B
- Status
B
boppaid
Guest
I just wanted to add…the reason I keep using “missing mass” as my example of mortal sin is because it’s the one I just can’t believe would be taught as something “worthy of Hell”. To me, that just blows my mind away. It’s not, however, becasuse it’s something I always do. I go to mass. Just wanted to clarify. 
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, Boppaid, Adam and Eve ate one little fruit and lost paradise for themselves and us. Gee, it doesn’t seem as if that one little act of disobedience should be mortal. . .but it was.
We are told, in the commandments, to honor the Sabbath Day. As Christians, that honor (thanks to Paul and others) has been given to Sundays, the “little Easters”, in which we commemorate at every Mass, with the participation in the actual sacrifice at Calvary and the Last Supper, the death and resurrection of Christ, and in which we further share, if we are in a state of grace, with the teaching from John 6 where we eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood, in order that we may have life within us. What greater physical and spiritual thing can we do beyond sharing in the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Christ? In fact, there is absolutely nothing–no, no physical or spiritual thing–that we can do **without **Christ. The Mass, then, is not just a once a week ‘meet-and-greet’, or even a good and solemn ritual and commemoration–it is quite literally a life-and-death matter for us.
The Church teaching that missing Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation, without good reason, is not arbitrary, or 'new". It isn’t something designed to ‘spoil our day’, or ‘put hardship onto us’, still less is it designed to make ‘mandatory’ something that we should desire to do ‘on our own.’ You see, the Church does not ‘teach to contemporary feelings.’ Its teachings are timeless; they teach and touch not just people from 33 AD (and before) but people of 2006 AD (and beyond). People, being people, like to put their ‘contemporary feelings’ on top of the Church’s timeless teachings, and to claim that the ‘contemporary feeling’ is the real thing, because if there is ever any ‘difference’ between the two, human nature likes to think that what is ‘newer’ is better. . .more ‘balanced’, more ‘knowledgeable’, more ‘enlightened’. And that what is older is ‘more rigid’, “more ignorant”, ‘more exclusionary’. . .
The problem is, that once you start questioning the Church’s teaching on this or any other issue, you have by definition questioned **every ** teaching. If the Church is wrong on this–and you are saying that, in your mind, you do think the Church is wrong, aren’t you?–then it can be wrong on other things. And once you have started down that slope, you will go down very, very far indeed, I fear.
We are told, in the commandments, to honor the Sabbath Day. As Christians, that honor (thanks to Paul and others) has been given to Sundays, the “little Easters”, in which we commemorate at every Mass, with the participation in the actual sacrifice at Calvary and the Last Supper, the death and resurrection of Christ, and in which we further share, if we are in a state of grace, with the teaching from John 6 where we eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood, in order that we may have life within us. What greater physical and spiritual thing can we do beyond sharing in the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Christ? In fact, there is absolutely nothing–no, no physical or spiritual thing–that we can do **without **Christ. The Mass, then, is not just a once a week ‘meet-and-greet’, or even a good and solemn ritual and commemoration–it is quite literally a life-and-death matter for us.
The Church teaching that missing Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation, without good reason, is not arbitrary, or 'new". It isn’t something designed to ‘spoil our day’, or ‘put hardship onto us’, still less is it designed to make ‘mandatory’ something that we should desire to do ‘on our own.’ You see, the Church does not ‘teach to contemporary feelings.’ Its teachings are timeless; they teach and touch not just people from 33 AD (and before) but people of 2006 AD (and beyond). People, being people, like to put their ‘contemporary feelings’ on top of the Church’s timeless teachings, and to claim that the ‘contemporary feeling’ is the real thing, because if there is ever any ‘difference’ between the two, human nature likes to think that what is ‘newer’ is better. . .more ‘balanced’, more ‘knowledgeable’, more ‘enlightened’. And that what is older is ‘more rigid’, “more ignorant”, ‘more exclusionary’. . .
The problem is, that once you start questioning the Church’s teaching on this or any other issue, you have by definition questioned **every ** teaching. If the Church is wrong on this–and you are saying that, in your mind, you do think the Church is wrong, aren’t you?–then it can be wrong on other things. And once you have started down that slope, you will go down very, very far indeed, I fear.
B
boppaid
Guest
That’s exactly where I’m at. That’s why I am trying to understand Church teachings, so that I do not go down the wrong slippery slope.
I
Iowa_Mike
Guest
Catholics who choose not to accept selected doctrines of the Church like IC are often referred to as “Cafeteria Catholics”. As far as I understand a Catholic in good standing must accept ALL Church doctrine. If a person is confused as to what is Church doctrine verses what may be theological speculaton they should speak with their priest.:twocents:
Iowa Mike
Iowa Mike
- Status