Isn't eternity in hell a disproportionate punishment?

[steve_b]

Ok well given all that, there is the question of why anyone would worship a god that is so willing to accept that generally moral people who happened to sin before death, or who simply were atheist are eternally punished with the same lot of people who spent there entire lives causing nothing but pain, suffering, and death to there fellow man.

• “generally moral” ?
• God made it possible for us to be with Him for all eternity. That is so monumental, the corresponding loss of that , is just as monumental. So the latter doesn’t happen, He gave us the means to get through this life safely…providing we follow what He wants. It’s a choice we freely make. over and over again as we go through each day.

FA:

And that leads to another question, so does that mean when we are completely seperated from God that upon reaching Hell we will become these monsters that put Pol Pot and serial killers to shame? Is God fine just allowing his creations to become worse than demons just because they died missing a Mass, or happened to not believe in him?

I don’t think one can even begin to comprehend true seperation from God, and knowing that seperation is for eternity. An eternal desolation and hoplessness is not imaginable. That alone in my mind would be excruciating.

 

[alacoque]

Ok well given all that, there is the question of why anyone would worship a god that is so willing to accept that generally moral people who happened to sin before death, or who simply were atheist are eternally punished with the same lot of people who spent there entire lives causing nothing but pain, suffering, and death to there fellow man.

Flavius_A: This statement, above, makes it appear that going to heaven is some kind of ‘default’ - or that we are somehow entitled (unless there exists some bizarre situation, which you do not indicate) to all good things in the next life.

That seems to fly in the face of the reality, as the scriptures, Tradition and the Church teach us, of this life being a ‘test’ and a time of choice for us. All immortal spiritual beings, including Adam and Eve and even the angels, face a test or time of choice - exercising the dignity of their free will - gifted to us by God.

In the end, I believe that, very simply, we do not comprehend or accept the eternity and everlansting-ness of a chosen separation from God because we do not really appreciate, in faith and prayer, the majesty, goodness and magnanimity of God. The bottom line, for me, is that, to the degree that we do not appreciate who and what God is; what He has freely done for us (undeserving and unworthy as we are) - to say nothing of what He freely chose to suffer, horribly, in order that He not spend eternity without us — to the degree we do not appreciate that profound mystery, to that same degree we will never understand what NOT being in His presence entails.

The punishment of hell is the absence of God - which we will have CHOSEN - FREELY! (no one ends up in hell by mistake or surprise!!). The duration (if one can refer to it that way) of hell is simply the same duration as that of our souls…which are immortal and live forever.

While we cannot fully “understand” all this, in this present life and with our finite minds, the “concept” of this situation should not be puzzling, or even surprising.

 

[DavidKays]

David,

Is the problem today, people being too pre-occupied with sin and its consequences? I think not.

Jesus establish the sacraments particularly Baptism, Reconciliation, Eucharist and sacrament of the sick precisely FOR preserving the soul from the consequences of sin.

I don’t understand where the legalism comment comes from?

• The pharasees were called blind guides, hypocrits, whirewashed tombs etc etc because they didn’t paractice what they preached. But even at that, what did Jesus say to His listeners? Do whatever they tell you to do, because they sit on Moses seat, but don’t practice what they do.
• Who taught and warned more about hell than anyone in scripture? Jesus
• If one quotes specific scripture regarding the consequence for specific sin(s), that is NOT judging the sinner, it is a reminder to all of us how God wanted to let all of us know the consequences for specific sin(s). We don’t have to guess about it, we know from a reliable source. Therefore, at that point, it is up to a person’s free will once knowledge is imparted to them, to accept or reject the counsel.

Knowledge is a good thing. Refer to [2 Pet 1: 5-20]

Knowledge is second on the list of 7 qualities one needs to add to their faith in EVER INCREASING amounts in order NOT to be ineffective in knowing Jesus, and make ones election sure. ALL of those qualities Peter mentions, are necessary they are not optional. ALL of these qualities we must continue to increase. They can’t stagnate, or one WILL fall.

what is this? orthodoxcatechism.org/ Notice the acknowlegments (forward) written by a Greek Orthodox prelate, archbishop of Toronto

.

seems there ARE various catechisms that are out there for Eastern Orthodox.

You do know that there are Eastern Catholic Churches…right?

Why do you make this either/or again? Sacraments ARE about relationship and love… On God’s terms.

We ARE encouraged by the Eastern approach vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html & We DO have Eastern Catholics we share a rich heritage with. newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

I see Steve that you are a devout Catholic. I did not mean to be misunderstood. I was trying to tell certain Catholics to lighten up about the discussion about missing Mass. When Debora mentioned her concerns I thought that some were trying to tell her otherwise. So I decided to write why these people are seemingly concerned about people like Debora when she is in fact correct in what she says. Steve when I mentioned knowledge I do not mean direct knowledge that one gets from reading about it. I was referring to knowledge that one can receive from direct expeiences. There is a difference. I am sorry that you cannot understand my words. I was not trying to dismantle the Catholic Church. All I was doing is trying to dismantle certain catholics who act like the pharisees. Please understand that I am Eastern and please understand that the Orthodox have high regards to the Catholic Faith. If you do not understand the Orthodox I am not suprised. And don’t be suprised either. We are only in the beginning stages of understanding each other. My heritage has an arsenal of Saints and wisdom and spirituality that is unknown to most Catholics. Please try to understand that the Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are the same. I know, I know, you will say that we don’t have the Pope but please understand even the Eastern Catholics on record even though they are recognized of their Communion with the Pope, are not governed by Rome but have their own seperate government. I wish Catholics will understand that even the Orthodox while today have adopted a no relationship with the Pope had once a Communion followship with him in the early church. This fellowship was broken some 1000 years ago and hopefully with much dialogue and contacts it will be restored to its fullness. When I mentioned the first part about the consequences to sin and to its effects to it I did not mean it the way you interpreted my words to. Please understand that you misinterpret me to the point of not addressing or understanding the concerns the some Catholics and Orthodox can experience. Orthodoxy is strange to a Catholic and I will venture to say the Catholicism can be strange to the Orthodox. I grew up in both worlds so neither is stranger to me. Eastern Catholicism while maintaining its Communion with the Papacy ( on paper ) has lost alot since her reception into Communion with Rome. I have always maintained that the Eastern Catholic lost her idendity as an Eastern Church when she has no more Communion with Her brothers and sisters in the OC. I do not believe that admitting the Eastern Catholic Church in Communion with Rome was the right way in dealing with the mess we have inherited from the past. My conclusion that the Church of Rome was responsible more for this seperation in the first place has not the right to fix it by getting some Eastern Churches to come its way. The proper and better way is dealing with the Orthodox. The Eastern Catholics lost her authority in submitting to Rome. She will have Her authority back when Rome and the Orthodox iron things out. The Orthodox will not do the same as Her Eastern brothers and sisters have done. When the Orthodox and Rome will have become united it will not be the same as the Eastern Catholics. In fact you may see the Eastern Catholics restored to the same authority as Her Sister Orthodox Churches and alongside the Orthodox She will govern the Church like Her Orthodox brother with the same authority that the Church of Rome posseses. Orthodoxy must reclaim that authority and the Church of Rome must give Her that right. In this way Communion will be restored.

 

[alacoque]

Ok well given all that, there is the question of why anyone would worship a god that is so willing to accept that generally moral people who happened to sin before death, or who simply were atheist are eternally punished with the same lot of people who spent there entire lives causing nothing but pain, suffering, and death to there fellow man.

Flavius_A: Just wanted to add - to make the point clear - that in your statement above (as you seem to indicate some kind of ‘innocent mistake’ as the cause of damnation - that this is not the case!

The fact is that the soul that is damned has freely, consciously chosen to reject God (we are never responsible before God - for evil OR good - except for our free, informed, concious choices/loves. It is alsy the fact, therefore, that the damned soul is not, as you seem to imply, suddenly surprised by ending up separated from God.

If it can happen to angelic beings (whose nature is immeasureably above ours in intellect and will) - and we know it did - then most certainly it can be our (human) fate as well.

I kind of wonder, also, about your phrase “simply aethiest”…makes it sound so innocuous and accidental. Remember, all our lives we are choosing who and what we will be - so an atheist is either an atheist by free, conscious, knowing choice (rejecting God on purpose) or is an atheist because they are too lazy to even ask the most important question a human being can ask (concerning the meaning of life and their existence, etc) and/or seeking that answer. For my money, there is no “simple” atheist…but that’s just me…

 

[steve_b]

I see Steve that you are a devout Catholic. I did not mean to be misunderstood. I was trying to tell certain Catholics to lighten up about the discussion about missing Mass.

Catholics pull from the teachings of the Church and from scripture, that missing mass purposly on Sunday is a mortal sin. ONE mortal sin is disasterous to the soul.
DK:

When Debora mentioned her concerns I thought that some were trying to tell her otherwise. So I decided to write why these people are seemingly concerned about people like Debora when she is in fact correct in what she says.

There was ligitimate disagreement
DK:

Steve when I mentioned knowledge I do not mean direct knowledge that one gets from reading about it. I was referring to knowledge that one can receive from direct expeiences. There is a difference.

As you know, one can come to wrong conclusions with both.

• heretical reading sources
• improperly formed conscience that arrives at wrong conclusions from experiences

DK:

I am sorry that you cannot understand my words. I was not trying to dismantle the Catholic Church. All I was doing is trying to dismantle certain catholics who act like the pharisees.

As I said earlier, pharisees were excoriatied by Jesus because of their hypocrasy.

who was being hypocritical?
DK:

Please understand that I am Eastern and please understand that the Orthodox have high regards to the Catholic Faith. If you do not understand the Orthodox I am not suprised. And don’t be suprised either. We are only in the beginning stages of understanding each other.

What is it that we REALLY don’t understand about each other?
DK:

My heritage has an arsenal of Saints and wisdom and spirituality that is unknown to most Catholics. Please try to understand that the Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are the same. I know, I know, you will say that we don’t have the Pope but please understand even theEastern Catholics on record even though they are recognized of their Communion with the Pope, are not governed by Rome but have their own seperate government. I wish Catholics will understand that even the Orthodox while today have adopted a no relationship with the Pope had once a Communion followship with him in the early church.

We know this.
DK:

Eastern Catholicism while maintaining its Communion with the Papacy ( on paper ) has lost alot since her reception into Communion with Rome. I have always maintained that the Eastern Catholic lost her idendity as an Eastern Church when she has no more Communion with Her brothers and sisters in the OC.

Cardinal Kasper is in charge of ecumenical dialogue for the Catholic Church, and as you elude to above, it’s very difficult for the Catholic Church dialoguing with the Orthodox because you aren’t one Church. As Cardinal said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist," he contends. "At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
DK:

I do not believe that admitting the Eastern Catholic Church in Communion with Rome was the right way in dealing with the mess we have inherited from the past. My conclusion that the Church of Rome was responsible more for this seperation in the first place has not the right to fix it by getting some Eastern Churches to come its way.

I see it differently.

1. • Those who returned, ended division, and followed the union Jesus prayed for. Those who remain divided, are in opposition to Jesus prayer. And in maintaining the theme of the topic of this thread, dissent and division is condemned in scripture. It is a mortal sin. [Gal 5:19-21]
   • While you see division, as Rome’s fault exclusively, I disagree. But I’ll be more ecumenical and say fault was with both sides. The popes have worked consistently at ending divisions.
   DK:
   

   The Eastern Catholics lost her authority in submitting to Rome. She will have Her authority back when Rome and the Orthodox iron things out. The Orthodox will not do the same as Her Eastern brothers and sisters have done. When the Orthodox and Rome will have become united it will not be the same as the Eastern Catholics. In fact you may see the Eastern Catholics restored to the same authority as Her Sister Orthodox Churches and alongside the Orthodox She will govern the Church like Her Orthodox brother with the same authority that the Church of Rome posseses. Orthodoxy must reclaim that authority and the Church of Rome must give Her that right. In this way Communion will be restored.

   1. • The authority the pope possesses comes from the promises Jesus gave to Peter. It doesn’t come from a vote in council or by political intriques. He will ALWAYS have his primacy of authority.
      • IMO, before EO can talk of authority, and governing, you need to unite within yourselves first. Then I pray you unite with Peter again.

 

[Sonny69]

You seem to imply that we would all maximally sin, but for God’s grace, such that grace is the only thing keeping a cap on the extreme sinfulness of man.

Why are you so quick to see only the fallen side of human nature? It is Catholic teaching that while we are fallen, we are not totally corrupt. Our nature, while wounded, is still capable of good; It is not in total depravity, as some other Christian Denominations hold.

Sounds Arminian in theology; it that the Catholic position? What does God say and what did the nation Israel do when God removed His hand and even then He never removed it completely for the sake of the ones that were HIs.

Consider there is a host of demons, as we speak, that God has “chained up” until such a time before He let’s them loose; that is an aspect of restraining grace. Where will these, apparently, nasty demons go? They will take posession of people; I doubt they will seek out the pig as Jesus allowed in Mark.

According to God man best good to another man is like “filthy rags” before God. Like I have said; people do not realize the gravity of sin or the loving nature of retraining grace and until one understands tha gravity of sin, they will never enter begin to find His kingdom entrance.

 

[alacoque]

…

Regarding following my heart, my heart tells me that hell does not really exist, that God loves me very much, and that I am going to heaven. My heart tells me that I have all the time I need for spiritual development, perhaps many lifetimes via reincarnation. When I follow my heart, I feel that evil does not really exist, and what some perceive as sin is just ignorance and misfortune in the evolution of man.

Slywakka: What you state here is not Catholic teaching. The info that appears at the top of your posts says “Catholic”, but what you say are your beliefs are NOT Catholic. I don’t know if it’s a big deal to you or not - if you believe what you want regardless of the Church’s teaching and God’s revelation, but it sounds like you don’t agree with the Church because maybe you don’t really understand what her teaching is and why it is what it is. Maybe if you follow up on it, read, research and study what the Catholic teaching is and why it is what it is, you might find things less scarey, less confusing and much more amenable to your understanding and heart.

 

[vz71]

He should give us more time. God should perhaps let us experience hell and see how we like it. Experiencing how bad things are without God, would show us how much we need God. As it is, many people are non-Catholics, and don’t really take this religious stuff seriously. What’s to become of them?

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

God gave us his son, that we might share in his eternal life.
God gave us the church to guide us to him.
God gave us tradition that we may know him.

Now you want more time?

Sounds to me like the petty excuse of a student that has been caught not doing his homework.

 

[slywakka250]

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

God gave us his son, that we might share in his eternal life.
God gave us the church to guide us to him.
God gave us tradition that we may know him.

Now you want more time?

Sounds to me like the petty excuse of a student that has been caught not doing his homework.

A student who doesn’t do his homework does not experience eternal separation from God in hell.

A Catholic who intentionally misses Mass and then suddenly dies before repenting does.

What about people who die suddenly or very young? Not everyone has equal time.

Other world religions have entirely different interpretations of what “God gave us.” Taken collectively, the “truth” of Catholicism is not self-evident to mankind as a whole, so it doesn’t seem fair that the “test” of this life should be binding on all men. (i.e. we need more time, and more information)

 

[DavidKays]

Catholics pull from the teachings of the Church and from scripture, that missing mass purposly on Sunday is a mortal sin. ONE mortal sin is disasterous to the soul.

There was ligitimate disagreement

As you know, one can come to wrong conclusions with both.

• heretical reading sources
• improperly formed conscience that arrives at wrong conclusions from experiences

As I said earlier, pharisees were excoriatied by Jesus because of their hypocrasy.

who was being hypocritical?

What is it that we REALLY don’t understand about each other?

We know this.

Cardinal Kasper is in charge of ecumenical dialogue for the Catholic Church, and as you elude to above, it’s very difficult for the Catholic Church dialoguing with the Orthodox because you aren’t one Church. As Cardinal said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist," he contends. "At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

I see it differently.

1. • Those who returned, ended division, and followed the union Jesus prayed for. Those who remain divided, are in opposition to Jesus prayer. And in maintaining the theme of the topic of this thread, dissent and division is condemned in scripture. It is a mortal sin. [Gal 5:19-21]
   • While you see division, as Rome’s fault exclusively, I disagree. But I’ll be more ecumenical and say fault was with both sides. The popes have worked consistently at ending divisions.
   1. • The authority the pope possesses comes from the promises Jesus gave to Peter. It doesn’t come from a vote in council or by political intriques. He will ALWAYS have his primacy of authority.
      • IMO, before EO can talk of authority, and governing, you need to unite within yourselves first. Then I pray you unite with Peter again.

1. 1. 
      Steve I guess it will take alot of time before you can understand the Orthodox. My impression with Catholics is that they do not really know the facts of what actually happened to the OC and the Catholic Church. The real nugget is the truth. All the Orthodox are waiting for is the truth to come out. Once Rome will do that then the relationship will be healed. The issue has nothing to do with Primacy at all. You think that way because the Catholic Church has not told you the truth about what really happened. When you do find the actual truth then you will realised that the Orthodox had always been right. You have been taught what you have been taught but without the actual truth. It is sad because the truth is there to read and once catholics discover it then they will realise their mistakes and will ask forgiveness for what they have done to the East. The Eastern Churches has always given the Pope and the Church of Rome its Primacy since the first Ecumenical councils. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is Rome’s claims of juridiction over the East. Primacy means service and is not a political means to take over the whole Church. What Rome decided on was a terrible mistake. The Office of the Pope and the Church of Rome should have been a pastoral office and a pastoral church. But what happened was that Rome wanted control of the East. This was a political gain that has cost us insurmountable damage. The damage even though it was great will not stop God from uniting His Church. The errors that Rome had done have now been corrected recently by your holy and saintly Popes. The Popes are beginning to understand their office better for it is primarily a pastoral office at the service for the whole Church. The Popes see differently now about the OC and are beginning to understand the OC role and the OC right to be listened to. Your Cardinal Kasper while he is a good man really does not know why the Orthodox govern the way they do. He will like to see us with a similar setup as Rome and since he only knows Rome he cannot grasp the OC setup at all. The OC govern differently than Rome because she feels that too much authority given to one source will ultimately give way to control. The OC feels that when a country is converted and then matures she will give that country more freedom and independance while at the same time acknowledging that this country with its new Patriarch will adhere to the Primacy she belongs to. In the OC case the Primacy will go to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Like the " Pope " he has the right to exercise this Primacy when he sees fit. Now the Pope of Rome has Primacy too. But his primacy towards the East was given to him at the first 2 Ecumenical Councils. But this Primacy was only and I repeat only a Pastoral one. The Pope has no other authority over the East. He had not interfere into the government of the East until those unfortunate incidents that happened some 1000 years ago. In some sense the East could have convened an Ecumenical Council to discliplined the West because they had that right and could exercised it if they wanted to. But the East was scared of the armies of the West. Instead of taking care of it in a Ecumenical Council the East decided against it. They were too scared of the West and of the Islam threat to the East. The Eastern Church had the right to disclipline the Catholic Church but decided to forgo it. They have paid the price for it ever since. But today the Churches are more in dialogue and with much patience and correct attitudes you will see that OC was right and the Church of Rome admitting more of its faults so that these 2 Churches can get along into full communion.

 

[vz71]

A student who doesn’t do his homework does not experience eternal separation from God in hell.

No, but that is irrelevent to the analogy.
What is relevent is that they were caught choosing the easy path instead of the path that is right.

A Catholic who intentionally misses Mass and then suddenly dies before repenting does.

Key here is ‘before repenting’
Does this mean there is an intent to repent? If so, that is taken into account.
If there was no intention of repentence, then there is no way that God can forgive him.

What about people who die suddenly or very young? Not everyone has equal time.

No, but all are given the same choice.

Other world religions have entirely different interpretations of what “God gave us.” Taken collectively, the “truth” of Catholicism is not self-evident to mankind as a whole, so it doesn’t seem fair that the “test” of this life should be binding on all men.

For a sin to be mortal, there must be full knowledge of the sin, full knowledge that it is a serious sin, and full complicity in the sin.
Lack of knowledge would prevent a sin from being considered a mortal sin.

(i.e. we need more time, and more information)

One needs exactly as much time as God provides you.
More time is not going to change your mind.

 

[davidv]

A student who doesn’t do his homework does not experience eternal separation from God in hell.

He suffers the consequence that he knew ahead of time.

A Catholic who intentionally misses Mass and then suddenly dies before repenting does.

Why is this different than the student example? The consequence was layed out ahead of time. The Catholic choosed not to do as instructed and suffers the consequences.

What about people who die suddenly or very young? Not everyone has equal time.

What about them? Jesus tells to be ready at all times.

Other world religions have entirely different interpretations of what “God gave us.” Taken collectively, the “truth” of Catholicism is not self-evident to mankind as a whole, so it doesn’t seem fair that the “test” of this life should be binding on all men. (i.e. we need more time, and more information)

This is Catholic Answers, therefore we are addressing this topic from the Catholic perspective. You have not presented any evidence that the other religions have the truth relative to this topic. Why does it have to be self evident? Truth doesn’t have to be self evident. Some truth is only evident throught the use of reason. How do you define fair? Why is it unfair?

 

[slywakka250]

One needs exactly as much time as God provides you.
More time is not going to change your mind.

Some people live in sin for many years, and then repent…

Some people live devoutly for many years, and then start living in sin…

People change from hell to heaven, and heaven to hell in TIME.

If people change their hearts in TIME, who to say that more time will not result in another change (heaven to hell, or hell to heaven).??

I’d even argue that the longer you live, and the more experiences you have, the more time you have to learn from your mistakes, the more likely it is you discover the truth, (if the truth is Catholicism, that you will discover Catholicism).

 

[vz71]

Some people live in sin for many years, and then repent…

Some people live devoutly for many years, and then start living in sin…

People change from hell to heaven, and heaven to hell in TIME.

If people change their hearts in TIME, who to say that more time will not result in another change (heaven to hell, or hell to heaven).??

EVERY example you can provide changed their heart one way or the other within the time provided by God.

As to who is to say…that is God’s decision.

 

[steve_b]

Steve I guess it will take alot of time before you can understand the Orthodox. My impression with Catholics is that they do not really know the facts of what actually happened to the OC and the Catholic Church. The real nugget is the truth. All the Orthodox are waiting for is the truth to come out. Once Rome will do that then the relationship will be healed.

The issue has nothing to do with Primacy at all. You think that way because the Catholic Church has not told you the truth about what really happened. When you do find the actual truth then you will realised that the Orthodox had always been right.

The split and why it happened, is well documented. It has also been discussed on these forums many many many times. There’s no mystery here. I’m sensing you’ve got in mind what you’re going to say, regardless of what I say to you in response.
DK:

You have been taught what you have been taught but without the actual truth.

Cmon David, we’ve kicked this can down the road plenty of times on this forum. See my comment at the bottom of the page
DK:

It is sad because the truth is there to read and once catholics discover it then they will realise their mistakes and will ask forgiveness for what they have done to the East.

The Eastern Churches has always given the Pope and the Church of Rome its Primacy since the first Ecumenical councils. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is Rome’s claims of juridiction over the East. Primacy means service and is not a political means to take over the whole Church. What Rome decided on was a terrible mistake. The Office of the Pope and the Church of Rome should have been a pastoral office and a pastoral church. But what happened was that Rome wanted control of the East.

Examples?
DK:

This was a political gain that has cost us insurmountable damage. The damage even though it was great will not stop God from uniting His Church. The errors that Rome had done have now been corrected recently by your holy and saintly Popes. The Popes are beginning to understand their office better for it is primarily a pastoral office at the service for the whole Church.

Now I’m convinced, you’re dealing with a deep mischaracterization of events in your own mind…
DK:

The Popes see differently now about the OC and are beginning to understand the OC role and the OC right to be listened to. Your Cardinal Kasper while he is a good man really does not know why the Orthodox govern the way they do. He will like to see us with a similar setup as Rome and since he only knows Rome he cannot grasp the OC setup at all.

David,

The OC isn’t one with eachother. Therefore, there IS no OC as if one speaks of one Church. That’s his point.
DK:

The OC govern differently than Rome because she feels that too much authority given to one source will ultimately give way to control. The OC feels that when a country is converted and then matures she will give that country more freedom and independance while at the same time acknowledging that this country with its new Patriarch will adhere to the Primacy she belongs to. In the OC case the Primacy will go to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Like the " Pope " he has the right to exercise this Primacy when he sees fit. Now the Pope of Rome has Primacy too. But *his primacy towards the East was given to him at the first 2 Ecumenical Councils. *

When Jesus gave Peter his primacy over the Church, did Jesus say oh by the way Peter, that is only over certain parts of the Church? Nope!
DK:

But this Primacy was only and I repeat only a Pastoral one. The Pope has no other authority over the East. He had not interfere into the government of the East until those unfortunate incidents that happened some 1000 years ago. In some sense the East could have convened an Ecumenical Council to discliplined the West because they had that right and could exercised it if they wanted to. But the East was scared of the armies of the West. Instead of taking care of it in a Ecumenical Council the East decided against it. They were too scared of the West and of the Islam threat to the East. The Eastern Church had the right to disclipline the Catholic Church but decided to forgo it. They have paid the price for it ever since. But today the Churches are more in dialogue and with much patience and correct attitudes you will see that OC was right and the Church of Rome admitting more of its faults so that these 2 Churches can get along into full communion.

This post is off topic for this thread. But it’s a good subject to discuss, so I think you should start another thread on this subject. It would be good for YOUR understanding as well.

 

[DavidKays]

The split and why it happened, is well documented. It has also been discussed on these forums many many many times. There’s no mystery here. I’m sensing you’ve got in mind what you’re going to say, regardless of what I say to you in response.

Cmon David, we’ve kicked this can down the road plenty of times on this forum. See my comment at the bottom of the page

Examples?

Now I’m convinced, you’re dealing with a deep mischaracterization of events in your own mind…

David,

The OC isn’t one with eachother. Therefore, there IS no OC as if one speaks of one Church. That’s his point.

When Jesus gave Peter his primacy over the Church, did Jesus say oh by the way Peter, that is only over certain parts of the Church? Nope!

This post is off topic for this thread. But it’s a good subject to discuss, so I think you should start another thread on this subject. It would be good for YOUR understanding as well.

It is strange Steve that you mentioned that you adhere to the consequences of sin and to the effects of it and yet you will not admit the sins commited by Rome to the East as being serious. Isn’t eternity in hell a disproportionate punishment is the thread of this post and yet when I claim that Rome has seriously sinned against the East you want to defend Rome. And when I try to defend someone’s statements like Debora you want to tell her how seriously her sin of missing mass is. Do not the East deserve some attention as well. It was the seriousness of the sins or you can say the gravity of the sins of the West that has lead us down this path. All the West has to do is admit the truth. But of course to admit the truth one has to recognize it as sin first. It seems to me you like to put certain people in the category as commiting serious sin but you will not admit that to your own Church. So what is it. Rome has formally apologized to the East from those unfortunate incidents that has caused too much tension for the last 1000 years. Soon you will see even a more formal recognition of those mistakes from the Popes because they will see in them a confession of wrongs that must be brought into the open for healing and forgiveness. Is not that what Confession is for? If serious sins can cause someone to enter a state of hell then what about the sins of Churches. They must be addressed in the same manner as one will confess their mortal sins. Without that confession then that person will not change and as you say hell will be the appropiate punishment. Since the Churches can act like individuals so the Churrches must do the same as the individual will do in the presence of God. There is no shame in admitting the truth. The Church of Rome has initiated that process already and in time will engage in admitting the whole truth so that the OC will accept it and grant forgiveness. Do you not go to a priest with your sins to be forgiven? And do you not think that God is waiting patiently for Rome to do the same and admit her mistakes so that the East can offer her forgiveness. If you do not believe so then I will ask you this 1 question. Who has been hurt the most from this? If you answer the East then it is Rome that needs to apologize. If you answer the West then it is us that needs to apologize. But if you check your recent Popes they have apologized to the East. So they admit the hurt was done to the East. All I am saying is that most Lay Catholics are uninformed about these Papal announcements and apologies. It is a start and soon it will come to a full confession and then full reconciliation. That is all that is necessary. Since this thread talks about the seriousness of sin and the effects to it I wonder how many Catholics realised how bad it was for the East to have that happened to them.

 

[Debora123]

Give it up David. (although I do appreciate you defending me, thank you). There’s no getting though to these people. Remember what we’re dealing with here. These are people who actually directly argued against the following things I said on my post:

…It’s about what is in that person’s heart, and none of us can say or pretend to know. Leaving the judging up to God is part of showing Him respect as the ultimate and only just judge.

And:

Sure, it could very well mean they had those intentions, but it could also mean they did not! Bottom line here is, we don’t know! Not everyone who commits mortal sins has those intentions in their heart!! And we have NO WAY, absolutely NO WAY of knowing.

Yep, and this:

We cannot say to another or about another ,“oh you (insert sin here) so you have rejected God, and you want to be your own magisteriam and you are going to Hell.” I mean, what in the world is that?? Who says that?? Last I checked, only God can say that personally about each separate individual regarding each specific sin.

Oh yes, and even this they disagreed with:

The definite truth is this: We don’t know [who is/isn’t going to Hell]. It is God’s job, and we can’t and shouldn’t claim to know.

If these people think they are “all knowing” enough to say they know who is/isn’t deserving of Heaven, and who has/hasn’t accepted God… and not even admitting that it’s God’s claim alone, then there’s no convincing them of anything.

If I was as judgmental and self righteous as they were, I’d say they’d someday have to answer to God for claiming to be so all-knowing, and for making judgments that are reserved for only God to make. But then again, I don’t believe it is my place to say something like that, because I believe only God knows what is in their hearts and whether or not it’s worthy of any kind of punishment/interrogation. They could have very good intentions for all I know. Not my judgment to make.

 

[vz71]

Not everyone who commits mortal sins has those intentions in their heart!! And we have NO WAY, absolutely NO WAY of knowing.

The fact of the mortal sin itself tells us there is a rejection of God with no repentence.

Remember the 3 conditions that make a mortal sin.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

St. Faustina’s Vision of Hell

"Today, I was led by an angel to the Chasms of Hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw:
The First Torture that constitutes hell is:
The loss of God.
The Second is:
Perpetual remorse of conscience.
The Third is
That one’s condition will never change.
The Fourth is:
The fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God’s anger.
The Fifth Torture is:
Continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own.
The Sixth Torture is:
The constant company of Satan.
The Seventh Torture is:
Horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies.

These are the Tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings.

Indescribable Sufferings
There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned.

I would have died
There are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another. I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me.

No One Can Say There is No Hell
Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin. I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like…how terribly souls suffer there! Consequently, I pray even more fervently for the conversion of sinners. I incessantly plead God’s mercy upon them. O My Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, than offend you by the least sin." (Diary 741)

Since the spiritual aspects of creation are not as manifest as the material, but are superior to the material, then the study of the spiritual takes precedence. It will be peoples own fault that they knew more about Dancing with the Stars than what Jesus preached, or told to St. Faustina if they have access to it, owing to the seriousness of death and the hereafter. Even without the myriad of Divine Revelation sources offered to man, God calling to man daily to seek truth and to follow it would lead the most primitive of men to follow the law written on their hearts upward to eternal beatitude.

“Tell sinners that no one shall escape My Hand; if they run away from My Merciful Heart, they will fall into My Just Hands. Tell sinners that I am always waiting for them, that I listen intently to the beating of their heart… when will it beat for Me? Write, that I am speaking to them through their remorse of conscience, through their failures and sufferings, through thunderstorms, through the voice of the Church. And if they bring all My graces to naught, I begin to be angry with them, leaving them alone and giving them what they want.” (Diary, 1728)

 

[Sonny69]

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

God gave us his son, that we might share in his eternal life.
God gave us the church to guide us to him.
God gave us tradition that we may know him.

Now you want more time?

Sounds to me like the petty excuse of a student that has been caught not doing his homework.

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; John 5:39

I would have to agree.