B
- Status
N
nucatholic
Guest
Mark is correct in his making the distinction between eternal and indefinite. Something I overlooked. Also, a soul that ceases to exit is not redeemed…so that shouldn’t be a problem. Believe me I own a copy of the Catechism and I read it often. Such a rush to judgement. Also I don’t believe that every non-believer chooses to go to hell. Some have never had the chance to know God’s plan of Salvation. Some just stick to the beliefs of their childhood. Is it a persons fault if they were born in the heart of native new zealand and don’t even know what the word Jesus means? Jesus is the only way to heaven, so where do these souls go? Perhaps they are given the chance in the afterlife to accept Jesus and join the Communion of Saints. However, that isn’t really specified in the catechism to my satisfaction, so not EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING is in the Catechism. Lets remember Sunday’s gospel reading about the Pharisees…
B
buffalo
Guest
Reread the part “NO Salvation Outside the Church”.
C
Celeste88
Guest
I would be afraid of being reincarnated. For some people who lived a life of hell on earth, lived with poverty or starvation, under dictatorships, endured torture or serious dieases, why would they want to come back to this cruel world? Why would God bring people back to suffer on earth again and again?I was just looking through posts on another website, and I came across one that read, “Is the Devil real?” and it reminded me of a question I had. I wanted to ask you, why do you believe in Hell and do you have any evidence that can support the claim? I believe there were angels who betrayed God. But then who is Satan? Did God create Satan, or has Satan always existed? Is he an angel who betrayed God? And what is the purpose of Hell? We have an all loving, and all forgiving Creator, and yet He would give up on us after death? If God is all powerful (and I believe He is) then how could it not be in His power to save us from the fires of Hell? Or, to put it in better terms, eternal damnation? And if it is in His power to save us and give us opportunity to change for whatever better is needed, then why would He not do so? It is perfectly within His power, being that He is all powerful (at least in my perception) to reincarnate us. And once more I ask, why would He give us only one life if one life is not enough to bring us to Him, in whatever form He may be in? I believe in reincarnation, and believe that it is our soul’s journey to find Christ. I don’t believe anyone can be condemned to an eternity with Satan, unless one fully understands God and then denounces Him, and I don’t think it is in our human comprehension to truly understand God. How can we renounce what we do not fully know? Isn’t that an impossibility?
These are just a few of my musings, and questions, and if anybody has any thoughts, I would love to hear from you. I promise to be open minded and not to condemn you to rude behavior if you disagree. Thanks for your time in this
. And remember, my views aren’t set in concrete, I’m still hoping to find my calling to a faith.
Love from,
~*Sheena
C
Consecrated
Guest
You’ve brought up an entirely different topic here. This thread is about the eternity of hell and what that means and what the Church teaches. If you want to discuss the question of who’s saved and who’s not, you can start a different thread or find one already going.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
buffalo:
Predictably, I have a very broad view of Ecclesia that is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church, and this, in part, due to the Catholic idea of three forms of baptism–water, blood, and desire. By articulating these three forms, Catholic doctrine opens salvation to all who pasisonately seek God’s grace, which is ultimately mediated through Christ (and the body of Christ is the Church). This is only one of the ways in which Catholic doctrine lives up to its name–it makes universally available to all the saving power of Christ. And this salvific power is not confined to material knowledge of Catholic discipline, of the Roman Catholic Church, or the broader Christian Church. It is available to all who passionately seek the mercy and grace of God. And this mercy and grace necessarily comes to those who seek it by Jesus Christ, from whom all graces flow. And the seeker’s experience of this grace will take the form necessary for his or her salvation.
This is what I understand by Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Anything else, to me, is a human limitation placed on the incomprehensible and limitation-surpassing mercy of God, and disgraces the Church and Catholic Doctrine by making it appear as if it is not the treasury of grace which it is, but the holder of a sole monopoly on grace.
Just my thoughts.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Buffalo, let’s not be too quick to invoke Father Feeney, here… But as its been brought up, I think this formula offers us the opportunity to examine what, exactly, it means. And what it means is based on how we understand Ecclesia and membership therein.
Predictably, I have a very broad view of Ecclesia that is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church, and this, in part, due to the Catholic idea of three forms of baptism–water, blood, and desire. By articulating these three forms, Catholic doctrine opens salvation to all who pasisonately seek God’s grace, which is ultimately mediated through Christ (and the body of Christ is the Church). This is only one of the ways in which Catholic doctrine lives up to its name–it makes universally available to all the saving power of Christ. And this salvific power is not confined to material knowledge of Catholic discipline, of the Roman Catholic Church, or the broader Christian Church. It is available to all who passionately seek the mercy and grace of God. And this mercy and grace necessarily comes to those who seek it by Jesus Christ, from whom all graces flow. And the seeker’s experience of this grace will take the form necessary for his or her salvation.
This is what I understand by Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Anything else, to me, is a human limitation placed on the incomprehensible and limitation-surpassing mercy of God, and disgraces the Church and Catholic Doctrine by making it appear as if it is not the treasury of grace which it is, but the holder of a sole monopoly on grace.
Just my thoughts.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
C
Consecrated
Guest
This is an excerpt from the link from Catholic Encyclopedia I provided above (newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm ):
What makes you think that someone who did not know God in this life will want to know Him in the life to come? (These are my words, just something to consider.) But again, this is an entirely different topic…
Again, from the same link:
This means we, as professed Catholics, should give our sincere belief to the Church’s teaching on the reality and the eternity of Hell, and seek understanding of it second to our belief in it.
And please forgive the long quotes!
C
Consecrated
Guest
Deo Volente:
Again, this question of who is saved is quite deserving of its very own thread… :yup:
W
wabrams
Guest
The most interesting notion of Hell I’ve ever heard came from a devout Southern Baptist: his view was that there is no Hell of fire and brimstone. He said that since Hell means “absence from God,” he believes we are all in Hell right now, because we are not with God. When we die, we live side by side with God. Anyway, if anything else, food for thought.
C
Consecrated
Guest
You’re right… very interesting.
My thoughts: Hell is most definitely the complete absence of God. But I don’t think that here on earth that God is absent in the same way. After all, as Catholics, we believe that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus is really present in all the tabernacles of the world, and in everyone who received Him at Mass today, right? Also, our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.
A
Anthony_s_Mom
Guest
I HIGHLY recommend buying and reading Al Kresta’s new book, “Why Are Catholics So Concerend About Sin?” It has a really great, readable section on Hell and what the Church really teaches about it. He’s done great research and is a really entertaining writer. You can buy it at avemariaradio.onlinecatholicstore.com
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Consecrated:
1–The Psalmist says that God is even in the Pit
2–Christ descended into hell
3–Our beings depend on God for their being-ness. A creature completely devoid of God, or absent from God would also be completely without being.
Re: 3–Origen writes that sin moves us away from the recollection of God, not because God forgets us, but because God does not countenance sin–it is not part of God’s life–and by sinning, we obscure in us the image of God, disfiguring our souls to look more like sin (not-God) than God. It is a process of self-destruction.
This brings up the question, then–in what way is hell complete absence from God? If the being of the damned is maintained, in what way is it true (and I think it is true) to speak of God’s absence from them when they, by nature of their being, still share in God?
So often, spiritual proximity is not distance but likeness. One is closer to God to the degree to which one resembles God. And even with regard to disfiguring the likeness, to even speak of disfigurement means that one can perceive traces of the original likeness that have been abused. To perceive none of these traces seems to me to imply a radical transformation of nature–perhaps in this radical transformation, this loss of the image, the human being loses its capacity to receive grace, loses its humanity. What does it become, then?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Consecrated & wabrams–I do wonder about the idea of hell being the absence of God. And this for three reasons:
1–The Psalmist says that God is even in the Pit
2–Christ descended into hell
3–Our beings depend on God for their being-ness. A creature completely devoid of God, or absent from God would also be completely without being.
Re: 3–Origen writes that sin moves us away from the recollection of God, not because God forgets us, but because God does not countenance sin–it is not part of God’s life–and by sinning, we obscure in us the image of God, disfiguring our souls to look more like sin (not-God) than God. It is a process of self-destruction.
This brings up the question, then–in what way is hell complete absence from God? If the being of the damned is maintained, in what way is it true (and I think it is true) to speak of God’s absence from them when they, by nature of their being, still share in God?
So often, spiritual proximity is not distance but likeness. One is closer to God to the degree to which one resembles God. And even with regard to disfiguring the likeness, to even speak of disfigurement means that one can perceive traces of the original likeness that have been abused. To perceive none of these traces seems to me to imply a radical transformation of nature–perhaps in this radical transformation, this loss of the image, the human being loses its capacity to receive grace, loses its humanity. What does it become, then?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
C
Consecrated
Guest
Deo Volente:
shuffleshuffle… (the sound of frantic researching…) 
I think when we say in the Creed that Christ descended into hell, it is meant that he went to “Limbo” where the souls of the just were waiting for him to open the gates of heaven. Is this right?
You have a very good point about the Psalmist, and about souls needing God for their very existence. I was reading the Catholic Encyclopedia (yeah, that again!
) and it said that the damned experience a “pain of loss”, that means they are entirely devoid of any semblance of the beatific vision. The damned soul experiences “…so complete a separation of all the powers of the soul from God that it cannot find in Him even the least peace and rest.” The same article also says that “Had they but some union with God even if not precisely the union of the beatific vision, hell would no longer be hell, but a kind of purgatory.” But I think the key word there is “union”. Evidently, God is able to keep them in existence without forming any sort of “union” with them. The article also says they are entirely dependent on Him, which of course increases their hatred of Him.
(again this is all from newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm)
I don’t think that comes very close to satisfying the question of “in what way is hell the complete absence of God?” Also, there’s the question of whether the damned souls have a transformation of nature. I’m gonna keep reading. Thanks, Mark!
PS, Mark, are you a student of the philosophy of JPII (personalism)?
Good questions!
shuffleshuffle… (the sound of frantic researching…) I think when we say in the Creed that Christ descended into hell, it is meant that he went to “Limbo” where the souls of the just were waiting for him to open the gates of heaven. Is this right?
You have a very good point about the Psalmist, and about souls needing God for their very existence. I was reading the Catholic Encyclopedia (yeah, that again!
) and it said that the damned experience a “pain of loss”, that means they are entirely devoid of any semblance of the beatific vision. The damned soul experiences “…so complete a separation of all the powers of the soul from God that it cannot find in Him even the least peace and rest.” The same article also says that “Had they but some union with God even if not precisely the union of the beatific vision, hell would no longer be hell, but a kind of purgatory.” But I think the key word there is “union”. Evidently, God is able to keep them in existence without forming any sort of “union” with them. The article also says they are entirely dependent on Him, which of course increases their hatred of Him.(again this is all from newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm)
I don’t think that comes very close to satisfying the question of “in what way is hell the complete absence of God?” Also, there’s the question of whether the damned souls have a transformation of nature. I’m gonna keep reading. Thanks, Mark!
PS, Mark, are you a student of the philosophy of JPII (personalism)?
C
Consecrated
Guest
Anthony's Mom:
Thanks for the recommend… it’s always nice to hear about good books to read.
A
AScottishSpirit
Guest
Why would you automatically assume they would suffer again? This seems a very narrow minded response to me. Do you mean to say there is only cruelty in this world? Who’s to say they would not return to a much happier life? Reincarnation does not suppose people return to earth to suffer continuously. Rather, the purpose of reincarnation is to reap what you sow, so to speak. Does Christianity not teach this as well? That you will be punished for your misdeeds, in equal measure that you commited them? (Of course, the punishment would come from whatever higher power exists, not by other people). Reincarnation gives reason to our suffering as well. By bad karma, we recieve only what we have put out in our past lives. It is our purgatory on Earth, so to speak. God returns us to Earth until we are ready to move on. If you are asking why I would rather be reincarnated, then I ask once more, what is the purpose of Hell? *Why * have anyone suffer eternally? You can say over and over again because they have rejected God, but I simply don’t see how it could be. There is little chance of anyone gleaniing from the Bible all that can be known of God. And how do you reject what you do not fully understand? God is above and beyond us, we can only reject what we profess to know of Him, and what is siad knowledge but a mere perception? A presumption, so to speak, of what the Bible means to that particular person. How does one person’s perception of the scripture become more relevent, more truthful than another’s? There are many vaiations and know way to prve the validity of one over the other. As such, anything that anyone believes about God, rather they be Christian or not, can be wholly (sp?) wrong. Even the viewpoints of those who feel most rectified by their own person path, who claim that their doctrine, their faith, is the truth can have taken the “word of God” so to speak, in an entirely erred fashion. Therefore, following the preaching that God, in the case of Christianity, gave to the world through Jesus (presuming that is in fact what you believe) does not ensure you that you have been taught all you need to know, because it is impossible to reach the same conclusion another person may have, simply because you will each have your own transference (the affect your own personal experiences have had on your perceptions of the world) to differ on what you believe. Our belief in God is nothing more than our personal oppinion about the world, which holds no more validity than anyone elses. This is not to say it doesn’t carry it’s own form of truth, for I believe God has the power to be what each person needs to achieve slavation. As such, for what has been said about God teaching us all what we need to know, He would have to take a shape that caters to each person in turn, else we would all be damned, because none of us would know anything other than our own perceptions, whihc would be flawed, as all humans are flawed. The question is not rather we act on good or evil, but rather we can justify our actions. And yes, even if the action itself can be deemed evil, the reasons behind it may prove otherwise. This idea of good or evil and no in between is nonsensical, as what transitions black to white or white to black (representing good and evil repsectively) but varying shades of grey? I’m not attempting to attack anyone’s belief, this is just my own view on the matter,
~*Sheena
C
Consecrated
Guest
I need to correct myself.
Hell cannot be the COMPLETE absence of God, b/c God is omnipresent:
(see this article in Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/12396a.htm)
To answer my own question:
(from Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
B
buffalo
Guest
Go to India and see what the belief in reincarnation sows. Hopelessness and despair.
B
buffalo
Guest
Deo Volente:
**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **
[846](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/846.htm’)
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
[848](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/848.htm’) "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
I am referring to the Catechism.
**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **
[846](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/846.htm’) How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
[848](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/848.htm’) "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
C
Consecrated
Guest
From Catholic Encyclopedia (for the whole article see: newadvent.org/fathers/3202234.htm )
We can know, through reason, that God exists. We can therefore reject His existence. If we so choose, we can ignore Him. We can also refuse to seek Him.
A
AScottishSpirit
Guest
Oh, really? Because I’ve heard from many who’ve been there that people in India are anything but despairing. In fact, they’ve been desrcibed to me from these same individuals as quite peaceful and joyous. Their poverty and misfortune does not always denote despair. Despair is a state of mind, not being. And their hopelessness and despair is not a fact you’ve stated, but only your oppinion that you’ve represented as such. And I hardly think it’s their belief in reincarnation that causes them hardship. If you want to take a rational view of the matter, I’d say a government immeshed in poverty would better explain.
With regards,
~*Sheena
- Status