C
crazzeto
Guest
Would you mind providing a context for this posting, which point are you addressing?
- Status
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Yes, I disagree with Pope John Paul II. My sources are the Scripture passages cited by the Pope and the account of the Blessed Mother’s appearance at Fatima, which the Pope failed to mention.
His statement that hell is not a place is pure conjecture. There isn’t a word in Scripture to support it.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Yes… That’s an incomplete thought. You need to attach a conclusion to the thought. What is the implication of “Sabbath of the Lord thy God” and how does it conform to the Lord’s statement about the sabbath?
A
Araninski
Guest
Context you mean like the whole passage?
I read people were discussing about the Sabbath Day. And I posted that passage just to help. All of those rituals and days the Jews had were a shadow of the things to come, being this Jesus. If you are a real Christian, your always on Sabbath day.
Hebrews 4:7-13
"Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."
We must always be trying to enter that day of rest, doing what Jesus thought, lived, etc.
We must try to every day worship, pray, preach, etc. To always be with God.
This passage is also a good OSAS-counter.
God bless!
C
crazzeto
Guest
And I think that it should be noted again what is doctrine, and in this case what is infallible…
In this case we are free to disagree with the opinion of the Pope, as he was not making an infallible proclimation. As noted in the Keenan Catechism (believe it or not, brought to my attention by an E.O. appologist) we believe the Pope is personally infallible when making proclamations in matters of Faith & Moral ex-cathedra, that is from the cathedra or the seat of power (interestingly the word cathedral get’s it’s name from the cathedra or seat of power which is housed there).
So unless JPII made said proclimation from the cathedra in St. Peter’s we are free to personally disagree with the opinion he puts forth. Unless it’s otherwise taught by the Church at council
C
crazzeto
Guest
No problems, I just wasn’t sure what you were getting at with your posting. It was my lack of understanding that prompted the posting, thank you for the clarification. God bless!
H
Harry1941
Guest
One thing good about the early Christians times, is that there was no pope. Peter was the leader,not the pope. The Cristians didn’t kiss rings on his finger or think he’s better than them, by calling him the holy father. Only God is Holy. We are holy from Him.
Harry
Love and charity to all.
Harry
Love and charity to all.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And neither did the early Christians belong to any Protestant church,denominations,non-denominations,etc,etc.There was no one volume Bible for private interpretation. No one man founding his own church,etc,etc.One thing good about the early Christians times, is that there was no pope. Peter was the leader,not the pope. The Cristians didn’t kiss rings on his finger or think he’s better than them, by calling him the holy father. Only God is Holy. We are holy from Him.
Harry
Love and charity to all.
BTW: Your are wrong! Peter was a bishop and the papacy is an office.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
(Emphasis with bold and blue type are mine.)
Crazzeto, as you said,** “One should have faith in the teaching authority of the Church, otherwise what do you have?”**
Other Catholics on the forums have said that while they may not agree with everything the Pope teaches, they submit to the authority of the Church. They keep quiet about their true beliefs–at least most of the time. I’ve only seen a few cases on the forums, where Catholics voice disagreement with the Pope. I’ve also seen these types of posts disappear from the forums.
Personally, I can’t submit to an authority, when that “authority’s” teachings may change over time. “Hell” is a prime example of a teaching that has changed in the Catholic Church.
In light of my own studies of the Bible, as a whole; I think the words re Hell spoken by Pope John Paul II, are much closer to the truth, than a literal fiery eternal torment. Keep in mind, I was taught the “literal fiery eternal torment” in the Baptist Church.
Ferde Rombola, what study have you done that lead you to disagree with Pope John Paul II? Does your disagreement come from your own private interpretation? It certainly sounds like this is the case; since, regarding JPII’s teaching on Hell, you said, “There isn’t a word in Scripture to support it.”
Ironically, my non-Catholic “private interpretation” led me to agree with Pope John Paul II. While your Catholic “private interpretation” led you to disagree with Pope John Paul II.
If the Catholic Church is wrong about something as important as the afterlife; that opens the door to question any teaching that is not “Ex Cathedra.” And as a non-Catholic, it even opens the door to question that which is “Ex Cathedra.”
Edited to Add:
In bringing this back to our thread topic: how can we discuss whether or not the early Church held the Catholic view of Hell, if we don’t have a clear answer as to what constitutes the Catholic view of Hell?
Anna
These few posts reveal one of the main obstacles to my consideration of Catholicism. The Pope may teach something that is false, and Catholics are expected to submit to that which the **“church has determined, in her wisdom is right and proper.” **
Crazzeto, as you said,** “One should have faith in the teaching authority of the Church, otherwise what do you have?”**
Other Catholics on the forums have said that while they may not agree with everything the Pope teaches, they submit to the authority of the Church. They keep quiet about their true beliefs–at least most of the time. I’ve only seen a few cases on the forums, where Catholics voice disagreement with the Pope. I’ve also seen these types of posts disappear from the forums.
Personally, I can’t submit to an authority, when that “authority’s” teachings may change over time. “Hell” is a prime example of a teaching that has changed in the Catholic Church.
In light of my own studies of the Bible, as a whole; I think the words re Hell spoken by Pope John Paul II, are much closer to the truth, than a literal fiery eternal torment. Keep in mind, I was taught the “literal fiery eternal torment” in the Baptist Church.
Ferde Rombola, what study have you done that lead you to disagree with Pope John Paul II? Does your disagreement come from your own private interpretation? It certainly sounds like this is the case; since, regarding JPII’s teaching on Hell, you said, “There isn’t a word in Scripture to support it.”
Ironically, my non-Catholic “private interpretation” led me to agree with Pope John Paul II. While your Catholic “private interpretation” led you to disagree with Pope John Paul II.
If the Catholic Church is wrong about something as important as the afterlife; that opens the door to question any teaching that is not “Ex Cathedra.” And as a non-Catholic, it even opens the door to question that which is “Ex Cathedra.”
Edited to Add:
In bringing this back to our thread topic: how can we discuss whether or not the early Church held the Catholic view of Hell, if we don’t have a clear answer as to what constitutes the Catholic view of Hell?
Anna
C
crazzeto
Guest
Anna,
Perhaps it would be more helpful if you would post exactly what your undestanding of Papal and Church infalibility is. I think that this information is very critical to continuing the discussion, as I noted earlier both institutions are infallible but under certain conditions.
The Church as a whole, is infallible at Eccumenical council. An example of this would be Trent, for instance or Neicea.
The Pope is personally infallible, again, while making a proclimation from the seat of Peter (that is ex-cathedra).
Outside of these conditions, individual Bishops and even the Pope may hold a personal opinion which the layity are not bound to. It is right and proper for us to consider these opinions with a weight of truth. That is, rather than erroring on the side of disagreeing, it is best to err on the side of agreement.
If a Catholic lay can not agree with an opinion put forward by a Bishop, even of Rome, which does not directly relate to the orthodox interpretation of doctrine then they are free to disagree.
With regards to JPII’s comments regarding Hell & Purgatory, there is no doctrine (that I know of) which states explicitly that hell (or purgatory) is a place, full of fire.
JPII offered his opinion in this document for the Church to consider, the lay will consider it and make what they will of it. Personally I respect JPII quite a bit, and having not fully considered what hell is personally, I am personally very interested on what his thoughts are.
Ferde Rombola has put more time into it, and it’s apparent that his personal opinion differs than that of JPII. But, there’s the thing, there is no doctrine of what hell is. Therefore, Ferde Rombola is free to disagree with the Pontiff. With no offence to Ferde Rombola, I expect most people to weight more heavily JPII’s opinion that his own, but the important thing to understand is that Ferde Rombola is not a heretic. He doesn’t disagree with the orthodox interpretation of doctrine.
Perhaps it would be more helpful if you would post exactly what your undestanding of Papal and Church infalibility is. I think that this information is very critical to continuing the discussion, as I noted earlier both institutions are infallible but under certain conditions.
The Church as a whole, is infallible at Eccumenical council. An example of this would be Trent, for instance or Neicea.
The Pope is personally infallible, again, while making a proclimation from the seat of Peter (that is ex-cathedra).
Outside of these conditions, individual Bishops and even the Pope may hold a personal opinion which the layity are not bound to. It is right and proper for us to consider these opinions with a weight of truth. That is, rather than erroring on the side of disagreeing, it is best to err on the side of agreement.
If a Catholic lay can not agree with an opinion put forward by a Bishop, even of Rome, which does not directly relate to the orthodox interpretation of doctrine then they are free to disagree.
With regards to JPII’s comments regarding Hell & Purgatory, there is no doctrine (that I know of) which states explicitly that hell (or purgatory) is a place, full of fire.
JPII offered his opinion in this document for the Church to consider, the lay will consider it and make what they will of it. Personally I respect JPII quite a bit, and having not fully considered what hell is personally, I am personally very interested on what his thoughts are.
Ferde Rombola has put more time into it, and it’s apparent that his personal opinion differs than that of JPII. But, there’s the thing, there is no doctrine of what hell is. Therefore, Ferde Rombola is free to disagree with the Pontiff. With no offence to Ferde Rombola, I expect most people to weight more heavily JPII’s opinion that his own, but the important thing to understand is that Ferde Rombola is not a heretic. He doesn’t disagree with the orthodox interpretation of doctrine.
C
crazzeto
Guest
One last note,
Acceptance of Church (and papal) authority doesn’t negate the ability for the layfaithful and theologians from holding a variety of diverse idea’s. The purpose of authority isn’t to stifle growth, or to negate investigation of certain theological principals. Rather, the purpose of authority is to settle important doctrinal squabbles when they come up.
So what I said about accepting authority is very true, but individual catholics are still free to agree or disagree with certain theologies when violating sacrade doctrine isn’t at stake.
Acceptance of Church (and papal) authority doesn’t negate the ability for the layfaithful and theologians from holding a variety of diverse idea’s. The purpose of authority isn’t to stifle growth, or to negate investigation of certain theological principals. Rather, the purpose of authority is to settle important doctrinal squabbles when they come up.
So what I said about accepting authority is very true, but individual catholics are still free to agree or disagree with certain theologies when violating sacrade doctrine isn’t at stake.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Crazzeto,
First, I was not insinuating that Ferde is a heretic. However, I am interested in what studies he has done that would cause him to lean on his own understanding of Hell, rather than Pope John Paul II—especially since Protestants are frequently criticized for “private interpretation” of Scripture.
My confusion does not lie in separating fallible teachings from the infallible/Ex Cathedra. My confusion lies in how much a Catholic must support the fallible teachings of the Catholic Church, and the consequences of open disagreement.
In ferde Rombola’s case, it seems his “private interpretation” of Scripture trumps the interpretation of Pope John Paul II. This is confusing, since Catholics criticize Protestants for “private interpretation.” It’s a regular occurrence on the forums. I’m not saying this as a “gotcha” kind of thing. I’m just getting confusing signals.
Anna
C
crazzeto
Guest
Anna,
Actually I never thought you were and I don’t think you ever were… Rather I was taking an oppertunity to explain what is frankly, for many, one very misuderstood aspect of the authority of the Church and the Pope.
Many people tend to take the doctrine of infallibility, and claim that it means that anything the Pope might say is infallible. No, actaully the Pope may say things which are not infallible. In fact, the Pope may even offer a theological opinion which, while it carries with it great weight, is not infallible.
I think your linking JPII is an excellente example of what is no doubt a very fine piece of theological opinion presented by the Pontiff John Paul II. The main point I was driving at is, that this is not an infallible proclamation, thus no individual Christian is under any mandate to accept the principal.
For most of us (me included here), the Pontiff’s teaching carries great weight and we will more closely read what he has to say and learn from it. Others have perhaps already reviewed this, and for their own reasons hold a different view point.
As long as what we’re talking about isn’t a matter of doctrine, then a beleiver is in good standing with the Church, and continues to be in Gods good graces.
Now if the matter of hell, not being a phyiscal place, and not being full of fire becames a doctrinal matter, then people who disagree would start being in trouble for holding another POV.
I hope that makes some sense… I feel like I’ve given this subject matter a rather poor treatment. God bless!
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Looks like you’re a bit confused. I posted my reasons for disagreeing with the Pope. You copied it. Did you read it? Here it is again:
Originally Posted by Ferde Rombola
Yes, I disagree with Pope John Paul II. My sources are the Scripture passages cited by the Pope and the account of the Blessed Mother’s appearance at Fatima, which the Pope failed to mention.
“His statement that hell is not a place is pure conjecture. There isn’t a word in Scripture to support it.” If you’re aware of anything in Scripture that denies Hell is a place, please cite it for me.
I don’t know what that proves other than your hope that hell is not a place.
My disagreement with the Pope’s opinion does not mean the Catholic Church is wrong about anything. You really ought to study the Catholic faith a little before jumping to the conclusions you seem eager to express. I understand you’re asking questions, but some are rhetorical and seriously uninformed.
CCC 632 et seq.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Anna,
I am sorry,but I do not think you are correct.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “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” (CCC 1035).
In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often “preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell” (p. 183).
Concerning the reality of hell, the pope says, “In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory . . . according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which abolished hell. . . . [T]he words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46). [But] who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard” (pp. 185–6).
Thus the issue that some will go to hell is decided, but the issue of who in particular will go to hell is undecided.
The following early Church Fathers (many others believed the same) were also absolutely firm on the reality of an eternal hell, as the following quotes show.
Ignatius of Antioch
“Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him” (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110]).
Second Clement
“If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment” (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).
“But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’” (ibid., 17:7).
Justin Martyr
“No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments” (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).
“We have been taught that only they may aim at immortality who have lived a holy and virtuous life near to God. We believe that they who live wickedly and do not repent will be punished in everlasting fire” (ibid., 21).
“[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons” (ibid., 52).
C
crazzeto
Guest
Indeed there is a strong case also to be made for hell being a physical place, full of real fire. Either way, I don’t want to be there :bigyikes:
C
crazzeto
Guest
I think the problem is this Anna,
Perhaps you are under the impression that the Church is in someway changing the doctrine of what hell is exactly. Again, I think it’s important to note this, there is no doctrine which aboslutely defines the nature of the punishments of hell. What we know is that you are seperated from God, and that the torments are frequently compared to being burned for enternaty in fire.
There is no specific doctrine of hell, and there has never been one. In the CC though, we have these limits
That’s actually as much doctrine of the afterlife as you will find in any Christian Church. For fun I would suggest this Anna, google “Eastern Orthodox: After Life”
You’ll find even more diverse opinion than those you’ve seen presented here. God bless!
Perhaps you are under the impression that the Church is in someway changing the doctrine of what hell is exactly. Again, I think it’s important to note this, there is no doctrine which aboslutely defines the nature of the punishments of hell. What we know is that you are seperated from God, and that the torments are frequently compared to being burned for enternaty in fire.
There is no specific doctrine of hell, and there has never been one. In the CC though, we have these limits
- There is a Hell, and it is eternal
- There is a purgatory, it is not eternal
- There is a heaven, where those who are saved will eternally exist with God
That’s actually as much doctrine of the afterlife as you will find in any Christian Church. For fun I would suggest this Anna, google “Eastern Orthodox: After Life”
You’ll find even more diverse opinion than those you’ve seen presented here. God bless!
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Crazzeto,
I think what everybody is missing here is that my issue lies in how a Catholic relates to fallible teachings of the CC. I’m using Hell as an example, because there is disagreement among Catholics.
Anna
R
rben20
Guest
I am confused Anna. You seem to think that the Catholic Church doesn’t know how to view Hell or teach about it when it DOES. Sure there can be disagreement among laymen, but it is what it is. The Church however has hammered out Hell a LONG time ago just like other teachings or dogmas. Whether you choose to accept the Truth the Church gives or not it is still the Truth you have to deal with, but yes like it or not you must submit because it is Christ’s Church…not some man made church.
- Status