-
-
Featured Article
Aug
27
Fun, Faith Filled Facts #9: Missing Sunday mass is a Mortal Sin? and so is…..
Filed Under Catechism, Geneviève Matthews | Leave a Comment
Fun, Faith Filled Facts #9: Missing Sunday mass is a MORTAL Sin? and so is….
Yep, that’s right. Missing Sunday mass (in other words, not fulfilling your Sunday obligation) is a Mortal Sin.
Somehow amidst my Catholic upbringing and my 8 years of Catholic school, I missed (forgot) that fact.
Even more interesting is the fact that it somehow alluded my awareness well into my “re-version” (the period when Catholics who did not sway from the Catholic faith to another faith become like new converts and rediscover their Catholic faith.) Sometimes I think it was due to the theory that God reveals a little bit of the truth at a time in our faith journey so that we don’t become overwhelmed. Other times reality taps me on the shoulder and reminds me that it was probably due more to the fact that I was in denial. I didn’t want to admit to myself that something as simple as not fulfilling my obligation to participate in mass would send me to hell.
But it’s true.
The Catechism states that :
2192 “Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” (CIC, can. 1246 § 1). “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass” (CIC, can. 1247).
It’s number 3 in the 10 Commandments:
1.) I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods before me.
2.) You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3.) Remember to keep holy the LORD’s day.
4.) Honor your father and mother.
5.) You shall not kill.
6.) You shall not commit adultery
7.) You shall not steal.
8.) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9.) You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10.) You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
So what IS a “mortal sin”? and how is it sooo effective in getting someone to hell?
The Catechism
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
(Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.)
Basically, a Mortal sin is breaking any of the 10 Commandments.
Fr. Larry Richards gives a talk where he likens missing mass like jumping off a cliff. People complain that missing mass once is a mortal act on their soul (aka mortal sin….in other words, it kills their soul). Fr. Larry says, “Well, what if, once, JUST ONCE, you jump off a cliff…..ahhhhhhhhhhh…. ahhhhhhhhhh….. ahhhhhhhh…. SPLAT! You’re dead. Even though you only did it once. The same thing happens to your soul.”
So even though someone might only miss mass once, it’s a mortal sin and it requires one to receive the sacrament of reconciliation from an ordained priest to heal their soul, ESPECIALLY PRIOR TO ONE RECEIVING COMMUNION.
The Catechism states:
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation
and
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:
It is a bit more complicated. (God gives us some consideration, just in case we are misinformed and do know understand the ramifications of our actions. Thank goodness!)
The Catechism states:
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Not only do we need to attend mass on Sundays, but in order to fulfill the third Commandment,
The Catechism states:
2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health.
I dare say that most cultural Catholics (those who are Catholic merely in upbringing not in practice) don’t know that missing Sunday mass is a MORTAL sin. Why else would Catholic churches be so empty? If the thousands of fallen away Catholics (in New York City alone) knew that merely missing mass on Sunday separates them from God and sends them on the fast track to hell, they certainly would think twice before missing mass.
I have empathy for those who do not acknowledge, as I used to, that missing mass is a Mortal Sin. But now that I’ve heard Fr. Larry’s description, when I hear someone say that they don’t go to mass every Sunday I hear a quiet distant “…….ahhhhhhhhhhh………ahhhhhhhhhhhhh……..ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh SPLAT.” I wince and say a prayer for their soul.
God loves you. Don’t miss mass on Sunday. It hurts Him AND you.
By the way:
Here’s a list of OTHER Mortal Sins that need to be confessed
SINS THAT NEED TO BE CONFESSED
Abortion
Adultery
All use of illegal drugs
Any dealing with occult, IE. Ouija boards
Artificial Birth Control
Blasphemy: disrespect toward God or toward His Holy Name.
Breaking promises deliberately
Bringing dishonor to family, school, community, or the Church.
Calumny: telling lies about another.
Despair: To believe that God will refuse to forgive you
Destruction of other people’s property
Detraction: Telling an unkind truth about another
Disobedience toward parents/teachers
Drunkenness, including any drinking under the age of 21
Excessive materialism
Gluttony: eating or drinking to excess
Gossip: talking about others
Hatred
Homosexual actions
Impure thoughts
Indifference to good or evil
Ingratitude
Intentional violation of school rules
Jealousy
Laziness
Lying
Malice: The deliberate choice of evil
Masturbation: impure actions with yourself
Missing Mass on any Sunday or Holyday
Murder
NOT PRAYING EVERYDAY
Not giving to the poor and the Church
Premarital sex, including oral sex, intercourse, impure touching of another
Presumption: Sinning and saying God MUST forgive me.
Pride
Prostitution
Reckless driving that endangers you, passengers, or others
Rudeness
Selfishness
Stealing
Superstition
Unjustified anger
Using others for your own personal gain
Watching or looking at pornographic material
To obtain this list in a PDF, get info about Fr. Larry Richards, or hear his homilies go to http://www.thereasonforourhope.org/
Aug
26
Vatican Council II reminded us that the Gospel is the common rule of all religious orders. In the beginning, there existed only the great contemplative vocations; the nineteenth century, on the other hand, responded to the needs of the times in a very special way by giving birth to the active vocations - to the ministry of the word and to the ministry of love.
Ultimately, all of these are ministries, for even - and even precisely - those leading a life of contemplation and total commitment to the Gospel do not simply abandon other people; on the contrary, by placing themselves at the center of the Faith, by taking their place in the heart of the word, they go forth from Jesus Christ to their fellow men in a way that could never be achieved by an external approach.
When we look at the life of St. Therese of Lisieux, for example, we become aware, in a particularly convincing and impressive way, of that internal “ability-to-be-present” in spirit to the active life and its needs that is the product of a life led in the spirit of the Gospel. Nevertheless, it is also true that there is a direct ministry to mankind, to the sick, to the suffering, that is not simply and not primarily a paid job that one can later abandon to return to one’s private life but is rather the content and law of life itself, which, in such a sharing with the other and his needs, finds its own freedom and fulfillment.
From: Ordinariatskorrespondenz, no. 31, September 28, 1978
Aug
25
This is an article I received from the Pro-Life Philippines newsletter regarding the Reproductive Health Bill being proposed. Read and pass on. -Reynor
THE NEW CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNERS
By Francisco S. Tatad
Economics, “the dismal science,” may be getting even more dismal still, as some 26 economists from the University of the Philippines attempt to tackle the complex and complicated question of procreation and population.
The economists are urging Congress to pass the highly questionable Reproductive Health bill proposing that the State actively promote and provide contraception (to women) and sterilization (to both men and women) to bring down further the country’s population growth, now 2.04 % according to the National Statistics Office, or 1.72% according to the CIA World Factbook, 2008.
Under this bill, the State will be made to provide contraceptives and abortifacients, free of charge as “essential medicines,” to an otherwise healthy population. These would include oral contraceptives which the World Health Organization’s International Research Agency on Cancer has determined to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing) to humans.
The economists worry that if the population continues to grow, the poor will only multiply. They want it checked via a state-funded program of contraception and sterilization. To them (as it is to the authors of the bill) it is not enough that there be free and unlimited market access to contraception and sterilization, as there is right now — the State must use the taxpayers’ money to provide the harmful agents to the population.
Against all existing evidence of a steadily declining family size with an average of three children, the economists reportedly claim that 57% of Filipino families have nine children or more. The statistic reads like one of those manufactured electoral counts in one of our notoriously crooked elections. It smells.
These economists have been known to espouse “liberalization, privatization and deregulation.” Although there is no attempt at full disclosure, many of them identify with international institutions and agencies that swear by the same principles but are simultaneously engaged in funding population control in the Philippines.
Now, what they want done to the population is nothing short of “central economic planning,” which they purportedly abhor in principle. The subject of their central planning is not the economy though, but the private lives and social behavior of people. Quite a promotion.
Economics, by definition, concerns itself with the equitable allocation of finite resources among recipients with competing needs. But what our economics professors want to do is to allocate the human being — or the human family — according to the finite resources available. And they want to put the State in charge of the allocating. That is no longer economics but population engineering. You do not find that in a well-ordered liberal democratic state; you find it in a totalitarian system.
We have a pro-life Constitution, but we have no penal law barring anyone from using contraceptives, abortifacients or sterilization devices or agents. The Church continues to teach these things are wrong and harmful, just as it continues to teach that killing, stealing, adultery and fornication are gravely sinful. But just as the Church does not have the means to prevent anyone from violating any of God’s commandments, it does not have the means to prevent anyone from using contraceptives and abortifacients, from getting sterilized, or even from contracting abortion.
The actual situation then is that no one is prohibited by law from practicing contraception. In fact, across the nation, the contraception prevalence is reported at 50%. The real issue behind the RH bill, therefore, is not whether everyone should have free access to RH information and services, which they already have, but whether the State should now enter the bedroom, supervise the conjugal intercourse of married couples, and spend taxpayers’ money to try to cure pregnancy, which is not a disease, even though it sees no need to provide free medicines and medical care to men and women dying from killer-diseases.
This is not an economic question at all. The issue is primarily moral and constitutional. Morality — the rightness or wrongness of an act —is the basis of law; the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. No enactment of Congress may disregard or dispense with either. But we don’t have the space for a thorough discussion here.
The first question to resolve is whether the State has the right or the authority, as distinguished from naked and unlawful power, to redefine the fundamental rights of man as man, such as his right to embrace his wife and to father her children. These rights precede the rights of the State and are not subject to its consent, concurrence or modification.
Our Constitution correctly recognizes the primacy of such rights. Section 12 of Article II recognizes “the sanctity” of family life, and the family as the “foundation of the nation.” It binds the State to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” This constitutes an outright ban on abortion, which is a punishable crime. It does not prohibit any individual from practicing contraception, but it necessarily prohibits the State from funding its own program of contraception or permitting any foreign-funded program of contraception to be incorporated into its own education and health delivery systems.
Why the distinction? Simply because if it is the constitutional duty of the State to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception, it cannot be its right or duty at the same time to prevent women from conceiving.
If as a result of couples contracepting on their own, no pregnancies occur, then the State would have no one to answer to, and nothing to answer for. But if as a result of the State’s program of contraception no pregnancies occur, then the State has made a mockery of the Constitution. We would have perverted our laws and human reason itself.
So many sophisms have been thrown in to muddle this point. But you don’t need a PhD in economics or a master’s degree in law from an Ivy League University to understand it. A short home schooling on basic logic will do.
Aug
22
From the epistles of Saint Paul we can see how important the ministry of devout women was for his apostolic work. In the sixteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, for example, he calls Phoebe a “deaconess” of the church at Cenchreae and notes that she was a benefactress to many, including himself. What kind of woman must she have been that the Apostle confers on her the liturgical title of diakon [deacon, servant, minister]! Granted, he does not use the term in the sacramental sense that it has today, but his use of it expresses, in consequence, an even deeper appreciation of this spiritual ministry. It is also the title he uses by preference in referring to himself as a diakon of the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians 6:4 and as a diakon of Christ in 2 Corinthinans 11:23. Whoever reads this will immediately realize that such women were not wronged or unappreciated because they could not be priests or apostles; he will realize that precisely as women they participated in a very special and indispensable manner in the building up of the Church. Paul never said of a man what he writes here about Phoebe, namely, that she had become his patron and benefactor. In the same vein he adds a greeting also to the mother of Rufus, who, he writes, had become “a mother to me also” (Rom 16:13). In the preceding sentence he greets “the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord”. In these women and in many others whom Scripture - especially the Gospels - mentions, Mary’s role is revealed from manifold perspectives. The religious congregations of women are the permanent continuation and realization of the mystery of Mary in the Church.
From: Ordinariatskorrespondenz, no. 24, 1978
Aug
21
The Church assumed that everyone who celebrated Mass would have to say: “I have sinned, Lord; look not upon my sins.” It was obligatory invocation of every priest. Like every other priest, the bishops, even the pope, had to recite it in their daily Mass. The laity, too - all the other members of the Church - were called upon to unite themselves with that confession of guilt. Consequently, all who were in the Church, without exception, had to acknowledge their sinfulness, ask forgiveness, and set themselves on the road that led to genuine conversion. But this in no way meant that the Church as such was also a sinner. The Church is a reality that surpasses the sum of her members in a mysterious and , at the same time, infinite way.
In fact, in order to obtain Christ’s forgiveness, one must set over against one’s own sins the faith of Christ’s Church. Today, however, many theologians, priests, and members of the laity seem to have forgotten this. It is not only the change from I to we, from personal responsibility to emphasis on the collective element. It is rather the reverse that seems to be spontaneously understood by us today, as though we would say: “Look not upon the sins of the Church but upon my faith.” If this were actually to happen, the consequences would be drastic: the sins of individuals would become the sins of the Church, and faith would be reduced to a personal matter, to my own way of understanding and accepting God and his demands. I really fear that this is today a widespread manner of feeling and thinking. It is a further sign of how greatly the common Catholic consciousness has, in many places, distanced itself from an authentic understanding of the Church.
From: Zur Lage des Glaubens, pp. 52-53
Aug
20
Motherhood and virginity (the two highest values in which a woman realizes her deepest vocation) have become values that are opposed to those which are currently dominant. Woman, who is creative in the truest sense of the word since she gives life, does not, however, “produce” life in that technical sense that is the only that matter in a society that, in its cult of efficiency, has become increasingly masculine. Society assures her that it wants to “liberate” her to “emancipate” her, while at the same time it encourages her to masculinize herself and seeks to bring her into conformity with the culture of productivity; it subjects her to the control of a masculine society of technicians, salesmen, politicians, who strive for profit and power and in doing so, organize, market, and instrumentalize everything for their purposes. By the claim that sexual differentiation is in reality of secondary importance (and hence the reduction of the body, as an incarnation of the spirit, to a sexual being), woman is robbed not only of motherhood but also of the free choice of virginity. Yet, just as man cannot procreate without her, so he cannot be virgin except by “imitating” woman. If follows that the woman has also in this way, a high value as a sign, as an “example” for the other half of humanity.
From: Zur Lag des Glaubes, p.99
Aug
17
Co-Workers of the Truth 8/17
Filed Under Co-Workers of the Truth, Pope Benedict XVI | Leave a Comment
When we read the newspaper or watch television we discover very quickly that only one theme is dominant: soccer and the soccer championship. Soccer has become a global event that, irrespective of boundaries, links humanity around the world in one and the same state of tension: in its hopes, its fears, its emotions, its joys. This tells us that some primeval human instinct is at play here and raises the question as to the source of the spell this game exerts.
The pessimist will say that it was the same in ancient Rome: panem et circences: bread and circus. Even if we accept this explanation, we must still ask: Why is this game so fascinating that it ranks on an equal with bread? To find an answer we might look once more to ancient Rome: the cry for bread and games was in reality the expresssion of a longing for the paradisal life - an escape from the wearisome enslavement of daily life. It has, moreover, another characteristic that is especially pertinent in the case of children: it is a training for life.
It seems to me that the fascination of soccer consists essentialy in the fact that it links these two aspects in a very convincing manner. It teaches us first to be disciplines and fair in competition. As they watch, people are caught up in the game and so share in the togetherness and competition it engenders. All this can, of course, be destroyed by money and the spirit of commercialism. Perhaps as we ponder it, this game can really teach us anew what life is: human freedom lives by rules, by self-discipline. The game is life in miniature; when we consider it in depth, the phenomenon of a world enthralled by soccer can give us more than just entertainment.
From: Deutsche Tagespost, June 7, 1978
Aug
16
Co-Workers of the Truth 8/16
Filed Under Co-Workers of the Truth, Pope Benedict XVI | Leave a Comment
There is taking place at the present time a silent exodus from the Church. The inner consensus of belief seems, somehow, to have lost the power to control it that it would perhaps have had a generation ago…One problem here is that the Church can present to us only what she has and what she is. But we cannot begin with the way she presents herself; we must go to the roots. If there do not exist in the Church strengths that have something to offer us today, then her presentation of herself will be of little value to us.
These strengths undoubtedly do exist in the Church, for the Gospel has not become void and Christ has not departed from us. We do not place our hope in strategies; on the contrary, Christ is our hope. We must proceed to and from his presence. What is central must remain central.
The Church erred when she yielded to a perhaps half-hearted desire to prove that even without the good news of God and his Christ she was still a good and useful philantropic organization. Granted, the philanthropic contribution of the Church is of enormous importance - a task imposed on her by the Lord. But we must realize that she is not just one welfare organization among others that wants to assure her place in the social scene, but that her activity springs from the deeper power of a love that wants only to communicate itself, that she is active, not because she wants to be in the limelight, but because “the love of Christ urges us on”. It must be evident that God is something of which humanity stands in need.
The Church must proclaim her belief courageously and without embarassment, must confess what she knows is salvific: that she has to do with God and God has to do with us; that she can therefore bring humanity into contact with him…It would be a great error, however, to think we are reflecting the views of Pope John XXIII and the Council merely because we follow every fashion that is considered modern.
To be courageous can also mean to be nonconformist, to oppose something that everyone else accepts and so in a moment’s time to find oneself suddenly in the minority. In the last analysis, the world is ultimately governed by courageous minorities that really have something to offer, not by some superficial mass phenomenon.
From: Deutsche Tagespost, July 29, 1989
Aug
15
Co-Workers of the Truth 8/15
Filed Under Co-Workers of the Truth, Pope Benedict XVI | Leave a Comment
The dogma of the assumption of Mary, body and soul, into the glory of the heavenly Kingdom is more confusing than otherwise for us today. Practically every word of it sounds foreign to our ears and without comprehensible meaning: Mary - heaven - glory. The only word we can really understand is body. What is said here constitutes a recognition of the body and consequently of the earth, a recognition of matter and of the future of all of these. Read more
Aug
14
Fun, Faith Filled Facts #7: What are the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit?
Filed Under Catechism, Geneviève Matthews | Leave a Comment
Fun, Faith Filled Facts #7: What are the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit?
What are the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit? (And who knew there were so many????)
The Prophet Isaiah announced that the Holy Spirit of God would bring
seven precious gifts to those who are faithful to Him. (Is 11:2)
Here they are in quick order:
1. The Gift of Wisdom. A special delight for all that is spiritual,
for all that points to God.
2. The Gift of Fortitude. A special strength to realize what God
wants of us and to resist with patience and courage the difficulties
of life.
3. The Gift of Council. It allows us, at the moment of choice, to
opt for what is best for someone: it inspires what we must do and how
to do it. (This is in reference to God’s law).
4. The Gift of Piety. A filial affection toward God (the affection
of a son or a daughter).
5. The Gift of Understanding. An ease to understand what God tells
us through His word in the Bible or through other means.
6. The Gift of Science. An ease to distinguish between what is true
and what is false.
7. The Gift of Fear of God. A tender hesitancy that inspires fear
of offending God because He is a Father so generous and full of
kindness toward us, and also because we know that God will not leave
a single sin without punishment (this truth is repeated seven times
in the Bible).
All good things I think I’d like to have!
The Catechism says it even more concisely.
1831 The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David. They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.
And if you’re ever feeling like it’s tough being a Christian, you might be reassured to know that the Catechism also says:
1830 The moral life of Christians is sustained by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are permanent dispositions which make man docile in following the promptings of the Holy Spirit. (emphasis added)
****
BTW I was intrigued when I noticed #6: “The Gift of Science- an ease to distinguish between what is true and what is false.” In this day of rampant relativism where truth is in the eye of the beholder, I thought that only the Atheists and the Agnostics held the lock and key to knowledge about “what is true and what is false!” Who knew that the Holy Spirit gives it away as a free gift?!?! Wow!
