Mortal Sin Vs. Grave Sin

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1802403' date='Mar 10 2009, 03:35 AM']No, but it does use the term "mortal sin" to refer to an objective action, meaning that one can say that "murder is a mortal sin" and not have to add "if one has full knowledge and deliberate consent."[/quote]
well, no, actually it doesn't. it said whoever did X sinned mortally, and it pretty much defines X including the three conditions. but it certainly is operating under the principal that X is to be called out as a "mortal sin" and warned against because it can send one to hell, hence it is mortal.

[Aloysius]

CCC 1472 says "...Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life..."

if a sin of grave matter is not mortal because it does not meet the other two criteria is called a "grave sin", then why does the CCC say that "grave sins" make us "incapable of eternal life"?

"mortal" is used to refer to a sin because it kills your eternal life, basically... so why are "grave sins" said to do what seemingly only "mortal sins" should do?

[Jaime]

[quote]show me where the Catechism says "if a sin has grave matter but the other conditions are not met, it is a grave sin, but if a sin has grave matter and the other conditions are met, it is a mortal sin"[/quote]

I've done that twice Al

Think about it logically and look at the order of the criteria for mortal sin.

Grave matter
full knowledge
willingness

According to the Church the sin has to meet the first criteria (masturbation, missing church, murder, etc) There is an objective list. If I know smacking you with a fish is a sin and I do it willfully. Its still not mortal because hitting Al with a fish is not a sin with grave matter. If the fish weighs two tons and it kills you, then we're in business.

Then we move to #2 But if the person doesn't know its a sin, you don't move to number three. But then according to you, it no longer meets the first criteria.

So if you were correct in your assessment that mortal means the exact same thing as grave. The first criteria should be the third.

And the bishops are smart enough to figure that one out.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1802405' date='Mar 10 2009, 02:39 AM']well, no, actually it doesn't. it said whoever did X sinned mortally, and it pretty much defines X including the three conditions. but it certainly is operating under the principal that X is to be called out as a "mortal sin" and warned against because it can send one to hell, hence it is mortal.[/quote]


Yes, now that I think about it you're right now. But as we are talking about ecclesiastical documents, its interesting to not that the Council of Trent says "from this it is gathered [b]that all mortal sins of which they have knowledge after a careful self-examination must be enumerated in confession by the penitents[/b], even though they are most secret and have been committed only against the two last precepts of the decalogue " where the Code of Canon Law says "[b]the faithful are bound to confess, in kind and in number, all grave sins committed after baptism, of which after careful examination of conscience they are aware[/b], which have not yet been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in an individual confession."

Is it just me, or is the Church using "grave sin" interchangeably with "mortal sin"?

Edited March 10, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Aloysius]

ressurexi, I think you mean synonymously with mortal sin. haha

hot stuff, could you explain this:
[quote name='Aloysius' post='1802408' date='Mar 10 2009, 03:43 AM']CCC 1472 says "...Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life..."

if a sin of grave matter is not mortal because it does not meet the other two criteria is called a "grave sin", then why does the CCC say that "grave sins" make us "incapable of eternal life"?

"mortal" is used to refer to a sin because it kills your eternal life, basically... so why are "grave sins" said to do what seemingly only "mortal sins" should do?[/quote]
?


according to the Church, when an individual is committing a sin, the question of whether it is mortal to him comes down to those three criteria. however, according to the Church, all grave sins are sins which send people to hell... why is this? because "grave sin" means "mortal sin"; one is used to refer to

and the bishops are smart enough to figure THIS out, IMO. you're the one always saying "why doesn't the Catechism enumerate it out that way?" it goes both ways.

[Resurrexi]

Yes, you're right again, I'll edit my post accordingly.

I'm up way too late. I need to sleep.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Resurrexi

[rkwright]

I want to throw this back in here, because it seems to be overlooked

CCC 1862

One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or [i][b]when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. [/b][/i]

This part of the CCC explicitly says that a sin of a grave matter without full knowledge or consent is a VENIAL sin. It is NOT a grave sin.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1802258' date='Mar 10 2009, 01:04 AM']According to St. Thomas Aquinas unbelief, and heresy is a kind of unbelief, BTW, (cf. Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 11, Art. 1) is a graver even than murder (cf. Summa Theologiae II-I, Q. 73, Art. 3).[/quote]

I've got a hunch that Aquinas cannot be reduced to sound bites.

You saw what happened when the global media did that to Pope Benedict at Regensburg.

[Resurrexi]

If you would have actually gone to the Summa to see what I was citing, maybe you would have seen that it wasn't just a sound bite!

'Article 1. Whether heresy is a species of unbelief?

Objection 1. It would seem that heresy is not a species of unbelief. For unbelief is in the understanding, as stated above (Question 10, Article 2). Now heresy would seem not to pertain to the understanding, but rather to the appetitive power; for Jerome says on Galatians 5:19: [Cf. Decretals xxiv, qu. iii, cap. 27 "The works of the flesh are manifest: Heresy is derived from a Greek word meaning choice, whereby a man makes choice of that school which he deems best." But choice is an act of the appetitive power, as stated above (I-II, 13, 1). Therefore heresy is not a species of unbelief.

Objection 2. Further, vice takes its species chiefly from its end; hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that "he who commits adultery that he may steal, is a thief rather than an adulterer." Now the end of heresy is temporal profit, especially lordship and glory, which belong to the vice of pride or covetousness: for Augustine says (De Util. Credendi i) that "a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others." Therefore heresy is a species of pride rather than of unbelief.

Objection 3. Further, since unbelief is in the understanding, it would seem not to pertain to the flesh. Now heresy belongs to the works of the flesh, for the Apostle says (Galatians 5:19): "The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness," and among the others, he adds, "dissensions, sects," which are the same as heresies. Therefore heresy is not a species of unbelief.

On the contrary, Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief.

I answer that, The word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing. Now choice as stated above (I-II, 13, 3) is about things directed to the end, the end being presupposed. Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (Question 4, Article 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end.

Now, whoever believes, assents to someone's words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine.

Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.

Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.

Reply to Objection 1. Choice regards unbelief in the same way as the will regards faith, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2. Vices take their species from their proximate end, while, from their remote end, they take their genus and cause. Thus in the case of adultery committed for the sake of theft, there is the species of adultery taken from its proper end and object; but the ultimate end shows that the act of adultery is both the result of the theft, and is included under it, as an effect under its cause, or a species under its genus, as appears from what we have said about acts in general (I-II, 18, 7). Wherefore, as to the case in point also, the proximate end of heresy is adherence to one's own false opinion, and from this it derives its species, while its remote end reveals its cause, viz. that it arises from pride or covetousness.

Reply to Objection 3. Just as heresy is so called from its being a choosing [From the Greek airein [hairein], to cut off], so does sect derive its name from its being a cutting off [secando], as Isidore states (Etym. viii, 3). Wherefore heresy and sect are the same thing, and each belongs to the works of the flesh, not indeed by reason of the act itself of unbelief in respect of its proximate object, but by reason of its cause, which is either the desire of an undue end in which way it arises from pride or covetousness, as stated in the second objection, or some illusion of the imagination (which gives rise to error, as the Philosopher states in Metaph. iv; Ed. Did. iii, 5), for this faculty has a certain connection with the flesh, in as much as its act is independent on a bodily organ.' (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 11)

Edited March 10, 2009 by Resurrexi

[LouisvilleFan]

Are you getting this from Reply to Objection 2? I'm not seeing your consclusion from what Aquinas wrote.

[Resurrexi]

No, that was just one of two references of Summa that I quoted. That was St. Thomas' argument that heresy is a kind of unbelief. The following was St. Thomas' argument that the gravity of sins vary according to their object (the part about sins directed against God, such as unbelief, being graver than those against man, such as murder, can be found under "I answer that"):

[url="http://newadvent.org/summa/2073.htm#article3"]http://newadvent.org/summa/2073.htm#article3[/url]

Edited March 11, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Jaime]

You know the grave vs mortal sin debate is really not worth any more time and energy. Al, if you want to interchange them, fine by me. It's a semantical argument that, in the end, doesn't add anything to the world.

However, to say that (as the poll says) mortal sin can be "objective" (murder is a mortal sin) is untrue and not semantic. This belief is in error.

For mortal sin to occur, three conditions must be present. Therefore it is conditional not objective. Murder can be a mortal sin but is not always. Abortion can be a mortal sin but is not always.

[Aloysius]

I can respect that, though I think the difference in our semantics is a big part of how we differ on the larger argument of if mortal sins can have varying degrees, which then becomes a big part of how we tend to differ on debates about homosexuality, for instance. this debate is at the root of many of the disagreements I've ever had with you on these phorums.

I would still like to know how the following two CCC quotes fit your understanding of "grave sin" as a sin which is not necessarily mortal

CCC 1472 says ...Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life...

since only a mortal sin could deprive us of communion with God and make us incapable of eternal life

and then:
CCC 1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

whereas you have explained that this type of sin fits your defintion of a "grave" sin, which CCC 1472 says is the opposite of venial sin.

perhaps I should just let it go, but I really would like to know what your response is to that. if you would like to stick by the statement that the debate has no point, then that is fine.

in response to your last point: murder is a mortal sin in general, but can be a venial sin for an individual subjectively. that way of speaking works equally as good and is perfectly in line with the Catechism.

[Jaime]

The way the poll is worded is not in line with the Catechism

and honestly Al, I don't care if you want to call mortal sins grave sins. I do think its interesting that you want me to continue to answer questions when you've refused to. I think that's bad form and it makes me care less about actually following up on this particular debate.

mortal sins are not objectively decided.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1803932' date='Mar 11 2009, 05:53 PM']No, that was just one of two references of Summa that I quoted. That was St. Thomas' argument that heresy is a kind of unbelief. The following was St. Thomas' argument that the gravity of sins vary according to their object (the part about sins directed against God, such as unbelief, being graver than those against man, such as murder, can be found under "I answer that"):

[url="http://newadvent.org/summa/2073.htm#article3"]http://newadvent.org/summa/2073.htm#article3[/url][/quote]

So the sin itself is graver, but what about knowledge and consent? Does he address them anywhere?