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

[arte]

You wrote, “But unfortunately with free will, the will of God is not always chosen.”

Since it is written, “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.”

Is it also because of free will that many think that “God’s will coming to Fruition” is impossible?

Just because we can’t “see” how God could possibly have everyone come to God without interferring with their free will does NOT mean that God doesn’t know how.

“They have eyes but do not see, they have ears but do not hear”.

Divine Mercy and Divine Justice are so intertwined as to be One.

Sure does seem as if some think that some will receive Divine Justice, as sick as their beliefs of just what Divine Justice is and that some will receive Divine Mercy.
As much as some might wish they could, no one can slice and dice God.

Just as God Is a Trinity and yet One, it follows that there is not a God of Divine Mercy and also a God of Divine Justice.

Hi Tom,

It’s good to see that someone else on this forum can see past just quoting Church dogma from the CCC even when that dogma dictates a sick form of Divine Justice. Well done. I salute you for using common sense and Christian love for our fellow man.

 

[Tom_Baum]

But what is your point? Are you saying we can sin and do our free will and still get into heaven? How is it possible to do our own free will which if it would be sin, and be okay with God’s will also?

My point is that if God is Omniscient than God “knew” everything that everyone would do that God was going to create even before God created any one of them so with that in mind, GOD’S MIND so to speak, God came up with a PLAN even before creation and that God’s Plan is catholic.

Jesus took ALL OF EVERYONE’S SINS UPON HIMSELF on the cross, isn’t that a teaching of what the meaning of the cross is?

I am NOT saying that people will not be judged.

I am NOT saying that people will not be punished.

I AM SAYING that even though we may or may not have a thought of just how God can have a Plan that somehow or another is catholic in relationship to the SALVATION OF MAN, humanity, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t and that God’s Plan for God’s Will to come to Fruition will, indeed, come to Fruition.

If you are saying we can use our free will to choose to do the will of God and stay our of the state of Sin I totally agree. Our will can and should line up.

I do not know if this is a teaching of the Church or not but I believe that the Church has said that we are ALL sinners, doesn’t it?

Matter of fact, doesn’t someone in the bible say that if someone says that they are not a sinner than they are a liar?

Of course, I, personally, take this to mean one who is above the “age of reason” and that also has the ability to reason.

But what you seem to be saying is we can still sin and do our own free will, and still believe we can rely on the mercy of God and continue to sin all we want and continue to remain in a state of Grace.

I don’t know about anyone else but I, most definitely, need to rely on God’s Mercy and I think/believe that everyone else needs to rely on God’s Mercy.

As I have stated elsewhere, I think/believe that God’s Justice and God’s Mercy are so intertwined as to be ONE.

Are you relying on yourself to get to the “good place”?

Whether we sin or not, we ALL “do our own free will”, do you consider “free will” a sin?

Unless I am totally not getting what you are trying to say, Maybe say it clearer or another way. Thanks.

God paid the ransom for ALL on the cross, just as it says, is this clearer?

Do you consider Catholicism/Christianity to be about the Salvation of One or the SALVATION OF ALL BY ONE?

 

[Tom_Baum]

This is a faulty conclusion. I disagree on these points:* That the salvation of nearly all must mean that God is in collusion with Satan. * That the salvation of all but one of mankind could be a victory for the devil.* That His will could be thwarted.* That Satan could win the battle for mankind.

Consider God’s plan.759 "The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,"150 to which he calls all men in his Son.

2822 Our Father "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."95 He "is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish."…

A plan born in the Father’s heart. 294 The glory of God consists in the realization of this manifestation and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created. God made us "to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace"…139 The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become “all in all”, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude."140So, God created us all to come to Him through His Son, to give Him praise and glory, not wishing for any to perish. However, He granted us free will and while this means we may choose not to adore Him, he wouldn’t have it any other way!

1847 "God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."…If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."117

Therefore, if there were only one in hell, that would be glorious! God promised to all of mankind that if we do as He says and remain faithful we will be united with Him in heaven. If all but one is there, His plan is fulfilled. If many are there, it is fulfilled all the same.

Don’t confuse individual free will and God’s plan for salvation. Despite the sinful choices we make every day, God’s plan will be completed according to His will. Some may not participate in our final salvation due to unrepented mortal sin, but God’s ultimate plan will succeed.

312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."…

2824 In Christ, and through his human will, the will of the Father has been perfectly fulfilled once for all.

2853 Victory over the "prince of this world"169 was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life.

I am familiar with the term Church Militant. It is one of the three traditional divisions of the Christianity: Church militant, Church Triumphant and Church Repentant. Church Militant includes Christians who are alive on earth, Church Triumphant is the souls in Heaven, and Church Repentant is made up of the Christians being purified in Purgatory. I have no idea what “breathers” means.

Sorry. I don’t know what you are referring to.

I never suggested that you shouldn’t. I do it all the time. My point was that the prayer cannot be used to assert that those in hell can still be saved.

Absolutely! It is a wonderful prayer. Again I was merely stating that this is a prayer for those who are in Purgatory whose time there can be reduced by our sacrifices for them, and those of us alive who always need His mercy.

What exactly are you referring to? I am not questioning the beauty or holiness of this prayer. I am disagreeing with your personal interpretation of its wording in your previous post. Those are vastly different things.

Certainly God in His mercy can lead souls of the Church Militant and the Church Repentent.

It depends upon your definition of “new”. It is thought to have been the work of a disfigured monk named Hermannus Contractus who died in 1054. That was about 500 years before the Council of Trent.

Just to clarify:

I believe…

• that if a person dies with unrepented mortal sin, the time for conversion is over, which is the Church teaching. They will be placed, by their choice, in Hell.
• that we cannot know how many people are in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory.
• that God wishes to save us all, but that some, none or even many may not be converted before death.

In this post, one of the things that you wrote is, “Therefore, if there were only one in hell, that would be glorious!”

Would you consider it “glorious” if you were the ONE in hell?

 

[Amandil]

Hi Tom,

It’s good to see that someone else on this forum can see past just quoting Church dogma from the CCC even when that dogma dictates a sick form of Divine Justice. Well done. I salute you for using common sense and Christian love for our fellow man.

From St. Paul:

"For if I am delayed, one ought know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."(1 Tim 3:15)

From St.John:
"They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them.
We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error.(1 John 4:6).

The “love” you are purporting to have is a blind love, it is not Christian love.

Christian love is not blind love, it is love based upon the truth.

Not only that, you blaspheme and dishonor the Church and her authority as our Mother.

It’s quite clear to me where the spirit of error lies.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Hi Tom,

It’s good to see that someone else on this forum can see past just quoting Church dogma from the CCC even when that dogma dictates a sick form of Divine Justice. Well done. I salute you for using common sense and Christian love for our fellow man.

Thank you for your encouragement, we are called to encourage one another and I appreciate it.

I believe that one of the things that Jesus tried to teach us is to think and also that His invitation to “Come follow Me”, means simply what it says, nothing more and nothing less.

I would rather be the worst follower of Jesus than the best follower of the best follower of Jesus.

There are things that I believe and there are things that I do not believe and there are a few things that I know.

One of the things that I do NOT believe is that God asked us to be better and more forgiving than God.

One of the things that I do believe is that since Jesus is supposed to be a liaison between God and man, than Jesus’s invitation to “Come follow Me” is a call thru Catholicism/Christianity for us to be a liaison, somehow or another, between Jesus and others, which, in some way or another, encompasses ALL.

 

[Tom_Baum]

From St. Paul:

"For if I am delayed, one ought know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."(1 Tim 3:15)

From St.John:
"They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them.
We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error.(1 John 4:6).

The “love” you are purporting to have is a blind love, it is not Christian love.

Christian love is not blind love, it is love based upon the truth.

Not only that, you blaspheme and dishonor the Church and her authority as our Mother.

It’s quite clear to me where the spirit of error lies.

The “Love” that I have spoken of is that when I met God the Father, I, instantly if not quicker, came to the realization that what I was taught in second grade that “GOD IS LOVE” is quite literal.

In that Love is NOT an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

I have also stated previously that “knowing” that God Is a Being of Love as opposed to Love being a mere attribute of God very much influences the way that I “look” at God.

“Father forgive them, they know not what they do”, does this sound like a “blind love” to you?

Sometimes it is good to take a “blind leap of faith” with our eyes wide open.

 

[Amandil]

The “Love” that I have spoken of is that when I met G. the Father, I, instantly if not quicker, came to the realization that what I was taught in second grade that “GOD IS LOVE” is quite literal.

In that Love is NOT an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

I have also stated previously that “knowing” that God Is a Being of Love as opposed to Love being a mere attribute of God very much influences the way that I “look” at God.

“Father forgive them, they know not what they do”, does this sound like a “blind love” to you?

Sometimes it is good to take a “blind leap of faith” with our eyes wide open.

1. None of what I posted above was directed at you or anything that you wrote. I did write a post directed towards you (# 875) and would appreciate an answer.
2. None of the content of your post is a direct response to anything that I mentioned in the post you responded to. All you did was just repeat things which were totally irrelevant to my comments directed towards arte.

It helps in any discussion to actually engage them, not just repeat preconceived ideas over and over.

 

[Kurisu35712]

The “Love” that I have spoken of is that when I met God the Father, I, instantly if not quicker, came to the realization that what I was taught in second grade that “GOD IS LOVE” is quite literal.

In that Love is NOT an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

I have also stated previously that “knowing” that God Is a Being of Love as opposed to Love being a mere attribute of God very much influences the way that I “look” at God.

“Father forgive them, they know not what they do”, does this sound like a “blind love” to you?

Sometimes it is good to take a “blind leap of faith” with our eyes wide open.

Several things I feel need to be addressed, at least for my own understanding and clarification.

God is Love. No one has challenged this, and in fact everyone is in agreement on this point. What is not in agreement is what “love” means and entails. From the perspective of most people on this thread that disagree with you, telling people that they need to change their ways and align themselves with the will of God, and so avoid Hell in the afterlife, IS love. Also pertinent is that none on this thread want anyone to end up in Hell. However, Jesus Himself said that there are people there, and we understand that they are there due to their own choice, not some sort of lack of mercy from God. It is their rejection of mercy that landed them there.

Also you often mention about when you met God. This personal revelation may have had a profound impact on your interpretations, and it isn’t my place or area of expertise to question that, but understand that we cannot use that experience as a reference or source of information for ourselves. The only objective source we have to draw from is the Catholic Church, Bible and Catechism included. We have the lives of the Saints and their writings, but we cannot use your own anecdotal evidence, as among other things, it hasn’t been verified by the Church. We may be able to reach a common understanding using other resources, but for the sake of discussion, we cannot simply take you at your word.

It would be wonderful and glorious if no souls were in Hell. Amandil’s point that it would be glorifying God regardless who is in Heaven or Hell is simply that, if there are souls in Hell, they are there by their own choices. Among other things, they represent God’s respect for our choices, even if it means eternal separation from Him. Because if one is in Hell, it is one’s own choices that led them there. Hell is simply a consequence of willful separation from God. And going there requires mortal sin to be on one’s soul. Which requires 1) committing a grave sin, 2) knowledge of the gravity and consequence of that sin, and 3) full freedom of will to commit said sin. If any one of those are not present, the sin is not mortal, though it may be grave. Anyone in Hell had to meet those 3 qualifications. They HAD to knowingly reject God to end up there.

Someone on either this thread or a similar one I was following posted a story about a saint (I think) who was contacted by souls in Purgatory. Something along those lines. There was a priest and a prostitute who died. The woman was told that the prostitute was either in Purgatory a short time or directly in Heaven, whereas the priest was either in Purgatory for a long time or in Hell. She didn’t know what they were, just their gender. The villagers told her she couldn’t have been right, because the woman who died was a prostitute. The souls then told her that the prostitute (who was hit by a train I think) went to Heaven quickly because in her final moments she surrendered herself to God, and prayed that she could do better for Him in the next life, having failed Him in this one. The priest apparently embezzled funds and something something corrupt. I’d have to look it up again, but the meaning stuck with me. I’ll post a link if I find it later.

 

[Amandil]

To clarify:

I have also stated previously that “knowing” that God Is a Being of Love as opposed to Love being a mere attribute of God very much influences the way that I “look” at God.

Good for you, but that spirit, and whatever ideas you take from it, must necessarily be tested against the teaching of the Church. And if your ideas don’t identify with the Church, you must set them aside.

Such as universal salvation.
Tom Baum:

“Father forgive them, they know not what they do”, does this sound like a “blind love” to you?

No it doesn’t. But forgiveness offered is not forgiveness received.

Like all gifts they require one to be there to accept it. Until it is accepted, there is no exchange, no relationship.
Tom Baum:

Sometimes it is good to take a “blind leap of faith” with our eyes wide open.

For God and with the Church, yes. For your mixed up ideas that are contrary to the Church, I don’t think so.

 

[powerofk]

We have to remind ourselves - continuously - that, according to Divine Justice, we all deserve Hell. Heaven has only been opened to us as a possibility due to Divine Mercy - that of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, offering Himself as an eternal sacrifice for all humanity, and then conquering death itself through the Resurrection. Yet, we can reject this sacrifice. Any time we commit a mortal sin, we reject this eternal sacrifice - and True Love. When we repent, and go to confession, we place our sins at the foot of the cross and allow Jesus to take them upon Himself.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Aquinas on God’s will:

So, as we have repeatedly stated, when Paul expresses God’s will in 1 Timothy that “all men be saved”, this is necessarily a statement before any actual judgment by God and not a necessary or consequential statement affirming universal salvation, as Tom has been presupposing.

This I pose to Tom:

Thomas Aquinas is recognized not only as a Doctor of the Church but as a deeply spiritual, many would even argue that he was a mystic along with Sts. Anthony of Egypt, John of the Cross, and Teresa of Avila among many others. His works are considered the supreme synthesis and epitome of Christian doctrine and tradition.

Is this great Saint “putting God in a box” when his words expressly contradict your interpretation of 1 Timothy and utterly reject your idea of universal salvation, calling it a “failure”?

One thing that he does seem to do is to take a simple, straightforward statement, “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” and make it rather complicated.

One of the things about Thomas Aquinas’s written words, at least what is so simply written in 1 Tim, is that he seems to come up with ways of saying that something does not say what it so simply says that it says or at least that is what it seems that you are saying.

One does not have to believe that “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.” but to say that it does not say what it says is, well what would you say that is?

Didn’t Jesus say something about revealing to the simple what is hidden from the learned?

You wrote, “So, as we have repeatedly stated, when Paul expresses God’s will in 1 Timothy that “all men be saved”, this is necessarily a statement before any actual judgment by God and not a necessary or consequential statement affirming universal salvation, as Tom has been presupposing.”

If God is Omniscient, wouldn’t God have “known” before creation everything about creation?

Unless Paul did not know what he was talking about in 1 Tim, don’t you think that God knew what God’s Will was/is?

Do you think that God came up with a PLAN that includes God’s Will being thwarted?

God-Incarnate even taught us to pray, “…Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven…”, didn’t He?

God-Incarnate did NOT teach us to pray for God’s Will to be thwarted.

I, personally, believe that it is satan who will be thwarted, TOTALLY THWARTED.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Several things I feel need to be addressed, at least for my own understanding and clarification.

God is Love. No one has challenged this, and in fact everyone is in agreement on this point. What is not in agreement is what “love” means and entails. From the perspective of most people on this thread that disagree with you, telling people that they need to change their ways and align themselves with the will of God, and so avoid Hell in the afterlife, IS love. Also pertinent is that none on this thread want anyone to end up in Hell. However, Jesus Himself said that there are people there, and we understand that they are there due to their own choice, not some sort of lack of mercy from God. It is their rejection of mercy that landed them there.

My personal opinion is that no one could possibly understand the meaning of “God is Love” merely from an intellectual perspective, I know that I couldn’t and it was after meeting God the Father that I actually remembered what I thought in second grade when I was taught that God is Love.

What I remembered was that I accepted it but did not have a clue that it was literal or even that it could be literal.

God has been referred to a a “Consuming Fire of Love”, pretty good description since God can burn all of the curd off someone without burning the essence of that person away.

Also you often mention about when you met God. This personal revelation may have had a profound impact on your interpretations, and it isn’t my place or area of expertise to question that, but understand that we cannot use that experience as a reference or source of information for ourselves. The only objective source we have to draw from is the Catholic Church, Bible and Catechism included. We have the lives of the Saints and their writings, but we cannot use your own anecdotal evidence, as among other things, it hasn’t been verified by the Church. We may be able to reach a common understanding using other resources, but for the sake of discussion, we cannot simply take you at your word.

As far as “we cannot use that experience as a reference or source of information for ourselves”, of course no one else can and I have never said that anyone else should even try.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything, I am merely here to speak, I was told in a dream that “only I could say it”, not much to go on but one has to start somewhere.

I did not choose this “job” but I have said YES and I do not consider it “my job” but Our job", God and me.

By the way, I have also experienced hell and I do not for a second believe that I have experience worse than Jesus.

I have been taught that Jesus took ALL of the SINS of ALL upon Himself on the cross, have you been taught this?

If Jesus did this and Jesus “paid the ransom”, as it is written and as Jesus said, “It is finished” which translates as PAID IN FULL than it should be obvious that Jesus went to everyone’s custom-built hell in PAYING THE RANSOM for ALL.

We talk about how much God did for us and yet we DO NOT BELIEVE the obvious about just what God really did do for ALL of us.

It would be wonderful and glorious if no souls were in Hell. Amandil’s point that it would be glorifying God regardless who is in Heaven or Hell is simply that, if there are souls in Hell, they are there by their own choices. Among other things, they represent God’s respect for our choices, even if it means eternal separation from Him. Because if one is in Hell, it is one’s own choices that led them there. Hell is simply a consequence of willful separation from God. And going there requires mortal sin to be on one’s soul. Which requires 1) committing a grave sin, 2) knowledge of the gravity and consequence of that sin, and 3) full freedom of will to commit said sin. If any one of those are not present, the sin is not mortal, though it may be grave. Anyone in Hell had to meet those 3 qualifications. They HAD to knowingly reject God to end up there.

So do you think that GOD DIED FOR ALL TO SAVE SOME?

Someone on either this thread or a similar one I was following posted a story about a saint (I think) who was contacted by souls in Purgatory. Something along those lines. There was a priest and a prostitute who died. The woman was told that the prostitute was either in Purgatory a short time or directly in Heaven, whereas the priest was either in Purgatory for a long time or in Hell. She didn’t know what they were, just their gender. The villagers told her she couldn’t have been right, because the woman who died was a prostitute. The souls then told her that the prostitute (who was hit by a train I think) went to Heaven quickly because in her final moments she surrendered herself to God, and prayed that she could do better for Him in the next life, having failed Him in this one. The priest apparently embezzled funds and something something corrupt. I’d have to look it up again, but the meaning stuck with me. I’ll post a link if I find it later.

I happen to believe that God’s Plan is better than many seem to think that God is capable of having.

 

[Tom_Baum]

We have to remind ourselves - continuously - that, according to Divine Justice, we all deserve Hell. Heaven has only been opened to us as a possibility due to Divine Mercy - that of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, offering Himself as an eternal sacrifice for all humanity, and then conquering death itself through the Resurrection. Yet, we can reject this sacrifice. Any time we commit a mortal sin, we reject this eternal sacrifice - and True Love. When we repent, and go to confession, we place our sins at the foot of the cross and allow Jesus to take them upon Himself.

And another thing that we need to remind ourselves is that God Is God and we ain’t.

 

[Kurisu35712]

My personal opinion is that no one could possibly understand the meaning of “God is Love” merely from an intellectual perspective, I know that I couldn’t and it was after meeting God the Father that I actually remembered what I thought in second grade when I was taught that God is Love.
…
God has been referred to a a “Consuming Fire of Love”, pretty good description since God can burn all of the curd off someone without burning the essence of that person away.

I agree. It has to be understood in a spiritual and emotional perspective. We shouldn’t and can’t constrain God to a merely intellectual understanding. But I would imagine most of the Catholics in this thread understand that God is Love on a very personal level, otherwise we likely wouldn’t be here to discuss these things in the first place. But I digress.

I mentioned the Consuming Fire analogy/metaphor/descriptor earlier, perhaps you’re referencing it here. My interpretation is that, to someone who wants nothing to do with God’s love, that all-consuming fire would be quite a source of torment, as one would be unable to escape the very thing one defied in this life.

I have been taught that Jesus took ALL of the SINS of ALL upon Himself on the cross, have you been taught this?

Indeed.

If Jesus did this and Jesus “paid the ransom”, as it is written and as Jesus said, “It is finished” which translates as PAID IN FULL than it should be obvious that Jesus went to everyone’s custom-built hell in PAYING THE RANSOM for ALL.

He did pay the ransom for all. No one has denied this, it’s a basic tenant of Catholicism, and the reason why those who were not converted or exposed to Christianity in this life are still believed to be able to enter Heaven through Jesus. However, the reason for Hell is that, though Jesus paid the ransom for all, not all people will accept His invitation to mercy. Hell exists because there are those who would willingly reject God’s mercy and salvation. As rejection of the Holy Spirit is, according to the Bible, the only unforgivable sin, those people, by their own decision, cannot enter Heaven. To someone with a close personal relationship with God, the prospect of rejecting Him is unimaginable and illogical, but regardless, there are those who refuse to accept Him.

So do you think that GOD DIED FOR ALL TO SAVE SOME?

Not at all. He died for all of us and for all of our sins. All of us have salvation open to us. All of us have the potential to be saved. But His saving us requires participation on our part as well. Those who do not choose to be saved will not be forced to enter Heaven. “For the salvation of many,” simply means that there are some who will not accept His saving grace.

 

[arte]

I cannot speak for Amandil or any of his words or their intended meanings, but, again as has already been stated in this thread, Catholics neither believe nor teach that children are sent to Hell (or limbo) simply for not being baptized. If I’m remembering the post by Amandil that you’re referring to, his point was simply that no soul in Hell is a child, as one must choose Hell. Hell and mortal sin require a free will choice, and Amandil’s point was that children are not capable of making such choices, and anyone who is in Hell is an immortal soul, not a mortal child. If I recall correctly, unbaptized children are mentioned in Dante’s Inferno. This was a piece of political commentary, not a doctrinal statement. Catholic’s do not believe that babies or children go to Hell.

Hi Kurisu35712 and Amandil,

I have linked your replies together because both of you replied to my post. I will do likewise later for your replies to another part of the same post.

From your post KURISU35712: “But, again as has already been stated in this thread, Catholics neither believe nor teach that children are sent to Hell (or limbo) simply for not being baptized”. I did not mention hell as a destination for babies who weren’t baptised in the part of my post that you replied to. However, I can understand how the mistake was made. I did mention children going to hell but that was with reference to an earlier reply from Amandil regarding hell, the age of reason and confirmation. Could you please research the age of reason, capability of making a free choice, confirmation and hell as it will help you understand where I’m coming from in my post.

From your post: “Anyone who is in Hell is an immortal soul, not a mortal child”. I will reply to this in more detail later under Amandil’s reply but I do have a few questions for now. Aren’t all souls in hell immortal souls and not bodies? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that only souls go to hell and not bodies. Therefore, isn’t it a child’s soul that is in hell and not their body? There is a separate thread on this forum titled: “Do children go to Hell” so there is genuine concern amongst our fellow Catholics about the possibility of children going to hell.

The part of my post that you replied to concerned the lack of empathy shown by Amandil for the parents of unbaptised babies who have died and are deeply worried about the whereabouts of their babies in the afterlife. Whilst not Church doctrine, our Church DEFINITELY TAUGHT that babies who weren’t baptised went to Limbo. I can vividly remember being taught how to baptise a baby when in Catholic primary school to prevent the baby from going to Limbo. If our Church no longer believes or teaches about Limbo for unbaptised babies, why did our Church feel the need to form an International Theological Commission which lasted a few years to investigate the salvation of infants who die without being baptised? Your reply was to a part of my post where I actually quoted from the Commission’s Report which was released on 19 January 2007 titled: “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized”. Whilst Limbo has been removed from the CCC, the following is the conclusion of the Commission’s Report: Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. Only HOPE is being offered and not a POSITIVE statement saying: “Unbaptised infants GO TO HEAVEN”. Basically, we haven’t moved that much away from me being taught how to baptise babies in the 1950’s.

I’m saying that no soul enters eternity as a “baby” but as a soul who has made some choice, ether for God or against Him, and has been judged on that choice. They will not be resurrected on the Last Day as “babies” but as full humans with their bodies to either receive the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell.

What that choice is we do not know, only God does. And whether they be saved or condemned we are required to accept God’s will in whatever destiny they receive.

Now, I’m not being facetious or personally attacking you Amandil. I know you have a good knowledge of our Church’s doctrine and teachings. All, I’m trying to do here is tap into that knowledge. I’m asking you for help. I have never heard anything remotely like what you have posted above. Are you saying that the souls of babies, who have died, are not baby souls but adult souls who have made a conscious decision to accept God or not before they died? Also, when they are resurrected on the Last Day, they are resurrected in an adult body and not in a baby body? Furthermore, God knows what their decision was and will judge them accordingly, which means they will either go to Heaven or Hell? Lastly, we are required to accept God’s judgement whatever it is? Can you please enlighten me and I suspect other members of this forum, where you got this information from.

 

[glendab]

To all in this thread - I don’t think this has been presented yet in this thread, if it has I apologize. Forgive me, I’m getting older. What I’d like to add is the text contained in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session Sixth, Chapter 3 which clearly states this:

“But, though He died for all, (II Cor. 5:15) yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust, --seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,–so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins. (Colos. 1:12-14.)”

I find it interesting that this exposes the possible root of the disconnect in some who would like the word “all” to extend to every soul there is and in some arguments also the devil(s) and this root is actually an issue of justification and misunderstanding of that primitive principle. Not everyone achieves the justification of Christ, but as stated above, "those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated." I think the word ONLY which I bolded, eliminates the implication attached to the word ALL which a certain person thinks extends God’s justification beyond the limits just mentioned. There ya go. Have fun.

Glenda

 

[simpleas]

To all in this thread - I don’t think this has been presented yet in this thread, if it has I apologize. Forgive me, I’m getting older. What I’d like to add is the text contained in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session Sixth, Chapter 3 which clearly states this:

“But, though He died for all, (II Cor. 5:15) yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust, --seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,–so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins. (Colos. 1:12-14.)”

I find it interesting that this exposes the possible root of the disconnect in some who would like the word “all” to extend to every soul there is and in some arguments also the devil(s) and this root is actually an issue of justification and misunderstanding of that primitive principle. Not everyone achieves the justification of Christ, but as stated above, “those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated.” I think the word ONLY which I bolded, eliminates the implication attached to the word ALL which a certain person thinks extends God’s justification beyond the limits just mentioned. There ya go. Have fun.

Glenda

So basicially only practising Catholic’s are the worthy ones. What about the Jews? The first people to hear the word of God, they are not baptised, will God just disregard a people he had chosen?

 

[glendab]

Hello Simpleas.

So basicially only practising Catholic’s are the worthy ones. What about the Jews? The first people to hear the word of God, they are not baptised, will God just disregard a people he had chosen?

Please read it again s-l-o-w-l-y. The quote from Trent does not say “only practicing Catholic’s are worthy.” Those are your words, not the Counsel Father’s. As fro your concern for the Saints of the Old Testament, that isn’t the topic we are currently discussing in this thread. Perhaps you could start one about that and see what develops.

Glenda

 

[Tom_Baum]

I agree. It has to be understood in a spiritual and emotional perspective. We shouldn’t and can’t constrain God to a merely intellectual understanding. But I would imagine most of the Catholics in this thread understand that God is Love on a very personal level, otherwise we likely wouldn’t be here to discuss these things in the first place. But I digress.

Actually, you misunderstood what I was trying to say, I think/believe that it is impossible for humans to “understand” in any way, shape or form that a Being can be a Being of Love without it being revealed, I think/believe that it is beyond our human ability.

I mentioned the Consuming Fire analogy/metaphor/descriptor earlier, perhaps you’re referencing it here. My interpretation is that, to someone who wants nothing to do with God’s love, that all-consuming fire would be quite a source of torment, as one would be unable to escape the very thing one defied in this life.

That is not why I referenced it here, I have said before that God’s Love can either caress or burn and I have also said that hell is being with God but instead of caressing, God’s Love is burning.

An analogy would be that hell is looking at oneself thru the Eyes of Pure Love, might not be a good analogy but it is something to think about.

Another thing to think about along these lines is, “My God, My God, why have Thou forsaken Me?”, some seem to think that Jesus must have thought that this was a good time to say a psalm, I believe that this psalm came true before the very ears of those present.

Jesus, in “paying the ransom”, went to hell, everyone’s hell since hell is custom-built by its inhabitant and as Jesus told us, “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It”, IT referring to Jesus’s Church and Jesus’s statement referring to the Church’s mission.

Indeed.

He did pay the ransom for all. No one has denied this, it’s a basic tenant of Catholicism, and the reason why those who were not converted or exposed to Christianity in this life are still believed to be able to enter Heaven through Jesus. However, the reason for Hell is that, though Jesus paid the ransom for all, not all people will accept His invitation to mercy. Hell exists because there are those who would willingly reject God’s mercy and salvation. As rejection of the Holy Spirit is, according to the Bible, the only unforgivable sin, those people, by their own decision, cannot enter Heaven. To someone with a close personal relationship with God, the prospect of rejecting Him is unimaginable and illogical, but regardless, there are those who refuse to accept Him.

Just because some might not have a clue how God can convince without forcing does not mean that God can NOT convince without forcing.

It is amazing that we can believe that God could create absolutely everything out of absolutely nothing and can not believe that God can do something just because we can’t figure out how God could do it.

Not at all. He died for all of us and for all of our sins. All of us have salvation open to us. All of us have the potential to be saved. But His saving us requires participation on our part as well. Those who do not choose to be saved will not be forced to enter Heaven. “For the salvation of many,” simply means that there are some who will not accept His saving grace.

Just as “many” many times means ALL in the bible, a “thousand” can basically mean unlimited.

Someone, I think on one of these postings asked me about the word change in the Mass from, I believe, “the Salvation of ALL” to “the Salvation of Many”, do you think that when the “English version” was “for ALL” that ALL went to heaven and now that it is “for many” that just many, not all, go to heaven?

Some will make a detour but I do NOT believe that God became One of us and did all that He did in vain, I believe that satan loses totally, a tie is absolutely and utterly unacceptable.

 

[Vico]

As I said, “Personally, I am going to leave that up to God.” and “I can and will still pray for and hope for God’s Plan to be catholic.”

a-nath-e-ma

noun, plural anathemas.

1. a person or thing detested or loathed: “That subject is anathema to him.”
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.

I will wish a “curse” on no one and if anyone wishes to wish a “curse” on me that is up to them.

As God has said, “My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts”.

By the way, does this mean that the whole Church is “anathema” since among many things, one of the things that the Church does, in at least some of the Masses, is to pray for God to HAVE MERCY ON US ALL?

I do NOT think that it does.

Since the Church does pray for ALL and encourages us to pray for ALL, does what you have written apply to the Church or just to the “him” that you have mentioned?

The “Church” may not explicitly say that ALL ARE SAVED but it sures does seem to hope for it and also seems to pray for it and not just in the one place I mentioned.

Have you heard and/or prayed the “O My Jesus” prayer?

“O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”

Sounds catholic to me, doesn’t it to you?

Doesn’t seem to be any kind of asterick or an “except for” after “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”, does it?

We, humanity, sure do seem to be quick to curse and condemn, not all but some.

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to us to guide and…, not just to the new and improved sanhedrin.

We do pray for mercy. That is not the same topic as what that anathema.
Yes, I know the prayer and have prayed it.
The anathema is issued because the idea is a heresy, to help those that hold the idea to adopt the orthodox faith.
The only way that all could be saved is if all were pious, per this doctrine.