 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16th, 2007 03:23 am |
|
This concept is just so difficult to get used to. I have a few questions. From what I understand, when one commits a mortal sin he is actively killing his sanctifying grace. He is basically choosing to throw away his salvation. It also says it kills charity. Does that mean that as long as I am sorrowful for the sins I committed and still want in my heart to love God that I probably have not committed a mortal sin? The thing is, I try not to sin at all, but I fail often, when it was a mistake or weakness I dont wory too much, but now when I consciously sin in any way, I worry if it is mortal. Now I know the trhree conditions, but I struggle with them. Especially knowing if something is grave matter, and also knowing how deliberate deliberate consent is. I mean, to me any sin I willfully commit is pretty deliberate because I could have chosen not to. Yet on the other hand it seems that as long as some part of my conscience was troubled or trying to hold me back, perhaps it was not deliberate. So is maybe deliberate meaning that you just jump right in without a second thought. But sometimes my sin feels more deliberate when I fight against it because I can not say i was acting impulsively, but I actively allowed mysaelf to choose to do wrong. So which is more deliberate. I would like to think I am better off the more I fight against sin, and not for simply being impulsive.
CCC 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.’ 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.”
does this paragraph mean that breaking any of the 10 commandments is a grave matter, or does it mean that the ones that are most grave are at the top as Jesus lists them, since they are not in that order in Exodus? And I know I have asked this before but is breaking these comandments always grave, or does it depend on how seriously you offend the command. Like is stealing a little bit less grave than stealing a lot. and then how much would you have to steal to know it was a grave matter. Jesus says to looka t a woman lustfully in your heart is as bad as adultery. So does that make lust a grave matter as well, and if so how much consent does there need to be for it to be lust. I mean for instance, I do ok not to lust after women, but I still notice briefly how attractive they are when the images are thrown at me. At what point am I guilty? It is hard to know when I am crossing a line between being tempted and actually sinning. If I am tempted to say "you fool (racca)" to my brother, which Jesus strongly warns about, how long must I feel this passion before I am actually guilty. Anyway, forgive me David, for I know we have been over this before, but I still struggle to understand it. It seems like I worry that venial sins I deliberately commit might be mortal, and I am hoping that the very fact that I still want to love God is good evidence I am not in a state of mortal sin. And if mortal sin does kill charity, then why would anyone who commits it actually go to confession, since that requires some remorse? Is it because it will take a work of grace to get them to admit hey need to go? Yet I hear that the contrition does not need to be perfect with confession. So why is that fair if they commit mortal sin, dont feel entirely sorry about it yet can be forgiven anyway? Or is it possible that those who commit a mortal sin really would not want to go to confession because they love their sin more than they love God, but maybe a later work of grace will wake them up?
Ok, well, I better stop here.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16th, 2007 10:49 pm |
|
Brian, you are attempting to quantify mortal sin and venial sin, temptation, resistance to temptation, virtue, consent, gravity of sin, and a number of other things. Before anything else, you need to understand that none of these is properly quantifiable. For instance, mortal sin is not something “more” than venial sin, but a different kind of sin with different characteristics. Consent is either given or not given; we cannot properly speak of “degrees” of consent. Likewise, resistance to temptation is either effective or not effective with regard to the temptation under consideration; one ends either by sinning or not sinning, not by “semi-sinning.”
It is true that moral theologians and spiritual directors speak of a person having more or less control when subjected to temptation, but this is a subjective analysis, not an objective one. It is based on the amount of effort one puts into maintaining self-control so as to avoid sin. Yet we know that divine grace is what makes that resistance effective, not our own effort.
And divine grace is what makes it possible for the person in the state of mortal sin capable of repenting and being saved. See Romans 5:8 for how this comes about.
You ask the practical question, “I do OK not to lust after women, but I still notice briefly how attractive they are when the images are thrown at me. At what point am I guilty? It is hard to know when I am crossing a line between being tempted and actually sinning.” The real question, however, is this: What is lust, and how is it a sin? Once you understand the definition of the sin, you will know what must be done to commit it.
Again, you ask: “I hear that the contrition does not need to be perfect with confession. So why is that fair if they commit mortal sin, don’t feel entirely sorry about it yet can be forgiven anyway?” We have here yet another quantification whereas we are really dealing with the different qualities of perfect and imperfect contrition. Perfect contrition is not “more” repentance, but a different kind. Even an imperfectly contrite penitent must be “entirely sorry” with regard to his sin. The difference is not in this area, but with regard to the motive for repentance, whether it is out of fear of punishment (= love of oneself) or out of love of God.
Finally, you will recall what I told you privately about spiritual discernment: it comes with experience and the priest’s judgment and counsel in the confessional. Knowing the theory is a good thing, to be sure, but true understanding of these things does not come through booklearning. I had to find this out the hard way, and would spare you the time and effort lost winding through endless detours.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17th, 2007 03:27 am |
|
| Some of that was helpful. What of my question though about charity being killed. Is it safe to assume that any day I wake up and still have a will and desire to love God and man, and am remorseful for my sins and weaknesses, is it safe to say that I have not committed a mortal sin, since if I had, according to the catechism I would be incapable of charity?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17th, 2007 09:48 am |
|
No, you cannot assume that. First, because charity as a supernatural virtue is a matter of the will and not of the emotions, and you may be mistaking the two. Often a residual habit or attitude of righteousness or piety remains after sin is committed, and it manifests itself in this manner. But it is deceiving; the sin remains sinful even if your thoughts and feelings try to deny it. Put another way, you must not assume that the rationalizations and self-justifications you make in your heart will make the sin go away; it is merely a gesture of denial and not an indication of reality. You can see in this just how perverse the human soul can be. Genesis 3:12–13 illustrates how it works: rather than dealing forthrightly with their guilt, both Adam and Eve blame others for their own sin.
Also, you must not assume that your sin is less for your desire to continue your walk with God, because the actual grace you have been given to yearn for God and repent of your misdeeds is not sanctifying grace and therefore does not justify but only allows you to move towards justification.
Again, recall that even with venial sin, charity is wounded. Whether charity is killed or wounded, harm is done. So you must not think that all is well because you have not sinned mortally. If you “wake up… remorseful,” this is a sign of actual grace, not of sanctifying grace. In the case of a mortal sin, you do not actually possess charity, but through the actual grace you have received by the mercy of God, you are moving towards charity.
To know the gravity and guilt of your sin, you must look to the deed, not to your reaction to it. To know whether it was mortal or venial, you must look at whether you knew what you were doing and whether you committed the sin willingly or reluctantly, as out of weakness or a quandary.
Another thing to consider carefully is whether you understand properly the act itself. In the Fellowship Hall area there is a thread discussing the question of telling lies. Notice that there are some distinctions made there that show how what some may consider lying can be in fact something else. Some participants are finding this a difficult concept.
I think the fundamental difficulty you are having, Brian, is not that you are unsure of your inner disposition, but that you do not understand very well what each category of sin is and how one commits it. If you will study this aspect of each of the Commandments, you should find your difficulties eased.
David
|
|
|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 248 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17th, 2007 12:16 pm |
|
brian wrote: This concept is just so difficult to get used to. I have a few questions... Brian,
Hi. Hope you don't mind me jumping in here...
You remind me of myself with all of your analyzing  . I do it all the time, and I can surely understand, even as a Cradle Catholic, your questions about the differences between mortal and venial sins and the subsequent implications (and complications) that those differences could have.
But, did you ever watch the movie "The Great Outdoors" with John Candy and Dan Akroyd? Well, if not, John Candy played a regular Joe who took his family for vacation out to a cabin at a lake. Dan Akroyd played his very business-oriented brother-in-law who, uninvited, decided to take his own family along and vacation with them. In one scene, John and Dan were sitting out on the deck overlooking the lake. They were looking across at an island full of trees. Dan went on a big spiel about what he "saw": how he would cut down all the trees and put in a big industrial park with all kinds of business-oriented possibilities, and he went on and on about what he saw in his mind's eye that could be done with the place. Then he asked John, "What do you see?" John, who had blanked out after listening to the long list of Dan's future ideas, simply looked out and said, "I see trees."
What's my point? Well, sometimes those of us who analyze things to death maybe just need to simplify and see things as they are and stop worrying so much about all the what-ifs and why's. It's good to want to know; I'm not suggesting you don't ask questions, but sometimes we get so caught up in the questions that we lose the main focus. A quote from another movie I watched once ("Pure Country", starring George Strait), was when his old granny who liked to quote old proverbial sayings, said, "There are no answers; only the search." This may sound a little puzzling, but it makes some odd kind of sense. We are all on a journey, and it's the search that counts, not the answers. As long as we are seeking God, we will be alright. I know that's what you're doing, but maybe we try sometimes to concentrate too hard on the answers. It's kind of like the person who is so intent on looking at the map that he misses the road signs.
Basically, all I'm saying is that God is merciful, and as long as you are doing your best, God will honor that. If you're not sure if a sin is mortal or not, well, when in doubt, go confess it and let the priest counsel you about it and absolve you. That's what I do. Or, if you're not yet Catholic (I can't remember if you are or not...), go ask a priest about your situation - that is what a "pastor" is for: to guide and take care of the sheep. We don't have to know everything - if we did, we'd be trying to be God (remember Adam and Eve who took the apple because the serpent told them they would be wise like God?). Some things we just have to accept that we'll never completely understand, and sometimes we must just trust in our best judgment - or the Church's judgment, since it is through the Church that we are able to enter into God's presence - and God's mercy.
Don't get me wrong. Of course we should ask questions. And if others have answers to help, that's great. But I guess I just wanted to throw out a caution to not get too caught up in the questions to the point where you'll get discouraged if you don't find all the answers. We won't ever know them all.
You brought up a lot of things, and David is much better at answering than I am and he has brought up a lot of good points, but one thing that you mentioned reminded me of something I once heard. You mentioned lust and wondered if it was a mortal sin. The answer is yes, actually. There's a difference between temptation and sin. To look at a woman in passing and think she is attractive, and even a fleeting thought about sex, well, that's not necessarily "lust". And the thing that I heard that I was reminded of was something that a theology professor of mine once said, something to the effect that: "Temptation is when there's a knock on the door and you open it to see who it is, but sin is when you invite the evil or impure thoughts to come in and you entertain them."
I don't know if I'm being at all helpful - or even if I'm making any sense - but these thoughts came to mind when I was reading this, so I thought I'd post them. I'm praying for your peace of mind and I ask you to do the same for me .
JMJ
- Cheri
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18th, 2007 03:43 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: No, you cannot assume that. First, because charity as a supernatural virtue is a matter of the will and not of the emotions, and you may be mistaking the two. Often a residual habit or attitude of righteousness or piety David, what do you mean by this? remains after sin is committed, and it manifests itself in this manner. But it is deceiving; the sin remains sinful even if your thoughts and feelings try to deny it. Put another way, you must not assume that the rationalizations and self-justifications you make in your heart will make the sin go away; it is merely a gesture of denial and not an indication of reality. David, I am having difficulty with what you are saying here. Let's say for example, that I commit a sin. Let the example be, I am channel surfing. I stop on a channel where a movie is showing. My conscience says that I should not continue watching. I continue watching anyway, for about 5 minutes. Then, when something very offensive and wrong comes up in the movie, I change the channel. I feel guilty that I didn't listen to my conscience in the first place. Because of that, I saw things that are offensive to the Holy Spirit. I know that I sinned and need to ask God to forgive me. So, I repent of my sin. I ask Jesus to forgive me for not listening to the Holy Spirit. I promise Him that I will do my best not to sin in such a manner again and ask Him to help me. How is this deception? Yes, I admit that by choosing to watch the movie, rather than changing it, I sinned. But knowingly sinned. Then, when convicted of doing so, I saw my need to repent and did so. Where does the deception come in? You can see in this just how perverse the human soul can be. Genesis 3:12–13 illustrates how it works: rather than dealing forthrightly with their guilt, both Adam and Eve blame others for their own sin.
Also, you must not assume that your sin is less for your desire to continue your walk with God, because the actual grace you have been given to yearn for God and repent of your misdeeds is not sanctifying grace and therefore does not justify but only allows you to move towards justification. David, what is it exactly that you are saying here? What do you mean by sanctifying grace as opposed to actual grace?
Again, recall that even with venial sin, charity is wounded. Whether charity is killed or wounded, harm is done. So you must not think that all is well because you have not sinned mortally. If you “wake up… remorseful,” this is a sign of actual grace, not of sanctifying grace. In the case of a mortal sin, you do not actually possess charity, but through the actual grace you have received by the mercy of God, you are moving towards charity.
To know the gravity and guilt of your sin, you must look to the deed, not to your reaction to it. To know whether it was mortal or venial, you must look at whether you knew what you were doing and whether you committed the sin willingly or reluctantly, as out of weakness or a quandary. David, can you give me an example of what you would consider committing a sin reluctantly, out of weakness or quandary? Would peer pressure in the case of teenagers be a good example?
Another thing to consider carefully is whether you understand properly the act itself. In the Fellowship Hall area there is a thread discussing the question of telling lies. Notice that there are some distinctions made there that show how what some may consider lying can be in fact something else. Some participants are finding this a difficult concept.
I think the fundamental difficulty you are having, Brian, is not that you are unsure of your inner disposition, but that you do not understand very well what each category of sin is and how one commits it. If you will study this aspect of each of the Commandments, you should find your difficulties eased.
David
David,
Doesn't the nature of sin, that is on a personal/subjective level, have much to do with our consciences? While there are certain sins that are obviously wrong to all, that even society says are wrong, such as killing your neighbor just to get money, there are other sins that are not so obviously wrong across the board. Not everyone thinks masturbation is wrong, and they are not convicted when they do it. Not everyone thinks that wearing certain kinds of clothing, (ie.short skirts, certain bathing suits, etc.) are wrong to wear. In other words, what I am trying to say here, is that two different people can commit the same action, yet one is purposefully, knowingly sinning while the other is not. For example, I didn't know for certain, before I was a Christian, (not raised in a Christian home), that fornication was wrong. I thought that it might be wrong, or it might not be wrong. After I became a Christian, the Holy Spirit began to develop my conscience. And He has been doing it all these years till now. There are many things that I am convicted not to do now that I would have had no problem doing 15 years ago. The difference now is that I cannot have peace or confidence before God if I would do those same things that were acceptable to me then, but are not now.
I am finding out that this whole matter of sin is not so easily understood as I once thought. One cannot just pigeon-hole all sin as sin without taking all of the various circumstances and nuances into consideration.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18th, 2007 08:08 pm |
|
Darlene wrote:…charity as a supernatural virtue is a matter of the will and not of the emotions, and you may be mistaking the two.
— David, what do you mean by this?
The question I was answering is this: Why do I have the yearning, the love and the will to continue in my walk with God if I am in a state of mortal sin, which state supposedly destroys charity, for charity is the ability effectively to love God and yearn for him?
My answer was that it is not as simple as that. The reason for the yearning and love is not that the sin is not real or not mortal but that the person has been given the grace to repent and respond to God’s call once again. This is an actual grace (inspiration), not sanctifying grace (justification). The person (if Catholic) still needs to confess and do penance, because that is the condition of forgiveness. If not Catholic, the person’s relationship with God can be restored if he makes an act of perfect contrition (not an easy accomplishment), whereby he repents because he loves God, not because he fears punishment for sin, and then do sufficient penance. But if the sin was venial, none of these conditions applies. This is all laid out in the Catechism where it treats of the different kinds of sins, the different kinds of grace, the sacrament of penance and the conditions for divine forgiveness.
Theologians distinguish between love as an emotion (= passion) and love as an act of the will (= charity, agape). Only the latter is a Christian virtue. There is a possibility of confusing the two in our practical dealings with God, just as many do in human matters of the heart (e.g., marriage, where people supposedly “fall in and out of love” instead of making an effort to make the marriage work in a consistent, lifelong manner).
A residual attitude (e.g., I ought to be “feeling love,” so to that extent I will work to preserve the relationship) or habit (going through the motions of love without really meaning it) may persist after the commission of a mortal sin, but neither is the theological virtue of charity. Instead, we have a self-centered ersatz love that because of its lack of integrity cannot maintain the relationship. Because many people are not aware of the difference between this and the real thing, it is deceptive, and they continue to have expectations that are unsupported by the reality.
In order not to complicate the issue any more than necessary, I have so far not added into the equation the fact that God, who knows all, accepts the will for the deed (because the person’s resolve in fact will lead him to fulfill the conditions) and forgives the instant the person turns to him and repents. But as indicated above, this is only on condition that the resolve to fulfill the conditions for forgiveness is in fact carried out.
What I wanted to emphasize is that in any event, a feeling of love or piety (a passion) cannot substitute for active and effective charity. Charity, for its part, is the most reliable sign we have of God’s forgiveness.
Your example from watching television is not deceptive because the sin, as you described it, is not mortal. The matter is not grave, so the conditions we are discussing do not apply.
The actual grace you have been given to yearn for God and repent of your misdeeds is not sanctifying grace and therefore does not justify but only allows you to move towards justification.
— David, what is it exactly that you are saying here? What do you mean by sanctifying grace as opposed to actual grace?
This is explained above.
To know whether it was mortal or venial, you must look at whether you knew what you were doing and whether you committed the sin willingly or reluctantly, as out of weakness or a quandary.
— David, can you give me an example of what you would consider committing a sin reluctantly, out of weakness or quandary? Would peer pressure in the case of teenagers be a good example?
I am speaking of incomplete consent. You will recall that lack of consent reduces one’s guilt, making the sin venial or sometimes no sin at all. Yes, peer pressure could qualify, although other factors would have to be considered before a determination could be made regarding consent. In other words, because the variable is the person’s consent, it is not the peer pressure itself but its effect and the reasons behind that effect that must be taken into account. These subjective factors will be the major ones in the overall imputability of the sin.
Doesn't the nature of sin, that is on a personal/subjective level, have much to do with our consciences?
Yes. But we must be careful not to push this too far. It is not only the subjective viewpoint, or conscience, that is relevant. The objective sin must also be considered, because sin always has an objective effect. Thus we say that a sin has been committed, regardless of whether that sin is imputed to the perpetrator. In most cases, the sin is at least partially imputable, because the person usually knows that it is considered a sin by others, even if he rejects that judgment. This is the same argument as the one accusing the atheist of hating God, where the atheist himself will argue that this is absurd, because as far as he is concerned, God doesn’t even exist, so how can he hate him? As Juan showed recently in another thread, this isn’t really the case with most atheists, because the reason they deny God’s existence is that they have a beef with him, so that in reality, they do hate God.
Likewise, years ago, you had certainly heard that fornication is wrong. You did not completely accept this, but you saw the possibility. Therefore, if you had actually fornicated, there would have been at least some guilt.
I am finding out that this whole matter of sin is not so easily understood as I once thought. One cannot just pigeon-hole all sin as sin without taking all of the various circumstances and nuances into consideration.
Correct. The Protestant idea of sin is oversimplified, truncated, and so is their idea of salvation. So you see their astonishmment when they contemplate the vast sea of Catholic moral theology. And from this you can understand how difficult is the priest’s job in the confessional. Without the aid of the Holy Spirit, there is no way for him to do it. Fortunately, there are rules of the spirit, known through centuries of tradition, which in most cases the confessor can follow with confidence.
And you know what? Assessing virtue is just as difficult. The good part is that God only requires us to do our best. He will take care of the remainder.
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18th, 2007 10:00 pm |
|
David,
So if I am understanding you correctly, sanctifying grace is that which makes one justified in the eyes of God. He stands clean before his Lord and without guilt. Actual grace, if I understand you correctly, is that which leads a person to sanctifying grace, yet does not justify the person before God. In other words, that person who has sinned, received actual grace, such as repenting in his heart of the things he has done, still needs to do other things (go to Confession, do penence, etc.) in order to receive sanctifying grace and be justified before God.
Did I get that right? Perhaps you can clarify even more. I would be appreciative of that.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18th, 2007 11:10 pm |
|
Yes, Darlene, you read me correctly. Actual grace provides the impulse toward the good; sanctifying grace is the fruition of the good.
Following are some passages from the Catechism which discuss the difference between these two kinds of grace. It would behoove you to read the section on grace (§1996–2029) in its entirety.
847 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace [actual grace], try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation [sanctifying grace].
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God [sanctifying grace]. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life [actual grace].
1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church. [Sanctifying grace]
2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.
2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace [sanctifying grace] is already a work of grace [actual grace]. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it [actual grace]:”
Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy [actual grace] has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life [sanctifying grace]; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.
2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.
2024 Sanctifying grace makes us “pleasing to God.” Charisms, special graces of the Holy Spirit, are oriented to sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. God also acts through many actual graces, to be distinguished from habitual grace which is permanent in us.
2027 No one can merit the initial grace [actual grace] which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed [sanctifying grace] to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
If you need a more complete treatment, while still being fairly easy to follow, I suggest The Glories of Divine Grace, by Matthias Joseph Scheeben. It lays out the theory of divine grace according to the Thomist school of theology in a very intelligible manner.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19th, 2007 01:29 pm |
|
I think my point was that even when I commit venial sin, I feel terrible. Therfore, were I to commit a mortal sin, which supposedly destroys the relationship I have with God, I would really expect to feel like a totally different person. Intimacy with God is my very lifeblood. If that were taken away, I find it hard to believe I could just go on as if everything were ok. Maybe my feelings can not be used to prove if mortal sin has or has not been committed. But I would imagine that if I did commit one I would know something was very wrong somewhere in my soul. I mean, if I was married and I did something so offensive that my wife left me, the turmoil would be very obvious, and my life would be noticeably different emotionally and in practice. I suppose I was expecting this would be the case with my relationship with God.
I also find it strange that while emtions can not be used to indicate if I am in a state of mortal sin, they can be considered in the act of mortal sin. That is, if our passions were overtaking us this minimizes guilt.
As far as lust, or hate, or something else. How do I know when I really have not just answered the door, but actually entertained and invited it in. There were times before I was Caholic and I struggled with lust that I gave in to it a lot, yet hated myself the whole time. Was I still giving full consent? Is full consent when not only you agree to do something, but you allow yourself to just fully embrace it? Then there were times I struggled with lust and I just gave in because I found it overwhelming, the more mature I got the harder I fought against it. So then there would be times I prayed and fought and tried to get away but eventually gave in anyway. When was I most guilty, when I just out of weakness gave in, or when I knew how bad it was, yet after a fight, gave in. I hate to think I was most guilty when I most fought against it, because then it implies I had knowledge of the evil act, and I did consent. Can I say that my passions just had gotten the best of me, and the initial fight, indicated I had not given full consent, but consent was sort of eventually yielded to in weakness?
Anyway, praise God I eventually through prayer and grace was able to move just about completely past that struggle and now have a decent amount of self control. But when at my worst, I hated my sin, and repented as aoften as it happened, and I never felt like I killed my relationship with God. Not sure my contrition was perfect, but I hated hurting God, and sometimes I feel my relationship with Him, grew, because my struggles killed pride, made me more dependent on God, and I experienced just how desperate I longed for truth and goodness.
Is there a list of all matters that are considered grave? Is it all of the 10 commandments or just some of them? and then, is it a matter of gravely offending them, like telling a lie in court, grave, lying about someones appearance, not a big deal? etc. lusting for a brief second but gaining control, venial, giving full consent to a sexual fantasy, grave?
Lately, I have been feeling that my initial thoughts and ideas are not sin, but it is the will behinf them that responds. So this has helped. Lately I have not felt too bad for things that are my initial impression. Its almost like a 10 second rule. If I can renounce the temptation to judge hate lust etc within a handful of seocnds, I dont see it as something that I really did at all. So where I used to be troubled for noticing a pretty girl in mass, or being critical of someone leaving early or doing something "wrong" now I just move back to prayer and regard the idea as insignificant, instead of laboring over how evil i must be and feeling guilty and trying to fix myself.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 20th, 2007 01:14 am |
|
brian wrote:I think my point was that even when I commit venial sin, I feel terrible. Therefore, were I to commit a mortal sin, which supposedly destroys the relationship I have with God, I would really expect to feel like a totally different person.
So are you committing any mortal sins these days? I seriously doubt it. Most committed Christians don’t sin mortally, and I know you well enough to see your character.
But what do you know about the feelings? Like pain, they can be a necessary signal to the human person. But they can only report appearances and reactions, not the substance of events.
My experience with people who sin mortally on a regular basis is that they do not feel much of anything. They are mostly insensitive, and their reaction to sin is typically a shrug. So your characterization of mortal sin as being more a matter of “passions overtaking us” is amiss where they are concerned. However, when considering a person who rarely sins mortally, perturbation is often in evidence, indicating a high level of moral and spiritual awareness.
Regarding your own experience, you ask, “Can I say that my passions just had gotten the best of me, and the initial fight indicated I had not given full consent, but consent was sort of eventually yielded to in weakness?” I would say, Probably yes. This would mean that the sins were mostly venial, even though grave.
Is there a list of all matters that are considered grave? Is it all of the 10 commandments or just some of them? And then, is it a matter of gravely offending them, like telling a lie in court, grave, lying about someone’s appearance, not a big deal? etc. Lusting for a brief second but gaining control, venial, giving full consent to a sexual fantasy, grave?
The ten commandments are a summary of the natural moral law. They do not explore or explain every last detail, but give general pointers to what is sin and what is virtue. I think your analysis is a good start in understanding their relevance in your life, although here you are still ignoring the distinction between temptation and sin.
Lately, I have been feeling that my initial thoughts and ideas are not sin, but it is the will behind them that responds.
Here you are beginning to make that distinction. I think you’ll be all right. Just give it time and experience. And remember that it is God who repairs the soul broken by sin, not the person himself.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 10:01 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
