Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

I don’t agree. “Not caring” is part of the third component of mortal sin. Knowing that the act is seriously sinful, one still chooses it. Our man cannot say adultery is seriously sinful (knowledge), decide to do it anyway (consent) and then say that because he consented, he must not have had knowledge of the act’s sinfulness.

True, we would not except that as an excuse, however, it may be an explanation. “Knowledge” has to do with knowing the seriousness, that it is in opposition to God’s law. Such “knowing the seriousness, the opposition” is a matter of an informed conscience. Such knowing is described as “full knowledge” in the first definition of mortal sin. To me, some people are going to know much better than others what such “opposition” and “seriousness” truly is. To the degree that the person knows the oppostion, the person will behave accordingly. A person without an informed conscience is ignorant.

Automatic blindness has a way of cutting through all conscience, ignorant or not. Again, these are not excuses, but explanations. People sin out of blindness and ignorance.

It sounds like we apply “knowing” in different ways, and I don’t find your position unreasonable. The idea that “knowing” is kind of a “yes” or “no”, an “on/off” switch, would lead to a conclusion that the man and woman committed mortal sin. To me, the couple simply does not know what they are doing; they are blinded by desire. Again, and sorry to be ad nauseum, this is an explanation, not an excuse.

The man has not simply “heard the words.” As a catechized Catholic, he knows as a fact that adultery is a grievous sin and that the Church has told him that it is a grave sin. In discussing the fact that it is wrong, the man has revealed his awareness of its sinful nature. The CCC defines “knowing the sinful character if the act” within this statement:

I have sincerely searched for any definition that states or implies otherwise, but all I can find is that full knowledge is the knowledge that the act is grievous.

You are correct in asserting that he must have an informed conscience. The conscience is a sort of depository of moral laws and God’s enlightenment and assistance in judging rightly. Often these acts are not as clearly defined as adultery. In those cases, we rationally consider the act in terms of what we know through our conscience.

Our man has determined that adultery is a grievous sin, which is truthful. Therefore, his conscience is sufficiently informed in this case.

The ends do not justify the means. Murder is always evil. If our man killed in self-defense, for instance, the murder would still considered grievous sin. However, the extreme circumstance would relieve him of culpability.

I gave an example about an unwed mother. Let’s look at another example, that of a child of a broken marriage. Both of these individuals are more likely to have a “more full” understanding of the grievousness. However, even these two individuals would not have a “full” knowledge because they (hypothetically) lack the experience of the other. Again, we are looking at “full” in different ways, but the main point is that the couple is blind. If they were not blind, and they had full knowledge, they would not sin. I just don’t see it happening. How could it happen?

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention…or the circumstances…which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

“We love each other. My wife doesn’t understand me.” (By justification I am speaking of self-justification, not true justification.) By making excuses, he is indicating that he knows it is wrong and feels responsible. This again speaks to the third component of consent. He knows it is wrong, but he does it anyway.

So, is the man punishing his wife? Does he really love her? Not in the sense that I know. Love is more than a feeling, love is commitment. He is trying to dodge consequence for doing something that seems right but may be seen as wrong to someone else. His own experience of guilt is going to depend on how much he resents his wife, and blind he is, and the level of “informed” conscience he has. I still say that in the absence of blindness, his level of “informed” is very superficial. With blindness, his “knowing” is compromised greatly.

But see, chefmom, as soon as I write that, I am thinking “she is going to think of this as another excuse”. If this is the case, you have a normal, healthy conscience that is keenly astute about people trying to dodge responsibility or consequence. Can you see that a behavior can be explained without having such resistance to the explanation? We can observe the desire of our own consciences to have all misbehavior punished, and instead of making this a trial, turn it into an investigation. We all (generally speaking) have the desire that sin should be punished, it is part of the natural conscience; in my view, it is a natural compulsion. To me, in order to have a true objectivity, this compulsion has to be put aside for a moment.

Many animals “cheat” on each other. We can look at these behaviors objectively without the added dimension of desire to punish. Can we do the same with people?

If we cannot explain the behavior in terms of blindness and/or ignorance, how can it be explained?

 

[chefmomster2]

I am not familiar with the ideas of “vincible” vs “invincible” ignorance, but I observe that all sin is done in ignorance and/or blindness. All of these conditions are reversible.

Ignorance is divided into two categories: vincible and invincible ignorance.

Invincible means “unconquerable”. It is ignorance that we could not dispel. It is impossible. This type of ignorance is totally involuntary and the act is not regarded as sin. This type of ignorance is extremely rare. One cannot be invincibly ignorant of natural law.

Vincible ignorance is ignorance that could be cleared up with sufficient diligence. Sufficient diligence is NOT all possible diligence, but the effort that is in keeping with the importance of the act. It is the effort that a sensible and prudent person would use. “Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be **interpreted strictly and exclusively **as the duty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Deliberate ignorance is willfully remaining ignorant. It is sinful. Deliberate ignorance based in scornful regard for the Church’s authority is a more grave sin. All vincible ignorance is voluntary and guilt is determined not by the seriousness of the act, but by the degree of negligence that was shown.

Here is a secular example: When we get our driver’s license we have essentially entered a contract. In exchange for the use of public streets, we agree to follow the rules of the road. We cannot plead that “we didn’t know that law.” even if we had no earthly idea that it existed. We are held culpable by the court for ALL laws because we have a responsibility to obey them all by virtue of our “contract”. We are “vincibly ignorant”. It is “possible” and “obligatory” that we become knowledgable.

Got to run! More responses later!

 

[Counterpoint]

Deliberate ignorance is willfully remaining ignorant. It is sinful.

Well, only the ignorant participate in “willful ignorance.” They do so, of course, because they feel threatened by the truth.

 

[chefmomster2]

What do you mean when you say “the man would be held culpable for mortal sin”. Who does such “holding”? What does such “holding” entail?

God is the only true judge of the extent of culpability one has for committing sins. He holds each one accountable based on the degree of responsibility he has for committing the sin.

For instance:
I kill someone. It is a sin.
I was defending my own life in the only way I could. I am not culpable.

I stole from someone. It is a sin.
I knew it was a sin and serious. I did it anyway. I am fully culpable.

 

[chefmomster2]

“Knowledge” has to do with knowing the seriousness, that it is in opposition to God’s law.

We do not need to know the degree of serious sin involved. If we know that an act is considered a grievous sin, we are not ignorant of the character of the act.

Such “knowing the seriousness, the opposition” is a matter of an informed conscience.

Yes! But remember that a conscience does not become informed by chance or mere experience. The most important way is through our diligent work! And, this work is REQUIRED as a DUTY and STRICT OBLIGATION. If they are unsure they MUST find out before they commit the act or it is willful ignorance and they are guilty of mortal sin.

Such knowing is described as “full knowledge” in the first definition of mortal sin. To me, some people are going to know much better than others what such “opposition” and “seriousness” truly is. To the degree that the person knows the opposition, the person will behave accordingly.

There may be some with a deeper understanding of the theology and morality involved, but all that is required is that we can answer this question: Is it a sin? Followed by: Is it a serious sin?

A person without an informed conscience is ignorant.

Yes! But this ignorance can be vincible or invincible. (See my previous post.) Vincible ignorance retains culpability.

To me, the couple simply does not know what they are doing; they are blinded by desire.

Ah, back to our exemplar!
Think about my description of our man.
What do we know?
The man and woman have known each other for a year. They began their affair after many months. They talked about how wrong an affair would be.
What does this tell us?
Their desire did NOT override their ability to reflect and act rationally based on that reflection.
How do we know?
They were able to fight this desire for many months before succumbing. They were able to reflect on it and decide that the act would be terribly wrong despite their desire for one another. The recognition that adultery is seriously wrong is truthful and proves that their consciences are fully informed.

• They are not blinded to the fact that adultery is sinful. (knowledge)
• They are not blinded to God’s law against adultery. (knowledge)
• They choose to give in to desire despite this knowledge. (consent)

I’ll respond to your other questions from this post tomorrow!

 

[simpleas]

We do not need to know the degree of serious sin involved. If we know that an act is considered a grievous sin, we are not ignorant of the character of the act.

Yes! But remember that a conscience does not become informed by chance or mere experience. The most important way is through our diligent work! And, this work is REQUIRED as a DUTY and STRICT OBLIGATION. If they are unsure they MUST find out before they commit the act or it is willful ignorance and they are guilty of mortal sin.

There may be some with a deeper understanding of the theology and morality involved, but all that is required is that we can answer this question: Is it a sin? Followed by: Is it a serious sin?

Yes! But this ignorance can be vincible or invincible. (See my previous post.) Vincible ignorance retains culpability.

Ah, back to our exemplar!
Think about my description of our man.
What do we know?
The man and woman have known each other for a year. They began their affair after many months. They talked about how wrong an affair would be.
What does this tell us?
Their desire did NOT override their ability to reflect and act rationally based on that reflection.
How do we know?
They were able to fight this desire for many months before succumbing. They were able to reflect on it and decide that the act would be terribly wrong despite their desire for one another. The recognition that adultery is seriously wrong is truthful and proves that their consciences are fully informed.

• They are not blinded to the fact that adultery is sinful. (knowledge)
• They are not blinded to God’s law against adultery. (knowledge)
• They choose to give in to desire despite this knowledge. (consent)

I’ll respond to your other questions from this post tomorrow!

I like what way you explain this and it does make sense in as far as knowing something is a sin etc, but…there’s always a but with me! How is all that you explain an answer to the OP?

To me a person would only knowingly and willingly reject God, when they have first had a spiritual relationship with God, they believe in the true existence of God, but then decide to reject him and do the complete opposite to the good they once did.

I’m not sure, but is breaking a law of Gods the same as rejecting him?

 

[chefmomster2]

I like what way you explain this and it does make sense in as far as knowing something is a sin etc, but…there’s always a but with me! How is all that you explain an answer to the OP?

To me a person would only knowingly and willingly reject God, when they have first had a spiritual relationship with God, they believe in the true existence of God, but then decide to reject him and do the complete opposite to the good they once did.

I’m not sure, but is breaking a law of Gods the same as rejecting him?

First, I’ll explain how this might lead to an answer to the OP. The OP and other posters question whether it is even possible that one could reject God. Some state that one can reject a particular aspect of God without rejecting God Himself. Some feel that mortal sin is impossible and that even if it is it does not necessarily mean that one is rejecting God by committing mortal sin. Essentially, they are doubting that anyone could go to hell.

I hold that while I believe that much of humanity will actually end up in heaven, that there will be those who will condemn themselves to Hell. So, I have attempted to prove that committing mortal sin and suffering its consequences is possible.

I will add here, that I have great faith in our salvation. Many will sin, but God’s mercy is continually available. Even mortal sin can be forgiven. One does not receive final judgment until death. While still living there is always hope.

Continued…

 

[chefmomster2]

11:52am May 22

I gave an example about an unwed mother. Let’s look at another example, that of a child of a broken marriage. Both of these individuals are more likely to have a “more full” understanding of the grievousness. However, even these two individuals would not have a “full” knowledge because they (hypothetically) lack the experience of the other. Again, we are looking at “full” in different ways, but the main point is that the couple is blind. If they were not blind, and they had full knowledge, they would not sin. I just don’t see it happening. How could it happen?

I do understand your thoughts on knowledge, blindness, etc. But, as you have said, they are based on your experience and observation. If we judge according to our own thoughts, feelings and experiences rather than according to the standards of our Church, we are putting human reason above God’s reason (as professed by our Church). We are making our own judgments superior to God’s.

The Church’s rule that requires full knowledge is not that each and every person must completely understand down to each minuscule detail the concept of the individual sin. Think about the problems with that system:
Each and every person would have to experience each and every sin from the standpoint of victim, abuser. observer, etc. They would need a theology course on each sin and in each of its myriad versions.

You asked earlier about the relative knowledge of a male virgin or an unwed mother. I can’t say who has the greater knowledge. (Nor is it relevant.) I can’t say how the unwed mother will be judged. The child of a broken home has been hurt and I’m sure this will have lasting effects. But your argument references only the experience of the sin. You ignore the example of the virtuous. We all have experience with marital fidelity.

Let’s return to your child of divorce. Experience is a two-edged sword! Some children accept infidelity as the status quo and go on to become unfaithful themselves. Other children decide they will never marry or that they will never commit infidelity. This variability is one reason the knowledge gleaned from experience can’t be used as a reliable barometer of our knowledge.

We must have a standard to determine responsibility that is a constant. In our Church, the standard has been defined.

• One must know that the act is sinful.
• One must know that the sin is seriously sinful.
• One must willingly commit the sin.

Why would they sin? People are created good, but they are capable of evil!

 

[simpleas]

First, I’ll explain how this might lead to an answer to the OP. The OP and other posters question whether it is even possible that one could reject God. Some state that one can reject a particular aspect of God without rejecting God Himself. Some feel that mortal sin is impossible and that even if it is it does not necessarily mean that one is rejecting God by committing mortal sin. Essentially, they are doubting that anyone could go to hell.

I hold that while I believe that much of humanity will actually end up in heaven, that there will be those who will condemn themselves to Hell. So, I have attempted to prove that committing mortal sin and suffering its consequences is possible.

I will add here, that I have great faith in our salvation. Many will sin, but God’s mercy is continually available. Even mortal sin can be forgiven. One does not receive final judgment until death. While still living there is always hope.

Continued…

Thanks.

Thinking on God and law, one can break a law, knowingly or not, but not reject God at the same time?

 

[chefmomster2]

Thanks.

Thinking on God and law, one can break a law, knowingly or not, but not reject God at the same time?

No. Sin BY DEFINITION is rejection of God. Therefore, if one is guilty of mortal sin, one has lost his relationship with God and the possibility of eternal life. However, if the person repents and goes to confession their relationship is restored.

 

[simpleas]

No. Sin BY DEFINITION is rejection of God. Therefore, if one is guilty of mortal sin, one has lost his relationship with God and the possibility of eternal life. However, if the person repents and goes to confession their relationship is restored.

Thanks.

IMO its hard to believe that what the church classes as “mortal” sin, for example…If I was lazy and didn’t attend Sunday Mass, I would to a degree feel sorry to God, but I wouldn’t think I had lost my relationship with him and feel I needed to go to confession. I can praise and thank God for my life etc anywhere at any time.

 

[Aloysium]

…If I was lazy and didn’t attend Sunday Mass, I would to a degree feel sorry to God, but I wouldn’t think I had lost my relationship with him and feel I needed to go to confession. I can praise and thank God for my life etc anywhere at any time.

Matt 25 1-13 “God’s kingdom is like ten young virgins who took oil lamps and went out to greet the bridegroom. Five were silly and five were smart. The silly virgins took lamps, but no extra oil. The smart virgins took jars of oil to feed their lamps. The bridegroom didn’t show up when they expected him, and they all fell asleep.
“In the middle of the night someone yelled out, ‘He’s here! The bride-groom’s here! Go out and greet him!’
“The ten virgins got up and got their lamps ready. The silly virgins said to the smart ones, ‘Our lamps are going out; lend us some of your oil.’
“They answered, ‘There might not be enough to go around; go buy your own.’
“They did, but while they were out buying oil, the bridegroom arrived. When everyone who was there to greet him had gone into the wedding feast, the door was locked.
“Much later, the other virgins, the silly ones, showed up and knocked on the door, saying, ‘Master, we’re here. Let us in.’
“He answered, ‘Do I know you? I don’t think I know you.’
“So stay alert. You have no idea when he might arrive.

These verses came to mind.

BTW: Consider that the Mass is as close to the Wedding Feast as we can get on earth.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi chefmomster. Sorry about the delay, I am out of town and with family, so I am breaking away a bit.

We do not need to know the degree of serious sin involved. If we know that an act is considered a grievous sin, we are not ignorant of the character of the act.

I want to repeat something here, if you don’t mind:

“It sounds like we apply “knowing” in different ways, and I don’t find your position unreasonable. The idea that “knowing” is kind of a “yes” or “no”, an “on/off” switch, would lead to a conclusion that the man and woman committed mortal sin. To me, the couple simply does not know what they are doing; they are blinded by desire. Again, and sorry to be ad nauseum, this is an explanation, not an excuse.”

Let the above reflect my respect for your position. The rest of my post is along the line of “here is a way of understanding my position.” Keep in mind that a priest once told us, “In my opinion, if anyone goes to hell they do so screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” I share this opinion. Acts done in blindness and ignorance are far from “screaming and kicking”. You probably disagree with this opinion.

So, in your understanding, the “knowing” is a bit simpler. I’ve been thinking on this a bit. I think you may be coming from a position of obedience, and that sin is caused by disobedience. I am coming from a position that doubt of authority is in our nature, it comes from our God-given desire for autonomy. Sure, it would be great to have a controlled society such that just telling people the words “that is a serious sin” would be adequate for compliance, but that is not the way people operate. Look at the difference, for example, between compliance on “thou shall not kill” versus “thou shall not use contraceptives”. People do not believe that rules against contraceptives are serious, and we could tell them until we run out of breath that such is serious, but it boils down to what they will believe.

The position I am coming from is one of relationship and reflection in my prayer life. There are many times that I admit to have committing what is defined as mortal sin. When I look back at those times, in discovery as to why I committed the sin, then the answer I find is always one including blindness and/or ignorance. The man we are talking about “knows” that it is a serious sin, in the simplest of ways, that he sort of buys into what the Church is saying. Does the man believe that he is causing a great deal of hurt in his family and elsewhere? To him at the moment, it is insignificant. It cannot possibly outweigh the pleasure he is getting from the affair. He is ignorant, and blind.

Did I know that the Church considered it “mortal sin”? Usually.
Did I really know the seriousness of my sins, the opposition to God’s law? No.

Now, you are going to say, “that is all you need to know”, which is a position that “knowing” involves believing and obeying what is said. However, an informed conscience is educated by more than words from an authority in many cases. An individual must realize all the consequences, and value those consequences, in order to know what they are doing. Again, this is my point of view, and this is making sense of the whole by applying the simple observation: people only sin when they are ignorant or do not know what they are doing (some rare exceptions: forced choice between two sins).

Yes! But remember that a conscience does not become informed by chance or mere experience. The most important way is through our diligent work! And, this work is REQUIRED as a DUTY and STRICT OBLIGATION. If they are unsure they MUST find out before they commit the act or it is willful ignorance and they are guilty of mortal sin.

There may be some with a deeper understanding of the theology and morality involved, but all that is required is that we can answer this question: Is it a sin? Followed by: Is it a serious sin?

Moral “ought” vs observational “is”. Its a common discussion. Of course, we can assert that people “must” inform themselves, but do they? And willful ignorance, as I stated before, is also the result of blindness and/or ignorance. That is my observation. Can you think of an example of willful ignorance that is not a matter of ignorance or blindness?

Ah, back to our exemplar!
Think about my description of our man.
What do we know?
The man and woman have known each other for a year… .
What does this tell us?
Their desire did NOT override their ability to reflect …
How do we know?
They were able to fight this desire for many months before succumbing. They were able to reflect on it and decide that the act would be terribly wrong despite their desire for one another. The recognition that adultery is seriously wrong is truthful and proves that their consciences are fully informed.

• They are not blinded to the fact that adultery is sinful. (knowledge)
• They are not blinded to God’s law against adultery. (knowledge)
• They choose to give in to desire despite this knowledge. (consent)

I’ll respond to your other questions from this post tomorrow!

They don’t know enough about the wrongness. They do not realize the harm, the sinfulness, otherwise they would not do it. Since when does the amount of time that some act is considered erase the blindness caused by desire?

Please, tell this man about all the harm, and you will learn how ignorant he is.

Man: I know, this is a mortal sin, but it isn’t all that bad. Lots of acts are mortal sins, God still loves us. And well, maybe I’m going to hell. (implied: “I’ll be there with all my buddies” nonchalance).

Chefmomster: (response?)

Give’m both barrels Chefmomster.

 

[OneSheep]

11:52am May 22

I do understand your thoughts on knowledge, blindness, etc. But, as you have said, they are based on your experience and observation. If we judge according to our own thoughts, feelings and experiences rather than according to the standards of our Church, we are putting human reason above God’s reason (as professed by our Church). We are making our own judgments superior to God’s.

This superiority, again, is an assertion. There will be individual levels of belief of such assertion.

The Church’s rule that requires full knowledge is not that each and every person must completely understand down to each minuscule detail the concept of the individual sin. Think about the problems with that system:
Each and every person** would have to experience** each and every sin from the standpoint of victim, abuser. observer, etc. They would need a theology course on each sin and in each of its myriad versions.

They would “have to experience” or “need a theology course” to what end?

You asked earlier about the relative knowledge of a male virgin or an unwed mother. I can’t say who has the greater knowledge. (Nor is it relevant.) I can’t say how the unwed mother will be judged. The child of a broken home has been hurt and I’m sure this will have lasting effects. But your argument references only the experience of the sin. You ignore the example of the virtuous. We all have experience with marital fidelity.

What is relevant is that some people are going to know “seriousness” more than others. And since we are talking about “full”, then “full” would be all-inclusive, or it is less than “full”. No need to contest this, chefmom, I understand your reading of the CCC. I think that the CCC needs a bit of clarification in order to reflect the reality of blindness and ignorance.

Why would they sin? People are created good, but they are capable of evil!

This does not explain why people do the evil, though, chefmomster. It only states that they are capable. Why do people sin, if it is not appetites satisfied in blindness and/or ignorance? Why? How does it happen?

 

[chefmomster2]

Thanks.

IMO its hard to believe that what the church classes as “mortal” sin, for example…If I was lazy and didn’t attend Sunday Mass, I would to a degree feel sorry to God, but I wouldn’t think I had lost my relationship with him and feel I needed to go to confession. I can praise and thank God for my life etc anywhere at any time.

Then you need to read more in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As a Catholic there is a responsibility to hold fast to doctrine in a completely obedient way. Our opinions on doctrine really don’t matter as Catholics we agree to abide by the instruction of our Church. The Church tells us it IS mortal sin. Therefore, we commit mortal sin if we willingly miss Mass for an insufficient reason. God Himself requires that we keep holy the Sabbath.

CCC 2086 "The first commandment embraces faith, hope, and charity. When we say ‘God’ we confess a constant, unchangeable being, always the same, faithful and just, without any evil. It follows that we must necessarily accept his words and have complete faith in him and acknowledge his authority. He is almighty, merciful, and infinitely beneficent. Who could not place all hope in him? Who could not love him when contemplating the treasures of goodness and love he has poured out on us? Hence the formula God employs in the Scripture at the beginning and end of his commandments: ‘I am the LORD.’"8

I. The Eucharist - Source and Summit of Ecclesial Life

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."134 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."135

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."136

1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.137

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."138

Secondly, you are correct in saying that you can pray to God anywhere. But, you cannot participate just anywhere in the great sacrament of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is absolutely central to our Faith. It provides us with sanctifying grace to enable us to live holier, more obedient lives. It brings us together in a community of believers to worship. It is also the place where you can personally encounter Christ in His true flesh and True Blood. You can’t do that in your living room!

1166 "By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ’s Resurrection, the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord’s Day or Sunday."36 The day of Christ’s Resurrection is both the first day of the week, the memorial of the first day of creation, and the “eighth day,” on which Christ after his “rest” on the great sabbath inaugurates the “day that the Lord has made,” the "day that knows no evening."37 The Lord’s Supper is its center, for there the whole community of the faithful encounters the risen Lord who invites them to his banquet:38

1167 Sunday is the pre-eminent day for the liturgical assembly, when the faithful gather “to listen to the word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the Passion, Resurrection, and glory of the Lord Jesus, and giving thanks to God who ‘has begotten them again, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead’ unto a living hope”:40

What if God felt “lazy” tomorrow and decided He’d just rather not bother?

 

[simpleas]

Then you need to read more in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As a Catholic there is a responsibility to hold fast to doctrine in a completely obedient way. Our opinions on doctrine really don’t matter as Catholics we agree to abide by the instruction of our Church. The Church tells us it IS mortal sin. Therefore, we commit mortal sin if we willingly miss Mass for an insufficient reason. God Himself requires that we keep holy the Sabbath.

Secondly, you are correct in saying that you can pray to God anywhere. But, you cannot participate just anywhere in the great sacrament of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is absolutely central to our Faith. It provides us with sanctifying grace to enable us to live holier, more obedient lives. It brings us together in a community of believers to worship. It is also the place where you can personally encounter Christ in His true flesh and True Blood. You can’t do that in your living room!

What if God felt “lazy” tomorrow and decided He’d just rather not bother?

OK.
I agree with some of what you say.

I was only using the “mortal” sin of missing Sunday mass as an example. (seems strange to be thinking on this as i’ve just been to Mass this evening) I just think if one was to be lazy and not go, we don’t lose our connection with God over a one time decision. God knows us more than anyone, so none of us can know if a person is in mortal sin, we can’t read souls etc.

 

[chefmomster2]

OK.
I agree with some of what you say.

I was only using the “mortal” sin of missing Sunday mass as an example. (seems strange to be thinking on this as i’ve just been to Mass this evening) I just think if one was to be lazy and not go, we don’t lose our connection with God over a one time decision. God knows us more than anyone, so none of us can know if a person is in mortal sin, we can’t read souls etc.

I am sorry, but that just isn’t the teaching. The teaching if tbe Catholic Church is:

CCC 1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace.** If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.** However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

Yes, the Church holds that you can and do lose your connection to God. God still wants to forgive us and welcome us back through full reconciliation, but that does not change the implication of mortal sin.

You are right, we cannot judge another and we do not know what is in another person’s heart. But we are talking here of the teachings of the Churvh, the meaning of mortal sin, the loss of heaven etc. and using examples to explain it the best we can. I think it is important to point out the Church teaching. What I quote from the CCC is not my opinion. It is the official teaching of the Church and we are required to be obedient to it.

 

[simpleas]

I am sorry, but that just isn’t the teaching. The teaching if tbe Catholic Church is:

CCC 1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace.** If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.** However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

Yes, the Church holds that you can and do lose your connection to God. God still wants to forgive us and welcome us back through full reconciliation, but that does not change the implication of mortal sin.

You are right, we cannot judge another and we do not know what is in another person’s heart. But we are talking here of the teachings of the Churvh, the meaning of mortal sin, the loss of heaven etc. and using examples to explain it the best we can. I think it is important to point out the Church teaching. What I quote from the CCC is not my opinion. It is the official teaching of the Church and we are required to be obedient to it.

You are quite right to quote the church teachings

I know my thoughts aren’t what the church teaches. If I missed mass, but went during the week, I can’t think of the God I have come to know all my life as one that would exclude me from his presence when I die, because I didn’t attend a mass on sunday, but went to make up for it during the week…
Even if I died before making it to the weekday mass, I still trust God with all my heart that he would never turn his back on me.

 

[chefmomster2]

Hi chefmomster. Sorry about the delay, I am out of town and with family, so I am breaking away a bit.

Enjoy! and don’t be concerned. I believe we have mutual respect or this conversation would be quite worthless.

Please, tell this man about all the harm, and you will learn how ignorant he is.

Man: I know, this is a mortal sin, but it isn’t all that bad. Lots of acts are mortal sins, God still loves us. And well, maybe I’m going to hell. (implied: “I’ll be there with all my buddies” nonchalance).

Chefmomster: (response?)

C: Are you a practicing Catholic?
M: Sure!
C: Do you believe in the teachings of the Church?
M: Sure! What do you think! ? (Aggravated)
C: Who knows better what is right or wrong? God or us?
M: Why…God of course!
C: OK. The Church teaches us how to behave in a way pleasing to God?
M: Sure!
C: You know that having sex with that woman is adultery, right?
M: Yes…
C: And you know adultery is a mortal sin, right?
M: Well, yeah?
C: And you know that you can lose heaven when you commit mortal sin?
M: Yeah, they taught us that.
C: So, what does that tell you about what you are doing?
M: Well, I said I’d be in hell with all my buddies.
C: Ok. You understand. So be it!
M: But God wouldn’t do that!!!
C: Why not?
M: He loves me.
C: True enough! But that isn’t what changed.
M: What do you mean?
C: YOU STOPPED LOVING GOD! When you decided to have your affair you decided that you don’t have to obey God. What He is saying now is…I have a place prepared for you according to your desire. There you need never obey me.

More later!

 

[chefmomster2]

You are quite right to quote the church teachings

I know my thoughts aren’t what the church teaches. If I missed mass, but went during the week, I can’t think of the God I have come to know all my life as one that would exclude me from his presence when I die, because I didn’t attend a mass on sunday, but went to make up for it during the week…
Even if I died before making it to the weekday mass, I still trust God with all my heart that he would never turn his back on me.

After all, the only thing Adam and Eve did was eat an apple! God couldn’t kick them out of the Garden, create painful childbirth, condemn all of mankind until the coming of the Messiah…

Um…oh yeah! He did!

When we choose our way over God’s we presume ourselves to be greater than Him, a God ourselves. That is the root of our sin.