Is it possible that God can relent on the eternal punishment in Hell?

[chefmomster2]

1033= This talks of a state of hell, not a place? So after death our soul maybe in a state of separation from God, rather than a place of hell.
But then Jesus talks about his angels gathering the evil doers and throwing them into the furnace, so this is the place of hell it seems.

This question has not been answered difinitively by the Church.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Hell
catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5634

The Bible seems to indicate that hell is within the earth, for it describes hell as an abyss to which the wicked descend. We even read of the earth opening and of the wicked sinking down into hell ( Numbers 16:31 sqq. ; Psalm 54:16 ; Isaiah 5:14 ; Ezekiel 26:20 ; Philippians 2:10 , etc.).

Is this merely a metaphor to illustrate the state of separation from God ? Although God is omnipresent, He is said to dwell in heaven, because the light and grandeur of the stars and the firmament are the brightest manifestations of His infinite splendour. But the damned are utterly estranged from God ; hence their abode is said to be as remote as possible from his dwelling, far from heaven above and its light, and consequently hidden away in the dark abysses of the earth.

However, no cogent reason has been advanced for accepting a metaphorical interpretation in preference to the most natural meaning of the words of Scripture. Hence theologians generally accept the opinion that hell is really within the earth. The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know.

St. Chrysostom reminds us: “We must not ask where hell is, but how we are to escape it” (In Rom., hom. xxxi, n. 5, in P.G., LX, 674).

 

[chefmomster2]

Some arguments supporting eternal damnation…

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

…Just as God must appoint some fixed term for the time of trial, after which the just will enter into the secure possession of a happiness that can never again be lost in all eternity, so it is likewise appropriate that after the expiration of that term the wicked will be cut off from all hope of conversion and happiness.

For the malice of men cannot compel God to prolong the appointed time of probation and to grant them again and again, without end, the power of deciding their lot for eternity. Any obligation to act in this manner would be unworthy of God, because** it would make Him dependent on the caprice of human malice, would rob His threats in great part of their efficacy, and would offer the amplest scope and the strongest incentive to human presumption.**

God has actually appointed the end of this present life, or the moment of death, as the term of man’s probation. For in that moment there takes place in our life an essential and momentous change; from the state of union with the body the soul passes into a life apart. No other sharply defined instant of our life is of like importance. Hence we must conclude that death is the end of our probation; for it is meet that our trial should terminate at a moment of our existence so prominent and significant as to be easily perceived by every man. Accordingly, it is the belief of all people that eternal retribution is dealt out immediately after death. This conviction of mankind is an additional proof of our thesis.

Finally, the preservation of moral and social order would not be sufficiently provided for, if men knew that the time of trial were to be continued after death.

 

[Amandil]

Some arguments supporting eternal damnation…

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

…Just as God must appoint some fixed term for the time of trial, after which the just will enter into the secure possession of a happiness that can never again be lost in all eternity, so it is likewise appropriate that after the expiration of that term the wicked will be cut off from all hope of conversion and happiness.

For the malice of men cannot compel God to prolong the appointed time of probation and to grant them again and again, without end, the power of deciding their lot for eternity. Any obligation to act in this manner would be unworthy of God, because** it would make Him dependent on the caprice of human malice, would rob His threats in great part of their efficacy, and would offer the amplest scope and the strongest incentive to human presumption.**

God has actually appointed the end of this present life, or the moment of death, as the term of man’s probation. For in that moment there takes place in our life an essential and momentous change; from the state of union with the body the soul passes into a life apart. No other sharply defined instant of our life is of like importance. Hence we must conclude that death is the end of our probation; for it is meet that our trial should terminate at a moment of our existence so prominent and significant as to be easily perceived by every man. Accordingly, it is the belief of all people that eternal retribution is dealt out immediately after death. This conviction of mankind is an additional proof of our thesis.

Finally, the preservation of moral and social order would not be sufficiently provided for, if men knew that the time of trial were to be continued after death.

 

[Rospotrebnadzor]

We are in hell right now. The two witnesses are to become the 7 angels who come back and avenge the blood of the saints shed by those who live on earth. The saints shall rule with a rod of iron, but time is cyclic, the future is now. Unlike the saints, upon whom the second death has no power, those who live on earth fall asleep only to dream the very nightmare where they fell asleep. The bottomless pit of Gehenna.

Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. (Revelation 16.15)

 

[OneSheep]

So does that mean you were protestant for a time or you just looked into it?

I had a protestant girlfriend who very repectfully did not let me leave my Church. It was a year, and I really discovered, with her Church and on a retreat, what it meant for a young person to make Christ the center of one’s life. I was just a kid. Later, I became a bit anti-protestant, but I was young and foolish. (I was really caught up in the divisiveness aspect)

I think we have been to the “disappointment” place before. Maybe if you projected that God was really, really disappointed in you, you might sense that there is a separation? Like, “I really let God down.”? So, some people sense this disappointment much more strongly. My parents could be very disappointed at me, and they would take a long time to forget my errors. This may be a reason why I projected God the same way, and how I can understand some of the more conditionally loving projections people have.

The parents are, after all, the first catechists. They show us what God is like.

 

[glendab]

Hello Godspells.

None of these questions have anything to do with original sin.

The real question: Are you guilty for crimes you did not commit?

If you say no, then you do not believe in original sin. Although we can distinguish between what is the “guilt” of “the” original sin and the “curse” of “the” original sin. One can suffer the curse of a father leaving his son a mound of debt, yet that son is not guilty of accumulating that debt.

This is one real problem I see in catholic theology. There is constantly an emphasis on the judicial lens of the Christian faith, but it is often more useful to look at it through the medical lens.

On this thread there is a tendency of viewing hell as a punitive punishment rather than a consequential one. If I steal $100 and am caught and the judge orders me to pay back the $100 and $100 more for trying to steal it, that is a fair and equitable punishment, but it is punitive.

However, if I have E-Coli, and the doctor tells me to take this medication and I refuse, I’m going to be punished by the unfiltered symptoms of the disease, but it is a consequential punishment, not a punitive one.

Hell, specifically, is the terminal state of untreated sin. It is not a judicial punishment because no temporal sin warrants eternal punishment as that would violate “an eye for an eye” (punishment should fit the crime). So in that case, the punishment is perfect, because the warning of allowing unrepentant sin to persist until death would engender eternal torment was given in the Gospel. But it can also be relented without compromising the perfection of punishment as God has no obligation to punish the wicked. He made a covenant with the righteous not the wicked.

I have an issue with the last few things you conclude: that the Covenant is with the righteous not the wicked. The Covenants, both the Old and the New are with all mankind, not just the Jews, but with Jews and Gentiles alike. If is was any different, then there would be a perpetually apart group of people who could never hope to inherit the Kingdom.

I also feel strongly that the reasons some have a hard time discussing this particular doctrine of the Church, Hell, is that there seems to be not only a lack of catechesis but a lack of meditation upon it. It is no longer a background thought in the minds of many modern Catholics. And if you told folks that is it good to have a fear of Hell, they’d generally rebuke you.

Glenda

 

[Godspells]

Hello Godspells.

I have an issue with the last few things you conclude: that the Covenant is with the righteous not the wicked. The Covenants, both the Old and the New are with all mankind, not just the Jews, but with Jews and Gentiles alike. If is was any different, then there would be a perpetually apart group of people who could never hope to inherit the Kingdom.

I also feel strongly that the reasons some have a hard time discussing this particular doctrine of the Church, Hell, is that there seems to be not only a lack of catechesis but a lack of meditation upon it. It is no longer a background thought in the minds of many modern Catholics. And if you told folks that is it good to have a fear of Hell, they’d generally rebuke you.

Glenda

What I meant by the matter you took issue with is that God promised to work within the sacraments of the New Testament, inasfar as I can tell, He did not promise to not work with those outside of the sacraments, and I believe that is consistent with Catholic theology.

As to your second statement, the term I usually use is that it is good to have a “healthy” fear. I personally believe in hell, I just don’t believe anyone is in their as I cannot think of any other way for the purpose of the cross to be fulfilled in its entirety. However, I fully recognize a person’s right by their own free will to choose to turn away from God and persist in that till the end. Therein lies our “healthy” fear. Many evangelicals have made hell the center of their theology which I believe has harmed Christianity in general. Also the proposition that hell is punitive rather than consequential offends people’s sense of justice.

 

[arte]

wow, that’s quite a list of anti catholic teaching you’ve got going there. well behind? you think that a protestant doctrine you agree with puts the church founded by Jesus Christ ‘well behind’? it’s about truth, not making up nice little doctrines to make people feel good. although, that does bring in the parishioners and keeps the coffers overflowing.

Yep, it does put the Catholic Church well behind not only the Protestant Church but more importantly the Eastern Orthodox Churches (officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church) as well on the particular doctrine of Limbo. Your post does not even mention the Eastern Orthodox Churches who also claim that they were the Church founded by Jesus Christ! As you can tell from my list, I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant. However, you sound as you’re the kind of person that does believe that the Bible is inerrant. Also, because you say “it’s about truth and not making up nice little doctrines”, **please inform me of the chapter and verse in the Bible that specifically mentions the word Limbo and that unbaptised babies will go there for eternity. ** Never mind the Protestant Church, please inform the Eastern Orthodox Churches that their teaching on Limbo just “makes people feel good and keeps the coffers overflowing”.

 

[chefmomster2]

Yep, it does put the Catholic Church well behind not only the Protestant Church but more importantly the Eastern Orthodox Churches (officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church) as well on the particular doctrine of Limbo. Your post does not even mention the Eastern Orthodox Churches who also claim that they were the Church founded by Jesus Christ! As you can tell from my list, I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant. However, you sound as you’re the kind of person that does believe that the Bible is inerrant. Also, because you say “it’s about truth and not making up nice little doctrines”, **please inform me of the chapter and verse in the Bible that specifically mentions the word Limbo and that unbaptised babies will go there for eternity. ** Never mind the Protestant Church, please inform the Eastern Orthodox Churches that their teaching on Limbo just “makes people feel good and keeps the coffers overflowing”.

You are behind the times. Limbo was NEVER dogma of the Church. It is not mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it was clearly declared to be a teaching which Catholics need not accept on January 19, 2007 when Pope Benedict approved a document peblished by a Vatican Commission which studied the matter. The document is, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized”. You can read it here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. **This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.[/INDENT]

There is no mention of “Limbo” in the Bible, but the Catholic Church never claimed there was.

108 Still, the **Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.”**73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74

The insistence on actual, specific mention in the Bible for every teaching is ridiculous. The lack of mention does not imply that a teaching is somehow flawed. All Church teaching is seriously considered in the light of scripture and tradition and arises out of this consideration. There are a multitude of teachings not specified in the Bible in many Christian denominations. There are many direct teachings of the Bible which are not accepted by the Christian Churches which hold a literal interpretation of scripture.

The question on Limbo does nothing to dispute the idea that the Bible is inerrant.**

 

[chefmomster2]

The real question: Are you guilty for crimes you did not commit? If you say no, then you do not believe in original sin.

You are incorrect about this. In fact, most of your “complaints” are based on your misunderstanding of Catholuc teaching rather than on the true doctrine taught by the Church.405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". **Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.**We are weakened by the beginiing of sin, but we are not “punished” for it. We are not held guilty for the sin particular to Adam and Eve. What we inherit is a tendency to sin. This is offset by the merciful gift of salvific grace, the sacraments, the help of the Holy Spirit and the Resurrection of the Lord.

One can suffer the curse of a father leaving his son a mound of debt, yet that son is not guilty of accumulating that debt.

NABRE: John 9:1-3
The Man Born Blind
As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him,b “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him. Based on this and other scripture we do not hold that anyone is guilty for any sins besides his own. A person might inherit difficulties when they seek to repair the effects of the choices of his parents. The choice may or may not have been sinful. “Mistakes” are not sins.

On this thread there is a tendency of viewing hell as a punitive punishment rather than a consequential one.

I totally agree with you here. In fact, this is also true of heaven. Heaven and Hell are neither reward nor punishment. They are our ultimate and actual choice.

But it can also be relented without compromising the perfection of punishment as God has no obligation to punish the wicked. He made a covenant with the righteous not the wicked.

This is also untrue. God is NOT merely a God of Mercy. This is an absolute quality of God, but when it is overly emphasized it can lead one to error in approaching topics such as Hell.

God is a God of mercy and justice. He has promised justice for all- the guilty and the innocent. He has promised to respect the ultimate chouce of the conscious and consenting free will of each of us. God keeps His promises!

In addition, the Catholic Church definitively holds as a point of dogma: 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell **and its eternity. **Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification592 or immediately,593-or immediate and **everlasting damnation.**594While we may seek understanding of dogma, we must accept it in obedience to the Church.Catholuc Encyclopedia: Dogma: Now, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. All doctrines defined by the Church as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths; and the deliberate denial of one of these dogmas certainly involves the sin of heresy. Finally, covenant: God offered the covenant ** not to the righteous, who gave no need of it, but for the sinful!**Catholic Encyclopedia: Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 16):
newadvent.org/fathers/0103416.htm

1. Why, then, did the Lord not form the covenant for the fathers? Because the law was not established for righteous men. 1 Timothy 1:9 But the righteous fathers had the meaning of the Decalogue written in their hearts and souls, that is, they loved the God who made them, and did no injury to their neighbour. …There was therefore no occasion that they should be cautioned by prohibitory mandates (correptoriis literis), because they had the righteousness of the law in themselves.

But when this righteousness and love to God had passed into oblivion, and became extinct in Egypt, God did necessarily, because of His great goodwill to men, reveal Himself by a voice, and led the people with power out of Egypt, in order that man might again become the disciple and follower of God; and He afflicted those who were disobedient, that they should not contemn their Creator; and He fed them with manna, that they might receive food for their souls (uti rationalem acciperent escam); as also Moses says in Deuteronomy: And fed you with manna, which your fathers did not know, that you might know that man does not live by bread alone; but by every word of God proceeding out of His mouth does man live. Deuteronomy 8:3 …

 

[Tom_Baum]

Amandil

You wrote, “Thirdly, Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is necessarily traced back through Abraham and Noah to Adam. To reject Adam and Noah is in a way a rejection of Jesus’s humanity itself.”

Actually, Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is NOT “traced back” at all, at least not in the bible.

Both genealogies in the bible that refer to Jesus actually go to or from Joseph.

Joseph was NOT Jesus’s biological parent therefore both “genealogies” concern the person that God picked to be the “foster father” of Jesus and to help raise and protect Jesus when Jesus was absolutely helpless like every other human baby.

If there is a “genealogy” somewhere concerning Mary this must be what you are referring too, is there?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Amandil

You wrote, “Naturally any covenant comes with certain moral obligations which must be met to maintain the relationship.”

I suppose that you are speaking concerning those on both sides of the covenant, in other words any covenant between God and man, this would be God on one side and man, individually and/or collectively, on the other side.

God clearly says, I believe it is in more than one place, that even if we, individually and/or collectively, break the covenant, God will uphold His end of the covenant.

Who knows, maybe God knew/knows something about our covenant keeping and God let us know beforehand/or at hand, that God’s covenant would hold with just One side keeping it provided that the One side was God’s side.

So this could be another example of “My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts”.

 

[chefmomster2]

The Genealogy of Jesus
1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.*
2 Abraham…Isaac…Jacob…Judah
3 Judah…Perez…Hezron…Ram,
4 Ram…Amminadab…Nahshon…Salmon,
5 Salmon…Boaz…Obed…Jesse,
6 Jesse…David…Solomon
7 Solomon…Rehoboam…Abijah…Asaph.
8 Asaph…Jehoshaphat…Joram…Uzziah.
9 Uzziah…Jotham…Ahaz…Hezekiah.
10 Hezekiah…Manasseh…Amos…Josiah.
11 Josiah…Jechoniah
12 Jechoniah…Shealtiel…Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel…Abiud…Eliakim…Azor,
14 Azor…Zadok…Achim…Eliud,
15 Eliud…Eleazar…Matthan…Jacob,
16 Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.

The genealogy descends from Joseph. Since Joseph is his adoptive father, this is not indicative of his humanity. It is a way of expressing the continuity of God’s plan for His people from the earliest patriarchs and as a fulfillment of a faithful God’s promises.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The Genealogy of Jesus
1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.*
2 Abraham…Isaac…Jacob…Judah
3 Judah…Perez…Hezron…Ram,
4 Ram…Amminadab…Nahshon…Salmon,
5 Salmon…Boaz…Obed…Jesse,
6 Jesse…David…Solomon
7 Solomon…Rehoboam…Abijah…Asaph.
8 Asaph…Jehoshaphat…Joram…Uzziah.
9 Uzziah…Jotham…Ahaz…Hezekiah.
10 Hezekiah…Manasseh…Amos…Josiah.
11 Josiah…Jechoniah
12 Jechoniah…Shealtiel…Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel…Abiud…Eliakim…Azor,
14 Azor…Zadok…Achim…Eliud,
15 Eliud…Eleazar…Matthan…Jacob,
16 Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.

The genealogy descends from Joseph. Since Joseph is his adoptive father, this is not indicative of his humanity. It is a way of expressing the continuity of God’s plan for His people from the earliest patriarchs and as a fulfillment of a faithful God’s promises.

So you are agreeing with the statement that, “Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is NOT “traced back” at all, at least not in the bible”, aren’t you?

 

[NunWhoPrays]

Hi everyone! I am new to the forum. I think it is important to define what the unforgiveable sin is. The unforgiveable sin is blasphemy, according to holy scriptures, against the Holy Spirit. But basically, the unforgiveable is blasphemy not only against the Holy Spirit, but against God the Father, against Jesus, and against Mary. Many people have described the unforgiveable sin as dying in a state of unrepentance. Ultimately, it is blasphemy against Mary, because through Mary, we receive salvation, which is Jesus Christ. I do understand that this is difficult for people to think about, because it is so evil. Many people will define the unforgiveable sin as rejection of God, which would translate into rejecting Jesus Christ, Mary, the Holy Spirit, and the predestined. This is also true, but I am just saying it in a different way. I would not fret if you have believed you might have committed the unforgiveable sin in the past. Just call out to God, and He will answer you. For those of them who truly have committed it, they will never come into the presence of God and choose to live and to love. I would not worry at all that you are going to Hell. I might have thought I was going to Hell in the past… but this is only because I was worried that I might have committed a sin. You are very dear to me, and I just wanted to share what I know with the rest of you on this forum, and to pray as much as possible for you, because I love you so much.

 

[glendab]

Hello Godspells.

What I meant by the matter you took issue with is that God promised to work within the sacraments of the New Testament, inasfar as I can tell, He did not promise to not work with those outside of the sacraments, and I believe that is consistent with Catholic theology.

As to your second statement, the term I usually use is that it is good to have a “healthy” fear. I personally believe in hell, I just don’t believe anyone is in their as I cannot think of any other way for the purpose of the cross to be fulfilled in its entirety. However, I fully recognize a person’s right by their own free will to choose to turn away from God and persist in that till the end. Therein lies our “healthy” fear. Many evangelicals have made hell the center of their theology which I believe has harmed Christianity in general. Also the proposition that hell is punitive rather than consequential offends people’s sense of justice.

Thank you for the clarification. Sacraments are one thing and the Covenant is another thing to my way of seeing it and I don’t use the words interchangeably. I guess I should consider that a possibility next time. Thanks again.

As for Hell being the “center” of the theology of the Evangelicals, I am afraid I am not as familiar with their theology as you are, so I’ll have to take your word for it that Hell can be a centerpiece for a particular theology of an evangelical nature. I really don’t think Christianity as a whole is harmed by any particular denomination’s theology. They are free to believe anything they want and they do and what they believe changes all the time and words have two meanings when you speak with them. They harm themselves by this, not the Church which is the whole of Christianity. Those outside the Church may very well be connected to the Church by their Baptisms, but they are still our separated brothers and sisters and they need our prayers to return or Hell is their reality for all of eternity. But I don’t really want to open that can of worms in this particular thread. Too far off topic.

Trust me - there really are persons and demons in Hell. Never doubt that. But as to particular persons, we aren’t at liberty to say although I’ve listened more than once to the supposition that it is a safe bet to include both Hitler and Judas Iscariot in the mix.

A person’s “sense of justice” is not the arbiter of what actual justice is. God is the source of the virtue of Justice. It is perfect when it is His. Hell is both punitive and consequential as well as few other things. Your incomprehension is understandable though for it’s mystery has lost much of it proper meaning to folks these days. There really isn’t proper catechesis regarding Hell any more and that is because for many, it is interpreted as a “scare tactic” and to be avoided. I am of a mind to say that there are plenty of folks who could benefit from a good scare every now and again. And the best place for that to happen is in Church. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I heard a Franciscan say that and he felt it was a genuine calling to preach just that way.

Glenda

 

[arte]

Hello Arte.

Thank you for the thought out reply and your honestly. It is admirable to see such candor. I guess that pretty much clears it up for me. I understand your point of view now that you have stated clearly what you have trouble with. I recommend that you take your dis-belief to your Parish Priest and maybe talk to him face to face for a while. He may be able to help you. But then again, since you have no belief that there is a Hell, you have nothing to fear about the rest. Saved. Your pretty much saved in that sense. And once saved, always saved, so no need to talk to a Priest about what you cannot accept or believe about the Catholic faith.

Thank you again for you honestly and candor. I learned much.

Glenda

Hi Glendab,

Many thanks Glenda for your reply. I mean “many thanks” because I learnt so much from my research into our Church and other Christian denominations in order to answer your post. One very important point I noticed was that our Church has meticulously researched and written about every article of faith in the Church. Some other Christian denominations have also tried to do this and some have done very well but none of them are as successful as our Church in this matter.

I had to be honest in my reply to you because as a Christian I could not lie even though I knew that I was leaving myself wide open to more flak from other members of the forum. This flak has already started. We obviously do not agree on every article of faith in our Church but you come across to me as a very devout Catholic Christian.

God bless

Arte

 

[chefmomster2]

So you are agreeing with the statement that, “Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is NOT “traced back” at all, at least not in the bible”, aren’t you?

Absolutely!

 

[arte]

I wouldn’t call arte a “protestant”, but it’s clear by his own admission that he stands by beliegs which are obviously and objectively heretical.

He apparently believes that truth is told not by the Church but by the clock or calender.

I was asked by Glendab: “Can you tell us what other of our Catholic beliefs you really don’t believe?” As a Christian, I cannot lie so I gave Glendab the list knowing full well that I would get some flak from other forum members. However replies like: “He apparently believes that truth is told not by the Church but by the clock or calendar” does not help anyone in their walk in faith **and are at best disrespectful. **

I obviously cannot be objective in evaluating my list of disbeliefs but for me my list shows that I believe in a God who has infinite love, mercy, grace and forgiveness. To help me and maybe others on this forum in their walk in faith, **please reply with an objective criticism of Number 7 in my list which is: ** I do not believe in: “Any passage in the Old Testament where God supposedly helps or condones the murder of men, women and children, rape, forced marriages, and pillage”.

 

[glendab]

Hello Arte.

Hi Glendab,

Many thanks Glenda for your reply. I mean “many thanks” because I learnt so much from my research into our Church and other Christian denominations in order to answer your post. One very important point I noticed was that our Church has meticulously researched and written about every article of faith in the Church. Some other Christian denominations have also tried to do this and some have done very well but none of them are as successful as our Church in this matter.

I had to be honest in my reply to you because as a Christian I could not lie even though I knew that I was leaving myself wide open to more flak from other members of the forum. This flak has already started. We obviously do not agree on every article of faith in our Church but you come across to me as a very devout Catholic Christian.

God bless

Arte

Goodie! You replied! I’m glad you did because I was itching to ask one more little question of you since you were so kind and daring to share what you really believe with us here at CAF! Bravo for bravery! Now, for the one more little question I have about your personal spiritual terrain: Do you believe in an unconditional love of God for you and if you do, how does that work itself out with the other things you revealed about yourself?

Glenda