The Confusion of Catholicism

[paziego]

Really? Evidence of opposite is often present in this very forum.

Well, since you used the word “evidence” you must be right.

This is clearly an unsubstantiated claim.

Ok I admit it - I forged the syllabus of errors. There isn’t really a liberal-conservative split and “modernism” is a term of my invention.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

…

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

-Infallible teaching of the Council of Florence, 6th session, July 6, 1439.

Clearly, your church believes that people deserve to go to hell merely by existing (since all humans who exist are born into original sin except Mary allegedly). Rather not discuss this again, very tired of this whole charade of “church teaching is X” “Nu uh, it’s Y” “Nu uh, it’s Z” LOL.

Grace = favor awarded to sycophants.

Do all good people go to heaven or not? If goodness isn’t the essential factor of salvation, what is? If it is grace, then my uncharitable rendering of the “economy of salvation” holds. If not, what is it?

 

[jmcrae]

-Infallible teaching of the Council of Florence, 6th session, July 6, 1439.

Clearly, your church believes that people deserve to go to hell merely by existing (since all humans who exist are born into original sin except Mary allegedly). Rather not discuss this again, very tired of this whole charade of “church teaching is X” “Nu uh, it’s Y” “Nu uh, it’s Z” LOL.

Grace = favor awarded to sycophants.

Do all good people go to heaven or not? If goodness isn’t the essential factor of salvation, what is? If it is grace, then my uncharitable rendering of the “economy of salvation” holds. If not, what is it?

1. There are no good people. Even Mother Teresa can be criticized for falling short in the area of good works. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, as we are told in the Letter to the Romans.
2. There being no good people, obviously, they don’t go to Heaven.
3. We normally receive grace by means of the Sacraments. Baptism sets one’s feet on the road to Heaven, and makes one a child of God and a member of the Church. The other Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, strengthen our Baptismal grace.
4. Those who have no access to the Sacraments may be saved by God in some way known only to Himself, and He may or may not use a person’s good deeds as the criterion by which He saves them. (Neither Dismas ( the “good thief”) nor the Holy Innocents had any good deeds to their names.)
5. Sucking up to the hierarchy has very little effect on whether or not you are receiving the Sacraments effectively. I have received Holy Communion and Reconciliation from priests who didn’t like me. Them not liking me didn’t reduce the validity of the Sacraments.

 

[guanophore]

It is unreasonable to expect limited human beings to be perfect. We are required to do our best, but we cannot be required to do the impossible. Fortunately, human beings are not the judges.

Yes, our hope is in God.

Yes, but this is a testimony to the reasonability of the faith. God helps us in our weaknesses, so that we need not rely upon our own liminted nature.

It is also a testimony that it is not “impossible” to attain the perfection that God requires of us. It is said that we must sin - that we cannot help it, but this is not true.

Indeed, to you, obsequiousness is the *sine qua non* of salvation it would seem.

No, for Catholics, salvation is embedded in the relationship with Christ. Authentic, honest, and self insightful. God is not interested in us “'playing the role”. He wants us to become who He has created us to be, made in His image and likeness.

One deserves hell merely by being born, and no amount of manifest goodness can repair the situation right?

I think you may be confusing the consequences of original sin with personal responsibiity. We are not personally responsible for the choices of Adam and Eve. We suffer the consequence of their choice. Our perfect fellowship with God was broken. He loves us, and created us for eternal fellowship with Him, so He had to make provision so that we can be returned to right relationship with Him.

The only solution is to bow before men who have set themselves up as God’s mouthpieces in hopes of currying favor.

You sound angry, PC. This is not about bowing before men, but before God. We must acknowledge that we are not capable of achieving right relationship with Him apart from His grace.

Although there are many men (and women) who have set themselves up as God’s mouthpieces, we are only to listen to those that He has set up as such. That would be the successors of the Apostles.

I am not sure what you mean by “currying favor” before men, but being saved is about being in “favor” with our creator. Sometimes that naturally places us at odds with other persons.

The "economy of salvation" is celestial cronyism, based on what I understand you to be saying.

It seems like you have a very bent notion of salvaiton, so that means either I did not express myself well, or the gulf between how I understand it and how you do is too wide to breach.

-Infallible teaching of the Council of Florence, 6th session, July 6, 1439.

Clearly, your church believes that people deserve to go to hell merely by existing (since all humans who exist are born into original sin except Mary allegedly).

It is not up to us to decide who deserves what, but our Creator. The Church holds to what has been revealed to us by God.

I think that John the Baptist is also said to have been born without original sin.

Grace = favor awarded to sycophants.

Surely you cannot expect us to accept your nuveau definition of grace? You are free to create such definitions, that are opposite of what Catholics believe, but we cannot accept them.

Do *all* good people go to heaven or not?

No. One must choose to do so.

If goodness isn’t the essential factor of salvation, what is?

There is a great difference between “goodness” and doing good works. Of course goodness is an essential element. He must make us good/pure, because “nothing unclean can enter heaven”.

 If it is grace, then my uncharitable rendering of the "economy of salvation" holds. If not, what is it?

We are made worthy/clean by grace, through faith. The ontological change that occurs in us through regeneration by the Holy Spirit creates ergos hagios, or holy deeds/works that are born of the Holy Spirit in and through us.

 

[grannymh]

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

-Infallible teaching of the Council of Florence, 6th session, July 6, 1439.

A bit of clarification for our gentle readers.

In other contexts, there is the teaching that the human person has an intellective freedom of choice. Thus, in the normal course of events, the human person has to freely choose to remain in mortal sin or freely choose to remain in original sin. Both entails a personal deliberate rejection of God. A personal deliberate rejection of God is what the state of hell means.

Mortal sins are easy to visualize; but the state of original sin is often hidden within the nature of a baby or within the nature of an adult who has not had the opportunity to learn the Gospel of Christ. Because Christ died for all, the Catholic Church holds “that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Information source: CCC 1260. I underlined the important part.

When it comes to God loving any person, we cannot underestimate the power of God to touch the soul. God is constantly reaching out to each person cognizant of Him or not cognizant. We simple human beings cannot limit God’s power. Nor should we underestimate the power of the human soul to reach out to God.

So the answer is that when a person is capable of freely accepting God or freely rejecting God, that choice can lead to heaven or hell.

One more extremely important point.
When a person freely, knowingly, and deliberately commits a mortal sin, that is, rejecting God, God still loves that person and still calls that person to repent. Thus, it is possible for a person to seek God’s forgiveness and therefore return to the original state of seeking and finding God. It is said that God greets the repentant sinner with open arms. It is said that the Good Shepherd constantly looks for the lost sheep.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

1. There are no good people. Even Mother Teresa can be criticized for falling short in the area of good works. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, as we are told in the Letter to the Romans.
2. There being no good people, obviously, they don’t go to Heaven.
3. We normally receive grace by means of the Sacraments. Baptism sets one’s feet on the road to Heaven, and makes one a child of God and a member of the Church. The other Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, strengthen our Baptismal grace.
4. Those who have no access to the Sacraments may be saved by God in some way known only to Himself, and He may or may not use a person’s good deeds as the criterion by which He saves them. (Neither Dismas ( the “good thief”) nor the Holy Innocents had any good deeds to their names.)
5. Sucking up to the hierarchy has very little effect on whether or not you are receiving the Sacraments effectively. I have received Holy Communion and Reconciliation from priests who didn’t like me. Them not liking me didn’t reduce the validity of the Sacraments.

1. Think about what you just said! If that doesn’t cause cognitive dissonance for you, then I am truly sorry for your life circumstances. If you are surrounded by so many evil and corrupt people that it is easy for you to believe “there are no good people” I sincerely hope you can escape your situation and find greener pastures.

But, that’s not what you mean, right? You mean there are no perfect people. I agree with you there of course! Of course we fall short of the glory of God, we’re not God! We’re imperfect, but that’s OK. God is not unreasonable, and doesn’t expect us to be perfect. The writer of Proverbs tells us “A righteous man sins seven times a day…” The difference between the righteous and the wicked is that the righteous repent and try again. They never give up trying to do the right thing.

1. Don’t believe premise 1 is true, so this is moot.
2. So you say, but you have no proof, so I don’t believe this. If it were true, Catholics would be morally and spiritually better than other human beings. Further, those who receive the sacraments more frequently would be better, but they’re not (in my experience). Unless…you mean to say that grace doesn’t increase goodness but is merely favored bestowed upon cronies.
3. Repentance is a good deed! You don’t even know if the “good thief” actually existed, much less his name, much less if he did any good deeds LOL.
4. Receiving sacraments is in itself “sucking up” to the men who proclaim themselves the mouthpieces of God and “another Christ.” Who has the power to forgive sins? God alone. To think that certain fallible and imperfect human beings have this power, and then to seek their favors is spiritual cronyism. It doesn’t matter if the crony personally likes you of course, you must simply bow before them in a ritual to get the favor. You can get the favors for your children too (baptism). Quoting “who’s sins you are forgiven are forgiven, etc…” at me won’t be convincing. I don’t see the New Testament as God’s word, and don’t accept that Jesus had the power to forgive sins in the first place.

 

[OneSheep]

We need to know the many problems with Anthony de Mello such as the false “illusions’ he manufactures. “The world’s all right”? Really – change to suit “the world”?

See: NOTIFICATION CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF FR. ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFDEMEL.HTM

Typical are:
‘Religions, including Christianity, are one of the major obstacles to the discovery of truth. This truth, however, is never defined by the author in its precise contents. For him, to think that the God of one’s own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism. “God” is considered as a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the personal nature of God is ignored and in practice denied.’

" ‘The lovely thing about Jesus was that he was so at home with sinners, because he understood that he wasn’t one bit better than they were’…The only difference between Jesus and those others was that he was awake and they weren’t" (Awareness, 30-31);

“With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality. Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.”

Yes, I agree with you, the world is not necessarily “all right”, and he did have a tendency to get careless with his writings at times, implying things that I truly believe he did not intend to imply. Taken as a whole, though, he has a lot of great insights.

We do have “mental evaluations” of reality that are unique to us individually, and some seem a bit bizarre. However, there are some “bottom line evaluations” that we can truly elevate as truth, for they precipitate from our common God-given nature. These truths are to be held dear and affirmed. They are manifestations of the conscience.

I cannot claim to have not been so careless myself, it happens. It behooves us to scrutinize all writings.

Thanks, good point!

 

[paziego]

Objections:

            If God’s essence and existence are the same, then God has nothing added to him. Therefore, God is being in general and is universally predicated of all things (heresy of pantheism).

            Reply: God is existence to its fullest and simplest extent. All other beings participate in his existence on a contingency and thus do not posses the nature of God. Therefore, no being can be said to be a god or share a part in godhead since they exist solely on a contingency. God’s essence precludes any addition absolutely. Prime matter (of which all material things are composed) has a nature in which nothing is required to be added to it: but not absolutely. Thus prime matter is predicated of all material things, but God is not.
            It has been shown that we can know that God exists, but we cannot understand his nature. If this is true then God’s nature and existence cannot possibly be the same thing or we would understand his nature.

            Reply: We understand the proposition: God exists. We also understand the proposition: God is. Thus for both propositions, we understand them in the sense that we have joined a subject and a predicate and understand both terms. However, we do not understand the essence of either proposition. Thus we understand God’s existence and nature in the first sense but not in the deeper second sense.

saintaquinas.com/article4.html

o_mlly, I feel that I owe you an apology. In my last reply to you I did not offer you a complete answer even though you took the trouble to present an argument and provide a link. I am sorry for coming across as dismissive or rude. I owe you more, so here is a proper reply.

To say God’s essence and existence is the same, and to say that he is the only being whose existence is not contingent, is in fact to say that “exists” is part of the definition of the word “God”. That is, unlike other, created things, existence is a property intrinsic to god (thus part of his essence) rather than contingently present.

The question is, can “existence” be part of the definition of a thing? Many philosophers over the centuries have said that it can be, and the ontological argument for the existence of God is based on this belief. The argument was first used by St Anselm, and was subsequently adopted by many scholastic philosophers, by Descartes, and by Spinoza. So it is a popular argument that has been used by people who are not even Catholic. However, it was almost never used on its own, and was conclusively refuted by Kant.

The argument says that if existence is intrinsic to God, and part of the definition of what he is, then you cannot deny his existence. When you posit the being “God”, you are positing an existing being, therefore he must exist. As you can see, it is an argument for the existence of God rather than for the trinity.

The problem with this argument is that “exists” cannot be part of the definition of a thing, because “exists” is not a predicate. When describing something - a dog for example - you can predicate of it that it is black, that it is a mammal, that it is thirsty, etc. “Exists”, however, is different from these, because unlike predicates it does nothing to inform us about the subject. For example, telling me that a dog is black is informative of what the dog is like, but telling me it exists is just the claim that there is an instance of it and does not convey information about it - it is not a predicate. Compare the sentences “a black dog” and “a black dog exists”. The second sentence is making a claim about the black dog, but it is not telling me anything additional about the black dog itself. It does not inform me in the same way “black” does. That is, it does not add content to the term “dog”, but makes a claim about the dog and the contents of its concept.

Furthermore, you can say of a dog that it is thirsty and that is a mammal. That it is a mammal is necessary, as it is part of the definition of a dog. But it is not by definition that the dog is thirsty; it is a proposition about a dog that may or may not be true. Similarly, saying that something exists (that there is an instance of it) is making a proposition about something such as saying that it is thirsty. It is not something you can include in a definition. Otherwise you could come up with something called a “realunicorn”, which is like a unicorn except “exists” is part of its definition. This would force the realunicorn into existence - this situation is absurd.

So, going back to Aquinas’ argument, to say that existence is part of God’s essence and therefore intrinsic to him (and only to him) is to mistakenly use “existence” as a predicate and as part of the definition of God. The only way you can have “existence” as part of God’s definition is if you simply say that the word “God” is a synonym of “existence”, which would yield pantheism.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yes, but this is a testimony to the reasonability of the faith. God helps us in our weaknesses, so that we need not rely upon our own liminted nature.

It is also a testimony that it is not “impossible” to attain the perfection that God requires of us. It is said that we must sin - that we cannot help it, but this is not true.

If any one declare that a man once justified cannot sin again, or that he can avoid for the rest of his life every sin, even venial, let him be anathema.

-Trent, session 6, chapter 11, canon 23

Catholics are not able to avoid all sin even after reception of the sacraments apparently. And, you’re not allowed to think it is possible to attain perfection, or you’re anathematized.

No, for Catholics, salvation is embedded in the relationship with Christ. Authentic, honest, and self insightful. God is not interested in us “'playing the role”. He wants us to become who He has created us to be, made in His image and likeness.

Sacraments are essentially role playing. Recently a fake priest was discovered in California I believe. Those people had been receiving fake sacraments for years. None of them knew. Can you have an “authentic” relationship with someone when it apparently makes no difference whether the relation is spiritual/mystical/sacramental or fraudulent? I doubt it!

I think you may be confusing the consequences of original sin with personal responsibiity. We are not personally responsible for the choices of Adam and Eve. We suffer the consequence of their choice. Our perfect fellowship with God was broken. He loves us, and created us for eternal fellowship with Him, so He had to make provision so that we can be returned to right relationship with Him.

So, you’re saying that God punishes the innocent on behalf of the guilty? If those who die in original sin alone don’t deserve hell because they’re not responsible, why does your church teach that they descend there immediately to be punished upon death?

You sound angry, PC. This is not about bowing before men, but before God. We must acknowledge that we are not capable of achieving right relationship with Him apart from His grace.

The anger is your conscience. You are realizing, through my words, that something isn’t…right. It angers you to think about bowing before men who have puffed themselves up and presented themselves as God’s official indispensable spokesmen. The layers of conditioning will never be able to totally eclipse your inner knowledge that something is amiss. I could see it only faintly when I was a Catholic, but it became increasingly clear as I walked away. Now that I’ve gained some more distance, it is vividly clear.

Although there are many men (and women) who have set themselves up as God’s mouthpieces, we are only to listen to those that He has set up as such. That would be the successors of the Apostles.

I am not sure what you mean by “currying favor” before men, but being saved is about being in “favor” with our creator. Sometimes that naturally places us at odds with other persons.

Special pleading. Mormons think their prophets occupy the same position. Muslims think Muhammad occupies the same position. JW’s think the Watchtower occupies the same position. Each claims that their men have been revealed by God as the true spokesmen. You reject all these claims. Me too, and I reject yours too, on the same grounds.

It seems like you have a very bent notion of salvaiton, so that means either I did not express myself well, or the gulf between how I understand it and how you do is too wide to breach.

It is not up to us to decide who deserves what, but our Creator. The Church holds to what has been revealed to us by God.

I think that John the Baptist is also said to have been born without original sin.

Surely you cannot expect us to accept your nuveau definition of grace? You are free to create such definitions, that are opposite of what Catholics believe, but we cannot accept them.

No. One must choose to do so.

There is a great difference between “goodness” and doing good works. Of course goodness is an essential element. He must make us good/pure, because “nothing unclean can enter heaven”.

We are made worthy/clean by grace, through faith. The ontological change that occurs in us through regeneration by the Holy Spirit creates ergos hagios, or holy deeds/works that are born of the Holy Spirit in and through us.

It is considered “pious belief” to suppose John the Baptist was absolved of original sin sometime in utero, but not a required belief.

My definition of grace is similar to the Catholic one, but I have stripped it of ornamentation and fuzziness to show it as I understand it. I find that many Catholic concepts have layers of ambiguity and obscurity growing out of them due to centuries of disagreement and misunderstanding. By tearing down some of that “fuzziness,” I think we can get a more clear understanding of what is going on.

There is no way to verify or disconfirm any kind of “ontological” change of which you speak, so I don’t believe it.

 

[paziego]

In case my explanation seems muddled, I will add another version of it.

The definitive refutation of the ontological argument was presented by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in his two objections to its Cartesian version. Firstly, he established the distinction between analytic statements: those which are known to be true by the definition of their terms (for example: all pigeons are birds); and synthetic statements: those which require additional knowledge to be verified (for example: pigeons are numerous in Venice). Accepting Descartes’ claim that God’s definition includes the property of existence, he acknowledged that ‘God exists’ is correct as an analytic statement, and that to reject His existence would be contradictory. But analytic statements, Kant argued, do not necessitate a corresponding instance, and no contradiction would result when rejecting God, together with all his attributes, as a synthetic truth. Kant concluded that, in fact, “all existential propositions must be synthetic” , and therefore an observed instance of God would be required to validate the ontological claim. Kant’s refutation is fatal to the ontological argument, as it demonstrates the impossibility of proving God’s existence through reason alone.

Kant’s second objection to Descartes was that ‘exists’ is not a predicate, as it only posits the subject without adding meaning to the word ‘God’, and therefore cannot be attributed as a perfection. Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) developed this argument further, noting that ‘exists’ is only a statement of number indicating that God is not equivalent to nil. He concluded that, as this does not add a new property to ‘God’, it cannot be a predicate. Several philosophers have since offered alternative views to this interpretation of ‘exists’. For Evans (1982, 37) it is a property which grants God the ability to act in his role as creator. Mackie (1982, 45) argues that it instantiates the features of the subject. Burns (2004, 124) believes existence is a unique predicate, for its absence would imply the absence of all other properties. Even if ‘exists’ is accepted as a predicate Kant’s first objection remains valid, as empirical evidence is required to match an instance to a definition.

The argument was revived during the 20th century by two philosophers: Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga. Norman Malcolm (1911-1990) defined God as an uncaused being, and argued that if He did not already exist He could not be caused into existence; therefore His existence is either impossible or necessary. This led him to conclude that, as the concept of God is not logically impossible His existence cannot be impossible either, therefore His existence is logically necessary. Malcolm’s argument is invalid, as it moves from a definition to an assumption by confusing the analytic statement ‘God is uncaused’ with the synthetic statement ‘God is uncaused’. Alvin Plantiga (1932- ) argued that God is a possible being, and that as such He exists in one of the infinite number of possible worlds. He then argued that, as an all-powerful being, He must exist in all possible worlds, and therefore He must exist. Plantiga’s argument fails, as he only describes a potential situation. As we have no empirical proof of God it is not guaranteed that His concept is instantiated in another world, therefore His existence is possible but not certain.

 

[o_mlly]

-Infallible teaching of the Council of Florence, 6th session, July 6, 1439.

Clearly, your church believes that people do not deserve to go to heaven -]hell/-] merely by existing (since all humans who exist are born intt o original sin except Mary allegedly). Rather not discuss this again, very tired -]of this whole charade of “church teaching is X” “Nu uh, it’s Y” “Nu uh, it’s Z” LOL./-] – and prefer to remain in error on this teaching?

Two centuries earlier, Pope Innocent III wrote to the Bishop of Arles in 1201, that “The penalty for original sin is the deprivation of the sight of God …” (DS 780).

When you catch your second wind, read "THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED* which puts context to your Council of Florence quotation and will correctly interpret the teaching.

Grace, -]= favor awarded to sycophants./-] actual and supernatural, is God working to bring all men to salvation.

Do all good people go to heaven or not? No doctrine. Free to believe or not.

If goodness isn’t the essential factor of salvation, what is? To die in a state of friendship with God, that is to be in a state of grace.

If it is grace, then my uncharitable rendering of the “economy of salvation” holds. If not, what is it?

The economy of salvation is God’s willing and working to bring mankind to salvation.

 

[OneSheep]

We have a different understanding of the nature of Eucharist.

For Catholics, participation in Eucharist is an affirmation that we receive and assent to all that Jesus did and taught. This is what it means to be “in Christ”. There is no separation between being in unity with the person of Christ, and following His commandments. He taught that, if we love Him, we will keep his commandments.

Shaking hands with other persons who claim they are Catholic does not create communion either.

Good Morning, guanophore, and welcome back to the conversation!

I guess my problem is that I have a lot of difficulty separating communion with Christ through Eucharist, and Communion of Saints. They all seem to be intricately related for me, and perhaps not so with you.

This communion refers to the bond of unity among the followers of Christ. Such a bond is possible because, as believers in Christ, we become children of God (1 Jn. 3:1), members of His family (Rom. 8:14-17), with divine life bestowed on us through Baptism (Jn. 3:3-5). The apostles teach us that through Baptism we become “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) and “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Saint Paul states that this union of the faithful, brought about by the Holy Spirit in Baptism, is so complete that we are actually members of a single body, Christ’s own body (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-27).

cuf.org/2004/04/all-in-the-family-the-communion-of-saints/

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

This passage is addressed to believers, not unbelievers. Jesus also said that humans, being evil, could still give good gifts to their children (and do good works in the world).
Doing good works does not earn one a place in heaven.

So, if a non-believer does good for someone, he is not also doing something good for God? Please support your idea with doctrine, just because I’m curious from where you got that idea, not because I am saying it is wrong. (I disagree, though!)

Jesus never meant that people were evil. When He said things such as he did in Matthew 7:11, He was contrasting our own benevolence with that of the Father, where we do indeed fall short in behavior. Using the label of “evil” as one that characterizes the human is only part of the “illusion” that Fr. de Mello refers to, it is an effect of resentment.

Earning a place in heaven? Are you bringing up a new topic?

It is quite possible to love and serve those who are unbelievers or who have lost their Catholicity. It does not mean we are in communion with one another. Communion is not based on warm fuzzies, but in our relationship with Christ. The Holy Spirit creates communion between us as we are in right relationship with Him.

Heaven forbid that there be any warm fuzzies! I think I am starting to get a grasp of our differences. In our parish, there are two basic attitudes of people regularly coming to mass. In the front, there are we who are very welcoming and friendly, we often hug each other at the kiss of peace, we have participated in Cursillo and the love among us is palpable. In the back of the Church, but sometimes in the front (but always separating themselves) are those individuals who come to Mass to be with God, and the idea of sharing the table in a way that reflects a palpable Communion of Saints, is not a big part of why they are there.

What I am saying is that neither of these modes imply a diminished “Catholicity”. Do you agree?

In order for the Holy Spirit to “create communion between us” there has to be a will to create such communion. Are you willing to shake my hand? What is your will, guanophore? Where is your heart?

I don’t really spend much mental/emotional energy on the attitudes in the hearts of others. My responsibility is to keep myself from being lukewarm. Lukewarmness is much more broad and severe than “falling short” once in a while. It is a lifestyle that does not have a great deal of zeal for Christ and His message.

Okay, but at the same time you did mention that Jesus “spits out” the lukewarm, and you seem to identify with that sentiment. Jesus as I know Him does not “spit out” anyone, depending on how a “spitting out” would be defined. The Jesus I know forgave those who crucified Him. He did not spit them out. The writer of Revelations attributing such a “spitting” attitude toward Jesus is expressing a frustration with those who lack zeal, and is meant to motivate “the lukewarm” to find real meaning in the faith and put such faith into action. Jesus forgives, always, understands, always, waits for us, always.

And you can log that one under my third epistle to guanophore.

I will catalog your belief that God wnts us to focus our conscience on our worldly comfort.

I believe you misunderstood my use of the word “focus”.

Eucharist is not for those who are “inclined toward the Church”, but for those who have already embraced her. Persons who are in open dissention against the teachings of the church commit sacrelege by attempting to participate in Eucharist.

Some Catholics have already excommuniated them selves under latae sententiae. Certain actions contain excommunication, so a person excommunicates themselves when they engage in the act. The Code of Canon Law, which binds Catholics of the Latin Church, inflicts latae sententiae censures for certain actions, so it would depend upon the type of dissention and the manner in which it occurred.

Yes, while our human institution excommunicates, God always waits for us, understands, and forgives.

Continued, with mercy…

 

[OneSheep]

Before I go on, guanophore, I realize now that you did not directly answer this question:

So, lets say a person poor, imprisoned, sick, or hungry is a “lukewarm Catholic”. Now, are we called to “spit out” this person, or are we to serve him, to care for him? Do you see that such literal interpretations that may appear contradictory to unconditional love must be examined carefully? Does such “spitting out” reflect God’s understanding, forgiveness, and mercy?

guanophore:

“Communion as upheld by individual Catholics”??!!!

It sounds like a little gathering you have in your front room?

Undoubtedly most human activiies that occur in groups will be influenced by our feelings for one another. So, are you saying that you share a “communion” with other individual Catholics that all get together and experience warm fuzzy feelings with one another?

Love for one another, which is our second commandment, seems to produce these “warm fuzzies” and adds to the experience of communion. Perhaps that is not your style, and that is okay! Love between one another, expressed through care, inclusion, welcoming, definitely makes Communion of Saints a reality for me, as I explained above. It is mostly a “heart thing” for me, guanophore. I invite you to be part of our warm-fuzzy group. We are not a clique, we are friendly and hold nothing against those who would rather stand alone. If you like, come, be with us. If not, that is okay too! After all, we are eating at the same table.

In our parish, about 10 years ago we had a “warm-fuzzy” priest, the first to actually become part of our city community in a real way, attending high school football games, etc. He invited us to all hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, and we did so, even across the aisle. Within two years of his coming, the masses were so packed that we were making plans to build a bigger church. The poor man was overwhelmed, though, and when the ordinary time came for priests to move, he did so. The next priest (now gone) came and said that hand-holding was distracting, and he turned off many people in many ways. Our parish has never recovered. Now we have so few people attending that we could easily reduce our 3 English masses to one.

One may think, “Well, the lukewarm simply went away”. The people came because of Love, guanophore. “Lukewarm” is a judgment if used in a way that indicates we hold something against people. And when we hold something against people, we are called to forgive. Do you hold something against the “lukewarm”, brother?

And from an earlier post:

“One Body”

790 Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body, become intimately united with him: "In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification."220 This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ’s death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which "really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another."221

791 The body’s unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ’s Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church."222 The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: "From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice."223 Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."224

Your comments reflects the CCC as long as it accommodates the spirit of these paragraphs, and they must, for you value adherence. Disagreement over doctrinal interpretation can create a “human division”. Is that the case with you guanophore? If so, what does that “triumph” look like? Does it look like a handshake?

There is neither liberal or conservative! There is neither warm fuzzy or non-warm fuzzy! Do you see how those divisions are even more superficial than gender or ethnicitiy?

We are of one body, guanophore, right? We share in the Eucharist. Let’s drive through the “confusion”, and create harmony. It take some humility.



God Bless you, guanophore. May He bless all of those you love, and those who love you.

 

[guanophore]

1. Think about what you just said! If that doesn't cause cognitive dissonance for you, then I am truly sorry for your life circumstances. If you are surrounded by so many evil and corrupt people that it is easy for you to believe "there are no good people" I sincerely hope you can escape your situation and find greener pastures.

PC, jmcrae is not surrounded by evil and corrupt peole, nor is there any need to “escape” anysituation for “greener pastures”. Jmcrae has an appropriate and Spirit inspired perception of the nature of humanity.

…23Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. 24But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.John 2:24

…20And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.…Mark 7:21

God, and jmcrae because of listening to God, sees the evil that dwells in the heart of man.

Yes, we are made in the image and likeness of God, but without His grace, we cannot conform ourselves with that goodness.

18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.… Rom 7:18

Nothing good dwells in us. We can only conquer concupiscence by grace.

But, that's not what you mean, right? You mean there are no *perfect* people. I agree with you there of course! Of course we fall short of the glory of God, we're not God! We're imperfect, but that's OK. God is not unreasonable, and doesn't expect us to be perfect.

God does not command us to do what is impossible or unreasonable.

48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt. 5:48

The writer of Proverbs tells us “A righteous man sins seven times a day…” The difference between the righteous and the wicked is that the righteous repent and try again. They never give up trying to do the right thing.

No argument there!

1. Don’t believe premise 1 is true, so this is moot.

You don’t seem to have accounted for the two natures of man.

1. So you say, but you have no proof, so I don’t believe this. If it were true, Catholics would be morally and spiritually better than other human beings.

The possibility is certainly present. Not all persons avail themselves of it.

Further, those who receive the sacraments more frequently would be better, but they're not (in my experience). Unless...you mean to say that grace doesn't increase goodness but is merely favored bestowed upon cronies.

The ability to benefit from the grace is subject to the predispostion of the recipient. Some receive the sacraments sacriligiously, so they do not benefit.

 4. Repentance is a good deed! You don't even know if the "good thief" actually existed, much less his name, much less if he did any good deeds LOL.

You don’t know that, because you cannot accept the Scriptures as the infallible and inerrante Word of God. But those of us that do can know this.

1. Receiving sacraments is in itself “sucking up” to the men who proclaim themselves the mouthpieces of God and “another Christ.”

This is a very cynical perspective, PC, and sounds rather angry and resentful. The Sacraments have nothing to do with the person who dispenses them. They are worked through by Christ, in spite of the sinful persons who may be presiding.

Who has the power to forgive sins? God alone. To think that certain fallible and imperfect human beings have this power, and then to seek their favors is spiritual cronyism.

It is curious that you would accept the testimony of those who denied Christ, yet deny those who recieved Him.

It doesn’t matter if the crony personally likes you of course, you must simply bow before them in a ritual to get the favor. You can get the favors for your children too (baptism). Quoting “who’s sins you are forgiven are forgiven, etc…” at me won’t be convincing. I don’t see the New Testament as God’s word, and don’t accept that Jesus had the power to forgive sins in the first place.

Then on what basis can you claim that “only God can forgive sins”??? Where do you find this anywhere but in Scripture? You are using a document that you claim to reject to make your point? I think your resentment has overcome your logic.

 

[guanophore]

-Trent, session 6, chapter 11, canon 23
If any one declare that a man once justified cannot sin again, or that he can avoid for the rest of his life every sin, even venial, let him be anathema.

may I commend you for your careful research.

I think you have misunderstood, PC. First of all, perfection does not mean that one necessarily avoids all sin. Second, this was written against the heresy that a person is no longer able to sin after they are saved, or that the sins do not “count” against their relationship with God. Justifcation does not mean that a person CANNOT sin. Mary was born without sin, and remained without sin throughout her life. This occured because of her cooperation with God’s grace. It does not meant that she COULD NOT sin, but that she chose not to do so.

We do not avoid sin of ourselves, but only by the grace of God.

Jude 1:24,25 God is able, and as willing as able, to keep us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence of his glory.

It is He who keeps us from sin, not we ourselves.
Catholics are not able to avoid all sin even after reception of the sacraments apparently. And, you’re not allowed to think it is possible to attain perfection, or you’re anathematized.

Sacraments are essentially role playing.

They are indeed, for those who lack faith or engage in them in a state of mortal sin (except reconciliation). Persons who go through the motions are describes as “holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.” 2 Tim. 3:5

Such persons engage in sacrilege, piling sins upon sins.

Recently a fake priest was discovered in California I believe. Those people had been receiving fake sacraments for years. None of them knew. Can you have an “authentic” relationship with someone when it apparently makes no difference whether the relation is spiritual/mystical/sacramental or fraudulent? I doubt it!

The presence of a fraud does not devalue the presence of the authentic. Nevertheless, I am very interested to see some more information on this claim.

So, you’re saying that God punishes the innocent on behalf of the guilty? If those who die in original sin alone don’t deserve hell because they’re not responsible, why does your church teach that they descend there immediately to be punished upon death?

I did not say they were innocent. I said they are not held personally responsible for the sin of Adam. God created mankind in His image and likeness. That includes freedom of choice. God will respect the choice of those who decide they do not wish to be in His presence.

The anger is your conscience. You are realizing, through my words, that something isn't...right. It angers you to think about bowing before men who have puffed themselves up and presented themselves as God's official indispensable spokesmen.

No, PC, your words sound angry. I am not angry, because I believe what you are saying is false. God does not require me to “bow down before men” in any circumstance.

Those who serve the people of God have not presented themselves. They were called upon and chosen by God, through the Church. I will not deny that some followers of Chrst are “puffed up”, but this is not limited to priests. You speak as a person who has been hurt by someone who puffed themselves up and presented themselves as God’s indispensible spokesman. I am sorry if this is the case, and I will pray that God will heal you, but no amount of puffed up servants of God can negate the Truth of what God has revealed to humankind. It is beyond any one person, or group of persons.

The layers of conditioning will never be able to totally eclipse your inner knowledge that something is amiss.

You have made assumptions about me that are not accurate.

 

[guanophore]

I could see it only faintly when I was a Catholic, but it became increasingly clear as I walked away. Now that I've gained some more distance, it is vividly clear.

It would be inappropriate for me to ask you about yoru personal experience on the forum, but I will respect the fact that you have a hurt, angry , and skewed perception of Catholicism.

Each claims that their men have been revealed by God as the *true* spokesmen. You reject all these claims. Me too, and I reject yours too, on the same grounds.

And I respect your right to do so.

It is considered "pious belief" to suppose John the Baptist was absolved of original sin sometime in utero, but not a required belief.

Ok.

My definition of grace is similar to the Catholic one, but I have stripped it of ornamentation and fuzziness to show it as I understand it. I find that many Catholic concepts have layers of ambiguity and obscurity growing out of them due to centuries of disagreement and misunderstanding. By tearing down some of that “fuzziness,” I think we can get a more clear understanding of what is going on.

I will accept that you have coined an individual definition that works for you, and that it is contrary to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

There is no way to verify or disconfirm any kind of “ontological” change of which you speak, so I don’t believe it.

You are right, most of the spiritual transformations that occur are beyond the realm of science. What is curious is how you are able to deny the testimony of millions over the course of thousands of years. Your refusal to believe requires you to dismiss so many personal testimonies that it boggles the mind.

Have you ever considered using a phenomenological approach to examining the evidence, rather than one that is only suitable to physical inquiry? Your empirical method seems awfully limiting.

 

[guanophore]

Before I go on, guanophore, I realize now that you did not directly answer this question:

So, lets say a person poor, imprisoned, sick, or hungry is a “lukewarm Catholic”. Now, are we called to “spit out” this person, or are we to serve him, to care for him? Do you see that such literal interpretations that may appear contradictory to unconditional love must be examined carefully? Does such “spitting out” reflect God’s understanding, forgiveness, and mercy?

Perhaps you missed that post.

We are called to love every person that God has created. The fact that they are no longer in right relationship with Christ and His church does not absolve us from the commandment. Neither does loving and serving them restore that communion. Only by being in right relationship with God can one be restored to communion.

Basically you have already said that Jesus did not really mean what He was quoted as saying in Revelation. Now you are saying that such a position does not reflect God’s understanding, forgiveness, and mercy.

Love for one another, which is our second commandment, seems to produce these "warm fuzzies" and adds to the experience of communion.

Sometimes it can, and especially when the love is mutual, but loving those who are hateful toward us is hard work, and usually very painful, devoid of warm fuzzies.

 Perhaps that is not your style, and that is okay!  Love between one another, expressed through care, inclusion, welcoming, definitely makes Communion of Saints a reality for me, as I explained above.

I am glad that you have figured out how to create a reality for yourself that works for you.

It is mostly a "heart thing" for me, guanophore.  I invite you to be part of our warm-fuzzy group.  We are not a clique, we are friendly and hold nothing against those who would rather stand alone.  If you like, come, be with us.  If not, that is okay too!  After all, we are eating at the same table.

It is not about your heart or mine, OS. Unity results from adherance to the Truth. I can only be unified with others to the degree that we are both “in Christ”.

In our parish, about 10 years ago we had a "warm-fuzzy" priest, the first to actually become part of our city community in a real way, attending high school football games, etc.  He invited us to all hold hands during the Lord's Prayer, and we did so, even across the aisle.  Within two years of his coming, the masses were so packed that we were making plans to build a bigger church.  The poor man was overwhelmed, though, and when the ordinary time came for priests to move, he did so.  The next priest (now gone) came and said that hand-holding was distracting, and he turned off many people in many ways.  Our parish has never recovered. Now we have so few people attending that we could easily reduce our 3 English masses to one.

This is an excellent example of why our worship cannot, and should not, be based upon warm fuzzies. People need and want the warm fuzzies and the hand holding. This is why the megachurches are so popular. But when people no longer feel their emotional needs getting met, they move along to find somewhere else to get them met. They are like the seeds that were scattered on the rocky ground, when the sun came up, they withered because they have no root.

One may think, "Well, the lukewarm simply went away".  The people came because of Love, guanophore.  "Lukewarm" is a judgment if used in a way that indicates we hold something against people.  And when we hold something against people, we are called to forgive.  Do you hold something against the "lukewarm", brother?

Perhaps they were lukewarm. Or perhaps they were just passionate about getting their own needs met to feel warm and fuzzy. Christianity is the way of the cross. Each day we are called to pick up our cross and carry it. Holding hands across the aisle may not be helpful in that task.

There is neither liberal or conservative!  There is neither warm fuzzy or non-warm fuzzy!    Do you see how those divisions are even more superficial than gender or ethnicitiy?

I would say even more so than gender and ethnicity, which are a deeply rooted part of our identity. The warm fuzzy may be nothing but role playing. If people leave because the warm fuzzies are gone, where was their root? Why did they wither when the sun came out?

We are of one body, guanophore, right? We share in the Eucharist. Let’s drive through the “confusion”, and create harmony. It take some humility.

All I can go on is what you have posted here on CAF, One Sheep. Here you have claimed you are Catholic while consistently denying essential doctrines of the faith. This behavior, from my perspective, is what creates confusion.

You believe that your differences are “legitimate”.

 

[guanophore]

Good Morning, guanophore, and welcome back to the conversation!

I guess my problem is that I have a lot of difficulty separating communion with Christ through Eucharist, and Communion of Saints. They all seem to be intricately related for me, and perhaps not so with you.

I do agree that they are intracetely connected. I think the difficulty is that you judge persons to be “in Christ” who are not in actually "in Christ. You include those in the Commuion of Saints who are not in communion with the saints.

This communion refers to the bond of unity among the followers of Christ. Such a bond is possible because, as believers in Christ, we become children of God (1 Jn. 3:1), members of His family (Rom. 8:14-17), with divine life bestowed on us through Baptism (Jn. 3:3-5). The apostles teach us that through Baptism we become “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) and “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Saint Paul states that this union of the faithful, brought about by the Holy Spirit in Baptism, is so complete that we are actually members of a single body, Christ’s own body (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-27).

cuf.org/2004/04/all-in-the-family-the-communion-of-saints/

Indeed. And that unity is broken post baptism by mortal sin. Those who are in mortal sin are no longer partakers of the divine nature. They are not in right relationship with Him, or with his Body.

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

So, if a non-believer does good for someone, he is not also doing something good for God? Please support your idea with doctrine, just because I’m curious from where you got that idea, not because I am saying it is wrong. (I disagree, though!)

A person does not continue to be a “believer” just because they were baptized. Many fall away from God, and doing good works is no sufficient to restore them to right relationship with God. Good works that are not done in a state of grace will not benefit the soul.

Jesus never meant that people were evil.  When He said things such as he did in Matthew 7:11, He was contrasting our own benevolence with that of the Father, where we do indeed fall short in behavior.  Using the label of "evil" as one that characterizes the human is only part of the "illusion" that Fr. de Mello refers to, it is an effect of resentment.

Perhaps you have not encountered evil on a daily basis, so you have been able to dupe yourself into believing that human beings cannot engage in evil, or be permeated with evil. I know from reading your previous thread that you have duped yourself into believing that no one willingly rejects God. Your existence in the la la land of warm and fuzzy beingness does not change the facts. Jesus called evil when He saw it. You reject His teachings.

Heaven forbid that there be any warm fuzzies! I think I am starting to get a grasp of our differences. In our parish, there are two basic attitudes of people regularly coming to mass. In the front, there are we who are very welcoming and friendly, we often hug each other at the kiss of peace, we have participated in Cursillo and the love among us is palpable. In the back of the Church, but sometimes in the front (but always separating themselves) are those individuals who come to Mass to be with God, and the idea of sharing the table in a way that reflects a palpable Communion of Saints, is not a big part of why they are there.

It is interesting that you have judged the hearts and motivations of your congregation, and have them sorted out according to your standards.

I have nothing against warm fuzzies. In fact, one of my greatest criticisms of Catholic parishes is the lack of community, connection, and fellowship. However, no amount of warm fuzzies will create these things. These conditions come from each person being in right relationship with Christ. In that, the Holy Spirit brings us into right relationship with one another.

What I am saying is that neither of these modes imply a diminished "Catholicity".  Do you agree?

I am not gifted to judge the hearts of your congregation as you are. If they have departed from the Teachings of Christ, then they have lost Catholicity, no matter where they sit.

 

[guanophore]

In order for the Holy Spirit to "create communion between us" there has to be a *will* to create such communion.  Are you willing to shake my hand?   What is your will, guanophore?  Where is your heart?

I agree, each member of the body needs to be ready, willing, and able to be molded by the Holy Spirit, and to be brought into communion with others who Jesus has grafted into His body. It is clear from your posts that you have rejected essential teachings of the Church, so such a level of communion will not exist between us unless and until you set aside your heretical views.

Okay, but at the same time you did mention that Jesus "spits out" the lukewarm, and you seem to identify with that sentiment.

You are making assumptions about me that are not accurate. Unlike yourself, it is not for me to determine who is in right relationship with Christ. All I can do is look at the actions of others, as I have examined your posts. By those actions I can know if a person has rejected the Teaching of Christ.

Jesus as I know Him does not "spit out" anyone, depending on how a "spitting out" would be defined.

And this is precisely my point. In saying this, you are denying the Truth that is in the Scriptures, and replacing it with the Truth of the One Sheep.

The Jesus I know forgave those who crucified Him. He did not spit them out.

They were not believers.

Forgiveness does not mean that a person will repent and be saved.

 The writer of Revelations attributing such a "spitting" attitude toward Jesus is expressing a frustration with those who lack zeal, and is meant to motivate "the lukewarm" to find real meaning in the faith and put such faith into action.  Jesus forgives, always, understands, always, waits for us, always.

So this is your explanation for claiming that the inspired, inerrant Word of God is wrong? You are attributing the passage to a “writer” expressing his own frustrations? What a low opinion you must have of the Holy Spirit, to be unable to presever His Word from the petty frustrations of man.

And you can log that one under my third epistle to guanophore.  ;)

I will certainly do that.

Yes, while our human institution excommunicates, God always waits for us, understands, and forgives.

Continued, with mercy…

You are basically saying that what is written in Scripture is not true. That communion with the Church cannot be broken, and that what is bound on earth is not bound in heaven.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

PC, jmcrae is not surrounded by evil and corrupt peole, nor is there any need to “escape” anysituation for “greener pastures”. Jmcrae has an appropriate and Spirit inspired perception of the nature of humanity.

…23Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. 24But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.John 2:24

…20And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.…Mark 7:21

God, and jmcrae because of listening to God, sees the evil that dwells in the heart of man.

Yes, we are made in the image and likeness of God, but without His grace, we cannot conform ourselves with that goodness.

18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.… Rom 7:18

Nothing good dwells in us. We can only conquer concupiscence by grace.

I feel sorry for you, that you see others as inherently corrupt. My life is full of good people who love and help each other and others. No one is perfect of course, but I am thankful to God for creating so many good people!

I don’t believe the things you have quoted are the words of God, and I don’t believe your interpretation of them is the word of God.

God does not command us to do what is impossible or unreasonable.

48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt. 5:48

No argument there!

You don’t seem to have accounted for the two natures of man.

The possibility is certainly present. Not all persons avail themselves of it.

The ability to benefit from the grace is subject to the predispostion of the recipient. Some receive the sacraments sacriligiously, so they do not benefit.

You don’t know that, because you cannot accept the Scriptures as the infallible and inerrante Word of God. But those of us that do can know this.

This is a very cynical perspective, PC, and sounds rather angry and resentful. The Sacraments have nothing to do with the person who dispenses them. They are worked through by Christ, in spite of the sinful persons who may be presiding.

It is curious that you would accept the testimony of those who denied Christ, yet deny those who recieved Him.

Then on what basis can you claim that “only God can forgive sins”??? Where do you find this anywhere but in Scripture? You are using a document that you claim to reject to make your point? I think your resentment has overcome your logic.

You don’t know any of these things, rather you believe them. That’s OK, I have beliefs too. I don’t accept your beliefs, not only because there is no physical proof, but also because they defy 1) reason and 2) my lived experience and relationships with God and other people.

You wouldn’t accept my beliefs either, that’s OK! The difference is that I don’t think you are therefore my spiritual enemy and that you are at risk of endless, relentless torture. We merely disagree about something unknown.

I believe God forgives sins for two reasons. First, it is more noble to forgive than to hold a grudge. If I am able and willing to forgive, but God is either unable or unwilling, that means I am more noble than God. But, that’s impossible, so we are able to suppose that God forgives sins. Second,

The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and with much kindness. He will not quarrel to eternity, and He will not bear a grudge forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has He repaid us according to our iniquities. For, as the height of the heavens over the earth, so great is His kindness toward those who fear Him. As the distance of east from west, He distanced our transgressions from us. As a father has mercy on sons, the Lord had mercy on those who fear Him.

• Psalm 103