Yes, in hell, but why forever

[OneSheep]

Pride and autonomy.

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

Not sure how that answered this question:

What is the reasoning in the mind of a person who rejects? What are they actually thinking?

 

[IWantGod]

What are they actually thinking?

Of themselves. The root of all sin is selfishness.

 

[OneSheep]

what is it we are saved from?

We are saved from the trappings/enslavement of our (good) nature. We are saved from being alienated from our deepest self, our true self, the self that loves and forgives without limit, the self that sees and wants the greatest good.

In what way are we unhealthy?

I’m not sure “unhealthy” is the right term. We are healthy, but enslaved. Christ invites us to a freedom, a transcendence.

And why Christ?

He came to show us the way; He is the way, the Truth, the Light.

But God had already revealed himself throughout human history.

It was still a very clouded revelation.

Did Christ come to suffer because he enjoyed it?

No, nor did He will it. Man caused His suffering.

Or was he embracing the whole of the human condition, including suffering and death?

In a way, yes. We had to experience seeing God Himself suffer at our own hands in order to grasp the significance of the incarnation.

 

[OneSheep]

Of themselves. The root of all sin is selfishness.

Okay, let’s try to be more specific. Pick one of these, or make up one of your own:

1. “I want power for myself. In rejecting God, I will get more power.”
2. “I want to be my own person, free from God, I reject Him because God is overbearing.”
3. “I know that in rejecting God, I will live a better life.”

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, the love of God the Father. Our Father goes out and finds the lost sheep, brings them back to Him.

He doesn’t bring back dead sheep, though… which is the context of this whole discussion.

 

[IWantGod]

Okay, let’s try to be more specific. Pick one of these, or make up one of your own:

1. “I want power for myself. In rejecting God, I will get more power.”
2. “I want to be my own person, free from God, I reject Him because God is overbearing.”
3. “I know that in rejecting God, I will live a better life.”

1. I want to be the centre of all my decisions and all my good in life, whether or not they be achieved rightly or by a force that is wrong. I am not interested in being a servant of love, unless i am the centre of it, and therefore i am unwilling to make the sacrifices required for love. To that end i do not care about the consequences of hell and would rather be my own God in the suffering of hell than a servant in heaven.

I can see why a person would think this. Shouldn’t we all see? After all we make ourselves the centre of existence every time we sin regardless of whether or not we repent.

In fact, the only difference between you and the son of perdition is that you repented. We are all sinners and to varying degrees we are all selfish.

Without the mercy of God we are all dammed to eternal hell.

 

[goout]

OneSheep:

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.

Also:

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

Sin is a failure in right reason and detracts from reason and virtue. So I’m not sure it’s fruitful to dwell on a reasoning process behind sin.

Usually, when I choose sin, I throw reason out the window, close my eyes and pretend God isn’t there.

 

[IWantGod]

Sin is a failure in right reason and detracts from reason and virtue. So I’m not sure it’s fruitful to dwell on a reasoning process behind sin.

Clearly it’s irrational. But it’s wilful, or the product of a selfish will.

 

[goout]

goout:

what is it we are saved from?

We are saved from the trappings/enslavement of our (good) nature. We are saved from being alienated from our deepest self, our true self, the self that loves and forgives without limit, the self that sees and wants the greatest good.

In what way are we unhealthy?

I’m not sure “unhealthy” is the right term. We are healthy, but enslaved. Christ invites us to a freedom, a transcendence.

So it seems you accept that eternal enslavement is a real possibility of human free will?

 

[Vico]

…

Q. In the formation of the opinion, was the primary objective one of understanding/forgiveness, or conviction?
A. There are various opinions. The dogma of faith is not dependent upon any one of them. What is important is the dogm of faith (Council of Trent) that Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.) and that those in the state of sanctifying grace can remain free from mortal sin (decree on original sin, No. 5 "But this holy Synod confesses and perceives that there remains in the baptized concupiscence of an inclination, although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ. ").

Q. If this is true, the assertion that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin is a direct violation of it.
A. The Catholic Church has declared the loss of original justice through the person sins of Adam and Even to be a dogma of faith. This statement you ask about applies to those cases where there is not a divine revelation.

Q. 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?
A. Sufficient reflection means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it. Examination of conscience for mortal guilt is for before confession.

 

[Vico]

…

Q. 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.
A. Bishop Barron’s personal opinion (and Hans Urs von Balthasar) is not binding. The doctrine bears teaching authority. However it is really another issue than a person committing mortal sin, rather it is about if there is the possibility of final repentance of all people (not fallen angels of course).

Note if any are not just. Matt 25:46 And these shall go into eternal punishment, but the just shall go into eternal life. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it. And death and Hell gave up their dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

Q. Okay, if a person or group of people hold a sin bound, what does that mean?
A. Only with reference to the authority of the Catholic Church. Catechism

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

Q. 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 .
A. In general not capable of mortal sin before the minimum age, but some do mature earlier. The canon is about the age of presumption of the use of reason.

Q. A person can become involuntarily blind to the importance of their own conscience.
A. Yes. Catechism

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

Q. When people do not choose the highest good, it is because … Your answer does not address my question. What is the reasoning in the mind of someone who chooses ignorance? What are they actually thinking?
A. I posted on it before with St. Thomas Aquinas on malice. He does go over the actual thinking. Have you forgotten this?

H.H. Pope Francis:

“The danger always remains that by a constant refusal to open the doors of their hearts to Christ who knocks on them in the poor, the proud, rich and powerful will end up condemning themselves and plunging into the eternal abyss of solitude which is hell.”

https://w2.vatican.va/content/franc...ancesco_20151004_messaggio-quaresima2016.html

“Convert! There is still time, so that you don’t end up in hell. That is what awaits you if you continue on this path. You had a father and a mother: think of them. Cry a little and convert.”

http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...apa-francesco_20140321_fondazione-libera.html

 

[OneSheep]

Q. In the formation of the opinion, was the primary objective one of understanding/forgiveness, or conviction?
A. There are various opinions. The dogma of faith is not dependent upon any one of them. What is important is the dogm of faith (Council of Trent) that Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. ( Sent. certa. ) and that those in the state of sanctifying grace can remain free from mortal sin (decree on original sin, No. 5 "But this holy Synod confesses and perceives that there remains in the baptized concupiscence of an inclination, although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ. ").

Okay, question remains unanswered.

Q. If this is true, the assertion that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin is a direct violation of it.
A. The Catholic Church has declared the loss of original justice through the person sins of Adam and Even to be a dogma of faith. This statement you ask about applies to those cases where there is not a divine revelation.

Interesting, but again, that does not say that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin. It would be an extension of the revelation to say that God divinely revealed that He judged, in total contradiction to the image of God’s unconditional forgiveness, which we saw from the cross.

So, the teachings of Adam and Eve’s mortal sin remain in the “opinion” category also.

Q. 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?
A. Sufficient reflection means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it. Examination of conscience for mortal guilt is for before confession.

Actually, the CCC states this:

[1859] Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

As I have stated before, “knowledge of sinful character” is not a simple black/white knowing. Knowledge of “sinful character” in itself grows and develops. And as I have stated before, if one approaches the issue with the objective to convict, then the black/white thinking can come in handy. If the objective is instead to understand, then all the actual reasons why people sin become accessible.

 

[kainosktisis]

I look at it from the perspective that during our lifetime, we have the chance to be regenerated & have our sins forgiven. We have the chance to be with God forever. It’s a choice that has to be made while on earth. Something about us changes in the hereafter. If we die unrepentant without choosing God, we - by our own choice - choose separation from God. God is in eternity. What we choose will also be in eternity either as made new in Christ for eternity with Him - or apart from Him in a fallen state.

 

[OneSheep]

I posted on it before with St. Thomas Aquinas on malice. He does go over the actual thinking. Have you forgotten this?

He did not go into the actual thinking, he just gave the general categories, if I remember right.

H.H. Pope Francis:

“The danger always remains that by a constant refusal to open the doors of their hearts to Christ who knocks on them in the poor, the proud, rich and powerful will end up condemning themselves and plunging into the eternal abyss of solitude which is hell.”

Even the Gospel sends a mixed message, Vico. Here Pope Francis may be appealing to those who see God as forgiving conditionally, which is the default theology, the natural theology. Jesus endorses this image of God, but invites us to a deeper image, one which shows God as loving/forgiving without condition.

The primary emphasis of what I am presenting is to show that the Church does not rule out “opinions” such as that presented by Bishop Barron and the priest that taught our Scripture study, who said “If anyone chooses to go to hell, he does so screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” This is a very different image than that of Pope Francis’ use of the word “plunging”, as if there was no last-moment grand effort on the part of God, or a last-moment decision on the part of man to repent. If God is always waiting for us, then it follows that He waits even if we have chosen hell and have gone there.

Catholics who see God as more forgiving, and man as more desirous of God, than what doctrine may appear to depict need not dismiss the Church as presenting a “sinister god” as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about.

 

[OneSheep]

He doesn’t bring back dead sheep, though… which is the context of this whole discussion.

If a person is suffering, he is not dead.

1. “I want to be the centre of all my decisions and all my good in life”

Okay, let’s say this is what the person is thinking. Is there a “good life” without God?

“To that end i do not care about the consequences of hell…”

Is he thinking that there is a “good life” in hell?

than a servant in heaven.

Is he associating some kind of misery with heaven?

 

[Gorgias]

If a person is suffering, he is not dead.

I’m thinking of the start of this thread, in which the notion is that God might ‘force’ a conversion after death.

 

[IWantGod]

Is there a “good life” without God?

Without God there is still autonomy and whatever sensory pleasure or imagined sense of meaning or purpose one can conjure in his or her finite time here on earth.

Is he thinking that there is a “good life” in hell?

No, he is thinking that whatever whim, purpose, or goal he can imagine or conjure in this life time is worth the sacrifice, since his goal is not the good for goodness sake, but rather the goal is his good in this world even at the expense of another person’s good, whether that would take the form of sex, power, or self-glorification.

God has called us to express our God given goodness into the world, and to do so is to give glory to the father in heaven. We were created to be co-creators, to manifest love in all it’s possible forms through our physicality, that activity being the analogous expression of good - or God.

The Son of perdition seeks only the good for himself for his own self-gratification at the expense of others and sometimes the destruction of others. In a sense he is using God for his own pleasure (one can see the gravity of disrespect when you see sin in it’s proper light).

Sin is simply a perversion of that which is essentially for something good.

Is he associating some kind of misery with heaven?

Heaven requires us to sacrifice our own selfish agenda. So why would a selfish person that is committed to his own agenda be interested in being a servant of love for all eternity if he is not interested in being a servant of love in this world here and now?

Of course, nobody wants to suffer in hell, but that does not mean that he would want to be in heaven either/ the concept of heaven being properly understood.

While there is always the opportunity for forgiveness and change, what is in our hearts now reflects our eternal destination.

 

[Vico]

…

Q.Okay, question remains unanswered.
A. Opinions on preternatural knowledge are irrelevant since the dogma of faith is not dependent upon this.

Q.As I have stated before, “knowledge of sinful character” is not a simple black/white knowing. Knowledge of “sinful character” in itself grows and develops.
A. Knowledge does grow, however simply knowing that it would be a sin with grave matter is sufficient for sin character. As posted before from Catholic Encylopedia:

From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.

O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. R http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

Q. Interesting, but again, that does not say that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin. It would be an extension of the revelation to say that God divinely revealed that He judged …
A. It it mortal sin per the Catholic dogmas of faith because it resulted in the loss of sanctifying grace - not lost with venial sin. I showed you before the magisterial teaching that Adam’s sin was mortal sin, and that resulted in our conception without sanctifying grace (with the stain of original sin) and without preterntural gifts.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott

The grace by which we are Justlfied may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin. (De fide.)
This is from Council of Trent.

Catechism

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

Council of Trent, Decree of Original Sin

I. If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost his holiness and the justice in which he had been established, and that he incurred through the offense of that prevarication the wrath and indignation of God and hence the death with which God had previously threatened him, and with death captivity under his power, who thenceforth “had the empire of death” [Heb. 2:14], that is of the devil, and that through that offense of prevarication the entire Adam was transformed in body and soul for the worse, let him be anathema.

 

[Vico]

…

Q. He did not go into the actual thinking, he just gave the general categories, if I remember right.
A. Discussion of Eve puffed up with pride was one. The other about malice also with specific thinking. Also recall that:

“evil is never without some good of nature, whereas good can be perfect without the evil of fault.” St. Thomas Aquinas - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2078.htm

“Now he would not have coveted it inordinately, by desiring it according to his measure as established by the Divine rule. Hence it follows that man’s first sin consisted in his coveting some spiritual good above his measure: and this pertains to pride. Therefore it is evident that man’s first sin was pride.”
St. Thomas Aquinas - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3163.htm

Q. Even the Gospel sends a mixed message, Vico.
A. No, repent and be saved, blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven, go and sin no more, etc.

Catechism

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.

 

[Qoheleth1]

Why forever? The appropriate question is, “Why not?”

In this life we have free will. We are given the choice to accept the grace offered to us through Christ’s atonement. When we choose to place our identifies and seek value and meaning outside of Him, we begin the process of eternal damnation.

You must answer the individual who knocks on your door. You must let them in on your own volition or they will never enter your presence. Being outside is not enough for them to be with you, they must be in.

Unfortunately our fallen nature inclines us to sin and deception. We deceive ourselves by believing in the idols of this world. The god of this world: the evil one.

This is the beginning of hell and eternal torment, despite those who make claims of universalism this is sealed and will not change after one dies and enters into damnation.

You cannot love without first loving God. You cannot have life without Christ. So choose life and avoid the inevitable destiny of eternal damnation. The only appropriate punishment for rejecting the eternal God of eternal love and justice.