D
drpmjhess
Guest
Language about “being saved” and “the vast majority being damned” is fortunately absent from the Catholic churches in my region.
Petrus
- Status
Petrus
D
distracted
Guest
Hmmm…
I just don’t understand this Post. Who is Beck Fisher and what do you mean by christian jihadis? (I’m probably going to be sorry i asked… but whatever…)
D
distracted
Guest
If i remember correctly, the snowflake statement came from children who saw the virgin Mary at Fatima & were given a vision of Hell…
Children don’t make up things like this. Also, considering how evil and selfish and materialistic (etc, etc.) people are these days and how they resist, even fight God… I don’t have a problem believing that most people (as Jesus said) do not find the narrow road to eternal life.
I see you don’t mention in your list of virtues the one that is most important:
Truth!
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Children make up a lot of things, including false stories of pedophilia, visions of hell, etc. I just don’t buy the gloom and angst and navel gazing of conservative Catholicism. If they want to believe that they and their relatives are drifting into hell, that’s their prerogative. Just don’t include my relatives and all the wonderful people in my parish who are earnestly living good and true and holy lives.
J
Joysong
Guest
That quote is pure conjecture and mere opinion of an unnamed person and has not been proven factuallly. To put faith in its truthfulness is a bigger error than that which is promoted in the ‘opinion.’ One needs to consider the circumstances of the century in which this ‘opinion’ was delivered.
- Weekly reception of holy communion was negligible due to the Church’s regulations to fast from mignight. Without the support of weekly communion to strengthen one’s spiritual life, it is easy to see how rampant sin may have become and the necessity to remind the faithful of eternal consequences.
- The Reformation was also in full bloom, pulling many away from the faith.
- The printing press and media as we know it today were virtually nonexistent, and there was no access to spiritual literature or a bible.
- Autos were not invented, making travel to mass rather difficult for many, including missionary speakers, retreat masters, etc.
As I pondered this weekend that, barring one or two people, everyone in the Church received communion, I have real difficulty believing these were sacrilegious, and watching their piety, you would not be able to convince me they are not devoutly receiving Christ.
The sermons you speak of need to be delivered to the unfaithful who opt NOT to come to mass, and not to the devout ones who are present and already know the consequences.
You may not have considered that there is a spiritual progression that usually begins with the purgative way, where a convert from sin amends his life and must travel the hard road of discipline and learning. Many progress to the illuminative stage, and to a lesser degree, the unitive way. To give homilies to either of the latter on the necessity to amend their lives, when they are requiring a more advanced spiritual food to ignite warmth and love, is to miss the boat and deprive many who are hungering for these helps.
It is equally wrong to assume everyone in the congregation is in need of purgation, especially in our century where I would wager that there are more advanced souls than you realize.
You may want to read the Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Jesus and other notable works that speak about this initial purgation. It is well to remind one to stay the course, but to deliver hell-fire and brimstone homilies with frequency is to fail one’s flock miserably.
J
Joysong
Guest
As a footnote to my previous post, here is a humbling admission from a Doctor of the Church, St. Teresa of Jesus, who lived at the time of the Reformation.
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/catholicclassics/stteresa/life/teresaofavila5.cfm#CHAPTER%20XIX
Note well that she was a nun living in a convent, no doubt given to much prayer such as reciting the Divine Office in community. Yet she was ordered to communicate at least once a fortnight. Now a fortnight is fourteen days, and if she was thus ordered, it reveals that nuns did not even communicate that frequently, but much less often than 14 days. And if she, A NUN, did not do this, how much less would the laity be receiving the strength of holy communion.
So when we hear comments that are out of context with the times from certain chance articles on a website, it is dangerous to apply them to the current practices within the Church.
May God enlighten us.
Chapter XIX (near the bottom of the chapter)
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/catholicclassics/stteresa/life/teresaofavila5.cfm#CHAPTER%20XIX
Note well that she was a nun living in a convent, no doubt given to much prayer such as reciting the Divine Office in community. Yet she was ordered to communicate at least once a fortnight. Now a fortnight is fourteen days, and if she was thus ordered, it reveals that nuns did not even communicate that frequently, but much less often than 14 days. And if she, A NUN, did not do this, how much less would the laity be receiving the strength of holy communion.
So when we hear comments that are out of context with the times from certain chance articles on a website, it is dangerous to apply them to the current practices within the Church.
May God enlighten us.
T
TMC
Guest
I occasionally, although only occasionally hear sermons on Heaven or Hell. Heaven comes up as a side light in some sermons, Hell less frequently. Would not bother me a bit if I never heard another sermon on either one.
Why? Because I want sermons that talk about what I should be doing, how I should be living my life. I don’t need rattle trap about what might happen after I die, I want some focus on what to do until then. God will take it from there.
This thread and the ones on whether most people go to Hell have raised, for me, a few questions about faith and religion that I think are important.
As to why these things should be preached, I don’t know that they should be. They should be taught in catechism, like other theological doctrines. I see no need to discuss them week to week. Its comforting to bring it up to the sick, frightened, old, etc., but we should preach doing God’s will as an indepenant good, not as a high return investment in an eternal future.
Why? Because I want sermons that talk about what I should be doing, how I should be living my life. I don’t need rattle trap about what might happen after I die, I want some focus on what to do until then. God will take it from there.
This thread and the ones on whether most people go to Hell have raised, for me, a few questions about faith and religion that I think are important.
- Are you Catholic (or whatever religion you are), and do you do the moral an religious things that you do (or refrain from doing) to get to Heaven/avoid Hell?
- Why is it important to preach on what happens after death? Is to comfort the weak and those frightened of death? To scare/bribe people into good behaviour? Or does it just make the religous feel superior to the irreligious?
As to why these things should be preached, I don’t know that they should be. They should be taught in catechism, like other theological doctrines. I see no need to discuss them week to week. Its comforting to bring it up to the sick, frightened, old, etc., but we should preach doing God’s will as an indepenant good, not as a high return investment in an eternal future.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
This past Sunday - first time. God Bless Fr. David.:clapping:
B
BarbaraTherese
Guest
Very happy for you Jennifer:thumbsup:
I think that even the words “Heaven” and “Hell” must surely be stored in our parish house and there long long years gathering cobwebs
“Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature and he that believes and is baptized shall be saved and he that believes not shall be condemned”…and whether we like it or nay the subject of Heaven and also of Hell was occasionally raised by Jesus and hence is intrinsic to His Gospel.
In some Catholic circles anyway, it is not at all “in vogue” nor fashionable nor considered ‘enlightened’ to talk about Heaven and Hell, which cannot at all cancel out the fact of their existence and as intrinsic to the Gospel of Jesus. If moving in such circles one is certainly “counter cultural”. To be counter cultural in any group can simply mean “they have persecuted me and they will persecute you” as very often one is ridiculed and looked down upon. “Blessed are you when you are persecuted on my account”. The first Christians were totally counter cultural which can be a virtue and witness - an act of evangelizing. I have noticed that it seems that “the heavy intellectuals” and those wishing to be considered such look down on mentions of Heaven and/or Hell…it seems anyway to me to be almost a distinct movement in The Church that is contradictory to The Church.
It sems to me that this movement is almost an idealogy which can be a sinister thing because we can have and practise a false idealogy without realizing it.
I make a conscious effort to live counter culturally in my own area - although I have only just realized that “counter cultural” is how to describe it. Nor do I think it a negative term in today’s social ‘climate’ and milieu. It is an entirely positive move.
I was reading this morning the Reading and Gospel for Doctors of The Church for the memorial of St. Albert The Great and the Gospel was Jesus talking to His Apostles and about Hell.
Blessings galore and regards…Barb
I think that even the words “Heaven” and “Hell” must surely be stored in our parish house and there long long years gathering cobwebs
“Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature and he that believes and is baptized shall be saved and he that believes not shall be condemned”…and whether we like it or nay the subject of Heaven and also of Hell was occasionally raised by Jesus and hence is intrinsic to His Gospel.
In some Catholic circles anyway, it is not at all “in vogue” nor fashionable nor considered ‘enlightened’ to talk about Heaven and Hell, which cannot at all cancel out the fact of their existence and as intrinsic to the Gospel of Jesus. If moving in such circles one is certainly “counter cultural”. To be counter cultural in any group can simply mean “they have persecuted me and they will persecute you” as very often one is ridiculed and looked down upon. “Blessed are you when you are persecuted on my account”. The first Christians were totally counter cultural which can be a virtue and witness - an act of evangelizing. I have noticed that it seems that “the heavy intellectuals” and those wishing to be considered such look down on mentions of Heaven and/or Hell…it seems anyway to me to be almost a distinct movement in The Church that is contradictory to The Church.
It sems to me that this movement is almost an idealogy which can be a sinister thing because we can have and practise a false idealogy without realizing it.
I make a conscious effort to live counter culturally in my own area - although I have only just realized that “counter cultural” is how to describe it. Nor do I think it a negative term in today’s social ‘climate’ and milieu. It is an entirely positive move.
I was reading this morning the Reading and Gospel for Doctors of The Church for the memorial of St. Albert The Great and the Gospel was Jesus talking to His Apostles and about Hell.
Blessings galore and regards…Barb
D
drpmjhess
Guest
I agree with you, TMC. “Hell” language might be appropriate if a missioner is trying to win converts by intimidation, but not otherwise.
In more than five decades of sermon listening, thankfully I can’t recall a sermon on hell (I did hear one homily curiously berating those of us in church for those in the parish who don’t come to church). When the subject is raised by my children I point out that red-suited devils with pitchforks are the product of overactive imaginations!
Separation from God’s loving presence is real, but sinners bubbling lakes of boiling pitch are not. Lying about hell has no place in sermons.
Petrus
B
BarbaraTherese
Guest
…
…I agree with you Petrus that putting people of a spiritual barrel with threats of being banished forever in Hell is not the right context for a homily/talk about the existence of Hell…such is pure guilt manipulation in order to force to ‘toe the line’ or else. And guilt is a burden we all bear and we dont need to have it made any heavier. Nevertheless Hell exists and Jesus spoke of it…“go ye into the whole world and preach *The Gospel *to every creature”. We need to hear about Hell but not have it rammed down our throats as prime endless subject…We do need a sense of grief and horror for those who could be lost to Hell and a sense of urgency to pray that no soul will be lost there forever - it is a terrible thought! such sentiments are born I think of a merciful and loving disposition for all of God’s children…how His Own Heart must grieve and we can grieve for that grief…Blessings and regards…Barb
What I am concerned about is that movement in The Church that wants to as it were “get rid of all this silly childish 16th century stuff and let’s get about the business of making The Church relevent in the 21st centry”…that really does concern me, really…and I think it should…
…I agree with you Petrus that putting people of a spiritual barrel with threats of being banished forever in Hell is not the right context for a homily/talk about the existence of Hell…such is pure guilt manipulation in order to force to ‘toe the line’ or else. And guilt is a burden we all bear and we dont need to have it made any heavier. Nevertheless Hell exists and Jesus spoke of it…“go ye into the whole world and preach *The Gospel *to every creature”. We need to hear about Hell but not have it rammed down our throats as prime endless subject…We do need a sense of grief and horror for those who could be lost to Hell and a sense of urgency to pray that no soul will be lost there forever - it is a terrible thought! such sentiments are born I think of a merciful and loving disposition for all of God’s children…how His Own Heart must grieve and we can grieve for that grief…Blessings and regards…BarbWhat I am concerned about is that movement in The Church that wants to as it were “get rid of all this silly childish 16th century stuff and let’s get about the business of making The Church relevent in the 21st centry”…that really does concern me, really…and I think it should…
S
St_Gabriel
Guest
I heard Father Corapi speak about it yesterday on EWTN. He said that the topic of his first homily was about Hell. 
S
Socio_Momma
Guest
Sunday!
Fr. Steve preached about Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell.
Fr. Steve preached about Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell.
G
Greg27
Guest
I think a major problem with the interpretation of hell as an ‘after-life’ state is the language and imagery doesn’t resonate for many, especially given that society in the West is now very secular. Perhaps for many Catholics or other Christians (and also many Muslims) ‘hell’ refers to something real and quite terrifying, a place perhaps. But the problem is in a infinite universe where the Earth is only basically a grain of dust, and the overwhelming evidence from science, cognitive science and psychology is against the notion we have an ‘immortal soul’, and most philosophers of mind certainly do not take the notion of a ‘thing’ which can exist apart from the body seriously and ‘go on’ to another state after death, then the way hell was presented in past times is not credible.
Theologians need to reinterpret eschatology in more Biblical and less Platonic terms, which involves the resurrection (or death) in an eternal sense of the whole person as an integral whole. Heaven then is a resurrection into the eternal prescence of God; hell perhaps, is either the resurrection of the whole person but separated from God for eternity, or else a sort of ‘self-enclosed prison’ which the unrepentant eternally choose to be in (as in Sartre’s ‘No Exit.’) Heaven and hell personally do not mean much to me as words, but eternal life and eternal death do. Personally the notion of a ghostly ‘self’ without a body to me which could have no sense experience, touch, dynamic interaction with others, and so on would itself be ‘hell’, no matter what its eternal destination would be. Perhaps hell is to be resurrected with no corporeality?
Theologians need to reinterpret eschatology in more Biblical and less Platonic terms, which involves the resurrection (or death) in an eternal sense of the whole person as an integral whole. Heaven then is a resurrection into the eternal prescence of God; hell perhaps, is either the resurrection of the whole person but separated from God for eternity, or else a sort of ‘self-enclosed prison’ which the unrepentant eternally choose to be in (as in Sartre’s ‘No Exit.’) Heaven and hell personally do not mean much to me as words, but eternal life and eternal death do. Personally the notion of a ghostly ‘self’ without a body to me which could have no sense experience, touch, dynamic interaction with others, and so on would itself be ‘hell’, no matter what its eternal destination would be. Perhaps hell is to be resurrected with no corporeality?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Greg27, I think you are quite right. The Church is still struggling with a legacy of Greek body-soul dualism which simply doesn’t work in light of what we now know from neuroscience, biology, physics and cosmology.
I prefer the “Hebraic” turn in theology toward a more holistic conception of the psychosomatic unity of the person. Rather than a disembodied immortal soul (ours by right) wandering around somewhere in the cosmos and deprived of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, eschatological fulfillment would depend upon God’s promise of resurrection of the whole person. This eliminates the need for a physically local hell, say somewhere in the magma between earth’s crust and mantle. And it obviates red-suited devils with pitchforks!
Petrus
I prefer the “Hebraic” turn in theology toward a more holistic conception of the psychosomatic unity of the person. Rather than a disembodied immortal soul (ours by right) wandering around somewhere in the cosmos and deprived of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, eschatological fulfillment would depend upon God’s promise of resurrection of the whole person. This eliminates the need for a physically local hell, say somewhere in the magma between earth’s crust and mantle. And it obviates red-suited devils with pitchforks!
Petrus
M
Mijoy2
Guest
How do you know this to be true? There can be found words spoken from many many saints that would not agree with your assertion at all.
I too, like to believe what you say here to be true. But to believe it would only be catering to emotion which goes against contrary evidence.
Don Bosco is a saint. Which means of course the Church proclaims him to be in Heaven. Did Don Bosco lie about this and yet still gain enterance to Heaven? Was the Church wrong canonizing Don Bosco a saint?
todayscatholicworld.com/bosco_hell.htm
T
TMC
Guest
Sainthood is not dependent on, nor does it presuppose, theological correctness. Sainthood means only that the Church believe the Saint to be in Heaven.
But more importantly, I don’t think Bosco’s dreams were meant to provide guidance on the particulars of Hell, but rather to guide us in living in a way to avoid going there.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Of course, but that is not the point being discussed. The point being discussed refers to the horrors of Hell and whether it is mentioned in homilies.
Bosco’s dreams were meant to provide guidance on the particulars of hell (just as you mentioned) and to guide us in a way to avoid hell (again, as you mentioned) what you left out was the means. The means was to tell people about. Which is what this thread is about.
Let’s put it this way. Either hell exists or not. If it does and “many” people go there, shouldn’t it be screamed about from the rooftops (let alone from the pulpit)?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
How can you scream about hell if you don’t know any details about it? e.g.,
- What it is
- Where it is
- How people “go there”
- what "there means with respect to hell
- How you quanitfy “many people”
Petrus
D
distracted
Guest
Have you ever read about Fatima? the likelihood that 3 children made up the same thing… (etc…) and even after being threatened with death would not reveal the secret Our Lady told them to keep… Well, what can i say?
Also: “Conservative Catholics”? That’s supposed to be a redundant term… Liberal and Catholic are inconsistent terms… (to say the least).
Also: You write: “If they want to believe that they and their relatives are drifting into Hell, that’s their perogative”…
I could say the same type of thing: “If you want to believe the opposite…” If you WANT to believe anything…
Who cares what anyone WANTS to believe???
We are supposed to be interested in nothing but the **TRUTH!! ** Jesus is Truth Incarnate… The very Word of God Himself…
When it comes to God & our eternal destiny, it seems that one should make very sure one is not simply believing what one WANTS to believe…
I WANT to believe that I look like Elizabeth Taylor at age 20…
- Status