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

[petra]

Sherlock:

Petra,
I will have to simply repeat myself again: what makes a sin mortal is not QUANTITY, but three conditions: 1-grave matter; 2-full knowledge, and 3-full consent. That missing Mass constitutes objectively grave matter is Church teaching. This is based on the Ten Commandments (and I would also add Jesus’s words in 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”). Obviously the other two conditions relate to the culpability, and therefore missing Mass because because one didn’t realize that it was an obligation to do so would not be a mortal sin. It has NOTHING to do with quantity, and when you start stressing the quantity aspect you are straying into Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, as it suggests that heaven is attained simply by doing more good things than bad, as if there was a heavenly scale. If you are denying the Church’s authority to declare what is or is not mortal sin, then you are denying the Scriptures, as Jesus gives the authority to bind and loose sins. In that case, you are a Protestant who happens to go to Mass.

I really don’t want to have to repeat myself on this topic yet again, so I’d appreciate it if you would read the responses on this thread that addressed this.

Sherlock, I have read the other responses on this thread. I am also weary of repeating myself. No has suggested a relaxing of the commandments. No one has suggested that they are optional. Jesus takes the commandments even further and describes how one can sin in his or her inner thought life. The question is whether violating a particular sin results in God’s discipline or whether it results in a termination of the relationship. Not all sins, of course, are mortal–some are only venial.

I am fully aware of what the Church teaches. The fragility of our relationship with God, as taught by the Catholic Church, is inconsistent with what it teaches about the permanancy of family and marital relationships. Catholic tracks and articles properly indicate that for true martial intimacy to develop, there has to be deep trust and a sense of safety. If either party feels that in the process of making human mistakes (excluding extremely hurtful betrayals or abuse) the marriage could be jeopardized, then trust cannot develop. If we have to worry that our partner will leave if we don’t measure up, it is a relationship build on conditions and convenience. Similarly, a child cannot grow and develop if the relationship with the parents is terminated and the child is thrown out on the street every time he is disobedient. Rather, such a child would be disciplined (perhaps sternly) by a loving parent, but not disowned. The fact that God disciplines His children is evidence that we are saved! Those He does not discipline are “illegitmate children and not sons” (Heb. 12:8)

The only argument in support of the teaching in question is Church authority. That’s it. And the more I learn about Catholicism, the more evidence I see eroding that the Church is infallible. I don’t see scriptural support, and I see circular reasoning in an effort to justify infallibility. Because of this, I’m beginning to think that the Orthodox Church is the true apostolic Church and the Roman Catholic Church is the one in schism.

 

[Sherlock]

Petra,

You wrote: “The fragility of our relationship with God, as taught by the Catholic Church, is inconsistent with what it teaches about the permanancy of family and marital relationships.”

But the Church doesn’t teach that our relationship is fragile. She does teach, however, that mortal sin exists and is distinct from venial sin----taking her teaching from Scripture, by the way: see Jn 5:16-17.

 

[petra]

Sherlock:

But the Church doesn’t teach that our relationship is fragile. She does teach, however, that mortal sin exists and is distinct from venial sin----taking her teaching from Scripture, by the way: see Jn 5:16-17.

I completely agree that there are sins that lead to separation from God and that salvation can be lost. There are also lesser sins that weaken us spiritually and harm our fellowship with God. Scripture supports that. Some violations of the 10 commandments are venial and some are mortal.

But the Church does teach that our relationship with God is fragile–relative to the permanency we see in family and marital relationships. How many times do sincere Catholics that love God fall into what the Church defines as mortal sin in their lives? How many times does a parent disown a normal child and throw him out onto the street when he disobeys during his formative years? How many times does a marriage toggle between validity and nullity throughout the couple’s lifetime? See my point?

In family and marital relationships (models God has given us to communicate similarities with our relationship with Him) we see longevity and endurance. And if those relationships somehow do terminate through extreme abuse or abandonment, we don’t see a toggling back and forth of the relationship’s status.

It might be an interesting poll to ask members of this community how many times they have fallen into mortal sin, as defined by the Catholic Church.

I believe that a overt rejection of our saving faith is necessary to fall into mortal sin. Sometimes this may occur as a result of committing a sin so serious that the need to ignore the Holy Spirit’s energetic effort to prevent such sin is equivalent to rejecting saving faith. But I think mortal sin is rare among people that love Christ.

 

[Sherlock]

Petra,

Using your marriage analogy, mortal sin is the equivalent of walking out on God, giving Him divorce papers. See the difference? It’s not God tossing us out (He never will but will remain even when we are adulterous in our relationship with Him–WE sever the connection, not Him), it’s the other way around. And if you maintain that the Church teaches that our relationship with God is fragile, wherein we have to walk around on eggshells fearing hell, then show me the relevant Catechism passages.

You wrote: " But I think mortal sin is rare among people that love Christ."

I completely agree. The three requirements of mortal sin are such that I doubt that a person in love with God will meet all three requirements in their sins—lack of full knowledge is probably going to reduce or eliminate full culpability even if the act itself objectively constitutes grave matter. And one could never commit a mortal sin by “accident”.

Earlier you wrote: “I don’t see scriptural support, and I see circular reasoning in an effort to justify infallibility.”

The argument is not circular, it’s based on Scripture: see Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17. Also remember, “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). It is just plain logic that if one has the authority to bind and loose sins, one must be protected from error in teaching what does and does not constitute sin. Now, you may disagree, but don’t claim that the argument is circular.

You wrote: “Because of this, I’m beginning to think that the Orthodox Church is the true apostolic Church and the Roman Catholic Church is the one in schism.”

Well, I hate to break it to you but the Orthodox teach the same regarding Mass attendance (my brother-in-law is Russian Orthodox). And I frankly don’t see how a church, any church, can have the power to bind and loose sins if they are fallible in this area—there would be no reason to trust the church’s ability to bind or loose if it is not also protected from error in this regard. So, since I trust the Scriptures, I trust the Catholic Church.

 

[trogiah]

Time after time after time, in parables and in plain words, Jesus makes clear how a person receives condemnation: by condemning others. Jesus makes just as clear how a person obtains forgiveness: by forgiving others. Whether we are talking about missing Mass or mass murder, we go to hell if we do those things which we condemn others for doing. We are forgiven our sins if we forgive others.

There are plenty of good reasons for going to Mass every Sunday. Adding: “Because you will go to hell if you don’t” is not necessarily true and seems like a potentially counterproductive reason.

peace

-Jim

 

[Sherlock]

Trogiah,

You wrote: “There are plenty of good reasons for going to Mass every Sunday. Adding: “Because you will go to hell if you don’t” is not necessarily true and seems like a potentially counterproductive reason.”

Couldn’t agree more. It tends to confirm the unbeliever’s suspicion that God is some kind of cruel despot, who clearly desires to whip His slaves into shape. Not only does this approach give an utterly distorted view of God, but it might in fact drive away from God those who are raised with this view. I know a man who was raised in a strict Methodist home where this was preached, and the guy left Christianity for most of his adult life, only returning when he was in his sixties—very sad.

I think the Church’s approach is wise: she clearly states the conditions necessary for mortal sin. This approach invites the person to look at their own knowledge to see if they are perhaps needing to learn more, and removes the fear that one can “accidentally” commit such an act. It is asking people to become mature adults in their faith, not trembling children. Yet by stating the consequences of mortal sin, however committed, she maintains the reality of the seriousness of sin.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think this perspective is oversimplified.

Time after time after time, in parables and in plain words, Jesus makes clear how a person receives condemnation: by condemning others. Jesus makes just as clear how a person obtains forgiveness: by forgiving others. Whether we are talking about missing Mass or mass murder, we go to hell if we do those things which we condemn others for doing. We are forgiven our sins if we forgive others.

Consider the case of Annanias and Sophira, Acts:5 1-6

Clearly, Annanias was being condemned for a sin against God, against the Person of the Holy Spirit – and it was God who carried out the sentence of the judgement placed on Peter’s lips.
The sin involved no other human being, no explicit condemnation of anyone. Just greed, pride, and superficiality.

If by ‘condemning others’ the thought of denying the fullness of a holy action is included – then perhaps it would work.
Only, that would beg the question – what of the sacrifice of the mass --.