I had a discussion this morning at our parish pancake breakfast about the moral obligation to attend Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin. (N.B. My friend goes to Mass every Sunday so the discussion was theoretical.) The issue centered around whether it is really grievous matter such that God would send someone to hell forever for deliberately missing one Sunday Mass or even missing occasionally without sufficient reason (illness, incapacity, caring for someone who cannot go, etc.). My statement that the Church teaches it is a mortal sin got a shrug and the question, "Show me where the Church has made an ex cathedra statement about missing Mass." Of course that same response could be given about any number of sins. As far as I know there are no ex cathedra statements about contraception or fornication. Is there an ex cathedra statement about abortion or sodomy or embezzlement?Since many people are not convinced from the argument from Church authority, a Protestant mentality I might add, I looked up the matter in Canon Law and the Catechism. Canon law does not address the sinfullness of missing Mass, but it does explain why the communal Sunday sacrament is so important:
The Most Holy Eucharist is the most august sacrament, in which Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered, and received, and by which the Church constantly lives and grows. The Eucharistic Sacrifice...is the summit and the source of all Christian worship and life; it signifies and effects the unity of the people of God and achieves the building up of the Body of Christ. The other sacraments and all the ecclesiastical works of the apostolate are closely related to the Holy Eucharist and are directed to it. (Can. 897)
Canon law makes it clear that the Eucharist is the most important thing we do as Catholics! Can we survive physically without eating? Can we survive spiritually without the bread of life? Canon law indicates we cannot be united in the family of God or live and grow in the faith without participating in the Eucharist. It goes on to say:
Does missing Mass deliberately show "highest honor" for the Eucharist or "supreme adoration" for the One who comes in His Real Presence under the appearance of bread and wine? Can one claim to love Jesus Christ with his whole heart, mind, soul, and strength and treat the Eucharist with a cavalier shrug about obligation?The faithful are to hold the Eucharist in highest honor, taking part in the celebration of the Most August Sacrifice, receiving the sacrament devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with supreme adoration. (Can. 898)
The Church is a loving mother. She requires Sunday Mass under pain of serious sin to protect man from his own frivolous nature that makes it easy for him to skip it for a soccer match or a golf game or even just to sleep in.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically affirms that missing Mass is grave matter:
The Sunday Eucharist is the foundatin and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on 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. (Par. 2181)
But if the Church's teaching authority isn't enough to convince someone that missing Mass is mortally sinful, it is instructive to look at the history of the Mass. Fr. Ray Ryland in an article in This Rock explained why Christians in the early Church risked imprisonment and even death to attend the communal sacrifice. After describing some of the atrocities committed against Christians during the various persecutions, Fr. Ryland writes:
Those early Christians, ordinary people like us, did not risk their lives continually to go to worship simply to think about what Jesus had done for them. Nor did they regularly take their lives in their hands simply to receive Holy Communion. They could do both these things in the comparative safety of their homes. In earliest centuries, communicants were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament to their homes and communicate themselves daily....What impelled those Christians to risk their lives regularly by sharing in the Eucharist?
They were convinced that only in this corporate action could each Christian receive the fulfillment of his being as a member of Christ's Body. They believed with all their hearts that in the Eucharistic action, "as in no other way," each person could take his part " in that act of sacrificial obedience to the will of God which was consummated on Calvary and which had redeemed the world, including himself."
Ordinary Christians regularly risked their lives by going to worship because they were convinced "there rested on each of the redeemed an absolute necessity so to take his own part in the self-offering of Christ, a necessity more binding even than the instinct of self-preservation. Simply as members of Christ's Body, the Church, all Christians must do this, and they can do it in no other way than that which was the last command of Jesus to his own"
We live in a lazy, hedonistic age where love for the Lord is mostly tepid and lax. Jesus certainly knew our natures which must have undergirded his question, "When the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on the earth?" Let us hope and pray that he finds a large congregation of believers worshiping him in spirit and truth and reflecting their faith in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. The proper order is always to adore God first as we do when we come together as a community on Sunday for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To deliberately miss Mass is, indeed, a serious moral decision that puts us in the precarious position of snapping our fingers at God.
Would it have helped to explain the Third Commandment or the Precepts of the Church?
ReplyDelete"The faithful are to hold the Eucharist in highest honor, taking part in the celebration of the Most August Sacrifice, receiving the sacrament devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with supreme adoration. (Can. 898)"
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the "Precepts of the Church" [p. 493 of the CCC], No. 3 states that "You shall humbly receive your Creator in Holy Communion at least during the Easter Season."
That is somewhat inconsistent with Canon 898.
Also, No. 2 states that "You shall confess your sins at least once a year." This is somewhat inconsistent with No. 3. I've wondered about this for nigh unto 60 years.
Also, No. 2 should state explicitly that you shall confess your sins before receiving Holy Communion or another sacrament if you have committed a deadly (Mortal) sin.
The Third Commandment does not refer to Christians. The command is to "keep holy the Sabbath." The Sabbath is Saturday. We are obliged to worship on Sunday. I agree that it is seriously sinful to deliberately skip Mass, but the Third Commandment actually is not a strong argument for why it is sinful to skip Mass, especially compared to what was cited in this blog post.
ReplyDeleteTwo issues here, in reality. First, regarding ex cathedra statements: Infallibility is *not* limited to ex cathedra statements.
ReplyDelete...the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as “definitive” either by a “defining act” or by a “non-defining act”. First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of confirmation and reaffirmation (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an ex cathedra definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.
The particular nature of a teaching of the papal Magisterium that is meant merely to confirm or repropose a certitude of faith already lived consciously by the Church or affirmed by the universal teaching of the entire Episcopate can be seen not in the teaching of the doctrine per se, but in the fact that the Roman Pontiff formally declares that this doctrine already belongs to the faith of the Church and is infallibly taught by the ordinary, universal Magisterium as divinely revealed or to be held in a definitive way. (Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent , Section 1, § 2, January 29, 1997, L’Osservatore Romano, italics added)
Catechist Kevin
The second issue is that Mother Church was given the authority to make missing the Sunday obligation to assist at Holy Mass a mortal sin (see Mt. 16:19, 18:18, and 28:19-20).
ReplyDeleteIt is one of the six precepts of the Church which all Catholics are to follow.
As the catechism states:
The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason. They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity. (CCC 2037)
Mother Church exists to teach, govern, and sanctify. Missing Holy Mass for no good reason falls into the last category.
Catechist Kevin
Thanks, Kevin, for your clear explanations of the nature of infallibility.
ReplyDeleteI would add that there are a huge number of incredibly core doctrines that have not been defined "ex cathedra." In fact, ex cathedra has been used to define only a small part of the Doctrine of the Faith. Ask your friend if she accepts the Resurrection. It has never been defined ex cathedra, it is part of the OUM Kevin referenced, an article of Faith held by Tradition constantly since the first Apostles. The same applies to the priesthood, the nature and use of the Sacraments, and numerous other, core aspects of our Faith.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very dangerous new concept in theology being touted by Dr. Richard Gaillardetz. Essentially, he, and a few other "progressive" theologians, are attempting to provide a "theological" basis whereby Catholics can reject the Doctrine of the Faith and yet remain "in good standing." When I called him out on my blog, before he spoke in the Dallas area earlier this year, he had few answers to how Catholics could maintain the Faith if ONLY ex cathedra statements defined the Faith. He spoke at the LCWR conference in Dallas this year, where he appeared to be calling for progressives to form their own, alternate magisterium. As I said, dangerous.
The four offices of the Magisterium where the charism of infallibility is exercised are these:
ReplyDelete1). The Ordinary Universal Magisterium (which encompasses Divine Revelation itself - see CCC 891).
2). The Extra-Ordinary Universal Magisterium (which is excercised, for example, at an ecumenical council - again, see CCC 891).
3). The Ordinary Papal Magisterium (which is exercised, for example, at the Pope's Wednesday audiences [expounding upon faith and morals], or the canonization of saints - see CCC 892).
4). The Extra-Ordinary Papal Magisterium (which is exercised, for example, via Papal Ex-Cathedra statements [and has only been exercised twice! Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption] - again see CCC 892).
All of this is covered in the Vatican Council II Document, Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25.
Again, infallibility is *not* limited to Papal Ex-Cathedra statements as many dissenters want to posit.
Catechist Kevin