Mortal Sin Kills the Soul, Confession Brings it Back to Life

Which one removed 'mortal' and 'venial' sin from the language of the Church?
I'm looking on Google for the Vatican II document that supports the idea that guidance on mortal sins and venial sins are outdated in the formula penitents would use in order to confess sins. That sin is mortal which severs the soul from God, meriting eternal punishment if it goes unconfessed or unrepented before Death.

Perhaps someone could also look at the documents of the Second Vatican Council and let me know when you find the passage in which it is clear that the Church has dispensed with 'mortal sin'. This is not the first time a Bishop has said that either this language is unhelpful or irrelevant to modern times. Perhaps CC the Bishops on this as well. I think they need to know just how seriously God takes the Confession of one of his children and how much He desires to grant His mercy to these same children.

This is, I believe, what His Holiness was saying in his rather good homily on mercy yesterday though I do wonder whether His Holiness is looking at the same statistics as that of the LMS in terms of the Church's health. What does the Holy Father mean when he says that the Church 'has never been so well as it is today'? Perhaps it is unfair to infer, but was the Church less 'well' under Benedict XVI and Blessed John Paul II?

Of what continent is the Holy Father speaking because Europe, for instance, is a spiritual wilderness. How can the Church be 'well' when even the Pope in Rome believes we can no longer talk to people in the 'same way' about God as we did in the 1950s? Does he also mean 'Catholic people'? Is this not what His Lordship, Bishop Kieran Conry said when he said that you cannot talk to young people about Salvation?

If Confessions are up due to the 'Francis-effect' that is wonderful news. Are we really saying that even though young people are coming back that the old language of sin and salvation is unhelpful and not understandable to modern man? Why would a Bishop rejoice in Confessions being up but not be able to treat the subject seriously enough to take this opportunity to offer some serious teaching concerning this vital element in the salvation of souls?

Not for the first time, I'm perplexed. All this and Heaven too, if I make it! Next, I'll be hearing that if God has pity on me and grants my soul entrance into Heaven, after painful purification in the fires of Purgatory, Bill Gardner will be greeting me at the pearly gates asking me for an interview!

Still, who am I to judge? The Holy Father is certain that the Church will not collapse while all objective criteria suggest that changing demographics, artificial contraception, abortion, marxism, liberalism and a range of factors, of which liturgy forms a not insignificant part, have all contributed to the collapse of Faith that we are already in. Perhaps His Holiness is speaking of the secrets of Fatima which he has read. The Lord never promised that the Church would not suffer, nor did He say it would not suffer collapse. He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against Her and that He would be with Her always, until the End of Time and that She, like He, would rise again.

"I dare say that the Church has never been so well as it is today. The Church does not collapse: I am sure of it, I am sure of it!"
Franciscus
September 16, 2013
Your Holiness, I realise that your words need proper context in the Court of the Gentiles, but you just only last week said 'absolute truth' was not something you would discuss even with a believer. It is encouraging to know with 'certainty' that you do believe the Church will not collapse.

Comments

Patricius said…
I think we can- understandably- get somewhat hung up on our own perspective of the Church and of the world. In Europe and America- perhaps the developed world generally - things are pretty bad but elsewhere great saints are living and even laying down their lives for the Faith. It is perhaps thanks to an awareness of what is going on elsewhere that Pope Francis feels able to speak as he does.
Kristin LA said…
Since Vatican Council II was described as a pastoral council and did not define (or redefine) dogma, I would not expect to find teaching changing the definition of a mortal sin or whether it needs to be absolved. In the Old Testament infractions against the Ten Commandments were punishable by the death penalty. In the New Covenant they are punishable by eternal death of body and soul. Mortal sins have to do with the Commandments. Jesus did not cone to abolish the Law, but rather to fulfill it.
Jacobi said…
"The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council"

Ratzinger.


So sin, venial, mortal and sacrilegious are still with us. Perhaps someone ought to tell this to our Hierarchy, but gently, we don't want to upset them do we?

Patricius, only two days ago I spoke to a Catholic from India. He is very worried about the incursion of paganism into the Church there!
Reconsidering all Pope Francis has said what he thinks the Church is and/or should be I´ve now come to the sad conclusion that his definition of the Church is not the same as for instance the definition of St.Pius X., of Leo XIII. or of Pope XII. explained in his Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” and of all the other Popes before Vat II.
Hans K√ľng, a friend of Leonardo Boff and President of the Foundation for a Global Ethic, who denies the divinity of Christ and other main truths of the Catholic Faith but who never has been sanctioned with excommunication never got tired to diagnose in his books and in interviews that “the Catholic Church is seriously, possibly terminally ill and only an honest diagnosis and radical therapy will cure it”. He habitually demanded “radical reforms to save the Church”. I think he would now say that Pope Francis is right and the Church has never been so well as it is today.

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/paradox-pope-francis
http://iglesiadescalza.blogspot.de/2013/04/hans-kung-pope-francis-should-use-his.html
Andrew rex said…
Kristin and Jacob - although the council was pastoral in tone, it is not correct to say that it did not concern the doctrinal teachings of the church. The council explicitly and implicitly developed catholic teaching and doctrine. At least 2 and probably 4 of the council's declarations are doctrinal eg The dogmatic constitution on the church (hint - the clue is in the title).

Ratzinger's comment said the council proposed no new dogma not doctrine. All dogmas are doctrines but not all doctrines are dogma.