That is a sin of "Grave Matter"

[TEPO]

There were many youth in the years following Vatican II who received VERY poor catechesis. I taught CCD to 11th and 12th graders about 15 years ago. These youth had all gone thru 8 years of Catholic grade school and were in their 3rd and 4th years of high school CCD when I had them. None of them had ever heard of mortal sin. So I used different terms – serious sin? “No”; grave sin? “No”. I asked them what they had been taught. They said just “sin”. They could not remember when they had last been to Confession; one of them could only remember going for her first Confession. Sad.

Regarding RCIA: I would imagine there are a lot of RCIA classes that don’t teach about mortal sin either.

On a positive note, things are improving I think. The bishops realized how insufficient religion textbooks had become and have taken steps to put in place materials that have some content.

I hope you will take the time to start reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is excellent. It’s a big book, but set out just to read the first major section on the Apostles Creed - then it’s not so daunting.

I remember the CCD kids coming into our school as we were getting out. I remember their catechisms. I’d never heard of a catechism… Our instruction was supposed to be better than theirs, because we were the ones in the Catholic school…! We had our own books that came from the diocese. As a result of that, I always thought that the catechism was for people entering our faith… So I rolled my eyes to it.

But I’ve read the entire Catechism by now, though I’ll admit that I don’t have it all memorized. I just never knew, until recently, that not having full faith and love in every single doctrine that the Church teaches, from the moment you read it, until the day you die is a mortal sin. I just thought that a person could not act or persue interests opposed to doctrine, i didnt know that we MUST believe them in their entirety at the moment we read them, otherwise it is a grave matter Punishable by eternal torture in hell… I just figured that the doctrines were there for “our” benefit, as more of a path to travel… Room to grow richer in the faith, to ponder on them and allow the Holy Spirit to enrich us into deeper understandings.

 

[TEPO]

Unfortunately, once we’ve learned everything in the catechism, there is nothing more to learn here… It is complete and we wait patiently for our passing from this life into the next life where finally, God will enrich us in His Glory, with the rest of the knowledge He has told us about. I don’t like this.

 

[TEPO]

…or are we as the Church militant supposed to simply surround the doctrines and protect them from falsehoods? Then we wait for the Living Magesterium to make a move -and then we squabble for a while until the dust settles, and we redline our doctrines and then continue protecting…?

 

[davidv]

Unfortunately, once we’ve learned everything in the catechism, there is nothing more to learn here… It is complete and we wait patiently for our passing from this life into the next life where finally, God will enrich us in His Glory, with the rest of the knowledge He has told us about. I don’t like this.

You should not like it. It not the description of reality. Can anyone truely say they have learned everything in the Catechism?

 

[Nita]

But I’ve read the entire Catechism by now, though I’ll admit that I don’t have it all memorized.

Great. But if we’re talking about the same Catechism - the one I linked - no one is expected to memorize the whole thing.

I just never knew, until recently, that not having full faith and love in every single doctrine that the Church teaches, from the moment you read it, until the day you die is a mortal sin.

The Church teaches that you are to accept in faith (because of Christ’s promise of infallibility to His Church) that the doctrines she teaches are true – even when one cannot understand them and/or they seem contrary to one’s own reasoning. It’s a matter of placing faith in Jesus’ Church above faith in our own individual reasoning. One accepts it as true because Jesus’ Church has declared it to be true – and then, like the father of the child in Mark 9:24, we can cry out to God: “I believe; help my unbelief!”

I just thought that a person could not act or persue interests opposed to doctrine, i didnt know that we MUST believe them in their entirety at the moment we read them, otherwise it is a grave matter Punishable by eternal torture in hell…

Again, the primary sin involved is lack of trust, belief, and faith in Our Lord and what He has promised to His Church.
Eg. Mt. 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
John 16:13 (At the Last Supper, to the apostles, the first bishops of His Church)
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;”

So you see, to disbelieve what the Church officially teaches as truth is equivalent to saying Jesus was either in error when He spoke, or He lied. To hold either of those positions is a grave sin.

I just figured that the doctrines were there for “our” benefit, as more of a path to travel… Room to grow richer in the faith, to ponder on them and allow the Holy Spirit to enrich us into deeper understandings.

And in addition they are there to protect us from believing erroneous teachings. The best protection against error is to know the truth.

 

[Nita]

…or are we as the Church militant supposed to simply surround the doctrines and protect them from falsehoods? Then we wait for the Living Magesterium to make a move -and then we squabble for a while until the dust settles, and we redline our doctrines and then continue protecting…?

We don’t “redefine” doctrines in the sense of giving them different meanings. Doctrines can develop and/or be further clarified, but they never lose their original meaning.

For example, the Church has always taught that at consecration, bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. But as challenges arose, the teaching had to be further clarified as to what occurred with the words of consecration.
The “squabbles” usually arise first and then the Church has to make the correct teaching clear. Thank heavens. Wlithout the gift of infallibility to the Church we wouldn’t know who to believe.

 

[Nita]

Unfortunately, once we’ve learned everything in the catechism, there is nothing more to learn here… It is complete and we wait patiently for our passing from this life into the next life where finally, God will enrich us in His Glory, with the rest of the knowledge He has told us about. I don’t like this.

Oh my. Reading it and even remembering all of it is only the beginning. What really enriches is seeking to understand all the fullness of what those words mean; seeing how the teachings tie in with Scripture and give a fuller and deeper explanation of their meaning; incorporating it all into one’s everyday life; …
Just completing a reading of the Catechism is anything but the end of learning.

 

[Bookcat]

No.

(man will keep inventing more…)

 

[TEPO]

One final question : Is canon law included as “doctrine”? Because I disagree with two parts of it…

1.) I think that the Church should Baptize anyone’s baby, who promises to raise them Catholic, even if they’ve never stepped foot in a Catholic Church before. As long as they promise to teach, and raise the baby Catholic, and as long as the parent promises to be Catholic, and begin attending Mass from that point on.

2.) I think that the Church should be open to allowing any Baptized Christian the right to receive the Sacraments of confession and Communion within the Catholic Church, just like the Orthodox can, and that full membership needs to be based on TRUST, as opposed to proof.

…but whether my ideas are right or wrong, isn’t the point. What I want to know is: have I sinned for disagreeing with Canon Law, and for making it known? …and must I abandon these ideas to remain in Communion with the Church myself… Remember, these are only Canon Laws were talking about which are the Churches worldly rules, they are not eternal truths. So I’m not sure if they’re considered doctrine.

 

[TEPO]

I’ll just go to confession tommorrow and find out there.

 

[thistle]

One final question : Is canon law included as “doctrine”? Because I disagree with two parts of it…

1.) I think that the Church should Baptize anyone’s baby, who promises to raise them Catholic, even if they’ve never stepped foot in a Catholic Church before. As long as they promise to teach, and raise the baby Catholic, and as long as the parent promises to be Catholic, and begin attending Mass from that point on.

2.) I think that the Church should be open to allowing any Baptized Christian the right to receive the Sacraments of confession and Communion within the Catholic Church, just like the Orthodox can, and that full membership needs to be based on TRUST, as opposed to proof.

…but whether my ideas are right or wrong, isn’t the point. What I want to know is: have I sinned for disagreeing with Canon Law, and for making it known? …and must I abandon these ideas to remain in Communion with the Church myself… Remember, these are only Canon Laws were talking about which are the Churches worldly rules, they are not eternal truths. So I’m not sure if they’re considered doctrine.

That doesn’t even make any sense. You want any Christian to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass even though they don’t believe Christ is really present or even though they reject the teachings of the Church?? You really do need to talk to your priest!

 

[TEPO]

That doesn’t even make any sense. You want any Christian to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass even though they don’t believe Christ is really present or even though they reject the teachings of the Church?? You really do need to talk to your priest!

There’s no way we can p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly who does or does not believe that Jesus is in the Eucharist, besides -when I was a child I was told that but I didn’t really understand it until I reached adulthood.

…and how can you assume that anyone wanting to attend a Catholic Mass rejects Church teachings…??? Surely they don’t know what the Church teaches, or at least they don’t object to it, otherwise they wouldn’t want to attend our Mass in the first place. Think about it!

 

[davidv]

One final question : Is canon law included as “doctrine”? Because I disagree with two parts of it…

1.) I think that the Church should Baptize anyone’s baby, who promises to raise them Catholic, even if they’ve never stepped foot in a Catholic Church before. As long as they promise to teach, and raise the baby Catholic, and as long as the parent promises to be Catholic, and begin attending Mass from that point on.

2.) I think that the Church should be open to allowing any Baptized Christian the right to receive the Sacraments of confession and Communion within the Catholic Church, just like the Orthodox can, and that full membership needs to be based on TRUST, as opposed to proof.

…but whether my ideas are right or wrong, isn’t the point. What I want to know is: have I sinned for disagreeing with Canon Law, and for making it known? …and must I abandon these ideas to remain in Communion with the Church myself… Remember, these are only Canon Laws were talking about which are the Churches worldly rules, they are not eternal truths. So I’m not sure if they’re considered doctrine.

Have you acted in an unloving manner to God or your neibhors because or your disagreement? Has your disagreement led others to sin? If so, you have sinned.

By the way, earthly rules from a legitimate authority are as binding as the Ten Commandments.

 

[davidv]

There’s no way we can p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly who does or does not believe that Jesus is in the Eucharist, besides -when I was a child I was told that but I didn’t really understand it until I reached adulthood.

…and how can you assume that anyone wanting to attend a Catholic Mass rejects Church teachings…??? Surely they don’t know what the Church teaches, or at least they don’t object to it, otherwise they wouldn’t want to attend our Mass in the first place. Think about it!

Whether you or anyone believe that Christ is in the Eucharist is moot. It is not one of the conditions for valid reception of the sacrament. Two of these conditions are, 1) baptised Catholic, 2) in the state of grace.

 

[thistle]

There’s no way we can p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly who does or does not believe that Jesus is in the Eucharist, besides -when I was a child I was told that but I didn’t really understand it until I reached adulthood.

…and how can you assume that anyone wanting to attend a Catholic Mass rejects Church teachings…??? Surely they don’t know what the Church teaches, or at least they don’t object to it, otherwise they wouldn’t want to attend our Mass in the first place. Think about it!

What nonsense is this when you say “and how can you assume that anyone wanting to attend a Catholic Mass rejects Church teachings”.
Who said that? Certainly not me. We were not discussing attending Mass. We were discussing who can receive Communion at Mass.

Even an atheist can attend Mass if they want to but they cannot partake in the Eucharist, just like any non-Catholic Christians, or Catholics in a state of mortal sin (or do you want them to receive too??).

Only Catholics believe in transubstantiation. Other Christians do not. Yes we can say that because we know what they believe and do not believe according to their particular church.
Anyone who believes all the teachings of the Church would convert to Catholicism (assuming they are not minors prevented by their parents, or those prevented by threats of violence and death).

1 Cor 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

That applies to Catholics in a state of mortal sin and all non-Catholics.

 

[Nita]

One final question : Is canon law included as “doctrine”? Because I disagree with two parts of it…

Canon law isn’t there to define or list doctrines. It gives regulations for the orderly carrying out of the Church’s actions, including the sacraments. Changes can be made to those regulations by the legitimate authority AS LONG AS THE CHANGES DO NOT VIOLATE ANY CHURCH DOCTRINE. But obedience is required of Church regulations also. Obedience is very important to God, as is obvious to anyone reading Scripture. Starts right out in the Garden of Eden with a regulation God gave to Adam and Eve regarding which trees they could eat from and which one they could not.

1.) I think that the Church should Baptize anyone’s baby, who promises to raise them Catholic, even if they’ve never stepped foot in a Catholic Church before. As long as they promise to teach, and raise the baby Catholic, and as long as the parent promises to be Catholic, and begin attending Mass from that point on.-

There was a time when, even after fully accepting and loving the great gift of infallibily Christ had granted to His Church, I still had problems with some of the Church teachings.
Here’s how I dealt with it. First, I accepted the teaching as true because of my belief in the Church’s infallibility. But then I would make an effort to understand why the Church’s thinking was right and mine was wrong.
For example in the case you give above: I would have asked myself why my thinking is wrong; what would be the disadvantages of a child being baptized into the Catholic Church if his parents weren’t believing Catholics. Why would that not be a good thing? Why would parents who did not believe the Catholic faith is the true faith want to baptize their child in the Church? What effects might that have on the child in the years ahead? Etc. …
Then I would try to see the wisdom behind the Church’s teaching. Why is it better for the parent/s to be Catholic? What are the advantages for the child?..

…but whether my ideas are right or wrong, isn’t the point. What I want to know is: have I sinned for disagreeing with Canon Law, and for making it known? …and must I abandon these ideas to remain in Communion with the Church myself… Remember, these are only Canon Laws were talking about which are the Churches worldly rules, they are not eternal truths. So I’m not sure if they’re considered doctrine.

Disagreeing, in the sense that your reasoning/thinking comes to a different conclusion, is not in itself a sin if you accept the Church’s teaching and abide by it.
Now, as regards “making it known” - circumstances enter in.
Why are you making it known? Is it to try and persuade others to your point of view or to get them disatisfied with the Church teaching also? I would say that is sinful. I would say making it known around youth or people whose faith is weak would be wrong.

Canon Laws are not only about worldly rules – they are often rules that are tied into doctrinal matters as you will quickly see if you just read those concerning the Eucharist.

 

[TEPO]

What nonsense is this when you say “and how can you assume that anyone wanting to attend a Catholic Mass rejects Church teachings”.
Who said that? Certainly not me. We were not discussing attending Mass. We were discussing who can receive Communion at Mass.

Even an atheist can attend Mass if they want to but they cannot partake in the Eucharist, just like any non-Catholic Christians, or Catholics in a state of mortal sin (or do you want them to receive too??).

Only Catholics believe in transubstantiation. Other Christians do not. Yes we can say that because we know what they believe and do not believe according to their particular church.
Anyone who believes all the teachings of the Church would convert to Catholicism (assuming they are not minors prevented by their parents, or those prevented by threats of violence and death).

1 Cor 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

That applies to Catholics in a state of mortal sin and all non-Catholics.

This is one of the scenarios where we need to be asking ourselves: what is the greater good?

If we keep the current law of membership, we can count on the current trend weve been dealing with of decreased numbers, which in turn, decreases our influence on the world until eventually we become boxed out of society completely. But its not our influence or numbers that are our ultimate goal -our goal is to save as many souls as possible, and so greater numbers influence our impact on government, politics, and society which impact people directly and spiritually, which causes more to be saved… This is the greater good!

Also, if the Church opens-up and drops the members only attitude, and instead called on the already existing Church teachings that tell us that every human being from the point of conception on, is intended to be led by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church to Him, then by opening the doors to everyone, the Church would be viewed by future generations as a “trustworthy” path to God -because the Church would be “trusting” the people, and setting the example.

…And in receiving communion, nobody should without a proper cleansing through the Sacrament of confession, which should be open to any Baptized Christian. The confessionals should have pamphlets outside them available for first time confessions. There should be RCIA and retreats offered by the Church -but not as prerequisites, but as workshops that run year round to ensure proper catacumenization… The Priest could offer as penance for a first time confession to attend a few classes.

So we really have nothing to fear with the idea of opening-up the Church. There is nothing here that needs to be kept hidden… We have no secrets!

 

[Nita]

This is one of the scenarios where we need to be asking ourselves: what is the greater good?

If we keep the current law of membership, we can count on the current trend weve been dealing with of decreased numbers, which in turn, decreases our influence on the world until eventually we become boxed out of society completely. But its not our influence or numbers that are our ultimate goal -our goal is to save as many souls as possible, and so greater numbers influence our impact on government, politics, and society which impact people directly and spiritually, which causes more to be saved… This is the greater good!

Also, if the Church opens-up and drops the members only attitude, and instead called on the already existing Church teachings that tell us that every human being from the point of conception on, is intended to be led by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church to Him, then by opening the doors to everyone, the Church would be viewed by future generations as a “trustworthy” path to God -because the Church would be “trusting” the people, and setting the example.

…And in receiving communion, nobody should without a proper cleansing through the Sacrament of confession, which should be open to any Baptized Christian. The confessionals should have pamphlets outside them available for first time confessions. There should be RCIA and retreats offered by the Church -but not as prerequisites, but as workshops that run year round to ensure proper catacumenizarion… The Priest could offer as penance for a first time confession to attend a few classes.

So we really have nothing to fear with the idea of opening-up the Church. There is nothing here that needs to be kept hidden… We have no secrets!

You’re giving examples of people who believe in baptism into the Catholic Church, attend a Catholic Mass, believe in the Eucharist, believe in Confession ----- and yet don’t want to become Catholic???

And if they don’t believe in it, then to participate is hypocritical.

 

[TEPO]

Have you acted in an unloving manner to God or your neibhors because or your disagreement? Has your disagreement led others to sin? If so, you have sinned.

By the way, earthly rules from a legitimate authority are as binding as the Ten Commandments.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut David, and I know that the Pope was given the authority to bind and loosen, which is why I believe it’s important to talk about this… Between Catholics with strong faith -because if the Pope has the authority to loosen, then it theoretically can be done. I’m just saying that I think it would be a good thing, possibly better than what we currently have in place.

 

[TEPO]

You’re giving examples of people who believe in baptism into the Catholic Church, attend a Catholic Mass, believe in the Eucharist, believe in Confession ----- and yet don’t want to become Catholic???

And if they don’t believe in it, then to participate is hypocritical.

… But that’s just it, if people could come to believe in all things Catholic, then they are Catholic! Its just that simple -a Catholic in Spirit and in deed is a Catholic! The trick is getting them to “come to believe”, and that may best be done through exposure rather than waiting for the big event.

What I’m saying is that I’ve seen people who are totally turned off by the Church because they see it as a members-only-club… I’ve seen others who were interested, but turned away because of all the pre-requirements that are involved. …I’ve seen many people come on these forums and say that they feel “excluded”, by the Church… But it doesn’t have to be that way.