Question for Catholics: Will you really go to hell for deliberatly missing mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaelp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, dying in a state of unrepented mortal sin will send you to hell—how often do people have to restate this? Hello? Hello?
Click to expand...
And the mortal sin in question is missing Church is it not??? There is no real difference.
Do you think that you can do anything you want without having to repent of your sins?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. But when a person becomes a Christian, his “want” change as his nature has changed. I want to go to Church, not because I will go to hell if I don’t, but because I want to fellowship with other believers and learn about God.

But the principle of the Sabbath is not going, it is resting.

**Mark 2:27 **27 “Jesus said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
There is a few BIG differences between disobeying parents and your views on God.
  1. First and foremost, my mother would NOT SEND ME TO HELL for disobeying her rules.
  2. Christians obey God because His Law is written on their heart, with no abiding threat of eternal Hell if you disobey. There is no freedom in this and God wants us to freely obey him. Just like my mom does not still threaten me with grounding if I don’t follow the PRINCIPLE which she taught me. She just expects me to follow the principles because I know understand them. Does your mom still ground your for things you do wrong? If not, why?
We are under Grace which means that we follow the Lord because we have a new nature. We don’t have the threat of Hell abiding on us for not going to Church.

**Romans 6:15-18 **15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone *as *slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Click to expand...
so then it really doesn’t matter if you sin or not since you are not going to hell just because of some sinner’s prayer? N-C religions are just so soft and easy… 😉
 
Church Militant:
so then it really doesn’t matter if you sin or not since you are not going to hell just because of some sinner’s prayer? N-C religions are just so soft and easy… 😉
Click to expand...
This is just not true. I can see how, from the outside looking in, it might be a stumbling block to the Gospel, but it is a misunderstanding of the changed nature that a person undergoes. When God changes your nature the “new man” desires to follow the Lord. If one were to change from a dog to a man, sure the man can go on and continue to bark and eat dog food, but he does not have to anymore, and why would he want to?

As Martin Luther said to a person who objected to his teaching on justification by faith alone saying, “if justification is by faith alone, then a person can do whatever he pleases.” To which Martin Luther responded, “this is true, now what pleases YOU!”

Our pleasures change because we have a new nature, being reconciled to our relationship with God.

Michael
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Petra,

With all due respect, your interpretation of Paul is flawed: I would suggest getting Christopher West’s 10-CD set on the pope’s “Theology of the Body” (available for only around $4.00—yup, $4.00!—from The Gift Foundation at nakedwithoutshame.com) for a deeper understanding of what Paul is saying.
Click to expand...
Sherlock, having now had an opportunity to check out the web site you suggested, the 14-CD set on human sexuality looks interesting, but I’m unclear about how it addresses the quotation of St. Paul I provided: “More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith; that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His suffereings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.”

Can you give me a quick summary of the relevant points in the CD set that explain why the above passage does not say that works of the Law cannot make us righteous?
 
My friend who is a Methodist said to me one day: " If I miss going to my church, nothing will happen to me, but if you miss Mass, you go to hell."
Lets say for argument sake that she is correct. Does this mean God has two laws, one for a Protestant, and one for the Catholic?
 
Scott Waddell:
Actually, the Ten Commandments aren’t numbered in the Bible in any way. That is, the chapter and verse designations were added in the middle ages. This is why the argument that Catholics number “differently” to hide graven images is particularly dorky. It seems to spring from the mentality that God dropped a complete, fully numbered KJV from space directly into the hands of the Reformers.

Scott
Click to expand...
I could quote the exact verses from the Good News Bible if you would like. I just happen to use KJV online word searches!
It seems very deceptive to take the commandments any other way. The context clearly lays it out.
 
Michaelp,
I REALLY did not believe that Roman Catholics believed that not going to Church was a mortal sin that could send someone to hell. Now I do. Having said that, I am much more opposed to the Roman Catholic faith than I have ever been, because it totally misrepresent God and makes Him petty–and the Bible does not!
Click to expand...
Hmmm. would God really damn someone to death for eating a piece of fruit?
Even when tricked? Especially if they had only been alive for a day or so? And they were ignorant?

Gen 2:17.

And to reinforce the point, the serpent eats that which man is made of – Dust. Yum. Yum. Gen 2:14 , 2:19.

The Bible does make God look petty, to a people who ARE petty.
(And it was God who inspired it that way.)

It is the church, and exegetes, who show that these prohibitions are NOT petty. As a minister/pastor, do you not explain some of these things to your church?
The Eucharist comes with a threat, just like the manna in the desert. Remember the grumbling about meat in Exodus/Numbers?
It lead to death. Pretty petty stuff that grumbling.

John 6:49, Numbers 11:4 – didn’t like bread, demanded meat.
John 6:53 – God’s new offer is better, the eucharist.

In the NT, Jesus offers bread, meat, and drink.
In the OT, the grumbling over bread led to meat – they got what they wanted (OUCH).

Exodus 11:33-34 , John 6:53

Now this all looks petty, but God chose to say it that way.
Abstaining from Eucharist leads to starvation of true life.
Wanting something else will lead to --grumbling–.
It was the Rejection of a mere ‘type’ that caused Gods wrath to blaze in the OT. Heb 3:7-19

If this is the case for manna, what about the true bread?

I cant imagine the punishment will be less!

Michael, you might/not believe in the Eucharist, but I think you can see the Catholic viewpoint.
Petra,
You are right, no one can see what is in another’s heart except God. Some of us can guess but that’s it. The bishops in the Church have to tell us the necessity of mass lest some of us get tired of going and start grumbling. If they qualified everything people’s eyes would glaze over — and they would not hear.
Either they will starve, or they will grumble.

I think the importance of Eucharist is that it is greater than any other way of being with God that we have on Earth. The mass is not only Jesus coming into me, but I giving myself to him as a priest upon the altar (so are you in that respect). This is my gift. The union, like marriage, is both Physical and Spiritual. The host, consecrated, nourishes not only the soul, but the body too. And there will come a day of resurrection of the body.

– Peace –
 
It’s not the fear of hell that keeps me showing up for Mass…it’s the love that I have for the Lord and His Eucharistic presence.
I would never go anywhere else.
 
Petra,

It would be very difficult for me to summarize quickly (maybe even not so quickly) the relevant bits that pertain to your quote, but in short the “Theology of the Body” is much, much deeper than just a talk about the proper understanding of human sexuality. It’s really (to borrow a title from Douglas Adams) about life,the universe, and everything. Part of the talk comments upon the meaning of “law”, which is why it is relevant to what you and others have posted. In short, the key is to be found in Jesus’ words in Matthew 5: 17-48. Read the whole passage. There Jesus mentions the Law in its external observance, but He goes further and demands an internal observance. He raises the bar, so to speak. As in the example I gave some posts ago, the law remains but its perfect fulfillment is in internal conversion: I don’t need the law anymore to tell me to go to Mass—I WANT to go, because I have grown enough to see it for the tremendous gift that it is (receiving Jesus in the Eucharist, the most intimate union I can have in this life). I wouldn’t dream of missing Mass. Having said that, there was a time in my life when I was not so aware of the gift: I went because God’s law told me so. Yet this was still virtuous because it showed my desire to be obedient to God, and my obedience was rewarded with grace received there at those Masses, grace which eventually brought me to my current understanding. Ditto with confession: I LOVE the sacrament of confession, but there was a time when I was more immature in my faith and needed God’s law (remember that it was Jesus who founded the Church and gave her authority to forgive and bind sins) to go once a year (I now try to go every two months). Many Protestants conveniently take Paul’s words about the law in isolation from the rest of Scripture, and use it to bang the Church over the head, claiming that the Church’s laws are somehow an artificial impediment to faith, as opposed to what they are: a loving God’s direction to His children. When we mature, we will see that direction as a gift, not as some empty law. It’s really very analogous to children’s views about their parents’ “laws”—when we mature, we see their value and live by them, not because we’re afraid of being grounded, but because we are finally able to see them as gifts which enabled us to become adults. Their “law” has become fulfilled when we become “righteous”, but the law was necessary and helpful to us in attaining that righteousness. Just look at a person who hasn’t been raised with any limits, and you’ll see a kid who hasn’t grown up and will still need external laws (and will probably break them) into adulthood.
 
Sirach,

Your Methodist friend is uninformed: it is UNREPENTED mortal sin that sends us to hell (or rather, demonstrates our choice to go there). A Catholic who, with full consent and knowledge, deliberately misses Mass but who later repents of that sin is forgiven.

There aren’t two laws: what’s different here is the degree of culpability. Remember, a mortal sin, to be mortal, must meet three conditions: 1-grave matter; 2-full knowledge; and 3-full consent. There are varying degrees of culpability depending upon these conditions. Now, objectively speaking, missing Mass constitutes grave matter. However, your Methodist friend is ignorant of that, as Protestants make up their own standard of what is right and wrong. Your friend’s culpability is reduced (maybe even done away with, but only God knows that) because she doesn’t know any better. As Catholics, we follow the Church which Jesus founded–“he who hears you hears Me”—and so we don’t toss out the Third Commandment so readily, or reduce it to a nice suggestion.
 
40.png
michaelp:
This is just not true. I can see how, from the outside looking in, it might be a stumbling block to the Gospel, but it is a misunderstanding of the changed nature that a person undergoes. When God changes your nature the “new man” desires to follow the Lord. If one were to change from a dog to a man, sure the man can go on and continue to bark and eat dog food, but he does not have to anymore, and why would he want to?

As Martin Luther said to a person who objected to his teaching on justification by faith alone saying, “if justification is by faith alone, then a person can do whatever he pleases.” To which Martin Luther responded, “this is true, now what pleases YOU!”

Our pleasures change because we have a new nature, being reconciled to our relationship with God.

Michael
Click to expand...
I think this is why many people get discouraged. They are supposed to be changed after receiving Jesus as their personal savior, but then they find that they keep having the inclination to sin. Then they give up. This happened to a college friend of mine who was agnostic and then was brought in by evangelists. His conversion lasted less than a year. Unfortunately I was not at a stage in my faith and knowledge to help him out.
 
No there are not two different rules for protestants and Catholics. Mass is a gift and an integral part of our faith. If we miss once we will not go to hell. The mass is there to help us, not to doom us.
 
40.png
michaelp:
I was just listening to James Akin and he said something that I wonder if it represents the Catholic concensus.

He said that if a person deliberately misses mass, this person would go to Hell since he committed a mortal sin.

This confuses me. Does this mean that a person could love and follow Christ his or her entire life with devotion and sencerity, but for some “invalid” reason deliberatly miss mass and end up in hell.

Please help me here. I thought that Catholics believed in salvation by grace. I don’t know if this is true–but a poll about “surprised by hell” on this web also seems to suggest that this is what Catholics believe forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23173.

If this is true, how can this be grace (“a gift” or “unmerited favor”)? How is this not legalism?

Please help me.

Michael
Click to expand...
I took this post into the AAA forum and asked for someone to answer it. You can find it in the AAA forum posts. Here is Fr. Serpa’s answer.

Dear Church,

Catholics do believe in salvation by grace. There is no way that we could ever make it on our own. But we are free to refuse grace and thereby sin—and seven in mortally. We all have free will and we are all very weak. Some of the greatest saints were great sinners and even with the gift of faith they fell. St. Peter is a good example.

So it is possible for anyone to fall into sin. That is why St. Peter warns: “Stay sober and alert. Your opponent the devil is prowling like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Rersist him, solid in your faith.” (1Peter 5:8-9a)

Sunday Mass fulfills the Commandment to keep holy, the Lord’s Day–not a minor thing, indeed!

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
 
Santoro,

Although I appreciate your overall sentiments, you are in error when you write: “If we miss once we will not go to hell”. You really don’t know that—if a person does not repent of mortal sin, he loses the indwelling connection with God, the state of sanctifying grace. This unrepented turning away from God is what sends us to hell, not the number of times a mortal sin is committed. You are adding “quantity” to the equation, which is contrary to Church teaching: the number of times one commits adultery, for example, has nothing to do with determining whether or not the act itself constitutes a mortal sin. By falling into the trap of quantifying sins (and ignoring repentence, which involves a sincere desire to not repeat the sin), you are toying with Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, as your formulation suggests that a quantity of bad works is balanced by good works.
 
Michaelp,

Your oh-so-polite anti-Catholicism is wearing thin. I’m answering this post, not because I think that you are sincerely interested in knowing what Catholics believe and why, but because your comments shouldn’t go unchallenged.

You wrote: “And the mortal sin in question is missing Church is it not??? There is no real difference.”

You haven’t addressed repentence at all. Instead, you are bent on ignoring the answers that you have gotten, and instead have chosen (dishonestly, in my opinion) to focus in with a laser beam on the the act itself sending one to hell. Let’s re-focus, shall we? You are a Protestant, and thus you act as your own Pope. You decide for yourself if and when you want to follow any of the Ten Suggestions: after all, if you don’t, God’s going to send you to heaven anyway as long as you believe the magic formula, “Jesus Christ is my own personal Lord and Saviour” (whew—that was easy! I just don’t know what Jesus meant when He said that “the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life”—didn’t He know about grace? Michael, maybe you should instruct our Lord that He is mistaken about grace, just like those poor Catholics).
Now, we are Catholics, and thus we follow the pope, the successor of Peter. Since Jesus gave Peter and the Apostles the authority to “bind and loose” (and thus protection from teaching error), we accept the teaching of God’s Church. We don’t make it up on our own, and thus don’t dispense with commandments that we might find personally irksome, nor do we view our cooperation with grace as unnecessary. You obviously disagree with that, but please be honest then and admit that it all boils down to your disagreement regarding authority, and not dishonestly pretend to be amazed that Catholics view missing Mass as grave matter.

You wrote: “When God changes your nature the “new man” desires to follow the Lord.”

A number of things strike me about your comment: the first, that you quote Luther later in this post. This is rather ironic—perhaps you are unaware that Luther would not agree with your concept of change, as he saw human nature as “a dunghill covered over by snow”—that is, the change you speak of is impossible. God merely covers up your foul nature; He doesn’t change it. But I suppose that asking for consistency in essentials from Protestants is pointless—after all, you worship at the Church of Michael, not Luther or Calvin or Wesley or Zwingli or…or…
Secondly, your theology is, in the real world, going to have some very crushing effects. You are essentially teaching that God has changed us instantly into saints, and yet real people will fail miserably in their new roles. We must not, if what you say is true and God has changed us, struggle with jealousy, lust, irritability or anger. We will never lie again. We will always do what is good, true, and perfect. After all, God has changed us, right? He wouldn’t do a bad job now, would He? Sorry, but I know of many Evangelicals who have simply fallen away from their earlier emotion-based enthusiasms. Since all they had was subjective feelings (having “freed” themselves from any objective obligations), now they don’t do anything. Nice, bland, lukewarm people—but we all know what Jesus says in Revelations about the lukewarm: He will spew them out. No, sainthood is a life-long struggle in the real world, and we need the grace-filled help of the sacraments to make progress.

Michael, read Matthew 5:19—“Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

You’re leading people astray, Michael.
 
Sherlock,

I admire your obedience and faith.

I guess I know what i am supposed to believe but when I pray and spend time with God I come to see him not as a Judge but as the ultimate couselor, friend, parent and encourager. When I fall and don’t make it to mass I feel like God picks me up and brings me back to the mass which he knows that I need and instituted for my benefit. I don’t think he casts me into hell, that is not compassion.

I understand that being in a state of mortal sin is being in a state of mortal sin regardless of the number of offenses. My conscience finds it just about impossible to believe that if someone misses mass they will go to hell.

There have been a hand full of times in the past that I did not go to mass (probably three or so in the past year) because I was depressed, down and was upset with God. I went during the week but I missed sunday. Yes thinking back they were illegitimate reasons, but at the time I felt I couldn’t go to mass. I know for a fact that a compassionate God like the one I worship who knows my conscience would not throw me into hell for that.

Well anyway, I think my conscience and motives are only known by me and God. Sometimes I think that we try to define and undefinable God with all these doctrines and rules.

I would accept that you are saying that I broke a law of the church But I can’t accept that you are saying that I broke a law of God because it is such a personal thing that nobody could ever really judge because they haven’t any idea what is going on in my soul.
 
What I want to know is, will all of humankind really be born into a fallen state, and not only humankind but all of creation, because Adam ate the fruit of one wrong tree, one single time?

(And no, I’m not questioning The Fall, just using it as an example that sin, even “what’s the big deal” sin, has consequences)
 
Santoro,

You wrote: " when I pray and spend time with God I come to see him not as a Judge but as the ultimate couselor, friend, parent and encourager".

But you are dividing God against Himself. God is all of those things you mention, but the Scriptures clearly reveal Him as judge as well. Do you not believe that there will be a Last Judgement? If not, what is the meaning of justice? Doesn’t the concept itself admit of degrees of perfection, with God being the perfect Judge?

You wrote: “When I fall and don’t make it to mass I feel like God picks me up and brings me back to the mass which he knows that I need and instituted for my benefit.”

That’s really great—clearly you’re seeing the value of the gift of the Mass. But cooperate with the grace given to you and rise to the challenge and obligation: don’t wait passively for subjective “feelings”.

You wrote: “I don’t think he casts me into hell, that is not compassion.”

Again, unrepented mortal sin is what will send you to hell. And you’ll be sending yourself—it will be YOUR will that will be done.

You wrote: “My conscience finds it just about impossible to believe that if someone misses mass they will go to hell.”

This is why it is so important to have a well-formed conscience. Your feelings will come and go, and whether or not something is objectively a sin is not dependent upon your particular feelings du jour about it.

You wrote: “There have been a hand full of times in the past that I did not go to mass (probably three or so in the past year) because I was depressed, down and was upset with God.”

Then your culpability was likely affected by your depression. Look: much of what you write is heavily subjective; based on emotion. I and others have already listed the 3 conditions for mortal sin: 1-grave matter; 2-full knowledge; and 3-full consent. That missing Mass is grave matter is an objective fact based on the Third Commandment. It has nothing to do with how you feel about it. However, the second condition may not have been met by you (it seems that you might not be well-informed on this point), and the third condition was probably not met because of your depression.

You wrote: “Yes thinking back they were illegitimate reasons, but at the time I felt I couldn’t go to mass. I know for a fact that a compassionate God like the one I worship who knows my conscience would not throw me into hell for that.”

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, but I’ll say it until you get the point: you will throw yourself into hell by separating yourself from God with full consent and knowledge. I don’t think you understand this, as evidenced by your comments.

You wrote: “Well anyway, I think my conscience and motives are only known by me and God.”

That’s true. Are you saying, then, that the Ten Commandments don’t have to be followed as long as your individual conscience says its OK to break them?

You wrote: “Sometimes I think that we try to define and undefinable God with all these doctrines and rules.”

But the Ten Commandments came from God—or do you not believe that? As for doctrine: truth matters. You clearly subscribe to Protestant concepts, basically rejecting the claim of objective truth in favor of relativism (my truth versus the truth), as well as rejecting authority. There is an anti-intellectualism showing here as well, a pitting of head versus heart (and disparaging the head). Catholicism does not oppose the two but joins them.

You wrote: “I would accept that you are saying that I broke a law of the church But I can’t accept that you are saying that I broke a law of God because it is such a personal thing that nobody could ever really judge because they haven’t any idea what is going on in my soul.”

You broke the Third Commandment, which is a law of God. The Church merely identifies, by means of her God-given authority, the objective means by which we can fulfill the obligation. Or do you not think there are any objective criteria by which we can objectively say something is wrong? I don’t know if you understand that the logical conclusions reached by this are simply incompatible with Catholicism: relativism and Catholicism do not go together.

I’m sure you’re very sincere, and your participation on this forum indicates a desire on your part to learn more about your faith. But you strike me as being in serious need of serious catechesis—no wishy-washy stuff—because it seems that your attitudes are so full of relativism and emotion—very Protestant. Emotion is an essential component to our faith, but when it is unhinged from reason and objective truth it simply facilitates endless navel-gazing and rationalization. Nor does it challenge the mind and spirit.
 
Well, I don’t know what to say. Maybe I need Catechesis. I tell you what though, an organization like the one your describe is not one I want to be part of. Would not feel much like coming home to me. I can not profess something unless it rings true in my heart. And that does not ring true in my heart. I believe in a merciful God that would never damn you into eternal hell if your motives were pure and not malicious in intent.

As Catholics we should get off our high and mighty horse acting like the pharisees. I am sure this is not what Peter intended for his church. We should keep it simple, administer the sacraments, forgive people, preach love and minister to the poor and broken. Let the righteous pretend to have authority over the will of God.

The God I have experienced in the Catholic church through her sacraments is one of compassion, love and mercy.

$.02
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top