Does a person have to believe in literal burning hell to be Catholic

[PetraG]

I’m not quite sure why the possibility that Hell is physical bothers you more than the possiblity that it would be an unspeakable torture to be eternally separated from God?

You and I both know that people get into situations that make them and everyone around them miserable because they will not let go of a self-centered view of reality. They are not addicts, they are not insane, they are not helpless to change, but they refuse to take their ego out of the center of all they strive for.

I once had a fifth grader in a CCD class ask me about this “lake of fire” vision of Hell. I described to her the plot of Satre’s play, “No Exit.” You can look up the Cliff Notes version, if you have never seen the play, but my synopsis was this: Imagine being a room forever with three people: you, me and him. I hate you, but want something out of him. He, in turn, despises me, but wants something out of you. You, finally, hate him, but want something out of me. We are all pursuing someone who is determined to hate us and pursued by someone we are determined to hate. In the end, our view of everything centers on our self, and none of us can admit the faults that have made this scene even possible.

Then I asked the class, “Which would be worse: to have those two other people as your only relationships and your only experience in life for the rest of your existence, or to be in a lake of fire?” They all chose “LAKE OF FIRE!” in about a heartbeat. They also knew people for whom you could throw the best party ever, and nothing would make them happy. After this discussion, they decided that yes, if you look at what it would be like to be a certain way for an endless period of time, people have to decide to love or they’re deciding to put themselves into a Hell of their own making that is certainly every bit as bad as any physical pain could ever be.

I don’t know if Hell is the way we imagine or if visions of Hell are the closest thing that can come to a reality that is beyond our understanding or not. I do take serious images that occur over and over and over again in Holy Scriptures very seriously. If Hell is not a literal lake of fire, we will still say a lake of fire was about the best way to explain damnation to someone like we are now as there could be.

I think it is very obvious that we have the power to make life Hell for ourselves right now, not just spiritually but psychologically and even physically, and I don’t see any reason that we will not be able to do the same in eternity, only more so. It also makes sense that at some point, you make your decision and you live with it. On that account, yes, not just Purgatory (the process of becoming someone that anyone would want to live with for eternity) but also Hell seems as if it has to be an available alternative, even if no one ever goes there. It has to be as bad as it is described, yes.

 

[PetraG]

What happens in the case of agnostic or atheists who have good qualities such as kindness and compassion but reject belief in God or reject the concept of sin?

The Church has a concept called “invincible ignorance.” If someone has honestly done the best they can to pursue the truth and the good with the capacity to understand it and accept it that they have been granted, then God, knowing fulling exactly what their capacity was, will not hold them accountable for merely doing the best they could with the grace they were given. It is those who had the opportunity to accept the truth but refused who are liable to judgment, not those who were never given a realistic chance to do what is right. This judgment, however, lies within the knowledge of God. God knows what we could do; God cannot be lied to and is not going to be fooled by lies we have told ourselves and everyone else. Make no mistake: our eternal fate will be just, excepting that by the saving power of the Pascal Mystery, we will be offered more far mercy than we have merit.

 

[Rozellelily]

Can you please elaborate on how Pope Francis is pointing out the ways in which objective sin isn’t necessarily (from a subjective perspective) also mortal sin?

The example of someone civilly divorcing and remarrying -wouldn’t it always be the case that it would be mortal sin if they understood the Church’s teaching that it was mortal sin but just didn’t agree with it or find it as being just/fair that they couldn’t remarry?

Another question I have is are the “mortal sins category” consistent over time or have they/do they change according to different eras and different popes?

Sorry for all the questions!

I still see it as in conflict though the existence of a physical burning hell (whether sent by God or self chosen) with the teachings of love thy neighbour,be charitable,help the homeless,be kind,protect people against situations of exploitation or harm from others etc…

Burning people (or even creating a physical burning place that people can self send themselves to) is something that I would associate more with someone like Isis.

 

[Rozellelily]

I mean no disrespect,but I don’t think that the reasoning of 10 year olds is something that we can base anything off.
They choose “lake of fire” because they are nicely sitting on the carpet hearing a story,but if any of the kids actually experienced what it was like to be on fire,it would of course be a very different story.
Kids are children and they look at things from a child like point of view.
The idea of only having friends who hate you forever seems awful to a little kid lol.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t believe there were any executions, though I may be wrong. Either way, during the Papal States, the Church did not run a country, the Pope did. He as both a religious and political ruler, and any executions would have been enacted under his authority as the sovereign ruler of a political state; not as the head of Christ’s Church.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

One missed mass = eternity of torture and punishment.

One purposefully missed mass without substantial reason = a rejection of the very minimal God asks of us. It is placing ourselves before God, which is precisely what Hell is about.

Come on, don’t deny the obvious…just a few examples

354- 430 AD St. Augustine teaches that the institution of slavery derives from God and is beneficial to slaves and masters.

650 AD Pope Martin I condemns people who teach slaves about freedom or who encourage them to escape.

1224- 1274 AD St.Thomas Aquinas defends slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law. Children of a slave mother are rightly slaves even though they have not committed personal sin!|

1452 AD Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorizes (King) Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers to perpetual slavery.

1493 AD Pope Alexander VI authorizes the King of Spain to enslave non-Christians of the Americas who are at war with Christian powers.

1548 AD Pope Paul III confirms the right of clergy and laity to own slaves

#1 - In order for any of this to be evidence, you would actually have to cite the passages where they did this.

#2 - The writings of individuals do not necessarily reflect the teachings of hte Church.

#3 - Slavery in these periods was often the only alternative to killing. In Pagan societies, after a conquest your choices were basically to be a slave, or to be killed. It was considered the lesser of two evils. Sadly,some of this outlook carried into modern Christian societies for a time.

#4 - The world does not change overnight. We cannot sit here, several hundred years after the fact, and simply apply modernist thought to history while ignoring the context in which that history took place. It is unfortunate that certain Church leaders promoted slavery, but it is also understandable given the context in which they were living. It is also true that the Church condemned slavery several centuries prior to anywhere else in the world, which was my point.

Pagans, Jews, other non-Christians were forced to convert and were persecuted. I can cite plenty of references, but I’m sure you would deny them as ‘fake news.’

I welcome you to cite your evidence, because forced conversion has never been the way of the Church. Allow me to emphasize, as I did before, that there have certainly been some bad actors in Church history who engaged in forced conversion, but they did not reflect the teachings of the Church, which is what we are discussing.

Hastily, biased-filled conclusion. Evidence is not a position I would take in attempting to defend theology.

How is it biased to point out inaccuracies in a person’s understanding of history? It is not biased to have studied history and to be able to make a response to false accusations.

Feel free to respond, but I have a lot of work to catch up on so I won’t be able to engage more today.

 

[laylow]

That works in the context of the material universe, in terms of entities whose existence is within the universe, and whose existence persists within the universe. Are you claiming that these conditions apply to God – or even Jesus – in this context? If so, why?

If God is defined as “intervening in worldly circumstances” then I would expect to see some evidence of that intervention, not a claim by people from an illiterate part of the world 2000 years ago, or any of these fringe miracle claims which do not stand up to the usual critical standards needed for good evidence.

If He exists, but chooses not to explicitly reveal these boundaries to you in the way that you demand that He reveal them, do the boundaries thereby not exist?

Yes. But this premise stands against believers and non-believers alike, because believers assume their specific belief is correct. If the Christian story is a myth, its believers are worshiping a man-made human turned god. God’s boundaries (by the premise, he revealed them in a way not like the way we demanded) could explicitly prohibit worshiping a human god against bad evidence. Then Christian would be in trouble for their belief.

 

[laylow]

One purposefully missed mass without substantial reason = a rejection of the very minimal God asks of us. It is placing ourselves before God, which is precisely what Hell is about.

If that sounds like justice to you, I hope you are not involved in our judicial system!

#1 - In order for any of this to be evidence, you would actually have to cite the passages where they did this.

#2 - The writings of individuals do not necessarily reflect the teachings of hte Church.

#3 - Slavery in these periods was often the only alternative to killing. In Pagan societies, after a conquest your choices were basically to be a slave, or to be killed. It was considered the lesser of two evils. Sadly,some of this outlook carried into modern Christian societies for a time.

#4 - The world does not change overnight. We cannot sit here, several hundred years after the fact, and simply apply modernist thought to history while ignoring the context in which that history took place. It is unfortunate that certain Church leaders promoted slavery, but it is also understandable given the context in which they were living. It is also true that the Church condemned slavery several centuries prior to anywhere else in the world, which was my point.

You can tap dance it all you want. I stand by my statement in the rest of this thread. The omission of teachings against slavery in “church doctrine” is such a glaring mishap, that it simply cannot be ignored. It points to the reality that God did not tell his people it was wrong and “god” did not tell his people it was wrong because “god” was an invented perception of the people.

I welcome you to cite your evidence, because forced conversion has never been the way of the Church. Allow me to emphasize, as I did before, that there have certainly been some bad actors in Church history who engaged in forced conversion, but they did not reflect the teachings of the Church, which is what we are discussing.

There’s plenty of evidence that it happened, that’s just reality. Sources aren’t that hard to find. Obviously non-biased sources (on both sides of the issue) are a bit more difficult.

How is it biased to point out inaccuracies in a person’s understanding of history? It is not biased to have studied history and to be able to make a response to false accusations.

Feel free to respond, but I have a lot of work to catch up on so I won’t be able to engage more today.

The burden would then fall to you to cite unbiased sources that confirm your position. Saying its not official chruch doctrine is not good enough. Omission of important advice is as bad as providing bad advice.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If that sounds like justice to you, I hope you are not involved in our judicial system!

In purely human terms, no, it isn’t equivalent. However, we are not dealing with another human here. We are dealing with God, the infinite, eternal source of Goodness, Love, Beauty, etc. Any offense against Him, no matter how small, is an offense of infinite degree, and deserving of an infinite degree of punishment.

I don’t expect you to accept this, but that is the reality of it.

You can tap dance it all you want. I stand by my statement in the rest of this thread. The omission of teachings against slavery in “church doctrine” is such a glaring mishap, that it simply cannot be ignored. It points to the reality that God did not tell his people it was wrong and “god” did not tell his people it was wrong because “god” was an invented perception of the people.

Which is worse? To kill someone, or to make them work while being required to provide for them (at least to a a degree)? That is what we’re dealing with here. That is the majority of the slavery in the ancient world, and especially in the Pagan world. As I said, slavery was the lesser of two evils. Not good, and a regrettable aspect of history, but it does not somehow disprove God, as you seem to think.

There’s plenty of evidence that it happened, that’s just reality. Sources aren’t that hard to find. Obviously non-biased sources (on both sides of the issue) are a bit more difficult.

Then, again, I welcome you to provide the sources which show that The Church actively engaged in proselytizing / forced conversions.

The burden would then fall to you to cite unbiased sources that confirm your position. Saying its not official chruch doctrine is not good enough. Omission of important advice is as bad as providing bad advice.

I can’t really quote a whole book, so, if you’re interested in learning a bit of history:

The Glory of the Crusades

This book provides a balanced review of the Crusades, discussing the circumstances that led up to it, the reasoning behind it, and why it was necessary to engage in military conflict with the various Muslim rulers. It also does not shy away from the mistakes that were made on the part of the commanders and soldiers who lead the Crusades. It is a balanced, well researched piece of historical documentation that is really engaging to read.

 

[laylow]

In purely human terms, no, it isn’t equivalent. However, we are not dealing with another human here. We are dealing with God, the infinite, eternal source of Goodness, Love, Beauty, etc. Any offense against Him, no matter how small, is an offense of infinite degree, and deserving of an infinite degree of punishment.

I don’t expect you to accept this, but that is the reality of it.

I wouldn’t expect anyone to accept it! I am guessing that you don’t accept the suicide bombings of “the other religion” because “God” commanded them to do it; but in reality it uses the same principle.

Which is worse? To kill someone, or to make them work while being required to provide for them (at least to a a degree)? That is what we’re dealing with here. That is the majority of the slavery in the ancient world, and especially in the Pagan world. As I said, slavery was the lesser of two evils

It’s bad that God didn’t mention it in his book of things not to do.

Not good, and a regrettable aspect of history, but it does not somehow disprove God, as you seem to think.

No, you are putting words in my mouth. I think it provides more evidence against the Christian perception of God and further discredits a claim of an inerrant word of God.

Then, again, I welcome you to provide the sources which show that The Church actively engaged in proselytizing / forced conversions.

Define The Church If the church isn’t defined as it’s leaders and actions, then again, that seems like a sidestep of reality.

This book provides a balanced review of the Crusades, discussing the circumstances that led up to it, the reasoning behind it, and why it was necessary to engage in military conflict with the various Muslim rulers. It also does not shy away from the mistakes that were made on the part of the commanders and soldiers who lead the Crusades. It is a balanced, well researched piece of historical documentation that is really engaging to read.

The Crusades is only one example.

 

[Pup7]

You can tap dance it all you want. I stand by my statement in the rest of this thread. The omission of teachings against slavery in “church doctrine” is such a glaring mishap, that it simply cannot be ignored. It points to the reality that God did not tell his people it was wrong and “god” did not tell his people it was wrong because “god” was an invented perception of the people.

Ah, that old chestnut again.

When are you going to understand what doctrine is and what it is not? That the teaching against slavery is there, against trafficking is there, but it’s not in the Catechism - as that is not where it belongs?

As I said, the CCC doesn’t teach against child abuse, either, or prostitution - not explicitly. Is that also wrong? Awful lot in there about dignity of the human person, though.

Omission of important advice is as bad as providing bad advice.

In the United States, we have a strong belief in the right to privacy. Landmark cases have been won on it and set precedents on it.

Guess where it doesn’t exist? Where it’s not codified? Where it’s not laid out in explicit language?

The “essential teachings”/core doctrine/however you want to state it of the United States herself - the US Constitution.

Does that make an expectation of a right to privacy and an expectation that that right will be protected nonessential to an American or a lawful permanent resident (everyone living here, for that matter) of this country, or an unreasonable one? Does it mean that the US doesn’t care about it? Does it mean we have no right to expect the Court and the government to extend it to each and every one of us?

Not for one second. But wouldn’t you think it would be there? It’s a core belief that we are entitled to it and expect it to be protected.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I wouldn’t expect anyone to accept it! I am guessing that you don’t accept the suicide bombings of “the other religion” because “God” commanded them to do it; but in reality it uses the same principle.

They are not even remotely related… as in, I cannot even begin to comprehend the connection you seem to think exists… Suicide bombers abuse the name of God to cause violence… I’m discussing the infinite nature of God and the degrees of offense our sins cause…

It’s bad that God didn’t mention it in his book of things not to do.

No, it’s not. It’s not the point of the Bible. The Bible (especially the NT) outlines the world view which make slavery untenable. The Bible is not a book of “here’s everything that’s wrong to do, don’t do these things.” It’s the story of God reaching out to humanity to save us from ourselves. It’s not a rule book. As I said before, it’s a love story.

Define The Church If the church isn’t defined as it’s leaders and actions, then again, that seems like a sidestep of reality.

The Church is the body of believers, the accumulated Tradition and Theology, the Dogmas, etc. It could be likened to the concept of science. There have certainly been bad actors in the history of science, but that doesn’t say anything about science as a whole. Similarly, while there have definitely been bad actors in Church history, that doesn’t undermine the teachings of the Church or what it puts forward as the correct way to live.

A standard is not made lesser by the people who fail to live up to it.

The Crusades is only one example.

I’d be happy to pass along some books for other historical periods and events you hold misconceptions about.

Again though, I really do need to stop responding for now.

 

[Gorgias]

Can you please elaborate on how Pope Francis is pointing out the ways in which objective sin isn’t necessarily (from a subjective perspective) also mortal sin?

Amoris Laetitia.

The example of someone civilly divorcing and remarrying -wouldn’t it always be the case that it would be mortal sin if they understood the Church’s teaching that it was mortal sin but just didn’t agree with it or find it as being just/fair that they couldn’t remarry?

In that case, yes. However, Pope Francis is pointing out that there might be other situations in which people find themselves which, although they’re in the divorced-and-remarried context, might not be mortally sinful.

Another question I have is are the “mortal sins category” consistent over time or have they/do they change according to different eras and different popes?

Remember that there are two ways to look at sin: in an objective sense and in a subjective sense. (Remember, too, that we – as humans – never are called upon to make a judgment of a person, so this discussion is somewhat ‘theoretical’ or maybe, even, simply “FYI”.)

The objective dimension of sin remains constant, as does the teaching of the Church on the question as a whole. In terms of the subjective sense, well… that’s the part above our pay grade, remember?

 

[Gorgias]

If God is defined as “intervening in worldly circumstances” then I would expect to see some evidence of that intervention

So, since you wouldn’t expect to have prior notification of such an intervention, how would you then distinguish an event from a naturally occurring one?

, not a claim by people from an illiterate part of the world 2000 years ago

Right. 'Cause illiterate people are necessarily untrustworthy and unable to think and process what they experience through their senses. And people who lived 2000 years ago are necessarily dumber than us ‘brights’ today.

, or any of these fringe miracle claims which do not stand up to the usual critical standards needed for good evidence.

Here’s the thing, though: by its very definition, a ‘miracle’ is an event which cannot be explained by critical standards of evidence.

this premise stands against believers and non-believers alike, because believers assume their specific belief is correct.

Hmm… care to explain how a rational thought process that leads to belief is merely an ‘assumption’?

If the Christian story is a myth, its believers are worshiping a man-made human turned god.

OK, so… if Christianity is wrong, then Christians are mistaken. Yeah… so what? (After all, even St Paul makes this statement in one of his letters!)

God’s boundaries (by the premise, he revealed them in a way not like the way we demanded) could explicitly prohibit worshiping a human god against bad evidence. Then Christian would be in trouble for their belief.

You’ve just moved the goalposts. We’re not talking about unknown or unknowable boundaries – we’re just talking about boundaries which are revealed according to your personal tastes. So, we’re not in the territory of “what if we’ve been misled?” – we’re merely in the territory of “what if you’re ignoring the revelation as provided to you?”

 

[Genesis315]

With regard to slavery, distinctions need to be made. In the abstract, it is not strictly contrary to the natural law for a person to own title to all the services one person could reasonably provide to another over a lifetime, provided that title is acquired justly and the person providing those services is treated justly and charitably as a human being. It is also not contrary to the natural law that title to these services be assigned or transferred from one owner to another.

However, over time, experience showed how these necessary elements had come to almost never actually be met (title was rarely acquired justly, slaves were treated like chattel rather than human beings, the services required were not reasonable, they were abused, etc., etc.), so much so that even the word “slavery” came to mean the evil version, and the acceptable version was relegated to the realm of the theoretical. It was likewise often accompanied by other evils. So, by the time the Church gave unqualified condemnations of slavery, this is what is being condemned–in fact what was always condemned–not a just title to reasonable services, which has never been condemned.

Here’s an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on this.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

 

[TheLittleLady]

You don’t think homosexuality rights are a political issue?

There is a great thing called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is a high level reference book, will point you to the documents for deep diving into Teaching/Doctrine/Dogma.

This is why you need to define “rights”. Church teaches that unjust discrimination is wrong.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2359

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

[PetraG]

I mean no disrespect,but I don’t think that the reasoning of 10 year olds is something that we can base anything off.

They choose “lake of fire” because they are nicely sitting on the carpet hearing a story,but if any of the kids actually experienced what it was like to be on fire,it would of course be a very different story.

Kids are children and they look at things from a child like point of view.

The idea of only having friends who hate you forever seems awful to a little kid lol.

I agree with them. I would take physical pain over being surrounded by hatred and futility for eternity, absolutely. It isn’t even close.

That isn’t to say that I don’t think that Hell could have a physical aspect to it. I do think it says that disaffection from loving and being loved really is the greatest torture that a human can suffer, without any doubt.

I think burn victims would say the same thing, frankly.

 

[Gwendolen]

If its any consolation, I have the same struggle. Especially since many children are born into terrible circumstance, develop anti-social issues like conduct disorder, personality disorder, and their inability to attach to God (as well as others) is a result of lack of nurture, and stable home life. It seems inconsistent with my understanding of God that he would doom such people to eternal fire, even if they don’t “choose” to be with him. I mean, why eternal punishment of fire? Why not someplace like the old Catholic description of Limbo? It does not make sense to me.

 

[laylow]

But wouldn’t you think it would be there? It’s a core belief that we are entitled to it and expect it to be protected.

Yes, I would expect it to be in there.

 

[laylow]

So, since you wouldn’t expect to have prior notification of such an intervention, how would you then distinguish an event from a naturally occurring one?

I would have to be made aware of the distinction in order to consider it to be from an authority. Otherwise why should I not believe Muhammad instead of Jesus?

Right. 'Cause illiterate people are necessarily untrustworthy and unable to think and process what they experience through their senses. And people who lived 2000 years ago are necessarily dumber than us ‘brights’ today.

Not less intelligent, but less knowledgeable. Just like us “brights” will be to the future beings after we are long gone.

Here’s the thing, though: by its very definition, a ‘miracle’ is an event which cannot be explained by critical standards of evidence.

Which makes it the least likely scenario, so the likely scenario is that the people proposing the miracle are lying.

Hmm… care to explain how a rational thought process that leads to belief is merely an ‘assumption’?

How would you define believers of Muhammad or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

OK, so… if Christianity is wrong, then Christians are mistaken. Yeah… so what? (After all, even St Paul makes this statement in one of his letters!)

Christians seem quite pleased to tell everyone else they are wrong and that since they are, they are going to hell. Probably doesn’t feel good to realize the shoe could fit on the other foot as well.

You’ve just moved the goalposts. We’re not talking about unknown or unknowable boundaries – we’re just talking about boundaries which are revealed according to your personal tastes. So, we’re not in the territory of “what if we’ve been misled?” – we’re merely in the territory of “what if you’re ignoring the revelation as provided to you?”

Interesting, since moving the goalposts is a common tactic of the believer, maybe someone who does it often, is able to spot it more easily. Honestly, I do not see that as what happened. But even if I did, the statement is still valid. If you accuse the other religions for worshiping the wrong God, you would presumably point to some evidence as to the reason why yours is valid and theirs is not. But only when presented with the idea that they are all equally invalid does the concept seem to be turned on its head in the eyes of the biased believer.

And it’s impossible to ignore something that did not occur.