Communion W/out Confession

[LouisvilleFan]

We all understand that objectively speaking, there's no distinction between mortal and grave sin because the only objective criteria of mortal sin is its grave matter. Knowledge and consent are abstract, but they are necessary nonetheless. It is against God's nature to condemn us when we commit sin in ignorance or under duress. That Good News and I'm surprised nobody seems joyful about that. Is this place like Shawshank, where everybody here's innocent?

Since we all understand grave matter, it is the discernment of knowledge and consent that affect one's decision about approaching Communion, the necessity for Confession as soon as possible, and that kind of thing. That's why I'm focusing on the abstract rather than the obvious. I'm not going liberal about the seriousness of grave sin; there's just no conversation to be had about the grave matter.

Besides, I don't know about you guys, but if grave matter were the only criteria, I'd have a daily appointment at the confessional.

Edited June 2, 2010 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

Is it useless to have a discussion about knowledge and consent in terms of mortal sin? Seems like if something can't be quoted word for word out of a catechism, you all don't want to delve into it.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='02 June 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1275522788' post='2122915']
Is it useless to have a discussion about knowledge and consent in terms of mortal sin? Seems like if something can't be quoted word for word out of a catechism, you all don't want to delve into it.
[/quote]

Most moral theologians I've read, when speaking of the gravity of sins in general (as opposed to particular instances of sins being committed by individuals), will refer to actions as being either mortally sinful or venially sinful. For example, as cited above, St. Thomas Aquinas says quite frankly that "Blasphemy is a mortal sin." From this, it can be seen that it is perfectly correct to say that "It is a mortal sin to murder someone" or "Adultery is mortally sinful." This is completely different from saying that "When Camillus killed Alexander, Camillus incurred the guilt of mortal sin on his soul" or that "Jane is now in the state of mortal sin because she cheated on her husband."

[LouisvilleFan]

Yet a lot of people do judge specific sins as mortal solely on the basis of its gravity. Keeping in mind that all grave sin needs to be confronted and eliminated regardless of circumstances, ignoring the role of knowledge and consent (especially in the habitual sins we seem to confess every time) makes for a poor examination of conscience that doesn't help a faithful Catholic increase in grace. While I see the practical necessity of regarding grave and mortal sin as virtually equivalent, pastorally I feel like we should take greater care to look at the context of the sin.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 June 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1275524336' post='2122926']
Most moral theologians I've read, when speaking of the gravity of sins in general (as opposed to particular instances of sins being committed by individuals), will refer to actions as being either mortally sinful or venially sinful. For example, as cited above, St. Thomas Aquinas says quite frankly that "Blasphemy is a mortal sin." From this, it can be seen that it is perfectly correct to say that "It is a mortal sin to murder someone" or "Adultery is mortally sinful." This is completely different from saying that "When Camillus killed Alexander, Camillus incurred the guilt of mortal sin on his soul" or that "Jane is now in the state of mortal sin because she cheated on her husband."
[/quote]

Yes. This is an important and often overlooked point.

[Luigi]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 June 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1275524336' post='2122926']
Most moral theologians I've read, when speaking of the gravity of sins in general (as opposed to particular instances of sins being committed by individuals), will refer to actions as being either mortally sinful or venially sinful. For example, as cited above, St. Thomas Aquinas says quite frankly that "Blasphemy is a mortal sin." From this, it can be seen that it is perfectly correct to say that "It is a mortal sin to murder someone" or "Adultery is mortally sinful." This is completely different from saying that "When Camillus killed Alexander, Camillus incurred the guilt of mortal sin on his soul" or that "Jane is now in the state of mortal sin because she cheated on her husband."
[/quote]

I always thought, when I read statements like, "Blasphemy is a mortal sin," that the writer (Aquinas or other) was assuming that the other two conditions (knowledge and will) were met; in other words, they were talking about the sin under normal circumstances - it sounds odd to talk about sin having 'normal circumstances,' but you know what I mean - the matter is grave, and for the sake of clarity we will assume that the person knows it and goes ahead anyway.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Luigi' date='02 June 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1275538990' post='2123027']
I always thought, when I read statements like, "Blasphemy is a mortal sin," that the writer (Aquinas or other) was assuming that the other two conditions (knowledge and will) were met; in other words, they were talking about the sin under normal circumstances - it sounds odd to talk about sin having 'normal circumstances,' but you know what I mean - the matter is grave, and for the sake of clarity we will assume that the person knows it and goes ahead anyway.
[/quote]
I believe that we generally talk about sin in the abstract. In an abstract sense the sin is mortal, but when we get into real life scenarios, there are two other factors that have to be considered... which is what Rexi said above anyway. "This is completely different from saying that "When Camillus killed Alexander, Camillus incurred the guilt of mortal sin on his soul" or that "Jane is now in the state of mortal sin because she cheated on her husband.""

Edited June 3, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='02 June 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1275529248' post='2122970']
While I see the practical necessity of regarding grave and mortal sin as virtually equivalent
[/quote]

Grave sin is completely synonymous with mortal sin, as I have shown above. The [i]Code of Canon Law[/i] states that the faithful "conscious of [i]grave[/i] sin" may not receive holy Communion. A sin of grave matter committed without full knowledge or deliberate consent is not a grave sin; rather, it is a venial sin.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Resurrexi

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='03 June 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1275539667' post='2123033']
Grave sin is completely synonymous with mortal sin, as I have shown above. The [i]Code of Canon Law[/i] states that the faithful "conscious of [i]grave[/i] sin" may not receive holy Communion. A sin of grave matter committed without full knowledge or deliberate consent is not a grave sin; rather, it is a venial sin.
[/quote]

Okay, I was under the impression that grave sin is simply a sin of grave matter, regardless of knowledge and consent. Seems like common sense... why have two words that mean exactly the same thing? I suppose in the Latin the distinction is more clear?

I happened across an article "Virtue and Vice" in this month's "Columbia" magazine by Bishop William Lori. He writes, "Mortal sins ... deprive us of sanctifying grace. If we fail to repent of them, we risk losing eternal life." It had been my understanding that mortal sin -- which only God can judge -- definitely causes the loss of eternal life, but he doesn't word it that way. One can lose sanctifying grace while still losing justification. The thing I've always struggled to "get" is how one can be expected to seek the sacrament of Reconciliation if they are totally cut off from grace, but a Catholic could have mortal sin on their soul and still be justified, so by that grace he would seek Reconciliation and restored to sanctifying grace.

[HisChildForever]

From what I understand, grave sin is not the same as mortal sin. One can commit grave sin without having full knowledge and/or full consent, and the sin is venial.

Edit: Or am I confusing "grave sin" with "grave matter"?

Edit again: I pretty much said what Rex just said. I think.

Edited June 6, 2010 by HisChildForever

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='06 June 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1275847543' post='2124643']
I happened across an article "Virtue and Vice" in this month's "Columbia" magazine by Bishop William Lori. He writes, "Mortal sins ... deprive us of sanctifying grace. If we fail to repent of them, we risk losing eternal life." It had been my understanding that mortal sin -- which only God can judge -- definitely causes the loss of eternal life, but he doesn't word it that way. One can lose sanctifying grace while still losing justification.[/quote]

Why do you think only God can judge mortal sin? Mortal sin is objective, as in Murder is a mortal sin. Maybe there are mitigating factors that can decrease culpability, but mortal sin remains mortal sin.

And my understanding has always been that a loss of sanctifying grace is a loss of justification.

[quote]The thing I've always struggled to "get" is how one can be expected to seek the sacrament of Reconciliation if they are totally cut off from grace[/quote]

They're not cut off from all grace, just the grace that sanctifies. Actual grace is still readily available, and it is the grace that makes us feel remorse for sin and motivates us to seek reconciliation.

[quote]but a Catholic could have mortal sin on their soul and still be justified, so by that grace he would seek Reconciliation and restored to sanctifying grace.
[/quote]

Mortal sin deprives a person of justification.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='06 June 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1275849050' post='2124655']
From what I understand, grave sin is not the same as mortal sin. One can commit grave sin without having full knowledge and/or full consent, and the sin is venial.

Edit: Or am I confusing "grave sin" with "grave matter"?

Edit again: I pretty much said what Rex just said. I think.
[/quote]

I think there is a fine distinction between a "grave sin" and a "sin of grave matter". "Grave sin" is completely synonymous to "mortal sin." On the other hand a "sin of grave matter" could either be a mortal sin/grave sin (if committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent), or it could be a venial sin (if not committed with full knowledge or deliberate consent.

Basically, there are only two categories of sins: mortal/grave and venial. A sin of grave matter is usually a mortal/grave sin, but, due to lack of knowledge or consent, it can sometimes be a venial sin.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='26 May 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1274844739' post='2117989']
I agree with you, Resurrexi, in that people shouldn't (under any circumstance I can possibly imagine) ever go to Communion in a state of Mortal Sin. My point was that what was said in this forum, (that the intention to confess is sufficient to be forgiven) is flawed.

However, it is not necessary to have perfect contrition to be forgiven of mortal sin. Very few people ever have perfect contrition throughout their lives. Imperfect contrition is sufficient. BUT - that doesn't mean they can then go to Communion - far from it. They should [i]try[/i] to make an act of perfect contrition, and then refrain from receiving Communion until they have gone first to Confession.
[/quote]

Oops responded to a dated post. Sorry!
What do you mean by imperfect contrition? You are either sorry or you are not! There are times when I wish I had never been born and been such a failure and an insult to God, but then he has a purpose for me which I must fulfil. How sorry do you need to be for being a sinner (human) for it to be considered perfect. Only God can attain perfection, man cannot, that's why he had to become human to show us how to deal with our imperfections.
One cannot place enough emphasis on the importance of the sacraments but there always has to be a loop hole for those grey area's. E.G. A person is dying, there is a minister of the Eucharist but no priest. Can the minister give the blessed host?

I've noted reference to taking communion in a grave state or whatever term you like to use and confession. But prior to the Eucharist "I confess to God almighty and to you here present that I have sinned...." Is this not considered a confession and one on one with priest is? We also say "I am not worthy to receive you..."If we are not worthy we must be in a state of sin.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Guest mintavia]

[quote name='mortify' date='24 May 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1274755690' post='2116963']
I wonder what grave reason would make the above said case justifiable.

So it looks like if it is permissible, it is under extraordinary circumstnace.
[/quote]

I guess you would recognize the reason if the conditions presented themselves. I trust God would be liberal with his mercy in a really odd cercumstance. Just because your girlfriend talked to long to you on the phone would not be a good enough reason...but say you were in a car accident and a priest was not available but a "eucharistic minister" could give you one last communion would be pretty extrodinary....or certain battle field situations might make for some funky senarios. Too many folks don't take this one seriously and end up recieving unworthily. GET your butt to confession! Do not let yourself linger in a state of mortal sin. You can avoid this whole problem by confessing often. My biggest gripe is the fact that our church has thousands of members and yet only half an hour on saturday afternoon to confess. While this is a pain ...it is still no excuse for not confessing regularly and often. Do not wait for those mortal sins either....confess those venial ones too! Confession is an awsome way to grow stronger. Do not neglect it. Which reminds me I am overdue!

[Guest mintavia]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='06 June 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1275863925' post='2124901']
Oops responded to a dated post. Sorry!
What do you mean by imperfect contrition? You are either sorry or you are not! There are times when I wish I had never been born and been such a failure and an insult to God, but then he has a purpose for me which I must fulfil. How sorry do you need to be for being a sinner (human) for it to be considered perfect. Only God can attain perfection, man cannot, that's why he had to become human to show us how to deal with our imperfections.
One cannot place enough emphasis on the importance of the sacraments but there always has to be a loop hole for those grey area's. E.G. A person is dying, there is a minister of the Eucharist but no priest. Can the minister give the blessed host?

I've noted reference to taking communion in a grave state or whatever term you like to use and confession. But prior to the Eucharist "I confess to God almighty and to you here present that I have sinned...." Is this not considered a confession and one on one with priest is? We also say "I am not worthy to receive you..."If we are not worthy we must be in a state of sin.
[/quote]

Imperfect contrition means that you fear Gods justice so you confess. While not Ideal it is still valid contrition. Perfect contrition means you are sorry because you hurt our Lords feelings.
No human save Our Lady is truly worthy to recieve...but Our Lord bids us to do it anyway. He desired it so much he died for us. Out of obediance and love we come to the alter...not because we are worthy.
Peace.