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

[rose321]

These last two are difficult questions, and we could call upon philosophers and theologians to help us with our talking points…

Respectfully good advice! Opinion only.
Is there not a concept being taught by others, books written on even, that there is?
Unintentional sin, vs Intentional sin-OT?
One who is fully aware, Conscious of what they are doing is bad, but do so anyway vs one who is Unconsciousness ( thinking they are doing good, but not doing good?), what one chooses or not chooses?
It is confusing indeed. Peace

 

[thistle]

I just stated my position, and then people felt the need to disagree, so i defended my position. Otherwise, if you want to believe that God is a torturer for those who freely choose to be tortured, that’s your problem. I just hope you don’t end up damaging somebody or pushing them away from the faith.

Who believes God is a torturer? I scrolled back through the thread and I can’t find anyone who said God is a torturer! You are simply making things up.

 

[rose321]

he Bible must be read as a unit.

Respectfully thank you!
Excellent point one made and in pondering also His Spoken Word, must flow in content from the first page of the Bible to the last page, should it not?

God tells us I do not change, the same today as yesterday?

And then there is Jeremiah 8:8 which Jesus heavily quotes from the Prophets, one being Jeremiah and Isaiah and so many others written about, their sayings in OT, is this true?
Would it be true, Jesus heavily quotes from and continually refers back to his Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, many others from the OT, why?

Isaiah teaches us how to read Scripture, line upon line, line upon line, pretext upon pretext, line upon line does he not?
Is it true when Jesus walked the earth, there was NT it did not exist for decades later?

All must flow throughout from beginning to the back of the book, in teaching to attain Knowledge and Understanding of His Spoken Word?
God tells us He is not a God of confusion, correct?
Jesus even a child could comprehend?
Peace

 

[laylow]

How is it sadistic? I’m not relishing the prospect of Hell. I don’t want people to go there. I don’t delight in it. I hope that people don’t go there. However, I also recognize that God gave us free will, and that people have the ability to reject God. They can only do that because He loves us enough to allow us to chose. Without that choice, we couldn’t really love Him, but because of that choice we can also chose not to. If we do chose not to, then the outcome can only be bad.

One missed mass = eternity of torture and punishment.

Are you trying to imply that the Church actively supported owning slaves? If so, then you are woefully ignorant of Church teaching. The church has rejected slave ownership since long before the modern era. When Catholics did own slaves, they were to treat them as children of God, not separate families, and not mistreat or abuse them.

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

As for persecuting and killing others, …(condensed)

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.’

Your understanding of Church history isn’t even remotely accurate, and is tinting your entire understanding of Church teaching. Perhaps take some time to actually learn about the Church’s role in history, as well as the deep theological roots of these topics we’re discussing. We do not believe these things lightly, nor do with present them without evidence.

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

 

[Gorgias]

Is there not a concept being taught by others, books written on even, that there is?

Unintentional sin, vs Intentional sin-OT?

One who is fully aware, Conscious of what they are doing is bad, but do so anyway vs one who is Unconsciousness ( thinking they are doing good, but not doing good?), what one chooses or not chooses?

It is confusing indeed.

The concept here is the notion of venial vs mortal sin (or, expressed differently, the difference between objective sin and subjective culpability).

 

[rose321]

The concept here is the notion of venial vs mortal sin (or, expressed differently, the difference between objective sin and subjective culpability).

Thank you for your kind reply giving me a better understanding to topic, Gorgias! Peace

 

[AlNg]

I don’t personally believe that there is any such thing as hell.

So you would say that the testimony about Hell in Holy Scriptures is false?

 

[AlNg]

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

So the Catholic Church did approve slavery at one time, but later on changed the teaching on whether or not one should hold slaves? I thought that the essential teachings of the Catholic Church never change?

 

[JanetF]

The key is the “Essential Teachings” of the church do not change. Other things change, but are not “essential Teachings”.

 

[AlNg]

The key is the “Essential Teachings” of the church do not change. Other things change, but are not “essential Teachings”.

So it is not essential as to whether or not women and children can be bought and sold as slaves? Suppose you were to ask a young black woman if she thought it essential to her life as to whether or not a white European male could buy and sell her and do with her what he wanted against her will?

 

[JanetF]

Sounds like you don’t know what the Essential teachings of the Catholic church are. You might pick up a catechism for starters.

 

[Gorgias]

One missed mass = eternity of torture and punishment.

If unrepented. All one has to do is go to the sacrament of reconcilation, and it’s all good…

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

So much spin here, I’m getting vertigo…

 

[AlNg]

Sounds like you don’t know what the Essential teachings of the Catholic church are. You might pick up a catechism for starters.

Is the enslavement of black women by a white male European slavemaster essentially wrong or not? Is it essentially wrong to buy and sell young black women at an auction set up by white slavemasters?
Do you claim it is not essentially wrong?

 

[Pup7]

Is the enslavement of black women by a white male European slavemaster essentially wrong or not?

I would say yes, it’s wrong, and it’s not in the MODERN catechism that it’s okay.

So as it’s not an essential teaching of the Catholic Church, the Church doesn’t back it.

It used to be in our Constitution in the US. Because it’s still in print there (and it is), does that mean it’s still okay, or did we amend that? Same thing. Pope Francis isn’t going around telling people to enslave their neighbor in 2018.

 

[AlNg]

it’s not an essential teaching of the Catholic Church

I would disagree that it is not essential. My personal opinion is that the buying and selling of young black women and children by white slavemasters is essentially and absolutely wrong.

Pope Francis isn’t going around telling people to enslave their neighbor in 2018.

But laylow has pointed out that slavery was allowed in the past. So it does look like an essential change in the teaching.

 

[laylow]

So much spin here, I’m getting vertigo…

The spin would occur in the denial.

 

[Pup7]

You missed my question.

Slavery is technically STILL in the US Constitution. Amended, but still in print. Did we abolish it? Do we now disagree with it? The 3/5ths Clause? Prohibition? We changed. We didn’t erase the doctrines or rewrite the document.

Screen snip:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So you think slavery is an essential teaching of the Catholic Church? The Church also sold indulgences at one time…is that still an essential teaching? Or do things change and reform occur? What about limbo? Didn’t that “disappear” as well, as the Church changed their teaching? Honest questions.

 

[laylow]

If unrepented. All one has to do is go to the sacrament of reconcilation, and it’s all good…

That explanation is satisfying to you?

 

[JanetF]

Your use of the word essential is different that the use of the word Essential when referring to Catholic Teaching. When referring to catholic teaching it is synonymous with Infallible. There are only a handful of infallible teachings of the CC and slavery is not one of them.

I doubt you’ll find anyone on this forum who supports slavery in any shape or form in today’s world.

 

[IWantGod]

Only by the power of God i am still Catholic.