Mortal sin, death, repentance and salvation

[MT1926]

I know that it is a sin (I “know” because the Church teaches it, even though i don’t see awhy it is SO bad. But i accept the teaching of the Church nontheless), but if it is consensual sex with my daughter who willingly decided to have sex with him, there is no way that i would want him to endure endless torture for that.

It seems like we can go back and forth on this forever. So I just wanted to end with one thought.

Do you think it might just be possible that allowing people into heaven, that are still attached to their sins, might also be making them endure endless torture?

No, i did make a choice. I said that i would invite him into my house if it is the only way to spare him eternal torture.

Allowing everyone to be saved regardless of their sins would make you a universalist wouldn’t it? Please don’t give me the sin comparison again because all that proves is that you are the one who wants to draw the line in the sand of which sins are OK to still get into heaven and which sins aren’t. Which is what I meant by wanting God to conform to a worldly view. Which you already fluffed off here.

You mean the worldly view that a parent who dismembers and burn alive his child because he fu**ed up is a terrible parent? Should i believe that if God does this, he wouldn’t be an hideous monster? Because this is what @Zealot believes, apparently.

Sorry I don’t see how this remotely relates to what I said. You just answered my accusation, about making God conform to a world view, by comparing God with a worldly scenario and calling him a hideous monster based on the worldly view of your scenario.

In all honesty are you giving your topic some serious thoughts and have a desire to come to a better enlightenment of the Church’s teaching on this subject? or Are you just hoping you can find something that will put your mind at ease with what you are willing to accept about what you say in regards to this belief…

(I “know” because the Church teaches it, even though i don’t see awhy it is SO bad. But i accept the teaching of the Church nontheless),

I mean no disrespect just trying to help you see that you are standing on a slippery slop and I would hate to see you slowly sliding down that slope. It is pretty tough getting back up that slope once you slid down,

God Bless

 

[TULIPed]

Please don’t give me the sin comparison again because all that proves is that you are the one who wants to draw the line in the sand of which sins are OK to still get into heaven and which sins aren’t.

Well said!

 

[fhansen]

Robert, I really appreciate the passion in your anti double-predestination et al beliefs; I agree completely, with Calvinism being the extreme in ugly theology on this and other matters and Thomism being ambiguous at best IMO. But, while admittedly none of my business, I think you should tone down the personal not-so-uplifting statements. Just unnecessary and unproductive.

 

[Robert1111]

Do you think it might just be possible that allowing people into heaven, that are still attached to their sins, might also be making them endure endless torture?

Yes, because mortal sin (actual mortal sin) and the beatific vision are mutually exclusive. That’s why it is extremely important to have an actual chance to repent when it matters the most, i.e when you are about to die, since after death no repentance (or sin, for that matter) is possible.

Allowing everyone to be saved regardless of their sins would make you a universalist wouldn’t it? Please don’t give me the sin comparison again because all that proves is that you are the one who wants to draw the line in the sand of which sins are OK to still get into heaven and which sins aren’t. Which is what I meant by wanting God to conform to a worldly view. Which you already fluffed off here.

Literally everyone draws a line in the sand. This is why your government condemns mass murderers to the death penalty but a kid who stole a tank of fuel would never receive such an hard punishment, even if he is completely unrepentant.

Even the Church draws the line, with the distinction between light matter and grave matter. The only difference is that according to our Church the line in the sand (i.e what merits you the highest punishment) is drawn much earlier.

But if my point isn’t clear enough, and you don’t understand why i’m not ok with the guy who had consensual sex with my daughter being tortured endlessly (and this is why, in your example, i would accept him in my house: to spare him that horrible fate), let me ask you something: if he had consensual sex with her, they are both equally culpable. If your daughter isn’t repentant of having had sex with him, would you cast her out of your house even if you know that, if you do this, she will 100% be deported to North Corea and used in chemical experiments until she dies?

If your answer is yes, then you are coherent (but i would quite frankly stay away from you, as much as i can. No offence), if the answer is no, then you are making an arbitrary double standard, because she would deserve that fate just like the guy she had sex with (because, remember, we ain’t talking about rape here and i assume we ain’t talking about a child either).

Sorry I don’t see how this remotely relates to what I said. You just answered my accusation, about making God conform to a world view, by comparing God with a worldly scenario and calling him a hideous monster based on the worldly view of your scenario.

So you are saying that what would be an horrible behavior on the part of a human parent would become magically ok if adopted by God? This would be nominalism at its finest, so i would like you to clarify this point, really.

In all honesty are you giving your topic some serious thoughts and have a desire to come to a better enlightenment of the Church’s teaching on this subject?

Yes.

 

[Robert1111]

I mean no disrespect just trying to help you see that you are standing on a slippery slop and I would hate to see you slowly sliding down that slope. It is pretty tough getting back up that slope once you slid down,

I appreciate your honesty and your concern but i don’t see the slippery slope here. The Church teaches that a kid who masturbates or has premarital sex is as deserving of eternal torture as someone who slits his son’s throat during a Black Mass.

And i accept this teaching, even if it doesn’t make any sense to me. This is the definition of Faith, I.e accepting even what makes no sense to you, intellectually and emotionally.

But, thank God, the Church doesn’t require me to believe that God saves and damns “blindly” so i’m free to believe that God would give the kid who masturbated a chance to repent if he were to die, before his soul departs from the body (which is the real death after which our souls go immediately to judgment), in this way i can believe that the kid would never go to Hell unless he willingly decides to spit on God’s face and willingly dies in final impenitence.

The slippery slope would exist if i was denying some definitive teaching of our Church, but i’m not doing that.

 

[Robert1111]

Robert, I really appreciate the passion in your anti double-predestination et al beliefs; I agree completely, with Calvinism being the extreme in ugly theology on this and other matters and Thomism being ambiguous at best IMO. But, while admittedly none of my business, I think you should tone down the personal not-so-uplifting statements. Just unnecessary and unproductive.

You are 100% right. It’s just that @Zealot really made me lose my patience (which is already short since i’m a hot-tempered Italian ) but yeah, i shouldn’t have stooped to his level.

 

[MT1926]

That’s why it is extremely important to have an actual chance to repent when it matters the most, i.e when you are about to die, since after death no repentance (or sin, for that matter) is possible.

Maybe something is lost in translation here, but the way you word this doesn’t sit well with me. As I already said God knows our hearts. He knows if we are repentant or not. So when you say "when it matters most, i.e when you are about to die, it makes me wonder why?

Let me explain. Like I said, I believe God knows our hearts and our true intentions.

So if we know we are dying and do get the chance to repent, then God would know if we are repenting because we are truly sorry or if we are just repentant because we are dying. If it is the later then I don’t think this person is truly repentant in their heart. They are just repenting because times, up the party is over so they better now play the get out of jail free card they’ve been holding onto all these years. That was the point of my question, if God let’s the guy in, who just gives God lip service on his death bed, wouldn’t that be an endless torture for the guy, since he is still attached to his sins and wouldn’t really be repenting if he wasn’t dying?

Now if someone dies suddenly I believe God knows if there is true repentance on that persons heart, regardless of whether or not they had the chance to say the words.

Literally everyone draws a line in the sand.This is why your government condemns mass murderers to the death penalty but a kid who stole a tank of fuel would never receive such an hard punishment, even if he is completely unrepentant.

Robert can we please stay on the same page. Once again I said you are wanting God to conform to a worldly view and how do you respond? With a worldly example of putting God on equal footing with our government drawing the line in the sand.

I am speaking about God’s view. I am not disagreeing with you that the worldly view does not line up with God’s view. Sure people draw lines in the sand all day long about worldly views. But I try my best not to draw lines in the sand when it comes to God’s view. And if I do I am willing to be taught and corrected. Which is why your next statement doesn’t really prove anything to me.

 

[MT1926]

Even the Church draws the line, with the distinction between light matter and grave matter.

If you are Catholic then you agree that Jesus did not leave us here on earth alone to draw our own lines in the sand. He left us a teaching authority to help us understand when we are crossing those lines. Or attempting to draw our own lines.

If your answer is yes, then you are coherent (but i would quite frankly stay away from you, as much as i can. No offence), if the answer is no, then you are making an arbitrary double standard, because she would deserve that fate just like the guy she had sex with (because, remember, we ain’t talking about rape here).

From a worldly view if it just affected her, as an infallible human, my answer would be no. However, I have 4 other children at home. If I knew for certain that it would also damn the other 4 then I would have no problem letting her suffer the fate that I forewarned her that she would suffer. Keep in mind this would mean I would be suffering as well. I believe the loss of all the souls, who end up in Hell, was also part of the suffering Jesus endured on the cross.

In the end I think the main point is I am willing to accept that I am nothing more than an infallible human. I am willing to accept that Jesus didn’t leave me in charge of the stick that draws the lines. And most of all I know for certain that I can’t see the bigger picture and am willing to trust God no matter what the final outcome might be.

So you are saying that what would be an horrible behavior on the part of a human parent would become magically ok if adopted by God? This would be nominalism at its finest, so i would like you clarify this point, really.

You are presenting a straw man argument. You are asking me to defend something that you have no proof God did.

It would be like a Protestant saying… since you believe the Pope was given the authority to bind the faithful with teachings, that would mean the Pope could bind us into believing the Trinity no longer exists, which would be contrary to Christianity, therefore that proves there isn’t a Pope.

 

[MT1926]

And i accept this teaching, even if it doesn’t make any sense to me. This is the definition of Faith, I.e accepting even what makes no sense to you, intellectually and emotionally.

I’m thinking we’ve been talking past each other. Because I totally agree with this. It did not seem from reading your posts that you were willing to accept the teachings. I’m good with not agreeing but still accepting.

I apologize for misunderstanding.

But, thank God, the Church doesn’t require me to believe that God saves and damns “blindly” so i’m free to believe that God would give the kid who masturbated a chance to repent if he were to die, before his soul departs from the body (which is the real death after which our souls go immediately to judgment), in this way i can believe that the kid would never go to Hell unless he willingly decided to spit on God’s face and willingly dies in final impenitence.

I believe we are free to believe this, this is what I meant when I kept pointing out that God judges the heart. He knows if we are repentant or not, regardless of if we get the chance to say the words.

Once again, I apologize.

All Good here,

God Bless

 

[Robert1111]

Maybe something is lost in translation here

Not really. I’m not using google translate, i’m using my personal English, here.

So if we know we are dying and do get the chance to repent, then God would know if we are repenting because we are truly sorry or if we are just repentant because we are dying. If it is the later then I don’t think this person is truly repentant in their heart. They are just repenting because times, up the party is over so they better now play the get out of jail free card they’ve been holding onto all these years. That was the point of my question, if God let’s the guy in, who just gives God lip service on his death bed, wouldn’t that be an endless torture for the guy, since he is still attached to his sins and wouldn’t really be repenting if he wasn’t dying?

Now if someone dies suddenly I believe God knows if there is true repentance on that persons heart, regardless of whether or not they had the chance to say the words.

Robert1111:

What you are describing here is the difference between perfect contrition and imperfect contrition.

Perfect contrition allows you to be saved even without confession, imperfect contrition requires the Sacrament of penance to receive God’s Mercy. This is the Church teaching.

And now we are back to my point: if the kid had had a confessor he would have been saved, but since he is dying without a priest he is s**t outta luck.

We come back to my entire argument about “luck” and God’s unwillingness to save some people, otherwise he would have just made sure that a priest showed up to administer absolution to the kid.

How do i solve this paradox?

I think that in the final Grace is implied perfect contrition. Because, you know, having perfect contrition is a great Grace on God’s part. But you do have to accept it, so in this case, if this kid opens his heart enough, God will enlighten the kid’s heart and the kid will come to true repentance. But only if he is willing to let God enter, otherwise he will willingly die without true repentance, i.e in final impenitence.

This is what Saint Faustina said

Emphasis mine

“I often attend upon the dying and through entreaties obtain for them trust in God’s mercy, and I implore God for an abundance of divine grace, which is always victorious. God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things.

Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that IF THE SOUL IS WILLING, it has the possibility of returning to God."(1698)

 

[MT1926]

And now we are back to my point: if the kid had had a confessor he would have been saved, but since he is dying without a priest he is s**t outta luck.

We come back to my entire argument about “luck” and God’s unwillingness to save some people, otherwise he would have just made sure that a priest showed up to administer absolution to the kid.

How do i solve this paradox?

To me it’s not really a paradox because even if the kid got to confess the sin, but deep in his heart he was still hoping to pull through so he could get back to that girls house, then he is still s**t outta luck.

Personally, I think you solved the paradox here…

I think that in the final Grace is implied perfect contrition. Because, you know, having perfect contrition is a great Grace on God’s part. But you do have to accept it, so in this case, if this kid opens his heart enough, God will enlighten the kid’s heart and the kid will come to true repentance. But only if he is willing to let God enter, otherwise he will willingly die without true repentance, i.e in final impenitence.

God Bless

 

[Robert1111]

To me it’s not really a paradox because even if the kid got to confess the sin, but deep in his heart he was still hoping to pull through so he could get back to that girls house, then he is still s**t outta luck.

Yeah, because he wouldn’t have the firm purpose of amendment. But not having this kind of purpose when you have 80 years of life ahead of you is one thing, not having it when you are about to die is where s**t gets really ugly.

 

[Robert1111]

MT1926

And this is why i posted what Jesus said to Saint Faustina. Because as you said it solves the paradox, since only the truly unwilling, deserving and unrepentant would go to eternal destruction.

 

[Robert1111]

Personally, I think you solved the paradox here…

By the way, i just reported Jesus revelation to Saint Faustina.

Yeah, that kind of solves the paradox, but this still requires death not being as abrupt a process as it has been made out to be in the past, otherwise there would be no time for the kid to open his heart, because after death your fate is irrevocably sealed.

From a worldly view if it just affected her, as an infallible human, my answer would be no. However, I have 4 other children at home. If I knew for certain that it would also damn the other 4 then I would have no problem letting her suffer the fate that I forewarned her that she would suffer

I don’t think that this is what you would do. If you truly love your daughter, you would beg the government to take you and let her free. This is what love means: being willing to suffer for your loved ones sake. This is what Jesus did for us on the Cross.

By the way, you wouldn’t even have to consign yourself to the government. You’d just have to not cast her out of your house. Like i said, in this scenario you can choose between casting your daughter out of your house or not, knowing that if you do, she would suffer that fate.

You are presenting a straw man argument. You are asking me to defend something that you have no proof God did.

I don’t believe that God did this. I was asking if it would be ok for him to do it because he is God. If the answer is yes then it would be nominalism at its finest, that’s why i asked you that question.

It would be like a Protestant saying… since you believe the Pope was given the authority to bind the faithful with teachings, that would mean the Pope could bind us into believing the Trinity no longer exists, which would be contrary to Christianity, therefore that proves there isn’t a Pope.

Exactly. And yet many people here believe that God saving and reprobating for no other reason except his divine will would be perfectly ok and compatible with his Love and Mercy, which is tantamount to saying that “the Pope could bind us into believing the Trinity no longer exists, which would be contrary to Christianity, therefore that proves there isn’t a Pope.” because such a God couldn’t logically be neither merciful nor loving.

A little bit of maieutics goes a long way, i see. Good.

 

[Robert1111]

I agree completely, with Calvinism being the extreme in ugly theology on this and other matters and Thomism being ambiguous at best IMO.

Well, you see, fhansen, thomism is actually a really really ugly girl. But she uses a great deal of makeup, this is the reason why, when you see her walking down the street, you aren’t completely horrified by her.

Sure, you may not fall in love with her but still, she doesn’t horrify you either.

But if you just dare to accept her advances despite her ugliness, the next morning you will really regret it. Because the unbearably ugly mug of this girl will stand right in front of you in the full extent of its diabolical ugliness as you wake up, and you will hope to highest Heaven to not see it ever again.

I hope i got my message across.
The girl is the same. The only difference is some cleverly applied makeup here and there.

 

[Robert1111]

@ MT1926

I want to quote another user from the topic “did your view on Hell change” who reported another private revelation which confirms what i have said earlier and it is also consistent with what Jesus said to Saint Faustina.

Continuing the discussion from Did your view on Hell Change?:

I do think I have “changed” my view a bit, though I still think it’s speculative. My view is colored by the writings of Ste Therese of Lisieux. Sometimes she’s kind of obscure, but I’m reasonably certain about some things she said. She opined that all people in hell are volunteers. She maintained that at or near the moment of death, there is a terrible clarity. We see everything we ever did and fully understand the evil of them. There’s no pretense, no rationalization, no minimalization. Nothing. And it’s horrifying. Not only that, it hurts.

We are then offered God’s forgiveness and His love. It’s utterly undeserved, but comes from pure love. We can then either admit to what we have done and humbly accept forgiveness, or we can, in pride, reject it. If we reject it, we reject Him, and we do it forever. It’s a totally clear decision, not some emotional “anger” kind of thing. It’s pride and we won’t tolerate its deflation. We choose ourselves instead of God, and we “cocoon up” in self-worship forever. We know how insufficient that is for us, but we do it anyway.

As you can see, it is the same concept explained by Saint Faustina when she said “The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that IF THE SOUL IS WILLING, it has the possibility of returning to God."( diary 1698)

Something similar has also been taught by Padre Pio.

From this link St. Padre Pio Purgatory

“To John McCaffery: "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, WHEN WE APPEAR TO BE DEAD (my note: the operative words here are “when we appear to”), God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent”?

 

[Latin]

The Church doesn’t teach strictly Molinism or Thomism here. She teaches what we find in the catechism. It’d be wise to follow that more closely rather than your own personal musings IMO.

Fair enough, let’s see the TEACHINGS OF THE CATECHISM.

CCC 2822; Our Father “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
.
CCC 1058; The Church prays that no one should be lost: If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God desires all men to be saved; ( 1 Tim 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” ( Mt 19:26).
.
CCC 2018; Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin.
.
CCCS 1990-1991; Justification is God’s free gift which detaches man from enslavement to sin and reconciles him to God.

Justification is also our acceptance of God’s righteousness. In this gift, faith, hope, charity, and OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S WILL are given to us.

.
CCCS 1996-1998; Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.

This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.
.
CCC 308; The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
.
CCC 2022; The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.

.
As we see bellow (Thomism – Reprobation = The Most Beautiful Girl).
Thomism is in perfect harmony with God’s vehement Universal Salvific Will and with the Catechism.

.
ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION

De gratia Christi 25, 26:
For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it.
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32:
It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good. . . . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, PROVIDING MOST EFFECTIVE POWERS TO THE WILL.

.
The Council of Sens (1140) condemned the idea that free will is sufficient in itself for any good. Donez., 373.

In canon 22, Council of the Orange (529) says, “No one has anything of his own except lying and sin. Denz., 194; quoting St. Prosper.
.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.

Phil.2:13; For it is God who works in you both to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose.

God blass

 

[Robert1111]

@Latin

Like i said, Latin, i would like it very much to discover that your universalism is true. So i don’t have a problem with your perspective, it’s just that i find it too good to be true. I’d rather be more cautious.

This is why i can’t bring myself to be a universalist.

If it turns out to be true, then i will be immensely happy.

P.s

“ The Council of Sens (1140) condemned the idea that free will is sufficient in itself for any good. Donez., 373.”

Yeah free will without Grace can do nothing good. But this doesn’t necessarily imply that under the influence of Grace we can’t help but doing good or that we can’t refuse to act after having received Grace (in other words, Graces gives us the real power to love and accept God -not like thomistic sufficient Grace which is only enough to make you accountable for your sin- but we can choose to not act on it).

This is why i’m cautious about universalism even if i would love it to be true.

 

[fhansen]

CCC 2822; Our Father "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Apparently then you’d maintain that every child rape and torture was directly willed by God. Personally I wouldn’t want to spend a moment of eternity with such a “god”. There certainly wouldn’t be any guarantee that hell should be any worse. Sounds like we’d need to be saved from Him. And I don’t know why you’d think that Augustine’s or Aquinas’s opinions necessarily mean anything at all. And we don’t lift isolated verses out of Scripture or isolated paragraphs out of the catechism. In any case the Church discerns and proclaims the truth, and we need to listen to her counsel, all of it:

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."

 

[fhansen]

cont:

1056 Following the example of Christ, the Church warns the faithful of the “sad and lamentable reality of eternal death” ( GCD 69), also called "hell."

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

Given the Church’s affirmation of hell, we know exactly what CCC 2822 (Our Father “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.") means. It means that God’s will isn’t necessarily done, i.e. man has free will and can freely will to eternally reject God.