Help, I'm thinking about leaving the Church

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Erethorn, I would suggest that you ask these questions to a trained apologist, not well-meaning but insufficiently educated Catholics. As long as you continue to listen to their half-explanations, you will never get a satisfactory answer.
The following is not from my own reasoning, but a few points from an article by Catholic convert and apologist Jimmy Akin (I’ve included the full article at the end):
You say that the Church clearly teaches that unbaptized infants go to hell; in fact, it does not teach that. It teaches only that those in original sin go to hell. Babies who die in the womb may, by some mysterious grace of God, be given a chance before death to accept Him and thus be freed from original sin. The Church leaves this up to the mercy of God, acknowledging that He very well may have an unknown means of remitting babies’ original sin. jimmyakin.org/2005/12/limbo_in_limbo.html

Ouch that hurts! But you’re right timeandeternity

Erethorn, I had asked you before to try talking to your local pastor, at the very least. Have you done that?

God love you.

 

[timeandeternity]

nuntym, I certainly wasn’t trying to point fingers at you or anyone else! It’s just that pretty much all of us here, myself included, are not apologists or moral theologians, and so there is a limit to the detail of our understanding. I’ve found that it helps immensely to clear up your doubts with people who have taken the time to thoroughly research and comprehend practically every aspect of the Faith.

 

[CEM5]

Hi Erethorn,

I will try my best to explain some things:

In our Creed (what all Catholic Christians are supposed to believe as handed on from the Apostles) are the twelve articles of Faith.

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.
    Amen.

Note that 7 has used “descended to the dead”, because our modern day understanding of hell is not the same as the original use. “Hell” was the translation for the Hebrew word “sheol”, which is the abode of the dead. Over time, words’ meanings change as the vernacular changes. For example: Let the children suffer unto me…“suffer” in earlier times meant “allow”. Today, we understand this word, suffer, in a different way.

Sheol in Jewish tradition, was the place where the dead went, and it had “hell - hadesl” and “paradise”. Hell was the place where the unrighteous went, and paradise is where the righteous went. Recall that in Scripture, at the time of Jesus’ death, our Lord told the repentent thief on the cross that before this day ended he would be with him in paradise. Paradise is used only twice in the Bible. See, Christ wouldn’t be in “hell” - He went to the “souls in prison” (Sheol/paradise) as Peter described in Scripture, where He spent 3 days before He rose from the dead.

1 peter 3
18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19*** in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison***, 20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

1 Peter 4
5 But they will have to give an accounting to him who stands ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.

See, all those righteous Old Testament Saints were in Sheol (in paradise – NOT heaven), awaiting the time when Jesus the Messiah would come and free them and they could then go to heaven. No one could enter heaven until Jesus, the firstfruits, went there first and opened the gates of heaven, through His death, resurrection and ascension.

The Early Church Fathers held and tossed around the idea of “Limbo” – a place not “hell”, but not yet heaven for the unbaptized babies. It was never and still is not Doctrine. As time passed, understanding evolved, and the Church has never taught that babies went to “hell” in the vernacular of today. They just weren’t all that sure that they went to heaven in the “face-to-face” Beatified presence of God.

The Church teaches there are three forms of valid baptism: Baptism by water, as Christ commanded; Baptism by blood, as with martyrs who died for their faith in Christ; and baptism by desire, as for those who sincerely desired baptism but for some reason, died before they could be baptized. All go to heaven.

Therefore, we have the Old Testament Saints who are in heaven by their faith and reason holds that babies, innocent yet never having had the chance for baptism because of untimely demise, would be in heaven. It would be illogical to think that God would allow non-water baptized Old Testament Saints into heaven but deny heaven to babies. Those OT Saints had the stain of original sin on their souls when they died, as too, do those babies who died. Christ went and preached the Gospel to the dead (in sheol) so I would believe that He would do the same for those babies.

In my opinion, and please forgive me if I offend you – that is not my intention – but I think you are judging the Church when in her infancy a little too harshly. God, via Christ, promised to guide the Church to all truth (in matters on Faith and Morals - not science and mathematics and every day goings on) over time. God’s Holy Spirit can only use and guide mankind according to man’s development in those eras. Our human knowledge and understanding today is not the same as it was hundreds and thousands of years ago.

Blessings of God and peace of Christ,
CEM

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

nuntym, I certainly wasn’t trying to point fingers at you or anyone else! It’s just that pretty much all of us here, myself included, are not apologists or moral theologians, and so there is a limit to the detail of our understanding. I’ve found that it helps immensely to clear up your doubts with people who have taken the time to thoroughly research and comprehend practically every aspect of the Faith.

Nah, it’s cool, don’t worry, I understood what you meant in the previous post and I totally agree

God love you.

 

[Monica4316]

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.

Erethorn, my understanding is that - this is still the doctrine, VII just clarified what it means. No one outside the Church can be saved… but who is totally outside the Church? For example, non Catholic Christians are still imperfectly united to it, so they can receive grace through that link of faith in Christ and baptism. What the quote means is that graces come through the Church, the Body of Christ.

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.

sin is a choice against loving God… if a person sins and doesn’t repent, they wouldn’t be able to be united with Him, in fact they wouldn’t want to. That is why they go to hell… because they can’t stand His presence because of the guilt. God is infinitely holy.

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.

so pray for him… offer penance for him… offer Masses and do a novena of Communions… St John Vianney and St Padre Pio were both priests, heard confessions for many hours a day, and received revelations from Christ and did miracles… St John Vianney said that a single mortal sin could send a person to hell, but see that’s because sin blocks us from Him… not because God doesn’t have compassion for that person. God wants to be a Merciful Saviour to us, but if we reject His mercy through repentance and acceptance of forgiveness, then all that’s LEFT is judgement. God is offering us forgiveness, but the choice is up to us. If the person you described doesn’t KNOW that he should have his marriage convalidated and attend Mass, - then he’s doing this in ignorance and the best thing to do would be to let him know. If he knows and still doesn’t follow the teaching… then pray for him.

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.

Try to forget about the issues for a day and give them to God, and just pray and spend some time with Him. Ask the Holy Spirit for light.

God bless!

 

[Monica4316]

What you have just said does in no way refute what I said, namely, that the unbaptized children go to hell for punishment.Did you notice the big, red word in my posting above ? PUNISHMENT…

Erethorn, first you need to show us that this was an infallible statement. My understanding is that this was a theological theory, just like limbo, but not infallible. The Church teaches that if unbaptized babies die, we leave them to God’s mercy, - since they have no personal sin they are likely to accept God if they see Him and He can baptize them in other ways like what happens in “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood”. The Sacraments are not ordinary way for salvation but God is not bound by them.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

Sorry, it’s not Vatican I, it’s the Council of Florence:

(N)o one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the “everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church… And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" - from the papal bull Cantate Domino

If they knowingly reject the Catholic Church, with understanding, it’s a mortal sin yes… but if they don’t have enough understanding, or never felt called to the Catholic Church, then it’s done through ignorance and the Church teaching is that mortal sin requires deliberate consent and knowledge. But I’ll try to find more information for you

EDIT:

I just figured something out… in the Church, “heretics” were those individuals who WERE Catholic but then began to believe heretical ideas… and “schismatics” were those who WERE Catholic but then left into schism. That is indeed a sin! But the Church never called “heretics” and “schismatics” those who were BORN into Eastern Orthodoxy for example, and never acquired enough understanding of Catholicism to become Catholic. I’ll try to find out for you if this is indeed the case.

 

[timeandeternity]

Erethorn,
I just found an excellent article by EWTN’s Fr. Most. Perhaps it will be able to give you some insight into how the Church can say “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” yet teach that it is possible for people who are not formally Catholic to be saved.
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

 

[Monica4316]

Erethorn, here I started a thread about the Papal Bull on salvation of non Catholics… hope this helps forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8121840#post8121840 I think the Church means something specific when it says “heretics” and “schismatics”. If your family is Orthodox, for example, that doesn’t mean THEY are schismatics, even if their church is in schism. (btw my family is Orthodox). And Protestants are not necessarily formal heretics even if they believe certain heresies: it depends if they were once Catholics, etc.

Based on this, it makes sense that actual heretics and schismatics probably won’t be saved unless they repent of their heresy/schism.

 

[jenniferpet88]

I’m very sorry, but this document does not cite any conditions for it to be true. On the contrary, it very clearly tells us Catholics that those not of catholic faith will go to hell.

Sorry for my ramblings and thanks to all that answered, but I am VERY troubled.

ok it seems to me that you are LOOKING for a reason to leave much like when someone is in a relationship and subconciously wants to leave they pick apart different faults with their partner that never bothered them before. I say this because your question at this point has been sufficiently answered…BOTTOM LINE-- the little bitty thing you quoted doesn’t say anywhere in it that all there is to say on the subject is contained there…it reminds me of protestants who quote one line of the bible “call no man father” and then ignore the other 20 verses that not only say the opposite of what they are implying but elaborate on what such a verse REALLY means…ANOTHER POINT made by Fulton Sheen-- people who turn towards social justice often do so because they require personal justice and they mask it…if you understand what the Catholic Church teaches then why would you reject it? Do you not think God will seek out your real motives? If you are truly ignorant and don’t get it yes you can be saved but if my suspicion is right and you are trying to push GOd away like a quarelling lover who finds nothing right in her spouse then yes you are in danger of going to hell because you are rejecting GOd…wake up please…if it is your true opinion there is no need to apologize

 

[music2]

ok it seems to me that you are LOOKING for a reason to leave much like when someone is in a relationship and subconciously wants to leave they pick apart different faults with their partner that never bothered them before. I say this because your question at this point has been sufficiently answered…BOTTOM LINE-- the little bitty thing you quoted doesn’t say anywhere in it that all there is to say on the subject is contained there…it reminds me of protestants who quote one line of the bible “call no man father” and then ignore the other 20 verses that not only say the opposite of what they are implying but elaborate on what such a verse REALLY means…ANOTHER POINT made by Fulton Sheen-- people who turn towards social justice often do so because they require personal justice and they mask it…if you understand what the Catholic Church teaches then why would you reject it? Do you not think God will seek out your real motives? If you are truly ignorant and don’t get it yes you can be saved but if my suspicion is right and you are trying to push GOd away like a quarelling lover who finds nothing right in her spouse then yes you are in danger of going to hell because you are rejecting GOd…wake up please…if it is your true opinion there is no need to apologize

Can you please not be harsh on OP.She has some very valid Q’s/concerns that are troubling her and responding with things like harshness and anger could possibly cause more fear into her.
I also share the same questions she’s stating,and i think the “lover” comparison was a bit unneccesary and out of left field:shrug:

 

[Erethorn]

ok it seems to me that you are LOOKING for a reason to leave much like when someone is in a relationship and subconciously wants to leave they pick apart different faults with their partner that never bothered them before.

What if there are some faults that the partner has been keeping hidden, so to speak ?

I would never have joined the Church had I known what Cantate Domino, a suposedly infailible document, had to say.

I say this because your question at this point has been sufficiently answered…

No it hasn’t been. I do not want to appear rude to all the good folks who did their best to try to explain it; however, they have not succeded.

It’s not their fault. There is simply no good explanation. The very simple, unquestionable, FACT, is that the Church has changed it’s teaching. Of course, in so doing, it also has to “reinterpret” old teaching so as to make it seem that, in fact, it didn’t change anything.

BOTTOM LINE-- the little bitty thing you quoted doesn’t say anywhere in it that all there is to say on the subject is contained there…

Oh come on. It says what it says. Those not living in the Catholic Church go to hell. Period. No amount of denial, rephrasing, reinterpreting, rationalizing, playing around with words, bending logic to suit one’s personal wishes can change that. It says that those not in the Church go to hell.

if you understand what the Catholic Church teaches then why would you reject it?

Because Cantate Domino has me convinced that the Church is not infailible.

And because some of the things the Church teaches I find appaling. Because hell, as taught by the church, is either the creation of a malevolent god or a concept created by a disturbed human being.

I choose to honor God by believing the later.

Do you not think God will seek out your real motives?

I am sure He does, and that’s exactly why I feel perfectly at peace with not believing in everything the Church teaches.

If you are truly ignorant and don’t get it yes you can be saved but if my suspicion is right and you are trying to push GOd away like a quarelling lover who finds nothing right in her spouse then yes you are in danger of going to hell because you are rejecting GOd

On the very contrary. I want to embrace God, but the God I want to embrace does not allow any human being to be tortured for all eternity.

I want to embrace a God in who’suniverse this is not even a remote possibility:

“Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror.” ← “Worthy of belief” says the Catholic Church.

wake up please…

I just have. I’m awake now and very much at peace.

 

[Jadar]

People who are in hell are not there because the Church sends them there or even because God sends them there. They send themselves to hell, by choosing to be eternally separated from God.

Please excuse me but, What a load of TOSH.

Religions are geographically distributed. You think the people born in the Middle East are going to hell for growing up around thousands of other Muslims and always being told that Islam in the true faith? How about Hindus in India, Buddhists in China? Hey, how about the untouched tribes of the jungle?

If they go to hell then God absolutely sends them there.

 

[jmcrae]

Please excuse me but, What a load of TOSH.

Religions are geographically distributed. You think the people born in the Middle East are going to hell for growing up around thousands of other Muslims and always being told that Islam in the true faith? How about Hindus in India, Buddhists in China? Hey, how about the untouched tribes of the jungle?

Even these can know Christ. Obviously, they can’t memorize John 3:16, or know that His name is Jesus, but God can reveal Himself to anyone.

Let me tell you about someone I know, who grew up in the untouched jungle. His name is John, and he is presently working as a Deacon in our Diocese.

When he was a young man, living in a remote area of Africa, the missionaries came to them to tell them about Jesus.

When they began to tell the story of Jesus, the Elders looked at one another in astonishment - not because they had never heard the story before, but rather, because the story was very familiar to them. They had been teaching the ways of this very same God for as far back as anyone could remember. He was known to the tribe as “the nameless God” because they didn’t know what to call Him, but they certainly knew the doctrines and teachings - that He is the Creator; that He knows what it is to be a human being; that He loves all human beings; that He redeems sinners - that His greatest law is “love one another.”

So they told the missionaries, “We know this God, too. Thank you for telling us His name.” They invited the missionaries to come to their Church, and the Missionaries baptized everyone straight away (because they had not been baptized, yet) and they brought them priests, and a Bishop, and within the next two years, all of the adults and everyone over the age of 12 had received the Sacrament of Confirmation and First Holy Communion, and the children were being educated in Catholic schools.

But what if the missionaries had never come to them?

The truth is, they were following Jesus already, even without knowing His name. They were outside of the Sacraments, yes - but they were not outside the Church. They knew a great many of the teachings of Jesus, and they were following His teachings as best they knew how.

 

[jmcrae]

And because some of the things the Church teaches I find appaling. Because hell, as taught by the church, is either the creation of a malevolent god or a concept created by a disturbed human being.

You understand that the Devil created Hell, right? Because it needed a place to go when it rejected God and no longer wished to live with God in Heaven. So it created Hell as a place for all who do what the Devil did - who say to God, “I don’t like your way - I will do it my way.”

 

[Erethorn]

You understand that the Devil created Hell, right? Because it needed a place to go when it rejected God and no longer wished to live with God in Heaven. So it created Hell as a place for all who do what the Devil did - who say to God, “I don’t like your way - I will do it my way.”

I understand that you want to rationalize and “soften up” the teaching of the Church, but, as is the case with the “God doesn’t send people to hell, they send themselves”, and “Hell is merely the absence of God”, this is just a recent ideea.

The Church has taught that hell is a place where sinners (and schismatics, and heretics, and pagans, and unbaptized children) go to be punished.

No one chooses to punish himself, and certainly, no one chooses to punish himself with an eternity of torture. Punishment, by definition, is something that someone else dishes out. Who does ? God. I mean, God as thaught by the Church:

“Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” ← This is the official teaching of the infailible Church, as taught at the Council of Constance.

 

[WesleyF]

“Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” ← This is the official teaching of the infailible Church, as taught at the Council of Constance.

It must be noted that the word “hell” is not to be understood according to our current usage of the term, which means the “hell of damnation”. The word “hell” in those times could also refer to the place of purging or purification, which we now call purgatory. This difference in usage can be noted, for example, in the creed, where we say that Christ descended into hell. Christ didn’t go to the hell of the damned, but rather Sheol, the place where the just had been kept until he came.

Those who are in original sin, are deprived of grace and have a fallen nature therefore need some form of purification through the pains of purgatory. I think this is what the “punishment” for those in original sin could be referring to.

 

[Erethorn]

It must be noted that the word “hell” is not to be understood according to our current usage of the term, which means the “hell of damnation”. The word “hell” in those times could also refer to the place of purging or purification, which we now call purgatory. This difference in usage can be noted, for example, in the creed, where we say that Christ descended into hell. Christ didn’t go to the hell of the damned, but rather Sheol, the place where the just had been kept until he came.

Those who are in original sin, are deprived of grace and have a fallen nature therefore need some form of purification through the pains of purgatory. I think this is what the “punishment” for those in original sin could be referring to.

No, it is not.

Here’s the link: dailycatholic.org/history/17ecume8.htm

Read the above quote in it’s proper context, available at the link I provided.

The context is the discussion of the union with the Greeks, it refers to the one of the principal points of disagreement, (the florentine points), namely the issue of Purgatory.

And in that context, it clearly delimitates the possible fate of the deceased, by explicitly stating that:

**1. Those who die in venial sin go to Purgatory: **
“if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church’s ordinances”;

2. Those who die without sin after baptism, or those who’s temporal punishment has been paid, go to Heaven:“Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits”.;

3. And lastly, Hell:"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. "

So it’s obvious that by the “hell” where unbaptized infants go, the Council did not mean Purgatory. It clearly defines it as the place of the damned, and of punishment.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand that you want to rationalize and “soften up” the teaching of the Church, but, as is the case with the “God doesn’t send people to hell, they send themselves”, and “Hell is merely the absence of God”, this is just a recent ideea.

The Church has taught that hell is a place where sinners (and schismatics, and heretics, and pagans, and unbaptized children) go to be punished.

As you point out below, the punishments are not equal, but are in proportion to their offenses against God.

No one chooses to punish himself, and certainly, no one chooses to punish himself with an eternity of torture. Punishment, by definition, is something that someone else dishes out. Who does ?

People punish themselves every day, actually. They choose not to go to an event that they would enjoy, because someone they have offended will be in attendance as well, and they don’t want to face the person. They take a lower-paid job out of guilt for something they did (or didn’t do) to a poor person.

People punish themselves worse than God or the law ever could.

You’re on this Forum punishing yourself for sins that you think your father committed. Not even in Hell can you be punished for something that someone else did.

“Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” ← This is the official teaching of the infailible Church, as taught at the Council of Constance.

Are you absolutely certain that the Council of Constance was infallible? Because what I was taught in RCIA was that there have only been two infallible statements made by the Church in its entire 2,000 year history - one is the Immaculate Conception and I can’t remember what the other one is - but I’m pretty sure the Council of Constance was not involved. (I think it may have been the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but I don’t know that for sure.)

 

[fred_conty]

Originally Posted by Erethorn
And because some of the things the Church teaches I find appaling. Because hell, as taught by the church, is either the creation of a malevolent god or a concept created by a disturbed human being.​

Hi Erethorn,
I’ve often thought that I couldn’t dream up something as horrible as hell if I thought about it for a year. If I had not been informed of it, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t believe in it.
The concept is way over my head and really beyound me.

However since I know that Jesus is God, He could not tell me a lie because God is truth.
And I know that Jesus is God since He is the only one who ever raised HIMSELF back to life.
Since He raised Himself, and He can not tell anything but the truth, and He said there is a
hell, then I believe it, even tho I would personally prefer to think that there is no such thing.

I’ve thought that if I were in hell, I would not want that pain and would change and repent of anything.
Below is an explaination from Catholic Encyclopedia why this can’t be done.

St. Thomas teaches (De verit., Q. xxiv, a. 10) that the chief cause of impenitence is Divine justice which refuses the damned every grace.

It would not be intrinsically impossible for God to move the damned to repentance; yet such a course would be out of keeping with the state of final reprobation.

But if the damned are impenitent, how can Scripture (Wisdom, v) say they repent of their sin? They deplore with the utmost intensity the punishment, but not the malice of sin; to this they cling more tenaciously than ever. Had they an opportunity, they would commit the sin again, not indeed for the sake of its gratification, which they found illusive, but out of sheer hatred of God. They are ashamed of their folly which led them to seek happiness in sin, but not of the malice of sin itself
(St. Thomas, Theol. comp., c. cxxv).

This is why I am Catholic, to know the truth, and all the truth that helps me to be aware of dangers before it is too late. Some resent this very thing. I welcome it and thank Jesus for this revelation.