Yes, in hell, but why forever

[IWantGod]

I don’t understand what’s happened with someone who is going to hell, why this destination must be forever and eternal for all of the ages come? Is hard to understand this for me

Here is very poor and perhaps vulgar analogy

If your destiny is the sea, and you refuse to learn how to swim, you are going to drown.

 

[OneSheep]

Adam and Eve have human natures as do we. They were also given the supernatural gifts of sanctifying grace, as do their baptized descendants. They also were given preternatural gifts which we are not. Supernatural and preternatural gifts do not change the human nature. We are all humans.

If you are going to assert that Adam and Eve were normal, then they were subject to concupiscence.

If you are going to assert that their nature was “preternatural” then the distinction already is made that they are not normal regardless of your assertion. No normal human has “preternatural” knowledge. A person who is not subject to desires (concupiscence) is not a normal human. If you want to come up with a real-life example of the Church saying that a normal human committed a mortal sin, then it is going to have to be a someone whose desire can blind him to the truth.

It is worth considering the mindset of people who convict Adam and Eve of “full knowledge and full consent”. Is their primary goal understanding, or is their primary goal conviction?

What about people who claimed that Adam and Eve had “preternatural knowledge”, was their primary objective understanding, or was their primary objective conviction? At the time of the assertion of “preternatural knowledge” where was the voice of people who sought understanding rather than conviction?

To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in mortal sin.

Q: What does it mean to be “conscious of being in mortal sin”?

 

[OneSheep]

Q. No doubt, it was a grave sin.
A. It can minimally be called a material sin with grave matter. A personal sin can be a material sin or a formal (actual) sin. Only actual sins are committed voluntarily (mortal sin or venial sin).

So much technical vernacular Vico, but the man voluntarily killed his mother. No one forced him to do it.

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience.

Let’s establish something here, so we can at least come to some sort of mutual understanding on some level. Was the killing of his sleeping mother, when his mother was no threat to him, a voluntary offense against reason, truth, and right conscience?

Material and formal sin
…whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience…

So here, Vico, is where a great number of things are possible that all render “formal” “mortal” sin practically impossible.

1. A person may “know” that killing is sinful, but it his state of mind is such that they see it is more sinful to avoid killing, that his mother, in this case, was being served by leaving this life. This is certainly contrary to reason, an offense against reason, right? But it is understandable in light of his compromised awareness.
2. Concupiscence blinds a person to the significance of the conscience itself. If a person’s conscience says “it is wrong to kill an innocent person” yet his state of mind is fueled by anger, such that he sees the other as worthless, disposable, and that the other’s disposal is a positive (in the moment), then he does not know what he is doing. He is not seeing with “full knowledge”, he is seeing with “partial knowledge”.
3. Anger and desire for vengeance focuses the person’s mind on punishing perceived injustice rather than the command not to kill. “Full knowledge” means clear thinking in the moment, not later. If his thinking is not clear in the moment, then his knowledge was only partial.
4. There are other ways that sin can be chosen when the conscience says otherwise, and these can all be investigated. However, if one’s mind is set on conviction, these will not be considered. Judgment, conviction, is a gut-level response, it precedes the effort to understand.

I encourage readers to study the above understandings of people’s mindsets, and then take a look at what your own mind is doing. Do you find your own mind trying to contradict any of numbers 1-3? If so, is your own mind doing so for the purpose of conviction of people? If so, please pay attention to this, and replace the compulsion to convict with the call to use the Gift of Understanding. It might help to pray for the gift of understanding.

 

[OneSheep]

Here is very poor and perhaps vulgar analogy

If your destiny is the sea, and you refuse to learn how to swim, you are going to drown.

This would pertain to an image of God where God would let you simply drown.

Is this what your own father would do?

 

[Gorgias]

This would pertain to an image of God where God would let you simply drown.

Is this what your own father would do?

That’s what the father in Jesus’ “Prodigal Son” parable was willing to do.

 

[OneSheep]

The prodigal son’s father was not depicted as all-powerful and all-knowing, only all-loving. With God, all things are possible, and God wills people to come to Him.

 

[IWantGod]

This would pertain to an image of God where God would let you simply drown.

Is this what your own father would do?

If it’s your eternal destiny and nature to be in the sea, and in fact it is good for you to go there, and you have been given the rules that will allow you to live in the sea, then how is it true that God is allowing somebody to drown in the sea? God has taught us how to live in the sea, and if somebody refuses to live by the rules of the sea, he is in actual fact choosing the consequences of rejecting that knowledge.

God teaches us to love, but he cannot force us to love and thus he cannot save us if we reject love.

I think we would all prefer a God that would save us no matter what, but i don’t think that’s logically possible.

 

[Gorgias]

The prodigal son’s father was not depicted as all-powerful and all-knowing, only all-loving.

Ahh, but he was depicted as sufficiently powerful and sufficiently knowing – which is the distinction you have seemed loathe to concede – and, in Jesus’ story, he stands for God the Father!

 

[Vico]

…

Q: What does it mean to be “conscious of being in mortal sin”?

The nature of Adam and Eve is human yet they had preternatural gifts for a time. Preternatural gifts are an extension. After their first mortal sin they no longer had the preternatural or supernatural gifts. It is likely that they repented and restored their supernatural gifts, at least it is celebrated in some Catholic liturgies. The Church talks of fallen human nature. Fr. John Hardon explained:

The three gifts of bodily immortality, integrity and infused knowledge are called preternatural because they are not strictly due to human nature but do not, of themselves, surpass the capacities and exigencies of created nature as such. In other words, they are not entitatively supernatural.
Fr. Hardon Archives - THESIS VIII: Before the Fall, Adam Possessed Sanctifying Grace and the Preternatural Gifts of Integrity, Immortality and Infused Knowledge

The Catechism explains the concept:

404 … 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 . …

So it is human nature both before and after. What is called normal is flexible depending upon the statement, but the understanding of what is natural and supernatural is clear. There are three real states in Catholic doctrine:

• The state of elevated nature (status naturae elevatae or status iustitiae originalis),
• The state of fallen nature (status naturae lapsae),
• The state of restored nature (status naturae glorificatae).

Q: What does it mean to be “conscious of being in mortal sin”?
A. Knowing the unconfessed mortal sins since baptism, that are revealed after diligent examination of conscience.

CIC

Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.

Catechism

1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."54

When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."55

54 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. Ex 20:17; Mt 5:28.
55 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. St. Jerome, In Eccl. 10,11L 23:1096.

 

[OneSheep]

God has taught us how to live in the sea, and if somebody refuses to live by the rules of the sea, he is in actual fact choosing the consequences of rejecting that knowledge.

Yes, people reject, learn the consequences, and repent. This is our nature. God guides, watches, lets us suffer a bit, and saves.

What is the reasoning in the mind of a person who rejects?

I think we would all prefer a God that would save us no matter what, but i don’t think that’s logically possible.

If you can look back on this thread, you could find a link where Cardinal Ratzinger talked about a theology that seems very logical but depicts a sinister god. It might be worth reading for you.

 

[OneSheep]

Ahh, but he was depicted as sufficiently powerful and sufficiently knowing – which is the distinction you have seemed loathe to concede – and, in Jesus’ story, he stands for God the Father!

Yes, the love of God the Father. Our Father goes out and finds the lost sheep, brings them back to Him. The story of the prodigal son is not intended to contradict the stories of going after lost sheep.

 

[OneSheep]

So it is human nature both before and after.

The distinction “preternatural” is something that no normal human has. If you could come up with a time that the church has said that any specific normal human has committed a mortal sin, you would have already. Admit it, Vico, the Church has not.

Q: What does it mean to be “conscious of being in mortal sin”?
A. Knowing the unconfessed mortal sins since baptism, that are revealed after diligent examination of conscience.

Yes, if the person’s conscience is developed sufficiently, this could happen. Did the person do a “diligent examination of conscience” before choosing to do the sin?

Q: Concerning those who claimed that Adam and Eve had “preternatural knowledge”, was their primary objective understanding, or was their primary objective conviction?

BTW: Since the Church has not defined “grave sin”, we can let it go that it cannot be definitively equated with “mortal sin”. Grave has to do with gravity, which has to do with the seriousness of the sin. “Mortal” is a different concept, since it has to do with personal afterlife consequences. If you want to equate “grave sin” and “mortal sin” that is fine, and it has some support (not in the CCC), but there is an error in leading people to judge others. It would lead a person to think “that person committed a serious sin, they are going to hell unless they confess”. Vico, if you are going to equate the two, a very bold-lettered footnote is called for.

 

[Vico]

…
Let’s establish something here, so we can at least come to some sort of mutual understanding on some level. Was the killing of his sleeping mother, when his mother was no threat to him, a voluntary offense against reason, truth, and right conscience?

Vico:

Material and formal sin
…whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience…

So here, Vico, is where a great number of things are possible that all render “formal” “mortal” sin practically impossible.
…

Mortal sins actually occur so Christ gives the Catholic Church the ability to bind and loose sins because it is necessary.

Q. Was the killing of his sleeping mother, when his mother was no threat to him, a voluntary offense against reason, truth, and right conscience?

Continue with 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

1855 … Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

• “the eternal law directs us in many things that surpass human reason, e.g. in matters of faith.” – St. Thomas Aquinas STh I-II,71,6

Full knowledge means of the moral character of an act or omission, not all consequences, which can be learned through due diligence to the teachings of the Church, for those that have come to the Church, and also:

Catechism

• 1860 Unintentional ignorance* can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

So you have given that is was voluntary so it could be an actual sin for one that has attained the use of reason, and with sufficient reflection. To be a mortal sin in ignorance, the ignorance would have to be vincible. Then the person would be willfully ignorant.

 

[OneSheep]

Mortal sins actually occur so Christ gives the Catholic Church the ability to bind and loose sins because it is necessary.

You have put forth a single case of the Church actually asserting such occurrence for a non-normal human. However, the assertion is not supported in the CCC, which is the reference for all modern teachings.

The “binding and loosing” is a very controversial concept. We are called to forgive. First, we are called to forgive, and Jesus taught us how to do so through understanding why people sin.

So you have given that is was voluntary

All actions chosen by people are voluntary, regardless of their mindset. You have not denied this.

So you have given that is was voluntary so it could be an actual sin for one that has attained the use of reason, and with sufficient reflection.

“Use of reason” is not an on/off button. Reason is attained not through simply hearing and incorporating, but integrating what the heart knows about value, the infinite value of people. You have not contested this.

If a person has sufficient knowledge, in an all-encompassing sense, knowing and having in mind in real priority everything that is relevant, they choose not to sin. You have tried to contest this, but failed to do so. Denial of this aspect of our nature is a direct contradiction of human dignity. People desire what is good.

Then the person would be willfully ignorant.

When a person is willfully ignorant, they do not know what they are doing. They are not attentive to what is true. You have not contested this.

If you want to contest this, Vico, try to discern the actual reasoning of a person who chooses ignorance.

Q: What is the reasoning in the mind of someone who chooses ignorance?

 

[Vico]

…

Q: Concerning those who claimed that Adam and Eve had “preternatural knowledge”, was their primary objective understanding, or was their primary objective conviction?
A. It is not called donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. It is common Teaching ( sententia communis ) – a doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. The opinion of one saint, St. Cyril of Alexandria is that, "Adam, the head of the race, was perfect in knowledge immediately from the first Iuoment of his emergence.

The key however is that Adam and Eve did loose their state of sanctifying grace, even without a dogma of faith of the details of extent of knowledge. It is sufficient that they knew the command of God.

Q. Did the person do a “diligent examination of conscience” before choosing to do the sin?
A. That phrase is used with reference to before individual confession. Before sin, it is called sufficient reflection.

Normal is your word not mine.

The Church has stated that persons have committed mortal sin without specifically naming them.

“Manifest grave sin” and “conscious of grave sin” are used in canon laws CIC 1007, 915, 916. Manifest is objective, and the other subjective.

The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion. – Ecclesia de Eucharistia
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/s...-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

The Church teaches us this:

Catechism
1861 … However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

 

[Vico]

…

Q. You have put forth a single case of the Church actually asserting such occurrence [of mortal sin] for a non-normal human. However, the assertion is not supported in the CCC, which is the reference for all modern teachings.
A. I do not use the term non-normal so that is understandable. The Church has the sacrament of penance for mortal sins, and canon law on its useage, etc. today. It is the remedy for mortal sins committed after baptism. The Church would not have it if it was not necessary, and that is modern and in the CCC. The First Constitution of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 taught that souls are in hell now.

Q. The “binding and loosing” is a very controversial concept.
A. Not for the Catholic Church.

All actions chosen by people are voluntary, regardless of their mindset. You have not denied this.
Q. “Use of reason” is not an on/off button. Reason is attained not through simply hearing and incorporating, but integrating what the heart knows about value, the infinite value of people. You have not contested this.
A. Attained the use of reason refers to mental capacity, per the Church. See Canon Law

CIC
Can 97 §2. A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an infant and is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos). With the completion of the seventh year, however, a minor is presumed to have the use of reason.

Can. 99 Whoever habitually lacks the use of reason is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos) and is equated with infants.

Q. If a person has sufficient knowledge, in an all-encompassing sense, knowing and having in mind in real priority everything that is relevant, they choose not to sin. … People desire what is good.
A. There is a comparison of goods presented by the intellect and the will makes the final decision. Mortal sin is a result of the willful choice of a good chosen that is not the highest good. Much Catholic teaching on that exists, which I posted some of, from St. Thomas Aquinas.

Q: What is the reasoning in the mind of someone who chooses ignorance? When a person is willfully ignorant, they do not know what they are doing. They are not attentive to what is true. You have not contested this.
A. The Catehism should suffice, since I do not use your phrase “know what they are doing”, nor does it:

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[goout]

We are given the promise of eternal salvation.
In your mind, what is it we are saved from? And why is salvation good in it’s eternity? Why can’t it be for just “a time”? If you would like eternal salvation, you must admit that an eternity exists for us, and you must admit there is a state that is not salvation that will be eternal.
“Salvation” also has an etymology related to good health.
In what way are we unhealthy?

And why Christ?
If God is “he who saves without our cooperation”, then why Christ? God gives us himself in full relationship with full humanity in Christ.
But God had already revealed himself throughout human history. Did Christ come to suffer because he enjoyed it? Or was he embracing the whole of the human condition, including suffering and death?

 

[OneSheep]

Q: Concerning those who claimed that Adam and Eve had “preternatural knowledge”, was their primary objective understanding, or was their primary objective conviction?
A. It is not called donum scientiae , i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. It is common Teaching ( sententia communis ) – a doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. The opinion of one saint, St. Cyril of Alexandria is that, "Adam, the head of the race, was perfect in knowledge immediately from the first Iuoment of his emergence.

Okay, so the idea of “preternatural” is an opinion. In the formation of the opinion, was the primary objective one of understanding/forgiveness, or conviction?

Before sin, it is called sufficient reflection.

When is reflection “sufficient”? Is that something less than “diligent examination of conscience”?

Why would “sufficient” be anything less than having the mindset to avoid choosing to sin?

The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience.

If this is true, the assertion that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin is a direct violation of it.

Catechism
1861 … However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

Yes, Vico, thank you. We can know that God always understands and forgives. This is why the OP questions that a loving God would force eternal torture.

 

[IWantGod]

What is the reasoning in the mind of a person who rejects?

Pride and autonomy.

The Son of perdition is like somebody who comes to a party, enjoys all it’s fruits, and ignores the host.

 

[OneSheep]

The First Constitution of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 taught that souls are in hell now.

This teaching is not binding. For example, Bishop Barron says that we need to be ready for the possibility that no one is in hell.

Q. The “binding and loosing” is a very controversial concept.
A. Not for the Catholic Church.

Okay, if a person or group of people hold a sin bound, what does that mean?

A. Attained the use of reason refers to mental capacity, per the Church. See Canon Law

CIC
Can 97 §2. A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an infant and is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos). With the completion of the seventh year, however, a minor is presumed to have the use of reason.

Ironically, this Canon taken by itself is extremely simplistic and lacks reason. Even an under-seven child is responsible for their own acts, that is, they are held in account for their voluntary decision . In addition, since the conscience and empathy develops over a life time, there is not a magical “on” button at age 7. Also, the Canon does not address the real aspect of human blindness. A person can become involuntarily blind to the importance of their own conscience.

Mortal sin is a result of the willful choice of a good chosen that is not the highest good.

I have answered this before, and you continue making the same assertions. When people do not choose the highest good, it is because of lack of awareness or blindness, and does not meet the test of “full knowledge”. I can demonstrate my point in exploration/description of the actual thinking of people, you cannot.

Q: What is the reasoning in the mind of someone who chooses ignorance? When a person is willfully ignorant, they do not know what they are doing. They are not attentive to what is true. You have not contested this.
A. The Catehism should suffice

Your answer does not address my question. What is the reasoning in the mind of someone who chooses ignorance? What are they actually thinking?