Mortal SIn and Communion

[Bookcat]

But if you did not have full knowledge or complete consent, you would have still committed a venial sin but it still would have been a grave sin. If a sin involves grave matter, it is a grave sin … grave matter, grave sin. See the connection? But in order for it to be a mortal sin, it requires full knowledge and complete consent.

I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yes I really do understand what you are getting at. And we really agree on that.

Yes the Objective thing called “lust” is still a mortal sin (grave sin, serious sin) even if the person who does it lacks the full knowledge or complete consent …and thus commits only a venial sin. Grave matters will always be “grave matters” or “objectively mortal sins”…“in themselves”.

…even if the person who does them only commits a venial sin due to lack of consent.

Th Catholic Church though uses these three terms to mean the same thing…

Grave sin, mortal sin, and serious sin…to mean the very same thing.

But on two levels …

Murder is a grave sin, murder is a mortal sin, murder is a serious sin (same thing)

This is referring to the object itself…to the fact that it is is grave…

(to make things clearer…it is best really to use the term “grave matter”…when speaking this way…)

and

if I commit murder with full knowledge and complete consent…it being a grave matter:

I commit a grave sin, mortal sin, serious sin (same thing).

Grave sin= mortal sin =serious sin

So these three statements mean the same thing:

“But in order for it to be a mortal sin, it requires full knowledge and complete consent.”

“But in order for it to be a grave sin, it requires full knowledge and complete consent.”

“But in order for it to be a serious sin, it requires full knowledge and complete consent.”

You are here speaking on the level of “what do I need to commit a grave sin (mortal sin, serious sin)”

on the other level…

Murder is a grave sin
Murder is a mortal sin
Murder is a serious sin

is on the level of “what kind of sin is murder…objectively…in itself”

even if a person lacks full knowledge and commits thus a venial sin not a grave one (mortal one) …the thing itself is still a “grave matter” …the thing itself is still “a grave/moral sin” in the way we say “murder is a mortal sin”…it is just that the person is not guilty of grave/mortal sin. Murder is murder …and is always grave.

 

[davidv]

Yes I really do understand what you are getting at. And we really agree on that.

**Yes the Objective thing called “lust” is still a mortal sin (grave sin, serious sin) even if the person who does it lacks the full knowledge or complete consent …and thus commits only a venial sin. **Grave matters will always be “grave matters” or “objectively mortal sins”…“in themselves”.

…even if the person who does them only commits a venial sin due to lack of consent.

Th Catholic Church though uses these three terms to mean the same thing…

Grave sin, mortal sin, and serious sin…to mean the very same thing.

But on two levels …

Murder is a grave sin, murder is a mortal sin, murder is a serious sin (same thing)

This is referring to the object itself…to the fact that it is is grave…

(to make things clearer…it is best really to use the term “grave matter”…when speaking this way…)

and

if I commit murder with full knowledge and complete consent…it being a grave matter:

I commit a grave sin, mortal sin, serious sin (same thing).

Grave sin= mortal sin =serious sin

So these three statements mean the same thing:

“But in order for it to be a mortal sin, it requires full knowledge and complete consent.”

“But in order for it to be a grave sin, it requires full knowledge and complete consent.”

“But in order for it to be a serious sin, it requires full knowledge and complete consent.”

You are here speaking on the level of “what do I need to commit a grave sin (mortal sin, serious sin)”

on the other level…

Murder is a grave sin
Murder is a mortal sin
Murder is a serious sin

is on the level of “what kind of sin is murder…objectively…in itself”

even if a person lacks full knowledge and commits thus a venial sin not a grave one (mortal one) …the thing itself is still a “grave matter” …the thing itself is still “a grave/moral sin” in the way we say “murder is a mortal sin”…it is just that the person is not guilty of grave/mortal sin. Murder is murder …and is always grave.

See bold. I don’t see how a sin can be mortal and venial at the same time. I can see that it see that it can be grave (objectively mortal, but to subjectively) and venial.
It seems to me that the equality you claim can only be true in the objective sense. It is obviously not true in the subjective sense. If it were true in the subjective sense, there would be no venial sins involving grave matter.

 

[Bookcat]

See bold. I don’t see how a sin can be mortal and venial at the same time. I can see that it see that it can be grave (objectively mortal, but to subjectively) and venial.
It seems to me that the equality you claim can only be true in the objective sense. It is obviously not true in the subjective sense. If it were true in the subjective sense, there would be no venial sins involving grave matter.

The “sin” in the sense of the persons “guilt” is venial in that case. The matter remains a grave matter …and so on the objective level “lust” is still a “mortal sin” …it just was not a mortal sin in this case -that person did not commit a mortal sin…

The fact that the person did not have the complete consent here…means that it was a venial sin in his case…but that does not change the “nature of the sin of lust” that is always grave.

one could say “you know bob…lust is a mortal sin…you do not want to be lusting after that person”…and then Bob says “oh I understood it was only a venial sin…I really did”…well while “Lust” as a kind of sin --remains “mortal, grave, serious” in this case it seems Bob did not commit a mortal sin/grave sin/serious sin…cause he lacked full knowledge and honestly thought the Church taught it to be only venial…

the terms are interchangable…but on the two levels (which should not then be mixed using one on one level and another on the other…) that is just the way the Church uses the language in the various documents.

 

[Bookcat]

You see the fact that the person did not have full knowledge or give complete consent…does not make the “kind of sin” that lust is …into another kind of sin…it is just makes that persons sin of lust a venial sin not a mortal sin…that person commits a venial sin not a moral sin.

the object remains grave. Lust is always “a mortal sin” (like the way we would say "hey bob don’t lust for that is a mortal sin) or better yet…always a “grave matter”…but it may not be a mortal sin for a particular person due to lack of knowledge or consent…

(Bob would not be right to say to his buddies…hey lust is only a venial sin…even though in his case he committed only a venial sin via lack of part of what it takes to commit a mortal/grave sin)

 

[baltobetsy]

See bold. I don’t see how a sin can be mortal and venial at the same time. I can see that it see that it can be grave (objectively mortal, but to subjectively) and venial.

Which is exactly why one should distinguish between grave MATTER and grave, serious, mortal SIN. Language matters.

 

[Bookcat]

Which is exactly why one should distinguish between grave MATTER and grave, serious, mortal SIN. Language matters.

yes…this is best when talking with people

 

[Sir_Knight]

“grave” describes the seriousness of the sin. Venial & mortal refer to what effect that sin has on our relationship with God. That is where the confusion arises. Grave does not equal mortal unless done full knowledge and complete consent.

 

[Brooklyn]

again…grave sin= mortal sin

What you are confusiing is "grave matter"and “grave sin”

and the two levels …objective level and subjective level.

Objectively yes…murder can be said to be a mortal sin or a grave sin (same thing)

but yes…One ONLY commits a mortal sin (grave sin) if they have grave matter and full knowledge and complete consent

Of course if one does something that is a grave matter…but without full knowledge or without complete consent it is a venial sin.

Chief Apologist at Catholic Answers

jimmyakin.org/2010/05/grave-sin-mortal-sin.html

Another Catholic Answers Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=21264&highlight=grave+sin

Thank you. I was getting pretty confused here reading the posts, but I think you straightened it out with this. The confusion is "grave matter"and “grave sin”. Grave sin is always mortal sin, but grave matter can be a venial sin if it is not committed with full knowledge and full consent.

As far as Jimmy Akin is concerned, it is absolutely correct that he has been wrong. I most specifically remember what he said about doing penance on Friday. He claims it is not mandatory, and that is defintely wrong, so I tend to be wary of him.

 

[Bookcat]

“grave” describes the seriousness of the sin. Venial & mortal refer to what effect that sin has on our relationship with God. That is where the confusion arises. Grave does not equal mortal unless done full knowledge and complete consent.

Grave sin and mortal sin mean the same thing…

According to the Catholic Church, grave and mortal describes the seriousness of the sin.

They also describe the seriousness of a sin that has been committed when there is grave matter, full knowledge and complete consent.

Please refer back to the quotes from the Church…including from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict.

This is simply how the Church uses the language…

But yes for normal purposes it is prob. the clearest to use:

“grave matter” for the kind of sin. and Moral sin for the actually committed sin…

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you. I was getting pretty confused here reading the posts, but I think you straightened it out with this. The confusion is "grave matter"and “grave sin”. Grave sin is always mortal sin, but grave matter can be a venial sin if it is not committed with full knowledge and full consent.

As far as Jimmy Akin is concerned, it is absolutely correct that he has been wrong. I most specifically remember what he said about doing penance on Friday. He claims it is not mandatory, and that is defintely wrong, so I tend to be wary of him.

Well while one can disagree with Mr. Akin at times…he is certain right here.

This is how the Church uses the language…one can see the various documents quoted.

 

[Bookcat]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6795304&postcount=11

 

[Bookcat]

Look…the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church issued by Pope Benedict XVI not long ago…even has it used interchangabley in the SAME paragraph about the same thing:

Compendium of the Catechism:

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. Also important for those receiving Holy Communion are a spirit of recollection and prayer, observance of the fast prescribed by the Church, and an appropriate disposition of the body (gestures and dress) as a sign of respect for Christ.

 

[Bookcat]

If grave sin did not = mortal sin…it and Canon Law would not be saying one must confess “grave sins”!

For we only have to confess MORTAL sins.

if one has a grave matter…but not complete consent…no confession is required…

 

[davidv]

If grave sin did not = mortal sin…it and Canon Law would not be saying one must confess “grave sins”!

For we only have to confess MORTAL sins.

if one has a grave matter…but not complete consent…no confession is required…

But highly recommended to regain the strength of grace to grow in holiness.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism notes:

1493 One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

There are two basic kinds of sins:

Moral sins (also called grave sins or serious sins)

and

Venial sins

We are onlyrequiredto confess grave sins…that is moral sins (same thing)…things that have a grave matter with full knowledge and complete consent…

if one does something that is called a ‘grave sin’ like murder, but without full knowledge or complete consent…on commits a venial sin…and is not obliged to confess it. Even though the thing itself is called “a grave sin”…and remains objectively a grave kind of sin…(in itself…not in the guilt of the person)

If one followed it incorrect notion that grave sin did not = mortal sin…then one would have to confess even these venial sins for the things themselves are called “grave sins”…still even though the person is only guilty of a venial sin here…

 

[Bookcat]

But highly recommended to regain the strength of grace to grow in holiness.

yes of course of course to make sure we are clear… venial sins doe not “take away grace” (not that you said that)…the sacrament can increase it! and remove the obsticals etc

 

[Sir_Knight]

As I said before, it is mostlikely a problem with the translation as was the case with the words in the English Mass being incorrectly translated for the past 40+ years.

 

[Bookcat]

As I said before, it is mostlikely a problem with the translation as was the case with the words in the English Mass being incorrectly translated for the past 40+ years.

Nope…just look at the Latin texts…these are offical Vatican translations…

tis the way the Church uses the language…just look at Canon Law…or the Compendium…etc

 

[Sir_Knight]

The English Mass is from the original Vatican translation and portions of it have been incorrect for the past 40+ years. As I said, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Bookcat]

The English Mass is from the original Vatican translation and portions of it have been incorrect for the past 40+ years. As I said, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

This is the way the Church uses the language…and we are not talking about texts translated by a particular group that handled the Liturgy years ago according to different ideas regarding translations…

we are talking about modern texts …etc…done by very different translators…and even a “verbal” talk by Pope Benedict XVI…where he says the same thing…

and besides…it is not just in the English translations!

just…look at the LATIN.

Canon Law etc…

This is how the Church uses the language.