does the Catholic Church make it too hard to get into heaven?

[steve_b]

But wouldn’t your case be SO MUCH STRONGER if you could point me to this link instead: κρίμα
Because that’s the word that’s usually translated “damnation.”

ἀπώλειαν = “loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God”

How much stronger case does one need?
D:

ἀπώλειαν is used nine times. In all nine instances, if you substitute the word “purgatory” the passage still makes sense.

No it doesn’t.

This isn’t purgatory
ἀπώλειαν = “loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God”

That describes one who died in mortal sin
D:

Maybe this is why the Latin Fathers had this idea that purgatory was Hell Lite.

Purgatory doesn’t sound like fun. Fortunately it’s temporary NOT eternal, and at the end of purification, everyone after the state of purgation, goes to heaven…
D:

Those in purgatory are excluded from the Kingdom of God *(for a while). *

and THAT’S why the term I quoted doesn’t fit purgatory.
D:

When you think of the Kingdom of God, do you think of heaven, or do you include purgatory?

NOTHING in the following description describes “kingdom of God” nor “purgatory”. **“loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God”

**
D:

I say that ἀπώλειαν could refer to either hell or purgatory, but I don’t think you have a strong enough case to claim it cannot refer to purgatory (especially when it leads to an idea that the Church does not teach). You’re cherry-picking the concordance, selecting the definition/interpretation that is most hell-like.

What part of the following description do you think describes purgatory?

**ἀπώλειαν = “loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God” **

That describes hell.
D:

Hell doesn’t do that either.

Hell

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=hell&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
D:

no, the misery and perdition are temporary. So?

the point is

Re: **“loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God” **

That explains ἀπώλειαν
No way is that a description of purgatory

purgatory

• is NOT a loss of eternal life
• is NOT eternal misery
• Is NOT perdition
• Is NOT eternal exclusion from heaven

Here is the classic passage used to describe purgatory

1 Cor 3: 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day(“1 cor 3 RSVCE - On Divisions in the Corinthian Church - Bible Gateway”)] will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. **15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
D:

It does while you are there.

But one knows they aren’t damned and they will be able to go to heaven. BIG difference

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun responds in RED

If the church can write the rules that will be bound in heaven; :yup: It can … Jesus deputized it and said so …

why are there so many ways to fall short and end up in hell? < Back to Jesus again, whom the Church is bound to follow (not correct) … it was He who spoke of the broad way that leads to perdition (hell) and the narrow door that leads to life (heaven) … and “the many … and the few” passages.

WHY there are so many is something to think about (so thanks!)

WHAT those are are still enumerated by the Church, but many were taught even before the time of Jesus’ incarnation.

It is supposed to be so easy a child can understand. One easy explanation: Die in sanctifying grace … you go to heaven. Die in a deadly sin (hell).

I’d like to meet the child that can understand the entire catechism. happily for most of us … the “grace test” above is sufficient … passing an exhaustive theology exam WOULD be frosting on the cake though.

To clarify it seems the early church just needed Jesus and to follow his rules. < AND as you allude to here … Jesus did have rules. The ten commandments … and some other things. The Church may have the keys … but if it follows in the Holy Spirit … it doesn’t run about opening what Jesus had said was closed, nor closing what Jesus had opened.

Now you have to believe in the saints, Mary, Trinity, abstain, go to mass, etc. etc. etc. < “Have to” may indicate a desire “not to” do these things. Some of the above aren’t mandated for all. A young baptised baby who then dies gets to heaven without knowledge of any of those things. Of course said baby has not DENIED there are saints (which would be denying their presence in the Bible too), or Mary … the first Christian, who if anyone is a saint, she is (Revelation 12:1); the Trinity is a teaching of Jesus … though the WORD Trinity the Church did add to explain that.

**Abstaining - **an old rule per the commandment against adultery. Not commanded MUCH by the Church (per FOODS) anymore … but deliberately NOT abstaining could be rebellion that is possibly a “deadly sin”.

**Going to Mass - ** keeping holy the Lord’s Day is an old commandment (the third). If one doesn’t even “watch one hour” with Jesus … don’t they rather violate the FIRST Commandment as well … and have some false god (whatever it is that is more important than obeying Him and his Church) “before Him”?

**etc. etc. - ** < there’s always something else we’d rather not do. WHY doesn’t that mean old Church just allow it all?

If the church dropped all of the trappings and went back to a basic worship in Jesus it would be easier for many to enter heaven. < Well, the Church HAS dropped many “trappings” even just since I was a kid. Sometimes that has resulted in a lessening of reverence as a side effect! IMO.

If “basic worship” would mean … “just whatever we want to do”. We might think on the fact that Cain made a sacrifice … but **Abel’**s was acceptable to God (because he gave of the BEST of his flock).

You MIGHT be imagining a type of worship that didn’t exist in the early Church.

There was always “an assembly” and public worship of God … even if the believers had to hide to do it. Once persecution stopped, “trappings” like the building of beautiful Churches and things – gave evidence to the fact that the believers were putting God first. IMO.

just my nickles worth

On another note … Pope Francis has asked the Church to make it easier for people to come IN to the Church.

We will still have classes before one is baptized … because people should know what they are doing and committing to. Likewise the other sacraments.

But sometimes I think the “Catholic Church” has made it too hard to get into “their schools” for instance. Only the smartest? The fittest? Only those who can afford a pricey tuition?

shaw: Not to worry. With sanctifying grace (readily available through the Church) we can get through heaven’s “narrow door” … even if it would be MORE difficult to get into Notre Dame!

 

[DavidFilmer]

ἀπώλειαν = “loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God”

How much stronger case does one need?

Oh, I see where you’re going wrong. I kept thinking, “is Steve reading his own link?”

You think the word must mean ALL of those contexts. Actually, it can mean only one. Purgatory is perdition (suffering) and purgatory is exclusion from the Kingdom of God. So it doesn’t meet just one context, but two.

and THAT’S why the term I quoted doesn’t fit purgatory.

Sure it does. Ibid.

You’re trying to advocate a theological idea that the Church Herself does not teach (on that point we agree) based on a single Greek word (and have you studied Greek?) using your interpretation of a protestant Greek lexicon (and, remember, protestants don’t believe in purgatory and would be inclined to define Greek words which refer to any sort of suffering in the afterlife as “hell.” You have no idea if a Catholic lexicon (which neither of us have) might offer “purgatory” as a possible context).

Furthermore, as we both know, the doctrine of purgatory was not well understood in the Apostolic Age. It’s possible that, through divine inspiration, Matthew was alluding to a concept that he did not really understand, but he was using a language which did not actually have a word that means “purgatory” (“hell” being the only concept that is even remotely similar). Furthermore, whomever translated Matthew’s Gospel into Greek faced the same vocabulary challenge, but was probably not operating under divine inspiration. We have no way to know what Hebrew-ish word Matthew actually used.

Based soley on this questionable source, you claim that a particular Greek word can describe only hell, and could not possibly be understood by a more theologically developed reader as “purgatory.” You make no allowance for the fact that purgatory was not well understood in the Apostolic Age, and there was no word for it (in either language), and the Greek translator of Matthew’s Gospel may not have been acting under inspiration.

I agree that the word can refer to hell. But I think you have a very weak case to claim that it cannot possibly also apply to purgatory, and I think it is reckless to build a doctrine on such flimsy evidence and then strongly claim that you are positively correct (to the point that a casual reader might not realize that you are not citing Church doctrine).

 

[steve_b]

Oh, I see where you’re going wrong. I kept thinking, “is Steve reading his own link?”

You think the word must mean ALL of those contexts. Actually, it can mean only one. Purgatory is perdition (suffering) and purgatory is exclusion from the Kingdom of God. So it doesn’t meet just one context, but two.

Purgatory is NOT perdition. Perdition never means purgatory. Kindly read this link Hell
Note the terms used within the explanation
D:

Sure it does. Ibid.

prove it then, with references properly referenced. Where’s your proof?
D:

You’re trying to advocate a theological idea that the Church Herself does not teach (on that point we agree) based on a single Greek word (and have you studied Greek?) using your interpretation of a protestant Greek lexicon (and, remember, protestants don’t believe in purgatory and would be inclined to define Greek words which refer to any sort of suffering in the afterlife as “hell.” You have no idea if a Catholic lexicon (which neither of us have) might offer “purgatory” as a possible context).

Mt 7:13-14 refers to 2 doors / gates. One to heaven and one to hell.

"Hell is not just a theoretical possibility. Jesus warns us that real people go there. He says, “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matt. 7:13–14).
From The Hell There Is! | Catholic Answers

As far as the NT Greek, there is “no dispute over the Greek text of the New Testament between the two groups” between Catholics and Protestants .
jimmyakin.com/2004/03/the_greek_new_t.html

As you know, Jimmy is with Catholic Answers
D:

Furthermore, as we both know, the doctrine of purgatory was not well understood in the Apostolic Age.

Even if the name purgatory is not in the vocabulary till later, It’s a reality understood from the beginning.
1 Cor 3: 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day(“1 cor 3 RSVCE - On Divisions in the Corinthian Church - Bible Gateway”)] will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. **15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
D:

Based soley on this questionable source, you claim that a particular Greek word can describe only hell, and** could not possibly** be understood by a more theologically developed reader as “purgatory.” You make no allowance for the fact that purgatory was not well understood in the Apostolic Age, and there was no word for it (in either language), and the Greek translator of Matthew’s Gospel may not have been acting under inspiration.

Mt 7:13-14] corresponds with Lk 13:24-28.

continuing with Luke

Lk 13:25 After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, ‘Lord, open the door for us.’ He will say to you in reply, ‘I do not know where you are from.’l 26And you will say, ‘We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.’ 27m Then he will say to you, ‘I do not know where [you] are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!’ 28n And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.

Both Matthew and Luke, are contrasting salvation for some and rejection of the rest. Rejection, and cast out, and grinding and gnashing of teeth, is NOT talking about purgatory.

And THAT is Catholic teaching fully referenced.
D:

I agree that the word can refer to hell. But I think you have a very weak case to claim that it cannot possibly also apply to purgatory,

When Jesus descended to hell that isn’t the hell of the damned. That is why I gave those references previously

hell of the damned and purgatory are polar opposites. Neither can be the other.
D:

And I think it is reckless to build a doctrine on such flimsy evidence and then strongly claim that you are positively correct (to the point that a casual reader might not realize that you are not citing Church doctrine).

You are the one being reckless. You give NO evidence supporting your opinions. I not only quoted Church documents I linked to them.

How many times do I have to say this, I can’t believe you taught RCIA!!!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Purgatory is NOT perdition. Perdition never means purgatory. Kindly read this link Hell

I never said that hell was not perdition. Of course it is! I’m just saying you have no basis to say that purgatory absolutely could NOT be perdition.

And, by the way, according to dictionary.com, an obsolete meaning of “perdition” is “loss” (where have I seen that word recently?). That sense would not have been obsolete when our lexicons were written.

The Latin Fathers thought of purgatory as a place very much like hell (some speculating that it WAS hell, or a “region” of hell), complete with devils and fire. They would not argue if someone used the term “perdition” to describe purgatory.

The Greek Fathers, OTOH, though of purgatory as a type of lonely isolation. So they would not argue if someone described purgatory as a separation from the Kingdom of God.

The views of modern Catholic theologians typically fall somewhere in the middle (the Church, of course, has no official teaching).

Mt 7:13-14 refers to 2 doors / gates. One to heaven and one to hell.

We know that there are three possible destinations, but Jesus only mentions two gates. So one gate must serve two purposes.

You’re saying that, once you pass through the “narrow gate,” you encounter a side-road to purgatory, presumably because everyone who goes through that gate is (eventually) saved, and you believe that very few will (eventually) go to heaven.

I’m saying the wide gate has the side road to purgatory, because everyone who goes through that gate can expect punishment ahead. The main difference is how long it lasts.

As far as the NT Greek, there is “no dispute over the Greek text of the New Testament between the two groups” between Catholics and Protestants .
jimmyakin.com/2004/03/the_greek_new_t.html

I think Jimmy was not suggesting Catholics and protestants agree on everything about Biblical Greek. I’ve seen many petra/petros discussions here, and many Full of Grace / Highly Favored threads. I’ve seen many anamnesis threads (what did Jesus mean when he said, “do this in remembrance of me”). The NIV blatantly translates paradosin as “teaching” when used in a favorable context but translates paradosin as “tradition” when used negatively (because tradition = bad in protestantville). This is deliberate translator bias in the protestant translation that is more popular than all other modern translations combined.

Even if the name purgatory is not in the vocabulary till later, It’s a reality understood from the beginning.

Only the smallest bit of it was understood. As understanding developed, the Latin Fathers took a very hell-like idea.

continuing with Luke…

Again, there is nothing that suggests the people knocking at the door absolutely precludes any of them being in purgatory. In fact, it suggests it. I think the “house” is heaven, not heaven+purgatory. I think most people would agree.

And THAT is Catholic teaching fully referenced.

You haven’t cited ANY Catholic teaching (because you can’t, because there isn’t any). You’ve cited Biblical passages and protestant lexicons and given us your interpretation of them. How very protestant of you!!!

hell of the damned and purgatory are polar opposites. Neither can be the other.

No, but there’s no reason why they could not be two different “places” that are exactly alike. Like two identical rooms in the same motel. That’s kinda what the Latin Fathers thought, and this thinking continued to have influence well past the Middle Ages:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ell.jpg/330px-Wimpfen-stadtkirche-predell.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Folio_113v_-Purgatory.jpg/255px-Folio_113v-_Purgatory.jpg http://i.picresize.com/images/2015/09/28/6O92z.jpg
(from the Wikipedia page on Purgatory)

You are the one being reckless. You give NO evidence supporting your opinions. I not only quoted Church documents I linked to them.

You didn’t cite or quote a single Church document! (unless you are considering Scripture to be a “Church document”).

There IS no evidence for either of us to present, because there IS no Church teaching.

How many times do I have to say this, I can’t believe you taught RCIA!!!

If any of my students would have asked, “Does the Church teach that anyone is actually in hell,” I would have said “no.” What would you have said? Really - I want to know how you would have answered that question (without presenting your own opinion as Church teaching).

 

[steve_b]

I never said that hell was not perdition. Of course it is! I’m just saying you have no basis to say that purgatory absolutely could NOT be perdition.

Perdition is forever, by definition. Purgatory is NOT forever. End of explanation.

I’ve given you this explanation before. I know you don’t read these links, but this is for all the people reading this post who will read this.

Catholic explanations on hell and purgatory

“Besides Hades and Gehenna, we find in the New Testament many other names for the abode of the damned. It is called “lower hell” (Vulg. tartarus) (II Peter, ii, 4), “abyss” (Luke, viii, 31, and elsewhere), “place of torments” (Luke, xvi, 28), “pool of fire” (Apoc., xix, 20, and elsewhere), “furnace of fire” (Matt., xiii, 42, 50), “unquenchable fire” (Matt., iii, 12, and elsewhere), “ever-lasting fire” (Matt., xviii, 8; xxv, 41; Jude, 7), “exterior darkness” (Matt., viii, 12; xxii, 13; xxv, 30), “mist” or “storm of darkness” (II Peter, ii, 17; Jude, 13). The state of the damned is called “destruction” (apoleia, Phil., iii, 19, and elsewhere), "perdition" (olethros, I Tim., vi, 9), “eternal destruction” (olethros aionios, II Thess., i, 9), “corruption” (phthora Gal., vi, 8), “death” (Rom., vi, 21), “second death” (Apoc., ii, 11, and elsewhere).”

For the context Hell

Re: Purgatory

Do you see “perdition” even mentioned anywhere in the description of purgatory? Nope! And you won’t see it. Because perdition is a term that doesn’t belong in the description of purgatory.
D:

The Latin Fathers thought of purgatory as a place very much like hell (some speculating that it WAS hell, or a “region” of hell), complete with devils and fire. They would not argue if someone used the term “perdition” to describe purgatory.

Give me an exact quote, referenced properly
D:

The Greek Fathers, OTOH, though of purgatory as a type of lonely isolation. So they would not argue if someone described purgatory as a separation from the Kingdom of God.

Give me an exact quote, referenced properly
D:

The views of modern Catholic theologians typically fall somewhere in the middle (the Church, of course, has no official teaching).

read the quotes I gave
D:

We know that there are three possible destinations, but Jesus only mentions two gates. So one gate must serve two purposes.

Where do you think Paul got the following from? It was from Jesus John 14:25-26 and, John 16:12-15
**
1 Cor 3: 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day(“1 cor 3 RSVCE - On Divisions in the Corinthian Church - Bible Gateway”)] will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=14&l=25-26#x
D:

You’re saying that, once you pass through the “narrow gate,” you encounter a side-road to purgatory,

I didn’t say that.

Once one passes through the gate they’re in heaven. Prior to entrance through the gate, they’re not in heaven yet. There are no side roads. Purgation is on the same road.
D:

I’m saying the wide gate has the side road to purgatory, because everyone who goes through that gate can expect punishment ahead. The main difference is how long it lasts.

That’s NOT what the Church or scripture says about the wide gate. The wide gate goes to hell.
D:

I think Jimmy …

read what he said again
D:

Only the smallest bit of it was understood. As understanding developed, the Latin Fathers took a very hell-like idea.

It’s a simple doctrine. It’s not complicated.
D:

Again, there is nothing that suggests the people knocking at the door absolutely precludes any of them being in purgatory.

What part of this do you not understand

Lk 13:25 After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, ‘Lord, open the door for us.’ He will say to you in reply, ‘I do not know where you are from.’l 26And you will say, ‘We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.’ 27m Then he will say to you, ‘I do not know where [you] are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!’ 28n And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.
D:

You haven’t cited ANY Catholic teaching (because you can’t, because there isn’t any).

I’ve quoted Church docs copiously.

Anybody but you can see all the references I’ve given.
D:

You didn’t cite or quote a single Church document! (unless you are considering Scripture to be a “Church document”).

The NT was written in, by, for, and canonized by the Catholic Church.
D:

If any of my students would have asked, …

I would say
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=hell&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

 

[DavidFilmer]

Perdition is forever, by definition. Purgatory is NOT forever. End of explanation.

Or “loss.” As Scripture says, “they shall suffer loss (perdition), but will be saved.”

Catholic explanations on hell and purgatory

No, that is a Catholic explanation of hell only. It does not even mention purgatory. Yes, hell is perdition (I’ve already agreed with that). That does not mean that purgatory is not ALSO perdition.

We know that purgatory and perdition are associated because the first syllable of both words are pronounced the same. (hey, if you can make up stuff, so can I.)

Give me an exact quote [about the Western view of purgatory], referenced properly

I did better than give you a quote - I drew you a picture (three, actually, and there was a fourth on Wikipedia but I thought it was overkill). See the flames and hot coals and the furnace? Where do you suppose these artists got this idea?

Maybe because the Western Church has traditionally associated purgatory with pain and fire, and everyone seems to know that except you. Maybe that’s why the Council of Florence talks about “their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains.”

You’ve already quoted Scripture that associates purgatory with fire:

If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. [1Cor 3:14]

Why do you ask me to cite stuff that you’ve already cited? Oh, wait - you didn’t realize you had cited it. You didn’t realize that you had cited the very Scripture that associates purgatory with burning and fire, because you are completely immune to that idea.

Give me an exact quote [about the Eastern view of purgatory], referenced properly

I do believe this is the first time I have ever been asked to cite an Eastern teaching. For an authoritative Eastern view (from the Orthodox version of Catholic Answers) comparing and contrasting the viewpoints of East and West, see this.

Once one passes through the gate they’re in heaven.

OK, so you can’t get to purgatory through that narrow gate. So the Kingdom of God does not include purgatory. We agree, and I think most would agree with this.

Tell me again, how many gates are there? Which gate do you go through if you’re destined for purgatory?

Do you even believe in purgatory? Seriously, it sounds like you don’t. I’m not baiting you - it really sounds like you don’t.

That’s NOT what the Church or scripture says about the wide gate. The wide gate goes to hell.

Only if you take the left fork after passing through the gate. If you take the right fork (just past the gas station), you wind up in purgatory. THAT is what the Church and Scripture says (hey, if you can make stuff up, so can I).

It’s a simple doctrine. It’s not complicated.

And, yet, East and West have a rather different view about it. If it was so simple, it seems we ought to be able to at least agree on it.

What part of this do you not understand

Lk 13:25 After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, ‘Lord, open the door for us.’ He will say to you in reply, ‘I do not know where you are

NONE of those people clamoring to get into the house are in hell. People who are in hell are there because they chose to go there - it is their freewill choice to be in hell (and that actually IS Catholic doctrine). They don’t WANT to get to heaven. The people clamoring to get into the house are those in purgatory. See those pictures, how the people in purgatory are looking up? Towards heaven? The place they WANT to be? Instead of wailing and gnashing their teeth in purgatory?

I’ve quoted Church docs copiously.

You’ve acted like a good protestant, citing Scripture, and then offering your personal interpretation with such conviction that some might suppose the Church actually taught it.

Anybody but you can see all the references I’ve given.

I can see them just fine. You cite a lexicon that defines a Greek word with four senses. Two of those senses use the word “eternal” but two of those senses (perdition and exclusion from the Kingdom of God) do not use that adjective. No problem, just mix them together. Now it says “eternal exclusion” and “eternal perdition.” Not because it really says that, but because that’s what you want it to say.

I would say ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=hell&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Ah. So you wouldn’t actually answer the question. You would obfuscate the question with all sorts of things that are related to the question, but don’t actually answer the question. Send your students away baffled, wondering if the answer was in there somewhere and they missed it.

Do us a favor - don’t teach RCIA. Neither of us are any good at it. But, at least I give accurate information, not personal opinion and deliberate obfuscation.

 

[steve_b]

Or “loss.” As Scripture says, “they shall suffer loss (perdition), but will be saved.”

No

That is NOT what 1 Cor 3:15 says

1 Cor 3:15 εἴ τινος τὸ ἔργον ι,κατακαήσετα ζημιωθήσεται, αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός.

You substituted (perdition) where scripture says ζημιωθήσεται

ζημιωθήσεται, ≠ perdition) open each link.

perdition) ≠ will be saved it means damnation, perdition) = “a state of final spiritual ruin; loss of the soul; damnation, the future state of the wicked, hell (def 1).”

BTW ( ≠ ) means “NOT equal”
D:

That does not mean that purgatory is not ALSO perdition.

Purgatory is NOT perdition. Stop being so obstinately stubborn on this.

Quote for me ANY Catholic source that defines purgatory as perdition. Be sure to reference it properly
D:

See the flames and hot coals and the furnace? Where do you suppose these artists got this idea?

Did you read 1 Cor 3:15?

learn the difference between purification and damnation
D:

Why do you ask me to cite stuff that you’ve already cited?

I asked you to quote for me where purgatory equals perdition.
D:

viewpoints of East and West, see this.

Why did Christ visit hell after his death?
D:

Do you even believe in purgatory? Seriously, it sounds like you don’t. I’m not baiting you - it really sounds like you don’t.

Of course you’re baiting me.
D:

And, yet, East and West have a rather different view about it.

Catholics East and West agree. No ONE speaks for the Orthodox.
D:

NONE of those people clamoring to get into the house are in hell.

scripture says they will be in hell
D:

People who are in hell are there because they chose to go there - it is their freewill choice to be in hell (and that actually IS Catholic doctrine). They don’t WANT to get to heaven.

People are in hell because they were judged by Jesus, and were sent there.
D:

You’ve acted like a good protestant, citing Scripture, and then offering your personal interpretation with such conviction that some might suppose the Church actually taught it.

Hoping to get a hot response from me for your deliberate snarky baiting? I’m not going to bite
D:

You cite a lexicon that defines a Greek word with four senses. Two of those senses use the word “eternal” but two of those senses (perdition and exclusion from the Kingdom of God) do not use that adjective.

I stand by what I wrote. Not what you say I wrote.
** 76**, #80 , #83 , #85

In extension everyone can see what you wrote as well in those posts
D:

But, at least I give accurate information, not personal opinion and deliberate obfuscation.

totally hilarious.

 

[DavidFilmer]

No

That is NOT what 1 Cor 3:15 says

Sure it is. It says “loss.” Click the link I provided to the definition of “perdition.” See #4, which is “loss.”

Seriously, though, I was messing with you on this. OK, fine, purgatory is not perdition (I still think it is, but I will stipulate). Purgatory is STILL separation from the Kingdom of God (on that we have agreed).

BTW ( ≠ ) means “NOT equal”

Thanks. I was wondering about that.

Of course you’re baiting me.

Yeah, on the perdition thing, but not the belief in purgatory question. You still haven’t told me what gate you go through if you’re destined for purgatory. You told me it was not the narrow gate. Is it the wide gate, or is there a third gate?

You seem to have this idea that people in hell are all “woe is me, I really screwed up and I want to be in heaven.” That is NOT the case. That is heresy. NOBODY in hell wants to be in heaven.

Catholics East and West agree. No ONE speaks for the Orthodox.

And nobody speaks for the West when it comes to purgatory either. I have never said the Church teaches anything about the nature of purgatory, only what the Latin Fathers have held.

There are two aspects of purgatory: punishment (purgation - er, I mean very hell-like suffering) and separation from God. Latin Fathers emphasized the former and Greek fathers emphasized the latter. Modern western theologians have taken a more mixed approach, but Orthodox theologians have not.

People are in hell because they were judged by Jesus, and were sent there.

Only because he is respecting our choice. “Either we say to God, ‘thy will be done,’ or at the end God says to us, ‘thy will be done.’” [CS Lewis, *The Great Divorce]

**
CCC 1033** We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”[sup]612[/sup] Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.[sup]613[/sup] To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” [emphasis mine]
__________612 *1 Jn * 3:14-15…
613 *Cf. Mt *25:31-46.

Ain’t that the coolest way to cite the Catechism that you’ve ever seen? I wrote a Perl program to convert raw HTML to BBCode.

Hoping to get a hot response from me for your deliberate snarky baiting? I’m not going to bite

I just thought you had quit the field to lick your wounds.

 

[steve_b]

Sure it is. It says “loss.” Click the link I provided to the definition of “perdition.” See #4, which is “loss.”

YOUR version of “loss” is someone “losing their soul”; damnation

1 Cor 3:15 says ζημιωθήσεται, NOT perdition) .

Here’s your link you gave (perdition)

definition:

noun
1.a state of final spiritual ruin; loss of the soul; damnation.
2.the future state of the wicked.
3.hell (def 1).
4.utter destruction or ruin.
5.Obsolete, loss.

THAT’S NOT 1 Cor 3:15

you’re substituting your own word in scripture for “loss” that contradicts the actual word scripture used for “loss”, and then you run with your word and your narrative. Scripture contradicts you and your narrative.

Purgatory is temporary, NOT permanent, it is NOT perdition. Hell is perdition
D:

Seriously, though, I was messing with you on this.

Actually you said you weren’t bating me this time, you said you were serious. So I took you seriously
D:

OK, fine, purgatory is not perdition (I still think it is, but I will stipulate). Purgatory is STILL separation from the Kingdom of God (on that we have agreed).

You have been given ample Scripture and Church evidence proving purgatory is NOT perdition.
D:

You still haven’t told me what gate you go through if you’re destined for purgatory. You told me it was not the narrow gate. Is it the wide gate, or is there a third gate?

I never said one goes through a gate to purgatory. Here are my posts 76, #80 , #83 , #85

BTW, I gave you the links that describe purgatory and hell. Open them up and read them.
D:

You seem to have this idea that people in hell are all “woe is me, I really screwed up and I want to be in heaven.” That is NOT the case. That is heresy. NOBODY in hell wants to be in heaven.

As Jerome said “ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

Read the following.
Luke 16:19-31

The rich guy knows he’s screwed. He doesn’t like where he is. He would like to cross over to where Lazarus is but he’s told it ain’t gonna happen. There’s a permanent divide between them. He then pleads to have someone go to his brothers so they don’t come where he is, but he’s told the same news that was given to him, is the same news available to his brothers. IOW if they don’t listen either, they’ll be in Hell too someday with him.

And let’s not forget, the one telling this story is Jesus, the one who judges EVERYONE
D:

And nobody speaks for the West when it comes to purgatory either.

Oh stop!

Re: the Orthodox

When I said no ONE speaks for the Orthodox, that means no ONE has that authority to speak for anyone other than them self. They are not united to Peter, and they have no universal authority within their own system. The ROC dwarfs in size all the other ethnic Orthodox Churches combined. The ROC believes in toll houses. A very complicated theory. The other Orthodox Churches claim they don’t believe in that. They believe in something else. Bottom line the Orthodox are not united in thought.

Re: the Catholic Church

We do have a voice in the Catholic Church East AND West who speaks for the whole. That’s the pope successor to Peter. And the Eastern Catholics are in complete communion with the pope.
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
D:

I have never said the Church teaches anything about the nature of purgatory, only what the Latin Fathers have held.

Purgatory is a simple doctrine

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=purgatory&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
D:

There are two aspects of purgatory: punishment (purgation - er, I mean very hell-like suffering) and separation from God. Latin Fathers emphasized the former and Greek fathers emphasized the latter. Modern western theologians have taken a more mixed approach, but Orthodox theologians have not.

references?
D:

Ain’t that the coolest way to cite the Catechism that you’ve ever seen? I wrote a Perl program to convert raw HTML to BBCode.

I’m not so sure about that being cool.

when you write **CCC 1033 **that doesn’t go to CCC1033

When one goes to the link CCC1033 , they also have the ability to Enter the Catechism at this paragraph

 

[Philthy]

No, you don’t need faith. Or works or beliefs or any such thing. You need Grace.
If you received valid Christian Baptism (and I believe you did) then you were placed into a state of Grace…
You don’t need to do anything to remain in a state of Grace. You need to NOT do something, namely commit mortal sin…

Hi David!
I haven’t been on these forums in several months…unfortunately I see that some things never change - like some of the inaccuracies contained in these statements. While it is perhaps true that SOME people are required to do nothing post Baptism to remain in a state of grace, a very strong argument can also be made that some - even most - DO need to do something in order to avoid sins of omission. Remember those? Those are sins due to a failure to act. If the failure to act involves grave matter and it is done freely and knowingly, then guess what? The failure to DO that something results in mortal sin and fall from grace.
As you well know, there are plenty of examples in the Gospels - two that come to mind are:

1. Refusing to forgive some one their sins against you:

• Matt 6:15 - “For if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will you heavenly Father forgive you yours.”

1. Failing to assist those in need:

• Matt 25 - " ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment,

And please - do not start with the baloney about theologians and how difficult it may or may not be to commit mortal sin. It’s useless speculation. What is known for certain, and what the CCC confirms is that there are sins of omission that can rise to the level of mortal sin. It is therefore inaccurate to say that “You don’t need to do anything to remain in a state of grace”.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

Yes it does.

CCC 846: “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.”

Take myself. I was baptized and confirmed in a Catholic church. I know the Catholic Church teaches this. Yet I haven’t remained in the faith. I haven’t been to a Mass in 16 mos. And I haven’t practiced or followed other things that make up the Catholic faith for a very long time. So I’m going to hell. Or so the Catholic Church says. Unless of course it says I confess these things before I die. And I haven’t confessed to a priest in decades.

• You do not know that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded as necessary for salvation; you simply know that it claims to be such.
• You also do not know that what it teaches is necessary for your salvation; you only know that it claims so.

What you are talking about - a lack of faith in and ignorance (from the Catholic perspective) of the validity of the Church, means that you are not someone that the paragraph 846 applies to. That paragraph applies to someone who knows the Church is the one founded by Christ and also knows that it and what it teaches is necessary for salvation, but who still refuses to enter into the Church and obey her teachings. Very different from your situation.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

We go round and round because there is no actual Church teaching about whether it is “easy” or “hard” for a person of good faith to commit a sin that fully meets the criteria for mortal. Steve thinks it’s easy. I think it’s hard. But neither of us can back it up with actual doctrine. There’s a reason why this question goes back to the Scholastics (and maybe before them).

It’s possible that the answer to that question is not part of the Deposit of Faith, so it can never be settled (until we die and find out for sure). The Church doesn’t know everything, only what is revealed to Her.

It’s possible for hell to exist but be empty (and any Catholic is free to believe this, and some do). I don’t go that far, but steveb thinks it’s standing room only, and I don’t go that far either.

Hi David -

You keep associating the idea of the difficulty of committing a mortal sin with the claim that a Catholic is free to believe in an empty Hell. I would assume that Catholics are free to believe in an empty Hell as a logical consequence of the fact that neither Scripture nor the Church have definitively declared any particular person condemned to Hell, and nothing more. I’d doubt it has anything to do with the speculation of the difficulty of committing mortal sin. Have you read or heard something either way? Just curious…

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’m not so sure about that being cool.

when you write CCC 1033 that doesn’t go to CCC1033

Yeah, I’ve been testing it both ways. I have an active post in the CAF sandbox where I try out different algorithms and approaches. The most recent experiment was actually a testbed for this post (and I had corrected a problem in SUP tags). This is actually the first time I have tried to enter the Catechism at the chapter level, and not the paragraph level (and I was successful).

You can see various iterations and attempts in that thread. I began this work last May, and devote a couple hours each week to refining it.

I’m conflicted about where to enter the Catechism. St. Charles Borromeo Parish chose to enter the Catechism at the paragraph level, which I had previously (and successfully) mimicked (it’s actually easier that way, though it might seem harder - it is easier to make a computer program specific than general. It is easier for a computer to tell you an exact date and time than to tell you that something happened in July of 2011).

I am often annoyed when using online Bible tools, and I see a passage in multiple translations, and ask to see it in context in a particular translation. These tools will typically take me to the passage, not to the chapter. I usually want to read Scripture in context, and would prefer to enter at a higher level.

So I’m playing around with different approaches (my program is a work in progress, with several unresolved bugs). You might be amused by Post #17, where I discovered that Catechism footnotes might translate into BBCode smileys. I have not sought (name removed by moderator)ut into the functionality, but I assume you would “vote” that I revert to entering the Catechism at the paragraph level, and not the chapter level. I will take your preference into consideration.

 

[Sy_Noe]

• You do not know that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded as necessary for salvation; you simply know that it claims to be such.
• You also do not know that what it teaches is necessary for your salvation; you only know that it claims so.

What you are talking about - a lack of faith in and ignorance (from the Catholic perspective) of the validity of the Church, means that you are not someone that the paragraph 846 applies to. That paragraph applies to someone who knows the Church is the one founded by Christ and also knows that it and what it teaches is necessary for salvation, but who still refuses to enter into the Church and obey her teachings. Very different from your situation.

Blessings!

Well that was what I was trying to determine. David seemed to say the same. That my being aware of what the Church claims does not equate to knowing since I don’t believe something is a mortal sin. Which then led me to if I am not in mortal sin because being aware of a teaching does not equate to knowing and I discern the Body and Blood and observe the required fasting, can I receive?

But then I was told something entirely different here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13325864&postcount=35

So it does seem there is no consensus about this among Catholics.

But nevertheless brightest blessings to you too!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Hi David -

You keep associating the idea of the difficulty of committing a mortal sin with the claim that a Catholic is free to believe in an empty Hell. I would assume that Catholics are free to believe in an empty Hell as a logical consequence of the fact that neither Scripture nor the Church have definitively declared any particular person condemned to Hell, and nothing more.

I associate the idea of difficulty first and foremost with the Church’s definition of mortal sin, which requires full (100%, not 99.999%) knowledge that the act is mortally sinful and will exclude one from heaven, along with complete (100%, not 99.999%) freewill consent.

The Church teaches that nobody will be dragged into hell, kicking and screaming that there has been some mistake. Everyone in hell is there by their own deliberate freewill choice to be there. (Steve - I cited it like you want!!!)

I question whether a Christian person of good will is even capable of such an act, under those terms. I don’t include notorious sinners such as gangsters in my question. And I am free to do raise such questions, and nobody can claim that I am saying anything in opposition to Catholic doctrine (which is the bit you emphasized). I would not presume to consider myself a theologian, but respected Catholic theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar (who was eulogized by Josef Card. Ratzinger at his funeral) have raised the same questions. This debate goes back many centuries.

IF the Church definitively taught that hell was NOT empty, it would not mean that von Balthasar is wrong. But, the fact that the Church has not ever taught that anyone is actually in hell supports his position.

 

[steve_b]

But then I was told something entirely different here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13325864&postcount=35

So it does seem there is no consensus about this among Catholics.

in post #**35 **It was said

Full knowledge doesn’t necessarily require assent to the teaching. Knowing that the Church teaches something is wrong is sufficient knowledge in almost all cases. Willfully withholding assent is another sin.

said another way,

One’s disagreement with a Church teaching doesn’t let one off the hook for sin if they go against that teaching.

in extension, these are all grave sins

2089

*Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;*apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; ***schism ***is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[Sy_Noe]

in post #**35 **It was said

said another way,

One’s disagreement with a Church teaching doesn’t let one off the hook for sin if they go against that teaching.

in extension, these are all grave sins

2089

Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; ***schism ***is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Steve, thank you. I was about to ask what if a person does not believe something the Catholic Church teaches is truth? But then as I read further, when I got to the part about something must be believed, that was helpful. Now I can continue on living my faith knowing the Catholic Church does indeed judge that I, as a non practicing Catholic aware of Catholic teaching, will be going to hell as I currently believe. I of course would reject such judging which is another reason for me not to believe. But thanks again and God bless. Peace.

 

[steve_b]

Steve, thank you. I was about to ask what if a person does not believe something the Catholic Church teaches is truth? But then as I read further, when I got to the part about something must be believed, that was helpful. Now I can continue on living my faith knowing the Catholic Church does indeed judge that I, as a non practicing Catholic aware of Catholic teaching, will be going to hell as I currently believe. I of course would reject such judging which is another reason for me not to believe. But thanks again and God bless. Peace.

:tiphat:you’re welcome, and thanks for the blessing, I can use all the blessings I get.

All I can say, “free will” is a real bugger… when it goes against us.

 

[Philthy]

I associate the idea of difficulty first and foremost with the Church’s definition of mortal sin, which requires full (100%, not 99.999%) knowledge that the act is mortally sinful and will exclude one from heaven, along with complete (100%, not 99.999%) freewill consent.

This isn’t quite what the Church says, as the CCC doesn’t carry any decimals to the thousandths …

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.

Please note that the term “Full Knowledge” is not equal to perfect knowledge, the latter likely equating with your “100%”. Full knowledge is described as "
knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law." - that’s all, and it’s pretty straight forward. Did you extrapolate the “100%” from another source, or did you ignore the rather mundane level of knowledge actually contained in the CCC??
In addition, “along with complete (100%, not 99.999%) freewill consent” is also a distortion of what is actually said. The degree of consent is described as “a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” . Once again, that is not some ridiculously high standard that anyone needs to be doubting we can achieve. So I’m not sure why you have this insistence that mortal sin is rare.
I am sure that what you’ve provided to justify believing it (CCC#1859) doesn’t actually justify your believing it.
David Filmer:

The Church teaches that nobody will be dragged into hell, kicking and screaming that there has been some mistake. Everyone in hell is there by their own deliberate freewill choice to be there. (Steve - I cited it like you want!!!)

Once again you’ve distorted the text; there simply is no language that says or even implies that we won’t be “kicking or screaming that there has been some mistake.”
**1033 **We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. **To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. **This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
The bolding is mine - the black bolded phrase containing “our own free choice” is referring to those free choices we made during our mortal lives at the top of the paragraph. The blue bolded sentence also, again, refutes your notion that we don’t need to “do anything other than be Baptized” as it explicitly states that we have an obligation to “meet the serious needs of the poor …” and that failure TO DO so results in separation from Him.

I question whether a Christian person of good will is even capable of such an act, under those terms.

Duly noted. The problem with your questioning - as I have demonstrated - is that you base it on faulty extrapolations of what the CCC actually says.
By the way, what is meant by a Christian person of good will?? Is good 50%? Can a Christian person who is engaging in adultery or murder simultaneously be a Christain person of good will? If so, would that be the exception or the rule?

I… the fact that the Church has not ever taught that anyone is actually in hell supports his position.

No, it does not support his position at all. It simply fails to refute it. But plenty of other things refute it:

• The Sacraments other than Baptism - they’re essentially useless if mortal sin is impossible.
• Mass - total waste of time
• Declaring Canonized Saints, as if their lives were somehow worthy of imitation when in reality (your reality anyhow) billions of average people are in Heaven. This last point is also completely at odds with your claim that we don’t need to “do” anything as Christians…since most of them led lives of action with respect to their faith and the Church, through the inspiration of the HS has seen fit to hold up their lives as an example while ignoring the “average” people who went to Heaven.
• The fact that canonized Saints went to Confession regularly during their earthly lives - why would they do this if they didn’t believe they were in mortal sin and the Church only required it once a year?