Mass obligation..

[blessedjulian]

I understand that we are obligated to attend Mass.
In my situation, I converted this past Easter Vigil (very very happy to say “I’m Catholic” now . However, my parents/family have no idea. I live far enough away from them that we see each other only every few months at best.
Well, my sister (who lives across the country) had a baby just a few weeks ago. One of the things I KNEW traveling to be w/ her and my family was that I would miss Mass for however many Sundays I’d be gone. I did not have a car (my father rented it, his name was on the slip and thus it was illegal for me to drive except in an emergency), nor could I walk up to one of them and say “Hey, could you tell me how to get to the nearest Catholic church?”
It simply wasn’t possible.
But then last weekend I did confess this and the priest said to me that it the circumstance didn’t warrant a need for confession, since my situation was out of my control.
Even if the priest was wrong (I don’t believe he was), I did my duty (confessed it) and was covered by the absolution he granted at the end.
My point is I knew full well I’d miss at least one Mass, and there was no way, w/o destroying, and I mean destroying, family unity, especially at this special time, for me to find and get to a Mass. My parents are anti-Catholic. My mother had an “intervention” for me w/ my aunt when she caught me only READING about the RCC 10 years ago.

Blessings,
Julian

 

[Ron_Conte]

Leaving aside for a moment that attending Mass on Sunday and other Holy Days of Obligation is a Precept of the Church, those precepts being grave obligations since they flow from the Church’s binding authority, I think one can make the argument solely from canon law.

It does not follow that omitting adherence to a positive precept, on occasion, is a grave matter or a mortal sin. Abandoning a precept by never going to Mass any more, or going only rarely, would be a serious matter, because the Precept is omitted to a serious extent. But if to a lesser extent, then the offense is lesser.

If the obligation of CIC 1247 is excused due to impossibility because of “grave cause” (CIC 1248(2)) then the obligation must be gravely binding.

It does not follow. One may omit an obligation that is not grave, for a grave reason. So if the reason for omitting the act is grave, it does not follow that the obligation, on each occasion, is to the extent of a mortal sin.

You posit that this is not a “moral law” because it is not binding universally. But that seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the moral authority of the Church. While it is true that canon law is not binding on non-catholics, baptized or received Catholics are under its jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is not arrogated to the Church by itself, it was divinely mandated by Christ when He gave Peter the keys.

The moral law has positive and negative precepts. Worshiping God and keeping the Sabbath are positive precepts, all of which are not continually binding, nor continually fulfilled. Particular ways and times of fulfilling positive precepts can vary. See Veritatis Splendor.

Your argument about the authority of the Church is not relevant, since I’m not arguing against Church authority.

I don’t find anything that you said to constitute even a basic theological argument. Can you make a theological argument, rather than an argument of the form: here is the rule, this is what is says, this is what it means?

 

[Ron_Conte]

I understand that we are obligated to attend Mass.
In my situation, I converted this past Easter Vigil (very very happy to say “I’m Catholic” now . However, my parents/family have no idea. I live far enough away from them that we see each other only every few months at best.
Well, my sister (who lives across the country) had a baby just a few weeks ago. One of the things I KNEW traveling to be w/ her and my family was that I would miss Mass for however many Sundays I’d be gone. I did not have a car (my father rented it, his name was on the slip and thus it was illegal for me to drive except in an emergency), nor could I walk up to one of them and say “Hey, could you tell me how to get to the nearest Catholic church?”
It simply wasn’t possible.
But then last weekend I did confess this and the priest said to me that it the circumstance didn’t warrant a need for confession, since my situation was out of my control.
Even if the priest was wrong (I don’t believe he was), I did my duty (confessed it) and was covered by the absolution he granted at the end.
My point is I knew full well I’d miss at least one Mass, and there was no way, w/o destroying, and I mean destroying, family unity, especially at this special time, for me to find and get to a Mass. My parents are anti-Catholic. My mother had an “intervention” for me w/ my aunt when she caught me only READING about the RCC 10 years ago.

There is an obligation to attend Mass. But, IMHO, one may omit attending Mass on occasion for a just reason, without sin. Such as in the example that you give. Note that your confessor did not consider it to be a mortal sin.

There are two standards here to be considered, a just reason and a grave reason. IMHO, the standard needed is only that of a just reason, and the examples given by the Catechism, which is calls ‘serious’, seem to actually be just reasons, not grave reasons.

The theological justification for saying that only a just reason is needed, despite what the Catechism says, is that the obligation to worship God and to keep the Sabbath is grave, but omitting only on occasion, for a just reason, does not offend God to the extent that He would take away sanctifying grace. It is not an offense deserving of eternal Hellfire. Even if one occasionally misses Mass without a reason, or for a selfish reason, the offense is limited, and so the punishment due is not eternal.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The theological justification for saying that only a just reason is needed, despite what the Catechism says, is that the obligation to worship God and to keep the Sabbath is grave, but omitting only on occasion, for a just reason, does not offend God to the extent that He would take away sanctifying grace. It is not an offense deserving of eternal Hellfire. Even if one occasionally misses Mass without a reason, or for a selfish reason, the offense is limited, and so the punishment due is not eternal.

Ron,

Perhaps some precision is the order for the day: I asked you to explain why you thought that missing Mass for “no reason at all” was not even a venial sin (i.e. not a sin at all.) But now you seem to be saying that it is a venial sin because “the offense is limited, and so the punishment due is not eternal.” If there is punishment due, and that punishment is not eternal, then it must be temporal, and thus the result of venial sin.

Care to clarify your position?
Thanks,
VC

 

[LilyM]

I’d really love to be able to discuss this intelligently, but I cannot due to my own deficits. I wish I knew more about my own Faith and I thought I had a good source of information with the Catechism. I am a cradle Catholic and I am embarrassed to admit how little I know. But, I do try to be obedient. I thought I was being obedient on this matter.

This particular issue isn’t a conflict for me personally because I love going to Mass. Obedience IS important to me, but more important is how I feel about attending Mass. If it is at all within my power to get there, I WILL get there because my Sunday (or Holy Day) would not be complete unless I assist at Holy Mass. We do research before heading out on vacation so that we can attend Mass on Sundays, I know the Mass schedules of Churches in our area if I happen to not be able to attend at our home parish due to some other obligation and if our children are ill, hubby and I will go while the other stays home and then switch so someone is home caring for the ill child. Bottom line, Mass is a not to be missed event in my life. But, I would like to be able to guide my children on the right path and I would like solid arguments for them when they become rebellious as teens (if that is an issue). And I want to guide them correctly.

The CCC isn’t expressed as being infallible, but it IS expressed as being ‘a SURE norm’ for the teaching of the faith - in other words close enough that you’d be an idiot not to accept what it says as being the authentic and binding teaching of the Church.

You really think, Ron, that all the Bishops of the world who collectively produced the CCC - for the express purpose of having an accurate guide to what the Church teaches, no less - that they know less about what is and isn’t grave sin than you?

Do you think, Ron, that in a million years they in their collective wisdom would let something so very wrong as a teaching that something IS gravely sinful when in fact it isn’t slip by them? Into the Catechism of all books? Don’t make me laugh.

 

[onetimeposter]

The CCC isn’t expressed as being infallible, but it IS expressed as being ‘a SURE norm’ for the teaching of the faith - in other words close enough that you’d be an idiot not to accept what it says as being the authentic and binding teaching of the Church.

You really think, Ron, that all the Bishops of the world who collectively produced the CCC - for the express purpose of having an accurate guide to what the Church teaches, no less - that they know less about what is and isn’t grave sin than you?

Do you think, Ron, that in a million years they in their collective wisdom would let something so very wrong as a teaching that something IS gravely sinful when in fact it isn’t slip by them? Into the Catechism of all books? Don’t make me laugh.

What year did the leaders of the Church get together and decide that missing mass is a mortal sin?

I mean, this is a relevant question…yet no one is answering it. It wasn’t always a mortal sin to miss mass on Sunday. What year did this change?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Perhaps some precision is the order for the day: I asked you to explain why you thought that missing Mass for “no reason at all” was not even a venial sin (i.e. not a sin at all.) But now you seem to be saying that it is a venial sin because “the offense is limited, and so the punishment due is not eternal.” If there is punishment due, and that punishment is not eternal, then it must be temporal, and thus the result of venial sin.

In post #6 above, I stated:
If someone were to miss Mass for no real reason, just or grave, I conclude that this would be a venial sin.

So I have not changed my position.

What do the other posters think:

1. missing Mass once for a grave reason
2. missing Mass once for a just reason
3. missing Mass once for no good reason
   Which of these is a mortal sin, which if any a venial sin, and which is not a sin? My answers:
4. not a sin
5. not a sin
6. venial sin

It would be a mortal sin to miss Mass on a continuing basis, as often happens with Catholics who are lapsed or non-practicing, as they say.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The CCC isn’t expressed as being infallible, but it IS expressed as being ‘a SURE norm’ for the teaching of the faith - in other words close enough that you’d be an idiot not to accept what it says as being the authentic and binding teaching of the Church.

Not everything said within the Catechism is a teaching.
Among the teachings in the Catechism, some are infallible, having been established as infallible elsewhere, and some are non-infallible. These non-infallible teachings do not require the full assent of faith, are non-irreformable, and one might reasonably disagree on particular points.

You really think, Ron, that all the Bishops of the world who collectively produced the CCC - for the express purpose of having an accurate guide to what the Church teaches, no less - that they know less about what is and isn’t grave sin than you?

The Catechism was not produced by all the Bishops of the world. And the final wording was often a compromise between different points of view that prevail among different Bishops. So the statement in question is not the teaching of all the Bishops.

Do you think, Ron, that in a million years they in their collective wisdom would let something so very wrong as a teaching that something IS gravely sinful when in fact it isn’t slip by them? Into the Catechism of all books?

The Catechism is not the collective wisdom of all the Bishops. And, taking up your argument, I ask whether missing Mass on occasion has always been held to be a mortal sin, absent a grave reason? I don’t see support for this position in Tradition or Scripture.

The Catechism is a useful summary of Church teaching, but it is not an object of worship, it is not the sum total of all the teaching of the Church, and it is not infallible.

Examples of persons who have omitted Mass on Sundays and holy days, without fault:

The tradition of holy hermits, who lived alone in deserted places and did not return to civilization for Mass no those days.

The above stated example of the nuns in Australia who ministered to the Aboriginal peoples, missing Mass repeatedly against the express order of the local Bishop. The Bishop repented of this error and admitted that they were right and he was wrong.

Again, I ask if anyone can make a theological argument for the contrary position, other than simply quoting the Catechism.

 

[LilyM]

Not everything said within the Catechism is a teaching.
Among the teachings in the Catechism, some are infallible, having been established as infallible elsewhere, and some are non-infallible. These non-infallible teachings do not require the full assent of faith, are non-irreformable, and one might reasonably disagree on particular points.

The Catechism was not produced by all the Bishops of the world. And the final wording was often a compromise between different points of view that prevail among different Bishops. So the statement in question is not the teaching of all the Bishops.

The Catechism is not the collective wisdom of all the Bishops. And, taking up your argument, I ask whether missing Mass on occasion has always been held to be a mortal sin, absent a grave reason? I don’t see support for this position in Tradition or Scripture.

The Catechism is a useful summary of Church teaching, but it is not an object of worship, it is not the sum total of all the teaching of the Church, and it is not infallible.

Examples of persons who have omitted Mass on Sundays and holy days, without fault:

The tradition of holy hermits, who lived alone in deserted places and did not return to civilization for Mass no those days.

The above stated example of the nuns in Australia who ministered to the Aboriginal peoples, missing Mass repeatedly against the express order of the local Bishop. The Bishop repented of this error and admitted that they were right and he was wrong.

Again, I ask if anyone can make a theological argument for the contrary position, other than simply quoting the Catechism.

Try Canon 1247, which interestingly enough is footnoted within the very section of the Catechism we’ve all been disputing. Says a lot about all of us armchair theologians that we didn’t bother to read those footnotes before now

“Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.”

Now it has always been traditional teaching that Mass attendance is one of the five precepts of the Church, and it has always been traditional teaching that those precepts are binding on pain of mortal sin. The Catechsim (section 2040) points out WHY - they are the absolute bare bedrock minimum of what is necessary for every Catholic. Of course it is mortal sin to fail to do the bare minimum of what is required of you as a Catholic no?

People who live in remote areas, even if by choice, and can’t get to Mass for that reason, and especially those nuns who were caring after people (which is especially mentioned as an exception in the CCC) are in an entirely different kettle of fish to you, sir.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ron,

Ah, I see now how I misread your post #6, and I see now that you were asserting that missing mass was still sinful. I should have read more carefully.

As to tradition, Ron and OnetimePoster, may I offer this proposition condemed as error in a decree of the Holy Office in 1679, under Pope Innocent XI:

The precept of keeping feast days is not obligatory under pain of mortal sin, aside from scandal, if contempt be absent.

(See Denzinger 1202)

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

Decrees of the Holy Office are non-infallible, as is also the Catechism.

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

Canon Law specifies an obligation, which attending Mass certainly is. However, it does not say that it is a grave sin to miss Mass.

Also, note that we are also obliged to abstain from certain types of work and endeavors that hinder worship, joy, and relaxation. Yet no one claims that it is a mortal sin to fail, to a limited extent, to completely fulfill this precept. The precept on the whole is a grave obligation, but only a grave lapse would merit eternal damnation. So missing Mass for a just reason, rather than a grave reason, would not be mortal. And missing Mass for no good reason would be only a venial sin, if one generally attends Mass on obligatory days.

Again, all the contrary arguments above are of the type:
This is the rule, here is where the rule is stated.

Can anyone make a theological argument based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, to say that it must be the type of sin deserving of eternal damnation to miss Mass only once, for a just reason, but not a grave reason?

 

[LilyM]

Decrees of the Holy Office are non-infallible, as is also the Catechism.

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

Canon Law specifies an obligation, which attending Mass certainly is. However, it does not say that it is a grave sin to miss Mass.

Also, note that we are also obliged to abstain from certain types of work and endeavors that hinder worship, joy, and relaxation. Yet no one claims that it is a mortal sin to fail, to a limited extent, to completely fulfill this precept. The precept on the whole is a grave obligation, but only a grave lapse would merit eternal damnation. So missing Mass for a just reason, rather than a grave reason, would not be mortal. And missing Mass for no good reason would be only a venial sin, if one generally attends Mass on obligatory days.

Again, all the contrary arguments above are of the type:
This is the rule, here is where the rule is stated.

Can anyone make a theological argument based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, to say that it must be the type of sin deserving of eternal damnation to miss Mass only once, for a just reason, but not a grave reason?

The Catechism IS an expression of both Tradition and the Magisterium - from the Encyclical Fidei Depositum which introduced the CCC:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium”

It did indeed go to every single bishop in the world for their consultation and comment, as Fr Corapi who looked at it at the behest of his Bishop at the time, has made clear. And which comment was so voluminous that it had to go through NINE separate drafts before it was finally published.

Sounds like exactly the same process the documents of Nicea, Trent or Vatican I went through, and we consider THEIR teachings infallible, don’t we? And isn’t that BECAUSE they have the weight of all the Bishops of the world behind them, which Bishops ARE infallible when teaching together as successors of the infallible Apostles? Doesnt the Catechism have exactly this same weight of authority? One Bishop alone may teach wrongly, the Bishops of the world in unison cannot teach wrongly, whatever type of document they express that common teaching in.

If the CCC isn’t an expression of the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the unified Church, then nothing is. A teaching doesn’t have to be contained in Canon Law, or Council documents, or expressly said by a Pope to be ex cathedra, to be binding, you know. Humanae Vitae wasn’t, and yet its teaching is universally regarded as binding on all Catholics.

And what’s with the ‘Just’ v ‘Grave’ reasons? There are only two types of reasons for missing Mass - the type which remove our obligation to attend and the type which don’t remove the obligation. Whether you call the first group ‘just’ or ‘grave’ is mere semantics. And you must know, of course, that there are other requirements apart from grave matter which must be met if one is to be damned, such as knowledge and intent.

Whether one is damned for missing Mass once depends on the actual reason one does so, some (like physical impossibility) can be generalised about and generally remove the obligation and the sin. Others (such as illness) need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis - some illnesses are serious enough to remove the obligation, some aren’t.

Other reasons (eg if you wanted to stay home and watch the football game instead) absolutely don’t remove the obligation in the slightest. Presuming that one is aware of that the Church teaches it is grave (and yes, the Catechism IS an expression of the teaching mind of the Church whether it’s neon signed as being infallible or not), and meets the other conditions, one can indeed be dammed for missing Mass even once.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Can anyone make a theological argument based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, to say that it must be the type of sin deserving of eternal damnation to miss Mass only once, for a just reason, but not a grave reason?

Ron, why would one want to? The condemnation I cited from the Holy Office provides that the obligation is simply binding under pain of mortal sin. The sanction would not apply if one was justifiably excused from the obligation (sickness, impossibility, undue burden, etc. etc.).

I can’t understand why you want an infallible statement to the effect. The obligation obtains due to the Church’s authority to promulgate rules binding on the faithful. Thus when the Church says “such and such a feast day is a Holy Day of Obligation” it is binding. Our obligation to obey the Church in such preceptual matters (such as days of fasting, holy days, etc) is a serious obligation due to the nature of the Church – Christ’s teaching and governing organ.

As far as the reason behind the precept a provisional and off the cuff outline would run along the lines of 1) Natural Law obliges man to worship God with both interior and exterior worship, *and *public worship; 2) Divine Positive Law commands the Sabbath set aside for the fulfillment of this duty 3) Divine law commands obedience to the Church; 4) The Church expresses both the Natural Law of worship due to God and the Divine Positive Law of the 3rd commandment in the ecclesiastical law and in general universal precept that one perform this worship on Sundays (transferring the Sabbath obligation), with the highest form available to us – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The worship owed to God is a grave duty due to the nature of whom it is due. Because of God’s infinite worth we owe special reverence; because of God is our first cause we owe him special service; because God is both our final end and summum bonum we owe Him special love. The Church provides through her liturgy access for us to join in the highest possible form of worship available to man – because our duty is so serious, our duty to avail ourselves of this offer is also serious. This coupled with our obligation to obey the Church in disciplinary and custodial matters (stemming from Christ’s constitution of the Church), obliges us, under serious penalty to hear Mass on *all *Sundays and other days, unless excused.

So it is the type of matter – serious or grave matter – which could involve mortal sin if the duty were violated with sufficient knowledge, and full consent, keeping in mind, of course, other principles of moral theology such as excuse due to impossibility, or the effect of intention and circumstances on culpability, etc.

Furthermore, the reason that one willful transgression of the the precept/law could suffice as serious is because the precept/law obliges for every Sunday. It is not a matter of the law saying that one must hear Mass most Sundays, or *many Sundays. *It is impossible to treat the obligation as an aggregate obligation, since it has definite and clearly promulgated parameters.

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

The terms just and grave are commonly used in Church documents, Canon Law, and moral theology. It is important to know if one may ommit Mass without sin would be a grave reason or a just reason.

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church.

Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively.
[From the book: Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church
by Cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn]

If a faithful Catholic attends Mass regularly, but misses Mass on one occasion for a just but not a grave reason, this would not be a sin, in my opinion; if he misses Mass for less than a just reason, but generally fulfills the precept to worship God and keep the Sabbath, then he commits only a venial sin.

In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent. But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. (VS, n. 52).

 

[thistle]

The Catechism is not infallible.

My position is sufficiently explained in my post above. It is based on the teaching of the Church as to what constitutes a mortal sin. It is based on the teaching of the Church on positive precepts, which are not continuously binding (See VS on that point).

The above-stated objections of several posters ignore my theological arguments completely, and make no theological arguments of their own. Merely citing the Catechism is not a theological argument.

Regarding the example of the the nuns who missed Mass for lengthly periods of time to minister to aboriginals. The Bishop who condemned this practice and who ordered the nuns to be certain to either have a priest with them, or not to go out to the aboriginals to minister to them if they would miss Mass, changed his position and admitted that he was wrong. The nuns ignored his original order, since they were following the Gospel, which supercedes particular temporal decisions of even the local Ordinary.

So, if anyone follows whatever the Catechism says, ignoring Tradition, Scripture and other documents of the Magisterium, then such a person is not living the Catholic faith, but some new kind of religion based solely on the Catechism. Now I know from other discussions that some of the above posters do not take the Catechism to such an extreme, but there are some Catholics in the Church whose faith is based more on the Catechism than on Tradition, Scripture and other documents of the Magisterium.

But if you still think that I am mistaken, can you make a theological argument based on Tradition, Scripture and other documents of the Magisterium, without reference to the Catechism? Or if an idea is only found in the Catechism, and not elsewhere, is it a teaching of the Church?

The CCC does not contain IDEAS. It contains ALL the teachings (doctrines and disciplines) of the Catholic Church which are summarised there and all Catholics are obliged to accept them.

2181 in the CCC is a specific teaching, clear and unambiguous, which you and all Catholics must accept. It is not an idea up for debate.

CCC 2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

 

[LilyM]

The terms just and grave are commonly used in Church documents, Canon Law, and moral theology. It is important to know if one may ommit Mass without sin would be a grave reason or a just reason.

If a faithful Catholic attends Mass regularly, but misses Mass on one occasion for a just but not a grave reason, this would not be a sin, in my opinion; if he misses Mass for less than a just reason, but generally fulfills the precept to worship God and keep the Sabbath, then he commits only a venial sin.

In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent. But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. (VS, n. 52).

Ron, why do you think your example with the nuns bears any relation to the Catechism? In your example you have one bishop, on his own, making a ruling. Bishops on their own are not infallible and can and do sometimes apply church teaching wrongly.

That’s not because the principle (that Mass is binding under pain of grave sin) is in doubt. It isn’t. He was wrong because the nuns fell under what even the Catechism and Canon Law acknowledge as a legitimate exception - they were doing necessary work caring for others (namely the Aboriginal people) and those duties prevented them from attending Mass.

What you’re arguing against in the Catechism is a document which represents the collective mind of the Church. It was specifically put together for the express purpose of being a sure norm (norm means rule, so the CCC IS a ruling guide) summary of Church teachings.

As a document it isn’t infallible, neither was Humanae Vitae. It nonethless contains infallible teaching as Humanae Vitae does. Can you see the distinction?

I’ll give you an example to explain. I’m not a Pope, a Bishop or anyone with any authority to declare infallible teaching. However, if I write a letter to a friend, and in that letter reiterate Church teaching (infallible as per Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) that the Catholic Church cannot ordain women, MY letter contains infallible teaching. You would be incorrect to dismiss that teaching in my letter by appealing to the fallibility of the letter as a document.

I hope that makes things clearer for you.

 

[onetimeposter]

I hope that makes things clearer for you.

What’s not clear to me is **what year **did the Church decide that missing mass is a mortal sin?

 

[LilyM]

What’s not clear to me is **what year **did the Church decide that missing mass is a mortal sin?

If it’s Church teaching it’s Apostolic and thus bound in heaven - as Christ promised to the Apostles. Which means the Church didn’t decide it, God decided, and taught it to us through the Church. And the year God first revealed it to us through the Church is a total irrelevance.

Since you seem to insist on a year, certainly it can be traced back to St Paul: “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing” (Hebrews 10:26) would seem to indicate the critical importance of meeting on Sundays for worship.

 

[onetimeposter]

If it’s Church teaching it’s Apostolic and thus bound in heaven - as Christ promised to the Apostles. Which means the Church didn’t decide it, God decided, and taught it to us through the Church. And the year God first revealed it to us through the Church is a total irrelevance.

Since you seem to insist on a year, certainly it can be traced back to St Paul: “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing” (Hebrews 10:26) would seem to indicate the critical importance of meeting on Sundays for worship.

Ok thank you…but that scripture is not near as clear as I would like…but, that’s the only answer I’ve been given, so I’ll take it.

Now who made the decision that missing mass made it onto the mortal sin list and not the venial sin list?

 

[LilyM]

Ok thank you…but that scripture is not near as clear as I would like…but, that’s the only answer I’ve been given, so I’ll take it.

Now who made the decision that missing mass made it onto the mortal sin list and not the venial sin list?

God, who else do you think? Again, all Church teachings come from Him through the Church …