Author Topic: Whether sacrilegious communion is the gravest of all sins? (Read 5432 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #30 on:** December 27, 2010, 10:52:21 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

And your last quote from Thomas clearly indicates a lesser form of sacrilege.

Telesphorus, it appears that this is the case.

You quote:

Quote

Reply to Objection 2. Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above (ad 1), and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

From this article:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article12

Quote

Article 12. Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?

The question and the articles are dealing with the parts of lust. Therefore, it appears that the sacrilege spoken of concerns sacrilege as a species of lust. An example would be a consecrated virgin committing fornication.

Especially since two articles before this one deals with whether or not sacrilege can be a species of lust which is answered affirmatively.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #31 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:08:43 PM »

trad123 - St. Thomas is stating clearly that is not the gravest of all sins. Clearly, unambiguously.

If sacrilege were by its nature worse than sins against nature adultery would be worse than unnatural vice, but it's not.

Someone who says that unintentional stepping on particles of the sacrament is worse than abortion is simply a lunatic who is driving people away from the Faith.

If the SSPX wants to cultivate cult-like lunacy that is opposed to St. Thomas and Catholic teachings, they can continue to refuse to correct such positions.

If on the other hand they are serious about Catholic teaching then they will PROVE their statements, prove that a sacrilegious communion is regarded as being worse than murder, instead of resorting to dirty insults, mischaracterizations, idle boasts, etc.

trad123 · « **Reply #32 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:13:42 PM »

I don't see how sacrilege mentioned in the reply to the second objection can possibly be considered generally when the article revolves around the most grievous sin in the scope as a species of lust.

trad123 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:15:14 PM »

I mean, being the case that there are different species of sacrilege.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #34 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:17:51 PM »

Quote from: trad123

I don't see how sacrilege mentioned in the reply to the second objection can possibly be considered generally when the article revolves around the most grievous sin in the scope as a species of lust.

If sacrilege is worse than murder because it's a sin against God as opposed to a sin against creatures then all sacrileges would be worse than all murder.

You may well be right that St. Thomas is only referring to sacrileges involving lust when discussing lust, but that is not absolutely certain.

In any case, I have yet to see anyone address the OP, which states clearly that sacrilege against the Holy Sacrament is not the gravest of all sins.

Can't you see the insanity of insisting that the Novus Ordo Communion line is worse than abortion and then turning around and castigating everyone who is a sedevacantist ?

It's literally insane. At least the old man protesting abortion was more consistent than that.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #35 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:19:03 PM »

Quote from: trad123

I mean, being the case that there are different species of sacrilege.

There are different types of sacrilege, of course. No one is disputing that. But St. Thomas when giving his reasons, stated a general reason that would seem to apply to all sacrilege.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #36 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:20:03 PM »

Quote from: trad123

I don't see how sacrilege mentioned in the reply to the second objection can possibly be considered generally when the article revolves around the most grievous sin in the scope as a species of lust.

Simply because he refers to sacrilege in general without explicitly stating he is only referring to one type of sacrilege.

trad123 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:22:42 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: trad123
I don't see how sacrilege mentioned in the reply to the second objection can possibly be considered generally when the article revolves around the most grievous sin in the scope as a species of lust.

Simply because he refers to sacrilege in general without explicitly stating he is only referring to one type of sacrilege.

Then wouldn't there appear to be a contradiction then?

Coming back to this paragraph:

Quote

And since Christ's Godhead is greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater than the sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief and blasphemy. The second degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed against His humanity: hence it is written (Matthew 12:32): "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." In the third place come sins committed against the sacraments, which belong to Christ's humanity; and after these are the other sins committed against mere creatures.

St. Thomas says in the third place that sins committed against the sacraments are more grave than sins committed against mere creatures. Man is a creature. How else can this be explained?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #38 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:28:12 PM »

Quote from: trad123

Then wouldn't there appear to be a contradiction then?

No of course not.

Quote

St. Thomas says in the third place that sins committed against the sacraments are more grave than sins committed against mere creatures. Man is a creature. How else can this be explained?

Because murder is not merely a sin against a creature. St. Thomas explains that unnatural vice is a sin against the Creator, and murder would of course be in the same category.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #39 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:29:27 PM »

What's amazing to me, is how the OP is being avoided.

I get the sense they don't agree with the quotation i selected from St. Thomas. Otherwise I would expect some sort of answer or explanation about it.

At least Stevus was frank enough to disagree with it.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #40 on:** December 27, 2010, 11:33:09 PM »

The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the sin of them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is committed against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of the crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver, first of all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species, while this sin is against it under sacramental species; secondly, because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ, while this does not.

trad123 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 28, 2010, 12:12:26 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Because murder is not merely a sin against a creature. St. Thomas explains that unnatural vice is a sin against the Creator, and murder would of course be in the same category.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2072.htm#article4

Article 4. Whether sin is fittingly divided into sin against God, against oneself, and against one's neighbor?

Quote

Yet some things are comprised under the order of God, which surpass the human reason, such as matters of faith, and things due to God alone. Hence he that sins in such matters, for instance, by heresy, sacrilege, or blasphemy, is said to sin against God.

(. . .)

Yet in some things we are directed according to reason, in relation to ourselves only, and not in reference to our neighbor; and when man sins in these matters, he is said to sin against himself, as is seen in the glutton, the lustful, and the prodigal.

But when man sins in matters concerning his neighbor, he is said to sin against his neighbor, as appears in the thief and murderer.

Reply to Objection 1. To sin against God is common to all sins, in so far as the order to God includes every human order; but in so far as order to God surpasses the other two orders, sin against God is a special kind of sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article3

Quote

Reply to Objection 3.

(. . .)

Moreover, fornication is a sin against God, not directly as though the fornicator intended to offend God, but consequently, in the same way as all mortal sins.

(. . .)

It appears to me that when St. Thomas says that a sin is against God, like murder or unnatural vice (he says this with many others sins too) he doesn't mean it's done so directly, because the intention of such sins is done directly against ourselves or our neighbor.

Therefore, it appears to me that I would be correct in saying that a murderer sins against God, indirectly, but sins directly against his neighbor who he intends to kill.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #42 on:** December 28, 2010, 12:31:20 AM »

Quote from: trad123

It appears to me that when St. Thomas says that a sin is against God, like murder or unnatural vice (he says this with many others sins too) he doesn't mean it's done so directly, because the intention of such sins is done directly against ourselves or our neighbor.

But St. Thomas distinguishes them and says sins against nature are graver than sins of sacrilege which are in turn graver than fornication. And he does so by specifically stating that the sins against nature are against God himself.

To repeat what I quoted before:

Quote

Reply to Objection 2. Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above (ad 1), and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

Moreover, he is not limiting sacrilege to sacrileges caused by lust as we see in article 10:

Quote

Reply to Objection 3. Sacrilege is committed on a consecrated thing. Now a consecrated thing is either a consecrated person, who is desired for sɛҳuąƖ intercourse, and thus it is a kind of lust, or it is desired for possession, and thus it is a kind of injustice. Sacrilege may also come under the head of anger, for instance, if through anger an injury be done to a consecrated person. Again, one may commit a sacrilege by partaking gluttonously of sacred food. Nevertheless, sacrilege is ascribed more specially to lust which is opposed to chastity for the observance of which certain persons are specially consecrated.

You can't compare his remarks on fornication to those on unnatural vice and murder.

Quote

I answer that, The gravity of a sin may be measured in two ways, first with regard to the sin in itself, secondly with regard to some accident. The gravity of a sin is measured with regard to the sin itself, by reason of its species, which is determined according to the good to which that sin is opposed. Now fornication is contrary to the good of the child to be born. Wherefore it is a graver sin, as to its species, than those sins which are contrary to external goods, such as theft and the like; while it is less grievous than those which are directly against God, and sins that are injurious to the life of one already born, such as murder.

St. Thomas says blasphemy is more grievous than murder, but he does qualify it by saying the harm done is less. He also says that blasphemy is worse than sacrilegious communion.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #43 on:** December 28, 2010, 01:52:03 AM »

One more time:

Quote

Objection 2. Further, sins committed against God would seem to be the most grievous. Now sacrilege is committed directly against God, since it is injurious to the Divine worship. Therefore sacrilege is a graver sin than the unnatural vice.

. . .

Reply to Objection 2. Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above (ad 1), and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.