Be Warned & Believe what you Truly Will

[FurtherSuntime]

Good thing I checked in.

If you guys read the thread, the theme in above posts would not exist… (why is there posting without reading ?)

Part 1…of Tantums request for thoughts…F Suntime (post 81, page 6)

“Before I begin its noticed that my opinion is asked with respects to what God should do with the un-repentant sinner for eternity. In keeping with my already placed opinion on this matter, I believe consequence or due justice is a reality. Consequence in creation is how, all that we know has come to be. Fitting consequence is logical. The perspective will be along in the final entry.”

( Above is part of a 3 part reply to Tantum ergo’s request . Interruptions keep
appearing and I offer thoughts. The balance of the 3 part reply will easily answer all questions.seen in this thread…"and I have said this at least 3 times )

Overall the stance in posts have become so argumentative that no matter what I say, its argued… including basic logic. Look at above and then look at these posts, how in the world can this happen?

Another: F Suntime: Quote (post 83)

"The concept of “eternal"damnation, is obviously my focus and will be discussed in detail …Hell as we know is defined as an eternal torture of endless &severe, bodily pain. (torment)”
…

If we were without interference in Tantum ergo’s reply, the discussion would prove to be very interesting at this late date, as well unique.

It does not appear that the contributing members have any clue what so ever, of what I will be zeroing in on. I’m following the lead in posts entered, where is it going?
Isn’t this my question ?

 

[ddarko]

Good thing I checked in.

If you guys-gals read the posts, the theme in above posts would not exist… In evidence, & for your convenience I will post from existing posted entries on my behalf. (why is there posting without reading ?)

Part 1…of Tantums request for thoughts…F Suntime (post 81, page 6)

“Before I begin its noticed that my opinion is asked with respects to what God should do with the un-repentant sinner for eternity. In keeping with my already placed opinion on this matter, I believe consequence or due justice is a reality. Consequence in creation is how, all that we know has come to be. Fitting consequence is logical. The perspective will be along in the final entry.”

( Above is part of a 3 part reply to Tantum ergo’s request . Interruptions keep
appearing and I offer thoughts. The balance of the 3 part reply will easily answer all questions.seen in this thread )

Overall the stance in posts have become so argumentative that no matter what I say, its argued… including basic logic. Look at above paragraph and then look at these posts, how in the world can this happen?

Another: F Suntime: Quote (post 83)

"The concept of “eternal"damnation, is obviously my focus and will be discussed in detail …Hell as we know is defined as an eternal torture of endless &severe, bodily pain. (torment)”
…

If we were without interference in Tantum ergo’s reply, the discussion would prove to be very interesting at this late date, as well unique.

It does not appear that the contributing members have any clue what so ever, of what I will be zeroing in on. I’m following the lead in posts entered, where is it going? Isn’t that my question ?

I just have to ask, do you use something like Google Translate to convert to English after you have typed in your native language?

Because the way you write feels… off. I don’t mean to offend you but I am just saying. I am sure no one really knows what you are exactly saying.

God Bless

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I just have to ask, do you use something like Google Translate to convert to English after you have typed in your native language?

Because the way you write feels… off. I don’t mean to offend you but I am just saying. I am sure no one really knows what you are exactly saying.

God Bless

Ok …I edited Try again.

 

[ddarko]

Ok …I edited Try again.

Well here is the thing. If you can’t state your position in few clear sentences, I think there is a problem no?

Like can you at least paraphrase your entire position in to 5 sentences?

For an example, something like the following:-

1. There is no hell
2. There is no eternal torment
3. There can’t be eternal torment because God is love

etc?

God Bless

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Ive been doing some thinking equipped with some info from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Here is a quote directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Many believe that reason cannot give any conclusive proof for the eternity of the pains of hell, but that it can merely show that this doctrine does not involve any contradiction. Since the Church has made no decision on this point, each one is entirely free to embrace this opinion.”

F Suntime

I happen to have an opinion.There are many areas in the idea of hell which the Catholic Encyclopedia remarks that an opinion is acceptable. As well the explaining researched has no issue suggesting the Holy Mother Church simply does not know the exact details of many inter connecting issues . An opinion which shows contradiction is possible.

I have developed a thought which discusses the soul, the will, and the concept of consequence relative to Creation, God,.and relative to man ( will …soul…social)

My argument does not entail an absence of consequence for the unrepentant sinner by any means which would cast a ridiculous notion on the experience and reality of life.Nor does the opinion cast a ridiculous notion of a hell in all of its known definition, and thus casts a comment to creation itself in being the fruits of Gods initiative. We know one by their fruits.

I’m hoping to make a post later this evening ( tom at latest) in order to bring forward the intentional disposition and properties of the obstinate will, or what we call the unrepentant sinner.Due to thread development, I believe the approach will require the greatest simplicity possible. Therefore I will present a reduced and easy to follow idea of the opinion.

All of these matters are straight forward and do not require multiple degree’s in order to grasp
Spirituality is the most natural and enjoyable reality in our lives

.The benefits and understandings in Spirituality are naturally designed for everyone.Our opinions where possible are important and make up what is natural to believe.

…Its easy to believe a God exists because it’s so natural.to believe…it is so.

 

[ddarko]

Ive been doing some thinking equipped with some info from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Here is a quote directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Many believe that reason cannot give any conclusive proof for the eternity of the pains of hell, but that it can merely show that this doctrine does not involve any contradiction. Since the Church has made no decision on this point, each one is entirely free to embrace this opinion.”

F Suntime

I happen to have an opinion.There are many areas in the idea of hell which the Catholic Encyclopedia remarks that an opinion is acceptable. As well the explaining researched has no issue suggesting the Holy Mother Church simply does not know the exact details of many inter connecting issues . An opinion which shows contradiction is possible.

I have developed a thought which discusses the soul, the will, and the concept of consequence relative to Creation, God,.and relative to man ( will …soul…social)

My argument does not entail an absence of consequence for the unrepentant sinner by any means which would cast a ridiculous notion on the experience and reality of life.Nor does the opinion cast a ridiculous notion of a hell in all of its known definition, and thus casts a comment to creation itself in being the fruits of Gods initiative. We know one by their fruits.

I’m hoping to make a post later this evening ( tom at latest) in order to bring forward the intentional disposition and properties of the obstinate will, or what we call the unrepentant sinner.Due to thread development, I believe the approach will require the greatest simplicity possible. Therefore I will present a reduced and easy to follow idea of the opinion.

All of these matters are straight forward and do not require multiple degree’s in order to grasp
Spirituality is the most natural and enjoyable reality in our lives

.The benefits and understandings in Spirituality are naturally designed for everyone.Our opinions where possible are important and make up what is natural to believe.

…Its easy to believe a God exists because it’s so natural.to believe…it is so.

Well keep in mind that contradiction is not possible with respect to fixed teaching. You can postulate what Hell is like. But you can’t deny it’s existence. That would be heresy.

Btw, your English in the above post is much better. It would be nice if you could use that in your consequent posts as well.

God Bless

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Well keep in mind that contradiction is not possible with respect to fixed teaching. You can postulate what Hell is like. But you can’t deny it’s existence. That would be heresy.

Btw, your English in the above post is much better. It would be nice if you could use that in your consequent posts as well.

God Bless

Check out newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

The reason is simple: While teaching may suggest that it is fixed in expectations regarding what we believe and what we don’t believe in many issues , there is a glaring problem.with your suggestion

The glaring problem is the given explanation of “what hell is” cannot be fixed in any way what so ever.

In fact it is recognized that the damned can be removed from hell by virtue of prayer regardless of time, check the link. Therefore monks in a chapel 1000 yrs from now could effectively empty hell. Therefore hell would not be a reality relative to human existence. Do you know for a fact that absolute removal has not in fact taken place?

The description and teaching of hell are so vague that the idea of hell which we associate the word with is ultimately a lost word( eternal torture chamber) Oh don’t forget theres enough variations in the damned ones stay in hell to sink a battle ship, and you know it…

Bottom line … opinion allowed relative to a vague inconclusive description is not a fixed expectation in belief what so ever.The individual bully approach in this fixed business is baloney and I’m not buying it.

 

[ddarko]

Check out newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

The reason is simple: While teaching may suggest that it is fixed in expectations regarding what we believe and what we don’t believe in many issues , there is a glaring problem.

The glaring problem is the given explanation of what hell is cannot be fixed in any way what so ever.

In fact it is recognized that the damned can be removed from hell by virtue of prayer regardless of time, check the link. Therefore monks in a chapel 1000 yrs from now could effectively empty hell. Therefore hell would not be a reality relative to human existence. Do you know for a fact that absolute removal has not in fact taken place?

The description and teaching of hell is so vague that the idea of hell which we associate the word with is ultimately a lost word( eternal torture chamber) Oh don’t forget theres enough variations in the damned ones stay in hell to sink a battle ship, and you know it…

Bottom line is opinion allowed relative to a vague inconclusive description is not a fixed expectation in belief what so ever.The individual bully approach in this fixed business is baloney and I’m not buying it.

Oh ok, I think I know where your misunderstanding lies.

The article says the following:-

The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned. Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy.

What you are talking about is the following line that comes after:-

Many believe that reason cannot give any conclusive proof for the eternity of the pains of hell, but that it can merely show that this doctrine does not involve any contradiction. Since the Church has made no decision on this point, each one is entirely free to embrace this opinion.

But what the above refers to is the matter of whether the doctrine can be proven from reason or not. It is not saying you can have a personal opinion on whether hell is eternal.

The Church has definitively decided on the matter and does not even pray for those in hell and never has. Whenever it was done, it was condemned.

As the first quote said

“Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy.”

it is heresy for you to question the eternity of hell.

So while you are free to believe ‘whether or not reason can prove the eternity of hell’, you are not free to believe whatever you like on the eternity of hell.

Did that explain things?

God Bless

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Check out newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

The reason is simple: While teaching may suggest that it is fixed in expectations regarding what we believe and what we don’t believe on the hell issue, there is a glaring problem.

The glaring problem is the given explanation of what hell is cannot be fixed in any way what so ever.

In fact it is recognized that the damned can be removed from hell by virtue of prayer regardless of time, check the link. Therefore monks in a chapel 1000 yrs from now could effectively empty hell. Therefore hell would not be a reality relative to human existence. Do you know for a fact that absolute removal has not in fact taken place?

The description and teaching of hell is so vague that the idea of hell which we associate the word with is ultimately a lost word( eternal torture chamber) Oh don’t forget theres enough variations in the damned ones stay in hell to sink a battle ship, and you know it…

Bottom line is opinion allowed relative to a vague inconclusive description is not a fixed expectation in belief what so ever.The individual bully approach in this fixed business is baloney and I’m not buying it.

I read that whole link and, with respect, I believe you have misunderstood it. First, it was written nearly 100 years ago. Some of the teachings that had (at that time) not been ‘contradicted by the Church’ are (if one reads the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a more recent document) seen to be no longer ‘matters of speculation’. Furthermore, the whole link speaks of not only the existence of hell, but the ETERNITY of hell and the eternal PAINS of hell, none of which is given as ‘opinion only’. I can’t see how how you think the teaching is ‘vague and inconclusive’. (Especially if you go through the footnotes).

In sum, you appear to think that the idea of eternal punishment is some kind of bullying. . .but it is not. If you actually read that link I think it explains quite well. The necessity of justice means that those who remain, eternally, rejecting God and persisting in mortal grievous sin means that hell MUST exist. The pain is a consequence.

Suppose that you are suffering from an infection. The pain in your body is a consequence of the infection. It is a sign that something is ‘wrong’. Theoretically, if your body was an immortal body, with constant cell regeneration, and you were suffering from a deadly disease, and REFUSED TO TAKE THE ANTIDOTE for the disease, you could keep suffering with the consequence of those pains for eternity.

That’s the situation of a person in hell. His immortal SOUL, constantly ‘regenerating’ so to speak, is infected with a disease (mortal sin) which is constantly ‘attacking’ him. And he eternally refuses the ‘antidote’ (heaven) which could save him. Free choice. And I might add that in most hospitals/health care places even now, a person who is ‘in his right mind’ may REFUSE NECESSARY TREATMENTS even if the refusal results in PAIN and ultimately even death. . . because it is seen to be HIS decision.

 

[ddarko]

I can’t see how how you think the teaching is ‘vague and inconclusive’. (Especially if you go through the footnotes).

I think he incorrectly read the line

“Many believe that reason cannot give any conclusive proof for the eternity of the pains of hell, but that it can merely show that this doctrine does not involve any contradiction. Since the Church has made no decision on this point, each one is entirely free to embrace this opinion.”

to mean that he could have personal opinions on Hell

Honest mistake I guess.

God Bless

 

[FurtherSuntime]

This is copied from the Catholic encyclopedia:

In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell. Thus some argued from a false interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 sq., that Christ freed several damned souls on the occasion of His descent into hell. Others were misled by untrustworthy stories into the belief that the prayers of Gregory the Great rescued the Emperor Trajan from hell. But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted. If this be true, how can the Church pray in the Offertory of the Mass for the dead: “Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu” etc.? Many think the Church uses these words to designate purgatory. They can be explained more readily, however, if we take into consideration the peculiar spirit of the Church’s liturgy; sometimes she refers her prayers not to the time at which they are said, but to the time for which they are said. Thus the offertory in question is referred to the moment when the soul is about to leave the body, although it is actually said some time after that moment; and as if he were actually at the death-beds of the faithful, the priest implores God to preserve their souls from hell. But whichever explanation be preferred, this much remains certain, that in saying that offertory the Church intends to implore only those graces which the soul is still capable of receiving, namely, the grace of a happy death or the release from purgatory

F Suntime

The above explanation suggests that the believer can pray at any time for the soul of another who existed on earth in any moment including the last moment of life…In other words , time is not relative to the power of prayer.

The explanation then goes on to suggest that the prayer offered is only for the soul if in purgatory. If the prayer can be said regardless of time, how can the prayer suddenly wind up fruitless if the moment for the soul has not been decided? This is ridiculous

In other words, lets say I feel inspired to say a prayer for the soul of a relative who has passed on , and is in this eternal hell. How can the prayer be fruitless if as the teaching explains , the prayer is directed to the last moment in time for the soul?

Also, by what logic? The allocation of prayer mentioned above Denys the power of prayer at the last moment of the supposed soul. Clearly the teaching above is not only illogical but contradicts itself in two ways.

1. prayer for anothers soul at the last moment is fruitless
2. prayer can be said for the dead at the moment of their passing , regardless of time, but ONLY if they are in purgatory.

The first two sentences contradict, right off the bat

 

[Ignatius]

Be warned: The quantity of buried ill-will in such a believer negates optimum everlasting self realization. Ill-will, is the absorption of self fear in the material. An understanding of self, absorbed in the material denies Continuance. Only the free loving spirit within survives death as it is immaterial.

New Age falsehoods such as this are contrary to The Catholic Faith

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is copied from the Catholic encyclopedia:

In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell. Thus some argued from a false interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 sq., that Christ freed several damned souls on the occasion of His descent into hell. Others were misled by untrustworthy stories into the belief that the prayers of Gregory the Great rescued the Emperor Trajan from hell. But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted. If this be true, how can the Church pray in the Offertory of the Mass for the dead: “Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu” etc.? Many think the Church uses these words to designate purgatory. They can be explained more readily, however, if we take into consideration the peculiar spirit of the Church’s liturgy; sometimes she refers her prayers not to the time at which they are said, but to the time for which they are said. Thus the offertory in question is referred to the moment when the soul is about to leave the body, although it is actually said some time after that moment; and as if he were actually at the death-beds of the faithful, the priest implores God to preserve their souls from hell. But whichever explanation be preferred, this much remains certain, that in saying that offertory the Church intends to implore only those graces which the soul is still capable of receiving, namely, the grace of a happy death or the release from purgatory

F Suntime

The above explanation suggests that the believer can pray at any time for the soul of another who existed on earth in any moment including the last moment of life…In other words , time is not relative to the power of prayer.

The explanation then goes on to suggest that the prayer offered is only for the soul if in purgatory. If the prayer can be said regardless of time, how can the prayer suddenly wind up fruitless if the moment for the soul has not been decided? This is ridiculous

In other words, lets say I feel inspired to say a prayer for the soul of a relative who has passed on , and is in this eternal hell. How can the prayer be fruitless if as the teaching explains , the prayer is directed to the last moment in time for the soul?

Also, by what logic? The allocation of prayer mentioned above Denys the power of prayer at the last moment of the supposed soul. Clearly the teaching above is not only illogical but contradicts itself.

The first two sentences contradict, right off the bat

From “This Rock:”
Like heaven, hell is an eternal state, so prayers cannot help the souls there. The *Catechism of the Catholic Church *states:
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (CCC 1035)Since souls in heaven also have no need for our prayers, only those in purgatory are helped by prayers for the dead.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And also from “This Rock”, FS, what happens regarding prayer for those who are in hell.

Question: Can I have a Mass said for the repose of the soul of my Protestant friend? And what happens to my prayers if he’s in heaven already or, God forbid, hell?

”
A:
You can, and should, have a Mass said for your Protestant friend, or anyone for that matter.

If the one we are praying for is in heaven, he is not in need of our prayers. If he is in hell, no prayer can benefit him. But because the Church does not presume to know if any particular soul is damned, we are not to judge but to pray. The rest is up to God. Only God judges the heart (cf. 1 Sm 16:7).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And also from “This Rock”, FS, what happens regarding prayer for those who are in hell.

Question: Can I have a Mass said for the repose of the soul of my Protestant friend? And what happens to my prayers if he’s in heaven already or, God forbid, hell?

”
A:
You can, and should, have a Mass said for your Protestant friend, or anyone for that matter.

If the one we are praying for is in heaven, he is not in need of our prayers. **If he is in hell, no prayer can benefit him. But because the Church does not presume to know if any particular soul is damned, we are not to judge but to pray. The rest is up to God. Only God judges the heart (**cf. 1 Sm 16:7).

Now, note that this doesn’t say that ‘no one is in hell.’ But since we don’t know for sure if a person is there, we must pray (out of charity). If the person is not in hell, the prayer will benefit him. If the person IS in hell, the prayer cannot benefit him BUT that does not mean the prayer is useless. Because after all, prayer is communication and just because we pray “God please help Joe Doe” doesn’t mean that God MUST ‘help’ Joe Doe as if WE were the ones in charge commanding and he could only obey US. If the prayer does not help Joe, it certainly helps US (for we should be praying) and God will not let it be wasted. Our purity and charity of intent will not be seen ONLY in this prayer but will go forth to and through the whole Body of Christ in which we are all members.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

From “This Rock:”
Like heaven, hell is an eternal state, so prayers cannot help the souls there. The *Catechism of the Catholic Church *states:
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (CCC 1035)Since souls in heaven also have no need for our prayers, only those in purgatory are helped by prayers for the dead.

Ok so you can’t address the question emerging directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Your posts are ignored due to an in-ability to face facts, logic and the teachings.

I am not here to argue with emotional non-sense:thumbsup:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ok so you can’t address the question emerging directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Your posts are ignored due to an in-ability to face facts, logic and the teachings.

I am not here to argue with emotional non-sense:thumbsup:

Excuse me?
The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the SOLE SOURCE for answers.

Did you somehow NOT NOTICE that the actual SOURCE OF REFERENCE was The CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH???

Since when do YOU presume to ‘ignore’ the Catechism of the Catholic Church??? That is a demonstrated inability to face facts, logic, AND the teachings of the Church.

Of course you’re not here to argue with emotional nonsense. . .but then again, since my POST is NOT emotional nonsense, YOUR little statement is nothing but an ad hominem.

 

[ddarko]

In other words, lets say I feel inspired to say a prayer for the soul of a relative who has passed on , and is in this eternal hell. How can the prayer be fruitless if as the teaching explains , the prayer is directed to the last moment in time for the soul?

Also, by what logic? The allocation of prayer mentioned above Denys the power of prayer at the last moment of the supposed soul. Clearly the teaching above is not only illogical but contradicts itself in two ways.

1. prayer for anothers soul at the last moment is fruitless
2. prayer can be said for the dead at the moment of their passing , regardless of time, but ONLY if they are in purgatory.

The first two sentences contradict, right off the bat

If the person is in hell, there is nothing to pray for. He/She cannot merit in hell. The games over.

Even if the teaching appears contradictory, that would be a result of your fallible mind. Thus you must give full assent to the Church teaching.

We do not accept/reject Church teaching based on whether it sounds reasonable to us.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Ok so you can’t address the question emerging directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Your posts are ignored due to an in-ability to face facts, logic and the teachings.

I am not here to argue with emotional non-sense:thumbsup:

I have to agree with Tantum, there was nothing Emotional in his/her statements. I think you are really stretching this argument somehow to get a victory to your warped idea of Hell.

God Bless

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Further Suntime, this is from the webpage of the USCCB.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is an assembly of the hierarchy of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the Christian faithful of the United States. The purpose of the Conference is to promote the greater good which the Church offers humankind, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place. This purpose is drawn from the universal law of the Church and applies to the episcopal conferences which are established all over the world for the same purpose.

And what do you suppose the bishops use for their teaching tool and have a link to on their website? It is the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. usccb.org/catechism/text

Which I referenced in the post above and you refused to even consider as evidence.