Design

[inocente]

Please don’t summarize the catechism.

Apparently the CCC dates from 1992. It describes itself as a teaching aid. It ain’t holy. By its own lights it ain’t holy.

 

[Vonsalza]

Apparently the CCC dates from 1992. It describes itself as a teaching aid. It ain’t holy. By its own lights it ain’t holy.

“Holy” wasn’t the word used. “Authoritative” was.

The point still stands, if you want to use an authoritative document in your argument, you need to cite. Period.

 

[inocente]

“Holy” wasn’t the word used. “Authoritative” was.

You must have added the word “authoritative” since I read your post.

Oh hang on, no you didn’t.

 

[inocente]

Seems self-evident to me, not risible, not “nice” and not superficial. I don’t see any evidence of wishful thinking. Common sense is what I’d call it. With respect to the entire article, I may not phrase things in the same manner, but the opinions expressed are worthy of consideration. Ad hominems may add fuel to the emotional side of an argument, but are counterproductive to the furthering of understanding.

Ok, we have our opinions. Btw a biologist has called him a dolt. The issue for me is that design fans tried to convert me but when I asked questions on the morality it fell to pieces. It’s like I tell the Jehovah’s Witnesses who turn up every month, thanks but no thanks…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Please cite a specific section if you’d like to refer to the catechism (or any authoritative document, for that matter) for an analysis of content.

Catechism 1874 (vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm):

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

Of course it was not necessary. The teaching of the church is: If you die in the state of unrepented mortal sin, you go directly to hell (do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I get the emotion, but you can’t seriously consider this even close to a valid response to the assertion that “suffering is never wasted.”

So what use is the suffering of a kidnapped, raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered child? If it is not “wasted”, then it has a positive outcome. What is it?

We are eternal beings who transform ourselves into love through our actions. We become Christ-like in the giving of ourselves. Being like the Son, we enter into the Triune Godhead, who is Love, who brings all into existence, within the infinite ocean that is His compassion. In and through Christ our suffering becomes part of the process by which we are reborn into the spirit.

I rather hope that we shall NOT become “Christ-like”. God does not feed the hungry, does not heal the sick, does not protect the downtrodden. We try to do these as much as our abilities can go. As the observation goes: “As long as we have God’s love and compassion who needs hate and cruelty”?

 

[tonyrey]

So what use is the suffering of a kidnapped, raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered child? If it is not “wasted”, then it has a positive outcome. What is it?]

None whatsoever as far as a sceptic is concerned. There is no answer to evil in this world - and all the atheist can do is despair and ultimately commit suicide - but for Christians it leads to greater joy in heaven. Jesus liberated us from a purposeless life by transforming suffering into an expression of unselfish love. He chose to be mocked, scourged and crucified to demonstrate that evil doesn’t have the last word. We are not isolated individuals but members of a universal family who are deeply affected by what happens to our brothers and sisters. Our prayers and sacrifices unite us more closely to one other both in this world and the next whereas the monsters who torture and murder children become isolated outcasts in a hell of their own making.

I rather hope that we shall NOT become “Christ-like”. God does not feed the hungry, does not heal the sick, does not protect the downtrodden. We try to do these as much as our abilities can go. As the observation goes: “As long as we have God’s love and compassion who needs hate and cruelty”?

Christ did feed the hungry, heal the sick and condemned in no uncertain terms those who exploited the poor. Not everyone follows His example; otherwise there would be far less misery and suffering in the world. Nor is it true God never intervenes in answer to prayer. It is an infantile fantasy to claim the Creator is guilty of hate and cruelty because it is men, women and even children who deliberately inflict suffering on others. They abuse the power they have been given but not with impunity: since evil is divisive and self-destructive they finish up in a hell of their own making if they don’t atone for their crimes before it is too late…

 

[Aloysium]

So what use is the suffering of a kidnapped, raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered child? If it is not “wasted”, then it has a positive outcome. What is it?
I rather hope that we shall NOT become “Christ-like”. God does not feed the hungry, does not heal the sick, does not protect the downtrodden. We try to do these as much as our abilities can go. As the observation goes: “As long as we have God’s love and compassion who needs hate and cruelty”?

It’s not a matter of usefulness. God offers hope, peace, justice and life eternal in him.

All life on earth will end, correct? What use is any of this? People spend their lives seeking fame only to be forgotten like everything else. Look for pleasure and one will find pain. Seek riches and one finds that buys only transient illusions. Be frugal and it will be spent by others. Happiness outside of a relationship with God is but empty chance happening. He provides everlasting Joy. The aim is transcendence.

In Jesus we find true hope. The cross is its symbol of Christian transcendence. In confronting our suffering, sharing it with Christ, attempting to alleviate that of others, we come to know the love that elevates us beyond all this, to the very Centre, the Source of all creation, eternal, glorious, greater and deeper than all time and space. In the giving of ourselves for the good of the other, we become Christ-like, we become that act of Giving by which we come into existence. Returning God’s love, we are brought into the Triune relationship that defines Him.

Jesus is the true Way to eternal salvation carrying us out of this vale of tears. It involves taking up our cross and that of others. The fact is that there is enough for everybody. My guess is that you did not reflect on my earlier quote from Matthew as to how we are saved by giving to our neighbour. That there is hunger and injustice, has to do with how we treat each other. We build walls rather than extending our hands and sharing what has been given us. There was already a flood and it won’t happen again. We are all destined to be saved, we choose whether or not to accept.

 

[Vonsalza]

Catechism 1874 (vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm):

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

Of course it was not necessary. The teaching of the church is: If you die in the state of unrepented mortal sin, you go directly to hell (do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars).

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.

 

[tonyrey]

?

Catechism 1874 (vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm):

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

Of course it was not necessary. The teaching of the church is: If you die in the state of unrepented mortal sin, you go directly to hell (do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars).

It’s not surprising atheists don’t understand what rules are because in their world rules don’t exist! Everything is arbitrary and has no rational basis…

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 but neither 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 clear alternatives. In theory Purgatory is a prelude to Heaven but perhaps it is also a test of our sincerity that we can fail! 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?

 

[Bradski]

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.

Except we’re not discussing absolution. We are discussing repentance. And as has been continuously pointed out to you, but which you continuously deny, is that if you don’t repent you are bound for hell. Period.

There are no footnotes in the catechism. No statement is marked with an asterix which refers you to conditions is which the statement may not hold.

You MAY still go to hell if you do repent, but your church is crystalline clear on your prospects if you don’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You MAY still go to hell if you do repent, but your church is crystalline clear on your prospects if you don’t.

I assume you are talking about feigned repentance.

I don’t see anywhere in the Catechism where it says that sincere repentance MAY not avail.

If you do, please let me know.

 

[Bradski]

I assume you are talking about feigned repentance.

I don’t see anywhere in the Catechism where it says that sincere repentance MAY not avail.

If you do, please let me know.

I have to explain the catechism to you? It clearly says that to avoid hell you need to repent AND receive God’s forgiveness. The second doesn’t necessarily follow the first. But you need both. It couldn’t be clearer.

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have to explain the catechism to you? It clearly says that to avoid hell you need to repent AND receive God’s forgiveness. The second doesn’t necessarily follow the first. But you need both. It couldn’t be clearer.

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

The catechism is correct. I think the hidden source of basic disparity between us is the semantic on “repentance”.

If you describe the “unrepentant” as a man that commits a grave sin, never obtains any sort of sacramental solution but is remorseful - there is obvious hope for that man, even as he is technically “in grave sin” as far as the Church is concerned.

If you describe the “unrepentant” as a man that unapologetically commits grave sin, then yes. That fellow has very little hope.
I won’t say he’s for-sure damned. I don’t make the call. But I wouldn’t be surprised.

Fortunately, most examples of the latter are either mentally ill (and thus less than perfectly culpable) or figments of our imaginations, conjured up for a polemic.

 

[Bradski]

The catechism is correct. I think the hidden source of basic disparity between us is the semantic on “repentance”.

If you describe the “unrepentant” as a man that commits a grave sin, never obtains any sort of sacramental solution but is remorseful - there is obvious hope for that man, even as he is technically “in grave sin” as far as the Church is concerned.

If you describe the “unrepentant” as a man that unapologetically commits grave sin, then yes. That fellow has very little hope.
I won’t say he’s for-sure damned. I don’t make the call. But I wouldn’t be surprised.

Fortunately, most examples of the latter are either mentally ill (and thus less than perfectly culpable) or figments of our imaginations, conjured up for a polemic.

Ever thought of doing something like the Tour De France in reverse. You are something of an expert in peddling backwards.

 

[Bradski]

Double post. I only have access to an iPhone for a few days. Excuse any errors.

 

[Vonsalza]

Double post. I only have access to an iPhone for a few days. Excuse any errors.

I saw that. Got a little excited there, didn’t you?

You need to remember that you’re talking to Catholics about the Catholic Catechism. If you would like to refer to a theological term such as “repentance” in a context that differs from a Catholic view, you need to exercise the due diligence in establishing your unique semantic.
(Unless, of course, you’d like to somehow argue that the Catechism isn’t referring to the concept in a Catholic, sacramental context.)

For a Catholic, “repentance” implicitly involves the sacrament of penance if they’re members of the Church. For non-members, it also implicitly involves Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist.

If you would like to refer to “repentance” in the protestant sense where it simply means “remorsefully turning away from your sin”, then specify that.

You still haven’t, by the way.

What you need to learn is your quote in #836:
“If you don’t repent then your fate is sealed. Even if God forgives the unrepentant, according to the Catechism, it makes no difference.”
…is woefully incorrect. You presume that God is somehow limited by the sacraments or the catechism. We are, but He is not.

Extreme polemics aside;

Everyone has hope - including the Jewish man in your original rebuttal. This is so because while the Catholic Church is a person’s vehicle to meet with God, it is not God’s only way to meet with a person. We are bound. God is not.

 

[tonyrey]

I saw that. Got a little excited there, didn’t you?

You need to remember that you’re talking to Catholics about the Catholic Catechism. If you would like to refer to a theological term such as “repentance” in a context that differs from a Catholic view, you need to exercise the due diligence in establishing your unique semantic.
(Unless, of course, you’d like to somehow argue that the Catechism isn’t referring to the concept in a Catholic, sacramental context.)

For a Catholic, “repentance” implicitly involves the sacrament of penance if they’re members of the Church. For non-members, it also implicitly involves Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist.

If you would like to refer to “repentance” in the protestant sense where it simply means “remorsefully turning away from your sin”, then specify that.

You still haven’t, by the way.

What you need to learn is your quote in #836:
“If you don’t repent then your fate is sealed. Even if God forgives the unrepentant, according to the Catechism, it makes no difference.”
…is woefully incorrect. You presume that God is somehow limited by the sacraments or the catechism. We are, but He is not.

Extreme polemics aside;

Everyone has hope - including the Jewish man in your original rebuttal. This is so because while the Catholic Church is a person’s vehicle to meet with God, it is not God’s only way to meet with a person. We are bound. God is not.

It is entertaining how sceptics expect the Creator to conform to their interpretation of the Catechism as if they are the final authority on the Church’s teaching. They are inevitably a law unto themselves without a rational foundation for any of their values:

“I alone **determine **what is right and wrong regardless of anyone else!”

They never explain why anything is good or evil in an amoral, purposeless universe, forgetting they inherited basic principles from their parents and society in which they live. “No man is an island”…

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

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

Luke 15:11-24 - Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.

“Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

“When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

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.

Luke 15:25-32 - “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

“‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

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.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have to explain the catechism to you? It clearly says that to avoid hell you need to repent AND receive God’s forgiveness. The second doesn’t necessarily follow the first. But you need both. It couldn’t be clearer.

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

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.