TTSNBSIM 10: "We Know Our Relatives Are Looking Down at us From Heaven Right Now"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#10: "We Know Our Relatives Are Looking Down at us From Heaven Right Now"

-----

This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

In this case, the statement, as expressed, is clearly false.  We can't have any assurance that our relatives are in Heaven, but there's another reason why this should never be said in Mass; it does a disservice to our relatives.

-----

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that unless a person has been canonized, we can't have any assurance that they're in Heaven yet.  Some people, of course, will go to Hell, but for those who put genuine effort into their devotion to God, and try their best to follow his commandments, even when it's against their own desires, and seek forgiveness when they fall, Hell is not a likely destination.

However, that doesn't mean that these people will immediately ascend into Heaven.  We can -hope- that the faithful will go immediately to Heaven, but the fact remains that unless you've achieved a state of perfection in this life, that's simply not likely.  God must first put you through a process that will bring you to perfection, and this process is known as Purgatory.

Souls in Purgatory are, at the very least, fully assured of their salvation.  They -are saved,- and will one day be in Heaven with God.  However, the process, by all accounts, is not a pleasant one, and the sooner it's over with, the better.

Souls in Purgatory can't do anything to speed themselves towards Heaven any faster.  However, we on Earth -can.-  By offering our prayers for the souls in Purgatory, and by fasting and having masses said for them, we can greatly decrease the amount of time that souls need to spend in Purgatory before their release into Heaven.

-----

The first problem, therefore, with telling people that their relatives are in Heaven, is this; suppose they're actually in Purgatory, and their relatives are misled by the claim that they're in Heaven.  Will those relatives pray for their souls?  Will they fast for them?  Will they have masses said for them?

In most circumstances, the answer is no.  If a person is already in Heaven, they're saved.  They made it, and they don't need your prayers anymore.

We simply can't afford to be overly-optimistic about the fate of our relatives, or anyone else we know, because that's an injustice to those poor souls of the people -who were close to us in life,- and who, for all we know, are still desperate for our help.

Even if a particular soul does -not- need our help, however, prayers, fastings and masses said for them are not wasted.  If that soul happens to be in Heaven (or in Hell,) God will take the merit of our sacrifices and apply them to another soul in need; perhaps even someone else we know, and have forgotten about, or perhaps someone we've never met, but would like if we had.

However, there's another problem with claiming that our relatives are in Heaven; in some ways, an even bigger one.

-----

The fact of the matter is that many, many Christians today are guilty of the sin of presumption.  They presume that because of God's loving nature, he'll overlook a life of wretched, impenitent sin, and somehow get the person into Heaven, in spite of their utter indifference to God's will, over the entire course of their lives.  Even those who try to be holy are usually not as holy as they'd like to believe.

The first problem we discussed sort of assumed that the person being referred to generally tried to be holy and do right, but suppose that wasn't the case?  Suppose they made no effort to learn God's law, and just picked up their "morals" from television shows and popular opinions, and eventually, even started to complain about church teaching, or even actively oppose it.  Yet, they still claimed to be a good Christian.

If we try to claim that this kind of person (disguising themselves as a Christian, while all the while working to undermine Christ and his Church,) is in Heaven right now, we do worse than a disservice to him or her.  We sin against everyone who hears our words.  This sin is called "Scandal."

We're using our words, in this case, to mislead people into thinking that anyone can waltz through life, fight the Church's teaching at every turn, ignore the commandments, and live in opposition to -God himself,- and yet, because they enter a Church from time to time and desecrate the Eucharist by receiving in a state of impenitent, mortal sin, they somehow made it to Heaven.

-If- such people get to Heaven, it's -in spite of- these things, and -because of- sincere penance when nobody was looking.  To -tell the faithful- that they go straight to Heaven, however, is like telling them that -they- don't need to obey God, or respect him, or even love him.  It's hard to imagine a surer way to lead a soul to Hell.

-----

The fact of the matter is, no priest's job is to make people feel better.  Ever.  If you're ordained, it's your job to lead souls to Heaven, and that won't be done by telling them that their relatives were saints.  Avoid statements like this one as though they were made of cancer.

TTSNBSIM 9: "Jesus First Gave Women the Chance to Initiate Divorce"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#9: "Jesus First Gave Women the Chance to Initiate Divorce"

-----

This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

I'm sure this lie is uncommonly rare, but I've heard it said at Mass, so here goes.  Basically, it's being said, by some, that Jesus' words to the pharisees on the subject of divorce were for for the purpose of refuting the entirely male-centric divorce practices of the day (only men could initiate divorce with a note of divorce,) and introduce this power to women as well.

-----

Nothing could be -less- supported by the scriptures.

"He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
Matthew 19:8

Notice the wording here.  "Moses -permitted.-"  When something is -permitted,- that means that without that permission, it would be -forbidden.-  What Jesus is saying here is -not- that women should be allowed to divorce as well as men.  Obviously, what he's saying is that God does not mean to allow -any form- of divorce.  Ever.

The seeming exception that Jesus offers (which is often translated as "unchastity," or "adultery,") is actually neither of these things, but something else.  It appears alongside the words for unchastity and adultery in lists in the new testament.  Therefore, it must signify something other than these.  Even in the case of adultery, divorce is still forbidden.

-----

Secondly, this should not be said in Mass, because it defies the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on divorce.

"The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2382, 1st sentence.

This means that if you express anything contrary to this in Mass, you are misleading the people, and probably committing a heresy as well.

-----

I can totally understand how hard it is for some priests to cope with just how horribly immoral our modern society is.  Nevertheless, it won't become any -more- moral if you don't face the problem head-on.  Divorce is -always- wrong, and to imply anything else, and worse, to misrepresent the teachings of Jesus, is an affront to the most holy sacrament, and a sign of extreme disrespect or disregard for the Holy Eucharist.

TTSNBSIM 8: "More Than Logic is Needed to Believe in God"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#8: "More Than Logic is Needed to Believe in God"

-----

This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

This is a bit of a tough one.  It's not exactly -false,- but it can easily give the wrong message.  In fact, the difficulty of explaining why this statement is true is the main reason why I don't feel it should be said at mass.  The only exception, as far as I can see, would be if you planned to devote an entire sermon to explaining -this one statement- by itself.  That said, if you -do- have such a sermon planned, read on.

-----

The principle problem with the statement is that it seems to imply that our faith is not logical, nor can logic lead one to belief.  I know from personal experience that this is not the case.

There are other permutations of this statement such as "the faith goes beyond logic" or "in order to truly believe, you need to go beyond logic."  All of these statements, far from demonstrating the superiority of the faith over mere rational thought, merely give the impression that the faith is irrational and unreasonable, which is far from the truth.  There are many good proofs for the existence of God and the accuracy of Christianity/Catholicism.

This statement is true, only because belief is not a statement of truth.  It's perfectly possible to believe something for which there's no proof, and it's perfectly possible to disbelieve something for which there are -mountains- of proof.  Belief is not something which can be "proven" into existence.

Belief is an act of the will.  Therefore, if you believe in God, this is because you have -decided- to believe in God, either based on the evidence/arguments (rational belief) or -not- based on the evidence/arguments (irrational belief.)

For this reason, and this reason only, it is not -technically- false to say that more than logic is needed to believe in God.  You also need the will to make the decision to accept the conclusion that the evidence leads to.

-----

If you really want to spend a sermon explaining -all- of that, by all means, go for it.  However, the statement, by itself, might as well be an open denial of the rational nature of the Christian faith, because that's certainly how many people will take it.

TTSNBSIM 7: "The Bible is Wrong About X"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#7: "The Bible is Wrong About X"

-----

This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

This is a big, red flag right here.  It comes in many flavors; "the bible is wrong," "I think this scripture passage gets it wrong," "this is what the bible says, and it's wrong," etc...  The one I heard was "It's ridiculous to say -insert bible verse.-"

In any case, what we have here is just a flat-out rejection of the truthfulness of the scriptures, and the moment you start to do -that,- you know your sermon is -way- off-track.

-----

Of course, if you're at the point of denying the reliability of Sacred Scripture, you're pretty far out in left field already, but you can't insist that any part of the scriptures are -just flat-out wrong,- and still claim to be a Roman Catholic.

As it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the document specifically written to outline what's acceptable for Catholics to believe and what isn't...)

"Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely"
-CCC; Paragraph 102-

Thus, confirmation that the scriptures are the word of God.  Since they're the word of God, if we argue against them, we argue against God himself.

-----

If what you want to say is that a particular verse of the bible seems misleading when it's improperly-interpreted, go ahead and say that.  However, it is not, by any means okay to say that the bible itself is -wrong.-

TTSNBSIM 6: "The Church Needs to Compromise"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#6: "The Church Needs to Compromise"

-----

This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

This is a pretty bad one, because I honestly can't think of any situation in which it would be true.

-----

You see, there are a few ways to think of "the Church."

1. "The Church" is the mystical body of Christ, in which case it -cannot- compromise, since it essentially is a part of almighty God, and God does not compromise.  He rules.

2. "The Church" can mean the authoritative teachings, upheld by the Pope and the Magisterium.  Again, any compromise on these would mean drifting away from the will of God, in order to fall into error, which according to Jesus, it's impossible for the Catholic Church to do.

3. "The Church" can mean the total, combined number of people and institutions that claim to be Catholic.  However, there's a reason why Jesus gave his authority to the Catholic Church on this earth, and especially to the Bishop of Rome.  If Catholics aren't in conformity with the teachings of the church, they don't need compromise.  They need to get in conformity with them.  If Catholics -are- in conformity with the teachings of the church, they don't need compromise.  They need to -stay- in conformity with them.

-----

I suppose you could say that -in certain projects,- individual priests, bishops, or even whole parishes may compromise on getting what they want for the purposes of following the teachings more closely, but that's not the same thing as -the Church- compromising.

The Church's task is to teach the truth, and when you compromise the truth, it becomes falsehood, regardless of how small a compromise it may seem to be at first glance.  That's why this should never be said in Mass.

TTSNBSIM 5: "Unity is Always Better Than Division"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#5: "Unity is Always Better Than Division"

-----

This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

This statement has many variants, of varying degrees of truth.  For example "We should never be the cause of division if we can help it," which is false, to "Division is bad," which is true, but requires further explaining.

-----

There are multiple ways for something to be "bad."  It can be bad because of its nature, like murder, or it can be bad as a result of some non-essential property that it has (this is called an "accident" in philosophy.)  For example, a broken leg is a "bad" leg because it's broken; not because it's a leg.  These are two different types of "badness."

1. Badness of nature.
2. Badness of accidents.

Note that a thing can be "bad" in one of these ways, but not "bad" in any other ways.

Now, taken by itself, division is not a good thing.  Division, in and of itself, is bad.

That having been said, does that mean that -all things- are worse when divided than they are when united?

No.

A mafia family, for example, is -much- worse when it's united under its leader and knows its mission.  If it's divided, the different members may start betraying each other, and generally paralyzing the effectiveness of the mafia to hurt other people.

In other words, something which is evil when united, is often better when it's divided.  In fact, evil is the primary reason for the existence of division in the universe.  As it says in the book of Genesis...

"And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness."
-Genesis 1:4-

The very fact that -God himself- causes division here proves that division is not always evil, because God isn't capable of causing evil.

God's whole plan for salvation history involves separating Good from evil, and sending each to their proper place.

"And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left."
-Matthew 25:32-33-

So, dividing good from evil is different from causing division among -good- people, and should be treated as such.  Jesus himself says...

"Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
-Luke 12:51-53-

Therefore, it is clearly not always bad for people to be divided, when some of those people believe the truth, and others insist on preaching falsehood.  Good -must- be divided from evil.  So says Our Blessed Lord.

TTSNBSIM 4: "God Never Wants You to be Afraid"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#4: "God Never Wants You to be Afraid"

-----

This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

This is a little straightforward, because it's simply false.  God doesn't want you to have anything evil to -be afraid of,- but it's clear from the scriptures that as long as there is evil, God wants us to be afraid of it.

-----

"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."
-Matthew 10:28, spoken by Jesus to his disciples-

So, yes, God -does- want us to be afraid of Satan, and therefore, of sinning.

Fear is a natural and normal part of the human experience, because we -should- be afraid of offending God.  For this reason, at Mass, we should never tell people not to fear -anything.-

-----

A viable alternative is the following.

"God wants to take you to a place where fear is no longer needed."

TTSNBSIM 3: "Let's Have a Round of Applause For Person X"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#3: "Let's Have a Round of Applause For Person X"

-----

This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

This one, however, is a bit harder to categorize, because it's not a matter of it being true or false.  It's just not appropriate.  To understand why, it's important to know just what goes on at the Mass.

-----

You see, at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Saints and Angels are all around invisibly, worshiping God.  The Holy Trinity and the Blessed Mother are present at each Mass, even though we can't see them, and perhaps most importantly, Jesus is made present there -physically- in the Holy Eucharist.  Every living person in the church is moved back through time, to the specific time and place of the crucifixion of Jesus, and while the sacrifice is taking place, Jesus is right there, being crucified.

Now, suppose you were the priest in such a position.  You're either looking directly at Jesus, or you're facing away from him (as many priests do in modern times.)  Jesus is hanging there on the cross, being mocked by the pharisees, guards, criminals and other passers-by, crowned with thorns, hands and feet impaled with nails, and his whole body covered with wounds caused by jagged bone fragments that were driven across his skin over and over by a leather whip during the scourging.

Really?  Is this really the best time and place to be applauding the performance of a human being, regardless of what they've done to deserve it?

-----

If you have an active parish life, and the laity is active in it, there will be times and places to announce congratulations to Marge for her work on the parish bake sale.  Perhaps even before, or after Mass would be acceptable, but not during, and certainly not right in the middle.  Some things are just more important than that.

TTSNBSIM 2: "Only Love Matters"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#2: "Only Love Matters"

-----


This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's because the remark, as stated, is simply not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

-----

Here, we have a statement regarding love, and I just have to say, I think it's about time that Christians in general (and Catholics in particular) just gave up on the English word "love."  Why?  Because the word no longer means anything.  This one word can be used to mean any of the following.

1. Sex, or even anonymous, uncommitted sex.
2. Sexual attraction, as in the phrase "he loved her from the moment he first saw her."
3. The various methods and behaviors classified as "romance."
4. A state of being predisposed to romantic feelings and inclinations towards someone, as in the phrase "you can tell he's in love, even when she's not around."
5. A strong liking for something.  For example, when I say "I love popcorn," or "I love root beer."
6. Deep affection for a child or dependent.
7. Deep affection for a spouse or significant other.

Here's the problem.  When Jesus used the word "agape," and when the Church uses the word "caritas," none of these definitions is implied, intended or necessary.  The definition that we mean is...

8. A self-sacrificing behavior, done on behalf of someone else.

The "agape" of Jesus is not some selfish, romantic attraction, nor is it some petty, temporary affection for a person, rooted, most often, in a simple, good mood.  It's the rock solid commitment to give of oneself for the sake of others, and this is the same "agape," which God showed in creating the universe, even though he didn't need to.

Any statement about love is going to be a dangerous and easily-misinterpreted statement, for this reason alone; the word means something different to each person, and therefore means nothing.

-----

However, even if you've been taught the true meaning of "agape," the statement "Only Love Matters," is still false.  There is something else that matters; the truth.

A person may, for example, fully intend to sacrifice for someone else, and fully attempt to do so, but in his attempt, if he doesn't know the truth about how to help them, he may still do evil without realizing it.

For example; assisted suicide.  Assisted suicide derives all of its force, in the current culture, from the desire to help someone else not suffer so much.  If you sacrifice to get someone an assisted suicide, this might be considered agape; a self-sacrificing behavior, done on behalf of someone else.  However, because you don't know the truth, that assisted suicide is not helping them, the resulting action is evil, regardless of what you happen to think of it.

-----

Because the statement "only love matters" is false, there simply is no proper way to say it at Mass.  However, one might easily repeat the statement of Pope Benedict XVI on the subject.

"Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived."
Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate," Section 3, Sentence 2.

TTSNBSIM 1: "Jesus Wants to Remain With us in Spirit"

TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)

#1: "Jesus Wants to Remain With us in Spirit"

-----

This is a new series I'm planning on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there.  Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's because the remark, as stated, is just not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted.  In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.

In this case, we have something which is not incorrect.  Jesus -does- want to remain with us in Spirit.  This language, however, is misleading in three ways.

-----

1. Without further explanation, it seems to imply that "remaining with us in spirit" is rather like "being remembered" or perhaps "watching from far off," or even "thinking about us fondly."  This is the way the culture currently understands the term.  Too often, I've heard a living, human being say to another, living human being "I'll be with you in spirit."

To be with someone in spirit means that your spirit is actually with them, and this can't be done while our spirits remain in our bodies.  It's something the dead can do, and angels, and God, but it's not something that a living person can do, without some special grace or miracle.

-----

2. Even if you understand the term properly, to mean "Jesus wants his Spirit to be with us," most people would assume that this just means that Jesus is always spiritually nearby and watching.  However, the Spirit of God is a separate person of the Holy Trinity; namely, the Holy Spirit.  When we speak of the Spirit of Jesus, or the Spirit of God being with us, this means -exactly- the same thing as "the Holy Spirit was with us."  So, why not just -say- "the Holy Spirit?"

-----

3. Perhaps most gravely, saying that Jesus wants to be with us "in spirit" seems to imply that he doesn't want to be with us in other ways.  As Catholics, we know that this is not the case.  Jesus wants to be with us; not just spiritually, but -physically,- in the Holy Eucharist.  This is one of the worst implications that one could make at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, since it's there that the Eucharist Himself is consecrated.

-----

Therefore, instead of "Jesus wants to remain with us in spirit," it would be better, at Mass, to say one of the following things...

"Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit, so that he could always be with us."

"Jesus wants to be with us, both physically -and- spiritually."

"Jesus wants to be with us -fully.-"

All of these are correct as well, and each is harder to misinterpret.