Yes, in hell, but why forever

[OneSheep]

A sin that incurs death

“Death” is used differently in context. The death in the story has to do with people no longer being immortal. “Death” in the Gospel is used in many ways, most often having to do with being lost, not connected to the Father. It has to do with being enslaved by the trappings of our (good) nature. When we are enslaved by desire, by addiction, by wrath, we are not alive, not in the fullest sense.
You place more value in the Baltimore catechism than I do. I respect your position. The Baltimore catechism probably expresses something closer to the image of God you hold, correct?

The Baltimore catechism, nor the Council of Trent, present the image of a Father who loves and forgives unconditionally. The image they present is more a default image, the image that naturally forms from the workings of the Superego/conscience.

God is Love

CCC 218 In the course of its history, Israel was able to discover that God had only one reason to reveal himself to them, a single motive for choosing them from among all peoples as his special possession: his sheer gratuitous love.38 And thanks to the prophets Israel understood that it was again out of love that God never stopped saving them and pardoning their unfaithfulness and sins.39

There is an enormous contrast between the image of God presented in the word “gratuitous” and the image presented in the words “indignant” or “wrathful” presented in the documents from the Council of Trent.

Ironically, the word “wrath” coupled with “CCC” search only finds the aspects of humanity that are sinful, not characteristics of God. Try it, Vico.

37 When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism,…

A story can still be allegorical without conflicting with the tenets stating that there are only one set of original parents.

Perhaps you could come up with a different example of “mortal sin”. If we were to scrutinize the story of Adam and Eve, their blindness and lack of awareness can be seen to be pervasive. They did not know what they were doing, they believed an untruth.

 

[oliver109]

Yes and that is why I really cannot imagine myself just choosing Hell just like that, I don’t feel like I lack contrition, at least I hope I don’t. I think only a few people who love sinning and have no regrets for it are the ones that we should be worried about regarding Hell.

 

[Gorgias]

“Death” is used differently in context. The death in the story has to do with people no longer being immortal.

No. Adam and Eve are still “immortal”, just as we are – our souls will never die. Among the things they lost, in their first sin, was eternal life in heaven with God. The question of what would have happened to their bodies, had they not sinned, is merely speculation.

They did not know what they were doing, they believed an untruth.

Oh, they knew precisely what they were doing! Eve told the snake exactly what God had told her. Both Adam and Eve – having done wrong – give excuses to God when He asks what they’ve done. They knew, and disobeyed anyway.

 

[OneSheep]

No. Adam and Eve are still “immortal”, just as we are – our souls will never die.

Gen 3:22… He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

A missed opportunity, then.

Oh, they knew precisely what they were doing! Eve told the snake exactly what God had told her. Both Adam and Eve – having done wrong – give excuses to God when He asks what they’ve done. They knew , and disobeyed anyway.

Eve found the “truth” coming from the snake more accurate, and chose accordingly. It was her desire that blinded her. Absent the desire, she would not have made the choice, she would have seen the untruth. Her knowledge, in the moment, was partial, not full.

 

[Vico]

…

I responded to what you wrote before: “The allegory of the sin of Adam and Eve is not to be equated with the sins that we carry out.”

It was mortal sin for them and we may also commit mortal sin.

You wrote: “If we were to scrutinize the story of Adam and Eve, their blindness and lack of awareness can be seen to be pervasive. They did not know what they were doing, they believed an untruth.”

Yet, that sin of Adam and Eve was mortal sin. They sinned mortally and their descendants do also. There can still be mortal sin if a person believes an untruth. (And actually, per Genesis, only Eve did that.)

Also in the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man .264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

265 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58 (1966), 654.

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. 278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

278 Cf. Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. …

 

[OneSheep]

It was mortal sin for them

This is your conclusion, yes, but it is illogical:

Here is the premise:
If there is mortal sin, then there is punishment. If A, then B

Here is what you are saying:
There was punishment, therefore there was mortal sin. If B, then A

This is the most basic logical error, Vico.

 

[claudine]

Question:

If mortal sin completely cuts one off from sanctifying grace and charity, basically so cut off that they experience what has been termed ‘death of the soul’ then could anyone whoactually committed a mortal sin with total knowledge and consent ever be saved?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

It was mortal sin for them

This is your conclusion, yes, but it is illogical:

Here is the premise:
If there is mortal sin, then there is punishment. If A, then B

Here is what you are saying:
There was punishment, therefore there was mortal sin. If B, then A

This is the most basic logical error, Vico.

They lost of original holiness and justice by fault freely committed. (Council of Trent ) It is the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. I am not drawing conclusions but posting the teaching of the Church.

 

[Vico]

Question:

If mortal sin completely cuts one off from sanctifying grace and charity, basically so cut off that they experience what has been termed ‘death of the soul’ then could anyone who actually committed a mortal sin with total knowledge and consent ever be saved?

Yes it is possible to to recover the grace of justification through Penance.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott) p. 234:

Although the sinner does not possess the grace of justification, he can still perform morally good actions and, with the help of actual grace, even supernaturally good (though not meritorious) works, and through them prepare himself for justification.

The teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter is this:

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. …

1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."47

1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."49

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

 

[Gorgias]

It was her desire that blinded her.

You keep talking about being “blind.” It’s a convenient description – there’s seemingly no culpability in being blind. In a sense, this particular way of arguing the point is the reason why you’ve hung onto it so long, in the face of the teaching of the Church.

Absent the desire, she would not have made the choice, she would have seen the untruth.

Fine. So the desire was sinful. And, she acted on the desire. Same result.

Her knowledge, in the moment, was partial, not full.

Another convenient way of describing it, but nevertheless, still not accurate. She had the knowledge; she just chose to disregard it. It is in that pride – that is, in the pride that sought to disregard God’s command – that the culpable sin resides.

Here is the premise:
If there is mortal sin, then there is punishment. If A, then B

Here is what you are saying:
There was punishment, therefore there was mortal sin. If B, then A

Actually, what you’re looking to say is “If A then B. B, therefore A.”

This fails as a logical construct because there might be more reasons than “A” which cause “B”. (“If it’s raining, then it’s wet outside. It’s wet outside, therefore it’s raining.” Well… no; maybe it’s wet outside because I just washed my car.)

So, please tell us what else causes loss of eternal life than sin, then?

(The correct statement here, I think, is “if and only if A, then B. B, therefore A.” And that one is perfectly logical. )

could anyone whoactually committed a mortal sin with total knowledge and consent ever be saved

Yes, through the grace of God, given contrition and the sacrament of reconciliation.

 

[claudine]

But how could aperson who is cut off from all grace, and from The Lord, and is ‘dead’ from mortal sin be penetent?
It wouldn’t be possible.
Where would the grace to feel sorry, or to regret even be able to come from?

 

[claudine]

Also it is said all charity is lost through hwving committed a mortal sin. So therre is no love available.

 

[OneSheep]

They lost of original holiness and justice by fault freely committed. (Council of Trent ) It is the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. I am not drawing conclusions but posting the teaching of the Church.

This is the description of original sin, which is said not to be the personal sin, as we discussed previously. Dogma does not say that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin. Adam and Eve sinned, but they did so without knowing what they were doing, in light of relevant knowledge.

Feel free to continue bringing forth assertions, Vico, but assertions are simply “brute facts”, and if they fall apart upon scrutiny, then they remain as such.

You keep talking about being “blind.” It’s a convenient description – there’s seemingly no culpability in being blind.

Do you have a resistance to letting go of blame in light of understanding why people sin?

Fine. So the desire was sinful. And, she acted on the desire. Same result.

The appetites, in themselves, are not sinful. Thomas Aquinas and others said this.

She had the knowledge; she just chose to disregard it. It is in that pride

In light of the way that humans usually behave, it was not a deliberate choice. If it was a deliberate choice to disregard, it was a choice made in blindness and/or ignorance.

But this is the way that I see it, because I have scrutinized my own sin and those of others, and this is the conclusion I have come to. You, instead, have found reasons to hang onto the designation of “culpable”. These reasons also help motivate you to avoid sin, correct? “I am going to avoid sin, because if I sin I will blame myself, which is uncomfortable.” On the other hand, is it really that deliberate, or is it a matter of how you see God and the world?

I say the latter, it all boils down to how one sees God and sees people. We see both of these differently, Gorgias. I accept your point of view.

This fails as a logical construct because there might be more reasons than “A” which cause “B”. (“If it’s raining, then it’s wet outside. It’s wet outside, therefore it’s raining.” Well… no; maybe it’s wet outside because I just washed my car.)

Exactly. The poster I was responding to was saying “B, therefore A”, and I was pointing out the fallacy.

what else causes loss of eternal life than sin, then?

In theory, a person can choose to go to hell, if that is what you mean, but Adam and Eve did not make this choice in Genesis 3. In ignorance, they chose to defy, but did not specifically choose to be away from God.

 

[OneSheep]

If mortal sin completely cuts one off from sanctifying grace and charity, basically so cut off that they experience what has been termed ‘death of the soul’ then could anyone whoactually committed a mortal sin with total knowledge and consent ever be saved?

I’m not sure this addresses your question, but it does go to the image of God’s benevolence. If sin does, in some way, involve some sort of “cut off”, how does it happen? If God cuts it off, then it looks like punishment, and why would a loving God punish in a way that makes it more likely that the person repeat the sin? If God sets up some sort of automated cut off (when people sin, they shut God out automatically) we run into the same question.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you have a resistance to letting go of blame in light of understanding why people sin?

Do you have a resistance to letting to of ‘invincibly ignorant blindness’ in light of understanding why people sin?

The appetites, in themselves, are not sinful. Thomas Aquinas and others said this.

Don’t conflate the appetite itself with the conscious will to give way to the desire. Thomas Aquinas and others said this.

In light of the way that humans usually behave, it was not a deliberate choice.

Please show me – from the Scripture from which you’ve quoted – that it wasn’t deliberate.

On the other hand, is it really that deliberate, or is it a matter of how you see God and the world?

I say the latter, it all boils down to how one sees God and sees people.

So, your personal notion of how “God and the world” works, gets to trump what God has revealed to us in His Word? Hmm…

Exactly. The poster I was responding to was saying “B, therefore A”, and I was pointing out the fallacy.

No. You construed what he was saying was “B, therefore A.” I’m asserting that it’s “if and only if A, then B”, which does work validly in the converse.

In theory, a person can choose to go to hell, if that is what you mean, but Adam and Eve did not make this choice in Genesis 3.

Says who? You? Personally?

 

[Vico]

But how could aperson who is cut off from all grace, and from The Lord, and is ‘dead’ from mortal sin be penetent?
It wouldn’t be possible.
Where would the grace to feel sorry, or to regret even be able to come from?

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott) p. 240:

God gives all the faithful who are sinners sufficient grace (gratia saltem remote sufficiens) for conversion. (Sent. communis.)

God does not entirely withdraw His grace even from blinded and hardened sinners.

The Church teaches that the baptised who have fallen into serious sin, “can always be restored by true repentence” (D 430). This implies that God gives them sufficient grace for conversion. Cf. D 911, 321.

D430 (LATERAN COUNCIL IV 1215) One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, * in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours. And surely no one can accomplish this sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself conceded to the Apostles and to their successors. But the sacrament of baptism (which at the invocation of God and the indivisible Trinity, namely, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is solemnized in water) rightly conferred by anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults. And if, after the reception of baptism, anyone shall have lapsed into sin, through true penance he can always be restored. Moreover, not only virgins and the continent but also married persons pleasing to God through right faith and good work merit to arrive at a blessed eternity.

D911 (COUNCIL OF TRENT, SESSION XIII, Oct. II, 1551) Can. 1. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord to reconcile the faithful, as often as they fall into sin after baptism: let him be anathema [cf. n. 894].

D321 is COUNCIL OF VALENCE * III 855 against John Scotus teaching of Predestination.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

They lost of original holiness and justice by fault freely committed. (Council of Trent ) It is the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. I am not drawing conclusions but posting the teaching of the Church.

This is the description of original sin, which is said not to be the personal sin, as we discussed previously. Dogma does not say that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin. Adam and Eve sinned, but they did so without knowing what they were doing, in light of relevant knowledge.

…

No, the description is of the actual personal sin of Adam and Eve.

Catechism

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin , but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state .294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. 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.

 

[sudy]

I can’t post more than 3 times consecutively, so this is only the first part of my answer.

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?

I was responding to your comment here:

If I can forgive everyone I held something against, but the Church (or God!) does not, does that make me more forgiving than God Himself?

in which you seem to speak of forgiveness in a blasé or careless way as though forgiveness is a mere nothing and a matter of course without any consideration for the type of offense or offenses committed, like rape, torture, murder, or against whom, nor any reference to the frequency of the offenses, the number and types of offenses, their duration, the number of perpetrators, their level of brutality, nor the long term damage or trauma to the victims. Our ability to forgive comes from God… we forgive for love of God. It’s not necessarily natural or easy, though, for those who have been seriously wronged. You only have to look in some of the other threads on here, such as those about the priestly sex offenses, to recognise that forgiveness isn’t always easy. Some sins cry to heaven for retribution.

Did you see the quote in my profile?

I have now. Pope Francis is right in what he says… but this isn’t the complete picture. He also says, ‘Jesus came to save us by revealing to us the merciful face of God and drawing us to Him with His Sacrifice of love. Then, we must always remember that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a real way of sanctification; it is the effective sign that Jesus left to the Church so that the door of the Father’s house would always remain open and that the return of men to Him was always possible. Sacramental Confession is the way of sanctification both for the penitent and for the confessor.’

source: Audience with the participants in the Course on the Internal Forum organized by the Tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary

 

[sudy]

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).

I’ve had the whole weekend to consider this as I couldn’t get online during that time. I certainly had no intent of judging in the condemning sense so my conscience is fairly clear. I actually thought I was highlighting moral errors truthfully and making a recommendation for correction. I was short of time when I wrote it, and I see that the way I’ve worded it does have a rather accusing tone. You felt judged in any case so I am sorry that I offended you, although correction was all I really had in mind.

Now I’ll explain what I meant.

You imagine you’re still ok with God while sinning

OneSheep Post 634: ‘A person can indeed love God, but continue to sin. However, their love of God is diminished through sin, there is a disharmony.’

OneSheep Post 658: ‘Upon careful reflection and investigation, but mainly through self-examination, we can see that people do not know what they are doing when they sin.’

1 John 2:3
‘The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments.’

1 John 3:6
‘No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him.’

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.

John 15:22-24
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me also hates my Father. If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father.

The Catechism:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

2052 “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” To the young man who asked this question, Jesus answers first by invoking the necessity to recognize God as the “One there is who is good,” as the supreme Good and the source of all good. Then Jesus tells him: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” And he cites for his questioner the precepts that concern love of neighbor: “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.” Finally Jesus sums up these commandments positively: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

[sudy]

while rejecting repentance

OneSheep Post 108: ‘While the natural position (God loves/forgives conditionally) can be totally understood, Jesus invites us to forgive as He did from the cross, not conditioned on repentance’

OneSheep Post 384: ‘So, since God loves/forgives unconditionally, then it is a given that the “If it is not redeemed” by God’s forgiveness will simply not happen.’

OneSheep Post 599: ‘If you are seeing God as judgmental, that image is very normal and natural, but there is a Father that can be found deeper within who loves and forgives unconditionally.’

Luke 24:46-47
And he said to them, "Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

The Catechism:
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,595 – or immediate and everlasting damnation.

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.

1427 Jesus calls to conversion. This call is an essential part of the proclamation of the kingdom: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel. "In the Church’s preaching this call is addressed first to those who do not yet know Christ and his Gospel. Also, Baptism is the principal place for the first and fundamental conversion. It is by faith in the Gospel and by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.

1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52

1847 “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.” To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

1864 “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.