Missing mass on sunday

[rosejmj]

But a Muslim could argue the same thing- that Islam holds the fullness of the truth. Someone of another religion could argue the same thing too. What makes the Catholic more right? You believe the same thing the other people of the other religions may believe… That their religion is the truth. So why should someone accept your word over their word. Obviously someone is wrong- it could be the Catholic. If after prayer and study the person came to the conclusion that Catholicism is not the full truth either they are correct or they interpreted something incorrectly through no fault of their own. They are just seeking the truth and using their intellect to search for it. Many people search for the truth and do not find Catholicism to be the full truth, but rather sine other Church or religion. They are trying their best and they have as much a chance of being right as you do, maybe even more if they spent more time searching and studying and did not only look at one point of view etc

 

[TheLittleLady]

We do not know. The Church has never defined this.

I can tell you, when my son was a baby through primary school he hated baths. He would scream and cry and fight them. As he grew up, he stopped hating them.

Maybe the purgation is more difficult for some than for others.

We simply rest in the love and mercy of God that He is not brutal.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The natural law is written on the hearts of men.

The Church is very clear about those who, through no fault of their own, do not know God. He is merciful.

The God I worship is not petty, tyrannical nor anxious to hurt people. If God were that, I would denounce Him from the rooftops.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079VSDCHB/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

This is a book I would buy for you as Kindle book if I had your email address. If your parish offers Formed.org this book is available there.

 

[Gorgias]

But a Muslim could argue the same thing- that Islam holds the fullness of the truth. Someone of another religion could argue the same thing too.

Yes, they could! That’s the whole point! We have a conscience, which we’re required to form properly. We have free will, with which we make choices. Now, think about it for a second: presume we have two people, who say:

Person C: “The Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth.”
Person M: “Islam has the fullness of the truth.”

Can both be correct? No! That would be absurd – the only possibilities are that one is correct and the other wrong, or that both are wrong.

So, the question isn’t “is a person making a claim, based on their conscience?”, but rather, “is a person who makes a false claim culpable for their error?”

What makes the Catholic more right?

That’s a question for God to answer, wouldn’t you say? Both are following their conscience, but at most one is correct. God judges whether the other is culpable of ‘mortal sin’ for their decision.

So why should someone accept your word over their word. Obviously someone is wrong- it could be the Catholic.

It could be. But, we believe – based on eyewitness testimony – that Jesus is the Son of God. So, we say that it’s not only a matter of faith, but also of reason, that gives credence to our answer.

They are trying their best and they have as much a chance of being right as you do

Yes, they are trying their best. (No, they don’t “have as much a chance of being right”, since that depends on the particular answer they accept. There are many beliefs out there that reasonable people would look at and say “umm… sorry; no.”)

However, the standard of judgment isn’t “gee, did you try your best?” It’s “were you capable of forming a right judgment with everything you could bring to bear, and if so, did you form a right judgment?”

If the person wasn’t capable of forming a right judgment, then mortal sin doesn’t attach. If he is, and he nevertheless doesn’t do so… then that’s a different situation entirely.

 

[EZweber]

You’re missing the point, I’m afraid. There are two sins in play: the lapse itself, and the actions which occur by virtue of the lapse. The former causes the latter. If you want to claim that there’s no culpability for the latter actions, you still haven’t demonstrated that there is no culpability for the former action. It’s that action – the lapse – where a person would be culpable.

(Now, if you could show that there’s no culpability for walking away from the Church – which is, in theory, a possibility – then you’re right: no culpability for mortal sin. However, that’s a more difficult proposition to demonstrate.)

I am talking about a theoretical person who is in no way culpable for their mistaken conclusions. I don’t have any real world examples and I don’t know if any exist. PS. Thank you for correcting me on invincible vs complete ignorance. I can be terrible with remembering technical terms.

 

[EZweber]

CCC 1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened . A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

That is very true. However, it is possible for a person, through no fault of their own, to have a badly informed conscience. For example, in the ancient peoples who believed that polygamy was permissable, there were probably at least a few who were not guilty of malforming their conscience since you should give your original position the benefits of the doubt. Remember that it was almost universally established and very few thought to question it. There were still negative effects from it though.

 

[PeterT]

Purgatory is no more a punishment than taking a shower is punishment. Purgatory is a cleansing process.

Not quite.

The Church’s teaching is that purgatory is not a pleasant place (or state) to be in. Hence, it’s not quite like a typical shower which most people would find enjoyable even though they’re being cleansed in the process.

A better analogy would be that purgatory could be like taking a COLD shower. Yes, you’re still being cleansed but it’s not pleasant. Hence, why many Catholics actively try to limit the time they’ll need to spend in purgatory by trying to live more holier lives and also seek out and try to gain partial and — preferably — plenary indulgences to reduce the time they’ll need to spend in purgatory after their death.

 

[PeterT]

Someone leaves the Catholic Church because they think it does not hold the fullness of truth and they seek the find the truth. So done leaves Islam or some other religion because they believe the truth is elsewhere and they are not committing a sin because you don’t believe that religion to be the full truth. However the members of their former religion believe that the person is an apostate and is going to hell. So why would anyone trust the Catholic view that it is a sin to leave the Church when they no longer believe in the Church and they believe they are pleasing God by leaving it?

Because the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, is infallible in regards to the definitive doctrines of the Church.

Of course people are free to hold onto incorrect beliefs about God and the Church, but they’re culpable for their deliberate unbelief. How culpable they are? Well that’s for God to determine.

 

[TheLittleLady]

While we know it is not pleasant, we simply do not know any specifics.

Undue fear of purgatory, as our OP speaks of, is not a healthy thing, you would agree?

 

[PeterT]

While we know it is not pleasant, we simply do not know any specifics.

Undue fear of purgatory, as our OP speaks of, is not a healthy thing, you would agree?

I think people ought to fear purgatory enough to try to avoid it (or at least spend as little time in it as possible) but they should NEVER view it some as some sort of unjust punishment meted out by God to punish those who had sinned in their lives. It’s because of God’s unwavering love he has for all of us that purgatory exists in the first place.

 

[Gorgias]

I am talking about a theoretical person who is in no way culpable for their mistaken conclusions.

OK. This can happen, but it’s not the de facto case whenever we see someone who reaches a mistaken conclusion. Right?

I don’t have any real world examples and I don’t know if any exist.

In terms of leaving the faith? That’d be a tough one. In a more general sense, though? That’s easy enough – just look for anyone who successfully argues an ‘affirmative defense’ in a court of law.

 

[CRV]

But a Muslim could argue the same thing- that Islam holds the fullness of the truth. Someone of another religion could argue the same thing too. What makes the Catholic more right? You believe the same thing the other people of the other religions may believe… That their religion is the truth. So why should someone accept your word over their word. Obviously someone is wrong- it could be the Catholic. If after prayer and study the person came to the conclusion that Catholicism is not the full truth either they are correct or they interpreted something incorrectly through no fault of their own. They are just seeking the truth and using their intellect to search for it. Many people search for the truth and do not find Catholicism to be the full truth, but rather sine other Church or religion. They are trying their best and they have as much a chance of being right as you do, maybe even more if they spent more time searching and studying and did not only look at one point of view etc

Questions and Answers about the Marks and Attributes of the Church ** in particular # “160. How do we know that no other church but the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ?”

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This can happen, but it’s not the de facto case whenever we see someone who reaches a mistaken conclusion. Right?

No, I don’t think that’s right. Not from my experience anyway.

Do you honestly believe that people in general are really so irresponsible and neglectful of their “obligation” to know right from wrong?

In terms of leaving the faith? That’d be a tough one.

No it wouldn’t be tough. It’s quite common. Why would you believe it so difficult to encounter that kind scenario?

 

[Gorgias]

No, I don’t think that’s right. Not from my experience anyway.

Sorry… you’re saying that it is the de facto case that anyone who is mistaken “is in no way culpable for their mistake”?

Do you honestly believe that people in general are really so irresponsible and neglectful of their “obligation” to know right from wrong?

No, I’m saying that, in general, people are assumed to be able to make rational judgments of right and wrong.

No it wouldn’t be tough. It’s quite common. Why would you believe it so difficult to encounter that kind scenario?

Oh, there are plenty of cases of people leaving the faith. However, do you think you’re capable of judging their culpability? Luke 6:37, brother…

 

[CRV]

Various articles on why the Catholic Church is the true Church. The First two are personal conversion stories but give good explanations as to why the Catholic Church is the only true Church.

How Do We Know It’s the True Church? Fr. Dwight Longenecker • 5/1/2007

A Protestant Historian Discovers the Catholic Church A. David Anders, Ph.D

Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church

Is the Catholic Church the one true Church? (7 things to know and share) Jimmy Akin

essay, “The One True Church,” by Richard John Neuhaus - rather a long read after all it is an essay.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Sorry… you’re saying that it is the de facto case that anyone who is mistaken “is in no way culpable for their mistake”?

I’m saying that there is no de facto .But I’m also saying that not being culpable for leaving the Church, if it could even be called a mistake in every circumstance, is quite common.

No, I’m saying that, in general, people are assumed to be able to make rational judgments of right and wrong.

As each one is endowed and able to do so. Therefore, in general, I wouldn’t assume that people are able to make rational judgments of right and wrong.

Oh, there are plenty of cases of people leaving the faith. However, do you think you’re capable of judging their culpability? Luke 6:37, brother…

Some of them in a sense yes I do, mostly because I know some of them very well. I would err on the side of assuming someone has made their best decision. If I know them well enough I can be much safer in my assumption. I’m not about to call that “judging”. I don’t think that was Luke’s intention with that sentence either.

 

[EZweber]

OK. This can happen, but it’s not the de facto case whenever we see someone who reaches a mistaken conclusion. Right?

Right. This doesn’t really have much practical application.

 

[EZweber]

I’m saying that there is no de facto .But I’m also saying that not being culpable for leaving the Church, if it could even be called a mistake in every circumstance, is quite common.

I would say that most people in this case are partially culpable - not completely guilty, not completely innocent.

 

[Gorgias]

But I’m also saying that not being culpable for leaving the Church, if it could even be called a mistake in every circumstance, is quite common.

Interesting. How do you reach that objective judgement (especially given that it’s of distinct, individual, subjective situations!)…?

in general, I wouldn’t assume that people are able to make rational judgments of right and wrong.

In general, that’s precisely what we’d assume! The lack of rationality is the exception, rather than the rule, wouldn’t you say? Otherwise, what you’re saying is that God didn’t provide us with a rational intellect – it’s just a few who got lucky and got one!

Some of them in a sense yes I do, mostly because I know some of them very well… If I know them well enough I can be much safer in my assumption. I’m not about to call that “judging”.

That’s precisely what ‘judging’ means!

I don’t think that was Luke’s intention with that sentence either.

OK… how would you frame up what Luke understood Jesus to have meant, then?

I would say that most people in this case are partially culpable

Again – objective generalization of individual, subjective cases! Not really possible, even if you did have the ability to judge persons!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It’s that action – the lapse – where a person would be culpable.

Aren’t you judging here? That’s not necessarily what I would call it, but I’m trying to use what I understand to be your own standards for judging.

Interesting. How do you reach that objective judgement (especially given that it’s of distinct, individual, subjective situations!)…?

Is this a serious question? Do I really have to explain to you how human beings reason?

The lack of rationality is the exception , rather than the rule , wouldn’t you say? Otherwise, what you’re saying is that God didn’t provide us with a rational intellect – it’s just a few who got lucky and got one!

Let me repeat and clarify myself. I wouldn’t assume that people are able to make rational judgements of right and wrong…in the more complicated areas of life. I’m not making any generalizations about the objective state of the general population’s ability to reason. That’s something different than my own experiences and practices.

That’s precisely what ‘judging’ means!

Judging implies some sort of consequence imposed by the judge, no? Or an assumption somewhere in the judge’s conscience that a wrong may have been committed? If the judge is not an official judge, but a self appointed “judge” - as you are calling me, isn’t there a judgement regarding wrongdoing that sets said judgement into motion? You are saying that there is, but yet, you haven’t called yourself a judge. I’m trying to say that there is no de facto, there is no judgement, there is no assumption of wrongdoing to me.

OK… how would you frame up what Luke understood Jesus to have meant, then?

See above answer.