Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on April 15, 2024, 08:44:05 PM
-
To be more clear pertaining to my situation, I have been attending the SSPX for around two years as this point. Before then, I attended the new mass. I have been to the Novus Ordo for confession many times, yet I am now scrupulous that those confessions may have been invalid.
Now this isn’t for any particular reason, as in, I believe the correct form, matter, and words were present during the sacrament, but that I am scrupulous based on the sole fact that my absolution came from a Priest within the Novus Ordo.
Fr. McFarland of the SSPX does ease my conscious on this topic, after ensuring that the ordinations in the New Rite ARE indeed valid according to him in a video (Crisis Series #39) put up by the SSPX YouTube channel. Though I trust Fr. McFarland's opinion on the subject (in reference to the validity of their ordinations), the worry is still there.
The sins I've confessed are many, and frankly extremely embarrassing, and the thought of having to confess them again makes me sick. I feel like it'd be similar to another first confession for me.
If I’m worried, should I just re-confess my sins anyways?
Should I stop being so scrupulous and put my faith in God?
Should I not focus on it so much because, regardless of if those confessions were invalid (which I have no idea about) all of my sins have been forgiven at my last confession with a Traditional Priest anyways?
If I believe my absolutions were valid, yet it turns out they weren't, does any fault really fall on me?
Any answers would be great.
-
If you really believed that the Novus Ordo priests are valid, we wouldn't be talking, right?
In my opinion, the Novus Ordo orders are doubtful and not unquestionably invalid. In this case, I don't think that we are bound to reconfess our sins.
-
My opinion is that new rites are doubtful so you are correct in having some anxiety. You could just do a general confession to a Trad priest. You wouldn’t have to reconfess things specifically but could be more general.
But only do this if you’re going to stop new rite confessions completely, from now on.
-
If you really believed that the Novus Ordo priests are valid, we wouldn't be talking, right?
In my opinion, the Novus Ordo orders are doubtful and not unquestionably invalid. In this case, I don't think that we are bound to reconfess our sins.
This, OP the new rite for BISHOPS is doubtful, and doubtful sacraments are to be considered invalid, hence all the Novus Ordo priests should also be considered invalid.
-
Should I risk my soul or not?
No-brainer.
-
If it were me, I would re-confess, just as if the NO priest was not a priest regardless of whatever anyone else says about NO ordinations being valid. They brought this doubt on themselves, we did not.
Confessing one's sins to the priest is not meant to be a pleasant experience because you must really humble yourself to do it. The priest (who is also a sinner) is himself edified by a good confession.
-
This, OP the new rite for BISHOPS is doubtful, and doubtful sacraments are to be considered invalid, hence all the Novus Ordo priests should also be considered invalid.
That is exaggerated. There are still Novus Ordo priests around, usually retired, who were ordained before 1968. Very few bishops are still alive who were consecrated before 1968.
-
That is exaggerated. There are still Novus Ordo priests around, usually retired, who were ordained before 1968. Very few bishops are still alive who were consecrated before 1968.
Right, but there are fewer and fewer, and so it's likely that OP confessed to one of these types.
This is certainly a complicated question.
I've come to the conclusion that there's some gray area here between positive and negative doubt, between subjective and objective doubt. If I personally hold that there's positive doubt, but many priests out there hold that there isn't, I feel that the doubt is in some gray area between negative and positive, between subjective and objective ... i.e. since there's disagreement out there among Traditional Catholics, objectively speaking, rendering the doubt (try to follow) ...
subjectively objective but objectively subjective :laugh1:.
In other words, I personally hold that there's objective positive doubt, but objectively speaking there's disagreemnet about it, making it objectively subjective (i.e. it's my opinion that's not shared by others).
While you could just submit to Fr. McFarland's opinion (or that of your SSPX confessor), you personally might continue to have your own doubts, and if you went to a different priest, you might get a different opinion.
In general, the faithful are not obliged to be theologians and can probably simply go with the opinion of their confessor. So based on objective probabilism (about who's right on this issue), I don't think OP would have a grave obligation to repeat those past Confessions, but it would be conducive to his peace of soul if he did. So one thing I might recommend as a compromise position would be to just go to certainly-valid priests going forward, and at the end of each confession, just make part of a general confession each time at the end (since it's always permitted to mention past sins), until you've "caught up". You could break it down either chronologically (when I was 1-10 years old), next time (when I was 11-20), etc. ... or by Commandment. As Father Alphonsus used to say, even the most eventful general confession should take no more than 10 minutes, since there are only 10 commandments. You could just mention a sin and a number, without any more detail than that. Of course, with general confessions, numbers can be hard to come up with, so maybe a frequency of sin.
That's probably what I would recommend to OP, to be at peace, since you've had a confessor tell you there's no doubt and that you can, in the practical order, proceed on his advice, but then for your own peace, just gradually (without feeling a strict obligation), supplement future confessions with a partial general until all put together you'd have effectively made a general confession.
To sum it up, while you might have your opinion, the faithful are not obliged to be theologians (adjudicating the validity of Sacraments or even adjudicating between the opinions of different priests) and can in good conscience accept the advice of a confessor (even if that confessor might, in your opinion, be wrong). So I would hold that you're not under strict obligation, given your status as lay faithful, to adjudicate the question of validity or to adjudicate between the opinions of different priests, but I would recommend going forward to confess the past sins little by little at the end of each confession going forward until you've "caught" up, so that you could be at complete peace.
-
This might be in a similar category to the situation where "I can't remember whether I confessed a certain sin. I don't remember that I confessed it, but also don't remember that I didn't confess it." I think in that scenario it reduces ultimately to a negative doubt, where you're not under strict obligation to confess the sin, but at the same time it would do no harm to mention it. Such types of doubts could drive a scrupulous individual crazy, since, after all, one's memory can get a bit fuzzy after years, and even decades, have passed.
-
OP, I was going to suggest asking your priest, but then realized that that priest probably thinks the New Rite orders are valid. Do you have access to /Can you contact a Resistance or Sede priest? If so, I would get their opinion. I think they would probably recommend some sort of general confession.
-
OP, I was going to suggest asking your priest, but then realized that that priest probably thinks the New Rite orders are valid. Do you have access to /Can you contact a Resistance or Sede priest? If so, I would get their opinion. I think they would probably recommend some sort of general confession.
What's the point of getting another opinion from a different priest? That puts a layman in the position of adjudicating between the opinions of diferent priests, and so therefore it's meaningless to get different opinions (since you know they're out there), and it would ultimately come down to your own opinion anyway, at the end of the day and in the final analysis. I believe I recall Bishop Sanborn stating that the faithful could just go with the opinion of the priest they approach and have ready access to ... and are not obliged to go "opinion shopping" until they get one that conforms to their own ideas. At that point, you might as well just go with what you think, since that's what it'll boil down to anyway if you go from one priest to another getting different opinions.
OP already KNOWS that there are differing opinions about the matter out there.
-
What's the point of getting another opinion from a different priest? That puts a layman in the position of adjudicating between the opinions of diferent priests, and so therefore it's meaningless to get different opinions (since you know they're out there), and it would ultimately come down to your own opinion anyway, at the end of the day and in the final analysis. I believe I recall Bishop Sanborn stating that the faithful could just go with the opinion of the priest they approach and have ready access to ... and are not obliged to go "opinion shopping" until they get one that conforms to their own ideas. At that point, you might as well just go with what you think, since that's what it'll boil down to anyway if you go from one priest to another getting different opinions.
OP already KNOWS that there are differing opinions about the matter out there.
I should have been clearer.
Assuming the New Rite of Ordination is doubtful/invalid (which is what I think the OP really thinks), find out what a priest who thinks similarly would think about what to do with past sins confessed to a NO priest.
So far it doesn't sound like the OP has spoken with a priest about what he/she needs to do assuming the NO ordination is doubtful.
I wasn't referring to getting another opinion on the validity of the rite.
-
I should have been clearer.
Assuming the New Rite of Ordination is doubtful/invalid (which is what I think the OP really thinks), find out what a priest who thinks similarly would think about what to do with past sins confessed to a NO priest.
So far it doesn't sound like the OP has spoken with a priest about what he/she needs to do assuming the NO ordination is doubtful.
I wasn't referring to getting another opinion on the validity of the rite.
OK, but the question of whether someone has an obligation to re-confess these past sins is going to be a direct corollary to the opinion regarding the validity of the rite. If someone holds that the new rite (or Orders) is certainly invalid or at least positively doubtful, then they'd hold the person has to confess the sins again. If someone holds that it's valid or that the doubt is only negative, they'd hold that there's no obligation to re-confess. There is, however, also, the additional complexity that some of the confessions may have been valid since, as Elwin pointed out, not all NO priests are invalid or doubtful (since there are still some older ones floating around out there, and the farther back OP's confessions go in time, the more likely it is that some of them were to unquestionably valid priests). So I don't see how any opinion regarding the obligation to re-confess past sins can be separated cleanly from one's opinion regarding the validity of NO Orders.
-
I went through the same questions when I cam over from the NO church to the SSPX. I did some very sinful acts that I confessed to the NO priest and was literally sick to my stomach when I realized those NO confessions MAY not of been valid. I asked an old aged SSPX priest about this situation and if I really needed to confess those sins again and he said no. He said my intent was there and that the next time I received absolution from a traditional priest all those sins along with the ones I currently confessed will have been forgiven even if the NO priest was not valid.. I also must tell you though, that over the years being with the SSPX, I still, gradually re-confessed those sins, not because I felt they weren't forgiven, but because I wanted the act of humility to offerup for things and intentions. It was not an easy thing to do, but I did it and I felt so go after I did. Such peace I have now. I to this day re-confess sins from the past for an act of humility and I tell the priest why and they always say that it's good to reflect back on things, not that you dwell on them, but to appreciate and trust the sacraments and realize how far your have come with Gods Grace. I can also tell you that I can now go into the confessional and continue to re-confess anything with such ease. I think this is grace! I realize no matter how bad the sin, no matter how embarrassing the sin, the priest doesn't care. The worse it is, the happier they are for you that you are there confessing. So to sum things up, I don't think you need to re-confess, but at the same time, if you do, the grace that comes with reconfessing will give you such peace of mind and soul and even more grace that will help you with future confessions!
-
So I don't see how any opinion regarding the obligation to re-confess past sins can be separated cleanly from one's opinion regarding the validity of NO Orders.
Not everything is crystal-clear, black vs. white. When I came to Tradition from the Novus Ordo, I had no opinion at all on the validity of NO Orders, or not much. Hadn't really given it much thought, because I hadn't heard anything about it. But I had heard stories of various Sacraments, such as Confession, sounding like they could be of dubious validity, because of defects of matter, form & intention, not intrinsic to the Novus Ordo rites themselves, but because of the chaos that exists in the Novus Ordo, what a free-for-all it is, and how so many priests don't even seem to believe in the Sacraments in a Traditional way. I went on an Ignatian Retreat, and was glad to do the general Confession, just in case I'd ever had any invalid Confessions over the years.
To the OP: You might want to consider making a Traditional Ignatian Retreat, including a general Confession of your life, and that way it will alleviate any doubts you might have.
-
Then there are the sins that are nothing in the new church but definitely something to us. Imagine the reaction you'd get trying to confess to a conciliarist the sins of Communion in hand and not abstaining on Fridays outside of Lent.
After I left the NOM and finally confessed the above to a traditional priest, the hefty penances I got were a relief! I even got suggestions for how to make reparation. I also confessed to being too stupid in my younger days to educate myself about what the Church really teaches. The NOM would use the lack of awareness as an excuse, but I'm not buying that anymore, at least not for myself.
-
Then there are the sins that are nothing in the new church but definitely something to us. Imagine the reaction you'd get trying to confess to a conciliarist the sins of Communion in hand and not abstaining on Fridays outside of Lent.
After I left the NOM and finally confessed the above to a traditional priest, the hefty penances I got were a relief! I even got suggestions for how to make reparation. I also confessed to being too stupid in my younger days to educate myself about what the Church really teaches. The NOM would use the lack of awareness as an excuse, but I'm not buying that anymore, at least not for myself.
That’s strange, I wouldn’t even consider those things as sins. The “communion” you took in the hand was just bread and you were directed by the leaders of the NO church to receive it that way, there was no sin on your part. The same with abstaining from meat on Fridays, the NO leaders approved of it, you were just obedient to what you thought was the real Catholic hierarchy.
-
That’s strange, I wouldn’t even consider those things as sins.
He's right, they are sins.
The “communion” you took in the hand was just bread and you were directed by the leaders of the NO church to receive it that way, there was no sin on your part.
1) It could have actually been Our Lord. 2) Communion in the hand is normally a sin, so objectively it's wrong.
The same with abstaining from meat on Fridays, the NO leaders approved of it, you were just obedient to what you thought was the real Catholic hierarchy.
You can eat meat on Fridays under V2, but you have to perform an substitute penance. Most do not, so eating meat is a mortal sin.
-
He's right, they are sins.
1) It could have actually been Our Lord. 2) Communion in the hand is normally a sin, so objectively it's wrong.
You can eat meat on Fridays under V2, but you have to perform an substitute penance. Most do not, so eating meat is a mortal sin.
Uhm, no. Most do not abstain from meat because they're unaware of the substitute penance requirement. You can't commit mortal sin without knowledge of it being a mortal sin. Something might be objectively a grave sin, but it's not "mortal", i.e. causing the loss of sanctifying grace, without knowledge of it being objectively grave matter and then the individual willing to do it anyway.
People who don't know what they're talking about should stop posting their opinions about such things.
Similarly, with Communion in the Hand, even if it MIGHT have been Our Lord (very unlikely except if consecrated by an older priest, and using the fixed translation of the consecration), if an individual thinks it's permissible, he's not committing a sin. NO spews a lot of propaganda about how there's nothing wrong with it, how it was done in the early Church, etc.
-
You can't commit mortal sin without knowledge of it being a mortal sin. Something might be objectively a grave sin, but it's not "mortal", i.e. causing the loss of sanctifying grace, without knowledge of it being objectively grave matter and then the individual willing to do it anyway.
False. In this particular example, the rules of the Church about a Friday penance (i.e. abstain from meat or an alternative penance) are well-known, and have been in place since V2, over 50 years. If one has a lack of knowledge, they they have a faulty conscience (which is their own fault), and they are guilty of mortal sin. A faulty conscience does not excuse mortal sin.
Similarly, with Communion in the Hand, even if it MIGHT have been Our Lord (very unlikely except if consecrated by an older priest, and using the fixed translation of the consecration), if an individual thinks it's permissible, he's not committing a sin.
This one has lots of gray area, I agree.
-
Uhm, no. Most do not abstain from meat because they're unaware of the substitute penance requirement. You can't commit mortal sin without knowledge of it being a mortal sin. Something might be objectively a grave sin, but it's not "mortal", i.e. causing the loss of sanctifying grace, without knowledge of it being objectively grave matter and then the individual willing to do it anyway.
People who don't know what they're talking about should stop posting their opinions about such things.
Similarly, with Communion in the Hand, even if it MIGHT have been Our Lord (very unlikely except if consecrated by an older priest, and using the fixed translation of the consecration), if an individual thinks it's permissible, he's not committing a sin. NO spews a lot of propaganda about how there's nothing wrong with it, how it was done in the early Church, etc.
This does sound right, that would mean no one can commit a mortal sin without knowing it's a sin.
And in that case it would be better to keep people ignorant.
From the new CCC
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
I thought that you don't have to know what you're doing is a sin specifically but that you know what your doing i.e the act, and choose to do it.
-
This does sound right, that would mean no one can commit a mortal sin without knowing it's a sin.
And in that case it would be better to keep people ignorant.
Yep ^^ It would mean ignorance truly is bliss, even eternal bliss.
Kinda makes the pope and whole NO just fine.
-
:facepalm:
Again, until you two can exhibit even a basic knowledge of the Catechism, you shouldn't be posting.
So you're claiming that people can commit mortal sins (that result in the loss of sanctifying grace) without knowing that what they're doing constitutes grave matter? Idiotic.
Now, the natural law is written in men's hearts, so they know about those laws that way, but any positive law (divine or ecclesiastical) requires knowledge. There can be culpability in not doing the necessary diligence to inquire about the law, but some people are in a state where they don't know that they don't know.
-
Yep ^^ It would mean ignorance truly is bliss, even eternal bliss.
Kinda makes the pope and whole NO just fine.
Idiotic, and also entails Pelagian heresy.
Not to mention that you conflate the objective and the subjective with your stupid "NO just fine" comment. It's objectively bad, harmful, displeasing to God. But if someone doesn't know it's displeasing to God, bad, and harmful, that individual does not commit a sin by participating in the NO. In order to commit sin, you have to WILL something that is evil, and if you don't know that it's evil, you're not willing the evil.
No, one does not attain to "eternal bliss" by ignorance. That's Pelagian heresy, but then a lot of Trads labor under Pelagian heresy these days ... which, if you were aware of it, would be grave sin.
-
I thought that you don't have to know what you're doing is a sin specifically but that you know what your doing i.e the act, and choose to do it.
Of course you have to know that what you're doing is evil or bad in order to commit a sin.
Both of you guys need to stop posting now, since you're putting out bad information that could be harmful to people.
-
Here's an example of the distinction. I take $100 I see laying on a table because I think it's mine. Turns out that it belonged to someone else. Objectively that's grave matter, since it entails defrauding someone of something that belongs to them in justice, but I did not commit a mortal sin because I did not know about that I was taking someone else's money. And it works the other way around also. I take $100 I see laying on a table, thinking that it belongs to someone else. But it's actually mine, as I forgot that I had put it down on the table. I commit a mortal sin anyway, despite the fact that objectively there was no grave matter, and no one was objectively defrauded of the money.
There's a distinction between objective grave matter and subjective mortal sin. That's Moral Theology 101.
-
:facepalm:
Again, until you two can exhibit even a basic knowledge of the Catechism, you shouldn't be posting.
So you're claiming that people can commit mortal sins (that result in the loss of sanctifying grace) without knowing that what they're doing constitutes grave matter? Idiotic.
Now, the natural law is written in men's hearts, so they know about those laws that way, but any positive law (divine or ecclesiastical) requires knowledge. There can be culpability in not doing the necessary diligence to inquire about the law, but some people are in a state where they don't know that they don't know.
From the quote
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice
I will give an example.
If a man knows drinking lots of alcohol will get him drunk, and he chooses to get drunk, but he doesn't know drunkenness is a grave sin, he has still committed a mortal sin.
Because he knew drinking a lot would get him drunk - so he had full knowledge
He willingly chose to get drunk - he had sufficient deliberate consent
Drunkenness - grave matter
He had all 3 so it would be a mortal sin, even if he didn't know getting drunk was a sin, as the catechism states "It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act,"
This is how I understand what the catechism teaches.
-
Of course you have to know that what you're doing is evil or bad in order to commit a sin.
Both of you guys need to stop posting now, since you're putting out bad information that could be harmful to people.
So if a child is taught that objectively evil things are good, and they grow up and do those evil things, they don't commit any sins?
-
So if a child is taught that objectively evil things are good, and they grow up and do those evil things, they don't commit any sins?
When you say objectively, are you speaking of the natural law written on men's hearts? That would imply knowledge. If one TRULY doesn't know it's an evil or a sin, then according to the Church culpability is not implicit. It doesn't mean that the person does not suffer in it's commission
-
So if a child is taught that objectively evil things are good, and they grow up and do those evil things, they don't commit any sins?
Right.
-
For the anonymous who quoted "the new CCC":
This is not a real Catholic catechism. This is the Novus Ordo catechism. People won't take your arguments seriously if you quote Modernist books, and you take a serious risk of learning some grave errors by reading this horrible books.
Be aware of Modernism.
-
Right.
WRONG!
The Errors of Peter Abelard #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned
Ignorance is not a get-out-of-jail card or a license to sin, it's an extenuating circuмstance.
-
WRONG!
The Errors of Peter Abelard #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned
Ignorance is not a get-out-of-jail card or a license to sin, it's an extenuating circuмstance.
That was me.
-
That was me.
That's why I would re-confess my sins to a trad priest.
-
That's why I would re-confess my sins to a trad priest.
There's literally no reason not to do so. People should be making yearly general confessions anyway, but instead they're reluctant to do it once after a supposed conversion from a lax Novus Ordo life. Ridiculous.
General confessions should be made:
1) before receiving the sacraments of confirmation and matrimony
2) at any important spiritual junction or when turning over a new leaf after a period of sin
3) periodically (St. Francis de Sales says yearly) to reflect on your past life and ensure the validity of your confessions.
Priests should recommend general confessions regularly instead of thwarting them.
-
Ask a traditional priest and follow his guidance. Unless you’d prefer the advice of an ordinary lay woman in her 60’s.
-
But if someone doesn't know it's displeasing to God, bad, and harmful, that individual does not commit a sin by participating in the NO. In order to commit sin, you have to WILL something that is evil, and if you don't know that it's evil, you're not willing the evil.
No. Your examples assume the person has a well-formed conscience and isn't guilty through spiritual ignorance.
Some of us are assuming the contrary, i.e. a poorly-formed conscience (which there are many types) and thus, they are guilty of the sin of ignorance.
As St Thomas says on those who are ignorant of the Faith...they are guilty because of their ignorance, which is due to other sins. In the same way, those that are ignorant of Traditionalism and go to the novus ordo, are guilty because of their ignorance, due to other sins.
-
No. Your examples assume the person has a well-formed conscience and isn't guilty through spiritual ignorance.
Some of us are assuming the contrary, i.e. a poorly-formed conscience (which there are many types) and thus, they are guilty of the sin of ignorance.
As St Thomas says on those who are ignorant of the Faith...they are guilty because of their ignorance, which is due to other sins. In the same way, those that are ignorant of Traditionalism and go to the novus ordo, are guilty because of their ignorance, due to other sins.
So you're assuming internal forum guilt of a mal-formed conscience. Got it. Most people growing up in the NO don't now anything else. I grew up thinking simply that this is a Catholic Mass. I could discern bad practices in the NOM, in which I would refuse to participate, i.e. Communion in the Hand, etc., but that's it. I was nearly 30 years old before even the internet was a "thing".
I wrote quite clearly above, that that there could be some culpability (known in most cases only to God) with regard to whether or not the individual sufficiently informed himself.
To extend my example of the $100 bill above. I take $100 off a table (and pocket it), thinking it's mine, though in reality it belongs to someone else. Maybe I should have investigated, or asked around first, but heck if I didn't just have a very similar $100 bill a few minutes earlier, so it never even occurred to me that it just might belong to someone else rather than being my own.
BOTTOM LINE: You cannot commit a grave sin without knowing it to be a grave sin and willing it anyway. Nobody commits a grave sin without knowing it. This is utterly absurd and people have to stop trying to spread that crap. Natural law is known in written in men's hearts and is knowable there, just like the existence of God, and the only way one doesn't know it is by drowning it out. But positive law, such as the requirement to fast on Fridays, or questions like whether the NOM is displeasing to God, those are not. Very many sincere individuals have concluded that the NOM is not offensive to God. I could sit here myself and make a convincing devil's advocate case for the NOM myself, reducing the evils we see to "abuses" of the "pure" NOM.
-
Of course you have to know that what you're doing is evil or bad in order to commit a sin.
Both of you guys need to stop posting now, since you're putting out bad information that could be harmful to people.
This ☝️☝️☝️
-
Very many sincere individuals have concluded that the NOM is not offensive to God.
No, nobody sincere has concluded that the Novus Bogus is pleasing to God.
For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:19)
We know who is of good wiil precisely by what faith they profess more than anything else. The NO is an expression of a freemasonic man-centered religion which is on its face completely contrary to the Catholic Mass.
I could sit here myself and make a convincing devil's advocate case for the NOM myself, reducing the evils we see to "abuses" of the "pure" NOM.
Yeah, and a well-spoken Jєω can make a great-sounding case against Christ and a well-read atheist can obliterate someone's faith in the inerrancy of Scripture. That doesn't make the people of bad will who fell for satan's trap excused from being Jєωs and atheists.
-
Of course you have to know that what you're doing is evil or bad in order to commit a sin.
Both of you guys need to stop posting now, since you're putting out bad information that could be harmful to people.
The Errors of Peter Abelard #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned
Your first sentence is literally a condemned statement.
-
The Errors of Peter Abelard #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned
Your first sentence is literally a condemned statement.
Unfortunately I can't edit the above post. Very annoying.
-
BOTTOM LINE: You cannot commit a grave sin without knowing it to be a grave sin and willing it anyway. Nobody commits a grave sin without knowing it.
Wrong. The act can be mortally sinful (i.e. a pagan who makes fun of Catholicism or is blasphemous), while the culpability/guilt can be non-existent (because the person didn't know any better).
-
The Errors of Peter Abelard #10:
“That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned
Thank you for pointing this out. Very important.
-
St. Thomas. Prima Secundae 76, Article 3:
I answer that, Ignorance, by its very nature, renders the act which it causes involuntary. Now it has already been stated (Articles 1 and 2) that ignorance is said to cause the act which the contrary knowledge would have prevented; so that this act, if knowledge were to hand, would be contrary to the will, which is the meaning of the word involuntary. If, however, the knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, would not have prevented the act, on account of the inclination of the will thereto, the lack of this knowledge does not make that man unwilling, but not willing, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1: and such like ignorance which is not the cause of the sinful act, as already stated, since it does not make the act to be involuntary, does not excuse from sin. The same applies to any ignorance that does not cause, but follows or accompanies the sinful act.
On the other hand, ignorance which is the cause of the act, since it makes it to be involuntary, of its very nature excuses from sin, because voluntariness is essential to sin. But it may fail to excuse altogether from sin, and this for two reasons. First, on the part of the thing itself which is not known. For ignorance excuses from sin, in so far as something is not known to be a sin. Now it may happen that a person ignores some circuмstance of a sin, the knowledge of which circuмstance would prevent him from sinning, whether it belong to the substance of the sin, or not; and nevertheless his knowledge is sufficient for him to be aware that the act is sinful; for instance, if a man strike someone, knowing that it is a man (which suffices for it to be sinful) and yet be ignorant of the fact that it is his father, (which is a circuмstance constituting another species of sin); or, suppose that he is unaware that this man will defend himself and strike him back, and that if he had known this, he would not have struck him (which does not affect the sinfulness of the act). Wherefore, though this man sins through ignorance, yet he is not altogether excused, because, not withstanding, he has knowledge of the sin. Secondly, this may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know. Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether.
Basically, an ignorance whereby you would not have committed the act (had you known otherwise) excuses entirely from sin, since since is by very definition and inherently and act of the will and voluntary.
If, on the other hand, your will was inclined to commit the sin anyway, even if you had known about it, this makes you not "unwilling" but simply "not willing" (per accidens). Here's an example. I regularly ignore fast days of the Church and just eat what I want. Today happens to be an Ember Day, but I'm ignorant that it's an Ember Day, and so I don't fast. Well, even HAD I known it was an Ember Day, I would have eaten what I wanted anyway, since I just don't care. That's the distinction between "not willing" (per accidens) and being "unwilling" per se to commit a sin.
You can go on the read the rest of 76 yourselves, but ignorance can diminish guilty to the extent that the ignorance itself is voluntary. For fully-willful ignorance, St. Thomas cites the example of someone who refuses to learn about the possible sinfulness of certain actions precisely because he doesn't WANT to know, so he can go ahead and do those actions. Partially diminishing the guilty would be someone who's just lazy and therefore doesn't know something he should know, though doesn't do it specifically so that he could commit sin. These, again, are varying degrees between being unwilling and being not willing merely by accident.
-
Thank you for pointing this out. Very important.
No, it's completely out of context. Read St. Thomas above. For the poster to try to parlay this into the notion of there being such a thing as involuntary sin is utterly absurd. Sometimes I feel like I find myself in a cult freakshow among some Trads.
-
So you're assuming internal forum guilt of a mal-formed conscience. Got it. Most people growing up in the NO don't now anything else. I grew up thinking simply that this is a Catholic Mass. I could discern bad practices in the NOM, in which I would refuse to participate, i.e. Communion in the Hand, etc., but that's it. I was nearly 30 years old before even the internet was a "thing".
I wrote quite clearly above, that that there could be some culpability (known in most cases only to God) with regard to whether or not the individual sufficiently informed himself.
To extend my example of the $100 bill above. I take $100 off a table (and pocket it), thinking it's mine, though in reality it belongs to someone else. Maybe I should have investigated, or asked around first, but heck if I didn't just have a very similar $100 bill a few minutes earlier, so it never even occurred to me that it just might belong to someone else rather than being my own.
BOTTOM LINE: You cannot commit a grave sin without knowing it to be a grave sin and willing it anyway. Nobody commits a grave sin without knowing it. This is utterly absurd and people have to stop trying to spread that crap. Natural law is known in written in men's hearts and is knowable there, just like the existence of God, and the only way one doesn't know it is by drowning it out. But positive law, such as the requirement to fast on Fridays, or questions like whether the NOM is displeasing to God, those are not. Very many sincere individuals have concluded that the NOM is not offensive to God. I could sit here myself and make a convincing devil's advocate case for the NOM myself, reducing the evils we see to "abuses" of the "pure" NOM.
Absolutely correct! This is moral theology 101 for goodness sake!
-
Wrong. The act can be mortally sinful (i.e. a pagan who makes fun of Catholicism or is blasphemous), while the culpability/guilt can be non-existent (because the person didn't know any better).
:facepalm: oh, for crying out loud. You don't seem to understand the basic distinction. If "culpability/guilt" is non-existent then the sin is not MORTAL. You seem to be completely unable to distinguish between "grave matter" and "mortal sin". MORTAL SIN (as also mis-used often by the Dimonds Brothers), is called mortal specifically because it extinguishes grace in the soul, i.e. it speaks to the subjective (culpability/guilt) aspect of the sin. To the point of this thread, actions that entail grave matter but of which the individual is not culpable or guilty need not be confessed in the Sacrament of Confession.
-
There's literally no reason not to do so. People should be making yearly general confessions anyway, but instead they're reluctant to do it once after a supposed conversion from a lax Novus Ordo life. Ridiculous.
General confessions should be made:
1) before receiving the sacraments of confirmation and matrimony
2) at any important spiritual junction or when turning over a new leaf after a period of sin
3) periodically (St. Francis de Sales says yearly) to reflect on your past life and ensure the validity of your confessions.
Priests should recommend general confessions regularly instead of thwarting them.
I fear that I will become scrupulous if I make general confessions more, so far I have only done it once since my conversion, and everytime I remember a past mortal sin I make sure to confess it at the next confession.
-
No, it's completely out of context. Read St. Thomas above. For the poster to try to parlay this into the notion of there being such a thing as involuntary sin is utterly absurd. Sometimes I feel like I find myself in a cult freakshow among some Trads.
Thanks for you answers, I am the one who posted the drunkenness example earlier. The clarification is helpful. Though I still don't have a full understanding on this.
-
In a Quodlibetal question St Thomas says,
"sometimes an erroneous conscience does not absolve or excuse from sin, namely when the error itself is a sin, proceeding from ignorance of that which someone is able to and obliged to know, as for example, if someone believed fornication to be simply a venial sin, and then, [if he committed fornication], although he would believe that he was sinning venially, he would not be sinning venially, but mortally" (Quodlibetal 8, q. 6, a. 5)
A poorly formed conscience does not excuse from sin.
-
In a Quodlibetal question St Thomas says,
"sometimes an erroneous conscience does not absolve or excuse from sin, namely when the error itself is a sin, proceeding from ignorance of that which someone is able to and obliged to know, as for example, if someone believed fornication to be simply a venial sin, and then, [if he committed fornication], although he would believe that he was sinning venially, he would not be sinning venially, but mortally" (Quodlibetal 8, q. 6, a. 5)
A poorly formed conscience does not excuse from sin.
Agreed.
The first day of the 9 day Novena to the Holy Ghost (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/emotionalism/msg664432/?topicseen#msg664432) says: "Sin is the result of ignorance, weakness and indifference..."
It's the oldest known novena - is it wrong? Lad and QV are pushing the idea that all those who've been praying it daily, even for centuries, are unable to "understand the basic distinction." Ridiculous.
It means that those who do wrong will suffer the consequences of doing wrong.
-
I fear that I will become scrupulous if I make general confessions more, so far I have only done it once since my conversion, and everytime I remember a past mortal sin I make sure to confess it at the next confession.
I suggest confession once a week whether you need it or not. It is good to always confess sins you previously forgot, but if by the grace of God you have no mortal sins to confess, simply say: "Forgive me father for I have sinned, it's been one week since my last confession. In that time I did not commit any mortal sins Father, but for all the sins of my whole life especially the sins of "X" I am heartily sorry, please, forgive me Father."
-
I fear that I will become scrupulous if I make general confessions more, so far I have only done it once since my conversion, and everytime I remember a past mortal sin I make sure to confess it at the next confession.
Nonsense, general confessions are useful for ENDING scruples, not exacerbating them.
-
Why is this even being argued about. The Church teaches clearly that for one to be guilty of mortal sin there needs to be (1) sufficient knowledge and (2) consent in committing a grave act (3). You can find this in catechisms and in prayer books under examination of conscience / preparation for Confession. If you disagree that insufficient knowledge renders the sin venial for that person, you are literally disagreeing with the Church.
-
Why is this even being argued about. The Church teaches clearly that for one to be guilty of mortal sin there needs to be (1) sufficient knowledge and (2) consent in committing a grave act (3). You can find this in catechisms and in prayer books under examination of conscience / preparation for Confession. If you disagree that insufficient knowledge renders the sin venial for that person, you are literally disagreeing with the Church.
Catechisms provide a 3rd-grade level view of the Faith. Adult life is more complex.
A child cannot be guilty of ignorance because they only know what others teach them. Adults have a duty to learn their Faith. If they don't know something, they can't claim ignorance, it's their fault.
-
For the anonymous who quoted "the new CCC":
This is not a real Catholic catechism. This is the Novus Ordo catechism. People won't take your arguments seriously if you quote Modernist books, and you take a serious risk of learning some grave errors by reading this horrible books.
Be aware of Modernism.
I quoted the CCC to show that even the new church has something right. This idea that you cannot commit mortal sins if you are ignorant is not logical. It's like that meme of the Eskimo who says why did you tell me about God if I am condemned? Why bother educating people about sin if their ignorance keeps them from mortal sin. It also appears contrary to scripture, St Paul says drunkards will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet most people do not know that drunkenness is a sin, surely these people will be condemned for their drunkenness and their ignorance won't change that?
-
I quoted the CCC to show that even the new church has something right. This idea that you cannot commit mortal sins if you are ignorant is not logical. It's like that meme of the Eskimo who says why did you tell me about God if I am condemned? Why bother educating people about sin if their ignorance keeps them from mortal sin. It also appears contrary to scripture, St Paul says drunkards will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet most people do not know that drunkenness is a sin, surely these people will be condemned for their drunkenness and their ignorance won't change that?
If I forgot it was Friday and had ham for breakfast did I commit a sin?
-
If I forgot it was Friday and had ham for breakfast did I commit a sin?
To expand on this, was the sin (if committed) mortal or venial?
-
Stupid example, QVD. If you “forgot” then that means you knew the law. The debate is over people who don’t know (or care) about church law.
-
To expand on this, was the sin (if committed) mortal or venial?
I would say venial but i think we are obligated to be diligent in keeping fasting and abstinence days.
-
Stupid example, QVD. If you “forgot” then that means you knew the law. The debate is over people who don’t know (or care) about church law.
It happens that people have breakfast out of routine and forget to take out the meat from the meal. They might not even realise they had meat until a week later.