"No where did Christ say one must agree with every dogma

[ahs]

A lot of people seem to think that hell is separation from God, it is not, separation from God is spiritual death.

Hell is ETERNAL separation from God. If by “a lot of people”, you mean Jesus Christ and His Church, you are correct. Start at CCC 1033 if you just want the basics on Hell:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1057

God did not create hell,

Jesus said differently:

"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. " (Mt 25:41)

God allows each and every one of us to custom-build our own hell.

Is this a statement by your own “authority”, or do you have a Scriptural passage or an authoritative Catholic teaching that says this?

 

[Jon_S_1]

As far as, “To think you have experienced hell, shows how much you do not understand the concept.”

To you it might be a concept, but it is not a concept to me.

Do you think that God created hell or do you think that God allows us to build our own hell or do you think something else altogether?

Concerning, “Are you proclaiming the good news to all the nations that Jesus is the Savior?”

Actually, I am proclaiming that Jesus Is the Saviour of ALL, somehow.

It is GOD’S PLAN, not mine, not yours and not anyone else’s, and God Is a Trinity and God has had this Plan since before creation and it is unfolding before our very eyes.

Jesus said, “With God ALL things are possible”.

I may be hoping beyond what many think is hopable but I refuse to hope for anything less.

You wrote, “You realize that Jesus paid the price for our sins, but did not become responsible personally for our sins. He could not take on personal sin…he is God. God cannot be separated from himself.”

If Jesus did not take on “personal sin”, what did he take on?

Are you saying that the “price for our sins” that Jesus paid is different than the “price for our sins” that we pay?

One day you may just find out that God did more than you think God capable of doing.

Why are you Catholic?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Also, in regard to Jesus on the cross and sin.

Jesus can pay the consequence for our sin without being guilty of our sin.

If you murder someone and are condemned to die, I can voluntarily take your place without being guilty of any of your sins.

 

[Gorgias]

Hmm…

Shaolin, it seems like Jimmy Akin gave you an on-air answer that worked for you?

(Which, as it turns out, was “yes, we’re bound to believe what the Church infallibly teaches, and to give religious assent to the other things that she proposes for us to follow… look at Luke: ‘whosoever hears you, hears me, and whosoever rejects you, rejects me and him who sent me’, so it’s a matter of divine obedience.”)

 

[Shaolen]

Hmm…

Shaolin, it seems like Jimmy Akin gave you an on-air answer that worked for you?

(Which, as it turns out, was “yes, we’re bound to believe what the Church infallibly teaches, and to give religious assent to the other things that she proposes for us to follow… look at Luke: ‘whosoever hears you, hears me, and whosoever rejects you, rejects me and him who sent me’, so it’s a matter of divine obedience.”)

Oh hey haha. Yeah that along with some of the early answers on this thread

 

[Tom_Baum]

Also, in regard to Jesus on the cross and sin.

Jesus can pay the consequence for our sin without being guilty of our sin.

If you murder someone and are condemned to die, I can voluntarily take your place without being guilty of any of your sins.

Are you saying that Jesus took ALL of the sins of ALL upon Himself on the cross but not the guilt?

“Taking the guilt associated with sin” is not the same as being guilty, just as taking the sin does not mean that one is a sinner.

Do you think Jesus did ANYTHING on the cross or do you think that all that He did was merely symbolic?

One of the reasons that I believe that God became One of us is that it could only be God Who did what He did on the cross in that only God could absorp, so to speak, the sins of ALL.

Jesus did NOT symbolically take on ALL of our sins just as Jesus did NOT symbolically leave us His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Are you saying that Jesus took ALL of the sins of ALL upon Himself on the cross but not the guilt?

“Taking the guilt associated with sin” is not the same as being guilty, just as taking the sin does not mean that one is a sinner.

Do you think Jesus did ANYTHING on the cross or do you think that all that He did was merely symbolic?

One of the reasons that I believe that God became One of us is that it could only be God Who did what He did on the cross in that only God could absorp, so to speak, the sins of ALL.

Jesus did NOT symbolically take on ALL of our sins just as Jesus did NOT symbolically leave us His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

This is my response.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=323759&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

And this one; please read these as they really sum it up nicely.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

“The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. In His human will He offered to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son. The Passion is Christ’s greatest act of love, the greatest revelation of the heart of God, and the glory of Christ.1 So when Christ was on the cross, God the Father was not pouring out His wrath on His Son; in Christ’s act of self-sacrifice in loving obedience to the Father, Christ was most lovable in the eyes of the Father. Rather, in Christ’s Passion we humans poured out our enmity with God on Christ, by what we did to Him in His body and soul. And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him.”

 

[Tom_Baum]

This is my response.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=323759&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

And this one; please read these as they really sum it up nicely.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

“The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. In His human will He offered to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son. The Passion is Christ’s greatest act of love, the greatest revelation of the heart of God, and the glory of Christ.1 So when Christ was on the cross, God the Father was not pouring out His wrath on His Son; in Christ’s act of self-sacrifice in loving obedience to the Father, Christ was most lovable in the eyes of the Father. Rather, in Christ’s Passion we humans poured out our enmity with God on Christ, by what we did to Him in His body and soul. And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him.”

So you think it can only be either/or rather than both/and?

As far as, “Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son.”

The bible speaks of God’s wrath, do you think that this is just some words or do you think that it is not just some words and it is still in effect, so to speak, or do you think that God’s wrath has been taken care of?

If there is such a thing as “His wrath”, what happened to it?

Concerning, “The Father was never angry with Christ.”

What does that have to do with anything?

It is not about our Dad being angry with our Brother, isn’t it about what Jesus did, supposedly in our place?

If you “believe” that there is such a thing as the “wrath of God” than wouldn’t it make sense that the “cross” was a two-way street, so to speak, rather than either of the two one-way streets that you speak of, with Dad pouring out His Wrath on the entire human race and our Brother absorping this wrath in an Act of Divine Love for the Divine and an Act of Divine Love for His creation?

I ask again, do you consider th words that Jesus said, “My God, My God why have Thou forsaken Me?”, absolutely meaningless?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So you think it can only be either/or rather than both/and?

As far as, “Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son.”

The bible speaks of God’s wrath, do you think that this is just some words or do you think that it is not just some words and it is still in effect, so to speak, or do you think that God’s wrath has been taken care of?

If there is such a thing as “His wrath”, what happened to it?

Concerning, “The Father was never angry with Christ.”

What does that have to do with anything?

It is not about our Dad being angry with our Brother, isn’t it about what Jesus did, supposedly in our place?

If you “believe” that there is such a thing as the “wrath of God” than wouldn’t it make sense that the “cross” was a two-way street, so to speak, rather than either of the two one-way streets that you speak of, with Dad pouring out His Wrath on the entire human race and our Brother absorping this wrath in an Act of Divine Love for the Divine and an Act of Divine Love for His creation?

I ask again, do you consider th words that Jesus said, “My God, My God why have Thou forsaken Me?”, absolutely meaningless?

Perhaps you did not read the links…they clear this all up, it’s not my opinion, it’s Catholic teaching.

 

[JohnR77]

I ask again, do you consider th words that Jesus said, “My God, My God why have Thou forsaken Me?”, absolutely meaningless?

SEE:
My God My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me ?
defendingthebride.com/je/forsaken.html

.

 

[dominejesu]

The church founded by Christ must go back in history to the of Christ; its doctrines must be the same as those of the Apostolic Church; and its leaders must be able to trace their authority back to the Apostles. Thus, history, apostolic doctrines, and apostolic authority are sure guides for determining which Church Jesus founded. Any history book will show that only the Catholic church has existed since the time of Christ. No Protestant denomination found today existed before ad 1517.
The early church fathers are only link to apostolic Christianity.
The bible and sacred tradition are very clear that Christ left a Church that would be governed by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyter, and deacons with the successor of St. Peter as the head. Only the Catholic Church has such a governing hierarchy that can trace its authority in an unbroken succession back to the Apostolic authority established by Christ Himself.A careful study of the first 300 years of Christianity reveals that Catholic doctrines such as the Eucharist, Apostolic Authority and the pope as successor of St. Peter, were believed by Christians from the beginning.
Protestants often accuse Catholic Church of changing its doctrines, or inventing new ones. Usually, they are confusing Church doctrines with Church disciplines. A doctrine
Is an unchangeable truth revealed by God a discipline is a changeable regulation. The church teaches there can be no new doctrines since the death of the last apostle. Jude 3
Fuller insights are passed on by the church through its Magisterium or teaching office.