Yes, in hell, but why forever

[OneSheep]

Pope Benedict 15 Feb 2009

It is possible to see leprosy as a symbol of sin, which is the true impurity of heart that can distance us from God .

What can be kept in mind is this:

Romans 8:
38 And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love.

What Pope Benedict is referring to is alienation. Where lies, then, the alienation? Nothing can alienate us from His love, so the alienation takes place between our own “self” and our own love of God, our connection to God within.

The sins that we commit distance us from God and, if we do not humbly confess them, trusting in divine mercy, they will finally bring about the death of the soul .

Sin is an alienation itself. Sin is the manifestation of the alienation, which occurs through blindness or lack of awareness. Yes, these bring about death, but the Gospel also says:

John 5:24
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Note: the word “judgment” there has to be read in light of John 3:17. In that verse “Judgment” may refer to the judgment a person has toward his own being. Jesus calls us not to judge, and call us to “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect”, so perfection does not involve judging.

if we do not humbly confess them, trusting in divine mercy, they will finally bring about the death of the soul .

Ephesians 2:
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

“Death” is used in many ways in speech. Benedict was not referring to God condemning man in some way, he is referring to human choice. People do choose wrong, but they do not know what they are doing when they do so.

sin always severs

Yes, I explained where I see the separation occurring, but yes, it also severs relationships between people.

To have access to His heart, to Jesus’ heart, there is only one requirement: to feel in need of healing and to entrust yourself to Him .

Yes, relationship takes two. Pope Francis is not negating the image of the prodigal son’s father, the father whose arms are always open. To make real eternal life, the good life, the life free from slavery (starting right now), we have to be in relationship. It is a cause-and-effect thing. When we avoid prayer, we are not in relationship.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, we should be afraid of that one! When we feel we have a hardened heart, a heart that is hardened

Here Pope Francis appeals to fear to reverse the “hardened heart”. Most often recent Popes refer to “hardened hearts” as people unwilling to accept forgiveness. Well, people are most often unwilling to accept forgiveness when they refuse to forgive someone else. They think, “I will never forgive that person and neither does God”. The person remains enslaved when they hang onto the grudge.

Some people are not yet ready to forgive. In the mean time, their hearts are burdened.

 

[OneSheep]

What I still cannot understand is why a soul would go straight to Hell should it die after committing a mortal sin…it might just be an ordinary person who basically just committed a mortal sin

Well, “mortal sin” involves “full knowledge” and “full consent”. If a person does not know what they are doing, then it is not a mortal sin. What I have observed is that whenever people sin, they do not know what they are doing, so it is extremely difficult to find that mortal sin ever occurs.

that soul might not be hardened as such

When a soul is hardened, it is through blindness or lack of awareness. People who choose a hardened heart do not know what they are doing. Do you see that also?

the thought makes me sick and makes me not want to live in this world much longer where I often find even the greatest moments of life quite boring.

It sounds like you are grappling with knowing that God truly understands why people sin, and forgives us, but the doctrine sometimes indicates that being sent to hell is something He does. If you read my posts, you can see that this does not have to be one’s image of God.

In the mean time, one can find joy in knowing that God always understands and forgives, always. One can know this by understanding and forgiving everyone, which is truly possible.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

When we include other people in our definition of “self”, such that our “selfish” actions are for their benefit, this is love, not selfishness, if Love is “to will the good of the other” for their own sake, then seeing them as an alter-ego (other self), then this is an embodiment of love, where we love them not because it benefits us personally, but because we have come to view their good as our own.
Suffering sometimes is not the full issue, I struggle with stuff, and because I have a fairly well-formed conscience, I am repeatedly called to head to confession, yet, despite the desire not to, a time will pass, and there I will be again, did I know whatever I was going to do would not satisfy? Yes, of course, I did, yet I did it anyway. We have attachments to sin, and these can be hard to break (sometimes even addictions). For those of us who know and love God, this pain motivates us to redemption, but for those who don’t this can motivate them to believe that they simply don’t have enough of whatever sinful thing it is. Without a knowledge of God, nobody knows what a good life is, we may have our ideas, but ultimately they are only our mortal desires for good things being distorted into the idea that they are good in and of themselves.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

The threat of hell is only a threat for those who are in sin, and even then, only to those who do so with full knowledge and full consent (which many, (probably most of the Swedish and Danish people you reference) lack). Even then, God’s mercy is extended in many ways, if I am in mortal sin, and die on my way to confession, then by virtue of the desire and attempt to do so, it seems reasonable that God would forgive me (especially if I asked Him to in the space between realizing I would die before receiving confession, and actually dying) (this holds true even had I simply not had the opportunity despite my best efforts to make it to confession). For those who aren’t baptized, extraordinary graces reserved to God alone could enable their salvation. Hell is simply a reality, not a threat, for we are judged in accordance with our knowledge, and intentions (I mean simply things like the previously mentioned attempted confession).

 

[OneSheep]

When we include other people in our definition of “self”, such that our “selfish” actions are for their benefit, this is love, not selfishness

But what cannot be separated is that it is all love, and love of self is part of it. When people “will good for the other” because of fear, even that emanates from desire for self-protection. “Selfishness” when accused, is really meaningless. We are all selfish; God has given us the instinct to take care of ourselves. Now, when I take care of myself at other people’s expense, then there is probably a lack of awareness or blindness involved, unless it is a very desperate situation.

yet, despite the desire not to, a time will pass, and there I will be again, did I know whatever I was going to do would not satisfy?

As time passes, what happened?

Without a knowledge of God, nobody knows what a good life is, we may have our ideas, but ultimately they are only our mortal desires for good things being distorted into the idea that they are good in and of themselves.

Well, sometimes they can be “good in and of themselves,” but we are under the illusion that they will satisfy our longing for God, our longing for a good life.

Yes, there is a distortion, a blindness, triggered by desire itself. We become blind to our own conscience, and our own empathy.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The state of justification is lost through sin, but not venial sin, but mortal sin alone.

Sorry, Vico, that was a lot of words, but none of it says that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin, …

That is the only way, as shown before, it was a willful personal sin, and grave. St. Pope John Paul II explained in Reconciliatio et paenitentia Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (December 2, 1984) | John Paul II :

Considering sin from the point of view of its matter, the ideas of death, of radical rupture with God, the supreme good, of deviation from the path that leads to God or interruption of the journey toward him (which are all ways of defining mortal sin) are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin’s objective content. Hence, in the church’s doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.

 

[sudy]

Also here:

1. In the state of fallen nature, for mortal [Viva: formale] sin and for demerit that liberty is sufficient by which the mortal sin or demerit was voluntary and free in its cause, namely, in original sin and in the will of Adam sinning.

source: Pope Alexander VIII Decree about the Errors of the Jansenists

Source: Denzinger The Sources of Catholic Dogma 1957
Dz. 1291-1321

https://www.scribd.com/document/181760078/Denzinger-Sources-of-Catholic-Dogma-pdf

 

[OneSheep]

Hmm. So Trent says that Adam and Eve committed a grave sin, and JP II says that grave sin in practice is identified with mortal sin, so this is your proof that the church says that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin?

Vico, that’s a lot of little pieces coming from here and there to make your point. I find your argument very weak, and in practice there is the enormous contradiction in that Jesus calls us (everyone!) not to judge.

Pope John Paul II did not say that Adam and Eve committed a mortal sin. Grave sin practice is somehow identified with mortal sin, that is true, but the test of mortal sin is not in the gravity but the “full knowledge and full consent”.

Pope JP II was not saying that all grave sin is mortal sin, that would be contrary to the CCC. If that was the case, that all grave sins are mortal sins; the Church could point out mortal sins without knowing anything about the mindset of people.

It would be contrary to the Gospel to do so, but the Church could judge people with abandon!

 

[Gorgias]

If a person interprets doctrine with their own image of God and man in mind, it is seen as the truth, in line with that image. If that same person reads the interpretation of someone who has a different image of God and man, they may opine that the other’s view is a mischaracterization. That makes sense, right?

Nope… because people don’t interpret doctrine – the Church does.

 

[OneSheep]

Since Jesus explicitly tells us not to judge, we can hope that Pope Alexander VIII did not intend to personally judge Adam and Eve sin, but only made a statement reflecting “God’s anger and indignation” toward them. Not all statements by Popes are considered infallible, and plenty of Saints have made statements not upheld in doctrine.

If you might recall, this discussion began with my mentioning that the Church has never claimed anyone specific person has committed a mortal sin. Since we are not obliged to take the creation story literally, and since Adam and Eve could hardly be called normal people (especially when you get into the “preternatural” stuff) this case is a very weak example. Upon examination, a great deal could be shown about Adam and Eve’s lack of awareness and blindness, their being just as subject to the effects of concupiscence as we are, even though the claim is that they had not this characteristic.

In the final analysis, Adam and Eve’s case dies as an example. If they did not have concupiscence, then they were not “human” as we know what it means to be “human”, so they aren’t example of real people committing mortal sin, even if that is the accusation. If they did have concupiscence, then their desire blinded them just as desire blinds all of us, and they did not know what they were doing, so it isn’t mortal sin.

In the literal story, they did not have super-knowledge. They believed an untruth, which is not a position of “full knowledge”. If the real truth was seen as debatable, subject to testing, then their knowledge was only partial.

 

[OneSheep]

The Church is the body of Christ, which is all of us. Every single person reads doctrine with a different set of experiences and vocabulary. Every word has different nuances to different people.

When it comes to images of God there again people will have many different images. Doctrine is not meant to divide people, to say that people are wrong when they come with different images of God, especially when it comes to subjects like justice.

Can you accept people in the Church who have different images of His mercy and justice, or would you rather say that people who do not have the same image that you do are in error?

 

[Gorgias]

Can you accept people in the Church who have different images of His mercy and justice, or would you rather say that people who do not have the same image that you do are in error?

I agree that many in the Church want to interpret doctrine according to their personal whims. That’s an unfortunate, but very real, dynamic in our lives.

Do I accept them, personally? Of course. Does that mean that I must acquiesce to everything that they opine? Of course not.

I don’t think I’d say that “people who disagree with me are in error”. However, I would appeal to the 'Law of Non-Contradiction", and point out that if one of us thinks one thing and the other thinks a conflicting thing… then at least one of us is in error! And, seeing as how many in this thread have pointed out to you that your opinions are in conflict with what the Church actually teaches on this matter, then it seems pretty clear what the situation is…

 

[OneSheep]

I agree that many in the Church want to interpret doctrine according to their personal whims.

And what I interpret is the truth, and what anyone who interprets differently says is a “personal whim”. Are you familiar with the words “ad hominem”?

Do I accept them , personally? Of course.

Good. Do you accept them as fellow Catholic? In communion?

Does that mean that I must acquiesce to everything that they opine? Of course not.

We are in agreement on that.

I don’t think I’d say that “people who disagree with me are in error”. However, I would appeal to the 'Law of Non-Contradiction", and point out that if one of us thinks one thing and the other thinks a conflicting thing… then at least one of us is in error!

I would be more inclined to say that none of us has perfect knowledge. All we can go on is how we know God in relationship, from prayer and experience. Everything we read is with eyes of experiences.

I don’t think I’d say that “people who disagree with me are in error”… And, seeing as how many in this thread have pointed out to you that your opinions are in conflict with what the Church actually teaches on this matter, then it seems pretty clear what the situation is…

You are thinking that even though you and I disagree, I am not in error, but because others disagree with me also, then I am in error? Please keep in mind that I have supported all my statements in doctrine, the Gospel, from Pope Francis, and Pope Benedict.

So, what is “pretty clear” about the situation?

 

[sudy]

Since Jesus explicitly tells us not to judge, we can hope that Pope Alexander VIII did not intend to personally judge Adam and Eve sin

Since there are only two types of personal sin (I’m assuming you’re not debating that it was personal sin)… mortal or venial, it is known that it’s only mortal sin, and not venial sin, that severs the relationship with God as we lose sanctifying grace. So, there’s the answer.

 

[Gorgias]

And what I interpret is the truth , and what anyone who interprets differently says is a “personal whim”.

And that’s why we don’t interpret doctrine personally. Rather, we listen to what the Church teaches. (We hope.)

Are you familiar with the words “ad hominem”?

I am! That’s not what this is. (An ad hominem would be if I said, “your argument is wrong because you’re a big old bum and that’s why it’s wrong!” See the difference? It’s not wrong because it’s you saying it; it’s wrong because it differs from the authoritative teaching of the Church.)

You are thinking that even though you and I disagree, I am not in error, but because others disagree with me also, then I am in error?

No. In this case, I happen to agree with them.

Please keep in mind that I have supported all my statements in doctrine, the Gospel, from Pope Francis, and Pope Benedict.

No. You may have quoted them, but I find that your arguments tend to twist and mischaracterize what the quotes are trying to say. Nothing against you, mind you – I just find that your argument doesn’t stand to reason.

 

[OneSheep]

And that’s why we don’t interpret doctrine personally. Rather, we listen to what the Church teaches. (We hope.)

Yes, and what the church teaches is also seen and heard with the eyes of personal experience.

An ad hominem would be if I said, “your argument is wrong because you’re a big old bum and that’s why it’s wrong!”

Calling someone else’s image of God, and/or their understanding of scripture a “personal whim” is an ad hominem.

Nothing against you, mind you – I just find that your argument doesn’t stand to reason.

EXACTLY! Yes, my argument does not stand to your reasoning.

This brings us back to the OP, and the reason for this thread. The idea of eternal hell does not stand to many people’s reasoning. Why? It is because they know Love to be different than that. Their own parents forgave always, and unconditionally. I know many, many people that have this experience of God. Then, they look upon “religious people” as condemning people, people who would probably not bat an eye at sending a person to eternal torture. Do you see how this can drive people away? Yet, this view of a condemning God (rather than that He always forgives) is endorsed in doctrine and scripture, even though Pope Francis and Pope Benedict make great effort to show us otherwise.

I am saying that your own argument does stand to reason. It is reason based on the natural human conscience and its compulsion to punish wrongdoing. The conscience comes from God, so the image, and the reasoning, is that the conscience and the desire to punish wrongdoing is from God Himself.

What the people I am referring to have experienced is a forgiveness that transcends what the conscience dictates. The OP is coming from “How does the idea of eternal torture fit with an all-powerful, all-loving God?” He is seeing God from the position of One Who Forgives, and seeing man as someone who can change his mind, which also stands to reason.

The Linns say in their book, Good Goats, Healing Your Image of God, “If something in scripture or doctrine sounds like God loves you less than the person who loves you most, something is amiss.” This, Gorgias, is where people are coming from. What seems reasonable to you is decidedly amiss to someone else, and we can’t talk people out of unconditionally loving/forgiving images of God!

So neither you nor those who question the image of a God who sends people to eternal hell are “wrong”. Both images can be understood, and the people who hold both images can be held in the hands of mother Church.

 

[Vico]

Hmm. So Trent says that Adam and Eve committed a grave sin, and JP II says that grave sin in practice is identified with mortal sin, so this is your proof that the church says that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin?

Vico, that’s a lot of little pieces coming from here and there to make your point. I find your argument very weak, and in practice there is the enormous contradiction in that Jesus calls us (everyone!) not to judge.

Pope John Paul II did not say that Adam and Eve committed a mortal sin. Grave sin practice is somehow identified with mortal sin, that is true, but the test of mortal sin is not in the gravity but the “full knowledge and full consent”.

Pope JP II was not saying that all grave sin is mortal sin, that would be contrary to the CCC. If that was the case, that all grave sins are mortal sins; the Church could point out mortal sins without knowing anything about the mindset of people.

It would be contrary to the Gospel to do so, but the Church could judge people with abandon!

Yes all grave sins are mortal sins. You are confusing grave matter which can result in venial sins or mortal sins depending. Matter and sin are different.

 

[John10]

It is very easy to understand. Our good and evil actions are the result of our free will.

However once we die, we no longer have free will. So our last and ultimate decision we take at that crucial moment becomes permanent.

So if you are condemned you would no longer have any free will to repent. Without repentance God cannot forgive you (also those in Heaven cannot sin for that same reason).

Another reasons for the eternity of Hell is understanding the magnitude of our transgression. Justice demands the punishment equals the gravity of our transgression. Even here on earth we see child predators are more harshly punished than those who do the same thing on adults.

However, in the case of God who is Infinite Good and Love itself, a mortal sin represents a serious transgression against Him. If we did something serious against Infinite Love and Goodness we deserve to be punished eternally also. The crime itself is not the only factor to consider when delivering justice, but also obviously who the victim is.

Hope it helps to clarify.

 

[Gorgias]

Calling someone else’s image of God, and/or their understanding of scripture a “personal whim” is an ad hominem.

It’s really not. In fact, it’s kind of humorous that you ID a person’s “image of God” or their “understanding of Scripture” as something other than a personal idea.