quote from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/
To cease to adhere to God as our final end and to cease giving ourselves to Him for His own sake, is to commit mortal sin. That can be expressed in different kinds of mortal sins (e.g. murder, adultery, etc.) but it is what makes a mortal sin a mortal sin, namely, that in committing this act, with full knowledge and complete consent, we are choosing to make ourselves our final end, and act not out of love for God as our final end, but for ourselves. And no man can serve two masters. Hence no man can love himself as his highest end, and love God as his highest end. To choose to make oneself one’s own god, is to vanquish charity from the soul.and here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-7/
Venial sin, by contrast, is sin in which, though God remains our final end whom we love for His sake, our action deviates from the means by which to attain that end. We can experience this distinction even in ordinary friendships, where there is a difference between an act that hurts the friend but in which the offender still loves the other person, and an act which makes it clear that the person does not love the other person — and this sort of act destroys the friendship. See the section titled “Some Sins do not Incur the Debt of Eternal Punishment” in “Aquinas and Trent: Part 5 for a bit more on the distinction between mortal and venial sin, as well as comment #58 in the “St. Augustine on faith without love” thread.
I hope that helps clarify the distinction between mortal and venial sin
Mortal sin removes agape from the soul; venial sin does not. That’s because in mortal sin the sinner directly chooses something else over God as his last end. By contrast, the person committing venial sin still loves God more than himself, and still seeks God as his final end, but chooses something other than the best path by which to attain to God. Even the saints sinned venially every day (the Blessed Mother excepted). So, if the sign held by the person in the cartoon above is referring to venial sin, then it is true that the baptized person remains a sinner. But even so, it is not that Christ’s righteousness hides or covers his venial sin. God sees every venial sin. But He sees it as venial, as still coming from a heart that loves Him above all else. And so He sees it with mercy, not wrath. Yet if the sign in the cartoon is referring to mortalsin, then the cartoon is heretical, because then it is affirming the second error condemned in this fifth paragraph of the Fifth Session of Trent.
The reason why it is impossible to be simultaneously in a state of mortal sin, and justified, is because God cannot lie. God can only count as righteous that which is actually inherently righteous. That’s because the relational problem between man and God necessarily depends upon the internal condition of man. As St. Thomas said, “But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also.”42 In other words, so long as man is turned away from God, and without agape, the debt of sin remains, because the cause of that debt remains. God does not only look at the outside of man; He looks at the heart, and is related to man according to the condition of the man’s heart.43 If a man has sanctifying grace and agape in his soul, then his relation with God is one of friendship and he is justified, and the God who cannot lie cannot claim that he is unjust. But if a man does not have sanctifying grace and agape, then he is not a friend of God, and the God who cannot lie cannot say that he is just, without first making him just in his soul.
end of quote
James 2 :10 How ties in with venial and mortal sin?
The role of agape in fulfilling the law allows for a principled difference between violations of the law that are incompatible with agape and violations of the law that are compatible with agape. And that is precisely what differentiates mortal and venial sins, respectively. Because agape fulfills the law (Rom 13:8,10; Gal 5:14), there is a distinction between sins that go against agape, and sins that fall short of the perfect expression of agape but do not go against agape. In this way differences in the condition of the heart from which a disordered action comes, with respect to agape, allow for a principled difference between mortal and venial sins. But if one approaches the question of sin only from the point of view of the letter of the law, one cannot see the basis for any such distinction.
Calvin thinks that James 2:10 supports his position. “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” (James 2:10) He likewise takes “the soul that sins, it shall die” (Ez. 18:20) as supporting his position. But the Catholic understanding of these verses is that they are about mortal sin, and it would be question-begging to hang the justification for a schism on the assumption that there is no such thing as venial sin, and that St. Augustine et al were wrong about the existence of venial sin.
The passage in James would not make sense if it were not indirectly referring to some principle that underlies the law, namely, agape. How does a person who steals thereby violate all the other commands of the law? He does so by going against the agape that fulfills the whole law. And therefore the kind of violation of the law in view here in this verse is best understood as one that is contrary to agape. If we go ‘behind’ the law to see the role that agape is playing in the fulfillment of the law, then instead of making righteousness equivalent to fulfilling the letter, we can see righteousness as the fulfillment of the spirit, even when we fall short in the letter
from http://catholichome.webs.com/faq.htm below
Where does the Catholic Church get this concept of Mortal Sin?
The concept of mortal sin has been an integral part of the Christian message since the very beginning. Literally dozens of passages in the New Testament proclaim it a fearful reality, and these biblical teachings were fully accepted by, and indeed expounded upon, by the early Church Fathers.
It was not until the time of John Calvin that anyone would claim that it was impossible for a true Christian to lose his salvation. That teaching, which was not even shared by Martin Luther and his followers, was a theological novelty of the mid-sixteenth century, a teaching which would have been condemned as a dangerous heresy by all previous generations of Christians. It would drive people to the despair of thinking that, if they had committed grave sins, they had never been true Christians. Further, they would suffer similar anxiety over any subsequent conversion, since their first would not have been genuine, according to this teaching. Or it would drive them into thinking that their grave sins were really not grave at all, for no true Christian could have committed such sins.
In time the "once saved, always saved" teaching even degenerated in many Evangelical circles to the point that some would claim that a Christian could commit grave sins and still remain saved: sin did not injure his relationship with God at all.
Fortunately, most Christians today reject Calvin’s error, acknowledging that there are at least some mortal sins—sins which kill the spiritual life of the soul and deprive a person of salvation, unless he repents. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals—all acknowledge the possibility of mortal sin at least in some form. Only Presbyterians, Baptists, and those who have been influenced by these two sects reject the reality of mortal sin.
The early Church Fathers, of course, were unanimous in teaching the reality of mortal sin. They had to embrace the doctrine of mortal sin precisely because they recognized not only the salvific power of baptism but also the damning power of certain serious sins. The Church taught that "baptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21; see the Catholic Answers tracts Baptismal Grace and Born of Water and the Spirit). However, since during the persecutions some baptized people denied Christ, and since Christ taught that "whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:33), the Church Fathers recognized that it was possible to lose the grace of salvation after baptism.
The idea that one could never lose salvation would have been unimaginable to them, since it was evident from the Bible that baptism saves, that the baptized can deny Christ, and that those who deny Christ will not be saved unless they repent, as did Peter. It was equally unthinkable to predestinarian thinkers, such as Augustine, who, just two years before he died, taught in his book The Gift of Perseverance that not all who were predestined to come to God’s grace were predestined to remain with him until glory. This was, in fact, the teaching of all the high predestinarians (Augustine, Fulgentius, Aquinas, Luther)—until the time of Calvin.
The Didache
Keep watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time" (Didache 16 [A.D. 70]).
Hermas
"And as many of them . . . as have repented, shall have their dwelling in the tower [i.e., the Church]. And those of them who have been slower in repenting shall dwell within the walls. And as many as do not repent at all, but abide in their deeds, shall utterly perish. . . . But if any one relapse into strife, he will be cast out of the tower, and will lose his life. Life is the possession of all who keep the commandments of the Lord" (The Shepherd 3:8:7 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"And pray without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God?" (Letter to the Ephesians 10 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"Eternal fire was prepared for him who voluntarily departed from God and for all who, without repentance, persevere in apostasy" (fragment in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:26 [A.D. 156]).
Irenaeus
To Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ [Phil. 2:10–11] to him, and that he should execute just judgment towards all. . . . The ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men shall go into everlasting fire; but he may, in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning of their Christian course, and others from the date of their penance, and may surround them with everlasting glory" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"Regarding confession, some flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness" (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
"Discipline governs a man, power sets a seal upon him; apart from the fact that power is the Spirit, but the Spirit is God. What, moreover, used the Spirit to teach? That there must be no communicating with the works of darkness. Observe what he bids. Who, moreover, was able to forgive sins? This is his alone prerogative: for ‘who remits sins but God alone?’ and, of course, who but he can remit mortal sins, such as have been committed against himself and against his temple?" (Modesty 21 [A.D. 220]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord" (The Lapsed 28 [A.D. 251]).
Basil the Great
"The clergyman who is deposed for mortal sin shall not be excommunicated" (Canonical Letter, canon 32 [A.D. 374]).
Pacian of Barcelona
"Stinginess is remedied by generosity, insult by apology, perversity by honesty, and for whatever else, amends can be made by practice of the opposite. But what can he do who is contemptuous of God? What shall the murderer do? What remedy shall the fornicator find? . . . These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal. Someone may say: ‘Are we then about to perish? . . . Are we to die in our sins?’ . . . I appeal first to you brethren who refuse penance for your acknowledged crimes. You, I say, who are timid after your impudence, who are bashful after your sins, who are not ashamed to sin but now are ashamed to confess" (Sermon Exhorting to Penance 4 [A.D. 385]).
Jerome
"There are venial sins and there are mortal sins. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe but a farthing. We shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery. But to be made to blush and to be tortured are not the same thing; not the same thing to grow red in the face and to be in agony for a long time. . . . If we entreat for lesser sins we are granted pardon, but for greater sins, it is difficult to obtain our request. There is a great difference between one sin and another" (Against Jovinian 2:30 [A.D. 393]).
Augustine
"Nothing could have been devised more likely to instruct and benefit the pious reader of sacred Scripture than that, besides describing praiseworthy characters as examples, and blameworthy characters as warnings, it should also narrate cases where good men have gone back and fallen into evil, whether they are restored to the right path or continue irreclaimable; and also where bad men have changed, and have attained to goodness, whether they persevere in it or relapse into evil; in order that the righteous may be not lifted up in the pride of security, nor the wicked hardened in despair of cure" (Against Faustus 22:96 [A.D. 400]).
"Although they were living well, they have not persevered therein; because they have of their own will been changed from a good to an evil life, and on that account are worthy of rebuke; and if rebuke should be of no avail to them, and they should persevere in their ruined life until death, they are also worthy of divine condemnation forever. Neither shall they excuse themselves, saying—as now they say, ‘Why are we rebuked?’—so then, ‘Why are we condemned, since indeed, that we might return from good to evil, we did not receive that perseverance by which we should abide in good?’ They shall by no means deliver themselves by this excuse from righteous condemnation. . . . since it may be said, ‘O man, in that which you have heard and kept, in that you might persevere if you want’" (Admonition and Grace 11 [A.D. 426]).
"But those who do not belong to the number of the predestined . . . are judged most justly according to their deserts. For either they lie under sin which they contracted originally by their generation and go forth from this life with that hereditary debt which was not forgiven by regeneration baptism, or if it was forgiven by regeneration they have added others besides through free choice: choice, I say, free; but not freed. . . . Or they receive God’s grace, but they are temporal and do not persevere; they abandon it and are abandoned. For by free will, since they have not received the gift of perseverance, they are sent away in God’s just and hidden judgment" (ibid., 13).
"Of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. . . . had not both been called and followed him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men, and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration?" (The Gift of Perseverance 9:21 [A.D. 428]).
Caesarius of Arles
"Although the apostle Paul has mentioned many grievous sins, we, nevertheless, lest we seem to promote despair, will state briefly what they are. Sacrilege, murder, adultery, false witness, theft, robbery, pride, envy, avarice, and, if it is of long standing, anger, drunkenness, if it is persistent, and slander are reckoned in their number. Or if anyone knows that these sins dominate him, if he does not do penance worthily and for a long time, if such time is given him . . . he cannot be purged in that transitory fire of which the apostle spoke [1 Cor. 3:11–15], but the eternal flames will torture him without any remedy. But since the lesser sins are, of course, known to all, and it would take too long to mention them all, it will be necessary for us only to name some of them. . . . There is no doubt that these and similar deeds belong to the lesser sins which, as I said before, can scarcely be counted, and from which not only all Christian people, but even all the saints could not and cannot always be free. We do not, of course, believe that the soul is killed by these sins, but still they make it ugly by covering it as if with some kind of pustules and, as it were, with horrible scabs" (Sermons 179[104]:2 [A.D. 522]).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004 Catholic Answers Library
from http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=249176 In answer to the question does the Holy Spirit leave us when we commit Mortal sin?
Some answers:
Yes. Mortal sin results in a loss of sanctifying grace, which is the life of God in our soul (see Catechism of the Catholic Church #1861 http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm ).1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
God is eager to return to our souls after we sin. That is why He sometimes sends us actual graces (different from sanctifying grace), special graces we need for specific situations — in this case, the grace that urges us to repent of our sins and go to confession.
Re: Does the Holy Spirit leave us when we commit mortal sin?
However, the Catholic Encyc, in an article on judgement, says that AFTER we commit mortal sin, God spiritually blinds us by witholding His grace, so that we will pursue the created good unto its completion and find it wanting. Then, as the soul realizes that the created good cannot of itself fully satisfy the longings of his will, God floods the sinner with actual grace to say, "Now do you see that only I can fill the void."
The prodigal son is like this. Does the father run after the boy and plead with him to return all down the road? No, he just lets him go. Why? Because the boy has made up his mind, and the father, in heartbreak, realizes that only by allowing the boy to end in ruin will he be able to bring him back.
Hence, as the boy is enjoying the women and gambling, his thoughts are not on the father. But when the inheritance is exhausted and the famine comes, THEN the boy considers the futility of this world and, moved by grace, hastens to return and ask for mercy.
There was a wonderful guest on the Journey Home who exemplified this teaching: he was on a hospital bed for drug rehab and pondering on how he had experienced everything this world has to offer: a biker, partied with Led Zeppelin, the drugs, the sex, you name it. And he was in an utter emptiness. It was not enough.
And so he prayed to God to show him just one verse to speak to him, and opened the Scriptures. And he opened to I believe Galatians and read words that surely were predestined to speak unto him by the Spirit: "For do not be deceived, neither slanderers, nor drunkards, nor fornnicators, nor theives, etc..... shall inherit the kingdom of God." And he swore that practically every sin named he was guilty of supremely.
And so it hit him: not only is their emptiness in this life with such revelry, but there is eternal emptiness in the next life.
By the grace of God, he is a Catholic monk today. A changed man.
It truly shows that God must withold the grace of conversion until the moments when the soul can hear of the created good it seeks above all, "it is not enough." until then, he must leave the sinner to exhaust the created good. "And hence, spiritually blind the sinner."
This is the authentic meaning of "and God hardened Pharoe's heart," contrary to Calvin's assertion that man is not free. Man is free. God simply witholds the grace for a later time.
The prodigal son is like this. Does the father run after the boy and plead with him to return all down the road? No, he just lets him go. Why? Because the boy has made up his mind, and the father, in heartbreak, realizes that only by allowing the boy to end in ruin will he be able to bring him back.
Hence, as the boy is enjoying the women and gambling, his thoughts are not on the father. But when the inheritance is exhausted and the famine comes, THEN the boy considers the futility of this world and, moved by grace, hastens to return and ask for mercy.
There was a wonderful guest on the Journey Home who exemplified this teaching: he was on a hospital bed for drug rehab and pondering on how he had experienced everything this world has to offer: a biker, partied with Led Zeppelin, the drugs, the sex, you name it. And he was in an utter emptiness. It was not enough.
And so he prayed to God to show him just one verse to speak to him, and opened the Scriptures. And he opened to I believe Galatians and read words that surely were predestined to speak unto him by the Spirit: "For do not be deceived, neither slanderers, nor drunkards, nor fornnicators, nor theives, etc..... shall inherit the kingdom of God." And he swore that practically every sin named he was guilty of supremely.
And so it hit him: not only is their emptiness in this life with such revelry, but there is eternal emptiness in the next life.
By the grace of God, he is a Catholic monk today. A changed man.
It truly shows that God must withold the grace of conversion until the moments when the soul can hear of the created good it seeks above all, "it is not enough." until then, he must leave the sinner to exhaust the created good. "And hence, spiritually blind the sinner."
This is the authentic meaning of "and God hardened Pharoe's heart," contrary to Calvin's assertion that man is not free. Man is free. God simply witholds the grace for a later time.
another answer:
Originally Posted by DaveBj
If the Holy Spirit leaves me when I commit a mortal sin, then who is it that beats me up until I hie myself to Confession?
DaveBj |
Even when He is not dwelling within you, He still pursues you."
also about the Spirit: "New Advent - Summa Theologica
The Existence of God in Things
I answer that, God is said to be in a thing in two ways; in one way after the manner of an efficient cause; and thus He is in all things created by Him; in another way he is in things as the object of operation is in the operator; and this is proper to the operations of the soul, according as the thing known is in the one who knows; and the thing desired in the one desiring. In this second way God is especially in the rational creature which knows and loves Him actually or habitually. And because the rational creature possesses this prerogative by grace, as will be shown later (12). He is said to be thus in the saints bygrace."
also on Mortal sin:
Pope John Paul II teaches authoritatively the constant dogma of the Church that any mortal sin merits eternal damnation:
In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made a ‘free self-commitment to God.’ With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8–11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses ‘sanctifying grace,’ ‘charity’ and ‘eternal happiness.’ (John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, art. 68)
When does gossip become grave enough to be considered a mortal sin?
Answer
Unless the matter under discussion is a common news item, when someone’s gossip negatively alters the opinion another has regarding a third person, one has committed a grave action. If it is done with full knowledge and deliberate consent, the grave action then becomes a mortal sin. Gossip is a far more serious matter than most of us like to consider.
Mortal versus Venial Sin
A serious, grave or mortal sin is the knowing and willful violation of God's law in a serious matter, for example, idolatry, adultery, murder, slander. These are all things gravely contrary to the love we owe God and, because of Him, our neighbor. As Jesus taught, when condemning even looking at a woman lustfully, sin can be both interior (choices of the will alone) or exterior (choices of the will carried into action). A man who willfully desires to fornicate, steal, murder or some other grave sin, has already seriously offended God by choosing interiorly what God has prohibited.
Mortal sin is called mortal because it is the "spiritual" death of the soul (separation from God). If we are in the state of grace it loses this supernatural life for us. If we die without repenting we will lose Him for eternity. However, by turning our hearts back to Him and receiving the Sacrament of Penance we are restored to His friendship. Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion if they have unconfessed mortal sins.
Venial sins are slight sins. They do not break our friendship with God, although they injure it. They involve disobedience of the law of God in slight (venial) matters. If we gossip and destroy a person's reputation it would be a mortal sin. However, normally gossip is about trivial matters and only venially sinful. Additionally, something that is otherwise a mortal sin (e.g. slander) may be in a particular case only a venial sin. The person may have acted without reflection or under force of habit. Thus, not fully intending the action their guilt before God is reduced. It is always good to remember, especially those who are trying to be faithful but sometimes fall, that for mortal sin it must not only be 1) serious matter, but 2) the person must know it is serious and then 3) freely commit it.
These two categories of sin are explicitly to be found in Sacred Scripture. In the Old Covenant there were sins that merited the death penalty and sins that could be expiated by an offering. This Law was a teacher that prepared the way for the faith (Gal. 3:24). In the New Covenant these material categories are replaced by spiritual ones, natural death by eternal death. There are thus daily faults for which we must daily ask forgiveness (Mt. 6:12), for even the "just man falls seven times a day" (Prov. 24:16), and mortal faults that separate the sinner from God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) for all eternity.
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
Good article here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/euxaristpenc.HTM
from here
165 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/the-witness-of-the-lost-christianities
He is referring to a pattern of sin.
No, he is not. Have you read Origen’s commentary on Romans?
He couldn’t be saying that if you commit a sin you don’t believe because he would be rejecting 1 John 1:9 which says if you say you have no sin you make God a liar and His truth is not in you.
This is an example of imposing your own (contemporary) assumption on both Origen and the text of Scripture, so as to reach a conclusion. You assume (implicitly) that there is no distinction between mortal and venial sin, and then impose that assumption on the text in order to deduce that it must be about a “pattern” of sin. The patristic way of understanding this, however, distinguishes betweenmortal and venial sin. Origen is speaking about sin proper, i.e. mortal sin, not about “patterns” of sin.
Believers don’t practice sin, but we sin allot.
And you would have us believe that all those sins are so random that there are no patterns. The merely semantic and unprincipled distinction between practice/pattern of sin on the one hand, and “allot” of sinning on the other hand, is a Protestant invention, not a patristic teaching.
Because of its list-paradigm approach to righteousness, Reformed theology has no way of distinguishing between mortal and venial sin, as I have explained here.
This quote of Origen’s is completely consistent with the reformed position. He says right away, ” by faith, having been justified.” 5:1
The problematic part for Reformed theology is not the “by faith, having been justified,” which we all affirm. The problematic part is what he teaches about the relation between justifying faith and sin, and its utter incompatibility with simul iustus et peccator.
from an answer to a question comment 48 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/11/why-john-calvin-did-not-recognize-the-distinction-between-mortal-and-venial-sin/
When a person commits a mortal sin, he thereby drives the Holy Spirit from himself, in the sense of losing communion with the Holy Spirit. Though the Holy Spirit continues to draw and move his soul, he remains without the indwelling communion of the Holy Spirit until he is reconciled to God either through implicit desire for the sacrament of reconciliation with perfect contrition, or through receiving the sacrament of reconciliation.
No comments:
Post a Comment