Help, I'm thinking about leaving the Church

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Hi Erethorn.

I’ve been a catholic for about a year and a half now, having been an atheist before that.

Recently I started to have very serious doubts about the Church.

My problems fall in two main categories:

1. I have a hard time believing in the infailibility of the Church.

When I started looking into Christianity, and exploring different Churches, it was a requisite for me that the True Church should not claim a monopoly on salvation.

In other words, I would NEVER join a Church who said “Everyone who does not belong to our Church goes to hell”.

At the time, I thought the Catholic Church met those requirements, because I read the Vatican II documents clearly stating that salvation was possible for those outside the Catholic Church.

However, lately I have discovered a Vatican I document, also clearly stating that whoever is not in the Church will go to hell.

This is most disturbing, because it means, to me at least, that the dogma can change, and the Church is therefore not infailible.

I have read a lot of stuff and arguments regarding this, but to me it sounds as rationalization. I cannot believe that Vatican I meant to say anything else but what it said: if you are not a Catholic, you will go to hell, period.

I have read further into the thread and have learned that you were actually talking about the Council of Florence, specifically Pope Eugene IV’s bull Cantate Domino.

The problem with interpreting a part of a document is just that: you interpreted a part of the document, not its entirety. Therefore, there is a possibility that you have interpreted that part out of context, no matter how clear that part seems to be. As someone who has degrees in law and philosophy, I think you should know that that is a grave mistake.

Have you read the whole papal bull? It can be found here: catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html (which, ironically, is in the website of a break-away Catholic group that believes in an erroneously strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

Now the following is a very interesting commentary on the document (it is also worthwhile to read the whole document in the link below):

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html:

We notice, that in the background, the mention of various heresies that have knowingly denied various truths of the Catholic Faith. All of these heresies mentioned had contact with the full gospel and many (such as the Arians, Manichaeans, and Monophystes) were anathematized. All these sects have heard the message, but refused to enter the Church despite that fact. Also, notice at the end, it says, that those who shed their blood for Christ, will not be saved, unless they did it within the bosom of the Catholic Church. This again reiterates that they have heard the gospel of Christ. They indeed can not be saved even if martyred because prior to this they had rejected the gospel.

In the same breath of the message of those who have rejected the true gospel, the Pope makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… This takes as a starting assumption that they have (like the Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites) heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not mentioned the gospel. The ones that these decrees are mentioning are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they can not be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” In order for the strict EENS view to be correct, it needs to say that. It did not. After hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it, so anybody who stays a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed condemned to hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.) They are thus condemned unless they physically become members of the Church. This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

So you see, once you read the WHOLE document and try to understand it, the difficulties disappear.

continued next post…

 

[nuntym]

1. I have trouble accepting the Church’s teaching on the matter of mortal sin, specificaly, the fact that some actions are deemed sufficient to send one in hell.

Case in point: there is a certain person I love most dearly. By any measure, that person is a very good, king, gentle and loving man. However, despite being a Catholic, he lives with his spouse without being married in the Church, and he also doesn’t attend Mass.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that he will go to hell. This I cannot accept. If, by any chance, I should end up in Heaven, I would never ever be happy there, knowing that said person is in hell.

You say you have a degree in law. Well then, let us make this analogy.

There is a certain person who is loved by all, a very good, kind, gentle, and loving man. However, this man murdered another man. By virtue of his goodness, is he exempt from the justice of the law?

Now, apply this analogy to God, Who, let us remember, is not just Perfect Mercy, but also Perfect Justice.

Also, remember that Mercy must be received, for Divine Mercy is not a right of man, but a Gift. If someone is offered a gift but he refuses it, it cannot be forced on him. In the same way, if Mercy is offered to a sinner but the sinner refuses that Mercy by refusing to repent for his sins, then nothing can protect him from Justice. For Justice is giving what someone deserves, and Mercy is giving someone better than he deserves.

If you will make the argument that cohabitation is not comparable to murder, then please remember your question was about “the fact that some actions are deemed sufficient to send one in hell” and cohabitation was just your example.

Please try to help me out with these issues. I have gained a deep respect for Christianity, and I know that, if I decide to leave the Catholic Church, I will not head for another christian church, because I see way more problems in those. I will be forced to leave Crhistianity altogheter.

I am adding you to my prayers, Erethorn.

God love you.

 

[Erethorn]

The problem with interpreting a part of a document is just that: you interpreted a part of the document, not its entirety. Therefore, there is a possibility that you have interpreted that part out of context, no matter how clear that part seems to be. As someone who has degrees in law and philosophy, I think you should know that that is a grave mistake.

I will not keep it from you that I am somewhat offended at your accusation.

Of course I have read the entire document. However, I do not share your opinion that my interpretation took anything out of context. On the contrary.

Now the following is a very interesting commentary on the document (it is also worthwhile to read the whole document in the link below):
**
In the same breath of the message of those who have rejected the true gospel, the Pope makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… This takes as a starting assumption that they have (like the Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites) heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not mentioned the gospel. The ones that these decrees are mentioning are those that have heard the message. **

I see the above as an attempt to rationalise, and nothing more.

Read the whole bull and you will see that it condemns to hell any and all Jews who still practice circumcision:

All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.

How exactly is this consistent with the current teaching of Vatican II ? Have the Jews of today heard the Gospel ? Of course they have, at least a lot of them. Does Cantate Domino say they are “not in tehe least fit to participate in eternal salvation” ? Yes.

So you see, once you read the WHOLE document and try to understand it, the difficulties disappear.

On the contrary.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I will not keep it from you that I am somewhat offended at your accusation.

Of course I have read the entire document.

However, I do not share your opinion that my interpretation took anything out of context. On the contrary.

I will show you that even though you did read the whole document, you read without understanding, from your own post.

I see the above as an attempt to rationalise, and nothing more.

Read the whole bull and you will see that it condemns to hell any and all Jews who still practice circumcision:

All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.

How exactly is this consistent with the current teaching of Vatican II ? Have the Jews of today heard the Gospel ? Of course they have, at least a lot of them. Does Cantate Domino say they are “not in tehe least fit to participate in eternal salvation” ? Yes.

You copied and pasted from the document, right? See what I highlighted in red in your post?

It said, all who glory in the name of Christian.

It commands ONLY CHRISTIANS.

EDIT: Also, read the section before:

It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.

God love you.

 

[Erethorn]

You say you have a degree in law.

I do. In fact, I practice law as an attourney and I specialize in criminal law.

There is a certain person who is loved by all, a very good, kind, gentle, and loving man. However, this man murdered another man. By virtue of his goodness, is he exempt from the justice of the law?

And now, of course, I have to do what you expected and say that one can not compare cohabitation and missing Mass with murder.

If you are keen on analogies, let’s make another one:

What about a justice system where a person who has commited hiddeous acts most of his life, murders, mass killings, what have you, confesses, the day before he is arrested, that he is sorry. As a consequence, the next day he is brought to trial, and he is sentenced to a lenghty imprisonment, after which he shall be richly rewarded, given all possible honors, everything his heart desires.

Another person, on the other hand, has led a virtuous life. He made a lot of sacrifices for his family, he loved them and cared for them. He never commited any major crime. However, he failed to observe some law that seemed minor to him. As a result, after being arested, he is brought to trial and sentenced to be tortured and imprisoned forever.

Now, apply this analogy to God, Who, let us remember, is not just Perfect Mercy, but also Perfect Justice.

If he sends a good man to hell for not going to Mass, then His justice is either not perfect or it is not just.

If what the Catholic Church teaches is right, and he will be sent to Hell for cohabitation, than I want no part in that.

I said it and I say it again: For me, there is no Heaven without my family. I am more and more intrigued by the fact that catholics can imagine themselves being happy in Heaven even in the event that those loved by them on earth should happen to be in hell.

However, I become more and more convinced that the Catholic Church is just plain wrong when it teaches that missing Mass or cohabitation are serious matter and liable to land you in Hell.

God love you.

God love you too.

 

[Erethorn]

I will show you that even though you did read the whole document, you read without understanding, from your own post.

You copied and pasted from the document, right? See what I highlighted in red in your post?

It said, all who glory in the name of Christian.

It commands ONLY CHRISTIANS.

Of course it commands only christians, because only christians are under the autority of the Pope; it would be a display of incredible hubris to attempt to command non-christians.

But the commandment is based on a affirmation that encompasses christians and jews alike, and that is that circumcision lands you in hell: All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation,
In short, it reads something like this: “You who are under my authoruty I command not to do like they who are not, because what they are doing makes them unfit for Heaven”.

On the other hand, even if it were to refer only to baptized Christians, it would still imply that no Seventh Day Adventist can possibly go to Heaven, so again it is at odds vith Vatican II.

 

[BlueFrog]

I’ve been a catholic for about a year and a half now, having been an atheist before that.

Recently I started to have very serious doubts about the Church.

My problems fall in two main categories:

1. I have a hard time believing in the infailibility of the Church.

When I started looking into Christianity, and exploring different Churches, it was a requisite for me that the True Church should not claim a monopoly on salvation.

In other words, I would NEVER join a Church who said “Everyone who does not belong to our Church goes to hell”.

At the time, I thought the Catholic Church met those requirements, because I read the Vatican II documents clearly stating that salvation was possible for those outside the Catholic Church.

However, lately I have discovered a Vatican I document, also clearly stating that whoever is not in the Church will go to hell.

This is most disturbing, because it means, to me at least, that the dogma can change, and the Church is therefore not infailible.

I have read a lot of stuff and arguments regarding this, but to me it sounds as rationalization. I cannot believe that Vatican I meant to say anything else but what it said: if you are not a Catholic, you will go to hell, period.

1. I have trouble accepting the Church’s teaching on the matter of mortal sin, specificaly, the fact that some actions are deemed sufficient to send one in hell.

Case in point: there is a certain person I love most dearly. By any measure, that person is a very good, king, gentle and loving man. However, despite being a Catholic, he lives with his spouse without being married in the Church, and he also doesn’t attend Mass.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that he will go to hell. This I cannot accept. If, by any chance, I should end up in Heaven, I would never ever be happy there, knowing that said person is in hell.

Please try to help me out with these issues. I have gained a deep respect for Christianity, and I know that, if I decide to leave the Catholic Church, I will not head for another christian church, because I see way more problems in those. I will be forced to leave Crhistianity altogheter.

i’ve never heard that the church is infallible. the church is guided by the spirit but all the while the forces of satan have to be battled. If you ever delve into the history of it satan’s power within the church has sometimes gotten out of hand. Like anyone’s personal struggle the church struggles too. You need to just forget about this stuff you’ve been looking up and focus on the positive. If you’re actively hunting a reason to hate the church it may be that lucifer has got a hold of you…

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I do. In fact, I practice law as an attourney and I specialize in criminal law.

Good for you!

And now, of course, I have to do what you expected and say that one can not compare cohabitation and missing Mass with murder.

I did not know you are a judge or a lawmaker too!

If you are keen on analogies, let’s make another one:

What about a justice system where a person who has commited hiddeous acts most of his life, murders, mass killings, what have you, confesses, the day before he is arrested, that he is sorry. As a consequence, the next day he is brought to trial, and he is sentenced to a lenghty imprisonment, after which he shall be richly rewarded, given all possible honors, everything his heart desires.

Another person, on the other hand, has led a virtuous life. He made a lot of sacrifices for his family, he loved them and cared for them. He never commited any major crime. However, he failed to observe some law that seemed minor to him. As a result, after being arested, he is brought to trial and sentenced to be tortured and imprisoned forever.

There is the rub: seemed to be minor to him. So in the analogy of Roman Catholicism, is that a mortal sin?

If he sends a good man to hell for not going to Mass, then His justice is either not perfect or it is not just.

Again, I did not know you are a judge or a lawmaker too!

If what the Catholic Church teaches is right, and he will be sent to Hell for cohabitation, than I want no part in that.

Well I do not want to be in a church who has no respect for marriage or the family either!

I said it and I say it again: For me, there is no Heaven without my family.** I am more and more intrigued by the fact that catholics can imagine themselves being happy in Heaven even in the event that those loved by them on earth should happen to be in hell.**

However, I become more and more convinced that the Catholic Church is just plain wrong when it teaches that missing Mass or cohabitation are serious matter and liable to land you in Hell.

I highlighted that part because, well, I think you have not read of St. Monica, who with terrible anguish for the possible fate of her son, prayed for the conversion of his son for nine years before he was converted to become a great bishop, saint, and doctor of the Church: St. Augustine.

Have you prayed for your father to be converted for the same length of time?

God love you too.

Thanks!

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Of course it commands only christians, because only christians are under the autority of the Pope; it would be a display of incredible hubris to attempt to command non-christians.

But the commandment is based on a affirmation that encompasses christians and jews alike, and that is that circumcision lands you in hell: All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation,
In short, it reads something like this: “You who are under my authoruty I command not to do like they who are not, because what they are doing makes them unfit for Heaven”.

AGAIN, let us read the whole part. I will number certain parts so that discussion will be easier:

It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that (1) whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but (2) after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. (3) All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. (4) Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.

First of all, read all of the highlighted parts in red, which are apart from the one you quoted in blue. All of them clearly pertain to Christians only. In (1), only Christians can mortally sin. In (2) only those who have already attained salvation can lose eternal salvation. In (4) it commands only Christians. Are you then telling me that the sentence in the middle, (3), pertains to all Jews, especially considering you can only recover from error if you were in the truth in the beginning?

On the other hand, even if it were to refer only to baptized Christians, it would still imply that no Seventh Day Adventist can possibly go to Heaven, so again it is at odds vith Vatican II.

Again, go to (1). Tell me, do all Seventh Day Adventists fulfill the requirements of being in mortal sin?

God love you.

 

[Erethorn]

I did not know you are a judge or a lawmaker too!

Do you have to be a judge or a lawmaker in order to see injustice in what others present as just law ? I’m not trying to pass new law, I’m merely wondering whether the real Law is the one the Church teaches it is.

And, in the event that it is, I am entitled to call it unjust, even though i am no judge and no lawmaker.

There is the rub: seemed to be minor to him. So in the analogy of Roman Catholicism, is that a mortal sin?

There is the rub indeed, at least for me, because I cannot comprehend how not going to Mass can be major.

I know what you are getting at, if it seemed to be minor, we are missing one key requirement for mortal sin, which is complete understanding of the gravity of the act.

However, I’m not sure that most moral theologians would agree that “It seemed minor to me” can be excuse enough.

After all, that would probably mean that no one goes to hell.

The current interpretation of mortal sin would then be something like: “I KNOW THIS IS EVIL !!! I WANT TO DO EVIL !!! I WANT TO BE EVIL !!! TAKE THAT, GOD !!!”

I do not believe that not attending Mass is grave matter, and I believe that the Church is wrong in telling me so. Am I in mortal sin if I skip Mass today ?

Well I do not want to be in a church who has no respect for marriage or the family either!

I would really apreciate it if you would refrain from passing any kind of judgement, veiled as it may be, on my family and the respect they have for each other.

Have you prayed for your father to be converted for the same length of time?

No, I haven’t believed in God for that amount of time. However, since I became a Christian, I prayed for everyone without exception.

However, that does not answer my question. Please indulge me by answering the following:

Could you possibly imagine being happy in Heaven, while one of your loved ones was in hell and you knew about it ?

 

[Erethorn]

Again, go to (1). Tell me, do all Seventh Day Adventists fulfill the requirements of being in mortal sin?

According to Cantate Domino, yes, because they all believe that not observing Sabbath is a severe breach of God’s law.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Do you have to be a judge or a lawmaker in order to see injustice in what others present as just law ? I’m not trying to pass new law, I’m merely wondering whether the real Law is the one the Church teaches it is.

And, in the event that it is, I am entitled to call it unjust, even though i am no judge and no lawmaker.

You CAN call it unjust, but your calling it unjust has no weight until you have learned not just what the Catholic Church says about it, but also why it said so.

There is the rub indeed, at least for me, because I cannot comprehend how not going to Mass can be major.

I know what you are getting at, if it seemed to be minor, we are missing one key requirement for mortal sin, which is complete understanding of the gravity of the act.

However, I’m not sure that most moral theologians would agree that “It seemed minor to me” can be excuse enough.

After all, that would probably mean that no one goes to hell.

The current interpretation of mortal sin would then be something like: “I KNOW THIS IS EVIL !!! I WANT TO DO EVIL !!! I WANT TO BE EVIL !!! TAKE THAT, GOD !!!”

I do not believe that not attending Mass is grave matter, and I believe that the Church is wrong in telling me so. Am I in mortal sin if I skip Mass today ?

You still can be in mortal sin, because you forgot one thing: your capacity to know and learn.

In law, if you have the capacity to learn what the law says of something but you broke the law because of ignorance, does that excuse you? Simple people possibly may be excused…but you, a lawyer…?

In the same way, you CAN learn about the teachings of the Church with all the possible sources on the Internet, libraries and the local Church. And no doubt, you have intellect. With those resources, have you tried learning about the Church the best that you can? Will you be excused from those when our Judgement eventually comes?

I would really apreciate it if you would refrain from passing any kind of judgement, veiled as it may be, on my family and the respect they have for each other.

That is very hard. To think of cohabitation as not a serious sin is to think that marriage, and therefore the family, is not important. But I will try.

No, I haven’t believed in God for that amount of time. However, since I became a Christian, I prayed for everyone without exception.

Praise be to God

However, that does not answer my question. Please indulge me by answering the following:

Could you possibly imagine being happy in Heaven, while one of your loved ones was in hell and you knew about it ?

Let me answer you with a question of my own:

God is Love, and He loves us, unimaginably much. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).” Theologians assert that, individually, God loves us so much that if it is only just one of us who needs redemption, He would still go through Incarnation, Life, Death and Resurrection just for that one person. And, actually, His love for each one of us is already like that.

Now imagine if that person, after all that Jesus had gone through, rejects Him. This person, whose each and every subatomic particle, atom, molecule, biochemical reaction, cell, tissue, organ of his body, whose each and every thought, decision, aspiration, emotion of his soul, is well known by Him. Who watched and took care of him with unimaginable attention, tenderness, closeness, and mercy each and every millisecond of his life. A God who longs for the love of this person so much more than any person that had not a drink of water for a few days would long for a glass of water. A God who SUFFERED and DIED for this person. Imagine what THIS God would FEEL when this person goes to Hell in spite of everything He has done. Imagine what THIS God would FEEL everytime He sees and hears this person’s shrieks of pain and hate towards Him and His creation for all ETERNITY. Imagine what THIS God would FEEL when He KNEW this person would betray Him in the end, and yet chose to create him, and love him.

Now imagine this for each and every person that is, and will be, in Hell. Imagine God’s pain.

So now, if I have to choose during my Final Judgement, which will make me happy: loving a God who loved me unimaginably much and is in so much pain from hearing all those cries of hate to Him, or loving someone who I loved before but now, because of his/her decisions, now hates God and me?

God love you.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

According to Cantate Domino, yes, because they all believe that not observing Sabbath is a severe breach of God’s law.

Not really Seventh Day Adventists think that it is part of having Faith in Jesus Christ to observe the Sabbath.

Invincible ignorance

God love you.

 

[Erethorn]

You still can be in mortal sin, because you forgot one thing: your capacity to know and learn.

Am I or am I not ?

In law, if you have the capacity to learn what the law says of something but you broke the law because of ignorance, does that excuse you? Simple people possibly may be excused…but you, a lawyer…?

Not me and not anyone else. Nemo censetur ignorare legem is a well known principle in criminal law. You might be a illiterate homeless, it does not excuse you in the slightest.

But this is moral law we are talking about, is it not ?

In the same way, you CAN learn about the teachings of the Church with all the possible sources on the Internet, libraries and the local Church. And no doubt, you have intellect. With those resources, have you tried learning about the Church the best that you can? Will you be excused from those when our Judgement eventually comes?

I don’t know. Will I ?

That is very hard. To think of cohabitation as not a serious sin is to think that marriage, and therefore the family, is not important. But I will try.

Please try. Thank you.

Let me answer you with a question of my own:

God is Love, and He loves us, unimaginably much. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).” Theologians assert that, individually, God loves us so much that if it is only just one of us who needs redemption, He would still go through Incarnation, Life, Death and Resurrection just for that one person. And, actually, His love for each one of us is already like that.

Now imagine if that person, after all that Jesus had gone through, rejects Him. This person, whose each and every subatomic particle, atom, molecule, biochemical reaction, cell, tissue, organ of his body, whose each and every thought, decision, aspiration, emotion of his soul, is well known by Him. Who watched and took care of him with unimaginable attention, tenderness, closeness, and mercy each and every millisecond of his life. A God who longs for the love of this person so much more than any person that had not a drink of water for a few days would long for a glass of water. A God who SUFFERED and DIED for this person. Imagine what THIS God would FEEL when this person goes to Hell in spite of everything He has done. Imagine what THIS God would FEEL everytime He sees and hears this person’s shrieks of pain and hate towards Him and His creation for all ETERNITY. Imagine what THIS God would FEEL when He KNEW this person would betray Him in the end, and yet chose to create him, and love him.

Now imagine this for each and every person that is, and will be, in Hell. Imagine God’s pain.

The part I highlighted in your post cannot but raise, in my head, the question of evil. But I don’t want to derail the discussion, though that in itself is another unresolved problem I have.

So now, if I have to choose during my Final Judgement, which will make me happy: loving a God who loved me unimaginably much and is in so much pain from hearing all those cries of hate to Him, or loving someone who I loved before but now, because of his/her decisions, now hates God and me?

I don’t know what drove you to the conclusion that a father who ends up in hell will necesarilly hate his son should he happen to end up in Heaven, but, that aside, someone hating me does not necesarilly stop me from loving them.

Your whole line of reasoning sems to follow the “Divine Mercy” paradigm, where basically everyone gets a last chance and only those who are truly evil and wicked and want no part in Heaven and hate God and so on (which is to say - almost nobody) go to hell. That resonates well with me.

However, might I remind you that there are other paradigms within catholicism. At Fatima, we were told that Hell is quite full.

I would really like it, however, if you could somehow manage to answer my question with a simple yes or no. Would you be happy in Heaven, allthewhile knowing that someone you loved on Earth is now suffering eternal torment for failing to go to Mass ?

Mind you, in your counter question you explicitly stated that God’s love for the sinner still exists and He still is in pain because the hell dwellers suffer. What makes you think that your own love for your father would cease to exist ?

 

[Erethorn]

+JMJ+

Not really Seventh Day Adventists think that it is part of having Faith in Jesus Christ to observe the Sabbath.

Invincible ignorance

God love you.

Once again: (3) All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.

How does that not apply to all SDA’s ?

 

[mariafransisca2]

Could you possibly imagine being happy in Heaven, while one of your loved ones was in hell and you knew about it ?

Read the Dialogue of the Seraphic Virgin - St. Catherine of Sienna

In it, God the Father says to St. Catherine of Sienna, that people in heaven is so united with the will of God, that even if a father or a mother of that person is in hell, he/she is not or is not able to feel disturbed. And it will not disturb the happiness also.

 

[Erethorn]

Read the Dialogue of the Seraphic Virgin - St. Catherine of Sienna

In it, God the Father says to St. Catherine of Sienna, that people in heaven is so united with the will of God, that even if a father or a mother of that person is in hell, he/she is not or is not able to feel disturbed. And it will not disturb the happiness also.

Well, it’s extremelly disturbing now. In fact, it’s sickening. As I’ve said before, I want no part in that.

You might accept that happines is possible in spite of the suffering of your loved ones, I cannot. It’s a grotesque ideea, it’s inhuman and horrible. It stands against everything that love really is.

Ask yourselves, yourselves, not the books, yourselves, not the dogmas, ask youselves, look deep down into your hearts, forget, for a minute, all that you have been told, ask yourselves this:

Could I be happy, knowing that my son, my mother, my father, my brother, could at the same time be experiencing eternal torment, could be shrieking in pain and misery, forever, for all eternity, burning, because he decided not to attend Mass or for cohabitating ?

 

[Statius]

I’m another recent convert to Catholicism and I’m often troubled by similar things to you, Erethorn. It’s tough. I hope and pray you find peace. I, like you, would like definitive answers and for everything to make sense. I sometimes think that, amid all the documents the Church puts out (many of which are very worthy and helpful) she does sometimes obscure the confusion of actually trying to understand God.

I do have academic qualifications directly relevant to this debate, but still, I am perplexed much of the time. I think anyone who says serious theological discourse doesn’t make their eyes cross and their head ache is obfuscating.

In the end, I try not to think about it too hard. Maybe this is abdicating intellectual responsibility, or maybe it is a faint trace of humility. I have to hope it is the latter, but I have to admit it may not be.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Once again: (3) All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.

How does that not apply to all SDA’s ?

Simple: most were NEVER in truth, therefore they could not RECOVER from error; they could only LEARN the truth and REALIZE their error. Therefore, (3) does not apply to them. Remember than most SDA’s never have heard Catholic teachings before. Invincible ignorance . Once they hear and understand Catholic teachings about the subject and still reject them, well, that’s a different ballgame.

God love you.

 

[Carlan]

Now as well as God’s 3rd commandment you have added part of the 6th commandment.

Read and think again about what you are saying to us. You are trying to justify sin in the life of people close to you…you can’t bear the thought of losing them in such a way, but Eerthorn, please don’t throw your own salvation aside in doing so.

You can pray for and plead God’s mercy for your loved ones your friends.

There is no doubt that many who post to these threads suffer the same pain you do for loved ones, however, because of it, we don’t sell out.
We do what Jesus tells us to do in Matthew, “Take up your cross and follow me…”.

Dear God, give us all the grace of perseverance in your love to the end. Peace , Carlan