Mortal Sin Vs. Grave Sin

[Aloysius]

what question have I refused to answer??! I've answered every question you've posed to me, maybe not to your satisfaction but I've answered them.

anyone at all feel free to chime in and show me one objection hot stuff has made that I have not attempted to answer. please, show me what point I have ignored.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1802377' date='Mar 10 2009, 02:04 AM']the gravity and mortality of the sin is objective, because gravity and mortality are used synonymously by the Church. these sins are considered objectively mortal sins because they can kill grace in the soul.

you are correct to say, and I worded things slightly imprecisely (but still correctly as I did indeed hold that the sin was still mortal but only applied as venial for that person who committed it, but my post could go the other way too so it was imprecise) in my last post when I answered you, that the sin itself remains grave; it also remains mortal (used synonymously without distinction by the Church, you have yet to show the Church drawing a distinction though a source has been provided that says that the only distinction is the aspect of that thing focused on by the words)--because it can kill grace in the soul.

the sin is still mortal and it is imputed to the person as venial or else not at all depending upon the other factors. I stand by the definitions offered by the Catholic Dictionary, which DO say exactly what I'm saying and DO make more sense when all of those other sources are considered. most people here very clearly see that: different degrees of punishment in hell mean there must be different degrees of sins that send one to hell.

again, I understand why you attempt to make "grave sin" shorthand for "sin which has grave matter yet does not fulfill the other requirements of mortal sin" but there is no basis for that in Church teaching and you have extrapolated an elaborate distinction which goes so far as to say different grave sins have different degrees of seriousness while all mortal sins are equal, a ridiculous notion because grave sins ARE mortal sins and mortal sins ARE grave sins.


the gravity and mortality of the sin are objective. the intentionality decides whether in any given subjective case, it is imputed to the sinner as a mortal/grave or venial(synonymous terms with slightly different focuses) sin or as not a sin at all depending upon one's culpability for the sin.[/quote]


[quote name='hot stuff' post='1802384' date='Mar 10 2009, 02:09 AM']If that is true Al, then you should be able to cite the number and the paragraph which states what sins are mortal.

If mortal sins are objective then please list them according to the CCC. (I can list the grave sins)[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1804654' date='Mar 12 2009, 08:27 AM']So the sin itself is graver, but what about knowledge and consent? Does he address them anywhere?[/quote]

Since mortal sin is merely a sin of grave matter that is also a human act, maybe you sould look at the section of Summa on human acts: II-I Q. 6-21

[Aloysius]

[quote]If that is true Al, then you should be able to cite the number and the paragraph which states what sins are mortal.

If mortal sins are objective then please list them according to the CCC. (I can list the grave sins)[/quote]

and I responded that NO that was NOT true. that I recognize that when listing the various mortal sins, the Catechism uses the word "grave" because, as was explained on the first page of this thread, "grave" has the implication of the seriousness of the sin while "mortal" has the implication of the effects it has upon the sinner; so when the Catechism talks about them without reference to a subjective case, the Catechism makes use of the word grave, and when talking about them with reference to a subjective case, she makes use of the word mortal.

but if a grave sin as 1472 says makes us incapable of eternal life, how are not all grave sins mortal?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1802390' date='Mar 10 2009, 03:19 AM']the words are synonymously used in the Catechism, with a different emphasis. the term "grave sin" is used when discussing sins objectively because of its emphasis while the term "mortal sin" is used when discussing sins effects upon the sinner, because the word "mortal" refers to its effect upon the sinner while the word "grave" refers to its nature as a serious sin. when read through with the definitions provided in this thread by the Modern Catholic Dictionary, the Catechism makes complete sense and it is easily understood that mortal sins are grave sins and grave sins are mortal sins.[/quote]
THIS was my response to that. you see, I responded to your question by saying no, the Catechism does not list them in that way but that doesnt mean the words cannot be used in that way, as they are used by many theologians not the least of which is Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., author of the Modern Catholic Dictionary earlier cited and contributer to the Catechism itself.

just because a response does not follow the way you want it to follow doesn't mean it's not a response. I'll accept anything that tries to explain the Catechism paragraphs I asked you about no matter which direction that explanation goes as a response even though I may disagree with it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

there was some good points earlier in the thread about "lack of meeting all criteria for a mortal sin could be called a grave sin"
if it's not mortal, i suppose it would be venial?
it looks like the debate is more complicated than i initially thought.

but, other than that, it's all semantics. i don't thik people really disagree with a whole lot of substance.
al has a point about "incapable of eternal life", there's a point abou t"grave offense" could slimly plausibly mean not "grave sin".
at the level of explanation these documents gave, reading things into them as i said is just semantics or bickering, unless it's leading to a higher understanding of the issues.
semantics, or as is a good word in this case, 'dicta', cauase it's not something that should be rested upon when impliations are all over the place and the words themselves were not fully thought through or meant to be leading one all over the place. the articles are what they are, their points have been made, and the issues at the edges are okay to speculate about, but is mostly semantics if the debate lasts all that long and focuses on terminology.
if a pope clarified it, the substance woudln't change, only the terminology would be cleared up. this illustrates why it's pointless to argue about dicta/semantics etc.

Edited March 13, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[reyb]

.......

Edited April 9, 2009 by reyb