One sin and it's hell forever?

[LilyM]

Gerrygarvin:

Funny how the same church leaders also get paid by my coming to church and putting money in the collection plate. Convenient for them that it’s a mortal sin not to show up!

No-one is ever obligated to put money in the collection plate at church if they choose not to or can’t afford it. In my experience it’s the Protestant churches that don’t emphasise attendance but do go on endlessly about tithing. It’s not like the Church is a movie theatre where the priest gets paid for ‘backsides on seats’ or anything.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Mom of 5:

Theresa is my favorite “saint”. She never tried to convert anyone, she helped them but not by condemning. She most likely missed mass to minister to the sick and dying.

Before you go ahead & say something that places Mother Theresa in such a light as this please find out what she believes about missing mass before you put actions into her life that are not hers! Doing this brings scandal unto her and if you respect her as much as you say you do than please give her the respect she deserves!

Peace!

 

[johnnykins]

Orionthehunter:

I think we agree. The accusation of being a heretic is very serious and contains eternal adverse consequences. Both for charity sake and also to encourage an opportunity to dialogue/communicate/catechize, it is better to stay on the objective (a idea is an objective heresy) and not on the subjective and personal (a person is a heretic).

Additionally, while it appears to be semantic, it is actually quite concrete. Your or I have neither the information, knowledge or authority to judge another a heretic. This can only be done by self (acknowledging it is a heresy, understanding its eternal consequences, and doing so freely) or by a particular act of the Church after due process according to canon law.

I agree. In fact I have several times made that same point to others with respect to mortal sin. So a Mea maxima culpa.

I do think more talk about heresy would be good, however.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Gerrygarvin:

Funny how the same church leaders also get paid by my coming to church and putting money in the collection plate. Convenient for them that it’s a mortal sin not to show up!

Nicely done there Gerry it always amazes me the hatred that comes from people that like to call themselves Catholic but do not want to be Catholic.

Do you really think a priest goes into his vocation thinking of all the riches he is going to acquire? Christ let us know it is a mortal sin… Accept it or don’t but please do not scandalize our priests with your accusations.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Our final judgement is unknown to any living man or woman.

The best I can assume given the scenario, is the man in question is not a saint. Not much of a shocker there.

---

Yes, he committed a mortal sin. But did he ask forgiveness? Did he repent in his final moments? Did he go to purgatory (which is NOT the same as hell) for a short time before being able to move on to heaven? Maybe he harbored many other sins no one knew about and is going to straight to hell? God has final knowledge and judgement and mercy and I’m glad to let Him have it.

 

[Gerrygarvin]

prodigal-sun:

Nicely done there Gerry it always amazes me the hatred that comes from people that like to call themselves Catholic but do not want to be Catholic.

Do you really think a priest goes into his vocation thinking of all the riches he is going to acquire? Christ let us know it is a mortal sin… Accept it or don’t but please do not scandalize our priests with your accusations.

I didn’t scandalize any priests. I stated a fact. It is convenient for priests that missing mass is a mortal sin. If less people attended church there would be less money in the collection plate, and less parishes which provide priests with life-long security, power, and respect in their communities.

Are you really trying to argue that it’s inconvenient for the church that the church has decided missing mass is a mortal sin?

and thanks for implying that i hate people, that’s real cool of you.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Gerrygarvin:

Funny how the same church leaders also get paid by my coming to church and putting money in the collection plate. Convenient for them that it’s a mortal sin not to show up!

That is truly the most offensive thing I’ve ever read on CAF.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

Ezekiel 33:18-20:

When a virtuous man turns away from what is right and does wrong, he shall die for it. But when a wicked man turns away from wickedness and does what is right and just, because of this he shall live. And still you say, “The way of the LORD is not fair!”? I will judge every one of you according to his ways, O house of Israel.

Apostolic Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are in complete agreement that one poorly timed mortal sin can prevent a person from entering heaven.

 

[jegow]

Gerrygarvin:

Funny how the same church leaders also get paid by my coming to church and putting money in the collection plate. Convenient for them that it’s a mortal sin not to show up!

Well it’s too bad that think of ‘going to church’ in that way. It’s also too bad that you feel it necessary to reduce priests to television evangelists who probably do rip most people off by having them hand over their money. Sure, in the end, some of that money that is offered by the faithful does make its way to the priest in the form of payment but not in the way you seem to think. All that money goes to paying bills or (surprise) into the bank or to the Diocese. Priests are paid by their diocese in the form of a salary; they are not paid by commission with respect to the number of people they have at Mass. Whether there are 100 people or 1000 at Mass the priest still makes the same amount money that he normally would. I feel bad for you if that is really how you see your Sunday obligation and our call to perform some form of tithing.

 

[Gerrygarvin]

Orionthehunter:

That is truly the most offensive thing I’ve ever read on CAF.

I must be doing something right then!

you can accuse me of being offensive, misunderstanding my sunday committment, being anti-clerical, anti-Catholic, whatever.

I still think it helps to look at who defines the rules, and who is to benefit from the rules.

on a note not related to the op, but related to thre responses to me: I was practically raised by priests, and know many wonderful examples of the priesthood. but i also have met quite a few lame conniving, politicing ones. I’d be insulting if I were to say $$$$ is the only thing driving our religion. I’d be a total idiot to say $$$$ and power does not play a big part in who gets what, where, and gets to say whats what in the church.

 

[Orionthehunter]

johnnykins:

I agree. In fact I have several times made that same point to others with respect to mortal sin. So a Mea maxima culpa.

I do think more talk about heresy would be good, however.

I couldn’t agree more. I wish when it is a heresy, we’d call a spade a spade. Unfortunately, when we finally do get to that point, we can’t seem to stop and continue w/ the subjective and personal.

Additionally we characterize a person who holds a position contrary to teaching as believing a heretical position when this charge really isn’t objectively accurate. Let me giive an example.

Based on everything I know and believe about all humans being made in God’s image and their right to fully realize God’s plan for them, I could think (note the word think verses believe) that women could be Priests (I don’t think this but bear with me).

And if asked the question in a particular way, might verbalize what I think. However, if one were to listen to my “thought” completely, I think this because I’ve not really put much thought into the subject. Additionally further probing would reveal that even though I think women could be Priests, I acknowledge that this is a call outside my purview but one fully within the purview of the Church. In short, I really just am ill-informed on this subject and I only hold a thought based on casual analysis.

Not everyone is called to be an apologetic or even a arm chair theologian. One is not required to understand (a necessary component to belief vs. just having a thought) every theological nuance or Teaching. We are only called to love God, love one another, live a good life according to God’s plan, receive the sacraments worthily, and submit to the authority of the Church.

We all know a particularly holy and devout person who couldn’t describe hardly any Teachings with a great deal of depth or authority. But we wouldn’t desribe them a bad Catholic no matter the theological issues they misunderstand. The fact they embrace 1 Corinthians 13:1-2 ("If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don’t have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but don’t have love, I am nothing.) is a better measure of being a good Christian than being the best theologian who doesn’t have love.

My wife is one such person. She has virtually no interest in this type of learning or understanding. She goes to Adoration and if she does anything it might be read a little of the Bible but usually she just basks in the Presence. She doesn’t get hung up on if this a venial sin or mortal sin. Her confessions last longer than nearly everyone in line (and frankly, I have no idea what she has to confess but she maybe she is nasty when I’m not around ). I’m sure Father is sometimes exasperated as I’m sure she goes through the trivial as well as the grave w/ equal diligence. About that only rule of the Church I know her to concern herself is her Sunday obligation.

When the subject of homosexuality comes up, all she can see is they are denying themselves the opportunity to be married and have children as she believes this at least as holy if not a holier call than to the religious life. And in her mind, not getting married is a more grave sin than anything else.

And sometimes she utters things contrary to Church teaching (she has said to Father she thinks he should be married and he just rolled his eyes). She doesn’t believe it as she has never really studied it. It just comes out but is based on what she does know very well (love one another, be Christ to them, see the Christ in them). And on occassion, her utterances has caused people to respond uncharitably to her and it has hurt her deeply.

Anyway, I rambled. Sometimes what is seen as sinful is really the result of ignorance. God knows the difference but maybe we should try to see it too.

 

[fenderstrokes]

Gerrygarvin:

I must be doing something right then!

you can accuse me of being offensive, misunderstanding my sunday committment, being anti-clerical, anti-Catholic, whatever.

I still think it helps to look at who defines the rules, and who is to benefit from the rules.

on a note not related to the op, but related to thre responses to me: I was practically raised by priests, and know many wonderful examples of the priesthood. but i also have met quite a few lame conniving, politicing ones. I’d be insulting if I were to say $$$$ is the only thing driving our religion. I’d be a total idiot to say $$$$ and power does not play a big part in who gets what, where, and gets to say whats what in the church.

You said “I still think it helps to look at who defines the rules, and who is to benefit from the rules.”

Who defines the rules?
God defines the rules. God demands us to worship him through the use of the sacraments. Jesus calls us to him at mass.

Who benefits?
God benefits directly from our attendence at mass…we please him. (what a wonderful thought!) I benefit directly by my attendence at mass…I can achieve salvation. You say priests benefit from our attendence at mass? Who cares. TeachFor how much is this worth if they lose their soul? He gives us everything…even our very breath. How could you not give him one hour a week? To think he does not want this of us is foolish.

You said, “I’d be a total idiot to say $$$$ and power does not play a big part in who gets what, where, and gets to say whats what in the church.”

I’m a happy idiot…I would rather be the biggest idiot on the planet than risk my soul.

Dan

 

[Gerrygarvin]

fenderstrokes:

You said “I still think it helps to look at who defines the rules, and who is to benefit from the rules.”

Who defines the rules?
God defines the rules. God demands us to worship him through the use of the sacraments. Jesus calls us to him at mass.

Dan

We have sort of a tautology going here:

Why do we as Catholics believe God thinks it’s a mortal sin to miss mass?

Because the Church says that’s what God is telling us through scripture and tradtion.

Why do we believe the church has the authority to tell us what scripture and tradition mean?

Because the Church has said it has that authority.

What is the basis of the Church’s arguement that it has this authority?

Because the Church has interpreted scripture, tradition, and the promptings of the Holy Spirit to demonstrate that it has this authority all along.

Why can’t the Church have been repeatedly wrong?

Because the Church has repeatedly said it can not be wrong throughout history.

Why can’t the Church have been repeatedly wrong?

Because the Church has repeatedly said it can not be wrong throughout history.

Why can’t the Church have been repeatedly wrong?

Because the Church has repeatedly said it can not be wrong throughout history.

you get caught in the logic loop. with this kind of thinking. I believe when you can recognize a tautology, you are better able to determine what you accept based on faith, and what you think is a further construction.

 

[Gerrygarvin]

fenderstrokes:

“I’d be a total idiot to say $$$$ and power does not play a big part in who gets what, where, and gets to say whats what in the church.”

Dan, I think context matters alot. I’m guessing that if i made the exact same post in a thread about how some liberal american bishops were allowing heresy to run amock in the U.S. Church, an entirely different set of posters would be offended, and an entirely different set of posters would be willing to consider the statement’s validity.

 

[jegow]

From The CCC

[2180](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2180.htm’) The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."118

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.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

[2182](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2182.htm’) Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God’s holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 2183 "If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the Liturgy of the Word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families."120


It doesn’t seem to be about money to me.
Oh wait … Worship of God!

 

[fix]

Gerrygarvin:

We have sort of a tautology going here:

Why do we as Catholics believe God thinks it’s a mortal sin to miss mass?

Because the Church says that’s what God is telling us through scripture and tradtion.

Why do we believe the church has the authority to tell us what scripture and tradition mean?

Because the Church has said it has that authority.

What is the basis of the Church’s arguement that it has this authority?

Because the Church has interpreted scripture, tradition, and the promptings of the Holy Spirit to demonstrate that it has this authority all along.

Why can’t the Church have been repeatedly wrong?

Because the Church has repeatedly said it can not be wrong throughout history.

Why can’t the Church have been repeatedly wrong?

Because the Church has repeatedly said it can not be wrong throughout history.

Why can’t the Church have been repeatedly wrong?

Because the Church has repeatedly said it can not be wrong throughout history.

you get caught in the logic loop. with this kind of thinking. I believe when you can recognize a tautology, you are better able to determine what you accept based on faith, and what you think is a further construction.

Catholics have reasoned, and accepted, the Church and Christ cannot be separated and that the Church has the authority from God. The proof for that is another thread.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

There is no circular logic here. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the Church of the apostles is everything it says it is. To say they are right about for instance, Christ being the Son of God but wrong about infallibility is arbitrary.

Scott

 

[Orionthehunter]

Gerrygarvin:

Dan, I think context matters alot. I’m guessing that if i made the exact same post in a thread about how some liberal american bishops were allowing heresy to run amock in the U.S. Church, an entirely different set of posters would be offended, and an entirely different set of posters would be willing to consider the statement’s validity.

I would be offended if you said that money is the motive for dissenting Priests and nuns who oppose the Church’s authority. Don’t slander to make a specious and unfounded argument.

Secondly, regarding your “loopy” argument (pun intended), Christ said that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. To me, divine guidance and divine protection are good enough for me.

 

[Gerrygarvin]

Orionthehunter:

Christ said that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. To me, divine guidance and divine protection are good enough for me.

yeah i’m really the one with specious reasoning. You make the leap from the text:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

to assuming that “my church” means specifically the Roman Catholic church, not the Orthodox church, or believers in Christ at large; and assuming that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it means that every bit of minutia proclaimed by the highest authorities will be without question correct, and that Peter automatically means “your successors the Roman Pontiffs.”

And who taught you that this is the way it should be interpreted, was it…big pause… someone in the Roman Catholic Church!

And what was their teaching based on, was it centuries of writings by those…another pause…within the Roman Catholic Church!!!

And who decided what books were in the canon to begin with, don’t tell me it was …The Church again!!! no way!!! too crazy!!!

Sorry, but taking offense and talking down to me won’t help you escape my tautological loop that easily!

 

[Scott_Waddell]

The Church tells us that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he gave the Church the authority to teach in his name and Catholics believe the Church. There is nothing remotely wrong with this. Could the Church be talking through its hat? In the vast universe of academic hypotheticals, possibly. But a Catholic makes enormous problems for himself if he says the Church is right about x, but wrong about y. The main one being that one has to entertain the possiblity that every bit of Christianity is bunk.