Help, I'm thinking about leaving the Church

[Magnavox]

But if you’re going to say that my father deserves hell, be very very thankful that we are not face to face, because I would kick your teeth in one by one, christian charity or not, so help me God.

Yeah. Your father deserves hell. This is a basic Christian teaching. Sin deserves punishment and everlasting hell. Which is the whole reason why Jesus Christ died in our place, so we don’t have to go to hell.

And by the way, I highly doubt your cry baby attitude “waa waa” could kick anybody’s teeth in.

 

[Magnavox]

I seriously wish a moderator would ban Erethorn. His heresy is getting extremely annoying to read over and over.

The Church never said unbaptized infants go to hell. This person is a troubled individual that needs psychological help, not Catholic answers forums.

 

[Lui]

You and NO ONE else deserves Heaven. We all deserve hell.

…and why exactly do we all deserve Hell?

Yeah. Your father deserves hell. This is a basic Christian teaching. Sin deserves punishment and everlasting hell.

You sound so bitter.

I seriously wish a moderator would ban Erethorn.

Speaking of banning…

 

[Magnavox]

…and why exactly do we all deserve Hell?

Because of sin.

You sound so bitter.

Tired of heretics. Just plain tired of them.

Speaking of banning…

Whatever.

 

[scoobydoo6v92]

I know off topic, but your name is neat. I collect old Magnavox consoles. Are you into audio??? Thanks Scoob.

 

[Lui]

Whatever.

I just felt, while reading your posts, that your comments came across extremely aggressive and judgmental. Maybe it’s just me:shrug:

 

[jmcrae]

…and why exactly do we all deserve Hell?

Because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Adam brought death into existence by his sin. Hell is the dwelling place of the dead.

 

[JenniferB]

I

On the other hand, my father, who is Catholic, will not go to every Sunday Mass, though he knows the Church teaches this to be grave sin. Again, the CCC tels that this is grave matter, mortal sin, therefore, if he should happen to die tomorow, he will go to hell.

There is no heaven for me without my family. I would rather go to hell with them. And, in the mean while, reject the Church that sends us there. I would not stop doing what I perceive as being good, helping others, but how cn the inffailible Church say that hitler, should he make a complete and perfect act of contrition, can go to Heaven, and my family not !!!

No God can be so great as to make me happy in the absence of my family.

I remember a quote from Huckleberry Finn, when Huck is told that he should be good, or else he won’t go to Heaven; he then asks whether Tom Sawyer, his friend, will go to Heaven; upon being answered that Tom won’t, he concludes: “I was content; I didn’t want to be in any place where Tom wasn’t”.

That’s how I feel.

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

Oh how I feel your pain as I am struggling with the same thing. The only difference is I grew up Catholic. I have been having many questions about the Church infallibility. So much so that my Catholic husband and I have started attending an Episcopal church. It was either that or absolutely no church at all.

I wish I had the answers for us both but I don’t. The only thing that keeps me from leaving is the guilt and the fact that it is all I know. I will pray for us both.

 

[TuAutem]

…and why exactly do we all deserve Hell?

Well, what purpose would Jesus’ passion and death on the cross serve if we had no need of a Saviour in the first place? A pretty horrible, inhumane, and unjust thing for the Son of God to go through if God could just declare the gates of heaven open for all without such measures!

I am sure what he was saying was that we all need to be saved (with all that that implies–that we need a saviour, and that without one we are doomed). That is not in any way suggesting that is not God’s desire that we should all go to heaven.

That very same sacrifice on the cross is proof of just how far God is willing to go in his love to allow the unworthy into heaven.

 

[Lui]

I am sure what he was saying was that we all need to be saved (with all that that implies–that we need a saviour, and that without one we are doomed). That is not in any way suggesting that is not God’s desire that we should all go to heaven.

See, that sounds more pleasant already
I just didn’t like this judgmental aggressive tone. At least that’s how I perceived it. I don’t remember Jesus aggressively preaching "YOU ARE ALL SINNERS WHO DON’T DESERVE HEAVEN!! YOU ALL DESERVE PUNISHMENT AND EVERLASTING HELL!!!

 

[CEM5]

Oh how I feel your pain as I am struggling with the same thing. The only difference is I grew up Catholic. I have been having many questions about the Church infallibility. So much so that my Catholic husband and I have started attending an Episcopal church. It was either that or absolutely no church at all.

I wish I had the answers for us both but I don’t. The only thing that keeps me from leaving is the guilt and the fact that it is all I know. I will pray for us both.

Hi JenniferB,

This saddens me when a Catholic turns their back on the Bride of Christ. There is only one, true, Church that Christ established, and this Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. All other ‘churches’ – congregations really – are separated from Christ’s Bride. Christ is the faithful bridegroom, as the Scriptures clearly teach.

I think there needs to be some clarificiation regarding “infallibility”. The following excerpts are from: Catholic Encylopedia newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

True meaning of infallibility

It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed:
•that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
•that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;
•that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that
•in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy — and on them exclusively — the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.

And this being assumed, the question that concerns us is whether, and in what way, and to what extent, Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority.

It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church’s infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church’s teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.

There is more in this article and can be read from the above link provided.

blessings,

 

[Erethorn]

Where does it say that they will be punished?

Hell is simply the abode of the dead. What happens in Hell depends on whether you sinned, and what your sins were, during your life. Those who committed no sin during their lives cannot be punished for things they never did.

No ?! Read again:

“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.”

I kbow you’re going to pick on the “unequal pains” bit, but remember that pain is still pain and punishment is still punishment.

So yeah, at the Council of Florence, the teaching of the Catholic Church was that unbaptized infants go to hell and be punished. Are you ok with that ?

As for the whole Jewish thing, I am surprised that you would defend the Council basically creating a ghetto, but I guess it’s your right to do so.

 

[Carlan]

No ?! Read again:
“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.”

I kbow you’re going to pick on the “unequal pains” bit, but remember that pain is still pain and punishment is still punishment.

So yeah, at the Council of Florence, the teaching of the Catholic Church was that unbaptized infants go to hell and be punished. Are you ok with that ?

Erethorn, 632. Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek- because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.

Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer; which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into“Abraham’s bosom”: “ It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.
Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before Him.
(Those holy men of the Old Testament)waiting for their hoped for Savior.

Erethorn go to the Catechism: Part one, Article 5
“He Descended into Hell on The Third Day He Rose Again“
.
We need to allow the “Teaching Authority of the Church” to interpret for us…so much to learn and get right . I am in my 85th year, and still learning’ So in the process we all have a good long way to go ! So we thank God for the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.
God bless you and yours in your journey,
Our hope is in Him!
Peace, Carlan

 

[Erethorn]

Erethorn, 632. Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek- because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.

Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer; which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into“Abraham’s bosom”: “ It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.
Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before Him.
(Those holy men of the Old Testament)waiting for their hoped for Savior.

Erethorn go to the Catechism: Part one, Article 5
“He Descended into Hell on The Third Day He Rose Again“
.
We need to allow the “Teaching Authority of the Church” to interpret for us…so much to learn and get right . I am in my 85th year, and still learning’ So in the process we all have a good long way to go ! So we thank God for the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.
God bless you and yours in your journey,
Our hope is in Him!
Peace, Carlan

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.

And that is a quote from the conciliar document.

You can try and twist the truth around as much as you wish, in an attempt to prove that black is white, right is wrong, and The Church didn’t teach what it did teach.

I deal with that kind of spin every day, it is my profession, and I’m well versed in spoting it when it shows up.

Just for your edification, the quote from the conciliar document:

“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.”

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

Since you have all acussed me of taking the quote from Cantate Domino out of it’s context, I invite you to 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”;

1. 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”.;

1. 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 the abode of the dead, where all, just or unjust, wait for the descent of Jesus. It clearly defines it as the place of the damned, and of punishment.

 

[Carlan]

. 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 the abode of the dead, where all, just or unjust, wait for the descent of Jesus. It clearly defines it as the place of the damned, and of punishment.

It has been said before in this thread, those who never committed sin(unbaptized babies) cannot suffer the pain of “hell” in the sense you are interpreting it.
Yes, I do pick up on unequal pain…there is a difference absolutely a difference otherwise it would not have been stated.

The bolded is your interpretation Urethra, It does not tell us who specifically end up there awaiting the Messiah.
Actually the Council does not refer to the unbaptized infant.
It’s is mystery , the precious unborn aborted and the other unbaptized innocents… also there is the use of common sense in this particular discussion to be considered

. Perhaps you should post your concern over this in Apologetics or, as I suggested before, make an appointment with your pastor.Peace, Carlan

 

[Magnavox]

It has been said before in this thread, those who never committed sin(unbaptized babies) cannot suffer the pain of “hell” in the sense you are interpreting it.
Yes, I do pick up on unequal pain…there is a difference absolutely a difference otherwise it would not have been stated.

The bolded is your interpretation Urethra, It does not tell us who specifically end up there awaiting the Messiah.
Actually the Council does not refer to the unbaptized infant.
It’s is mystery , the precious unborn aborted and the other unbaptized innocents… also there is the use of common sense in this particular discussion to be considered

. Perhaps you should post your concern over this in Apologetics or, as I suggested before, make an appointment with your pastor.Peace, Carlan

His desire is to try and destroy as many people’s faith as he can. He has no desire to speak to a pastor or to actually learn. He wants only to argue and question the Church on every aspect of its teaching.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Now that I have more time, I feel that I can answer you better, Erethorn. However, the suggestions and prayer by Cardinal Mercier still stand as very good ways to truly discern the Holy Spirit.

That’s what I am doing right here and now, that’s why I started this thread, because I’m looking for answers.

On the other hand, I am not here as a lawyer, but a a troubled soul who sees the edifice of his faith crumbling. The tought of eternal punishment for other people, and most of all, for those whom I love) is no longer (and I don’t really know if it ever was) compatible with my soul.

If it puts your mind at ease, learn that I am not a lawyer in America (I thought it would be obvious from my lack of spelling skills), so you are free of any potential professional missconduct of mine, unless you shall happen to come to my country and need legal assistance, in which case I would be happy to direct you to some of my more orthodox coleagues.

Let me start off with an apology: I am sorry for questioning your profession as a lawyer. My statements could actually be considered as “below the belt” and I truly am sorry for that.

I am listening to the other side’s arguments, and do my best to try to understand them, but I don’t think it’s morally correct to expect me to also accept them as the Truth, in spite of what my heart tells me.

By the way, I am perfectly capable of logically understanding your responses to my question - whether the response is “I don’t know how, I leave it to God”, or “My will shall be united with God’s will” or anything of the sort.

When I said I don’t want to understand such an ideea, what I meant was that I do not want to internalize it emotionally, because it would probably cause a fracture inside me. If I can imagine myself being happy while my father burns, in the afterlife, I fear it would twist something in me now.

Yes, I understand, and actually commendable.

By the way, may I know who these in the “other side” are?

And if I were to tell you that the Holy Spirit descended and told me the Catholic Church is mistaken, and that nobody burns in hell forever, would you believe me ? I think we both know the answer to that one, my friend. After all, there’s a lot of people who would tell you that has already happened to them: Orthodox, Protestant, Mormon, JW, not to mention Muslims or Neo-Pagans and so on. If you don’t believe them, why would you believe me ?

Well then let me tell you this: I believe that C.S. Lewis is in heaven right now, and his whole life was a result of following God’s will to the best of his abilities according to the graces given to him by God. Yet he died as an Anglican, in spite of being originally converted back to the Christian faith from atheism by his good Catholic friend J.R.R. Tolkien. Heck, in his writings he called Catholics “Romish papists” if I am not mistaken.

So how can I reconcile my personal belief in C.S. Lewis’ salvation with the “outside the Church there is no salvation” teaching of the Catholic Church?

First of all, remember that Faith is a grace: you can’t expect anyone to accept fully the teachings of the Catholic Church if God didn’t give him the grace to do so. And I think that is what happened to C.S. Lewis. Heck, in some of his writings he can see the need for the doctrine of Purgatory but he still didn’t convert!

Now why is that? Look at the fruits of his works: he has become one of the bridges between Protestantism and Catholicism. Protestants read his works because he was not Catholic and was even somewhat hostile to the Catholic Church. Catholics read his works because the teachings there are orthodox enough to be considered Catholic. I have heard of Protestants becoming Catholic with C.S. Lewis as a bridge. Here is a peculiar example, for it shows both Lewis as a bridge and as peculiarly blind to some truths of the Catholic Church: catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0033.html

I believe that the Holy Spirit withdrew the grace from Mr. Lewis for him to bear much fruit.

So what am I trying to say? I do not know whether it was the Holy Spirit who really descended and told you that the Catholic Church is wrong (I highly doubt it) but I do know that the Holy Spirit allowed that to happen for the greater good for you and others, and for the greater glory of God.

And you as well.

Thanks

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I don’t believe that. I choose not to dishonor God by believing that he would sentence a person to infinite torment for a finite mistake. Some form of attonement, purgatory, limbo, something like that, I can believe. Hell, never.

Now on this I have to say some things.

First of all, no one goes to hell because of a mistake. You have to die with unrepented mortal sin to go to hell.

Mortal sin is discussed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Wikipedia gives a good summary of the three conditions, all of which must be present for a sin to be considered mortal:

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

As you can see, a mortal sin is not a “finite mistake” but a deliberate act of serious evil.

But what does mortal sin do? It cuts one off from the Spring of Life: God Himself. And that is what hell is: separation of God. You are not sent to hell but rather you choose to go there yourself. Yes, if you die with unrepented mortal sin, in the Final Judgement (which happens in the end of the world) God will send you to Hell and He will show to all the universe why you deserve to go there, so that the universe will see He is Just, but in the Particular Judgement (which happens right after you die) you deliberately run away from God towards hell because that was your decision while you were alive on Earth: to run away from Him. And separation from God causes a soul much pain, but it is much more painful for such a soul with unrepented mortal sin to go near the fire of God’s Love and Justice. You see, that is what Purgatory is: God’s Love and Justice burning away all the stains of sin from one’s soul. And yet, if God’s Love and Justice causes much pain to a soul with the stains of previously forgiven sin on him, how much more for one in whom sin had already bonded itself to the soul!

And therefore, the sinful soul runs away from God, and seeks solace in the pains of hell, because the pain there is more bearable than the pain of being near God.

Now can you see why we Catholics can accept the possibility of our loved ones going to hell? It is painful for us to have that possibility, but when that happens, it is because they wanted to go there, and we have to respect their wishes.

God love you.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Now, about unbaptized children and hell. Here is a very interesting discussion about it: catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0710_final.pdf (go to page 24 and following).

What the article is trying to say is that there is no definite doctrine from the Catholic Church’s Magisterium on the fate of unbaptized babies. However, we can be certain of one thing:

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

But how can we reconcile this with the Council of Florence’s proclamation of those in “original sin alone go down straightaway to hell to be punished”? One interesting possible answer is this from the article above:

Cardinal Cajetan, in the sixteenth century, remarked in his commentary on the Summa Theologica (III:68:11), “that children still within the womb of their mother are able to be saved . . . through the sacrament of baptism that is received, not in reality, but
in the desire of the parents.” In our own times, Cardinal Ratzinger echoed Cajetan in a 1985 interview with Vittorio Messori.“One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo’ if need be,” the future pontiff advised. “[A]nd it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed ‘limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer” (The Ratzinger Report 147-8).

In other words, there is the possibility that just the mere desire of the parents for their child to be saved could wipe away the stain of original sin from their baby’s soul—a baptism of desire by their parents!

God love you.

 

[timeandeternity]

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