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

[wcknight]

Missing mass (intentionally with no legitimate excuse) used to be considered a mortal sin by itself.

Our pastor now says it is missing mass for extended periods of time, as in several or more weeks. He considers a mortal sin being cut off from the spiritual lifeline of the Church, a very grave and serious condition.

Missing one mass in his consideration is not a capital offense. (Maybe he is misinformed or a bit too liberal but I tend to agree.) I try not to miss any, because I want to be there and have Communion as often as I can. BUT I can’t see missing one mass as reason enough to condemn someone for all eternity. Isn’t that a bit extreme ? (I can see all the tomatoes being thrown and hissing from the peanut gallery
For a sin to be mortal, the individual must know beforehand that he is committing a very serious sin, and he intentionally and freely does so anyway in spite of the consequences.

Christ’s Peace,
wc

 

[Sherlock]

Catholica,

You asked, “What if I were on my way to confession when the ole bus creamed me?”

If you have sincere repentence and (as an indication of that repentence) you plan to go to confession, then you are obviously contrite: I think God will be able to see that you were not unrepentent. Confession is the NORMATIVE means, which means that we “normally” need to do this to be forgiven of mortal sins if we are able to do so. However, God is not bound by the sacraments. Don’t sweat this—really, it’s not that difficult, no matter how determined Michael is to muddy the waters.

Wcknight,

You wrote: “Missing one mass in his consideration is not a capital offense.”

Who died and made your pastor pope? There are plenty of dissenting and/or ill-formed priests out there, unfortunately: weigh what your priest says against the Catechism. It seems to me that his and your selective and subjective interpretation of the Third Commandment is contrary to the Church’s teaching, which is not based on subjective criteria like “extended periods of time” (why weeks and not months?) but on: 1-grave matter; 2-full knowledge; and 3-full consent. It seems to me that if those three criteria are met, it’s a mortal sin, no matter how often it’s done. How 'bout if I covet my neighbor’s goods only once in a while, instead of weekly? I mean, God doesn’t care if I sin only once and a while, right? I find the casualness of this attitude offensive to the importance of Christ’s sacrifice, as the Mass is our way of participating in that sacrifice, and of receiving our Lord in a most intimate and reverent way. Looking at Mass attendence as some inconvenience that we can try to wiggle our way out of is, in my estimation, an indication of a poverty-stricken and/or immature spiritual life. Receive the gift: don’t look for ways of spurning God’s generosity.

 

[wcknight]

Sherlock:

Catholica,

Who died and made your pastor pope? There are plenty of dissenting and/or ill-formed priests out there, unfortunately: weigh what your priest says against the Catechism. It seems to me that his and your selective and subjective interpretation of the Third Commandment is contrary to the Church’s teaching, which is not based on subjective criteria like “extended periods of time” (why weeks and not months?) but on: 1-grave matter; 2-full knowledge; and 3-full consent. It seems to me that if those three criteria are met, it’s a mortal sin, no matter how often it’s done. How 'bout if I covet my neighbor’s goods only once in a while, instead of weekly? I mean, God doesn’t care if I sin only once and a while, right? I find the casualness of this attitude offensive to the importance of Christ’s sacrifice, as the Mass is our way of participating in that sacrifice, and of receiving our Lord in a most intimate and reverent way. Looking at Mass attendence as some inconvenience that we can try to wiggle our way out of is, in my estimation, an indication of a poverty-stricken and/or immature spiritual life. Receive the gift: don’t look for ways of spurning God’s generosity.

I didn’t say he was right and I just said I tended to agree with him. Coveting (as in wanting) a neighbors goods is not a mortal sin, and even stealing it may or may not be.

I don’t look at mass as an inconvenience nor do I ever ‘wiggle my way out of it’, I happen to be the type that goes to mass in a snow storm come hell or high water. And I do not consider sin so casual that one can do so once in a while and think nothing of it.

What we disagree on is “grave matter”. I don’t put missing a mass in the same category as murder or adultery or abortion or rape or incest. IF you asked the Pope I seriously doubt he would too.

wc

 

[Sherlock]

wcknight,

You wrote: " IF you asked the Pope I seriously doubt he would too."

Really??? You mean that the Pope disagrees with the Catechism, despite referring to it as the 'sure norm"? Here’s paragraph 2181 of the Catechism: “The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the days of obligation (fyi: Sundays and Holy 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” (caps mine). Your priest is going against Church teaching, which is very unfortunate.

No, you don’t have the Pope on your side. He has also reiterated this Church teaching in recent writings. I also have an “Examination of Conscience” booklet by Fr. Altier: “Missing Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation without a serious reason” is listed as a mortal sin. So is “Serious and willful greed or avarice”, despite your claim above. Do you read the Catechism? Have you read the Pope’s encyclicals and letters?

No, you don’t disagree with me—you disagree with the Church. So does your pastor.

 

[alfredo]

It does seem like a legitimate question. For example, according to the previous forum, on as and apologist, a Catholic who goes to Mass at SSPX has not satisfied his Sunday obligation. So, you go to Mass at SSPX and say a rosary, and you know that you have not satisfied your Sunday obligation according to the precepts of the Catholic Church. However, you are angry at some of the changes in the Church today and you do not wish to repent, because that would mean giving in to the changes. Also, according to the same forum, confession is not valid in the SSPX, except in a special limited case of an extremely serious emergency. And I thought that you needed perfect contrition in order for a mortal sin to be forgiven outside of confession, which say this person does not have it. Otherwise, his life is perfectly exemplary, as he keeps the ten Commandments, he observes the Commandments of the Church and he attends Mass at SSPX every day and says his rosary every day. He avoids contracep;tion and raises a family of nine children in accordance with his love of family life. But he does not repent of going to Mass at SSPX. Now according to the previous forum, this would be a mortal sin, and the person is unrepentant. Also, this man gives 20% of his weekly income to charitable causes. Would this one unrepentant mortal sin sentence him to eternal damnation and everlasting hellfire, even though he has led an almost perfect life otherwise.

However, on the other hand, we have a pervert, who indulges in child pornography and has molested, tortured and killed twenty or so children. He has been married several times and has beaten up his various wives and mistresses leaving them crippled, lame and in one case blind. He has beaten his children and in a drunken rage has ran over several innocent people while driving drunk. He has robbed several banks and shot many innocent people in doing so. This has left some crippled while others died on the spot. Finally, he was caught and brought to death row, where he was found cursing everyone and spitting constantly, until one hour before his execution, he suddenly became sorry for his sins becaseu he knew he was going to hell otherwise and confessed to the local Catholic chaplain, who gave him absolution, and at the time of the execution gave him the last rites of the Church. So this individual ends up in heaven.

 

[worm]

itsjustdave1988:

This simply means that all validly baptized persons are correctly called “Christian” even if they are heretical or schismatic. Yet, formal heresy and schism are damnable sins. So, just because you were once justified through valid baptism doesn’t mean you will necessarily remain justified.

Our separated brethren can commit mortal sin just like Catholics can. If they die impenitent of their sin, they go to hell, just like Catholics. The Holy Sacraments equip the faithful in their lifelong battle with sin. Without the Sacraments, the Christian is not well equipped for this battle.

It still seems like an unreconcileable contradiction. If protestants can merit grace without the mass, sacraments ect. This is what “protestants” do, therefore is a formal heresy and is damnable. How can they possibly merrit grace?
mike

 

[petra]

Michael, I have a very difficult time grappling with the concept that our salvation is that fragile. And I have struggled for a long time with the specific issue of missing Mass. As the readers have correctly pointed out, the Church indeed teaches that a single instance of missing a Sunday or Holy Day obligation is a grave matter. If a grave matter is accompanied with full knowledge and consent, it is a mortal sin. If someone dies in mortal sin (without having repentance and confession to a priest), that person goes straight to hell. Since only Catholics are presumed to have full knowledge of the gravity of missing mass, non-Catholic Christians are not bound by this.

Others have suggested that to miss mass without an approved excuse is to reject God and therefore, reject His gift of salvation. I would say that is pretty presumptuous! How does anyone know what is in someone else’s heart? Sometimes, I feel the Lord leading me to stay home Sunday morning for an extra intimate time with Him in His Word. Tonight, I felt led to attend Holy Thursday mass, so I did. No one can judge the private relationship I have with God. And why would I confess something as “sin” in which God led me?

But the larger issue involves the place of faith and works in salvation. We know we can’t earn our way to heaven and that salvation is a gift of grace. We also know that what we do in this life matters and the New Testament is full of examples of behaviors and sins that typify a Christian that has fallen from grace and is destined for hell. But St. Paul also says, “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.”

Since righteousness is a requirement to get to heaven and it cannot be obtained through the Law, it seems the only way to miss heaven is to negate the salvific faith in Christ. Our step of faith to salvation is a momentous event and one that is preceded by much inner searching and yearning. To negate this, it seems that it would require a correspondingly significant event, through either a direct rejection of the Christian faith, a sin so serious that one would have to reject the Holy Spirit’s energetic effort to prevent us from committing it, or an extended period of gradually turning from lukewarm to cold toward God, culminating in a serious sin. Short of rejecting Christ, our sin weakens us and impedes our fellowship with God, but our relationship and salvation remain intact.

One thing that many Catholics seem not to understand is that relative security in a relationship fosters trust and intimacy. Don’t misunderstand–I believe salvation can be lost. But I believe it is much more secure than the official teachings of the Church convey. God has given us 2 models through which to learn about our relationship with Him: the marriage relationship and the father/child relationship. Both of these earthly models are based on deep love and commitment. Although no relationship is bullet proof, they are relatively secure. I would suggest that if those relationships were as fragile and conditional as the Church indicates our relationship is with God, we would not move past survival mode into deep intimacy.

There’s no excuse for sin. But here’s a news flash: that is why we can’t be justified by the law and Christ paid the penalty for our sin. There is no more condemnation in Christ Jesus. We aren’t perfect, but His love gives us the freedom to get there without being damned in the process.

 

[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.

You wrote: “Sometimes, I feel the Lord leading me to stay home Sunday morning for an extra intimate time with Him in His Word. Tonight, I felt led to attend Holy Thursday mass, so I did. No one can judge the private relationship I have with God. And why would I confess something as “sin” in which God led me?”

Why would God lead you to not receive the Incarnate Word in the most intimate form possible, in the Eucharist? Doesn’t sound like God to me. Why would God pit his Church against Himself? You are creating a false dichotomy. Frankly, if we do things only because we feel like it, we won’t mature in our faith to go beyond the law—the law becomes obsolete only when it is internalized: you are free from the law when you no longer feel like going against it. Let me put it this way (borrowing an illustration from Christopher West): I don’t feel like murdering my husband. Because I don’t have any inclination to do so, I am internally free from the commandment which tells me that I shouldn’t do that. Likewise with the Third Commandment: when I have grown in my understanding of the gift being offered at Mass to the point where missing Mass would never even occur to me, I have become internally free from that law. I can thankfully say that I have reached this point. Until I reached that point, I was obliged to live under that external law and sometimes went, not because I felt like it, but because the obligation (law) was there.

Your approach is too subjective and subject to your feelings and your fallible ideas of what God is telling you to do. We are all very, very capable of fooling ourselves. Think of the Church as your Mother: she’s telling you to eat your vegetables. When you mature, you’ll eat your vegetables without having to be told because you’ll recognize that you need to in order to maximize health, and she won’t have to tell you anymore. God gave us the Third Commandment for a reason, and gave us the Church to instruct us as to how to fulfill that commandment (NOT “suggestion”).

 

[wcknight]

Sherlock:

wcknight,

You wrote: " IF you asked the Pope I seriously doubt he would too."

Really??? You mean that the Pope disagrees with the Catechism, despite referring to it as the 'sure norm"? Here’s paragraph 2181 of the Catechism: “The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the days of obligation (fyi: Sundays and Holy 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” (caps mine). Your priest is going against Church teaching, which is very unfortunate.

No, you don’t have the Pope on your side. He has also reiterated this Church teaching in recent writings. I also have an “Examination of Conscience” booklet by Fr. Altier: “Missing Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation without a serious reason” is listed as a mortal sin. So is “Serious and willful greed or avarice”, despite your claim above. Do you read the Catechism? Have you read the Pope’s encyclicals and letters?

No, you don’t disagree with me—you disagree with the Church. So does your pastor.

I defer to your better informed studies. I read a whole lot of things about our faith, but no I have not been reading the Catechism lately or the Popes writings.

Contrary to what you may think, I totally agree with what the Church teaches and I think my pastor does too (AND I’m not even sure it was my pastor who said it, it may have been a visiting priest during one of our penance services). Maybe I’m misinterpreting what was said. I’m sure if he were called to task on this view the priest would defer to the Church and the Popes teachings as well.

AND BTW neither I nor my pastor look at the Sunday Mass in a trivial manner. There is no casualness about either of our attitudes towards Sunday mass or any of the teachings of the Church.

There is a huge difference between, “Serious and willful greed or avarice” and all the possible sins that goes against covetiing a neighbors goods. Not everything covered by ‘thou shalt not steal’ or coveting a neighbors goods is a mortal sin. IF I steal a pencil from work, that is still stealing, but since the damage done is not significant, it is not a mortal sin, but still a sin against the commandments.

I am not advocating that even venial sins are okay, all sin is harmful and even small sins if not corrected can eventually lead one to more serious sins later.

On second thought, what I posted was way off track and I regret that it may mislead some folks. However there is a way to correct ones mistakes without being abusive and condescending.

Christ’s Peace
wc

 

[deb1]

michaelp:

I would not equate committing adultry once to missing mass once, would you?

Hello,

I am going to jump into the fray. Over and over in scripture God uses language that indicates that the church is his bride. WHen Israel worshipped other idols several times the prophets admoinished their people as committing adultry, playing the harlot of acting like a prostitue. In fact, our marriages here on earth are to reflect the spiritual union of the church and Christ. Read Ephesians 5: 22-33. If God equates Israel turning away from him as adultry how can we not equate purposely turning away from Mass as adultry?

I am not good at anaologies but I am going to try. Because you are a man I am going to use a woman to represent God in the marriage. Of course we know that God always represented himself as male, but just make allowances this time. Ok? Let’s imagine that there is some completly worthless fellow(represents us all) who marries a woman a million times better then him. And this very good, wonderful woman gives him total support and love. She does ask him to spend just one hour a week with her. That’s it. All this man’s sucess in life has been the direct result of this woman’s support, advice and affection. Now imagine that he has been up to this point as good a husband as possible, but of course, the woman is so wonderful that he can’t possibly deserve her. she doesn’t care and never makes him feel bad about his lack.

Now imagine one day, the day set aside to spend one hour with her, the husband goes into his room and faces the wall. The wife comes in and asks,“Baby, what is wrong? Tell me so that I can help.” BUt the man just stamps his foot and refuses to answer. After the hour is up, he leaves his room but refuses to explain or ask for forgiveness. He won’t seek counseling or any mediation at all. As far as explaining himself, his attitude is why should I? That seems very arrogant and ungrateful. In fact, it seems unlikely that someone without some additional problems would act that way.

Now, despite being very good, this woman is not a doormat. All she wants is for him to simply explain himself and then to apologize for missing their hour. Very simple and very easy. The question is, why wouldn’t the man explain himself?

I don’t think that you are being disrespectful Michael. You just don’t understand how important Mass is to a practicing Catholic.

 

[kaygee]

If the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is really the closest expression on earth that we have to life in heaven, if one willfully forfeits the opportunity to go to Mass on earth, why would they want to go to heaven?

 

[awfulthings9]

MichealP,

Yes, missing Mass without a good reason is a mortal sin because, in that instance, a person is choosing something worldly over his dedication to Christ. He will go to Hell IF he does not feel repentance for this. If he feels no remorse or does not intend to mend his ways, he is saying that the worldly alternative was preferable to Christ. However, he would not go to Hell if any of these things occur: he repents and goes to confession as soon as possible, vowing to make Mass from here on out; or he repents and intends to go to confession, but dies before he had the opportunity (God understands he had just slipped and was going to make better). Lastly, let’s say that, as one of your scenarios pointed out, he died while still in his moment of weakness, unable to repent - which means he had not chosen apostasy, but would have repented had he lived longer - in this instance, we simply trust in the mercy of God, who knows what path this man would have taken AND who is bound be no rules. Can I say that God would have let him into heaven - no, I don’t make the rules, but understanding God’s mercy, I do believe that if extraordinary circumstancess caused his lapse, our omnipotent Lord would understand. We just can’t make that assumption, so we must live by the rules and make ammends, out of love of God and fear of loss of heaven, for any mortal sin. Now, to your question of is missing Mass the equivalent to committing adultery: in both instances, we have rejected Christ to pursue something worldly. Look at all the instances in Scripture of seemingly minor acts resulting in destruction (innocently touching the arc of the covenant). I understand that this is an example out of the old Testament, but my point is this: it only takes one step off the edge of a building, no matter how small the step, to fall all the way to the bottom. In the case of venial sins or repented mortal sins, God is willing to catch us at any point on the way down (no matter how short the fall), but it is up to us to accept his saving aid.

 

[awfulthings9]

One last note regarding legalism: Legalism in a monopoly game would be if I had accidentally not followed the rules or cheated on purpose, but immediately admitted it and asked my friends to forgive me. If they refused, that would be legalism - strict, ridiculous decisions based on rules rather than common sense. It would not be legalism if I cheated or purpose and intended to do so again, or let the game continue without calling attention to it. In that case, my friends would have every right to get up and walk away. I am chosing, in that instance, to make the game a farse, as I would be by missing time with the Lord with no intention of feeling bad about it or coming clean. Of course he knows I “cheated”, but it’s up to me to come clean and he’ll show mercy. Now if I die while playing monopoly with my friends before I have a chance to repent . . . well, actually, knowing my friends, they’d say I lost because I didn’t finish. I’m glad they’re not in charge of the really important decisions, like eternal salvation.

 

[Sherlock]

wcknight,

You wrote: “Maybe I’m misinterpreting what was said. I’m sure if he were called to task on this view the priest would defer to the Church and the Popes teachings as well.”

I hope so. But unfortunately there are ill-formed and/or dissident priests out there, and it is wise to educate oneself with the Catechism and other orthodox sources so that you know if the information is accurate. If your priest is a good, solid, orthodox priest, then you have a great gift and by all means listen to him (I am fortunate to have such a priest!) and let him know how much he is valued. If not, then weigh what is said against the Catechism and other sources. He may be perfectly well-intentioned, but poorly formed by a less-than-orthodox seminary. I’m afraid that’s all too common.

You wrote: “There is no casualness about either of our attitudes towards Sunday mass or any of the teachings of the Church.”

I’m glad to hear that. But surely you can see why I would think differently, after you write: “Missing mass (intentionally with no legitimate excuse) used to be considered a mortal sin by itself”; “Our pastor now says it is missing mass for extended periods of time, as in several or more weeks”; and “Missing one mass in his consideration is not a capital offense”? The first comment makes it sound as if Church teaching has changed when it hasn’t; the second comment certainly makes it sound as if the Catechism is wrong—that it’s a quantity problem as opposed to any objective criteria; and your last comment indicates a lack of understanding of why a person goes to hell. Hopefully some of the responses here will have been helpful in this regard.

You wrote: “There is a huge difference between, “Serious and willful greed or avarice” and all the possible sins that goes against covetiing a neighbors goods. Not everything covered by ‘thou shalt not steal’ or coveting a neighbors goods is a mortal sin”

I know that. The Church knows that. One of the requirements of mortal sin is that the matter must be grave. I’m not sure what you’re disputing here.

You wrote: “However there is a way to correct ones mistakes without being abusive and condescending.”

I sincerely apologize if I’ve been either or both—I’m very passionate about these matters, and sometimes I let that take over and I can let my frustration show through. I’m very sorry.

 

[petra]

Sherlock, thanks for your reply.

I’m not suggesting that God’s commandments are suggestions. Nor am I suggesting that violating them is not sin. But the 4th commandment says that we should keep the Sabbath Holy. Sometimes I do that by taking a quiet Sunday morning to pray and read the Word. My relationship with God is both objective and subjective. The subjective part of it involves listening to the Holy Spirit. It is impossible for anyone else to appraise this. Remember that Christ kept the Sabbath Day Holy in ways that were contrary to the norm. He healed people and was highly criticized. Why didn’t he just wait until the next day? Why did He have to do it on the Sabbath? Sometimes I do, indeed, feel led to worship God and keep the Sabbath Holy in other ways.

On a more objective note, another point should be made about the issue of mass and mortal sin. Not all violations of the 10 commandments are mortal sins. (They all potentially could be, but it depends upon the intensity and duration of the sin). For example, we are to honor our parents. If an adult child gets a little impatient with a parent and speaks sharply, is that sin? Yes. But it is mortal sin? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Catholic Church would say it is. But we can all agree that it is possible to disrespect parents to such a degree that it becomes spiritually lethal. So if not all violations of the 10 commandments is mortal sin, why is missing 1 mass mortal sin?

Thanks for the resouce. I’ll check it out.

You say the law beomes obsolete when it is internalize or when we feel like keeping. That is like saying the law becomes obsolete when we keep the law! You are gravely mistaken. The purpose of the law was to show people that they can’t keep it–that we cannot attain righteousness through out own efforts. That was supposed to set the stage for the Jews to receive Christ when he entered our world. For the most part, they rejected Him, but we learn from the past that the law was implemented to show us how sinful we are. The Law is like a thermometer. It tells us we are sick, but it can’t make us well. It can’t make us righteous.

Galatians 3:21-25 says, 'Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

This, of course, does not mean that the law is abolished and violations of the 10 commandments are not sin. Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but fulfill.” We should strive to keep the 10 commandments, but we cannot keep them perfectly enough to attain righteous and avoid damnation. However, Christ kept the law perfectly, fullfilling the Law in one sense. Then as a spotless lamb, He also fulfilled it on our behalf because we can’t. We can’t.

If you think the law is obsolete because you can fulfill it, you are deceived. Paul continues in Galatians 5:1-4, “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision [e.g. attempt to obtain righteousness through the law], Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who recieves circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” Talk about mortal sin!!

There are 2 ways to get to heaven: keep the law perfectly or admit we can’t keep the law perfectly and receive the gift of Christ’s attonment for our sins. These 2 methods cannot be intermingled. To do so invalidates the second method and puts us under the law. If that happens, we commit mortal sin and are severed from Christ.

I would submit to you that it is possible that attending mass is a mortal sin–it depends entirely upon one’s motives. If one is doing it to attain righteousness and prevent damnation, it is an attempt to be justified by the law. Any attempt to be justified by the law severes us from Christ and requires us to keep the law perfectly. Christ was the only one able to actually do that, so that bodes ill for those who attempt this. On the other hand, if we attend mass out of love and obedience in the security of our relationship with God, it is a love offering to him.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

worm (Mike),

It still seems like an unreconcileable contradiction.

What does?

If protestants can merit grace without the mass, sacraments ect. This is what “protestants” do, therefore is a formal heresy and is damnable. How can they possibly merrit grace?

“Charity covereth all sins.” (Prov 10:12)

I’m certain that many Protestants and Catholics are formal heretics. But there is still a distinction between formal and material sin according to Catholic theology. Both are sin. Both are harmful to the soul. But only formal sins are damnable.

Formal sins require the correct “form.” Which is where the name “formal” comes from. The correct “form” involves both the objective and subjective elements to be present.

According to the source I provided above, CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sin,

Material and Formal Sin

This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts.

Those that crucified Jesus most certainly rejected him, both spiritually and physically, right? What did Christ pray with regard to those who crucified Him? “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luk 23:34). From the cross He prayed this to the Almighty Father. Doesn’t that suggest that there is such a thing as grave yet material sinfulness, where imputability is at least somewhat diminished due to a lack of full knowledge and/or perfect consent of will? Can those in the first century who rejected Christ in the most literal sense be forgiven by the mercy of God, in view of their ignorance? Catholicism does not teach that they WILL be forgiven with absolute certainty. Yet, Catholicism does teach that they MAY be forgiven. Only God knows for sure if one is in a state of grace at the moment of their death.

God created the Holy Sacraments as necessary means of grace for the faithful. But does that mean that God is *limited *by his own creation, and cannot pour out his saving grace outside his Holy Sacraments? Wasn’t Cornelius, a pagan, along with his friends and family (Acts 10) sanctified by the Holy Spirit before receiving sacramental baptism? How is this possible if one understands the “necessity” of Baptism to mean sacramental baptism, strictly speaking? Hasn’t the Church always affirmed extra-sacramental means of sanctification, if God so chooses, albeit not as a normative means, but still efficacious toward remittance of sin?

Furthermore, let’s discuss “meriting grace.” Nothing the sinner does prior to justification, merits the grace of justification. Nothing. Otherwise, grace is not gratuitous.

Merit is understood in two ways: condign merit, and congruous merit. The first is like being paid a just wage for just deeds. Christ merited all the grace of salvation condignly. No other person merited God’s grace in this way. Congruous merit is like a military guy, who, in addition to receiving his just pay condignly, he receives a medal congruously for meritorious service. He is not owed a medal, strictly speaking. It is given out of charity and justice, as a reward for his deeds. But if his superior did not award him the medal, he would have no strict right to it.

Protestants who are validly baptized are remitted of all sin. They are justified just as surely as any validly baptized Christian. So, can they merit further grace?

If their heresy is material, it is at worst a venial sin. Only formal sin meet the conditions for mortal sin according to Catholic doctrine. Christians who are already justified can merit further grace condignly, even those who are material heretics. This is the “reward” spoken so often in the New Testament. Yet, sinners cannot merit justification, either condignly or congruously. Corporeal and spiritual works of mercy are efficacious in meriting (congruously) further grace from God. Such grace is not limited solely to the Holy Sacraments. The Church teaches that the Holy Sacraments convey grace ex opere operato, while other meritorious works of faith and mercy convey grace ex opere operantis. Consequently, apart from the Holy Sacraments (after baptism), heretics are not without a means of grace.

 

[Sherlock]

Petra,

It occurs to me that you are Protestant: what I have been saying about the obligation to attend Mass applies to Catholics, not Protestants, as Protestants obviously do not recognize the authority of the Church. As a Catholic, I do believe that Jesus founded a Church, and gave the apostles the authority to loose and bind sins, which logically entails the authority of determining what is and is not sin. As a Protestant, you are your own authority and thus you have decided for yourself whether or not going to services constitutes mortal or venial sin, or indeed if it’s sin at all. You are your own Magisterium. As a Catholic, I do not act as my own Magisterium but accept the Magisterium’s teaching on these matters. Anything less makes me a “cafeteria Catholic”, which is to say, heterodox. And the Magisterium teaches that “The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the days of obligation. THOSE WHO DELIBERATELY FAIL IN THIS OBLIGATION COMMIT A GRAVE SIN” (caps mine)-- paragraph 2181 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It doesn’t say anything about quantity: the Church applies the same criteria for mortal sin here as she does elsewhere. Now, if you were Catholic and strongly felt that you wanted to have a quiet Sunday reading the Word of God, that would be fine as long as you had gone to a Saturday vigil Mass. If you fail to observe the obligation, you have violated the Third Commandment, and your culpability depends upon how well you understood the requirement (full knowledge), and your full consent. The Church has already determined that missing that obligation is grave matter (the third requirement of mortal sin), so, if you were a Catholic, thinking that it isn’t grave is not an option (unless you want to dissent). I hope that explains that a little better.

You wrote: “My relationship with God is both objective and subjective”

I agree—that is true for all of us.

You wrote: “Why did He have to do it on the Sabbath?”

To show that doing good for another on the Sabbath was not a violation of Sabbath laws, among other deeper considerations. I would suggest reading some good Bible study to learn more: Jeff Cavins and Scott Hahn are both good (I am taking a Bible study with Jeff Cavins now and highly recommend him).

You wrote: “Sometimes I do, indeed, feel led to worship God and keep the Sabbath Holy in other ways.”

This is very Protestant thinking: “either/or” instead of “both/and”. Catholicism does not oppose private worship against public worship, recognizing that each is essential in the Christian life.

You wrote: “You say the law beomes obsolete when it is internalize or when we feel like keeping. That is like saying the law becomes obsolete when we keep the law!”

No, you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m in a hurry (off to Stations), so I just don’t have the time to explain this in detail. The rest of your post indicates a very Protestant view, and I’m sure that there are other threads that explore the various differences between Protestant and Catholic perspectives. The differences between the perspectives are profound, and needless to say we are not going to be able to agree—I’m Catholic for a reason, and presumably you are Protestant for a reason! But I’ve enjoyed the discussion.

 

[petra]

Thanks for your response, Sherlock.

I became a Catholic 3 years ago, but was received into the Church outside the normal RCIA program. I was unaware of many aspects of Catholicism until I started participating in this forum. Currently, I’m not sure where I fit. To Protestants, I sound Catholic. To Catholics, I sound Protestant. Technically, I’m still a Catholic, as I haven’t joined another church and I still attend mass.

 

[mtr01]

petra:

Thanks for your response, Sherlock.

I became a Catholic 3 years ago, but was received into the Church outside the normal RCIA program. I was unaware of many aspects of Catholicism until I started participating in this forum. Currently, I’m not sure where I fit. To Protestants, I sound Catholic. To Catholics, I sound Protestant. Technically, I’m still a Catholic, as I haven’t joined another church and I still attend mass.

Hi petra,

I don’t want you to take this the wrong way, but I understand where Sherlock was coming from. One of the things I noticed was that you referred to the 4th Commandment. Now, you mentioned that you weren’t aware of alot of things about Catholicism. One of these things is that non-Catholics number the Commandment differently - the commandment you refer to is the 3rd for Catholics. This made me think that you were Protestant as well.

Also, when you said “technically I’m still a Catholic”, you didn’t sound very enthused. Are you considering leaving the Church, or are you just unsure if you really are Catholic?

Just one final observation. If you truly weren’t aware that missing Mass was a grave matter, then of course you are not in mortal sin (as one of the requirements is full knowledge). However, now that you know, a piece of brotherly advice would be to hit the confessional before your next Mass…it surely couldn’t hurt. Also, invest in a Catechism, it will answer any questions you might wonder about.

 

[mtr01]

mtr01:

Hi petra,

I don’t want you to take this the wrong way, but I understand where Sherlock was coming from. One of the things I noticed was that you referred to the 4th Commandment. Now, you mentioned that you weren’t aware of alot of things about Catholicism. One of these things is that non-Catholics number the Commandment differently - the commandment you refer to is the 3rd for Catholics. This made me think that you were Protestant as well.

Also, when you said “technically I’m still a Catholic”, you didn’t sound very enthused. Are you considering leaving the Church, or are you just unsure if you really are Catholic?

Just one final observation. If you truly weren’t aware that missing Mass was a grave matter, then of course you are not in mortal sin (as one of the requirements is full knowledge). However, now that you know, a piece of brotherly advice would be to hit the confessional before your next Mass…it surely couldn’t hurt. Also, invest in a Catechism, it will answer any questions you might wonder about.