M
MelanieAnne
Guest
That clock you hear ticking is a crocodile
- Status
E
expectthebest
Guest
I agree with many of your points. In the end, many, if not most Catholics do not follow their faith. I wonder if most people on earth aren’t going to hell. From the teaching of the Church, it seems the vast majority would be going to hell, especially the Catholics who know better. Actually, it should be harder for a knowlegable Cathlolic to get to heaven. He knows more and therfeore is responsable for more. I actually had a priest tell me once that it was harder for priests to get to heaven because they knew more.
A
Aaron409
Guest
You shouldn’t make that assumption about younger guys cause its not truly accurateBecause of our fallen, sinful nature?
Also, it’s not really something to get all worked up over. We’re all sinners. Whoopty-do. Fortunately, we have these wonderful things called Sacraments (especially Reconciliation and Eucharist) to help us repent of our wrongdoings and strengthen us to amend our ways.
If we choose not to use them, so be it. We all have free will to choose our own destruction, but sufficient grace is also given to avoid it.
Is it easy? No. Is it possible? Yes.
Oh, and it’s easy to tell who the younger guys are on the boards… they’re the ones who think it’s just NOT POSSIBLE to keep it in their pants!(hint: maybe it’s actually WON’T, not CAN’T)
A
Aaron409
Guest
Which to some degree could be true. For a sin to be a grave sin you have to know that it is and then commit it. For a priest it should be easier though especially because having and knowing God’s rules is to have freedom. Not the other way around.
N
notself
Guest
N
notself
Guest
Source please.
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Quite likely.
That is really scary. I remember being told by a CAF member some while ago that a former contributor by the name of Sixtus, had had personally experienced live tangible encounters with the Holy Spirit, so was absolutely certain beyond all doubt that God exists. So that means he would be held to account more than say most folk who had never had that personal experience and certainty.
That is really scary. Is knowledge a good thing???
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Well not so long ago a Priest was not authorised to absolve someone who had procurred an abortion. This could only be done by a Bishop. So too about 30-years ago for freemasons who plot against the CHurch. They too had to be purged by a Bishop.
But the Church sees things differently these days.
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Not ‘no such thing’? but ‘you chose not to believe it’, which is exactly what this thread is all about
Perhaps you need to speak to a canon lawyer about this and he can explain it to you better than I can.
Also for some sins one may not go to Communion just because through no fault of the penitent they could not receive Absolution.
Willful Murder is one such sin, so too procurring an abortion - which is murder by another name. Not so long ago, so too was membership of an organisation that plots against the Church.
Blessings and peace.
C
chris_molter
Guest
You’re right. I intended that remark towards a specific subset of younger male participants here who apparently DO think it’s impossible to keep it zipped.You shouldn’t make that assumption about younger guys cause its not truly accurate
No generalization towards ALL young men intended.
E
expectthebest
Guest
I’ve asked myself the same question. Wouldn’t it be easier for the ignorant person to get into heaven then the educated person? If so, why wouldn’t we try to be as ignorant as possible since heaven is the ultimate goal? And if one argues there is a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance, where is the cut off? For those Catholics who don’t study their Faith but just try to do what they’ve been taught? For those in other Christian denominations? For those not having any knowlege of Christianity?Quite likely.
That is really scary. I remember being told by a CAF member some while ago that a former contributor by the name of Sixtus, had had personally experienced live tangible encounters with the Holy Spirit, so was absolutely certain beyond all doubt that God exists. So that means he would be held to account more than say most folk who had never had that personal experience and certainty.
That is really scary. Is knowledge a good thing???
I know God wants us to know our Faith but why should knowing your Faith place in in greater jeopardy? This just doesn’t make sense.
N
notself
Guest
Mere knowledge is never enough.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
It is true that the higher one climbs the further one may fall. On the other hand voluntary ignorance does not excuse one. One is responsible for what they could have known, especially that that they deliberately ignored.
E
expectthebest
Guest
Do you think it is God’s plan for the more knowlegable about His Truth be more likely to be damned?
G
Gamera
Guest
You’ve obviously never been married. :doh2:
E
expectthebest
Guest
That’s actually pretty funny.
I do understand his point though. Humans, as animals, have remained unchanged for a long time. Instinctually and hormonally, we are basically upper paleothithic hunter/gatherers. At the core of any species is the drive to reproduce. Without this, the species dies. Therefore, just as any other animal, we have powerful hormones which shape our desire for sex. Some have greater urges than others. For some, this sexual drive is very strong and complete chastity is extremely difficult. For others chastity is very easy. I think it has to do less with where someone is in there Faith then it has to do with simple variability in the hormonal influences in individuals. This can be seen in complete atheists. In nature, those with powerful sex drives would certainly pass on their genome much more efficiently than one without this drive. So, evolutionarily, sex drive would be selected for rather than against.
It’s often difficult for me to understand how God wants humans to live given what I have described above with the harshness that the Church deals with sexuality. After all, God gave us these very powerful primal urges. This is not to say they shouldn’t be controled, but it seems there would be some understanding/leniency within the teaching of the Church.
The early Church seems to have been extremely anti human sexuality which I think stemmed from a basic misunderstanding of what it really is. I read somewhere that it was a belief around the time of Jesus that semon was actually the baby, and that if birth control was used it was like an abortion. I can’t remember where I read this and I can’t even vouch for it’s accuracy but it seems to fit within how the Church has dealt with this subject throughout the years. Throughout history, the Church has dealt with sexuality as a necessary evil for some, and certainly something to be avoided if possible. The Church has historically linked holiness to virginity. People who engage in sex, even married sex, are somehow then less holy. Anyway, I’m rambling. This is a whole other subject though, probably more suitable in a new thread.
po18guy
Well-known member
There is no such doctrine as “invincible knowledge”, only invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is rewarded, whereas invincible knowledge is likely punished. Thus, the Aborigine has hope while Hitchens, Dawkins, et al have nothing but themselves. This myopia, this stumbling about in the darkness is reflected in the bitterness and cynicism of their writings.That is really scary. Is knowledge a good thing???
Christ’s peace.
E
expectthebest
Guest
You are referring to non-religious academic knowlege. I’m specifically referring to one who studies their Faith, reads the Bible, reads the catechism, reads Cathlolic leaders writings, to get a better and deeper understanding of everything the Faith is. It is scary to me that the more one studies, even with an open heart, the harder it is to get to heaven. This doesn’t square.
Y
yellowbird
Guest
No offense, but with that attitude I feel sorry for your spouse.
po18guy
Well-known member
Actually, the concept of invincible ignorance is a church matter. Take, for example, the Sioux nation in pre-Columbian America. The Gospel had not reached them. It is thought that God’s grace is so expansive, that a Sioux member who lived uprightly and did what was right in the eyes of God might also receive justification. This soul had no possibility of knowing about Christ, because the Christians had not yet arrived on the continent. This was ignorance of Christ that could not have been overcome. It seems odd that there would have been no possibility of salvation and that all were doomed to hell.
Once taught the Gospel of Christ, salvation was a matter of accepting or rejecting the Gospel. The opposing position is that the intellectual elite, such as Dawkins and Hitchens, have heard the Gospel, and soundly rejected it. However, they are not justified before God, since they have rejected His offer of salvation. Neither are they excused because they have rationalized the need for salvation away in their own minds. You follow?
The Sioux could not have known of Christ. The intellectuals do know of him, but reject Him. That was my point, although perhaps clumsily made.
- Status