Design

[tonyrey]

Excellent citation. Now let’s look at the last sentence:
“Unrepented, it brings eternal death.”

So what is “repentance”? Regret. “Turning away from”. Remorse concerning the action.

Within the Church, a man displays this repentance by seeking the sacrament of penance. A man outside the Church, unfortunately, is either not aware or unable to undergo the process, even if he displays the signs of repentance concerning his sin.

Luckily for him, as we’ve established, God transcends sacramental binding.

In this way, a man that commits grave sin and never receives absolution from a priest still has hope of heaven. And let us not forget, repentance can occur absolutely any time before death. Maybe even just moments before.

There is hope for literally everyone.

Many people forget or do not know or do not believe Jesus died for all of us. The power of His love can and does work miracles, a topic that has been neglected on this thread even though it is an essential element of Design. God’s love didn’t cease to exist at the moment of Creation nor was it by chance the Son of God came into the world! Divine intervention permeates our lives with answers to prayers occurring at every moment even for those who reject religion but are in despair. No matter what we claim to believe or disbelieve we remain the children of God who cares for us far more than we care for ourselves because unlike His love ours is limited and often unwise…

 

[Bradski]

You appear to be following inocente’s strategy of dividing Catholics against each other by showing that we don’t even know our own catechism, that you know it better than we do, and that yours is the last word.

Useless and failed strategy.

Ye gods, that’s rich even by your standards. You specifically ask me to quote the part of the catechism that illustrates the point I am making and then plaintively claim that I am trying to prove that I know it better than you.

And to answer Tony’s point, the catechism is not a rule book for God. But it does tell Catholics what God expects from them. And the punishments for breaking the rules. It is nor worded thus:

If you do not repent a mortal sin you will go to hell.*

*We aren’t 100% sure on this, but best to play safe just in case.

 

[inocente]

You appear to be following inocente’s strategy of dividing Catholics against each other by showing that we don’t even know our own catechism, that you know it better than we do, and that yours is the last word.

Useless and failed strategy.

Hang on, hang on. Next time you’re tempted to make false allegations behind my back, remember that on successive threads you’re said things about Catholicism and when I’ve checked, more often than not the Vatican says the opposite to you. Your latest effort left you openly disagreeing with the Pope, a Catholic philosopher, Catholic theologians and bible scholars (while I happened to agree with all of them ). You’re the one doing the dividing.

I’ve not been following your discussion with Brad and don’t know which (if either ) of you is right, but making unproven and unprovable insinuations about him is not a logical argument, you still need to do that.

 

[tonyrey]

…

And to answer Tony’s point, the catechism is not a rule book for God. But it does tell Catholics what God expects from them. And the punishments for breaking the rules. It is nor worded thus:

If you do not repent a mortal sin you will go to hell.*

*We aren’t 100% sure on this, but best to play safe just in case.

Playing safe is a prudent policy which implies it is a rule for us but not a categorical imperative.

 

[tonyrey]

Every aspect of Christianity is based on the belief that our Father in heaven** planned** our existence on this planet. To think otherwise is to reject the teaching of Jesus…

 

[tonyrey]

:twocents:

All this talk of repentance, I think a review of the Parable of the Prodigal Son is in order:

The younger son essentially ends his relationship with the father; to him, it is as if the father were dead. Appropriating for himself the wealth that is shared between them, he sets off to spend it on the transient and illusory pleasures of the world. Ultimately depleted, he returns repentant to be met with joy and love, treated not as a servant, but as a son, brought back to life.

But, the parable does not end there. It is also referred to as that of the Two Brothers. As a response to the Pharisees who questioned Jesus’ association with sinners, the story is about the older son’s relationship with the father.

The son is angry with his father, and refuses to attend the party. Having remained faithful, he resents the reception given to his brother, complaining that he was never even given a goat. It is as though an injustice has been done to him. The father is patient and reminds him that everything the father has is his; we are talking about more than just a goat.

What has been given to us is to be shared. To do otherwise drains us of that goodness and leads to death.

It is to participate in this Divine plan that we are designed, emotionally, intellectually and in terms of our physical capacities to act.
We are spiritual beings having a physical form, which enables us to meet in time and space, transforming ourselves as eternal beings through these relationships with one another and with God.

The key words are “Divine plan”. Otherwise life is a valueless, purposeless and meaningless accident…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . And to answer Tony’s point, the catechism is not a rule book for God. But it does tell Catholics what God expects from them. And the punishments for breaking the rules. It is nor worded thus:

If you do not repent a mortal sin you will go to hell.*

*We aren’t 100% sure on this, but best to play safe just in case.

It’s a wonder that we communicate at all. But, even when there is agreement, it always our take on the matter. How we understand the ideas being conveyed to us rests on the larger understanding of ourselves in the world and especially the issues and conflicts that we are facing in the particular moment.

Considering this same material, one person may focus on the rules aspect. Personally, this tends to be the boring stuff, important in the reading only insofar as it speaks to how we think and decide, what guilt and shame are about, rational and irrational and as it clarifies the nature of the Reality on which it is grounded. Taken as a set of rules, it reads like something meant for lawyers and people looking for loop-holes. Maybe that is why some atheists scoff at the concept of objective morality, because they imagine some set of commandments out there and it sounds ridiculous.

What is out there is Love, at the very foundation of the universe, something greater than the laws of physics which apply only to creation. This all unfolds, brought and maintained in existence through a loving Act, which exists as a Divine person who became one of us that we may all know and commune with the eternal Ground of our being. He is the fulfillment of our journey that is our life.

Morality is founded in love. Let’s contemplate St Augustine’s words:

. . . To have all these sacraments is, as I say, possible even for a bad person. But to have love and be a bad person is impossible. Love is the unique gift, the fountain that is yours alone. The Spirit of God exhorts you to drink from it, and in so doing to drink from himself. . . Could we love him, unless he first loved us? Though we were slow to love, let us not be slow to love in return. He loved us first. We do not even love in the same way as he. He loved the unrighteous, but he took away the unrighteousness. He loved the sick, but he visited them to make them whole. Love, then, is God. “This is how the love of God is shown among us: God sent his only Son into the world, that we may live through him.” As the Lord himself said: “No one can have greater love than this: to lay his down his life for his friends.” [John 25:13] This proved Christ’s love for us, the fact that he died for us. How is the Father’s love for us proved? By the fact that he sent his only Son to die for us. . . we need to consider not what a person does but with what mind and will he does it. . . Once and for all, I give you this one short command: love, and do what you will. If you hold your peace, hold your peace out of love. If you cry out, cry out in love. If you correct someone, correct them out of love. If you spare them, spare them out of love. Let the root of love be in you: nothing can spring from it but good. . . “No one has ever seen God.” He is invisible, and must be looked for not with the eye but with the heart. . . If you would see God, here is what you should imagine: God is love. What sort of face does love have? What shape is it? What size? What hands and feet does it have? No one can say. And yet it does have feet, those feet that carry people to church. It does have hands, those hands that reach out to the poor. It has eyes, those through which we consider the needy: “blessed is the person,” it is said, “who considers the needy and the poor.” [Ps. 41:1] It has ears, of which the Lord says, “He that has ears to hear let him hear.” [Luke 8:8] . . . If it pleases you, have it, possess it. There is no need to rob anyone, no need to buy it. It is free. Take it, clasp it. There is nothing sweeter. If this is what it is like merely to talk about it, what must it be like when one has it? . . .

The Catechism is a guide for us in these times as to the nature of God, who we are and our relationship with Him. While there is other sacred scripture out there, it is the best we can do as a starting point and something to which we can return to ensure that we remain on track. What appear to be rules are markers to ensure that we are true to love. We are not going to steal, cheat, kill, use or disrespect others when we love them, when we give ourselves for the good of the other. As to repentance, it speaks of God’s boundless love for us and His desire that we come to know Him. It is about our reconciliation with God, returning the love He has for us.

TLDNR - “Love and do what you will.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hang on, hang on. Next time you’re tempted to make false allegations behind my back, remember that on successive threads you’re said things about Catholicism and when I’ve checked, more often than not the Vatican says the opposite to you. Your latest effort left you openly disagreeing with the Pope, a Catholic philosopher, Catholic theologians and bible scholars (while I happened to agree with all of them ). You’re the one doing the dividing.

Hang on, hang on. Since you are a contributor to this thread, nothing was said behind your back. There you go again, making false accusations intended to show that Catholics are hopelessly confused and divided on this thread, while it is Protestantism as a whole that is hopelessly confused and divided. No question about that. Even Protestants have to admit it.

Isn’t that the devil’s strategy right from the start? Divide and conquer?

Eve divided from Adam, both conquered.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s a wonder that we communicate at all. But, even when there is agreement, it always our take on the matter. How we understand the ideas being conveyed to us rests on the larger understanding of ourselves in the world and especially the issues and conflicts that we are facing in the particular moment.

Considering this same material, one person may focus on the rules aspect. Personally, this tends to be the boring stuff, important in the reading only insofar as it speaks to how we think and decide, what guilt and shame are about, rational and irrational and as it clarifies the nature of the Reality on which it is grounded. Taken as a set of rules, it reads like something meant for lawyers and people looking for loop-holes. Maybe that is why some atheists scoff at the concept of objective morality, because they imagine some set of commandments out there and it sounds ridiculous.

What is out there is Love, at the very foundation of the universe, something greater than the laws of physics which apply only to creation. This all unfolds, brought and maintained in existence through a loving Act, which exists as a Divine person who became one of us that we may all know and commune with the eternal Ground of our being. He is the fulfillment of our journey that is our life.

Morality is founded in love. Let’s contemplate St Augustine’s words:

. . . To have all these sacraments is, as I say, possible even for a bad person. But to have love and be a bad person is impossible. Love is the unique gift, the fountain that is yours alone. The Spirit of God exhorts you to drink from it, and in so doing to drink from himself. . . Could we love him, unless he first loved us? Though we were slow to love, let us not be slow to love in return. He loved us first. We do not even love in the same way as he. He loved the unrighteous, but he took away the unrighteousness. He loved the sick, but he visited them to make them whole. Love, then, is God. “This is how the love of God is shown among us: God sent his only Son into the world, that we may live through him.” As the Lord himself said: “No one can have greater love than this: to lay his down his life for his friends.” [John 25:13] This proved Christ’s love for us, the fact that he died for us. How is the Father’s love for us proved? By the fact that he sent his only Son to die for us. . . we need to consider not what a person does but with what mind and will he does it. . . Once and for all, I give you this one short command: love, and do what you will. If you hold your peace, hold your peace out of love. If you cry out, cry out in love. If you correct someone, correct them out of love. If you spare them, spare them out of love. Let the root of love be in you: nothing can spring from it but good. . . “No one has ever seen God.” He is invisible, and must be looked for not with the eye but with the heart. . . If you would see God, here is what you should imagine: God is love. What sort of face does love have? What shape is it? What size? What hands and feet does it have? No one can say. And yet it does have feet, those feet that carry people to church. It does have hands, those hands that reach out to the poor. It has eyes, those through which we consider the needy: “blessed is the person,” it is said, “who considers the needy and the poor.” [Ps. 41:1] It has ears, of which the Lord says, “He that has ears to hear let him hear.” [Luke 8:8] . . . If it pleases you, have it, possess it. There is no need to rob anyone, no need to buy it. It is free. Take it, clasp it. There is nothing sweeter. If this is what it is like merely to talk about it, what must it be like when one has it? . . .

:clapping:Thank you for quoting that magnificent passage from St Augustine. It is as true and relevant today as it was over a thousand years ago…

 

[tonyrey]

Hang on, hang on. Since you are a contributor to this thread, nothing was said behind your back. There you go again, making false accusations intended to show that Catholics are hopelessly confused and divided on this thread, while it is Protestantism as a whole that is hopelessly confused and divided. No question about that. Even Protestants have to admit it.

Isn’t that the devil’s strategy right from the start? Divide and conquer?

Eve divided from Adam, both conquered.

Since the Reformation the number of Protestant sects has increased to over at least 30,000, thereby bringing Christianity into disrepute. Catholics are united on fundamental issues like the authority of the Apostolic Church which all denominations implicitly accept with regard to virtually the whole of the Old and New Testaments…

 

[Bradski]

Playing safe is a prudent policy which implies it is a rule for us but not a categorical imperative.

Which would imply. The catechism doesn’t, obviously, suggest that you ‘play safe’. It tells you in no uncertain terms what you are meant to do and what you are not meant to do and the punishment that you will receive (not might receive or possibly could receive) for transgression.

But I guess that if avoiding hell by repenting a mortal sin is not all-important or essential, then sure, it’s not imperative to do so.

 

[tonyrey]

Which would imply. The catechism doesn’t, obviously, suggest that you ‘play safe’. It tells you in no uncertain terms what you are meant to do and what you are not meant to do and the punishment that you will receive (not might receive or possibly could receive) for transgression.

But I guess that if avoiding hell by repenting a mortal sin is not all-important or essential, then sure, it’s not imperative to do so.

It seems you haven’t read a previous post of mine:

For a start the rules in the Catechism are not absolute truths but** guidelines** to lead us in the right direction. They certainly don’t dictate God’s decisions! The Creator is not an anarchist nor is He a slave. He is a loving Father who shares His power with us so that we are capable of determining our own destiny. Whether we choose to live solely for ourselves or in harmony with others depends entirely on us. One indication of what we choose is whether we are sorry for the needless suffering we have inflicted on others either deliberately or carelessly but there are other factors to be taken into account. Are we prepared to make amends as far as possible? To what extent do we understand the implications of our decision?

The Church wisely introduced the doctrine of Purgatory because it is not always a case of two clearcut alternatives. In theory Purgatory is a prelude to Heaven but perhaps it is also a test of our sincerity! Only God knows all the answers and human attempts to categorise spiritual existence are definitely doomed to fail. Only one thing is certain: the distinction between good and evil is not merely a human convention but an objective fact based on the positive or negative effects of our conduct and attitude towards God, others and ourselves. Are we fundamentally creative or destructive?

Don’t you agree that is the fundamental question?

 

[Bradski]

I’m totally at a loss at this point. I have stated quite specifically what the catechism says verbatim about the punishment for not repenting a mortal sin and we have at least three people bending over backwards trying to deny it.

Again, this is not my personal opinion. It is literally what the Catholic church teaches. It is what you are meant to believe.

The replies are too bizarre to make any further response worthwhile.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m totally at a loss at this point. I have stated quite specifically what the catechism says verbatim about the punishment for not repenting a mortal sin and we have at least three people bending over backwards trying to deny it.

Again, this is not my personal opinion. It is literally what the Catholic church teaches. It is what you are meant to believe.

The replies are too bizarre to make any further response worthwhile.

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

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

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 heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

If you die in mortal sin, you die without sanctifying grace, God’s friendship. At death, the state of one’s soul is eternal. No do-overs. Which is hell without God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m totally at a loss at this point. I have stated quite specifically what the catechism says verbatim about the punishment for not repenting a mortal sin and we have at least three people bending over backwards trying to deny it.

Again, this is not my personal opinion. It is literally what the Catholic church teaches. It is what you are meant to believe.

The replies are too bizarre to make any further response worthwhile.

I have to note your consistent persistence, along with inocente’s, in trying to drive a wedge between Catholics and their catechism. Again, this is the devil’s own strategy, divide and conquer. It’s a failed policy, as has been pointed out too often for blind eyes and deaf ears. When are you going to sit up and pay attention? You need to develop a new strategy and new questions.

The Catholics in this forum DO NOT repudiate their catechism, and your attempts to prove that they do are VAIN!

One of the new questions you might want to ask is whether the catechism is clear about anyone who dies an atheist without repenting. Do you know what the likelihood is of escaping hell for such a damning offence?

If atheists dislike God so much that they have to campaign constantly against the stupidity of Catholics, what does that say about the hubris of atheism?

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

Repentance involves a transformation. There’s a recognition of oneself in the context of the primacy of love in existence and a transcendence of who one was, into someone new, more dedicated to the good. It’s not a matter of making a decision like purchasing a new home or finding a new job, that leaves us unchanged. What it also is not, even in a first step where one may choose to change in fear of the consequences, is act done in self interest. It is an imperative because the good is the good. One repents seeking love. And, on that journey we become Christ-like, Love itself.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m totally at a loss at this point. I have stated quite specifically what the catechism says verbatim about the punishment for not repenting a mortal sin and we have at least three people bending over backwards trying to deny it.

Again, this is not my personal opinion. It is literally what the Catholic church teaches. It is what you are meant to believe.

The replies are too bizarre to make any further response worthwhile.

It’s easy to ignore responses to your posts but to refute them is rather more difficult. You may be interested to learn that the Church teaches that **our ultimate authority **is not the Catechism nor even the Pope but our conscience…

 

[tonyrey]

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

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

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 heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

If you die in mortal sin, you die without sanctifying grace, God’s friendship. At death, the state of one’s soul is eternal. No do-overs. Which is hell without God.

Irrefutable. The key words are:

“However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.”

 

[tonyrey]

I have to note your consistent persistence, along with inocente’s, in trying to drive a wedge between Catholics and their catechism. Again, this is the devil’s own strategy, divide and conquer. It’s a failed policy, as has been pointed out too often for blind eyes and deaf ears. When are you going to sit up and pay attention? You need to develop a new strategy and new questions.

The Catholics in this forum DO NOT repudiate their catechism, and your attempts to prove that they do are VAIN!

One of the new questions you might want to ask is whether the catechism is clear about anyone who dies an atheist without repenting. Do you know what the likelihood is of escaping hell for such a damning offence?

If atheists dislike God so much that they have to campaign constantly against the stupidity of Catholics, what does that say about the hubris of atheism?

Very often people - not only atheists -accuse others of their own defects…