Yes, in hell, but why forever

[claudine]

The Creator is in everything and is everywhere. There isn’t anywhere The Creator is not. Especially in souls. Remember He Is Existence It self and Being Itself. Being Itself is in all things.

Trust me I am not a bhuddist. I just had to make sure I got this part right by studying it for its own sake and to understand the difference between bhudism and hinduism and catholicism on this point.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not seeing the distinction. It is all mysterious, correct? Did you read the article?

There’s a real distinction between “present to us” and “literally part of us”. If you’re not seeing it, would it be easier if you thought about what it means to say that your spouse is “part of you”?

And yes, I read the article. In fact, it’s not an article – it’s a homily. And, if you’re acquainted with homiletics, then you know that a homily isn’t a dogmatic expression of belief, but a reflection. So, there’s the opportunity in a homily to speak figuratively … which is what he’s doing here. He says, “God’s knowledge of us is even more comprehensive. God knows us, body and soul. God knows all that we do and even all that we think. God is acquainted with all our ways.” Get it? God knows us. It’s not that He’s literally “inside” us; He knows us.

Also, he says that he’s talking about the Holy Spirit: “If the Holy Spirit is in our hearts, than (sic) our job is to discover the Holy Spirit, present in each and every person we encounter.” So, as a principle of the faith, we say that the Holy Spirit is “in our hearts”. Does that literally mean in? Or does it mean it in a way that’s not physically literal?

C’mon man…

So, He does not call people to be with Him?

He invites. He doesn’t force.

 

[OneSheep]

You’re living in a bubble when it comes to even imagining the evil acts that mankind could inflict on you or your loved ones

You are perhaps thinking that I have limited knowledge about what evils people can do upon one another.
Jesus calls us to forgive everyone we hold something against. Does this seem impossible?

You say you’re Catholic yet you reject the church teachings

You are thinking I reject Church teachings, but I have done nothing of the sort. What I have done is demonstrated how a person can be in prayer relationship with a Father who loves and forgives unconditionally, as Jesus showed us from the cross, as a result of such teachings and prayer life.

Seeing the Father who loves and forgives unconditionally is an invitation to a deeper relationship. The door to the deeper relationship is to forgive everyone one has the slightest resentment towards, starting with the people who have hurt one most. It involves calling the Spirit for understanding.

I can understand, and explain how I could have done, the actions of every person who has ever walked on Earth. It involves what in psychology is called “complete integration of the shadow”, but I used the Gospel (and prayer), not psychology, as my guide. It means taking ownership of, and reconciling with, all the parts of oneself that one represses/resents. It involves removing a great deal of posts from one’s eyes.

twist scripture to mean whatever you want it to

I can support every interpretation I have shown. Most do not come from me, but the priest/scholar who taught us. Did you see the quote in my profile?

You imagine you’re still ok with God while sinning, while rejecting repentance, and you suppose Jesus taught errors. Modernism has infiltrated the foundations of your faith.

I have no idea how you have concluded these, but they do look like judgments, and this is fodder for an illustration (in the mean time, please know that I am of forgiving heart no matter what you are saying).

So, to illustrate, if you are judging me, do you repent from your judging? If you repent, do you repent because the Father will not forgive you if you do not, or do you repent because it is loving and merciful, which is what your true self desires?

God bless.

God Bless you also!

 

[OneSheep]

Also, he says that he’s talking about the Holy Spirit: “If the Holy Spirit is in our hearts, than (sic) our job is to discover the Holy Spirit, present in each and every person we encounter.” So, as a principle of the faith, we say that the Holy Spirit is “in our hearts”. Does that literally mean in? Or does it mean it in a way that’s not physically literal?

Well, I can speak from first-hand experience that I see God, and infinite value, in everyone. What the exact nature of that “in” is, well, I cannot really say. The point I am making is that when I chose to sin, my blindness to such infinite value, caused by resentment or desire, was always there, and I am still subject to blindness even though my stasis is seeing God in all people.

The key factor is not the physical or literal, it is what our eyes see.

He invites. He doesn’t force.

The priest who taught us once gave us an image, an opinion, based on his own relationship. He said, “If someone chooses to go to hell, they do so screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” That image (which I share) shows that God doesn’t force, but puts in a great effort to keep it from happening. I don’t know his opinion about people choosing to leave hell, but I know from my own relationship with the Father that the invitation to leave would remain.

Yes, He invites, He doesn’t force, one way or the other.

But that is also beside the point, the point I am stating is that people do not choose hell when they know what they are doing. This is an observation of the dignity, the beauty, of people.

Remember He Is Existence It self and Being Itself. Being Itself is in all things.

If I remember right, St. Thomas Aquinas said something along these lines.

 

[OneSheep]

Because we know that mortal sin has occurred

Sorry, Vico, this remains an unsupported assertion.

Using the Catholic Church definition of full knowledge they may choose sin

This is a repeated assertion, not addressing my point. When people sin, they only have partial knowledge, and I listed the many forms of knowledge.

You tried, long ago, to come up with an example of a person choosing to sin who had full knowledge, but his actions were completely irrational. His stated priorities did not guide his choices. Instead, it was the unstated priorities that took precedent in his decisions. His stated priorities of wanting to be obedient were superfluous, he was in complete denial of his unstated priorities, the priorities of pleasure which led to his decision to sin. He was blind.

When people are not blind, their decisions are in line with their priorities.

So, your assertions remain without an imaginable example, let alone a real one.

“These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful.(96)”

Anything less than knowing and having in mind enough information concerning the gravity and moral character of the sin is insufficient. You show me a real or imagined sin, Vico, and we can determine what relevant information the person did not have in mind. There is always a gap in knowing, or a blindness triggered.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, I can speak from first-hand experience that I see God, and infinite value, in everyone. What the exact nature of that “in” is, well, I cannot really say.

Right. So, what you mean is that you don’t really “see God in everyone”, but rather, you perceive the presence of God at work in all of us.

The key factor is not the physical or literal, it is what our eyes see .

Right. And you don’t “see” God – you impute filial participation in Divine Fatherhood.

The priest who taught us once gave us an image, an opinion, based on his own relationship.

An image. An opinion.

I agree. It’s an opinion. It creates a visual image.

(It’s not doctrinal, however; rather, it’s a metaphor.)

point I am stating is that people do not choose hell when they know what they are doing. This is an observation of the dignity, the beauty, of people.

They’re choosing ‘hell’ by choosing to disobey God. Think of it this way: do you want to forfeit your paycheck? (Of course not! Me neither!) But, if you choose to take three-hour lunches, and leave early and show up late… then by your actions, you are choosing to lose that paycheck.

 

[OneSheep]

Right. So, what you mean is that you don’t really “see God in everyone”, but rather, you perceive the presence of God at work in all of us.

I see the beauty of God in all existence, and I see the infinite value of that, yes. If you say that this is not seeing God in everyone, I don’t have a problem with that. You are making sense of it in with your own vocabulary.

But, if you choose to take three-hour lunches, and leave early and show up late… then by your actions, you are choosing to lose that paycheck.

The paycheck doesn’t automatically not get paid. The employer has to stop the payment. But see, this example goes back to the idea of “payment” which goes back to the workings of the conscience, i.e. what we “deserve”, etc. This is not the way of the Father; He instead “pays” like He does the laborers in the vineyard.

When we resent that some people get “paid” when they did not “deserve” it, we are coming from the position of the prodigal son’s older brother. It seems grossly unfair, which is the way our conscience operates.

The Father loves beyond the confines of the conscience. The Father’s love transcends the conscience, sees its value, but understands and forgives without condition.

 

[Gorgias]

I see the beauty of God in all existence, and I see the infinite value of that, yes. If you say that this is not seeing God in everyone, I don’t have a problem with that. You are making sense of it in with your own vocabulary.

Fair enough.

But see, this example goes back to the idea of “payment” which goes back to the workings of the conscience, i.e. what we “deserve”, etc.

That’s because it’s a metaphor – just like the metaphor of saying that God is “in” all of us.

The Father’s love transcends the conscience, sees its value, but understands and forgives without condition.

Wait. That’s not complete.

The Father’s love transcends the conscience, sees its value, but understands and forgives without condition when we come to him with contrition and ask for forgiveness.

There we go. Fixed that for ya…

 

[OneSheep]

There we go. Fixed that for ya…

I know you meant well, but please don’t make that part of my quote. I didn’t say it. Please modify it outside of my quote.

Jesus did not wait for contrition when he forgave from the cross. Indeed, if we wait for contrition to forgive, we could hold onto grudges our entire lives.

 

[Gorgias]

I know you meant well, but please don’t make that part of my quote. I didn’t say it. Please modify it outside of my quote.

The thing is, your assertion is inaccurate without the correction.

Jesus did not wait for contrition when he forgave from the cross.

No, that’s not true. The “Good Thief” asked for forgiveness. And, Jesus asked God to recognize that the sin of those who were killing Him wasn’t mortal. Big difference, don’t you think?

 

[OneSheep]

The “Good Thief” asked for forgiveness.

Okay, that is one person. With the crowd, forgiveness occurred without repentance or contrition. Heck, they were still killing Him.

And, Jesus asked God to recognize that the sin of those who were killing Him wasn’t mortal.

Exactly. No one knows what they are doing when they sin. The point is, they were sinning, they did not show contrition, and they were certainly not repentant. They carried out their sin.

I’m going to paraphrase the Gospel a little:

Do you forgive only those who forgive you? Even sinners do this. Do you only forgive those who are sorry, who change their ways? Even sinners do this. Do you forgive only those who have paid for their sins through suffering? Even sinners do this! Seek the Father, seek, and you shall find a deeper love that the Father has for you, that you may shed the yoke, the slavery, of holding something against someone else. Forgive from the heart, hold nothing back. Forgive always, and you will then know the Father’s forgiveness.

 

[Gorgias]

Okay, that is one person.

Okay, so your assertion isn’t accurate.

With the crowd, forgiveness occurred without repentance or contrition. Heck, they were still killing Him.

My take on it comes directly from Jesus’ words: He’s explicitly saying, “hey, they don’t have full knowledge”, which we would understand to mean “their sin, albeit grave, is not mortal.” That’s the whole game, there. It means that they aren’t condemned to hell by their act of deicide.

No one knows what they are doing when they sin.

Nope. Jesus didn’t say that. He said that in that one case, there wasn’t full knowledge. You have to extrapolate rather creatively to extend that one statement, about one sin, and try to make it apply to all situations and all sins. That’s what makes it an invalid extrapolation.

I’m going to paraphrase the Gospel a little:

It’s a good paraphrase! However, Jesus is talking to people and about people. Again, the attempt to extrapolate is getting you into doctrinal trouble here.

 

[oliver109]

I don’t think they are choosing Hell so much as choosing to alienate themselves temporarily from God, lets say that the majority of Catholics have committed a mortal sin at least once in their life so theoretically the majority of Catholics have chosen Hell and have only avoided it because God was kind enough to give them a chance to live again.

 

[John_Martin]

Okay, that is one person. With the crowd, forgiveness occurred without repentance or contrition. Heck, they were still killing Him.

Gorgias:

And, Jesus asked God to recognize that the sin of those who were killing Him wasn’t mortal.

@Gorgias is correct:

1. Jesus forgave the thief who did penance (correcting the impenitent thief) and did an act of contrition to the High Priest (in persona Christi - pun intended).
2. Jesus forgave the sins of blind ignorance (“Father, forgive them; They know not what they do.”)
   And:
3. He declares of those who do know: “If you were blind,” Jesus replied, “you would not be guilty of sin. But since you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” (John 9)

Everyone will be eternally in the fiery presence of our LORD for eternity. For the righteous, the forgiven and sanctified it will be delightful joy; for the impenitent it will be anguish because they think a person perishes by union with God, by giving himself to God walking directly into the flaming Fire that is God.

John Martin

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Because we know that mortal sin has occurred

Sorry, Vico, this remains an unsupported assertion.
…

So, your assertions remain without an imaginable example, let alone a real one.

…

I showed you before the dogma of faith of the Catholic Church that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin at the Fall. Council of Trent, Session v (June 17, 1546) Decree On Original Sin.

 

[Gorgias]

theoretically the majority of Catholics have chosen Hell and have only avoided it because God was kind enough to give them a chance to live again.

Yep. That’s about right.

(Except that God is always “kind enough to give a second chance”, as long as we are contrite and ask forgiveness.)

 

[OneSheep]

Nope. Jesus didn’t say that. He said that in that one case , there wasn’t full knowledge. You have to extrapolate rather creatively to extend that one statement, about one sin, and try to make it apply to all situations and all sins. That’s what makes it an invalid extrapolation.

Yes, of course. You would have to examine your own choices ( and the choices of others) to see that you did not know what you were doing. If the process of discovery begins with a closed mind, though, the mind will remain blaming. The key is to seek answers without blaming.

I showed you before the dogma of faith of the Catholic Church that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin at the Fall. Council of Trent, Session v (June 17, 1546) Decree On Original Sin .

“Mortal sin” is not mentioned in the decree. The allegory of the sin of Adam and Eve is not to be equated with the sins that we carry out.

404… And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

So no, the Church has not pointed out any person’s specific sin as mortal.

It needs to be noted that the council of Trent presents an image of God who judges in indignation and wrath. While this image is still accepted in the Church, many (most?) faithful now are in relationship with a Father who always forgives. (See the quote in my profile). People in the last 600 years are gaining access to a deeper presence.

theoretically the majority of Catholics have chosen Hell

This is not in keeping with what we can know of human dignity, unless the choosing is inadvertent. People do not choose hell when they are aware and not blind.

 

[OneSheep]

Jesus forgave the thief who did penance (correcting the impenitent thief) and did an act of contrition to the High Priest (in persona Christi - pun intended).

Yes, and what is different about this person vs. the crowd is that the crowd remains enslaved until they forgive Jesus. The thief who did penance is free.

Jesus forgave the sins of blind ignorance (“Father, forgive them; They know not what they do.”)

Yes, and with careful examination, this can be discovered to be the state of anyone who sins.

He declares of those who do know: “If you were blind,” Jesus replied, “you would not be guilty of sin. But since you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” (John 9)

This is a very complicated verse. When taken out of context of the entire Gospel, it makes no sense, and it makes no sense in itself. If a person claims he can see, but he is blind, then he still cannot see. If a person claims he can see, and indeed can see, then he sees his error and is repentant, sees that Jesus is God incarnate.

The pharisees were blind and lacked awareness, they were believing untruths.

What Jesus says is essentially, “You think you can see, but you are blind, and your blindness enslaves you.”

for the impenitent it will be anguish because they think a person perishes by union with God

This is an example of a person who is blind, lacks in awareness, or both. He does not know what he is doing.

 

[Gorgias]

Vico:

I showed you before the dogma of faith of the Catholic Church that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin at the Fall. Council of Trent, Session v (June 17, 1546) Decree On Original Sin .

“Mortal sin” is not mentioned in the decree.

I haven’t been following your discussion with Vico, but this assertion you that you made, piqued my interest. I think you’re mistaken. Right at the beginning of the decree, we read:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost, the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of such prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death

A sin that incurs death is precisely the definition of ‘mortal sin’. So, even if it doesn’t use the term ‘mortal sin’, it gives the description of it.

 

[Vico]

…
“Mortal sin” is not mentioned in the decree. The allegory of the sin of Adam and Eve is not to be equated with the sins that we carry out.
…

Catechism 404 portion you quoted is about the inherited original sin, not the actual sin of Adam and Eve that lead to the contracted analogical original sin that we are conceived with.

It was actual mortal sin for both Adam and Eve for through it was the loss of original holiness and justice (which is the state of sanctifying grace). That loss only occurs from a mortal sin. They had been given the gift of the state of sanctifying grace (justice) and lost it.

First Decree from the Council of Trent, Session V

1 If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

You can also read it in the Catechism (mortal sin here means state of mortal sin: no sanctifying grace)

258. But how did the loss of the gift of original justice leave our first parents and us in mortal sin?
A. The loss of the gift of original justice left our first parents and us in mortal sin because it deprived them of the Grace of God, and to be without this gift of Grace which they should have had was to be in mortal sin. As all their children are deprived of the same gift, they, too, come into the world in a state of mortal sin.

Also note that Venerable Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani generis, states that the original sin of Adam is not allegorical:

37 When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

12. Cfr. Rom ., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html