41

I was clarifying the fact that it is possible for a person to commit a grave sin without committing a mortal sin.

(A person who commits a sin that has grave matter but lacks the needed knowledge or deliberate consent – is not committing a grave sin (which is the same as a mortal sin) but is committing at worst a venial sin.)

The Church (see the documents above) uses the terms “grave sin”, “mortal sin” and “serious sin” as synonyms. Such is how the Church uses the terms (both in English and Latin etc).

And one can use those terms in an objective or subjective sense.

To rephrase the sentence suggested:

Is this true?

With sin, no matter how grave in matter, one does NOT commit a grave sin until all three conditions are present.

yes of course.

One needs all three: grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent to commit a grave sin (moral sin, serious sin).

 

[signit]

Lastly about the priest who said that when people come to him fearing hell because they missed Sunday Mass. Let’s not jump to a conclusion that this priest is leading his people into sin. We do not know the conditions behind what people say and can’t know. If someone comes in and says Father I missed sunday Mass last week because I was feeling alittle under the weather am I going to hell? Father I was flying home from a buissness trip and wasn’t able to attend mass on Sunday am I going to hell? etc. If someone mentions something that would not require them to go to mass and those people think they may go to hell the priest very well could say that you are being scrupolous and you are not going to hell just because you miss mass. He may ask them if you feeling healthy and had every ability to go to mass would you go and they said yes these people are on a path to God.

Can’t speak for the Church but I can see some of these circumstances contributing to the level of culpability, as someone else suggested.

Someone who worked late the night before and just couldn’t bring themself to roll out of bed (although not sick enough to miss Mass) might not be as culpable as the person who went off to play golf on Sunday morning.

 

[ProVobis]

CCC1385: “Anyone conscious of a **grave sin **must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

From: The Compendium of the Catechism issued by Pope Benedict XVI

I don’t know if something got lost in the translation but isn’t being conscious of “grave sin” one of the conditions for mortal sin?

 

[ProVobis]

One needs all three: grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent to commit a grave sin (moral sin, serious sin).

This is essentially what the Baltimore Catechism says

Question: How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

Answer: To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

This is Question 56 of the Baltimore Catechism, a work in the public domain.

catholicism.about.com/od/baltimorecatechism/f/Question_54_BC.htm

 

[thistle]

So, assuming I have committed both adultery and missed Mass…which is worse?

If you die unrepentant it will not matter. Either will mean your destination is Hell.

 

[catholictiger]

If you die unrepentant it will not matter. Either will mean your destination is Hell.

I still think you should answer the question. Both are mortal sins meaning if you do either your destination is hell but I think adultery is a worse sin, due to the fact that you take the sacred act of intercourse out of the context of marriage. It has the potential to create ALOT more scandal then just missing mass. I’m sure a few other things.

when I become a priest, God willing, I would give more penance to someone who confessed adultery and that was their only mortal sin they confessed then someone who said they purposefully missed mass on Sunday and that was the only mortal sin they confessed.

 

[dshix]

(A person who commits a sin that has grave matter but lacks the needed knowledge or deliberate consent – is not committing a grave sin (which is the same as a mortal sin) but is committing at worst a venial sin.)

This is my issue. You seem to be splitting hairs. I have always understood that a person committing a grave sin without knowledge of it, (thus it cannot be mortal) is committing a grave sin for which they only have venial culpability.

If I am incorrect in this, please provide proof of your position.

 

[Bookcat]

This is my issue. You seem to be splitting hairs. I have always understood that a person committing a grave sin without knowledge of it, (thus it cannot be mortal) is committing a grave sin for which they only have venial culpability.

If I am incorrect in this, please provide proof of your position.

A post was missed up above (it was before the other I responded to you there): forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11187011&postcount=59

It is not splitting hairs but explaining the Church’s theological language here. The Church uses the terms “grave sin”, “mortal sin” and “serious sin” to refer to the same sin --that which separates us from God.

It is very important to understand this for otherwise people mistakenly start to create another use of terms that is not consistent with that of the Church --they can start to think that there is a difference between a grave sin and a mortal sin. There is not.

There is only mortal sin and venial sin.

Yes as I noted above one does not commit a grave sin if one lacks the needed knowledge or the deliberate consent --even if one has grave matter. One commits then a venial sin not a grave sin.

This is important. For to say:

a person there is “is committing a grave sin” is not correct.

They are committing a venial sin. (the matter remains grave and yes is harmful but the culpability as you note is not that of a grave sin)

The way you want to put it is:

“a person committing a sin that involves grave matter but without the needed knowledge or without deliberate consent is committing a* venial sin* even though the matter is grave.”

 

[CradleJourney]

Forgetting to set your alarm is not a justifiable reason to miss Mass. Are you saying there are no other Masses during the day?
If you jump in the car and find the battery is dead that would only be a reasonable excuse if there is no other way to get to any Mass!
Obviously sickness, accident, injury to you or your family that requires missing Mass is a reasonable reason to miss Mass assuming such a reason extends the entire day so you cannot get to any Mass.

I did not claim it was justifiable. I did not claim it was not a sin. But that there is a difference between those who decide not to be bothered and those who would/intend to attend but run into difficulties. Other posters have indicated this better than I.

And yes there are instances where there are no other Masses that day and/or no transportation. You apparently have access to either better skills or better resources than I

I try. I fail. I confess. I try again. It’s a journey - hence my user name.

But isn’t mere failure different than deliberate rejection? I believe God has more patience with us than that.

 

[thistle]

I did not claim it was justifiable. I did not claim it was not a sin. But that there is a difference between those who decide not to be bothered and those who would/intend to attend but run into difficulties. Other posters have indicated this better than I.

And yes there are instances where there are no other Masses that day and/or no transportation. You apparently have access to either better skills or better resources than I

I try. I fail. I confess. I try again. It’s a journey - hence my user name.

But isn’t mere failure different than deliberate rejection? I believe God has more patience with us than that.

If you are unable to get to Mass because it is impossible to do so despite every effort made then that is not a sin.
I don’t believe forgetting to set an alarm is running into a difficulty and I don’t see that as a justifiable excuse.

As for me our Church has 10 Masses every Sunday so unless I’m sick or I need to look after a sick person its pretty much impossible for me to justify not attending Mass.

 

[catholictiger]

Can’t speak for the Church but I can see some of these circumstances contributing to the level of culpability, as someone else suggested.

Someone who worked late the night before and just couldn’t bring themself to roll out of bed (although not sick enough to miss Mass) might not be as culpable as the person who went off to play golf on Sunday morning.

Culpability is a part of sin. Culpability reduces the gravity of the sin.

a good comparison is that of our own legal system. Culpability plays a important role in legal decisions. For example someone who was pressured into doing something would not be held as accountable as someone who did it of their own free will. Lets say you were driving back late at night very tired and you ran into someone killing the person in the car, you would be less culpable then someone who was wide awake and did the same thing. Now in that case you would add in criminal negligence plus manslaughter but if you culpability is reduced you could receive a lesser sentence.

same goes with sin.