Taken from an appendix in my book, Baptism of Desire or Blood (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
APPENDIX 6 – THE FEWNESS OF THE SAVED
Christ was clear that most people don’t make it to heaven, despite the fact that most people think to the contrary. One of the great deceptions from the devil is that God is so merciful that He will not send people to hell. The fact is people send themselves there because they don’t truly love God in word and deed. St. Theresa of Avila said most priests go to hell. St. Chrysostom said the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. I submit that many if not most of the popes probably even went to hell because of their thirst for power, greed, or luxury. If you want to be among the few that are saved, then you must live like the very few that are saved. Below are those statements found in the Holy Bible and the great men of the Church that teach the fewness of the saved.
First, the Holy Scriptures:
New Testament:
Lord, are there few that are saved? But he said to them: Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I tell you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. (St. Luke 13:23-24)
Enter ye in at the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate and how strait is the way that leads to life, and few there are that find it! (St. Matthew 7:13-14)
Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into exterior darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called but few are chosen. (St. Matthew 22:13-14)
If the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly man and the sinner appear? (I St. Peter 4:18)
Old Testament:
And they […] shall be so few that they shall easily be counted, and a child shall write them down. (Isaiah 10:19)
And it shall be as when a man gathers in the harvest which remains. […] And the fruit thereof that shall be left shall be as a single cluster of grapes; and as the shaking of the olive tree: two or three berries on the top of the bough, of four or five on the top of the tree, says the Lord, the God of Israel. (Isaiah 17:5-6)
For thus it shall be in the midst of the earth, in the midst of the people, as though a few olives that remain should be shaken out of the olive tree, or grapes when the vintage is ended. (Isaias 24:13)
The holy man is perished from off the earth, and there is no one upright amongst men: they all lie in wait for blood, every one. […] He who is best among them is like a brier, and he who is righteous as the thorn. (Micah 7:2,4)
The Popes who are Saints:
Pope St. Gregory the Great (540-604): There are many who arrive at the faith, but few who are led into the heavenly kingdom. Behold how many are gathered here for today’s Feast-Day: we fill the church from wall to wall. Yet who knows how few they are who shall be numbered in that chosen company of the Elect? (Gregory: “On the Gospels,” Homily 19. Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, trans. and ed., Fr. M. F. Toal, Chicago: Regnery Co., 1955, I:382)
The more the wicked abound, so much the more must we suffer with them in patience; for on the threshing floor few are the grains carried into the barns, but high are the piles of chaff burned with fire. (Gregory: Homily 38)
The Ark, which in the midst of the Flood was a symbol of the Church, was wide below and narrow above; and, at the summit, measured only a single cubit. […] It was wide where the animals were, narrow where men lived: for the Holy Church is indeed wide in the number of those who are carnal-minded, narrow in the number of those who are spiritual. (Gregory: Homily 38:8)
They who are to be saved as Saints, and wish to be saved as imperfect souls, shall not be saved. (Gregory: Dignities and Duties of the Priest, 97)
Pope St. Pius X (1835-1914): Oh, Jesus, Divine Redeemer of souls, behold how great is the multitude of those who still sleep in the darkness of error! Reckon up the number of those who stray to the edge of the precipice. Consider the throngs of the poor, the hungry, the ignorant, and the feeble who groan in their abandoned condition. Oh Lord, our sins darken our understanding, and hide from us the blessing of loving Thee as Thou dost merit. Enlighten our minds with a ray of Thy divine light. Thou art the Friend, the Redeemer, and the Father of the one who turns penitent to Thy Sacred Heart. Amen. (Raccolta, Boston: Benzinger Bros., 1957, 659)
Saints who are Doctors of the Church
St. Jerome (347-420): So that you will better appreciate the meaning of Our Lord’s words, and perceive more clearly how few the Elect are, note that Christ did not say that those who walked in the path to Heaven are few in number, but that there were few who found that narrow way. It is as though the Saviour intended to say: The path leading to Heaven is so narrow and so rough, so overgrown, so dark and difficult to discern, that there are many who never find it their whole life long. And those who do find it are constantly exposed to the danger of deviating from it, of mistaking their way, and unwittingly wandering away from it, because it is so irregular and overgrown. (Jerome: “Commentary on Matthew…Many begin well, but there are few who persevere. “Commentary on Matthew”)
St. John Chrysostom (347-407): What do you think? How many of the inhabitants of this city may perhaps be saved? What I am about to tell you is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with its thousands of inhabitants not one hundred people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that! (?)
St. Augustine (354-430): Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God’s will only condemns them to more severe punishment.
It is certain that few are saved. Sermon 111; also (Against Cresconius)
If you wish to imitate the multitude, then you shall not be among the few who shall enter in by the narrow gate. (Sermon 224:1)
The Lord called the world a “field” and all the faithful who draw near to him “wheat.” All through the field, and around the threshing-floor, there is both wheat and chaff. But the greater part is chaff; the lesser part is wheat, for which is prepared a barn not a fire. […] The good also are many, but in comparison with the wicked the good are few. Many are the grains of wheat, but compared with the chaff, the grains are few. (Against Cresconius)
St. Anselm (1033-1109): If thou wouldst be certain of being in the number of the elect, strive to be one of the few, not of the many. And if thou wouldst be quite sure of thy salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few… Do not follow the great majority of mankind, but follow those who enter upon the narrow way, who renounce the world, who give themselves to prayer, and who never relax their efforts by day or by night, that they may attain everlasting blessedness. (Fr. Martin Von Cochem, The Four Last Things, p. 221. Anselm, Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers)
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): There are a select few who are saved. (Summa Theologica I, Qu.23, art.7, ad 3.) Those who are saved are in the minority. (Summa Theologica I q.23, art.8, ad.3)
St. Alphonsus Maria Liquori (1696-1787): The greater number of men still say to God: Lord we will not serve Thee; we would rather be slaves of the devil, and condemned to Hell, than be Thy servants. Alas! The greatest number, my Jesus – we may say nearly all – not only do not love Thee, but offend Thee and despise Thee. How many countries there are in which there are scarcely any Catholics, and all the rest either infidels or heretics! And all of them are certainly on the way to being lost. (The Incarnation, Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 292.)
The greater part of men choose to be damned rather than to love Almighty God. (The Way of Salvation and Perfection, 311)
All infidels and heretics are surely on the way to being lost. What an obligation we owe God! for causing us to be born not only after the coming of Jesus Christ, but also in countries where the true faith reigns! I thank Thee, O Lord, for this. Woe to me if, after so many transgressions, it had been my fate to live in the midst of infidels or heretics! (The Incarnation, Birth and Infancy, 291-2)
We owe God a deep regret of gratitude for the purely gratuitous gift of the true faith with which he has favoured us. How many are the infidels, heretics and schismatics who do not enjoy comparable happiness? The earth is full of them and they are all lost! (Instructions on the Commandments and Sacraments, 66, no. 19)
What is the number of those who love Thee, O God? How few they are! The Elect are much fewer than the damned! Alas! The greater portion of mankind lives in sin unto the devil, and not unto Jesus Christ. O Saviour of the world, I thank Thee for having called and permitted us to live in the true faith which the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches. […] But alas, O my Jesus! How small is the number of those who live in this holy faith! Oh, God! The greater number of men lie buried in the darkness of infidelity and heresy. Thou hast humbled Thyself to death, to the death of the cross, for the salvation of men, and these ungrateful men are unwilling even to know Thee. Ah, I pray Thee, O omnipotent God, O sovereign and infinite Good, make all men know and love Thee! On the Council of Trent
St. Teresa, as the Roman Rota attests, never fell into any mortal sin; but still Our Lord showed her the place prepared for her in Hell; not because she deserved Hell, but because, had she not risen from the state of lukewarmness in which she lived, she would in the end have lost the grace of God and been damned. (Dignities and Duties of the Priest, 90)
In the Great Deluge in the days of Noah, nearly all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water but of sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. (Sermons)
The saints are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are; yet among those few I wish to be! (The Holy Eucharist, 494)
We were so fortunate to be born in the bosom of the Roman Church, in Christian and Catholic kingdoms, a grace that has not been granted to the greater part of men, who are born among idolaters, Mohammedans, or heretics. […] How thankful we ought to be, then, to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, in Africa, in America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. He who does not believe shall be condemned. And thus, probably, we also would have been lost. (The Incarnation, Birth and Infancy, 153, 156)
The common opinion is that the greater part of adults is lost. (Preparation for Death, 174)
All persons desire to be saved, but the greater part, because they will not adopt the means of being saved, fall into sin and are lost. […] In fact, the Elect are much fewer than the damned, for the reprobate are much more numerous than the Elect. (Preparation for Death, 407-8; The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 129)
Great Saints
St. Justin the Martyr (100-165): The majority of men shall not see God, excepting those who live justly, purified by righteousness and by every other virtue. (Justin: First Apology, XXI)
St. Francis Xavier (1506-1552): Ah, how many souls lose Heaven and are cast into Hell! (Francis: Letters and Shorter Works)
St. Vincent de Paul (1580-1660): Ah! A great many persons live constantly in the state of damnation! Vincent: cf. Voice of the Saints, (Francis W. Johnston, London: Burnes and Oats, 1965.)
St. Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716): Be one of the small number who find the way to life, and enter by the narrow gate into Heaven. Take care not to follow the majority and the common herd, so many of whom are lost. Do not be deceived; there are only two roads: one that leads to life and is narrow; the other that leads to death and is wide. There is no middle way. (The Love of Eternal Wisdom, trans. A. Sommers, SMM, Bayshore, NY: Montfort Publications, 1960, p.133)
The number of the elect is so small – so small – that, were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief: one here and there, scattered up and down the world!
St. John Marie Vianney (1786-1859): The number of the saved is as few as the number of grapes left after the vineyard-pickers have passed. (John Mary: GOH p.37)
Nothing afflicts the heart of Jesus so much as to see all His sufferings of no avail to so many. (Thoughts of the Cure d’Ars, Rockford, IL: TAN, 1984)
We shall find out at the day of judgment that the greater number of Christians who are lost were damned because they did not know their own religion. (Sermons of the Cure of Ars, page 99.)
Lucia Santos of Fatima (1907-1958?): Taking into account the behaviour of mankind, only a small part of the human race will be saved. (Lucy: The Secret of Fatima: Fact and Legend, Joaquin Maria Alonso, CMF, Cambridge: Ravensgate Press, 1982, p.106)
Taking into account the present development of humanity, only a limited number of the human race will be saved […] many will be lost. (Lucy: Fatima, The Great Sign, Francis Johnston, Rockford, IL: TAN, 1980, p.36)
Jacinta Marto of Fatima (1910-1920): “Lucia found Jacinta sitting alone, still and very pensive, gazing at nothing. ‘What are you thinking of, Jacinta?’ ‘Of the war that is going to come. So many people are going to die. And almost all of them are going to Hell.” (Our Lady of Fatima, William Walsh p. 94; p. 92 in some versions)
Great Forgotten Saints
St. Arsenius (Egyptian deacon 345-450) : Brethren, the just man shall scarcely be saved. What, then, will become of the sinner? (Arsenius: Life of,)
St. Regimius (437-533): Among adults there are few saved because of sins of the flesh. […] With the exception of those who die in childhood, most men will be damned. (Regimus: Book 1 (with Cyprian.)
St. John Climacus (Syrian monk 525-600): Live with the few if you want to reign with the few. (John: “Ladder to Paradise”)
Blessed James of Voragine (Dominican, 1230-1298): One day, St. Macarius found a skull and asked it whose head it had been. “A pagan’s!” it replied. “And where is your soul?” he asked. “In Hell!” came the reply. Macarius then asked the skull if its place was very deep in Hell. “As far down as the earth is lower than Heaven!” “And are there any other souls lodged even lower?” “Yes! The souls of the Jews!” “And even lower than the Jews?” “Yes! The souls of bad Christians who were redeemed with the blood of Christ and held there privilege so cheaply!” (The Golden Legend)
St. John of the Cross (1542-1591): Behold how many there are who are called, and how few who are chosen! And behold, if you have no care for yourself, your perdition is more certain than your amendment, especially since the way that leads to eternal life is so narrow. (John of the Cross: Complete Works)
St. Robert Southwell (1561-1595): Oh how much are the worldlings deceived that rejoice in the time of weeping, and make their place of imprisonment a palace of pleasure; that consider the examples of the saints as follies, and their end as dishonourable; that think to go to Heaven by the wide way that leadeth only to perdition! (Robert: Letters From the Saints, op. cit. 19)
St. John Eudes (1601-1680): Get out of the filth of the horrible torrent of this world, the torrent of thorns that is whirling you into the abyss of eternal perdition. […] This torrent is the world, which resembles an impetuous torrent, full of garbage and evil odours, making a lot of noise but flowing swiftly passed, dragging the majority of men into the pit of perdition. (John Eudes: The Admirable Heart of Mary)
Blessed Sebastian Valfre (1629-1710): I fear that Last Day, that day of tribulation and anguish, of calamity and misery, of mist and darkness, that Day on which, if the just have reason to fear, how much more should I: an impious, wretched, and ungrateful sinner! (Sebastian: Letters From the Saints, NY: Hawthorne Books, 1964)
St. Leonard of Port Maurice (1676-1751): Extracts from his great sermon on The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved: The subject I will be treating today is a very grave one; it has caused even the pillars of the Church to tremble, filled the greatest Saints with terror and populated the deserts with anchorites. The point of this instruction is to decide whether the number of Christians who are saved is greater or less than the number of Christians who are damned; it will, I hope, produce in you a salutary fear of the judgments of God…
First…let us listen to two learned cardinals, Cajetan and Bellarmine. They teach that the greater number of Christian adults are damned, and if I had the time to point out the reasons upon which they base themselves, you would be convinced of it yourselves. But I will limit myself here to quoting Suarez. After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he wrote, “The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians, there are more damned souls than predestined souls.”
Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, and Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone. Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, “Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom.” Saint Anselm declares, “There are few who are saved.” Saint Augustine states even more clearly, “Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned.” The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: “Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence.”…
In the time of Noah, the entire human race was submerged by the Deluge, and only eight people were saved in the Ark. Saint Peter says, “This ark was the figure of the Church,” while Saint Augustine adds, “And these eight people who were saved signify that very few Christians are saved, because there are very few who sincerely renounce the world, and those who renounce it only in words do not belong to the mystery represented by that ark.” The Bible also tells us that only two Hebrews out of two million entered the Promised Land after going out of Egypt, and that only four escaped the fire of Sodom and the other burning cities that perished with it. All of this means that the number of the damned who will be cast into fire like straw is far greater than that of the saved, whom the heavenly Father will one day gather into His barns like precious wheat…
yet I am horror-struck when I hear Saint Jerome declaring that although the world is full of priests, barely one in a hundred is living in a manner in conformity with state; when I hear a servant of God attesting that he has learned by revelation that the number of priests who fall into hell each day is so great that it seemed impossible to him that there be any left on earth; when I hear Saint Chrysostom exclaiming with tears in his eyes, “I do not believe that many priests are saved; I believe the contrary, that the number of those who are damned is greater.”…
Listen to Cantimpre; he will relate an event to you, and you may draw the conclusions. There was a synod being held in Paris, and a great number of prelates and pastors who had the charge of souls were in attendance; the king and princes also came to add luster to that assembly by their presence. A famous preacher was invited to preach. While he was preparing his sermon, a horrible demon appeared to him and said, “Lay your books aside. If you want to give a sermon that will be useful to these princes and prelates, content yourself with telling them on our part, ‘We the princes of darkness thank you, princes, prelates, and pastors of souls, that due to your negligence, the greater number of the faithful are damned; also, we are saving a reward for you for this favor, when you shall be with us in Hell.'”…
The following narrative from Saint Vincent Ferrer will show you what you may think about it. He relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, “Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell.”
Our chronicles relate an even more dreadful happening. One of our brothers, well-known for his doctrine and holiness, was preaching in Germany. He represented the ugliness of the sin of impurity so forceful that a woman fell dead of sorrow in front of everyone. Then, coming back to life, she said, “When I was presented before the Tribunal of God, sixty thousand people arrived at the same time from all parts of the world; out of that number, three were saved by going to Purgatory, and all the rest were damned.”
O abyss of the judgments of God! Out of thirty thousand, only five were saved! And out of sixty thousand, only three went to heaven! You sinners who are listening to me, in what category will you be numbered?… What do you say?… What do you think?…
I see almost all of you lowering your heads, filled with astonishment and horror. But let us lay our stupor aside, and instead of flattering ourselves, let us try to draw some profit from our fear.
St. Benedict Joseph of Labre (1748-1783): Yes, indeed, many will be damned; few will be saved… Meditate on the horrors of Hell which will last for eternity because of one easily-committed mortal sin. Try hard to be among the few who are chosen. Think of the eternal flames of Hell, and how few there are that are saved…I was watching souls going down into the abyss as thick and fast as snowflakes falling in the winter mist. (Life of the Servant of God, Benedict Joseph Labre)
St. Anthony Mary Claret (1807-1870): A multitude of souls fall into the depths of Hell, and it is of the faith that all who die in mortal sin are condemned forever and ever. According to statistics, approximately 80,000 persons die every day. How many of these will die in mortal sin, and how many will be condemned! For, as their lives have been, so also will be their end. (Madrid: Library of Christian Authors, 1947.)
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Well put………
Thank you. I am so very grateful that you took the time to show this Truth. We must pray daily for the Grace to avoid Hell and to gain Heaven.
Please people come on hell doesnt exist. It was made up by the church to scare people and keep everyone in line
Wow, are you Catholic? If you are, then you should be asking Our Lady the Mother of God to help you, your mind has been darkened. If you are not, then the same.
Darkened how exactly? I pray to God, Our Lady, Angels and Saints all day every day and have been doing so for decades. What about you?
What about the purgatory?
I’m sure most of those very few that are saved go through Purgatory. Keep in mind that a “very few” is still a large number, since it’s by contrast to those that are damned. Apocalypse 7:9: “behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes…”
Purgatory doesn’t exist it’s a fake place created by the catholic church it’s not biblical at all.
It most certainly is biblical and it was God who created Purgatory. Read my article here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/objections-to-purgatory-answered-in-a-nutshell/
Please people! Come on! Hell doesnt exist. It was made up by the church to scare people to keep everyone in line
Hell existed long before the Church. Every culture believed in hell before the Church was founded by Christ. Also, we saints who’ve been to hell. Josefa Menéndez had been there 50 times. We’ve also have apparitions of the damned.
There are just as many versus in the bible that can be proved the opposite. like john 3:16 for starters.
Speray Replies: Not a single Bible verse can prove the opposite. You’re a liar. John 3:16 states that whoever believes in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life. That proves that very few are saved since very few believe in Christ.
I refer you to http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/EternalPunishmentNotTrueToGreek.html
and ask you to show me any error therein.
RK
Speray replies: What the link fails to mention is that whenever aionios is combined with zoe(life) in the Greek New Testament, it always means “eternal.” Considering the parallel construction of the phrase, it makes sense to that if aionios means eternal with life, it would mean eternal with punishment.
St. Jerome translated it as: “et ibunt hii in supplicium aeternum iusti autem in vitam aeternam.” I trust he understood the language correctly.
Also, I’ve never heard a Greek Catholic ever complain about the translation as eternal punishment.
I do not know how many words you allow to be printed here, but…
Here is a quote from the site formerly posted on this topic: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Matthew-25-46-Commentary-Amirault.html
This correction is crucial in regards to having a proper understanding of the nature and character of God and His role as judge. Just because “aionios” is used to describe life and punishment, does not mean they have to be of the same length and quality any more than a “small” house has to be the same size as a “small” ring because the same adjective is used to describe both. Often adjectives take on some of the value of the word they describe. Therefore, “kolasin aionion” (mistranslated “everlasting punishment”) does not have to be the same length as “zoen aionion” (mistranslated “eternal life”). Aionion should not have been translated “everlasting” because aion and its adjective are clearly time words that have beginnings and endings. And “punishment” for the Greek “kolasin” is too strong a word. Kolasin means “to prune a tree to make it more fruitful.” There is nothing fruitful about eternal damnation in burning flames. If Jesus wanted to imply vindictive punishment, the author of Matthew could have chosen the Greek word “timoria,” but he didn’t – he used a much softer word. Furthermore, Matthew 25:46 does not speak of individual salvation based upon faith in Christ, it speaks of separation of nations based upon how they treated Jesus. And lastly, the context seems to indicate the judgments would be upon the religious leadership of Israel and those who considered themselves righteous, not street sinners, low-life Jews and/or adherents to other religious systems, that is, the Gentiles.)
SPERAY REPLIES: Here’s the problem. The Greek Catholics understand it as eternal punishment. I think they understand their own language. Don’t take my word for it, go ask them.
How may I be saved then? I want to be saved and I want my family to be saved? How will I be a true Catholic without receiving the sacraments anywhere (so as to avoid receiving them from heretics)? What is the proof that sedevacantism is a not a heresy? The answers to these questions are very important.
Speray replies: To answer your first two questions: You and your family can be saved by loving God, loving your neighbor, listening to the Church, and obeying the commandments. I would also suggest wearing the Brown Scapular and praying the Rosary every day.
Third question: Are you sure there is no Catholic priest in your area? Where are you that I may help find someone in your area, if any? Keep in mind that the Japanese Catholics went 300 years without the sacraments. During the French Revolution, some Catholics went 20 years without them. We have saints who went their whole lives without the sacraments. Good Catholics may have to suffer greatly, but all is in God’s hands. He permits all things that happen or else they wouldn’t happen, and He will reward those who are faithful to Him.
Last question: Heresy is opposed to Faith. It is a denial or rejection of a divine truth revealed by God. The proof that sedevacantism is not heresy, is the fact that the papal claimants are public heretics and have promulgated heresy, which is impossible for true popes. I’ve listed many of them on this blog. I’d be happy to send you a free book on the worst heresy of the papal claimants. You can decide for yourself.
I’m near Seattle, Washington. I found a church called Most Holy Redeemer Roman Catholic chapel but I’m confused if the priest there is heretical because they use the Baltimore Catechism. I read somewhere that it is heretical. Is that true? I hope that you know some options for me to receive the sacraments in or near Seattle, Washington.
Speray Replies: I just contacted Fr. Carlos Ercoli Pastor of Holy Redeemer Roman Catholic Church and they are Catholic. The Baltimore Catechism is fine. Those who call it heretical are Feeneyites who also call The Catechism of the Council of Trent approved by Pope St. Pius V heretical on certain points.
You may also go to St. Mary Church in Tacoma
757 138th Street South
Tacoma, WA 98444
Both churches are Catholic.
Thank you.
Is it true that racism is a mortal sin? I’m trying to find a complete list of mortal and venial sins for the true Roman Catholic Church and I can’t seem to find one. This is very important. I can’t in good conscience join the Roman Catholic Church if political correctness or multiculturalism is part of it.
SPERAY REPLIES: A mortal sin is a sin unto death and a venial sin is a sin not unto death. In order for a sin to be mortal, it must be serious, you know that it’s serious, and you have full consent of will to commit that sin. Knowledge doesn’t have to be complete. Suspicion would qualify as knowledge. All sins contrary to the Natural law would be qualify since God writes the Natural law on the hearts of all men. Therefore, there can be no book with a list of all mortal sins because it depends on the subject matter and the subject. Racism is of course sinful. Keep in mine the story of the Good Samaritan.
I have seen different interpretations of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
SPERAY REPLIES: I was referring to how the Samaritans were hated by Jews, yet it was the Samaritan that was righteous and not the Jews. Don’t judge wrongly, but love.
I’m really confused now. I know that it is a sin to treat people uncharitably and I know that making race into an idol is a sin but I don’t see how being against interracial marriage or mass immigration to White countries (ie. Europe) is a sin.
SPERAY REPLIES: Let me ask you why one would be against interracial marriage, etc.? What’s the reason?
I really do want to be Roman Catholic but I am very confused by your answer. Isn’t it only recently that racism has been considered a sin in the Roman Catholic Church? Now, I’m not sure which is the true Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Where did you get the idea that racism has only recently been considered a sin by the Church?
I have one more question. Is it Roman Catholic doctrine that all practicing Orthodox Christians burn in hell? Is there any chance of salvation for them?
SPERAY REPLIES: Only those who die outside of the Church in the internal forum go to hell. Practicing Orthodox Christians who are good-willed would be considered Catholics in the internal forum, even if in the external forum they would be considered outside of the Church. That would include Protestants and other validly baptized persons. Such persons are members of the soul of the Church, and only God knows who these persons are. We aren’t to presume who is and isn’t good-willed. Catholics are members of the Body of the Church, but those who internally reject the Faith are not members of the soul of the Church. What counts in the end is whether one is a member of the Church in God’s Eyes. Even those who aren’t baptized can be saved if God infuses them the Faith, perfect contrition, etc. at the end of life. Read true story here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/a-true-story-concerning-baptism-of-desire-and-st-john-vianney/
Thank you for answering. My objection to interracial marriage would be that the diversity of the different races should be preserved since they were created by God.
SPERAY REPLIES: You you think God created smallpox, polio, aids, cancer, heart disease, etc. and that means that God intends that men should leave them alone? Or do you think man created these problems because of sin?
Steven, Your say ” THE FEWNESS OF THE SAVED Christ was clear that most people don’t make it to heaven,
but was not Jesus talking about the “end” days when he would return in power to destroy Jerusalem.
SPERAY REPLIES: I was speaking about Christ’s Words concerning the narrow and wide gates.
The incredible parallels of Matthew 24 and Revelation, which Jesus said would happen in “this generation” and “when . . . Jerusalem (is) surrounded with armies”. Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD.
Matt. 24: 28 Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together. and the whole world at that time understood that the “eagles” were the Roman legions. The prophecy that Jesus gave concerning the “fewness of the saved” was a direct reference to the fewness of the saved that would happen when the Roman Eagles surrounded Jerusalem. That whole chapter (24) has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem as can be demonstrated from reviewing that chapter. Ronald Knarr
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t think ch. 24 concerns only the destruction of Jerusalem. “This generation” could refer to the generation which sees all those signs which Christ mentions. Also, the destruction of Jerusalem, I believe, is a small example of what will come at the end. Ch 24 refers to both events. However, I could be wrong.
Anyway, I was referring to the Christ’s words about the narrow and wide roads when I said Christ was clear that most people don’t make it to heaven.
I have some questions. What does it mean to be a member of the Church in the internal forum as opposed to a member of the Church in the external forum? Also, what does it mean to internally reject the Faith?
SPERAY REPLIES: Internal forum is what we don’t see and the external forum is what we see. Baptism brings one into the Church as infants, and if adults baptism and faith. If the Faith is lacking something because of invincible ignorance, but the person is well intentioned, that person could be a member of the Church. To internally reject the faith means to reject the faith in the heart. I’m sure there a many Catholics who do this, and those Catholics would not be members of the soul of the Church (internal forum), but they would be members of the Body of the Church (external forum.)
There is nothing sinful with the joining of two believers in wedlock whoever they are. But from my experience, it is prudent to marry as close to your racial and cultural ties as possible. it relieves many burdens that emerge in a marriage after the bloom is off the rose. It has been said that a man marries for looks and lust and a woman marries for looks and loot. Things that don’t seem important at the beginning of a relation, do come into the union as it progresses. The close-knit of Families are made up of many cultural strings and family traditions that are much easier knotted together with people of the same lineage. Marriage in this day and age is under attack by Satan and his horde of P.C. secularists, give yourself the best odds in one that has a chance to last. When the Lord tells us, don’t be unevenly yoked. I believe it goes beyond believer and none believer. Life is much easier when two become one not only in Christ but in political, cultural and traditional mindsets.It may not be important at the beginning of a relationship, but when Great Aunt Darlene takes over for you at that 3am feeding because she is thrilled that her new niece looks like her sainted mother those few extra hours of sleep are worth more than Gold.
I have another question? What does it mean to be good willed?
SPERAY REPLIES: I define it as right disposition and willingness to do God’s Will. If a person who would do the right thing when given the opportunity is good-willed. Anyone who wants to conform his to will to God’s Will and does so is good-willed.
I don’t know whether or not those other things you mentioned such as diseases were created by God. I don’t know whether or not they are the result of sin. I am not against treating them with medicine. I simply believe that the races of men were created by God.
SPERAY REPLIES: The reason for asking the questions is this: Just because God created races of men doesn’t mean that God holds interracial marriage as something contrary to His will. Mixing races doesn’t detract from anything. How far should we take it? Italians only marry Italians, Blond hair and blue eyes should only marry blond hair and blue eyes, light colored blacks should only marry light colored blacks, and now that we have interracial people, they should only marry their kind??????? See the problem????
If I become an Orthodox Christian or a Lutheran, will I still be a Catholic in the internal forum?
Speray Replies: Depends on whether you suspect that the Catholic Church might be right. If you do suspect just a little, but don’t look into it further, then you wouldn’t be invincibly ignorant.
I’ve looked into the Roman Catholic Church and thought about converting but now I am not sure that it is the one true Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Why are you not sure? What gives you doubt specifically?
Is that invincible ignorance?
SPERAY REPLIES: Only God knows if someone is invincibly ignorant. I can only say objectively, not subjectively.
I wanted to convert because of fear though and once I found out more, I was no longer convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Found out more what? I submit that you haven’t found anything that disproves the Catholic Church as being true.
Is this still invincible ignorance?
SPERAY REPLIES: Invincible ignorance is an ignorance beyond one’s control. Unless you’re an infant, only God knows who is and isn’t invincibly ignorant under all circumstances.
My mother says that I am psychotic and my mind is rather unstable, so I can’t always trust my thoughts.
SPERAY REPLIES: Why don’t you go see a doctor and find out if your psychotic?
I barely know what’s real anymore. I’m really confused about all of this. I hope that Jesus has mercy on me.
SPERAY REPLIES: Jesus will have mercy with those who have mercy on others. Jesus will have mercy with those who are sincere, good-willed, and contrite. Jesus will have mercy with those love and are dedicated to Him and His Mother.
What is invincible ignorance?
Speray Replies: An ignorance beyond control. For instance, infants are invincibly ignorant. However, it’s possible for someone to be ignorant beyond control when all the information is right in front of them. All the particular reasons, only God knows.
For God, Whose counsel is immutable (Hebrews 6:17), Whose attitude towards His enemies is love unchanging (Luke 6:27-35),
SPERAY REPLIES: But to what angel has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet”? (Heb. 1: 13)
And
“Then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.” (Heb. 10:13)
And
“but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. (10:27)
will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth (1 Timothy 2:4, KJV);
SPERAY REPLIES: “But it shall be more tolerable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Caper’na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10: 14-16)
and all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9);
SPERAY REPLIES: Jesus declared: “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” (Matt. 12:31)
and has shut all up unto unbelief, in order that he may show mercy upon all (Romans 11:32);
SPERAY REPLIES: “But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” (I Cor. 11:32)
for (out) of Him, as Source, and unto (or into) Him, as End, are all things whatsoever (Romans 11:36);
SPERAY REPLIES: “so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (II Thess. 2:12)
and He has, therefore, put all things into subjection under Christ’s feet (Ephesians 1:22).
SPERAY REPLIES: “if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor’rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly.” (II Peter 2:6)
From: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-all-mankind.html
God is not a torturing monster who tortures for his pleasure but only punishes to bring us to repentance.
SPERAY REPLIES: “While the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” (Matt. 8:12)
“and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth…and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. (Matt. 13:42, 50)
“And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, `Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.’ But they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, `The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, `Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, `Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’ (Matt. 22:13)
“and will punish him, and put him with the hypocrites; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. (Matt. 24:51)
“And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’ (Matt. 25:30)
“Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matt. 25:41)
“If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.” (John 15:6)
“And they marched up over the broad earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city; but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Apocalypse 20: 9-10)
“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Apocalypse 20: 14-15)
You asked why I’m not sure if the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church. I need to know if the Church ever officially sanctioned torture. I know that governments used to torture people for various reasons but did the Church ever support torture? Do I have to be in favor of torture in certain situations in order to follow all of the Church’s teachings? Is it a dogma? I know that violence is necessary in some situations but I believe that God is against torture. I need to know the truth about all of this. I don’t know whether the Church ever did support torture and I know that governments sometimes unjustly used power using the Church, as when Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Church has always approved the death penalty. Remember that God commanded the death penalty under certain circumstances in the Old Testament.
Carta, Please visit vaticancatholic.com It has critical information on the Traditional Catholic Faith which is necessary for salvation. The Vatican 2 sect is not the Catholic Church but the end times counter church, a one world religion. Only Catholics who die in a state of grace go to Heaven. It is also imperative that you pray the Rosary 3 times a day and wear the brown scapular. And avoid mortal sins by any means necessary.
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, Ex Cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ‘Cantate Domino,’ 1441, Ex Cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives… and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Also, i read some of your previous comments, racism is a mortal sin, which is a result of pride and hatred of neighbor. Racists are infatuated with themselves; they think that they are so great that they despise those of a different race or nationality. But while they are filled with how great they think they are, they are a disgrace in God’s sight. God doesn’t care what race or nationality you are; He cares if you love Him and hold the true Faith. The Catholic Church is universal, i.e., it embraces equally all men of whatever race or nationality.
Pope Pius XI, Rerum Ecclesia (#26), Feb. 28, 1926: “Anyone who looks upon these natives as members of an inferior race or as men of low mentality makes a grievous mistake.”
The truth is that there is really only one race, the human race, as we all come from Adam and Eve.
Job 7:1 The life of man upon earth is a warfare, and his days are like the days of a hireling.
Also, there is one other thing about which I must know the truth. When are acts of violence sanctioned by the Church? I hope that I don’t support wars of aggression in order to be a good Roman Catholic. I understand that violence is sometimes necessary but I don’t believe that God is in favour of imperialism or wars of aggression. I hope that I’m not wrong about that. I hope that the Church is not worldly like that.
SPERAY REPLIES: Look up just war theory on the web and read all about it.
But what about torture? I understand that that the death penalty is sometimes necessary. I will read more about Just war theory. Is the Church in favour of torture?
SPERAY REPLIES: Did you not consider burning at the stake a torture? But to answer your question directly, yes, the Church is, or at least was, in favor of torture. I know 4 popes that approved of torture in a limited way. Also, you should watch the video on this blog about the Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. Can you show where Christ condemned torture? Notice that Christ didn’t complain about the torture used in His day especially used on Him. Funny how torture seems so unChristian to our unChristian world.
To Carta….Your questions and concerns can tell that you need to rest assured of the promises of Christ…That Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope based on his faith in Christ…That Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Gates of Heaven and assured him that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. This Church is the same today as it was when Christ founded it. This Christian church name was changed to “Catholic Church” in the early centuries. All other churches since then have been founded by mere men. There has been a continuous unbroken chain of Popes from Peter to today. The dogmas and teachings of the Church remain the same today as then. Only disciplines have been changed. Traditions remain the same today as then. Only the Catholic Church has all the sacraments…the Saints, the True Mass and the full Bible free from error. The Catholic Church is the only church with Sanctifying Grace given through its sacraments and necessary for salvation. Perfect contrition along with Baptism of blood and desire and the sacraments are the only sources of Sanctifying Grace in God’s plan for mans salvation thru their membership and faith in the Catholic Church.Every other church is shallow and lacking. They have bits and pieces of Catholicism…couple of sacraments,
a pastor, and even a Lutheran Latin Mass. But, that does not make them Catholic. Funny how they all try to compete and compare themselves with Catholicism as in a contest for membership, notoriety, power etc. They have nothing else to do but to criticise and critique The Catholic Church. Remember also the 4 marks of the Catholic Church. These are some of the differences and what you would be more fruitfully studying instead of worrying about torture, and this and that stuff that is really not necessary or pertaining to what is important. Hope this helps and may God bless. Jim
Are you a priest? A Jesuit? Member of the vadican? What qualifications do you have to pick out pieces of the bible and try to scare people? This sounds like another evangelical ploy to donate money. Fortunately, true Christians have faith and your bs does not scare them. I truley hope God has mercy on your soul.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have just called the Bible verses I cited “bs.” May God have mercy on your soul. Btw, I’ve never asked for money. I’m poor as a mouse. Go troll elsewhere. Better yet, get a life.
Check out http://www.tentmaker.org
Amazing how this topic gets attention so fast and the comments are very aggressive towards Steven who published only what God himself wanted to hear said from the list of the holy ones who cooperated with God not denied
Him my only point is this of you got rattled reading truth well you better take a very long look in the mirror and change your life why because Our Lord just told
You mentally your on grave danger lucifer just tells you everything you just read is false All Is WELL I am waiting for your artival
Dear Catholic, What a great refreshment to my soul you have been today, this Easter, to read of your great love of Holy Mother Church and its true and ever binding dogmas and doctrines that, if perseverant and steadfast in believing and doing I can be made a child of God. God Speed to you and may you be a blessing to many. Paul
Congratulations on promoting lies and fear and ruining lives. I’ve read almost all your posts and I’ve read so much catholicism, and it is nothing more than imperfect and sinful just like all religion. May you and catholics/christians of all brands wake up from their delusions.
You could have at least tried to show where I’ve lied or ruined lives. I could make the same comment back at you. May you wake up from your delusions.
They will not post my replies. Agree or be ignored.
Who will not post your replies?
This may be America where freedom of speech is a right, but religious liberty is a heresy. If the disagreement is due to the fact that you’re spreading heresy, then there is nothing wrong with ignoring and not posting your heresy. The Catholic Church condemns the right to spread heresy.
Try http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/
or
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/BibleThreateningsExplained.html
God loves us and is not a homicidal maniac who burns us forever.
God is love, which is why rejecting Him will cost you eternal damnation of fire.
The kingdom of heaven is Christ’s rule among men, his church. It is a net which catches good and bad, and at the end of that age, so often referred to, when severe judgments were to come, the angels, or messengers to execute God’s judgments, would separate Christians from others, and the bad were to suffer in the furnace of fire, the burning city, and perish in Gehenna.
“It is very remarkable that not a single Christian perished in the destruction of Jerusalem, though there were many there when Cestius Gallus invaded the city; and had he persevered in the siege, he would have rendered himself master of it; but when he, unexpectedly and unaccountably, raised the siege, the Christians took that opportunity to escape.”
This language has sole reference to the remarkable trials through which the early Christians were about to pass, when Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Christian religion was fairly established on the ruins of the Jewish church. The “furnace of fire,” the “wailing and gnashing of teeth,” were when the awful calamities of those fearful days, so fully described in Matt. xxiv, were visited upon the people of Judea. These expressions will be more fully explained hereafter.
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/
Of course, I hold that tentmaker.com is completely heretical.
I doubt it not, but can you name anything that involves an eternal fiery hell that is posted there that is not true.
Their denial of an eternal fiery hell is heretical.
I wonder if there has ever been an idea or philosophy that its upholders did not believe was true and prohibited from teachings by those who had opposing ideas- whether Jews, Catholics, Muslims or whatever?
No one believes that error has rights. It seems good and bad alike believe in suppressing those whose ideas differ from there own .
Heresy leads to that eternal fiery hell that your website denies. So it would be good to suppress the danger in leading people to that hell.
Good to recall Apoc. 20:14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. Hell is cast into the lake of fire. Hell (the grave) thus comes to an end.
The whole quote reads, “And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death.”
Then you move on down to Apoc. 21:8 which reads: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their portion shall be in the pool burning with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
The eternal fiery hell is the second death and it holds those the Apoc. mentions.
Steven,
There is so much figurative language in scriptures it must be with much reservation that one quotes it. In your above quote for example there is nothing the mentions this punishment as being ionian (age lasting in the original Greek . Much less is there any reference to it being the “eternal” that the Greek “aeonian” (age lasting) is mis-translated from as being eternal.
Such ideas must be looked at in a historical sense and how it was historically understood.
But those two verses sink your entire thesis. There’s a second death that ends it all and it’s clearly implied to be eternal since nothing else lasts, AND evil doers suffer this second death. The historical record proves that there is an eternal hell. Ask a Greek expert about those Greek words and how to translate them like I did. It means eternal and everlasting.
I said “I doubt it not, but can you name anything that involves an eternal fiery hell that is posted there (on the tentmaker.org webpage) that is not true.
you said”Their denial of an eternal fiery hell is heretical.”
Come let us reason together:
Heresy is in the eyes of the beholder. Usury used to be a mortal sin in the Catholic Church, but for centuries popes have charged interest and paid interest. The Church for its first centuries taught no eternal hell. Hell(as you understand it) is nothing but a heresy brought into the Church by pagans.
Usury is still sinful, but I answered this over a year ago with you by email. There’s the clause found at the 5th Lateran about usury. The Church is teaching that demanding interest is wrong when it’s demanded “without any work, any expense or any risk” of the loaner.
As for eternal hell, the early church also believed in it. St. Ignatius of Antioch taught it in 110 AD. The Martydom of St. Polycarp in 156 AD written by Marcion says, “They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire.” The Letter to Diognetus 200 AD says, “When you know what is the true life, that of heaven; when you despise the merely apparent death, which is temporal; when you fear the death which is real, and which is reserved for those who will be condemned to the everlasting fire.” A letter attributed to Pope St. Clement writes about “eternal punishment” that endures forever written in 150 AD. St. Justin the Martyr writes about “eternal punishment” in 150 AD. St. Theophilus of Antioch writes about “eternal punishments” in 181 AD. I could go on and on.
I said: I wonder if there has ever been an idea or philosophy that its upholders did not believe was true and prohibited from teachings by those who had opposing ideas- whether Jews, Catholics, Muslims or whatever? No one believes that error has rights. It seems good and bad alike believe in suppressing those whose ideas differ […]
You said: Heresy leads to that eternal fiery hell that your website denies. So it would be good to suppress the danger in leading people to that hell.
I only reply with the post you just answered. No-one does anything without good motives. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Who has the truth to decide?
Usury is still sinful, but I answered this over a year ago with you by email. There’s the clause found at the 5th Lateran about usury. The Church is teaching that demanding interest is wrong when it’s demanded “without any work, any expense or any risk” of the loaner.****And when is not that the case Especially when the Church set up its own bank – The Monte Caritas- and what pope in hundreds of years has preached against usury and thus participated in that mortal sin as so many popes have pointed out that not to oppose heresy is to participate in it. ****
As for eternal hell, the early church also believed in it. St. Ignatius of Antioch taught it in 110 AD. The Martydom of St. Polycarp in 156 AD written by Marcion says, “They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire.” The Letter to Diognetus 200 AD says, “When you know what is the true life, that of heaven; when you despise the merely apparent death, which is temporal; when you fear the death which is real, and which is reserved for those who will be condemned to the everlasting fire.” A letter attributed to Pope St. Clement writes about “eternal punishment” that endures forever written in 150 AD. St. Justin the Martyr writes about “eternal punishment” in 150 AD. St. Theophilus of Antioch write about “eternal punishments” in 181 AD. I could go on an on.****You refuse to read and consider the evidence to the contrary at Tentmaker.org which has numerous contrary evidence, but expect me to consider your quotes. It seems you want your views considered but will not consider others views. Your thought I believe is that my views are heresy; thus, not worth considering. This leaves you in the position of a preacher and not a debater- no seeker of knowledge, but a propagandist. *****
No, it leaves me a Christian who follows the Church. On the other hand, you take the position against the Church and make yourself the final authority. Your position is heresy and goes against the Bible, the Church, logic, and even the saints who tell us their stories about hell. You would have to make them out to be liars. Please, reconsider the path you’re taking. You will be left on your own. Why believe in the Bible at all if the same authority that gave it to you is wrong about eternal hell? You will be left with no foundation. The Church is the foundation for truth. Without the Church, you’re left in the contradiction of contradictions. The Protestants who’ve converted to Catholicism know this dilemma well. In fact, Protestants who haven’t converted know it, too, which is why I can’t get them to discuss the matter or answer the questions.
Is this not the point of what I wrote?
Should not the individual be left to his own devices in that regard? We respect no one if we force them to profess a belief in order to escape persecution or alienation to avoid it.
Own devices? You mean use heretical material from heretics to derive an answer against the Catholic Faith and whole history of Christianity?
Steven,
You say “But those two verses sink your entire thesis. There’s a second death that ends it all and it’s clearly implied to be eternal since nothing else lasts, AND evil doers suffer this second death. The historical record proves that there is an eternal hell. Ask a Greek expert about those verses like I did. It means eternal and everlasting.”
***** I have offered you a link that explores the topic very deeply. Greek experts differ little in the interpretation of the word Aeon, Aion. It has many meanings. Like our word many. Many can mean a few years, hundreds of years or thousands or forever. One has to pick from the context of an entire idea and not from pro-conceived beliefs.
There are articles of this very topic on the tentmaker.org web-page that deal with this topic specifically, thoroughly and in language simple enough that anyone can understand if they are willing to read them.
It seems to me the bad side of creeds is they lock people into a position of no longer using their minds. I’m pretty sure many look at this as a blessing. ****
Listen to yourself. How have you let yourself get caught up in rejecting eternal punishment? The context is clear in the Apoc. verses that it’s forever. If hell is not eternal, then Purgatory is a meaningless doctrine.
Perhaps this will help from tentmaker.org:
In the Book of Revelation in the 20th Chapter and the 10th verse, we see the the devil, the beast, and the false prophet thrown into the lake of fire, which by definition, is called the second death. There they are tormented (literally “touchstoned”) “day and night forever and ever.” If you go to any Bible which contains the Greek text such as the Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, or the Tyndale New Greek English Interlinear New Testament or any standard Greek Text, you will see that the Greek says they will be there for the aionas ton aionon which literally means “ages of the ages.” Throughout the New Testament, we find this word aion used in double such as above only in important different forms. In Ephesians 3:21 we read of the “age (singular) of the ages (plural).” In Hebrews 1:8 we read of the “age (singular) of the age (singular).” In other places we read of the “ages (plural) of the ages (plural).” The Greek language is a very exact language and God is very exact also. If we neglected to take into consideration that there are at least three different forms here which should come through into the English, we would certainly do the Greek language and God a great injustice.
Aionas ton aionon translated ages of ages is simply a common Hebraism which means forever. Look it up.
Here’s two more examples of the early Church teaching an eternal punishment.
Theophilus of Antioch
“Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire” (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).
Irenaeus
“[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and b.asphemous among men into everlasting fire” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
“The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . [I]t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever” (ibid., 4:28:2).
Steven,
RK I do not understand how to reply to your messages; so, I am just copying this (the message you sent to me ) and hitting the reply button below.
Usury is still sinful, but I answered this over a year ago with you by email. There’s the clause found at the 5th Lateran about usury. The Church is teaching that demanding interest is wrong when it’s demanded “without any work, any expense or any risk” of the loaner.****And when is not that the case […]
SS No, it leaves me a Christian who follows the Church. On the other hand, you take the position against the Church and make yourself the final authority. You position is heresy and goes against the Bible, the Church, logic, and even the saints who tell us their stories about hell. You would have to make them out to be liars.
RK On Usury There is no loan given “without any work, any expense or any risk” of the loaner” ; therefore , any loan would meet your requirements for being moral according to Church teaching. Clearly usury is evil and the only ones fighting it are Muslims.
On hell. You might want to look at the information on the meaning of the word “hell” in the original language, and read the info at tentmaker.org on it.Even the historical teachings of the Church.
Private revelations on hell are interesting, but I have never read one that confirmed the unendingness of it-just its existence which I do not argue. I just look at it as a kind of purgatory
RK Steven, You say “But those two verses sink your entire thesis. There’s a second death that ends it all and it’s clearly implied to be eternal since nothing else lasts, AND evil doers suffer this second death. The historical record proves that there is an eternal hell. Ask a Greek expert about those verses like […]”
SS Listen to yourself. How have you let yourself get caught up in rejecting eternal punishment? The context is clear in the Apoc. verses that it’s forever.
RK Answering your last statement only (Please submit one topic at a time as otherwise I get confused) If the Apoc. is clear then the scriptures contradict it (the existence of an unending hell); therefore, if there is no contradiction in scripture we must be misunderstanding things about this topic. Agreed?
Now I believe it states in the bible that in the end God will be ”all in all”, and that “time will be no more”. If time does not exist then “forever” does not exist.
Too, God created hell for the devil and his angels. A created thing cannot exist forever. Hell is a created thing and does not exist outside of time. The very idea is a contradiction in terms; therefore, we are misunderstanding things and must look deeper.
There are some things God cannot do as they are a contradiction in terms. God cannot make a square circle; nor something eternal without time.
RK Perhaps this will help from tentmaker.org: In the Book of Revelation in the 20th Chapter and the 10th verse, we see the the devil, the beast, and the false prophet thrown into the lake of fire, which by definition, is called the second death. There they are tormented (literally “touchstoned”) “day and night forever and […]
SS Aionas ton aionon translated ages of ages is simply a common Hebraism which means forever. Look it up.
RK Steven, I have many times over researched the use of this term, but I think your research has only been to confirm a viewpoint. This is the impression I get. From all I can find out I am left with the perception that the very literal meanings of the words are meant to be, through the ages, age unto age, a long period of time. Translating it into an eternal period does not detract from the original words. Your assertion that “aionas ton aionon” is a common Hebraism for “ forever” is very questionable. I studied Hebrew for ten years and only conclude from my studies that very many, most, men understand language/ words as they have been taught to understand them by their teachers and seldom question what they have been taught.
Now I could waste my time writing a book on this topic, but having provided you with the resource to pursue it on you own, and you having rejected such a help to further study as being heretical, what more can I say.
Have you picked one topic on the tentmaker.org web-page of interest to see what it says.
As far as your argument that my position is heretical; thus, not worth putting faith in I can only suggest faith without reason is no faith at all. A position that many saints have held St. Thomas Aquinas among them.
RK Is this not the point of what I wrote? Should not the individual be left to his own devices in that regard? We respect no one if we force them to profess a belief in order to escape persecution or alienation to avoid it.
SS Own devices? You means use heretical material from heretics to derive an answer against the Catholic Faith and whole history of Christianity?
RK Steven,
We seem to skip too much by these incomplete quotations and history of what I have written.
However I will try: If we do not allow men to search for and explore their own ideas and publish them for public scrutiny how will we ever progress.
You seem to suggest that if we belong to a group (catholics, muslims , jews) and thus are convinced we are correct and every body else is wrong we have a right to limit what is accepted in other’s points of view.
Others are as convinced as catholics are of the correctness of their views. They have their heresies also. Should we not desire a public exploration of these views and “May the truth win out “ in the end and we all be happy for that victory?
Steven,
You say “A letter attributed to Pope St. Clement writes about “eternal punishment” that endures forever written in 150 AD”
Would you provide a link with more info on this “let” which I note is a letter and not papal teaching.
Yes , the teaching about an eternal hell was a northern European pagan teaching at that time and many Christians adopted this pagan teaching, but as St. Augustine, a firm believer in an eternal hell admitted “… Augustine built the theological structure (of the Church). His most famous writing was The City of God. Now listen to the champion of “Eternal Torment” regarding the view of Christian believers over this matter over four hundred years after Christ’s resurrection: “There are very many (imo quam plurimi, can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments” (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c.29).
Who was Augustine referring to?
St. Augustine also wrote that he wouldn’t know the Bible without the Catholic Church which gave it to us. The same authority that tells you the Bible is the Word of God also tells you that hell is eternal. You can’t have one without the other. Again, the Church is the foundation of truth.
RK Steven, You say “A letter attributed to Pope St. Clement writes about “eternal punishment” that endures forever written in 150 AD” Would you provide a link with more info on this “let” which I note is a letter and not papal teaching. Yes , the teaching about an eternal hell was a northern European pagan […]
SS St. Augustine also wrote that he wouldn’t know the Bible without the Catholic Church which gave it to us. The same authority that tells you the Bible is the Word of God also tells you that hell is eternal. You can’t have one without the other. Again, the Church is the foundation of truth.
RK
Steven,
You don’t answer questions you just preach, There does not seem to be a way to establish a dialogue with you. Would you answer my question and let us proceed from there?
My question didn’t get answered June 26th. Who has the authority to decide? Because this is what it all comes down to.
RK
Steven, You say “A letter attributed to Pope St. Clement writes about “eternal punishment” that endures forever written in 150 AD” Would you provide a link with more info on this “letter” which I note is a letter and not papal teaching. Yes , the teaching about an eternal hell was a northern European pagan belief […]
SS
My question didn’t get answered June 26th. Who has the authority to decide (what is true)? Because this is what it all comes down to.
RK
Steven,
I did answer this previously; however, I must not have made that answer clear so I will not copy and past it, but give an answer that is reformulated hoping it will be more memorable.
There are many groups claiming to have “the truth” and without much doubt on anyone’s part I think it is safe to say they cannot all be correct. One is right and the rest wrong, or all are wrong.
Rather than go to war an let might decide what is right the only alternative is to debate ideas and let each man decide what is satisfactory to him. We can isolate ourselves and remain in our own cocoon if we want and that may give us a sense of holier than others satisfaction, but it is a personal pride that gives us this smugness and does nothing to aid our fellow man in reaching a like satisfaction.
We can attach ourselves to a group and follow the teachings of that group’s leaders and comfort ourselves with the thought that they are smarter than us, and that ; therefore, their interpretations are correct, or we can think for ourselves and learn from past experience (history) the direction it may be best to go.
The Pharisees of Jesus’ time and of today give many letters of the law to follow but most tell you not to think and that they have the truth and that their teachings are immutable. Examination of their claims dispute their assertions.
So; my direct answer to your question of “Who has the authority to decide (what is true)?” is the individual.
Now if you can, without to much trouble, give me the source of
Pope St. Clement letter I would like to read it.
I appreciate your views.
Ronald Knarr
If each individual has the authority to decide what is truth, then it doesn’t matter what is said.
You can read it here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm
RK
Steven, You say “A letter attributed to Pope St. Clement writes about “eternal punishment” that endures forever written in 150 AD” Would you provide a link with more info on this “let” which I note is a letter and not papal teaching. Yes , the teaching about an eternal hell was a northern European pagan […]
SS
St. Augustine also wrote that he wouldn’t know the Bible without the Catholic Church which gave it to us. The same authority that tells you the Bible is the Word of God also tells you that hell is eternal. You can’t have one without the other. Again, the Church is the foundation of truth.
RK
If you were willing to investigate this claim (that hell is eternal) you will find no word in the original Greek that confirms your assertion. Aion, aeon, eon from which the word in English, eternal, is derived all refer to a long limited time. Twisting the usage of the word aeon does not add any length of time to its meaning. Popular understanding of its meaning can, has, does alter the understanding of its meaning.
“, the Church is the foundation of truth.” you claim. I find this quote does little to help us to find the truth. It merely solidifies our opinion of what we think that Church has taught as the truth.
As an example: early Christians believed in the eventual salvation of all men. Still today there are many Catholics who believe the same thing, but it is not a commonly accepted opinion thus it is easily condemned as not correct. If the Church teaches the same truth in all ages why did she allow, for centuries, a perspective that was erroneous and widely held , and even held among her best and brightest theologians?
You say “The same authority that tells you the Bible is the Word of God also tells you that hell is eternal.”, but it also speaks of the salvation of all.
Is this a “take your pick” question/answer or do we need to look deeper?
Ronald Knarr
Salvation of all? Where does the Church say salvation of all?
In the Greek “Sheol” is “the unseen state.” Or the grave.
“Hades” is “the place (state) of departed souls.”
Gehenna the garbage dump east of Jerusalem. ” Gehenna is the Valley of Hinnom where the fire burned continually”
Tartarus: The ‘deep’ or ‘abyss’ or ’bottomless pit.'” From pagan literature and only found once in the NT.
No word in the NT can be found to even infer eternal punishment except tartarus and that is not in Pope Clement’s letter.
In the OT we find “hell” used only from the translation of “sheol” God seems certainly delinquent in reminding us of any missteps we might make to wait for the NT.
SS
If each individual has the authority to decide what is truth, then it doesn’t matter what is said.
RK
I ask you then what alternatives you offer. Are we free to hold our own opinions or are we to only profess what we are told too whether we are muslims, jews or catholics? And condemn those who hold differing opinions as un-converted sinners?
Are we really to believe that if we do not inform and covert “pagans” of our views they are eternally punished?
RK
When there is a disagreement, the Church settles the matter. Matt. 18.17. What is your commentary on this text? Take it to the Church, but if I don’t like what the Church says, it’s what I say that is the truth?
You have no foundation for truth. You can’t even use the Bible since you reject the authority that says that it’s the Word of God.
No, we aren’t free to hold to our own opinions when they contradict the Catholic Faith.
Pope Vigilius condemned Origen. Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.
You are anathema, Ronald. I hope you don’t call yourself a Catholic.
Yes, pagans will be eternally punished if they die pagans.
You said no word in the NT can be found to infer eternal punishment, but I already provided that answer. You won’t accept it.
You are your own final authority. It doesn’t matter what I say. It’s what you think in the end.
RK
Steven, You say “A letter attributed to Pope St. Clement writes about “eternal punishment” that endures forever written in 150 AD” Would you provide a link with more info on this “letter” which I note is a letter and not papal teaching. Yes , the teaching about an eternal hell was a northern European pagan […]
RK
Steven, You say “A letter attributed to Pope St. Clement writes about “eternal punishment” that endures forever written in 150 AD” Would you provide a link with more info on this “letter” which I note is a letter and not papal teaching. Yes , the teaching about an eternal hell was a northern European […]
SS
Salvation of all? Where does the Church say salvation of all?
RK
Steven, I know not of any papal proclamation to that effect.
All I can point to is the almost total view of the early Christians and the early church fathers and the continuing belief in such a view among Catholics and other Christians to this day and the fact that the view of pre-existence of souls or re-incarnation has never been condemned by the Church.
RK
Can you provide a single church father that says that everybody will go to heaven? I provided some that spoke of eternal punishment.
Can you cite a single church father that says souls are preexisting or reincarnate? Origen taught preexistence and the non-existence of eternal punishment and was condemned for it by Pope Vigilius. So you’re wrong that the Church never condemned preexistence of souls.
SS
Can you cite a single church father that says souls are preexisting or reincarnate?
RK
Who better of our Church fathers than its founder:
When Jesus announced that he was the Jewish Messiah, his followers became confused, as the scriptures stated the prophet Elias (or Elijah in Greek) would return and precede the coming of the Messiah. The disciples put this apparent discrepancy to Jesus. The disciples pointed out:
“Why then say the scribes that Elias must come first. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not. . . . Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:9–13)
Speray Replies: This is not reincarnation. But why quote Jesus when you don’t believe in what He said in Matt. 18:17? Please give me your commentary on this.
In another section of the New Testament, Jesus unequivocally states that John the Baptist is the reincarnation of the prophet Elias: “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. . . . And if ye will receive it, this is Elias. . . . He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:11–15)
Speray Replies: In Spirit, not in person.
A number of Christian Church Fathers believed in and wrote about reincarnation:
St. Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.) expressly stated that the soul inhabits more than one human body. (2)
Speray Replies: Where’s the source? Present the writing of St. Justin, don’t just cut and paste someone’s lies.
Origen (185–254 A.D.), who was considered by St. Jerome as “the greatest teacher of the Church after the Apostles,” defended the idea that the soul exists before the body, fundamental to the concept of reincarnation.
Speray Replies: Origen was great, but then went bad and was condemned. I already admitted that Origen was a heretic and condemned as such.
(3)
Another Church Father, St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (257–332 A.D.), wrote: “It is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth it must be accomplished in future lives. . . . The soul . . . is immaterial and invisible in nature, it at one time puts off one body . . . and exchanges it for a second.” (4)
Speray Replies: Source please.
St. Gregory also wrote: “Every soul comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of its previous life.” (5)
Speray Replies: Source please.
St. Augustine (354–430 A.D.), one of the greatest theologians of the Christian church, speculated that philosopher Plotinus was the reincarnation of Plato. St. Augustine wrote: “The message of Plato . . . now shines forth mainly in Plotinus, a Platonist so like his master that one would think . . . that Plato is born again in Plotinus.” (6)
Speray Replies: Not literally. Augustine didn’t believe in reincarnation.
Other Church Fathers who demonstrated a belief in reincarnation included Synesius (the Bishop of Ptolemais), St. Ambrose, Pope Gregory I, Jerome, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and Clement of Alexandria and others.
Speray replies: Show their quotes and provide their sources. If you can’t provide the sources, then I think your position is in a lot of trouble.
RL
In another section of the New Testament, Jesus unequivocally states that John the Baptist is the reincarnation of the prophet Elias: “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. . . . And if ye will receive it, this is Elias. . . . He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:11–15)
Speray Replies: In Spirit, not in person.
RK
Is this what it says. You seem to accept the English literalness of your chosen verses, but reject the literalness of those views you do not agree with.
Some places are literal and some are not, but what does it matter? You are your own final authority on what is and isn’t.
Perhaps a little history would help:
The reason is that a Roman Emperor named Justinian made arrangements for reincarnation to be removed from official Church doctrine in 553 A.D.
In the early centuries of the Christian Church, disputes over doctrine were settled by bishops of the Church, through meetings called Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were major gatherings, which occurred infrequently, sometimes once in a hundred years. To understand the story of reincarnation and the Christian Church, we must go back in time to the year 330 A.D.
In that year, Constantine the Great moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople, a city which today is called Istanbul. As a result, two centers of the Christian Church developed; the Western Church in Rome and the Eastern Church in Constantinople. The emperors of Constantinople controlled the Eastern Church and dictated policy as they pleased.
As an example, the Constantinople Emperor Leo III prohibited images and portraits from being kept in churches, so icons, paintings of saints, which today are so admired for their beauty, had to be removed from places of worship. On the other hand, the Western Church headquartered in Rome refused to give up icons. Similarly, the Constantinople Emperor Justinian determined Church policy regarding reincarnation.
In the sixth century, the Church was divided over the issue of reincarnation. Western bishops in Rome believed in pre-existence of the soul while Eastern bishops were opposed to it. Emperor Justinian, who controlled the Eastern Church, was against the doctrine of reincarnation. As an example of his interference in Church matters, Justinian excommunicated the Church Father Origen, who openly supported the idea of reincarnation.
To further his agenda, Justinian convened the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 A.D., with only six bishops of the Western Church in attendance. On the other hand, 159 bishops of the Eastern Church, which Justinian controlled, were present. An image of Justinian is provided to the right.
It was at this meeting that pre-existence of the soul was voted out of Church doctrine. Emperor Justinian manipulated Church doctrine by stacking the voting deck in his favor.
Pope Vigilius protested this turn of events and demanded equal representation between Eastern and Western bishops. Though the Pope was present in Constantinople at the time of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, he boycotted the Council in protest. Justinian not only ignored Pope Vigilius, but persecuted him.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the conflict between the Emperor Justinian and the Pope was so extreme that the Pope suffered many indignities at the hands of the emperor and was almost killed.
Can you conceive today that a politician or head of state could dictate church policy to the Pope or that the Pope would boycott the biggest meeting at the Vatican in a hundred years? Yet this is what happened.
As a result, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, the Council called by Justinian was not a true Ecumenical Council, so the removal of pre-existence of the soul as a Church doctrine should not be considered an actual decree of the Ecumenical Council. (8, 9)
The Institute for the Integration of Science, Intuition and Spirit writes total nonsense.
Please give me your commentary on Matt. 18:17 and apply it.
RK
Perhaps a little history would help: The reason is that a Roman Emperor named Justinian made arrangements for reincarnation to be removed from official Church doctrine in 553 A.D. In the early centuries of the Christian Church, disputes over doctrine were settled by bishops of the Church, through meetings called Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were […]
SS
The Institute for the Integration of Science, Intuition and Spirit writes total nonsense.
RK
Steven,
So easy to speak ill of someone who you do not agree with.
SPERAY REPLIES: Especially when they get the facts wrong.
If one does not have facts to oppose an argument then attack the source.
SPERAY REPLIES: The source doesn’t have the facts to begin with.
Weak, but effective for some.
You may find a point or two that does not agree with other sources in what I sent you, but what is there in it that is not basically true as far as the over all point?
SPERAY REPLIES: Where does it get anything right?
Is finding the truth a goal or maintaining what one already believes as being more important?
SPERAY REPLIES: Is maintaining the truth a goal or finding teaching contrary to truth more important? For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry. II Tim. 4:3-5
Ronald Knarr
SS
Please give me your commentary on Matt. 18:17 and apply it.
RK
I have just read the posts on your page above where I am typing and find on it some comments I was not aware of as I have just been responding to your e-mails. If there are still points you are serious about wanting further info on let me know.
Mail is a difficult medium to get a correct sense of someone’s emotions, but would I be correct in feeling you are not open to ideas that are not held from childhood teaching?
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m not open to unsubstantiated claims that don’t meet with history or logic and where their interpretation is silly.
Matt. 18:17? How have I not made myself clear on this? The topic we have recently been going over alone should convince you that positions once held by the Church are not currently popular. Many topics taught by the Church changed over time, from conjugal relations, usury, pre-existence of souls, etc.
SPERAY REPLIES: But that’s not true and if it were true then Jesus is a liar. My point is that you can’t reconcile Matt 18:17 with your position. That’s why you can’t tell me what it means.
Councils from the past that even the pope at that time would not attend are quoted as being Church teaching.
SPERAY REPLIES: Popes don’t have to attend to ratify the council’s judgment. Nicea wasn’t attended by the pope, but do you agree with it?
I imagine “Catholics” of the future will probably do likewise with Vat. II
SPERAY REPLIES: Vatican 2 is not a Catholic Council.
You are, seemingly, happy to accept current “Church teaching ” as something that has been handed down from the throne of God by people claiming to be His personal infallible representatives.
SPERAY REPLIES: It has been. You haven’t shown how it hasn’t been.
If you are content there and find looking more deeply at questions surrounding it then I certainly wish you the best of a journey.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Bible has warned against your way many times.
Quotes and sources may be done fairly easily by doing searches, but if you are having difficulty there please give me the quote or information you want and I will try to do it for you
SPERAY REPLIES: I labeled them individually. I couldn’t find the sources. I found everybody quoting from the same website where it originated, but not the actual source itself.
Ronald Knarr
SS
The Institute for the Integration of Science, Intuition and Spirit writes total nonsense.
RK
Specifically?
All of it.
RK
St. Augustine (354–430 A.D.), one of the greatest theologians of the Christian church, speculated that philosopher Plotinus was the reincarnation of Plato. St. Augustine wrote: “The message of Plato . . . now shines forth mainly in Plotinus, a Platonist so like his master that one would think . . . that Plato is born again in Plotinus.” (6)
Speray Replies: Not literally. Augustine didn’t believe in reincarnation.
RK
Probably not, but unlike today’s churchmen the quote does show he was at least familiar with the belief as it was so widely held at that time.
SPERAY REPLIES: You admit that he probably didn’t believe it, but you spread the lie that he did? Widely held? How widely? You can’t even deduce that Augustine thought it was widely held based on that quote. This is the problem. You don’t really care. You’ve made up your mind that new-age website is steering you straight.
Your having left out so much of what I wrote of those of the Church Fathers who did believe in reincarnation makes it easy to attack the least precise of those who did believe in it.
SPERAY REPLIES: What Church Fathers believed it? You don’t cite sources. Anybody can make up quotes that don’t exist and they do.
OR are you trying to imply the list of the Church Fathers I sent you are also questionable as to their exactness?
SPERAY REPLIES: What’s questionable are the quotes themselves.
Ronald Knarr
SS The Institute for the Integration of Science, Intuition and Spirit writes total nonsense. RK Specifically?
SS
All of it.
RK
Such an answer Steven betrays a lack ability to answer the proposition. Even the devil has his virtues.
SPERAY REPLIES: Ronald, it’s pure garbage! You can’t defend any of it.
———————————————————–
RK
OR are you trying to imply the list of the Church Fathers I sent you are also questionable as to their exactness?
SPERAY REPLIES: What’s questionable are the quotes themselves.
RK
Easily answered. You doubt my quotes. They are easily confirmable.
SPERAY REPLIES: You would have done it if it were so easy. Please provide them.
I could give you links but I doubt , as I have already given you several you seem not to have used,
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t give me a single source for those quotes.
that you would use them. May I suggest, if you are a sincere seeker of truth, that you do your own search?
SPERAY REPLIES: I could say the same with you. You could have easily found Clement’s second letter, but you insisted twice for me to provide a link to the source, WHICH I DID. You have given nothing!
Perhaps using the key words “church fathers reincarnation” will lead you to some highly foot-noted articles on the subject.
SPERAY REPLIES: I checked several and they all give the same link to the original site from which you cut and pasted and that site doesn’t provide a single source. Now, are you going to provide a link to the source so that we can all read and see if what you’re saying is true or are you going to expect all of us to just accept an unsubstantiated claim?
SS
Pope Vigilius condemned Origen. Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.
RK What you have written here is highly mis-leading and erroneous. To help correct that may i suggest the following.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, it’s not. It gets it perfectly.
Now I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Council of Constantinople held by Justinian had condemned Origenism, and perhaps anathematised Origen himself, depending on some text-critical questions. To pronounce a man anathema 300 years after he died in the peace of the church, and died moreover from the effects of torture in confessing Christ, would be morally wrong of course.
This council was not even attended by the pope at that time .
Try :
https://www.ixquick.com/do/search
SPERAY REPLIES: None of this matters anyway. You are your own final authority on everything. I don’t even know why you believe in Christ or the Bible at all.
SS,
The Institute for the Integration of Science, Intuition and Spirit writes total nonsense.
RK
Is this true or not? Not your opinion of the web-site , just your view of the information furnished>
From: http://rethinkinghell.com/2015/08/conditional-immortality-origen-and-the-second-council-of-constantinople/
In the discussion of final punishment, the Councils give us precious little to go on. However, some evangelicals have turned to the Second Council of Constantinople to assert that the early Church condemned all views other than eternal conscious torment. For instance, Robert Yarborough argues (citing ACUTE1):
“In fact, even a source friendly to conditionalism admits that it is not until Arnobius (died ca. A.D. 330) that we find ‘the first explicit defence of the annihilation of ungodly souls in hell.’ Moreover, ‘Arnobius is among the least biblically-grounded of the early church fathers.’ It is therefore not surprising that this view ‘was deemed heretical by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and again by the Lateran Council in 1513.’”2
In another chapter of the same book, Christopher Morgan argues that annihilation was “Condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople (553) and the Fifth Lateran Council (1513)”.3 We’ll leave the Fifth Lateran council for another time for the sake of space, and focus our attention here only on the Second Council of Constantinople.
Ronald, I’ve read the councils a million times. I’m not interested in hearing non-Catholics take on it. It’s a total waste of time for me.
RK
Quotes and sources may be done fairly easily by doing searches, but if you are having difficulty there please give me the quote or information you want and I will try to do it for you
SPERAY REPLIES: I labeled them individually. I couldn’t find the sources. I found everybody quoting from the same website where it originated, but not the actual source itself.
RK
That is the trouble with footnotes. Footnotes are often, more so than not, quoted from those who agree with the author. Tracing the original quote is often well nigh impossible.
Ronald Knarr
Steve.
What do you want except agreement with your thesis? Your replies say that what I send it is wrong, and not how it is wrong. Or you saying “It’s pure garbage”.Or ” I’m not open to unsubstantiated claims that don’t meet with history or logic and where their interpretation is silly.” when the claims are easily substantiated. Nor do you show where the interpretations are “silly”.
I find it hard to understand how to communicate rationally.
So far you haven’t substantiated anything. I find it hard to communicate with you as well because it doesn’t matter what I say or the what the Church says. You have chosen to hear and believe in the opposition (who don’t provide sources).
Have you bothered to check the Fathers that I sent you?
Yes I have read all you have sent me.
I have sent you quotes and sources also which you have not answered.
You have not sent sources and there’s nothing to answer.
PM,
In blue with ****s
————————-
On Jul 2, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Philip Madsen wrote:
I visited, I read the top story, his site too complicated to follow,
SPERAY REPLIES: If my site is too complicated for you, then what can I say? Is he just plain stupid?
*****I agree and he only posts what he wants of the replies he gets and answers them with distortions and answers such as pithy “ that’s garbage” which is no answer at all. ****
SPERAY REPLIES: A total lie. I post everything. Stop sending me garbage. I’m not going to waste my time answering nonsense.
I saw no place to email or comment,
SPERAY REPLIES: Is this guy an idiot or what?
*****There is. A reply button below each post, but even then the posting is not readily easy to follow. ****
and the following he said , forstalls any reason for me to talk to him
SPERAY REPLIES: Why would I want to talk to someone who can’t even understand very simple things?
“Either sedevacantism is true or the gates of hell have prevailed. Take your pick. “ ****Of course I see his reasoning in this. ****
SPERAY REPLIES: Really?
He claims the authority of god to interpret the church and speak for it, on his own cognisance..thats high pride.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another lie. I provide Church authorities who do the interpreting.
Now we have discussed this subject before more than once. I repeat the substance briefly;
SEDES ERR BECAUSE they fail to diifferentiate between a person commiting obvious heresy,, and a heretic as defined in church law. wherein, nobody is a heretic defined till judged so by his superior, not his inferior, a fairly long process at times.
SPERAY REPLIES: Totally wrong! The law is very clear. Follow the reasoning of Philip, and you can reject everything, so long as the Church hasn’t said something specifically to the individual, he’s a member of the Church. Pope Pius XII’s teaching that ONLY those who profess the faith are members of the Church and that heresy severs one of the Church by its very nature would be absolutely wrong according to Philip. Where does Philip get such nonsense?
Now I am not denying the obvious heresy, and it being sufficient for any person to avoid that person in conscience, even be he Pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: Popes can’t profess heresy!
We are bound to avoid the occasion for sin. However we cannot judge a superior .
SPERAY REPLIES: A heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore is not a superior.
A priest can judge me. A bishop can judge a priest and so on up the ladder. Likewise I have the right of appeal up the ladder. Only a special council and the Holy ghost can pronounce on a Pope. or antipope whatever.
SPERAY REPLIES: Or antipope? You got to be kidding me!
So long as there remain one true Catholic practising the faith then the gates of Hell have NOT prevailed. Jeus Himself said as much when He said ” think you I will find faith on earth when I come” A great Apostasy ! yea. and a return to the catacombs.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong! If you study the Faith at all, you’ll see that it takes much more. It’s total hypocrisy to say I’m interpreting for the Church and speaking for God, etc. and then you precisely that with Holy Scripture.
****Yes I do believe we have covered most of this before.****
*****You said, “He said “ think you I will find faith on earth when I come”. Now it seems you have an interpretation of this I do not see. I think you perceive this as being “The Faith”, and I am mystified as to the meaning.
Thanks for the comments.
I will forward this to Steven.
RK****
You have my permission to pass the following on to Steven.
Philip.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m tired of people like Philip who don’t know diddly-squat and talk like they have the answer. They are the ones that are filled with pride!
SS, The Institute for the Integration of Science, Intuition and Spirit writes total nonsense. RK Is this true or not? Not your opinion of the web-site , just your view of the information furnished> From: http://rethinkinghell.com/2015/08/conditional-immortality-origen-and-the-second-council-of-constantinople/ In the discussion of final punishment, the Councils give us precious little to go on. However, some evangelicals have […]
SS
Ronald, I’ve read the councils a million times. I’m not interested in hearing non-Catholics take on it. It’s a total waste of time for me.
RK
I am a Catholic Steven, and your comment, and willing disregard, for non-Catholic points of view that you express show no willingness for dialogue. Remember “Faith then cometh by hearing;” Do you think that only Catholics have any truth? Is it possible that non-Catholics have views that are true?
SPERAY REPLIES: Non-Catholics don’t have truth apart from the Catholic Church. That’s the point. Listen to the Church, not non-Catholics.
RL In another section of the New Testament, Jesus unequivocally states that John the Baptist is the reincarnation of the prophet Elias: “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. . . . And if ye will receive it, this is Elias. . . . He […]
SS
Some places are literal and some are not, but what does it matter? You are your own final authority on what is and isn’t.
RK
A humble seeker of the truth is all. I try not to speak categorically, but try to give, within my limitations, my insight into a position I find reasonable.
About Elias Jesus says plainly “ this is Elias” and in another “he is Elijah who was to come.”
These two quotes plainly make clear the point Jesus was trying to make.
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree yet we have two different conclusions. Who’s right? Who decides?
… there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist…. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:11-15).
“… I was given a sound body to live in because I was already good.” (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20)
“And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” Jesus answered, ‘Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'” (John 9:1)
How could this man have sinned to be born blind if he had not lived before? Not that he did sin, but the apostles had the understanding that this may have been where the problem arose.
SPERAY REPLIES: There is original sin, too.
“For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come.” (Matthew 11:13-14)
“And the disciples asked him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ But he answered them and said, ‘Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand.’ Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:10-13)
SPERAY REPLIES: In Spririt, Ronald. It’s that simple. That’s the answer for the rest of it below.
Although the Bible also contains other re-incarnational passages, these Elijah-John passages seem to constitute clear proof of reincarnation:
1. The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself (not someone “like” him or someone “similar” to him, but Elijah himself) would return before the advent of the Messiah.
2. Jesus declared that John the Baptist was Elijah who had returned, stating bluntly “Elijah has come”.
Now, based on these passages alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:
(A) John the Baptist was Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah had reincarnated. If this is true, then reincarnation must belong in Christian theology, and the West’s entire doctrinal interpretation of “Life After Death” in general, and the “Last Day Resurrection” in particular, must be radically revised, or…
(B) John the Baptist was not Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah himself had not returned. If this is so, then either:
(1) The Old Testament prophecy about Elijah returning before the Messiah failed to come to pass (meaning that Biblical prophecy is fallible), OR
(2) Jesus was not the Messiah.
Basically, it comes down to this simple question: What do you want to believe? One of the following A, B, or C, must logically be true:
A. Reincarnation is true, or
B. Jesus was not the Messiah, or
C. The prophecies of the Bible are unreliable.
SPERAY REPLIES: D. Figurative language, in spirit.
“This is the one … there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist…. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:11-15).
“Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?” Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:1-13)
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:14)
His disciples replied:
“Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
This should make it clear that the disciples understood about reincarnation as they named dead people as possibly being John the Baptist.
Jerome, who is just as uncomfortable as Justinian about preexistence, interprets the passage to mean that we preexisted, not in distinct disincarnate form, but simply in the mind of God (Against Rufinus 1.22), and from this throng of thoughts God chose the elect before the creation of the world. The distinction is indeed a fine one, for Jerome is asking us to distinguish between that which exists as a soul and that which exists as a thought. What is illuminating for the reincarnationist is that this passage from Ephesians offers very explicit scriptural testimony for individual preexistence.
Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:11-13 both state that God loved Jacob, but hated Esau even before they were born. Unless god hated his own thoughts. These verses are highly suggestive of the pre-existence of Esau, a necessary tenet associated with reincarnation.
The same concept of pre-existence can also be found in the following Bible verse:
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58)
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A person reaps what he sows.” (Galatians 6:7), but we do not see that happening in a single lifetime. Some kill and die without being killed.
19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:
20 Which had been some time incredulous, (I Peter 3:20, “who in former times did not obey.”) Why preach and to what purpose if no conversion is possible.
“In anger his master turned him over to the jailers until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.” (Matthew 18: 34-35)
“If any one slays with the sword, with the sword must he be slain.” (Revelation 13:10)
But we do not see this happening in every lifetime so when does it happen?
Rev. 3: 12 He that shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; and he shall go out no more;
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” (Matthew 5:25-26)
Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the righteous and unrighteous.
Heb. 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection.
SPERAY REPLIES: I suggest that you read more commentary and think about it more.
——————————————————————————————–
The above passages can be seen to at least be suggestive of reincarnation as the meaning of “resurrection” is simply to live again..
SPERAY REPLIES: Says you?
“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from
eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before
the hills, I was given birth, before he made the Earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. I was
there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when
he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea
its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations
of the Earth. Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing
always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.” (Proverbs 8:22-31)
In the above passage, Solomon states that when the Earth was made he was present, and that, long before he could have been born as Solomon, his delights were in the habitable parts of Earth with the sons of men.
Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa: ‘It is absolutely necessary that the soul shall be healed and purified, and if it doesn’t take place in one life on earth, it must be accomplished in future earthly lives.'”
SPERAY REPLIES: SOURCE PLEASE?
————————–
Steve. What do you want except agreement with your thesis? Your replies say that what I send it is wrong, and not how it is wrong. Or you saying “It’s pure garbage”.Or ” I’m not open to unsubstantiated claims that don’t meet with history or logic and where their interpretation is silly.” when the claims […]
SS
So far you haven’t substantiated anything. I find it hard to communicate with you as well because it doesn’t matter what I say or the what the Church says. You have chosen to hear and believe in the opposition (who don’t provide sources).
Have you bothered to check the Fathers that I sent you?
RK
Steven, I have sent you a reply to this twice. Sorry you seem not to have gotten it.
Let me ask you, Do you read what I send you or do the opening sentences of mine spur you to reply without any consideration for what is said because to you it has a non-Catholic tone as you understand such thoughts?
I’m waiting for the sources, Ronald. Please link me to the source material so that we can read what these saints say.
SS
Yes I have read all you have sent me. I have sent you quotes and sources also which you have not answered.
You have not sent sources and there’s nothing to answer
RK,
You have my apologies if this seems true to you. I find this exchange frustrating. What you charge- I would find helpful if you would provide the information you want help with.
Thank you RK
—————
I want sources. Provide the link to the original writings so that we can actually read what these saints said in context.
RK
Steve. What do you want except agreement with your thesis? Your replies say that what I send it is wrong, and not how it is wrong. Or you saying “It’s pure garbage”.Or ” I’m not open to unsubstantiated claims that don’t meet with history or logic and where their interpretation is silly.” when the claims […]
SS
I’m waiting for the sources, Ronald. Please link me to the source material so that we can read what these saints say.
RK
Willingly. Give me the quote that concerns you and I will get right on it. I have already given scripture quotes and hopefully you can access that readily.
SS Yes I have read all you have sent me. I have sent you quotes and sources also which you have not answered. You have not sent sources and there’s nothing to answer RK, You have my apologies if this seems true to you. I find this exchange frustrating. What you charge- I would find […]
SS
I want sources. Provide the link to the original writings so that we can actually read what these saints said in context.
RK
You keep asking for sources but I cannot reasonably be expected provide sources for everything I have written to you nor would I ask such an unreasonable thing of you. I have repeatedly ask you what you want footnotes on and you reply with no answer.
Too, contrary to an earlier claim by you that you do post all of what I send you I ask you to please not the abbreviated post above.
It is also notable that you have done no better at footnoting than I have. Perhaps preaching by example would give me a better idea of what you desire.
I cited the sources for many. I provide the link to Clement’s II Letter. Look at my June 27 reply. I cited the sources. As for my June 26th reply the sources as follows…
St. Ignatius of Antioch taught it in 110 AD. Source: Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2
The Martydom of St. Polycarp in 156 AD written by Marcion says, “They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire.” I provide the source and ref is 2:3.
The Letter to Diognetus 200 AD says, “When you know what is the true life, that of heaven; when you despise the merely apparent death, which is temporal; when you fear the death which is real, and which is reserved for those who will be condemned to the everlasting fire.” Source already provided. Ref. 10:7, written by Mathetes.
St. Justin the Martyr writes about “eternal punishment” in 150 AD. Source: First Apology 12, 21, 52
St. Theophilus of Antioch writes about “eternal punishments” in 181 AD. Source: To Autolycus 1:14
SS Yes I have read all you have sent me. I have sent you quotes and sources also which you have not answered. You have not sent sources and there’s nothing to answer RK, You have my apologies if this seems true to you. I find this exchange frustrating. What you charge- I would find […]
SS
I cited the sources for many. I provide the link to Clement’s II Letter. Look at my June 27 reply. I cited the sources. As for my June 26th reply the sources as follows…
St. Ignatius of Antioch taught it in 110 AD. Source: Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2
The Martydom of St. Polycarp in 156 AD written by Marcion says, “They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire.” I provide the source and ref is 2:3.
The Letter to Diognetus 200 AD says, “When you know what is the true life, that of heaven; when you despise the merely apparent death, which is temporal; when you fear the death which is real, and which is reserved for those who will be condemned to the everlasting fire.” Source already provided. Ref. 10:7, written by Mathetes.
St. Justin the Martyr writes about “eternal punishment” in 150 AD. Source: First Apology 12, 21, 52
St. Theophilus of Antioch writes about “eternal punishments” in 181 AD. Source: To Autolycus 1:14
RK
Steven,
Thank you for your sources and you have provided information that does make an internet web search possible. I think I have provided like possibilities as any quote I have provided may be found by a doing web search. If I have provided quotes that you want to research by doing a web search, and if you cannot find them, please let me know as soon as you can, so that said quote does not get lost in the shuffle, and I will get it as rapidly as time permits.
I personally use https://www.ixquick.com and find it to be very useful.
Now as to the use of your sources I have never disagreed as to there being differing position on the after life among early Church fathers. My argument has been that the predominant position among them was that there was a majority among them holding to the attitude that any punishment after death was a remedial one and not an eternal one, and that this punishment was in the form of a reincarnation of souls so that they might learn from their mistakes. As they sowed they would reap. I think that the evidence from scriptures supports this conclusion on its own. At least to the degree that that position cannot be condemned overtly.
Ronald Knarr
knarrrj@ori.net
steven,
I forwarded your reply to Phillip’s comments and here is his reply.
——————————————————————
Ronald I have delayed my reply to Stevens comments to give me time for prayer and meditation, that I do not offend, and that I correct any offence given with Gods Help. Philip.
I said,
I visited, I read the top story, his site too complicated to follow, Sorry Steven, not rubbishing the site, I should have said my limited health and sight did not allow me the time to go further.
SPERAY REPLIES: Apology accepted.
SPERAY REPLIES: If my site is too complicated for you, then what can I say? Is he just plain stupid?
SPERAY REPLIES: Well, of course, that’s not the case.
SPERAY REPLIES: Is this guy an idiot or what?
SPERAY REPLIES: We know now that it was because you can’t see well. But look at your reply and see if it doesn’t sound smug. You began with: he only posts what he wants of the replies he gets and answers them with distortions and answers such as pithy “ that’s garbage” which is no answer at all. When, in fact, that’s not the case at all, and that’s garbage is a real answer to something that’s garbage.
SPERAY REPLIES: Why would I want to talk to someone who can’t even understand very simple things?
Thank you Steven, I very much prefer to be called a fool, as St Therese says, ” Jesus prefers the simple daisy, to the Tall Cedars……..”
SPERAY REPLIES: And at the same time, it was you who said about me: He claims the authority of god to interpret the church and speak for it, on his own cognisance..thats high pride. , and then proceeded to tell sedes that they’re wrong because they fail to diifferentiate between a person commiting obvious heresy,, and a heretic as defined in church law. wherein, nobody is a heretic defined till judged so by his superior, not his inferior, a fairly long process at times., and forstalls any reason for me to talk to him, as if you’re someone better, smarter, etc. That’s why I made my comment back.
But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong. 1 Corinthians 1:27
SPERAY REPLIES: I use the authorities of the Church to provide the answers. You make false accusations in stating that I claim the authority of god to interpret the church and speak for it, on his [my] own cognisance..thats high pride. Rather than apologize, you insult me all the more.
As you wish, Steven I would not impose and try to answer your objections to my way of understanding of what constitutes the Universal Church of Jesus Christ.
SPERAY REPLIES: Your way? The Church does the answering..
I have no authority, which was given only to the Apostles and as you say “I’m tired of people like Philip who don’t know diddly-squat and talk like they have the answer. ” I will leave you in Peace.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m in Peace, but I would have rather hear from you that you don’t know the law rather than claim we don’t make proper distinctions. We absolutely make proper distinctions as the law is clear about them. I’ve spent hours studying the law and talking to canonists.
Matthew 5:22
But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire..
SPERAY REPLIES: Has no application on this discussing whatsoever. Did not Jesus called the Pharasees fools in Lk 11:40. Now you have to make proper distinctions in these verses and understand the context.
I pray for you and myself, not to fall into that danger, and that the Promise of Our Lady of Fatima, comes quickly before the chastisement gets any worse than it is already.
Philip.
SPERAY REPLIES: Lucia told us in 1957 that Our Lady said the Chastisement will have come by 1960. What do you think it was? I hope you reconsider what I’ve said about the position of sedevacantism. Our arguments are rock solid using both the Law and defined teaching of the Church.
???? I’m sure most of those very few that are saved go through Purgatory. Keep in mind that a “very few” is still a large number, since it’s by contrast to those that are damned. Apocalypse 7:9: “behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, […]
????? Purgatory doesn’t exist it’s a fake place created by the catholic church it’s not biblical at all.
RK
I don’t know who wrote these notes Steven, but it is obvious that they take whatever they read in scriptures, which is a very figurative book, very literally and selectively and are probably young and just starting to think things through for themselves.
Spray,
Rereading these posts they are not posted in order nor are they answered in order. No progress can be made, by those of good will without order.
RK
—————————–
They are posted in the order they were made. I don’t control it.
What are you talking about? Don’t bear false witness against Most Holy Family Monastery. You don’t even provide one proof of your claim, this is because it’s not true. The Vatican II sect is NOT the Catholic Church but the prophesied end times counter-church, the Harlot of Babylon. You need to bury your pride, MHFM is the ONLY Catholic organization in the world.
MHFM ARE NOT CATHOLIC AT ALL! You’ve been duped. I’ve already given proof in past articles. You need to read them. But for now, they reject Canon 1239.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which declares, “catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.” AND Canon 737 which declares, “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation….” THEY SAY THOSE CANONS ARE HERETICAL.
They reject parts of the Roman Catechism of Trent that contradicts their private judgment on salvation. Just ask them. They don’t accept all of it.
They also admit to attending mass united to apostate Rome. That means they pray and worship alongside those they claim are not Catholic.
Thank you.
RK
I pray daily my son Eric Michael Theriot doesn’t go to hell for his sins!
Did you try to convert him to the Traditional Catholic Faith? [vaticancatholic.com]
vaticancatholic.com is not traditional catholicism. The Dimond brothers believe the Catholic Church has promulgated heresy by law and catechism and they practice communicatio in sacris with those they claim are not Catholic which is contrary to the Divine law.
@Steven Speray
SMH, have you ever read Brother Peter Dimond’s Book? It answers ALL objections raised against this issue. Furthermore what you just quoted is not infallible and contains errors.
And clearly goes against Catholic Doctrine:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, Ex Cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, Ex Cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)
Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415: “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church…”
ONLY BAPTIZED CATHOLICS IN A STATE OF GRACE GO TO HEAVEN
Also MHFM DOES NOT ATTEND MASS, they haven’t done so in years, what you just said is another lie. Stop bearing false witness and only say something about someone if it’s a fact.
And the Roman Catechism is not infallible by the way. The Roman Catechism IS NOT THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF TRENT. St.Alphonsus Liguori even said that the Ecumenical Council of Florence has more authority than the Roman Catechism.
You need to humble yourself and look at the irrefutable factual material at vaticancatholic.com
As MHFM recently said to somebody via e-mail:
1 Kings 15:22-23: “And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king.”
This passage of Scripture does not concern obedience to a reputed authority in the Church; it concerns obedience to the Word of God – faith in His revealed word. The admonition above in 1 Kings 15 was given by the prophet Samuel to King Saul, who had offered sacrifice in direct violation of God’s word. Saul had attempted to please God with his sacrifice, while he was simultaneously contravening God’s spoken word. King Saul’s sacrifice, therefore, was completely rejected by God and Saul himself was cast off by the Lord. The words spoken by Samuel to King Saul could be said to the multitude of phony ‘Catholics’ who reject God’s voice (His revealed dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church). Since they don’t accept His word on this matter, while they think they can please Him through traditional sacraments, their sacrifices and works are completely rejected by Him.
Yes, I read their book and refuted every point in a book I wrote. They go against the Church. You only read their side of the issue. You didn’t see the side of the Church. For instance, you quoted St. Augustine who also stated in the “City of God (397)
“Those also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration are released thereby from their sins just as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism. For He who said, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ (John 3:5) by another statement made exceptions to this when He said no less comprehensively: ‘Everyone… that shall confess me before men, I will confess before my Father who is in Heaven.’ (Matthew 10:32).”
WAS HE GOING AGAINST DOGMA?
The Council of Florence also declared: “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol.1, p. 576)”
This implies that there is a remedy for adults but it gets better because, Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415. Condemning the articles of John Wyclif Proposition 6:
“Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” Condemned
Death is no remedy for infants so if they can be saved without baptism, it must come from God alone.
ALSO, You just committed the same heresy as the Dimonds by implying the Catechism is heretical. THE CHURCH CAN’T PROMULGATE HERESY EVEN WHEN NOT SPEAKING INFALLIBLY!
And they do attend a mass, at least they did a couple of years ago. They would disguise themselves and attend an Eastern rite liturgy. I wrote them an email condemning them for it and they never replied. They have been corrected many times on this error of their’s and have never conceded.
You need to humble yourself.
You said:
“Yes, I read their book and refuted every point in a book I wrote. They go against the Church. You only read their side of the issue…”
SMH, why won’t you debate Brother Peter then???
SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond refused to have a written debate or a formal debate on the issue. I have the emails to prove it. I won’t debate them now anyway. They are not gentlemen. What does it matter? He’s been thoroughly refuted and is rejecting the law of the Church.
Regarding St.Augustine, him and the other Church Fathers ALL contradicted themselves on this issue. St.Cyril of Jerusalem ONLY believed in B.O.B not desire. St.Gregory Nazienzen rejected both. ‘Baptisms’ of blood and desire are both man made doctrines.
SPERAY REPLIES: I deal with this in my book. Once the Church taught it, it must be held and the Church taught it.
There is only one Baptism, NOT 3.
SPERAY REPLIES: There’s only one sacrament of baptism, but there are 2 other ways to get to heaven without baptism as taught by the Church.
You said:
‘This implies that there is a remedy for adults but it gets better because, Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415. Condemning the articles of John Wyclif Proposition 6… Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” Condemned’
Do you understand what your quoting?
SPERAY REPLIES: YES, do you think Dimond is stupid and presumptious for saying children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved? If not, why?
Here is a portion of Brother Peter Dimond’s book, which you claim to have read.
The Catholic Church teaches that aborted children and infants who die without baptism descend immediately into Hell, but that they do not suffer the fires of Hell. They go to a place in Hell called the limbo of the children. The most specific definition of the Church proving that there is no possible way for an infant to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism is the following one from Pope Eugene IV.
SPERAY REPLIES: THAT DOESN’T ADDRESS THE CONDEMNATION BECAUSE THE WORD IT USED WAS “SAVED.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, Ex Cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, WHEN NO HELP can be brought to them by another remedy THAN THROUGH THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)
SPERAY REPLIES: You missed it: when no help can brought to them BY ANOTHER REMEDY. You see, nothing we can do can help them but baptism. But God can save without a remedy. THAT’S THE POINT!
Pope Eugene IV here defined from the Chair of Peter that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than the Sacrament of Baptism. This means that anyone who obstinately teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is a heretic, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong! And you just condemned popes as heretics.
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 – Condemning the articles of John Wyclif – Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” – Condemned
This is a fascinating proposition from The Council of Constance. Unfortunately, this proposition is not found in Denzinger, which only contains some of the Council’s decrees, but it is found in a full collection of the Council of Constance. The arch-heretic John Wyclif was proposing that those (such as True Catholics) are stupid for teaching that infants who die without water (i.e., sacramental) baptism cannot possibly be saved. He was anathematized for this assertion, among many others. And here is what the Council of Constance had to say about John Wyclif’s anathematized propositions, such as #6 above.
SPERAY REPLIES: You are saying the popes are stupid for teaching BOD.
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and pamphlets of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by the doctors and masters of Oxford University… This holy synod, therefore, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, repudiates and condemns, by this perpetual decree, the aforesaid articles and each of them in particular; and it forbids each and every Catholic henceforth, under pain of anathema, to preach, teach, or hold the said articles or any one of them.”
SPERAY REPLIES: And you and Dimond are promoting the same error.
So those who criticize Catholics for affirming the dogma that no infant can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism are actually proposing the anathematized heresy of John Wyclif.
SPERAY REPLIES: RIGHT! YOU ARE CONDEMNED!
Here are some other dogmatic definitions on the topic.
Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)
SPERAY REPLIES: And you can’t think how this might be reconciled?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)
SPERAY REPLIES: You have to make proper distinctions. This is the problem with the Dimonds. They fail to do so.
This means that anyone who asserts that infants don’t need the “laver of rebirth” (water baptism) to attain eternal life is teaching heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: When properly understood, but you have the infallible teaching of Pope Martin that implies its possible under certain circumstances IF GOD SO DESIRES. ARE YOU SUGGESTING GOD CAN’T SAVE AN UNBAPTIZED INFANT? ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)
SPERAY REPLIES: Absolutely. But if God saves an unbaptized infant, that would imply that such an infant would not be in original sin any longer. See the difference?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)
SPERAY REPLIES: Absolutely. But if God saves an unbaptized infant, that would imply that such an infant would not be in original sin any longer. See the difference?
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)
Here Pope Pius VI condemns the idea of some theologians that infants who die in original sin suffer the fires of Hell. At the same time, he confirms that these infants do go to a part of the lower regions (i.e., Hell) called the limbo of the children. They do not go to Heaven, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire. This is perfectly in accord with all of the other solemn definitions of the Church, which teach that infants who die without water baptism descend into Hell, but suffer a punishment different from those who die in mortal sin. Their punishment is eternal separation from God.
SPERAY REPLIES: Absolutely. But if God saves an unbaptized infant, that would imply that such an infant would not be in original sin any longer AND would not have to go to limbo. See the difference?
Pope Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge (# 25), March 14, 1937: “‘Original sin’ is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Rom. v. 12). It is the loss of grace, and therefore eternal life, together with a propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer.”
The code of canon law simply has errors in it!
SPERAY REPLIES: IT’S HERETICAL TO SAY THE LAW OF THE CHURCH IS HERETICAL AS YOU CLAIM. YOU ARE A HERETIC, TOBIT!
Just like the Summa Theologica, that was promoted by many Popes. St.Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception and taught the man made doctrine of B.O.D, he was wrong.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! ST. Thomas Aquinas condemned 6 types of immaculate conceptions but he didn’t condemn the one defined by the Church. POpe Pius actually used Aquinas’ teaching to define the Immaculate Conception. THAT BEING SAID, the dogma can after Aquinas anyway. Even if Aquinas was wrong, which he was not, he would still not be a heretic because a heretic is one denies a defined doctrine. HOWEVER, THE CHURCH CAN’T BE HERTICAL BY LAW! YOU’RE A TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE HERETIC FOR SAYING SO. YOU ARE BLASPHEMING AGAINST GOD AND THE CHURCH!
And like i said, the whole thing of MHFM attending an Eastern Rite mass is a lie that was spread about them, they haven’t went to a mass in years. They took the theological position of Sedevacantism in the 90’s.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU ARE LYING BECAUSE I’VE PERSONALLY SPOKE TO THEM ABOUT IT. THEY ATTEND AN EASTERN RITE LITURGY (AT LEAST A FEW YEARS AGO). THEY EVEN PROMOTE GOING TO AN UNA CUM TRAD MASS ON THEIR WEBSITE. LOOK IT UP.
The only thing you can quote regarding B.O.D and B.O.B are the saints which you adhere to, because you reject the infallible teachings of Ecumenical councils and Popes.
SPERAY REPLIES: Total BS! Many popes have taught it. Even POpe St. Pius X taught it in his catechism which he promoted. The Dimonds have lied about it.
The saints are NOT infallible, and you do realize that St.Augustine wrote a book of retractions.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, they aren’t infallible, but they aren’t heretical either! You blaspheme when you say the Church has promulgated heresy by law!
Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII
SPERAY REPLIES: AGREED! HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
SPERAY REPLIES: AGREED! HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.'”
SPERAY REPLIES: Agreed and Pope Clement XIII declared on June 14, 1761 in In Dominico Argo that the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent “is far removed from every danger of error.” YOU REJECT THE PAPAL TEACHING ALONG WITH THE HERETICAL DIMONDS.
My replies inserted in your comment above.
Why do people ignore the many more comments of God’s love and eventual salvation of all in deference to the few mistranslated words for the word “hell” in scripture.
The Dimaond brothers are probable as correct as any other anti- Vat. II group.
Remember: if you cannot show that someone is wrong _ slander them.
God loves all and will bring all to himself in the end. Far more verses to this effect in scripture the to the contrary and to was a belief of St. Augustine himself stated was the belief of early christians.
knarratori.net
It was also St. Augustine who admitted that it was the belief of most Catholics that the eternal and eventual salvation of all was the belief of the majority of Catholics. It was only the mass conversion of pagans who brought their pagan belief of “hell” into the Church and St. Augustine’s misguided beliefs that have rung down through the centuries. The good news of God’s love and redemptive powers that have fallen by the wayside.
@Steven Speray
You really do have your own version of ‘Catholicism’ you honestly need to bury your pride.
SPERAY: Right back at you!
You said that MHFM are not gentlemen, this is one thing modernist heretics always bring up, yet have zero evidence.
SPERAY: They are as arrogant as they get and I can prove it.
Do you get offended easily if someone calls you a name? You must be soft as a pillow.
SPERAY: Doesn’t bother me too much. But liars do.
You’re clearly just avoiding them like everyone else who holds to heretical and erroneous positions because you know you would get destroyed in a debate.
SPERAY: Another lie! I’ve already buried them. Why don’t you read. So far you have refuted nothing of mine!
anyway
You said:
“I deal with this in my book. Once the Church taught it, it must be held and the Church taught it.”
Is St.Augustine alone the Church? Is St.Ambrose the Catholic Church? What about St.Gregory Nazienzen, who rejected B.O.D and B.O.B? Or you just cherry pick what Saints, you want to choose from and reject the ones that destroy your position?
SPERAY: You don’t know what you’re talking about. The Roman Catechism and the Law of the Church teaches BOD. GET A LIFE!
You said: “There’s only one sacrament of baptism, but there are 2 other ways to get to heaven without baptism as taught by the Church.”
Provide quotes from the Extraordinary Magisterium on this, don’t worry take your time.
SPERAY: I showed you the law of the Church. And you must hold to ALL teachings of the Church, not just the extraordinary magisterium. Have you not read Pope Pius IX who said so in Quanta Cura?
You said:
“You missed it: when no help can brought to them BY ANOTHER REMEDY. You see, nothing we can do can help them but baptism. But God can save without a remedy. THAT’S THE POINT!”
“God can save without a remedy”. So Original Sin can be remedied without a remedy? Really? Where does the Church teach that?!
SPERAY: Pope Pius IX taught it twice!
Precisely on what authority do you maintain that all teachings on faith and morals contained in Canon Law are promulgated on the infallible authority of the Magisterium?
SPERAY: On the Authority of the Catholic Church. Read my article titled The Catholic Bottom Line – Part II.
Are you so desperate that you have to misquote (and even misspell the title of) the papal encyclical In Dominico Agro? Pope Clement XIII claimed that his predecessors wanted a Catechism that would be free of any error. He does not unambiguously declare that their desires were ever fulfilled in this regard.
SPERAY: Here’s the full quote: As our predecessors understood that that holy meeting of the universal Church was so prudent in judgment and so moderate that it abstained from condemning ideas which authorities among Church scholars supported, they wanted another work prepared with the agreement of that holy council which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which would be far removed from any error. They printed and distributed THIS book under the title of The Roman Catechism.
YOU REJECT POPE CLEMENT’S TEACHING DON’T YOU? What’s more, you have to conclude that Pope Clement is a heretic for saying so. But, of course, you won’t do so because you’re a hypocrite, just like the Dimonds.
Again here is a portion taken from the book you claim to have read:
The 1917 Code was definitely not an Ex Cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) pronouncement because it does not bind the whole Church, but only the Latin Church (not the Eastern Rites), as stipulated in Canon 1 of the 1917 Code.
SPERAY: I read this and the Dimonds just proved that they don’t know what they are talking about. THE CODE IS INFALLIBLE BECAUSE IT’S A TERRITORIAL LAW. And you have to follow and obey the law of the Church. The Dimonds say the law is heretical! They reject the holiness of the Church for saying so!
Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.”[cccxciii]
A Pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t:
SPERAY: CARDINAL MANNING WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY TAUGHT AFTER VATICAN I: : In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal authority of the Pontiff as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, is included in this definition [at Vatican I] of his infallibility. And also all legislative or judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority; as for instance, all judgments, sentences, and decisions, which contain the motives of such acts as derived from faith and morals. Under this will come the laws of discipline, canonization of the saints, approbation of Religious Orders, of devotions, and the like; all of which intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, morals and piety. The definition, then, does not limit the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority. (Cardinal Manning, The Vatican Council and its Definitions New York: D.J. Sadlier, 1887, pp. 95-96.)
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks Ex Cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church… operates with that infallibility…”
SPERAY: CARDNINAL MANNING JUST EXPLAINED WHAT IT MEANS. But think about what you’re saying. All the popes since the 1917 Code did nothing about it but promulgated it. You must conclude that all of the post 1917 Code popes are heretics. They wer not ignorant of the law. And they promoted the Roman Catechism. That means all the popes since Trent must be heretics.
Thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary “at least in desire” for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility.
SPERAY: WRONG! This teaching comes straight out the Council of Trent! And THE CHURCH IS INFALLIBLE IN ALL HER TERRITORIAL LAWS. UNIVERSAL LAW IS A TERRITORIAL LAW.
Regarding its law in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial, this contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial.
Canon 1239, 1917 Code: “1. Those who die without baptism are not to be accorded ecclesiastical burial. 2. Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized.”
Since the time of Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. THERE IS NOT A VESTIGE OF SUCH A CUSTOM TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.'”
This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them.
It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith. The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right. In fact, it is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition which supports it!
SPERAY: If you had read my articles, you wouldn’t have made this statement because I answered this specific point against the Dimonds. I wrote: Since the Church never prohibited the faithful receiving the Chalice for hundreds of years, does that make the new law erroneous or heretical? For over a thousand years, the Church always gave infants Communion with Baptism. Did Rome err for contradicting the entire history of the Church when it changed the law? Both of these laws are tied to the Faith, too. Many more examples could be given, but these two suffice.
Because a Church law, which is tied to the Faith, changed after so many years doesn’t imply that it’s heretical, unless of course, the law was previously condemned as heretical or intrinsically evil, which, of course, is impossible lest the Gates of Hell prevail.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope Innocent III wherein he commented on the traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the Sacrament of Baptism.
SPERAY: So? The same thing can be said about Communion to infants but it changed after a 1000 yrs.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “The reason of this regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.'”
SPERAY: Funny how you quote the CE as if it is authoritative, and yet reject the laws, the catechism, the teachings of popes. Lol. Too bad you left out the rest of the quote which reads: We may add here some brief remarks on the discipline of the Church in regard to unbaptized persons. As baptism is the door of the Church, the unbaptized are entirely without its pale. As a consequence:
Such persons, by the ordinary law of the Church, may not receive Catholic funeral rites. The reason of this regulation is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): “It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.” According to Canon Law (CIC 1183), however, catechumens “are to be considered members of the Christian faithful” as regard funeral rites. The Plenary Council of Baltimore also decrees (No. 389) that the custom of burying the unbaptized relatives of Catholics in the family sepulchers may be tolerated.
The 1917 Code is not infallible Church discipline either,
SPERAY: WRONG!
as proven by the fact that it contains a law which directly contradicts the infallible discipline of the Church since the beginning on a point tied to the Faith.
SPERAY: WRONG, AGAIN!
The actual Bull promulgating the 1917 Code, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, was not signed by Benedict XV, but by Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo. Cardinal Gasparri, the Secretary of State, was the main author and compiler of the canons. Some theologians would argue that only disciplines which bind the whole Church – unlike the 1917 Code – are protected by the infallibility of the governing authority of the Church, an argument which seems to be supported in the following teaching of Pope Pius XII.
SPERAY: Pope Benedict XV APPROVED the Code and Pope St. Pius X condemned those who don’t accept the authority of those decisions that are approved by the Pontiff.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943:
“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors.”
This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the “Catholic” (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church.
SPERAY: Pope Leo X in his Bull ‘Cum postquam’ at the Fifth Lateran Council declared: You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors. \
The laws of the Church are the decisions of the Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must need be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour for ever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832): “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”
Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy infallibility. This is further proven by the following canons.
SPERAY: I WILL PROVE YOUR CUT AND PASTED DIMOND MATERIAL WRONG BELOW…
1) The 1917 Code teaches that heretics can be in good faith.
Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: “It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.”
A heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon his head eternal punishment.
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: “… all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, Ex Cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
A person in good faith who is erring innocently about a dogma (loosely and improperly called a “material heretic” in theological discussions) is not a heretic, but a Catholic erring in good faith. So the statement in the 1917 Code about heretics and schismatics in good faith is definitely theologically erroneous and it proves that it was not protected by infallibility.
SPERAY: A MATERIAL HERETIC IS NOT A CATHOLIC BUT A BAPTIZED NON-CATHOLIC. A MATERIAL HERETIC COULD BE A CATHOLIC IN THE INTERNAL FORUM EVEN THOUGH NOT IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM. SO YOU MISSED THIS VERY SIMPLE POINT!
2) The 1917 Code teaches that Catholics may be present at non-Catholic forms of worship, including non-Catholic weddings and non-Catholic funerals!
Canon 1258, 1917 Code: “1. It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics. 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of scandal is absent.”
Note: this canon is not talking about Catholic Masses or Catholic worship presided over by a heretic, but non-Catholic or non-Christian (false) worship and rites. This is outrageous! This canon allows one to travel to and attend a Jewish Synagogue or a Buddhist Temple or a Lutheran Service, etc., etc., etc. for the wedding or funeral of infidels or heretics – just as long as one doesn’t actively participate! This is ridiculous, for to go out of his way to be present at such non-Catholic services where false worship is conducted (for the sake of honoring or pleasing the person involved in it) is a scandal in itself.
SPERAY: It didn’t say go out of his way. That’s your words. There are times when it’s permissible. For instance, you’re in the military and your heretic king gets married or buried. You may attend passively. It doesn’t cause scandal at all because everyone knows that its a military deal, not necessarily a religion one. You should do some research and found how the Church has permitted such things in the past.
It is to honor a person who is sinning against the First Commandment. To go to the funeral of a non-Catholic is to imply that there was some hope for him for salvation outside the Church; and to attend the wedding of a non-Catholic is to imply that God condones his or her marriage outside the Church.
SPERAY: NOT ALWAYS! There are exceptions and the law provides for them. You apparantly are too prideful or ignorant to understand.
A Catholic can neither take part actively in false worship nor go out of one’s way to travel to the false worship or the non-Catholic ceremony to honor it with his “passive” presence.
SPERAY: And the law says so. It didn’t say go out of his way.
Hence, this canon also proves that this code is not infallible.
SPERAY: No, it just proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about!
The 1917 Code contradicts the immemorial Tradition of the Church on ecclesiastical burial and it holds no weight for a moment against the infallible declaration of the Chair of St. Peter (binding the entire Church) that no one can enter heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
SPERAY: WRONG! Trent actually teaches differently.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Ex Cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
SPERAY: Baptism is not optional. You can’t opt out of it, but if you didn’t get a chance of it, you can be saved under extraordinary circumstances.
Steve, pray the Rosary everyday and stop spreading nonsense and heresy.
SPERAY: I DO PRAY THE ROSARY EVERYDAY. YOU NEED TO STOP LISTINING TO THE LYING HERETICAL DIMOND BROS.
You preach your own version of ‘Catholicism’ MHFM quotes the actual teachings of the Church and don’t suppress information.
SPERAY: A TOTAL LIE!
Tobit 4:14 Never suffer pride to reign in thy mind, or in thy words: for from it all perdition took its beginning.
SPERAY: I LOVE IT!
I answered all your material again, but you didn’t answer my questions nor did you refute my assertions. Let’s see you can answer the following simple questions…
Will you admit that you’re wrong about St. Thomas Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception?
Will you admit that you’re wrong about the Dimonds not attending una cum liturgies since they admit it and promote it on their website?
ARE YOU SUGGESTING GOD CAN’T SAVE AN UNBAPTIZED INFANT?
If God saves an unbaptized infant, that would imply that such an infant would not be in original sin any longer. See the difference?
You are saying the Church can promulgate heresy by law and decree, right?
Do you think Dimond is stupid and presumptuous for saying children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved? If not, why?
@Steven Speray
1. St.Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception,
“The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.” [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, Art. 3, Reply to Obj. 1]
SPERAY: You didn’t quote the whole thing. There are seven different types of immaculate conceptions. Aquinas denied 6 of them, but not the one the Church defined.
2. Why don’t you give proof they still attend, since you’re the one that claims they do, the burden is on you.
SPERAY: Don’t take my word for it. ASK THEM. Are you afraid to find out the truth? I know that they have done so within the last few years. BUT THEY DO SUPPORT IT ON THEIR WEBSITE.
3. God saves many unbaptized infants THROUGH WATER BAPTISM!!!
SPERAY: You didn’t answer my question. ARE YOU SUGGESTING GOD CAN’T SAVE AN UNBAPTIZED INFANT?
The fact that St.Joan of Arc and St.Martin of Tours brought back infants from the dead to baptize them OBLITERATES the man made doctrines of B.O.D and B.O.B because The Holy Trinity can keep any souls alive until they are baptized.
If B.O.D and B.O.B. are true, then why miraculous baptisms? Why bring someone back from the dead to baptize them?
SPERAY: Because BOD is not granted to everyone. Duh.
99% of Catholics already go to Hell, [i’m not talking about the modern day heretics who claim to be Catholic by name only yet adhere to the Harlot of Babylon, that is the Vatican II sect] 99% of actual Catholics are damned and you believe unbaptized non-Catholics can go to Heaven SMH.
SPERAY: Only if God saves them. I see you didn’t read Pope Pius IX’s teaching who said it first.
Read 1 St.Peter 4:18
SPERAY: I know it well. God does the saving. Until you get that point through your head, you’ll never get it.
You said:
“You are saying the Church can promulgate heresy by law and decree, right?”
Do you know what heresy is? Are you aware St.Alphonsus said the Council of Florence has more authority than the Roman Catechism?
SPERAY: You didn’t answer the question because to say the Church promulgates heresy is a heresy. The Council of Florence also implies baptism of desire which is where the Roman Catechism got its teaching.
You said: “Do you think Dimond is stupid and presumptuous for saying children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved? If not, why?”
That’s what John Wyclif was saying to the Catholics during his time, Wyclif believed unbaptized infants can be saved and called the Catholics stupid for saying the opposite. Catholics are not stupid, we simply go by the Teachings of the Church.
SPERAY: Not exactly, but I’m trying to get you to see something. It is absolutely stupid and presumptuous to say that my unbaptized infant will be saved. But God could do it. I don’t presume it or say it for certain. See the difference? There’s nothing wrong with assuming that my unbaptized infant will not be saved. However, it’s possible that God could do it for some unknown reason. We see the Holy Innocents made it by blood before the New Testament Baptism, but yet, how could the Old Testament be better for infants than the New Testament? The New Testament is superiour for salvation in all ways!
So those who criticize Catholics for affirming the dogma that no infant can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism are actually proposing the anathematized heresy of John Wyclif.
SPERAY: That means that the popes who teach BOD for adults are actually proposing a heresy, right, since it doesn’t matter to you whether one is an infant or not? That means that you are doing what Wyclif did in another sense.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, Ex Cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”
SPERAY: THAT’S ABSOLUTELY TRUE! That has nothing to do with BOD/BOB.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, Ex Cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
SPERAY: No problem here either. It’s not addressing the extraordinary circumstances.
Unbaptized Catechumens are not part of the Faithful.
SPERAY: Agreed, but if God saves them, they would at that moment.
sperey, don’t stray from the truth
Isaias (Isaiah) 55:8
For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord
That’s why I quote from the Bible in the beginning. God said it, not me.
http://www.tentmaker.org/indexpage.html
—————————————————————-
You’re persistent. I grant you that. Merry Christmas, Ronald!
http://www.tentmaker.org/indexpage.html
————————————————————-
It is a matter of reasonableness and a lack of a reasonable refutation of the premise and love of the truth at the price of rejection by many.
Christmas blessings to you too.
U say : “Please people! Come on! Hell doesnt exist. It was made up by the church to scare people to keep everyone in line”
“It is also a striking fact that while Origen lies under a load of odium as a heretic, Gregory of Nyssa, who taught the doctrine of the restoration of all things more fully even than Origen, has been canonized, and stands high on the roll of eminent saints, even in the orthodox Roman Catholic Church.”
Yes the acceptance of the pagan idea of an eternal hell was an idea thought to more easily keep the peasants under control.
Ronald, the tentmaker website leader Gary Amirault is nothing more than his own pope with the final say. His article on what anathema means is ridiculous.
I asked a Greek Orthodox friend from Greece about Young’s Literal Translation and he told me the YLT is a bad translation.
I want you to look at verse Matt 25:46 from the YLT: And these shall go away to punishment age-enduring, but the righteous to life age-enduring.
Are you really going to tell me that punishment is finite here, but righteous to life is not?
What about Rev. 20:10 in the YLT: and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night — to the ages of the ages.
Are you going to tell me that ages of the ages is not eternity here in Rev. 20:10, but that exact phrase does mean eternity in Gal. 1:5, Eph. 3:21, and Philippians 4:20 when referring to Christ and God the Father?
Lastly, you’ll find the belief in eternal hell in other monotheistic religions. Can you provide me evidence that eternal hell was originally a pagan idea?
Steven,
This is just a short note in reply to your objections.
All of the points you bring up have been addressed on the tentmaker.org site. Your reluctance to accept the infinite love of God for each man he ever created apparently prevents you from investigating what was commonly held by the first five centuries of Christians. Quotes to confirm this have been sent previously and are readily available on the tentmaker.org site.
Some accept without reservation the claim that the teachings of the Church do not change. If one wants to hold to this belief then they must accept that the views of Churchmen certainly do change. Churchmen’s views on may topics have changed and the idea of an unending place of punishment is certainly on of them.
The following paragraphs are in no coherent order, but do comment on issues you have mentioned.
From Wikipedia: Some “ … do not conceive of the afterlife as a place of punishment or reward, merely describe hell as an abode of the dead, the grave, a neutral place located under the surface of Earth (for example, see sheol and Hades). Hell is sometimes portrayed as populated with demons who torment those dwelling there. Many are ruled by a death god such as Nergal, Hades, Hel, Enma or the Devil.” (All pagan devils.) It is not difficult to find a belief in a hell as a place of punishment in pre-Christian times. A simple Internet search reveals many pagan hells.
It is the good news of God’s love for each person which set Christianity apart from the hopelessness of pagan religions and the hopeless future they expected (in this life and the after life) which attracted so many pagans. The scripture speaks clearly of God’s love for the just and the unjust and his love for all men and the saving, and reconciliation, of all at the end of time.
The greatest minds of the Church held to universal salvation of all in the early Church.
St. Jerome says of him, “Didymus surpassed all of his day in knowledge of the Scriptures.”
‘ The highly acclaimed Didymus (Thought by many to be the third greatest mind of the early Church) writes: “Mankind, being reclaimed from their sins are to be subjected to Christ in the fullness of the dispensation instituted for the salvation of all” (Comm. in 1 Peter 3).
‘ St. Gregory of Nyssa (332-398), a bishop and a leading theologian says in his Catechetical Orations: “Our Lord is the One who delivers man (all men), and who heals the inventor of evil himself.”
‘ As one can see, one of the greatest strengths of the early church was their strong faith in a God who can do what appears to the modern Christian as impossible.
To answer your quote “Are you going to tell me that ages of the ages is not eternity here in Rev. 20:10, but that exact phrase does mean eternity in Gal. 1:5, Eph. 3:21, and Philippians 4:20 when referring to Christ and God the Father?” I have to say you have not read much of the tentmaker site to even mention this point as it is addressed many times at that site. I can do the research for you if you want, but our exchanges would become very long if I have to “cut and paste” research you can easily do.
You say “Are you going to tell me that ages of the ages is not eternity here in Rev. 20:10, but that exact phrase does mean eternity in Gal. 1:5, Eph. 3:21, and Philippians 4:20 when referring to Christ and God the Father?” Though this detail is addressed thoroughly at the tentmaker site – just as a thought provoker you might consider the things we commonly refer to as “eternal” that do not last forever at all. Such as “eternal monuments”,”eternal flames” and the many things that were destroyed forever in the Bible only to be found not destroyed later.
For such a central teaching among “Christains(?)” today it is no small wonder that St. Paul does not seem to have mentioned it at all, but spoke much of God’s redemptive love. Hard to believe he failed in his duty to mention such an important point.
This epistle is becoming long since I have been asked to comment on many points. Perhaps sticking to one point at a time would make this exchange shorter.
Ronald Knarr
Are you saying that ages of ages doesn’t mean eternal when referring to punishment but it does mean eternal when speaking about God’s glory, power, and majesty? It’s a simple yes or no answer.
Now you may quote saints till you’re blue in the face, but those quotes hold no weight when the authority of the Church pronounces judgment against them. I can quote saints who taught Mary was a sinner. Incidentally, one such saint (St. John Chrysostom) also taught Origen’s doctrine apocatastasis that you’re advocating. But the Church condemned the doctrine at a Council of Constantinople in 543 just as the first council in Jerusalem condemned the Judaizers.
You’re necessarily arguing that the Church is not infallible and the Judaizers may be justified. But Christ didn’t give the final say to this or that person in the Church, but only the pope, which makes sense.
So, I don’t argue that your heretical doctrine wasn’t ever taught. It was, just a many heretical doctrines were taught by saints before those doctrines were condemned.
So what is your point?
It must be true because you want it to be and you can find provide evidence that it was held at one time despite the fact that the authority of the Church has condemned it?
That makes you no different from every heretic is history who has done precisely that!
I believe God’s love is infinite, but I understand it differently. People go to hell not because God doesn’t love man infinitely, but because man doesn’t love God at all. Your understanding is that God makes man love Him sometimes at the end of hell.
But why have a temporary hell at all if we already have a purgatory?
The Inventors of Hell
1. Polybius, the ancient historian, says: “Since the multitude is ever fickle, full of lawless desires, irrational passions and violence, there is no other way to keep them in order but by the fear and terror of the invisible world; on which account our ancestors seem to me to have acted judiciously, when they contrived to bring into the popular belief these notions of the gods, and of the infernal regions.” B. vi 56.
2. Dionysius Halicarnassus treats the whole matter as useful, but not as true. Antiq. Rom., B. ii
3. Livy, the celebrated historian, speaks of it in the same spirit; and he praises the wisdom of Numa, because he invented the fear of the gods, as “a most efficacious means of governing an ignorant and barbarous populace.” Hist., I 19.
4. Strabo, the geographer, says: “The multitude are restrained from vice by the punishments the gods are said to inflict upon offenders, and by those terrors and threatenings which certain dreadful words and monstrous forms imprint upon their minds…For it is impossible to govern the crowd of women, and all the common rabble, by philosophical reasoning, and lead them to piety, holiness and virtue – but this must be done by superstition, or the fear of the gods, by means of fables and wonders; for the thunder, the aegis, the trident, the torches (of the Furies), the dragons, &c., are all fables, as is also all the ancient theology. These things the legislators used as scarecrows to terrify the childish multitude.” Geog., B. I
5. Timaeus Locrus, the Pythagorean, after stating that the doctrine of rewards and punishments after death is necessary to society, proceeds as follows: “For as we sometimes cure the body with unwholesome remedies, when such as are most wholesome produce no effect, so we restrain those minds with false relations, which will not be persuaded by the truth. There is a necessity, therefore,
of instilling the dread of those foreign torments: as that the soul changes its habitation; that the coward is ignominiously thrust into the body of a woman; the murderer imprisoned within the form of a savage beast; the vain and inconstant changed into birds, and the slothful and ignorant into fishes.”
6. Plato, in his commentary on Timaeus, fully endorses what he says respecting the fabulous invention of these foreign torments. And Strabo says that “Plato and the Brahmins of India invented fables concerning the future judgments of hell” (Hades). And Chrysippus blames Plato for attempting to deter men from wrong by frightful stories of future punishments.
Plato himself is exceedingly inconsistent, sometimes adopting, even in his serious discourses, the fables of the poets, and at other times rejecting them as utterly false, and giving too frightful views of the invisible world. Sometimes, he argues, on social grounds, that they are necessary to restrain bad men from wickedness and crime, and then again he protests against them on political grounds, as intimidating the citizens, and making cowards of the soldiers, who, believing these things, are afraid of death, and do not therefore fight well. But all this shows in what light he regarded them; not as truths, certainly, but as fictions, convenient in some cases, but difficult to manage in others.
7. Plutarch treats the subject in the same way; sometimes arguing for them with great solemnity and earnestness, and on other occasions calling them “fabulous stories, the tales of mothers and nurses.”
8. Seneca says: “Those things which make the infernal regions terrible, the darkness, the prison, the river of flaming fire, the judgment seat, &c., are all a fable, with which the poets amuse themselves, and by them agitate us with vain terrors.” Sextus Empiricus calls them “poetic fables of hell;” and Cicero speaks of them as “silly absurdities and fables” (ineptiis ac fabulis).
9. Aristotle. “It has been handed down in mythical form from earliest times to posterity, that there are gods, and that the divine (Deity) compasses all nature. All beside this has been added, after the mythical style, for the purpose of persuading the multitude, and for the interests of the laws, and the advantage of the state.” Neander’s Church Hist., I, p. 7. 11 (The above quotes were taken from “The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment” by Thomas Thayer.)
The question this book began with is now, I trust, answered by a sufficient number of witnesses to settle the matter. Hell was invented by men of power who felt it was the only way to hold the masses of ignorant people under their power. It is the same today. If the people of power today REALLY believed the myths they are perpetuating, they themselves would behave MUCH differently than they are. Seeing their own corrupt behavior should make it plain to anyone, these political, business, and especially religious leaders have not the slightest faith in these things themselves; they do not think them at all necessary to regulate their own lives, or keep them in order; but it is for the average people, the dumb sheep who must be restrained with fears of great terror in the afterlife. …
From: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/TheInventorsandPerpetratorsofHell.pdf
Thomas Aquinas “That the saints may enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly, and give more abundant thanks for it to God, a perfect sight of the punishment of the damned is granted them.”
St. Therese of the Child Jesus is said to have maintain it in the nineteenth Century when it was apparently still rare for anyone to do so. Pope John Paul made her a Doctor (a special teacher) of the Church and her litle way spirituality of childlike trust in God has been heavily promoted amongst Catholics.
• St. Therese wrote a Christmas play for her sisters, in which the Child Jesus insists, in correction of the Angel of Vengeance, that, ‘every soul will find forgiveness’. On the last day, the Child Jesus will remain “the God of love” who suffered to recompense all of the sins of the entire human race.
Enlivened and united in His Spirit, we journey toward the consummation of human history, one which fully accords with the counsel of God’s love: “To reestablish all (really?) things in Christ, both those in the heavens and those on the earth” (Eph. 1:10).
————————————
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, recently expressed his hope that all will be saved in an interview with a Catholic newspaper.
• We’re not bound to believe that anybody’s there (in hell), let’s face it…
IT’S TIME TO STOP PROPHESYING FROM THE JUDGMENT SEAT AND START PROPHESYING FROM THE MERCY SEAT.
IF GOD WAS UNABLE TO UNDO IN CHRIST WHAT SATAN DID IN ADAM THEN JESUS’ MISSION WAS A FAILURE.
“For I will not contend forever, nor will I always be angry; for the spirit (man’s( would fail before Me, and the souls which I have made.” Isaiah 57:16
Sodom’s fiery judgment is “eternal” (Jude 7), that is–until–God “will restore the fortunes of Sodom” (Ez.16:53‑55);
God’s waves of wrath roll over Jonah “forever,” that is–until-‑the Lord delivers him from the large fish’s belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17);
So, narrow is the way to life and few find it, that is‑‑until‑‑His church confiscates the “strong man’s” booty, setting the captives free so God becomes all in all (Isa. 61, Luke 11:21‑22, Matt. 7:13; 16:18, 1 Cor. 15:24‑28);
May I suggest: http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html
Ronald Knarr
Wait a second. You already believe in hell, you just don’t believe it’s eternal. Haven’t you just attempted to subvert your own argument?
in response to Knarr Ronald:
Steven, This is just a short note in reply to your objections. All of the points you bring up have been addressed on the tentmaker.org site. Your reluctance to accept the infinite love of God for each man he ever created apparently prevents you from investigating what was commonly held by the first five centuries […]
Are you saying that ages of ages doesn’t mean eternal when referring to punishment but it does mean eternal when speaking about God’s glory, power, and majesty? It’s a simple yes or no answer. ****Simple answer: “Yes” Many times, as pointed out in previous replies, we say forever and we mean a long time. This does not negate the times we mean forever. Enduring through the ages does not in every case mean that it will never be different. “I will love you forever” does not mean literally forever, but only as long as we can.
SPERAY REPLIES: The problem with your answer is that it makes the Bible quote nonsense.
The tentmaker site has more than one article on this.Try f Everlasting Punishment is not Eternal then how can Life be Eternal? (Matthew 25:46) At http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html ***
SPERAY REPLIES: It simply makes the Bible quotes nonsense.
Now you may quote saints till you’re blue in the face, but those quotes hold no weight when the authority of the Church pronounces judgment against them. I can quote saints who taught Mary was a sinner. Incidentally, one such saint (St. John Chrysostom) also taught Origen’s doctrine apocatastasis that you’re advocating. But the Church condemned the doctrine at a Council of Constantinople in 543 just as the first council in Jerusalem condemned the Judaizers. *****That political council was never ratified by the pope and unless you deny Church teaching the pronouncements of a council are not valid unless the pope ratifies them. In fact the pope was opposed to the holding of that council, prior to, throughout, and after its happening.****
SPERAY REPLIES: Where did you get this info? That council was most assuredly ratified by the pope. Even Pope St. Gregory the Great taught the council must be upheld.
You’re necessarily arguing that the Church is not infallible and the Judaizers may be justified. But Christ didn’t give the final say to this or that person in the Church, but only the pope, which makes sense.
So, I don’t argue that your heretical doctrine wasn’t ever taught. It was, just a many heretical doctrines were taught by saints before those doctrines were condemned.
So what is your point?****The point is the Church has never condemned this teaching of God’s infinite love and successful redemption of each man. ****
SPERAY REPLIES: It did condemn apokatastasis several times. And God’s infinite love has nothing to do with it since it’s a misapplication or misunderstanding of God’s infinite love.
It must be true because you want it to be and you can find provide evidence that he was held at one time despite the fact that the authority of the Church has condemned it?
******I can understand your desperation , but the fact is the early Christians believed in the salvation of all. Catholics believe that what the Church once taught she still teaches. This is a misconception. The Church has changed her teaching on many points, or if you prefer, churchmen have changed their teaching. Take your pick. ****
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m not desperate but you are because you have to go to great lengths to defend it. I just go to the Church which has condemned it. Btw, who has the final say if not the pope?
That makes you no different from every heretic is history who has done precisely that!
I believe God’s love is infinite, but I understand it differently. People go to hell not because God doesn’t love man infinitely, but because man doesn’t love God at all. Your understanding is that God makes man love Him sometimes at the end of hell.******According to scripture and the common teaching of the Church which has not been condemned “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” God subdues and reconciles but does not torture like some insane man. ****
SPERAY REPLIES: But you already agree that hell exists. You just subverted your own argument again! Why can’t you see what your saying? You say hell is torture and people go there temporarily but then you say God does not torture. Can you reconcile what you just stated?
“But why have a temporary hell at all if we already have a purgatory?****When “hell” become commonly believed to last forever a new term had to be invented to accommodate the naysayers and purgatory was the term chosen. Yes.****
SPERAY REPLIES: Let me ask you then, do you pray for those in hell? Btw, Purgatory is taught in Scripture and is distinguished from hell.
Steven Speray
Wait a second. You already believe in hell, you just don’t believe it’s eternal. Haven’t you just attempted to subvert your own argument?
RK
Yes There is a hell, a grave we go to after death. I have seen people go there, but as Jesus explained – it is a place of correction.
“Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay last farthing.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Since hell is a reality, then it wasn’t invented by anyone except God. Your list of quotes is not evidence to the contrary.
RK
Steven,
I seem to have given you the impression that I am pitting saints against popes in the quotes I have given you. That was not the impression I necessarily wished to convey, but when saints are stating their beliefs and stating what is the commonly held opinions of their times I think that consideration must be given to what they say.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t if the Church formally condemns it. Only when the teaching is universal does it carry merit and then the Church can’t condemn it. What you’re advocating is mostly an Eastern thought. It was not universal.
If saints say they believe the ultimate salvation of all is their belief and the commonly held opinion of the time among believers, and that for over 500 years, it does raise questions.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not to me, it doesn’t, because the authority of the Church has the binding teaching, not the opinions of saints.
Can we honestly say the Church did not teach a commonly held opinion for centuries just because a pope centuries later says differently?
SPERAY REPLIES: Opinions are just that, opinions. They are not binding and the Church has never bound the opinion of apokatastasis.
There have been popes who have said that to not correct error is to be in agreement with the error. Where does that leave us? Where does that leave us with the early popes? If something is taught in the Church for centuries and then changed is the Church guilty or not of teaching error? Who is guilty of teaching error and when did it become error? Someone erred when a thing is taught for centuries and then censured. You get into a morass of thinking in trying to defend contradictory teachings at different periods. The above speaks to the fact and not the subjective guilt of any.
SPERAY REPLIES: You missed the nuance. The errors the popes are speaking of are errors against the Faith. Since the Church didn’t condemn apokatastasis until 553, Catholics were free to hold the position. Therefore, if you lived before the council, you were free to hold to the position because the position was not an error against the Faith as it’s defined. Opinions in the Church can be changed. The Church never formally taught apokatastasis
The current opinion among many Christians is that Satan caused the fall of mankind into sin and resultant eternal damnation of multitudes.
SPERAY REPLIES: After the Church formally condemned apokatastasis, it no longer is a mere opinion. It becomes an infallible doctrine that can’t be reversed.
In other words Satan succeeded in his task. While Jesus’ “attempt” at the salvation of all is doomed to failure and that in spite of Jesus’ best attempt. Sad that Satan has a power our lord lacks. Satan succeeds. Jesus fails? This seems to lack any reason.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s because you have a misunderstanding. Satan didn’t succeed against the power of Jesus. God allows the devil to tempt man. Man falls because of man’s choice, not because the devil tempted him. Christ succeeds perfectly in His Plan of allowing the devil to tempt man and giving man a free choice.
The elitism among many so called Christians is sad. I know not whether or not it is in the gospels, but I have read that Jesus’ joy was to be among sinners and he did not criticize them but did rebuff the so-called good people of his day. Seems there is often more love among “sinners” than saints- then and now.
Ronald Knarr
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh, but Jesus did correct the sinners. Jesus’ joy was in the repentance of the sinner. Remember that saints are sinners, too, but the saints always love more and they are those who repented. That’s what makes them the saints. Many Catholic leaders throughout history have been rotten to the core. But even a rotten pope has the authority of God to have the final say. That pope may end up in hell while we end up in heaven for obeying.
Excellent, sobering article. The kind of article that shows the truth of Catholicism I was led to believe didn’t exist in Catholicism and only among the hell, fire and brimstone Baptists, Evangelicals and Pentecostals. There is so much here to research what I’ve been looking for. Even more, these sermons spoke directly to me. I won’t add much more, not much to add. So much struggle in these days. I am grateful that upon my return to the church I stopped telling people, “I was saved” when I honestly didn’t believe it when I was trying to convince myself of it when I was an evangelical. By the grace of God I hope I am being saved and with his help I am striving to make my calling and election sure. Easy believism and the “sinner’s prayer” were something I railed against for so long I had to finally walk away from it. I fear that I too would be counted among those that are warned about in these sermons that are on the path to hell. Lord have mercy on my soul and that of my family and especially my children.
I know telling the truth is not easy, but thank you for doing it. Like St. John Chrysostom said, he didn’t want to do it but he had to.
On the “end times”
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Fulfilled_Prophecy/index.htm
With almost all people going to Hell and with a minimum of 4 Popes believing that torture is a acceptable form of capital punishment. It gives rise to the question can anyone really believe that your take on Christianity is the same as Christ’s. It seems that Satan doesn’t have much work to do since the vast majority of people will go to hell and be tortured forever. The Scripture should be changed to reflect that Christ died for so little that his sacrifice was almost not necessary. Lets see if we can change things around a little .” In the beginning God created all things and he created man knowing that he created a species who for whom the vast majority would suffer for all time in unspeakable agony, he did this because he loved his creation so much.” I don’t see many jumping on that religious bandwagon.
Let’s put this in perspective. God created man for heaven. He became man, suffered and died so that man can go to heaven. Yet, man chooses not to know and love God. Man chooses not heaven but hell.
The whole reason people go to hell is because they don’t love God. They love themselves more and reject the commandments of Christ. Getting to heaven is easy for those who love Jesus. It’s impossible for those who don’t. Most don’t. That’s not God’s fault, but man’s!
Do you get it now? If not, perhaps Satan has worked well with you.
1 John 5 :2
Amen! And the next line: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
Isn’t that what I said?
This reply button does not seem to work for me most of the time. Do you have a personal e-mail I can send to and then you may post my replier parts of it as you desire?
I believe a careful reading of Matthew 22:36-40 gives all we have to know about the commandments .
Yes, and very few live by it.
Steven,
Don’t be so judgmental least you be judged.
I find not that God is interpreting things the way so many judges do.
In all of St. Paul’s writings I find not one mention of hell (hades actually [the underworld]). One might think if you are correct one would find this to be an important, frequently mentioned, topic. Just the opposite. St. Paul spoke of love and said he does not even judge himself. You judge all by saying most will go there.
Who is anyone to say to others that they had better get squared away and believe as Steven does or they are going to a fiery place forever (which is not even scriptural.
RK
————————
It is not how “Steven” says but how the Church and Jesus says. Jesus also said, “judge with right judgment.” And it was Jesus who stated: Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I tell you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. (St. Luke 13:23-24) and Enter ye in at the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate and how strait is the way that leads to life, and few there are that find it! (St. Matthew 7:13-14)
What was Jesus saying in your opinion?
St. Paul is indicating that it is God who will ultimately be the final judge. Paul also stated, ““O foolish (stupid) Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” And… How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
How many do this?
I think I am in good company:
St. Therese wrote a Christmas play for her sisters, in which the Child Jesus insists, in correction of the Angel of Vengeance, that, ‘every soul will find forgiveness’. On the last day, the Child Jesus will remain “the God of love” who suffered to recompense all of the sins of the entire human race.
Do you have the context of the statement?
Besides taking a simple phrase without any context from someone, can you point to a pope that taught it?
I can point to numerous (vast majority) saints who taught the eternity of Hell and the souls there. I can point to popes who taught the eternity of hell.
What about the saints who actually saw the fire of hell and souls suffering there? Are they all lying?
Check out tentmaker.org and consider the possibility that your conception of the word “saved” may be wrong.
If one were willing to check out the tentmaker.org site they would find articles beyond the abilities of most to have time to read refuting the very idea of a fiery, yet alone endless , pit.
For the first five centuries the very idea of the current conception of hell was not even in existence. As St. Augustine himself admits “The vast majority (plurality) of of men believe in the eventual salvation of all. This from the first great proponent of eternal damnation of the unjust.
… Augustine built the theological structure (of the Church). His most famous writing was The City of God. Now listen to the champion of “Eternal Torment” regarding the view of Christian believers over this matter over four hundred years after Christ’s resurrection: “There are very many (imo quam plurimi, can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments” (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c.29).
You maintain Satan succeeded where God will fail?
If salvation or damnation is so central to your way of thinking Steve, you should be able to find more than one reference to it in the epistles. Love is the essential teaching there.
Your idea of “hell’ is naught but a creation of Augustine and Dante taken from pagan myths.
RK
—————————————————————————-
The vast majority is not everybody. The vast majority don’t believe in Christ at all. Now we have gone through all this before. The real question is who has the final say what is true, Ronald? Vigilius signed off the contents of the council that condemns your position.
But there are two parts to your position. One part is the that you don’t believe that hell is eternal. Second part concerns torture/punishment. Let’s start with the second part. Do you believe God punishes with fire which is the worst kind of torture?
Did Satan succeed and Christ fail when it’s said: “While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.” ?
Steven,
The fire you refer has often been debated among theologians. I believe the concecsus is that it is a spiritual fire as we are talking about the spiritual realm. In the. Apoc. It. States that death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire. This seems to indicate an end to hell , hades, as well as the lake of fire has been agreed upon, by many, as being the lake of fire o gods love.
Having become familiar pope vigilus and that political intrigue surrounding that situation ireally don’t think it was a valid act. It seems much like the Vatican 2 situation.
Too, the accepted , common belief in the first five centuries of the church’s was the eventual salvation of all. The teaching that god loves us all and will save all without infringing on our free sill was the redeeming feature of Christianity.
I find the New Testament epistles extremely negligent. , if an eternal existed to not have been mentioned at all in the epistles. To be important and not written about does demonstrate the weakness of an arquent in favor of such a mythical place.
Do you believe the Church has the final say on what the fire is or means?
Steven,
I will say “Yes” and then go on to point out that many teachings that were popular, but never defined, have evolved and changed over the years in the Church. We are brought up to think this is not true, but a study of the topic will reveal that it is true. Many Catholics will maintain that some teachings did evolve but never contradicted the old teaching. We find the teaching on hell to be one such teaching An unending hell is a contradiction to a limited time of punishment, and to say that a teaching is not binding until defined is to admit that we believe almost nothing with certainty in the Church. Even the teaching on the Trinity has never been formally defined by a pope.
What is popular is not necessarily dogma or even doctrine. We know that some doctrine develops until it’s defined. I’m not sure why you think we were brought up to think otherwise. I wasn’t and that’s from the novus ordo world. As far as what you call “old teaching” such as apokatastasis, I deny it was ever official Church teaching. You can’t point to where it was ever taught except from someone’s opinion. So when I ask who has the final say, your meaning of church teaching is not the same as the Church’s.
I never said a teaching is not binding until defined. Where did you get that? That sounds like the SSPX position. I’ve made it very clear that we are bound to all those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline. I’ve quoted Quanta Cura many times where Pope Pius IX made this clear.
And there over 300 doctrines that have been defined and the Trinity has been formally defined by a pope. Popes have condemned anti-trinitarianism as well. You have the Athanasian Creed which is as clear as it gets on the Trinity and Pope Eugene IV declared that if a person doesn’t believe it “faithfully and firmly, he can not be saved.”
Due to your superior typing skills I will not have the ability to reply to the depths you have; thus I feel at a disadvantage. Let me here make one point, and a quote first:
“In addition, many Catholic beliefs to this day have not been defined by the Church, yet we would still be considered heretics for not believing them. Some examples would be that Guardian Angels exist, that homosexual acts are wrong, that Adam and Eve are the first and sole parents of the human race, and that the soul is created immediately by God. These were never solemnly defined by the Church, yet Catholics would be considered heretics if they did not believe them. These teachings and so many others are taught by the ordinary magisterium rather than the solemn magisterium, and must be believed according to the First Vatican Council.” (from baptismofdesire .com)
As in this post they point out how much we rely on the “ordinary magisterium” and yet for over 500 years the ordinary magisterium taught the restitution of all things. This belief came to be over ridden by popular belief of an unending hell (contrary to scripture as attested to by St. Augustine himself). Thus demonstrating that we cannot rely on what is called the ordinary magisterium of the Church and that we must rely on development of the opinion of the Churches thinking to develop over the centuries to know the truth.
This word “hell” is nothing but a corruption of a German word meaning “covered over” and the only words concerning an afterlife place found in the Bible are “sheol” the grave, “hades” the underworld, and “gehenna” a trash dump to the East of Jerusalem , and of course “Tartaros” a mythical fiery underwood (used once) in the Apocalypse.
You must remember that the word heresy and heretic had a much broader meaning earlier in the Church. Today it’s specifically referring to the rejection of a dogma and those that reject it. Before, it was used to refer to any serious error and those who held one. Ott writes about the subject on the eternity of hell in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. He states, “The “restitution of all things” announced in Acts 3, 21, does not refer to the lot of the damned, but to the renewal of the world which is to take place on the coming-again of Christ. The Fathers before Origen unanimously affirmed the eternal duration of the punishment of hell. cf. St. Ignatius, Eph. 16, 2, ; St. Justin, ApoL I 28. I. Martyrium Polycarpi 2, 3 ; 2: St. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. IV 28, 2; Tertullian, De poenit. 12. Origen’s denial proceeded from the Platonic doctrinal opinion that the purpose of all punishment is the improvement of the delinquent. Origen was followed by St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Didymus of Alexandria and Evagrius Ponticus. St. Augustine defends the endless duration of hell punishment against the Origenists and against “the merciful ones” (St. Ambrose), who, in view of the Divine mercy, taught the restoration of Christians who died in mortal sin. C( De civ. Dei XXI 23; Ad Orosium 6, 7; Enchir. 112.”
Ronald knarr
I refer you to http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/EternalPunishmentNotTrueToGreek.html
and ask you to show me any error therein.
RK
Speray replies: What the link fails to mention is that whenever aionios is combined with zoe(life) in the Greek New Testament, it always means “eternal.” Considering the parallel construction of the phrase, it makes sense to that if aionios means eternal with life, it would mean eternal with punishment.
St. Jerome translated it as: “et ibunt hii in supplicium aeternum iusti autem in vitam aeternam.” I trust he understood the language correctly.
Also, I’ve never heard a Greek Catholic ever complain about the translation as eternal punishment.
RK
In reply to this I ask you to check out this article if you wish to understand the confusion better http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Matthew-25-46-Commentary-Amirault.html
St. Jerome believed in eternal punishment for those not baptized. He did believe that all who are baptized will someday go to heaven. The Church has spoken on the issue, Ronald. I go with the Church and not with opinions that the Church has condemned.
Your reply button would not contain this; so,…
I think I am in good company: St. Therese wrote a Christmas play for her sisters, in which the Child Jesus insists, in correction of the Angel of Vengeance, that, ‘every soul will find forgiveness’. On the last day, the Child Jesus will remain “the God of love” who suffered to recompense all of the … Continue reading The Fewness of the Saved – Most Christians Go to Hell
Do you have the context of the statement?
Besides taking a simple phrase without any context from someone, can you point to a pope that taught it?
I can point to numerous (vast majority) saints who taught the eternity of Hell and the souls there. I can point to popes who taught the eternity of hell.
What about the saints who actually saw the fire of hell and souls suffering there? Are they all lying?
Steven,
I am sorry, but I have found from experience that providing context to you does not bring us any closer to understanding one another. I am confident that you would be able to find “context” with a simple Internet search if you were interested in the topic.
Speray replies: I could not find it on the internet. All I found was many people making the statement with no context. I find that interesting because I doubt that you would find St. Therese implying that hell is not eternal.
To do that, to have that interest, you would first have to have a degree of dis-satisfaction with you current position. Most people are quite happy where they are as any change in one’s beliefs, or even questioning them, leads to emotional reactions that leave them somewhat disturbed. We do not like to be disturbed as it is the easier path to yell louder. That is not an accusation but an observation.
Speray replies: YOu show me where the Church contradicts herself on doctrine and I’ll be the first to leave! However, appearing to contradict is not the same as actually contradicting. There are nuances that must be acknowledged.
On a personal note here I have often found dissatisfaction in the idea that a loving God would toast people “forever” for ( as examples: eating meat on Friday, or missing Mass).
Speray replies: Well you already are missing something. It’s not in the eating meat on Fridays or missing Mass but for disobedience to the laws knowing the consequences.
This flies in the face of Scripture and common sense. God loves us (us all) or he does not love us all. Simple as that. We can rationalize and toss that idea around forever (for ages), but no matter where we end up no man would do that to his worst enemy, and yet we accuse God of being so unjust. One can say, and yes I have heard all the arguments, that God sends no one to hell – they choose it, but we are limiting God if we say he cannot save those he professes to love.
Speray replies: The Bible says [6] For the Most High also hates sinners and will inflict punishment on the ungodly. Sirach 12:6. So God hates, too!
The quote of St. Theresa was merely a reflection that is easily found among many Saints from many centuries, long ago and more current. It seems to me their attitude is to not be missionaries for that point of view, but merely to hold it as a common sense observation of what a loving God is, and to leave each person in the hands of that loving God and not try to mold them to their own beliefs or to openly challenge authority. It is an attitude I like, but I find it difficult to break free of old habits and to try to etch my own beliefs into others minds. It does not work.
Speray replies: According to Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, it was Origin and few others who professed Apocatastasis. It was not all the early Fathers.
You say “I can point to popes who taught the eternity of hell. “ and I am sure you can, and we have been through this road also with the Usury discussion we had. Even our Lord taught that, usury, was wrong but you maintained that ho pope had said that usury was wrong and, as I understand it, you would say that regardless of what our Lord is reported to have said in scripture, and that it is up to the pope to have the final say.
Speray replies: There are nuances and I laid them out.
Popes have contradicted one another. Now “faithful” (properly conditioned) catholics will say these are merely instances of a further development in the understanding of the issue at hand and if that satisfies them then that is where they are, BUT a contradiction is still a contradiction, and what our Lord taught is still what our Lord taught regardless of what men teach.
Speray replies: And I maintain that there are no actual contradictions. Only those that appear so when the nuances aren’t made. I’ll end here because you have too much for me to answer.
I see many similarities among Catholics and Jews regarding how they view perceived teachings of God. From Moses and his appointed judges on, the Jews have held as almost a sacred belief the teachings of their leaders, Rabbis, as teachings from a divinely appointed authority and not challengeable. Due to this Jews have devolved into an almost, if not actual, self worship as a divinely appointed group. Much like the “Catholic” position of “No salvation outside the Church.”
Catholics have followed an almost parallel course in their development. In the early Church there was a great devotion to Scriptures and the meaning therein. Like the Jews Catholics have been pretty thoroughly indoctrinated now to the point where they will not examine their own teachings and the history behind them and rely on their leaders as that final authority and understanders of what they should believe. If their leaders contradict one another we excuse it and say “Well thay have the blessings from God and his divine authority who am I to question it?”
It seems too many “Christians” are exactly like the Jews and we have demonstrated it on numerous occasion by making war against, and burning at the stake, those who disagree with us.
As an aside her I wonder about our country which professes to be Christian. We are continually at war. As I understand it our country has only been not at war for sixteen years of its existence. What a pathetic record! We are constantly expanding (politically and financially) and correcting other countries. It seems very much this is an outgrowth of our “Christian”’ religion. We must expand! We must correct! Because we have the truth and we expect others to not resist our view as it is the correct view and only reasonable of us to expect others to see that. So sad.
You say “I can point to popes who taught the eternity of hell. ? and I know you can and I can point to many saints who said this teachings, on hell, was best taught as it made men more fearful of authorities and that lying was a good thing if it was done for the right purpose.
Here we have a “saint” “Thomas Aquinas “ saying of our loving God “That the saints may enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly, and give more abundant thanks for it to God, a perfect sight of the punishment of the damned is granted them.”
I’m sure you would find great joy seeing a son being fried for not going to Mass or doing a “bad” unkind act?
You say “What about the saints who actually saw the fire of hell and souls suffering there? Are they all lying?
I would doubt that very much they were lying.
There are numerous explanations for what they report. For a start I do not deny or dis-believe what they report. I believe they report what they did, or thought they did, see. Still in not one of those apparitions or dreams etc. that they report do they report on the time frame of the existence of the suffering they were “observing”. The suffering, or picture of “hell”, they saw could have been minutes , hours of years. Certainly not forever as forever does exist it exists only as long as time exists. Forever is a time connected word. No time = no forever. And as scripture points out in Apoc. 10:6 “That time shall be no longer.” From this alone one must conclude that “hell” is not “forever”. Utterly unreasonable.
The other explanations for what some people see in visions and dreams there are numerous explanations. What we believe is often manifested in “supernatural “ experiences. An observation not an explanation, but it does happen.
In today’s world of the Internet we are left in a vacuum as far as research goes as there are few questions the we can ask or not verify by a few simple clicks of the mouse. More important than our ability to access information is the good will involved. I am happy to provide research, but when I believe that the request for information or confirmation of a point, or quote, is asked for, and I know that person could find that information easily themselves I do wonder if I am just being challenged for the sake of argument or is the other person truly unable to find what he is truly looking for.
Too, I would like to comment on the header for your site : The Fewness of the Saved – Most Christians Go to Hell.
Some research here will reveal that quotes concerning the few who would be saved are references of Jesus to the few who would be saved at the destruction of Jerusalem- not the fewness of the Christians who would be saved at the end of their lives. Few among the Jews would be saved, physically, as the Jewish world collapsed around them. The quotes on this topic had nothing to do with any final destruction of the physical world, only the end of the Jewish world. And at the destruction of Jerusalem few were saved and the few who were saved were Christians. The gates of Jerusalem were inexplicably opened by the Romans during the siege and the Christians who had been warned by Jesus did flee as he had warned them too. Article about this at the site previously given.
Steven,
I doubt we will converse much more about this topic, but I do wish you God’s blessing and to see you joyfully in the next life as to be absent from the body is to be present with God is it not?
Post of this as you wish as it would nt fit in your reply space.
Hey Ronald, I wish you the best and hope you go to heaven! You’ve always been a gentleman to me. I would like to correct you about the Bible verse on the absence from the body. Many Protestants use that quote (2 Cor. 5:8) to reject Purgatory, but you and the Protestants are misquoting the verse. The KJV which most Protestants use states: “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” The New American Standard Bible states: “we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”
As you can see the verse from Paul is saying that he would RATHER be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. That’s absolutely true, but it’s not true to say that absence from the body is presence with the Lord. That means there is no hell or purgatory at all for people since they all would be at home in heaven after they leave their bodies.
What can one say Steven? If one is content with the belief that this supreme God will not save all of his creature from this horrible idea of burning people forever, nothing will change their mind but the realization of how evil such a conception is.
From scriptures regarding the prodigal son to the evil doer being cast into prison “UNTIL he has paid the last penny” and our Lord’s prayer that we be forgiven as we forgive others (mot more than, but AS) I cannot climb again onto that boat. I don’t know that
I will not respond further on this topic, but feel free to contact me on my e-mail (knarrrj@ori.net) with your name in the subject field and I will be happy to continue on any topic you show interest in.
We ask Christ to forgive us our sins as we forgive others. And you left out what Christ continued to say… For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matt. 6:14-15)
I will always believe in the eternal fire of hell. I have believed it in my heart and always have. I was quite shocked to find out that some saints actually didn’t believe unholy people will burn forever. I do find the whole thing interesting, I’m glad you have argued your points with me. It has made me look deeper into the whole question.
Lastly, we have the children of Fatima’s testimony. I don’t know if you believe in Fatima, but I don’t know how you could reconcile your position with their’s if you accept that apparition.
SS -We ask Christ to forgive us our sins as we forgive others. And you left out what Christ continued to say… For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matt. 6:14-15)****RK Note what our Lord says “25 Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence UNTILL thou repay last farthing.” A clear indication of the limit of punishment.
A good father will punish until correction is achieved, but to contimue to punish after correction is achieved is nothing more than sadism.****
SS-I will always believe in the eternal fire of hell. I don’t even need the Church to tell me this because I believe it in my heart and always have.****RK- Quite understandable. As the twig is bent so will it grow. What we are taught as children we believe through our lives. To reject such childhood teachings , most find, is to almost seem like a rejection of their own parents in many cases*****
SS- I was quite shocked to find out that some saints actually didn’t believe unholy people will burn for eternity. *****RK- These are people who see in others a goodness in them that their bad deeds cannot hide; thus , they understand that if they can see goodness in the most evil seeming person God can certainly see that underlying goodness. Mud can cover beauty. We must look past the mud. God can wash it off.****
SS- Lastly, we have the children of Fatima’s testimony. I don’t know if you believe in Fatima, but I don’t know how you could reconcile your position with their’s if you accept that apparition. *****RK –Personal apparitions certainly leave one with many mysteries to contend with. I have never heard of one where personal doctrine is taught, not that there may not be some. I can accept much about the Fatima apparitions and am familiar with the “vision of hell”. Nowhere in the story about that vision did I hear anything about the length of time souls spend there. I would guess “until they had paid the last farthing. ****
The point I was making about Fatima is that it is real fire and the souls there suffer beyond our imagination which goes against your idea of punishment. As for paying the last penny or farthing quote in Matt. 5:26, 3 saints thought it referred to purgatory which doesn’t last forever anyway. St. Augustine understood it to mean the debt is to be paid to inflexible justice, the dept can never be paid in full, meaning it’s forever. It’s an expression.
SS- The point I was making about Fatima is that it is real fire and the souls there suffer beyond our imagination which goes against your idea of punishment. ****RK- One cannot have physical fire in a spiritual realm. Theologians recognize this and I know of none who has ever maintained it as anything but a spiritual cleansing. In many places the “fire of God’s love” is spoken of. I doubt he is toasting people with that “fire”.
The apparition at Fatima , and others where fire is portrayed as hell is merely a physical depiction of a spiritual event.
As far as your idea of this concept being against my idea of punishment. You may know more than me. I maintain that the punishment will be as we have sown so will we reap. The punishment / correction will be commensurate with the deed.*****
SS- As for paying the last penny or farthing quote in Matt. 5:26, 3 saints thought it referred to purgatory which doesn’t last forever anyway. *****RK- Catholic theologians did not use that precise word (purgatory) for centuries as the concept of hades, merely the underworld with some correction going on there, was the concept held of the afterlife in general. It was only after the current popular concept of hell, gained prominence, that a word had to be found to replace the old idea of the underworld. Hades took on the idea of a place of permanent place of punishment., and the old concept of hades now became “Purgatory”.Many were turned off by this idea their loved ones would not end up in heaven and were dis-affected. Too placate this dis-affection a new word was attached to allow those formerly assigned (by Theologians) to be in hell to a place of cleansing. The “hell” (hades) of former understanding then became the new purgatory.*****
SS- St. Augustine understood it to mean the debt is to be paid to inflexible justice, the debt can never be paid in full, meaning it’s forever. *****Not necessarily true. St. A. is correct. No one can do that. Even the just man falls seven times a day. Correct? So; do we say that no-one ever will share a beatific vision with God? NO! Our eventual union with God is by his grace and not our efforts. We differ, in as much as I maintain God’s grace extends to each of us, and I gather you think it only extends to those whose works are proper. We can never gain heaven. It is God’s gift.*****
SS It’s an expression.****RK Yes, words fail miserably to express our thoughts do they not?
Still, from all I can find out the currently widely held idea of “hell” is naught but a pagan idea that those who do not believe in a Father God chose in order to cast fear into the masses of people in order to bring under their sway both politically and religiously.
…many of the church leaders in this period (The early church) of time felt that it was good to lie if it was to benefit religion. An example of this is Saint Hilary, who said, commenting on Psalm 15:2, “For a lie is very often necessary and sometimes falsehood is useful.”
I can give you a boatload of expressions just like this from saints and theologians.
You say one can’t have fire in a spiritual realm, but you don’t what’s beyond. According to Our Lady to Mary of Agreda, the man who buffeted our Lord was thrown to hell body and soul. A body is physical right? Our Lord and our Lady have bodies. And according to some testimonies, others were granted the early bodily resurrection.
Now you say that “the punishment / correction will be commensurate with the deed.****”
And the deed is rejecting Almighty God. Blaspheming Almighty God, etc. when given Grace not to do so.. Therefore, eternal hell would be commensurate unless you think less of Almighty God.
As for the Fatima children, they describe in detail what they saw in hell and it’s far worse than what you hold God would do to the damned.
Also, we have Justin Martyr who wrote: No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).
[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (ibid. 52).
As for St. Hilary, I suspect he was speaking about equivocation and they didn’t have that word.
Lastly, I don’t agree with your assessment about Purgatory vs hell. I think the early writings make good distinctions and we have very early writings about eternal hell.
As for St. Hilary, I suspect he was speaking about equivocation and they didn’t have that word.****RK How easily we accept the literal meaning of a persons speech when they agree with us and how much more easily we temporize when they don’t express things to our satisfaction. *****
Lastly, I don’t agree with your assessment about Purgatory vs hell. I think the early writings make good distinctions and we have very early writings about eternal hell.*****I think I have demonstrate that the vast majority of men believed in a universal salvation in the early Church. Sure , many pagans brought their beliefs into the Church and hung onto them after coming into the Church. The lovers of Latin were more apt to accept pagan beliefs than those who hated Greek and Hebrew (such as St. Jerome) as the Greek refutes the Latin acceptance of pagan ideas more easily.
One chooses what they like. That which fits their childhood training and emotional needs. It is not easy to accept new ideas.
You do know about equivocation right?
And you do realize that you’re doing the same thing when I give quotes about literal fire and eternity.
You have not given the vast majority of men believing in universal salvation. It’s the vast minority.
SS I was using him not about the eternity of hell but the fire of hell. But I still don’t agree with the explanation about eternity not being eternity.
RK Much more here
Jesus said “49 I am come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled?”
Do we note a physical fire in this case?
. 20 But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head..
WAs Jesus speaking of a physical fire here?
13 Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. Is a material fire meant here?
6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is placed among our members, which defileth the whole body, and inflameth the wheel of our nativity, being set on fire by hell. Is a material fire spoken of here?
These are merely mataphors for a cleansing action which is what almost all these “fire” terms mean.
Now You say not agreeing“…about eternity not being eternity.”
Let’s start here:
Below is a list of Scriptures which clearly show that many of our leading selling English translations have mistranslated the Greek word “aion” and its Hebrew counterpart “olam.” Surely the Hebrews and Greeks had something entirely different in mind when using these words than how we understand the English words “eternal,” “everlasting,” “for ever and ever,” etc.:
Sodom’s fiery judgment is “eternal” (Jude 7), that is–until–God “will restore the fortunes of Sodom” (Ez.16:53 55);
Israel’s “affliction is incurable” (Jer. 30:12), that is until the Lord “will restore health” and heal her wounds (Jer. 30:17);
The sin of Samaria “is incurable” (Mic. 1:9) that is until Lord “will restore … the fortunes of Samaria.” (Ez. 16:53);
Ammon is to become a “wasteland forever” and “rise no more” (Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27) that is until the Lord will “restore the fortunes of the Ammonites” (Jer. 49:6);
An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord’s congregation “forever”, that is until the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3):
Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were “everlasting”, that is until they “were shattered” Hab. 3:6);
The fire for Israel’s sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be ”perpetual” that is until Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12 13, Heb. 8:6 13);
God’s waves of wrath roll over Jonah “forever,” that is–until- the Lord delivers him from the large fish’s belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17);
Egypt and Elam will “rise no more” (Jer. 25:27) until the Lord will “restore the fortunes of Egypt” (Ez. 29:14) and “restore the fortunes of Elam” (Jer. 49:39).
“Moab is destroyed” (Jer. 48:4, 42) until the Lord “will restore the fortunes of Moab” (Jer. 48:47);
Israel’s judgment lasts “forever” until the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isa. 32:13 15).
So, narrow is the way to life and few find it, that is until His church confiscates the “strong man’s” booty, setting the captives free so God becomes all in all (Isa. 61, Luke 11:21 22, Matt. 7:13; 16:18, 1 Cor. 15:24 28);
The Greek form for “everlasting punishment” in Matthew 25:46 is ”kolasin aionion.” Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means “punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit.” “Aionion” is the adjective form of “aion,” in the singular form and means “pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time.” (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed when bringing the Greek into English, that is, “kolasin aionion” literally punishment everlasting is reversed to everlasting punishment so as to make better sense in English.)
“Aionion,” as shown above, is the singular form of the adjective of the Greek noun “aion.” Many people unfamiliar with the Greek do not realize that the endings of the same word change (inflection) to indicate its mood, case, gender, etc. Therefore, “aionion” may appear with different endings. “Aionion, aioniou, aionios,” for example, are all different inflections of the adjective form of the noun “aion.”
The noun “aion” in Greek literature has always meant “an indeterminate period of time. It could be as short as the time Jonah spent in the belly of a fish (three days or nights even though the KJV has him in the “belly of Hell” “forever,”
“Aionion” is the adjective of the noun “aion.”
Since grammar rules mandate an adjective CANNOT take on a greater force than its noun form, it is evident that “aionion” in any of its adjective forms (ios, ou, on) CANNOT possible mean “everlasting” or anything remotely indicating eternity or unending time.
For example, “hourly” cannot mean “pertaining to days, weeks, months, or years. The word MUST mean “pertaining to an hour.” Therefore, “aionion,” the adjective form of the noun “aion” which clearly means a period of indeterminate TIME, CANNOT mean, “forever and ever, eternal, everlasting, eternity, etc.” or other words which connote timelessness or unending ages.
For example, in the Old Testament the old covenant of the law is referred to as the “everlasting covenant” (Lev. 24:8) implying that it was to endure for eternity. Yet the New Testament records that the first covenant was “done away” and “abolished” 2 Cor. 3:11,13. God “has made the first old” Heb. 8:13. Either God is confused, or else translators have rendered the text inaccurately.
For the Lord does not retain His anger forever because He delights in mercy . most of these quotes from: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Matthew-25-46-Commentary-Amirault.html
Have you ever read a commentary that explains the Catholic position?
SS I was using him not about the eternity of hell but the fire of hell. But I still don’t agree with the explanation about eternity not being eternity. RK Much more here Jesus said “49 I am come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled?” Do … Continue reading The Fewness of the Saved – Most Christians Go to Hell
SS Have you ever read a commentary that explains the Catholic position?
——————————————
RK
Steven,
I clicked on the “comments and the reply link and nothing came up in the comments section. I find that I cannot carry on a coherent, or maybe I should say consecutive discussion on a given topic as comments seem to get mixed as to time of response. That said I will try to comment as I see information that I deem you may want a response on and hope I don’t miss anything you regardimportant.
Too, It seems our exchange does not elicit a response except from one another. That being the case perhaps you may want to suggest we terminate our correspondence and let others have their say on topics of their preference. If others have comments that are not being posted I would like to know what others are thinking.
As to your question “Have you ever read a commentary that explains the Catholic position?” perhaps you would send me a comment or link to what you desire I read.
Your words “… Continue reading The Fewness of the Saved – Most Christians Go to Hell“ that suggest a link to the paragraph these words are included in does not take me to further reading of the topic in the paragraph of that link.
Steven,
There are points made below that strongly lead one to conclude with reasonable certainty that most “beliefs” that most Catholics hold are naught but strongly reasoned arguments that other sincere men can quite logically hold an entirely different opinion on.
I realize that splitting hairs ( argueing fine points to absurdity) can cause bitterness and is of no value really.
Thus, what is written here is no to contest any thing or opinion that you, or your readers may find valuable. This is written merely to offer some points for consideration as each ponders their own arguments for Church teachings.
RK
The Church holds that popes can, in certain instances, when they explicitly intend to do so, teach infallibly in matters of faith and morals. In the entire history of the Church, there are perhaps eight proclamations that meet the stringent requirements for an infallible pronouncement. Most papal teachings are authoritative, but not infallible, calling not for an “assent of faith,” as do infallible teachings, but “the religious submission of intellect and will.”
Is it ever licit for a faithful Catholic to disagree with an authoritative, non-infallible teaching of a pope? Yes. If a person has inquired diligently into the teaching in question, and if after serious prayer and reflection, feels that fraternal correction is in order, then one may express this disagreement publicly as long as: (A) one’s reasons are serious and well-founded; (B) one’s dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church; and (C) the nature of the dissent is not such as to give rise to scandal.
Being confused or disappointed with a pope is a common enough state of affairs in Church history. But Catholics who imagine that they have the authority to set the canonical standard by which the teaching of this or any papacy can be judged are simply showing (A) that they have really been Protestants all along, and (B) that their view of authority is the one that characterizes too much of modern American politics: authority’s job is to do what I say and to crush my opponents.
“In the entire history of the Church, there are
perhaps eight proclamations that meet the stringent requirements for an
infallible pronouncement.”
…ex cathedra is basically a clear statement on a particular topic, made by a particular person, and directed at a particular group of people. That’s all. There have now been 266 popes over the course of 1981 years (32-2013). It does not take much to speak ex cathedra, and though it is not an everyday occurrence, many clear ex cathedra statements have been made. Given the enormous range of years, of different social attitudes, and of popes with different personalities and views, I personally think it is remarkable that Catholics do not have a huge pile of contradictory statements of this form. We should be very thankful.
Francis A. Sullivan SJ says in From Apostles to Bishops that Pope Leo XIII, in his bull Apostolicae curae of 1896, declared Anglican orders null and void. Although Leo did not pronounce this ex cathedra, officials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have recently described Apostolicae curae as an infallible papal declaration.
Robinson said (page 122) that some recent quasi-official opinions hold that when popes constantly repeat the same teaching, there is a point at which this repeated teaching becomes infallible. He says the Second Vatican Council set aside many things that had been consistently taught for more than a thousand years and would by this criterion have been infallible. Either repetition does not make a statement infallible, or the Second Vatican Council is an example of infallible statements being revoked.
RK comment: Other examples of this are the fact that universal salvation was taught by the Christian leaders for centuries as well as re-incarnation (though not under that particular name), and not to forget the forbidding of the practice of usury also for centuries, now commonly practiced even in the Vatican. Etc.
I don’t see anything that you’ve said that’s a true statement except for the fact that we’re not bound to non-infallible non-authoritative papal statements. But you don’t even bind yourself to the infallible ones. You bind yourself to opinions that run contrary to the teaching of the Church. Even your understanding is that opinions from the minority of saints constitutes Church teaching.
SS I don’t see anything that you’ve said that’s a true statement except for the fact that we’re not bound to non-infallible non-authoritative papal statements. But you don’t even bind yourself to the infallible ones. ****Steven. Which one of the, possibly eight, infallible ones do you refer too?****
You bind yourself to opinions that run contrary to the teaching of the Church. *****Name one.****
Even your understanding is that opinions from the minority of saints constitutes Church teaching. ******I see it as you binding yourself to accepted opinion and I feel fre to examine those opinions. ****
8? Ott lays out over 300 de fide teachings in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
SS “Indeed, if all men recognized this (hell), no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, …”
RK,
Let me quote an article I agree with here: “Perhaps this won’t be so well thought out, but here goes. I just saw this and decided to respond. First off, the teaching of Hell most importantly keeps us from loving God. How can one honestly love a god who would punish people eternally for any reason at all? That kind of a god is barbaric, evil, and unforgiving. That kind of god is Satan himself. Well, as for me, that theory of hell was one of the things that turned me away from the traditional church. People who believe in the concept of hell are selfish. They want to think that they themselves, with their awesome free will choice, have chosen heaven, while others who don’t make that same choice roast in hell. And worse yet, they believe that God would rather mankind have free will, even if that very free will would condemn that person to hell.
Now I happen to think that this teaching has caused more people to become atheists than any other. … “ From http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/hell_terrorizes.htm
No “hell” terrorizes and leads souls to hell. It is a doctrine of the devil used to try and control others free will.
Actually, I think the devil is the one who has convinced the world that Hell doesn’t exist forever and with fire.
Also, we have Justin Martyr who wrote: No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve.*****RK And does rejection, even a complete rejection of God fall under your thinking as something to be burnt forever for? Heaven forbid. To be forgiven as we would forgive? What father would ever, even the worst father, ever punish a son for dis-avowing and rebelling against him? Such a punishment would never even enter the mind of a rational person. It would take an insane fiend to think of such a thing. ******
Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).
[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (ibid. 52).
*****RK The words “eternal” here is completely erroneous. I provided a link which examines this thoroughly. You choose to hold to that error when it is easily remedied. What more can I say?****
I was using him not about the eternity of hell but the fire of hell. But I still don’t agree with the explanation about eternity not being eternity.
SS I was using him not about the eternity of hell but the fire of hell. But I still don’t agree with the explanation about eternity not being eternity.
Steven, The simple obvious answer here is Apoc. 10:6 That time shall be no longer. Eternity is a time related word. No time = no eternity.
Too, the word “eternity, its etymology, is a useful tool.
A simple shows this definition Eternity definition, duration without beginning or end.
And we find in the Apooc. that time does come to an end. No time = no eternity.
Again, I was referring to the fire aspect. That’s all. We have two different arguments going on and I don’t want to confuse what we’re discussing.
Steven Speray
Again, I was referring to the fire aspect. That’s all. We have two different arguments going on and I don’t want to confuse what we’re discussing.
RK
If this theoretical question is your concern I’m sorry I missed your concern. You might try an Internet search using “Steven Speray
Again, I was referring to the fire aspect. That’s all. We have two different arguments going on and I don’t want to confuse what we’re discussing.
“Is the fire of hell physical or spiritual? as your key words.
Jay Lowell said,
I believe a careful reading of Matthew 22:36-40 gives all we have to know about the commandments .
and this is just to let Jay know that I agree.
RK
Steven,
Your site leaves me in confusion sometimes as I do not see some things till late. I have not found anything more on At. Theresa’s play but found comments here. The web-site is good and has much insight into St. Theresa’s thinking. Try http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-teaching-of-st-therese-of-lisieux.html
We already know that St. Therese told her novices that they offended God when they thought they would go to Purgatory. That is a very shocking statement: for if this is correct millions of Christians are offending God or at least hurt Him. And yet this is the case. They are focused only on themselves, thinking–not without reason–that they deserve Purgatory. They do not notice God Who is by their side and would love to help them so much. The fact that we fear Purgatory so much also has to do with a rather negative image that we have of God. We, Christians of the 20th Century, were like so many, raised with the image of a strict God, anxious to punish us as often as we deserve it. This thinking goes back to heresies like Jansenism. Quietism, or Calvinism. 14
5. Love banishes fear
The question of whether Heaven will follow right after death is a question of trust. God does not need our merits in order to take us straight to Him but He needs all of our trust. Or the other way around–it is not -our sins that can prevent God from giving us this grace but rather our lack of trust. Therefore, we must draw the conclusion that everything depends solely on trust. There is no trust without perfect love. And vice versa, there is no love without trust.
And this is exactly what the Apostle John writes in his first letter, “In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as He is so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love” (1 Jn. 4:17-18)
.
7. St. Therese’s teaching, a great message for the third millennium
One can rightfully say that Therese is turning all common opinions on Purgatory upside down.22 She wants to appear before God empty-handed and explains why it can be easier for sinners who have nothing to rely upon, to reach Heaven than the great saints with all their merits.. She emphasizes that trust alone is enough, that merits are no guarantee but often an obstacle for the straight way to Heaven, and that sins do not need to be an obstacle. After a ‘messed-up’ life, God can still take one straight to Heaven if the dying person only has trust.
Quoting St. Isaac the Syrian, a 7th-century holy man revered in Russian Orthodoxy as “famous among saints,” Bishop Hilarion noted that “God does nothing out of retribution. Even to think that way about God would be blasphemous. Even worse is the opinion that God allows people to lead a sinful life on earth in order to punish them eternally after death. This is a blasphemous and perverted understanding of God, a calumny of God.”
RK
This is a resend as the first send on this topic did not go through as expected
Steven Speray
Again, I was referring to the fire aspect. That’s all. We have two different arguments going on and I don’t want to confuse what we’re discussing.
RK
If this theoretical question is your concern I’m sorry I missed your point. You might try an Internet search using “Is the fire of hell physical or spiritual?
SS Do you believe God punishes with fire which is the worst kind of torture?
RK let’s start with an English dictionary on fire: Fire is
dynamism, energy, vigor, animation, vitality, vibrancy, exuberance, zest, elan; passion, ardor, zeal, spirit, verve, vivacity, vivaciousness; enthusiasm, eagerness, gusto, fervor, fervency; informal pep, vim, go, get-up-and-go, oomph.3 rapid machine gun fire, legislature: criticism, censure, condemnation, denunciation, opprobrium, admonishments, brickbats; hostility, antagonism, animosity; informal flak.
If there were further comments I missed them. Hope all is well and that no offense was given in our exchange.
I don’t think there are any more comments and no offense was given or taken. You’re welcome anytime. Thank you for the challenges. I get an education every time you comment. Godspeed!
I only wish there were a wider variety of those commenting, as, like you seem too, I get an education from each person who comments.
The only problem would be time. I have so little and it takes so much.
That is appreciated. It just seemed odd to me that with so many comments prior to our exchange that someone, or somehow, didn’t;t have one comment about either of our views. A balanced comment from some of them might have sparked more depth of each of our views.
Steven, Perhaps you would be interested in researching further into our topic at by using these key words “saints who were universalists”? ————————————————————————-
I will when I get more time. I’m swamped with work, emails, etc. I’ve got Novus Ordo-ites emailing me about how sedevacantism is a sect. Lol. Their arguments are 5th grade level.
Sounds like a plateful. No rush here, and your wish to counter lies and deceit are the same as my motivations. I may have time you do not. If I can help please let me know. RK ———————————————————————
Steve, Realizing the preciousness of your time just delete now if you hope for anything revelatory. I just read this and thought it worth passing on. Blessed Julian of Norwich (1342-1416) was a great mystic who lived in England during the days of the Black Death. Life was very difficult at that time, with famines and pestilences, wars, and the constant shadow of death hovering over all things. Naturally, the church tended to focus its preaching on themes of death, judgment, the wrath of God, and the horrors of hell. Julian asked God to reveal Himself to her in a near-death experience, and she got her wish: She fell ill with the Plague and almost died, whereupon she saw visions that profoundly affected her life and led her to write two books — the first ever written by a woman in the English language. After recovering from her illness, she dedicated herself to a life of contemplation and prayer as an anchoress, occupying a cell adjoining the church in the town where she lived. In her book called The Revelations of Divine Love, she described Jesus as a joyful and compassionate Savior: “Glad and merry and sweet is the blessed and lovely demeanour of our Lord towards our souls, for he saw us always living in love-longing, and he wants our souls to be gladly disposed toward him…. [B]y his grace he lifts up and will draw our outer disposition to our inward, and will make us all at unity with him, and each of us with others in the true, lasting joy which is Jesus.” Julian was troubled by the question of what would befall those who had never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The answer she received was that whatever God does is done in love, and therefore “that all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”
Julian’s visions were of a God of love who cares deeply about all beings and promises to save everyone. In one vision, she saw God as our clothing, wrapping us tenderly in His love. In another vision she saw God holding what looked to be a small brown hazelnut in His hand, and she knew that this tiny seed was the entire created universe! Though it seemed so fragile and insignificant, she understood that it would continue always because God loves it — all that exists is loved and has its being by God’s love. She was told, “God made it, God loves it, God keeps it.” Receiving this revelation brought a deep sense of rest and happiness to her soul, knowing that nothing could separate her or anyone else from the magnificent love of God.
https://christianuniversalist.org/resources/articles/history-of-universalism/
There is much written that is beneficial, and I find that even the most honest of men, whether Catholic or protestant, fail in considering the value at the core of the writers intentions, and each is usually biased in favor of the traditional way of thinking they have been brought up in. Common sense and prayer and allowing each persons ideas to be looked at charitably seems the best way to see the truth. I cling to the Catholic teachings as much as I can see what those teachings are, but one person, or group say to cling to what we have received in our lifetime (as those are what has been handed down to us) and others say to hold onto only defined dogma. On top of that I find many more ideas of what constitutes being a “good” Catholic means. Probably St. Paul’s admonition is the best advice “Test all things and cling to that which is good.” Truth need never fear challenge, but often it is uncomfortable to live with. God’s blessing and sleep well, RK ——————————————————————————————
SS The only problem would be time. I have so little and it takes so much.
RK Yes To maintain your site would take a great deal of time to do it intelligently. That is one of the reasons I speculated that adding a few more of others comments might relieve you of all of the burden.
Fortunately, being retired I have more time to devote to research and correspondence.
If you or your readers have further comments I would enjoy reading them.
Can your books be bought on Amazon?
Yes, but I would rather you not support Amazon. If you buy from my bookstore here, I’ll give you 20% discount. Thanks!
I took your advice and went to LULU. Amazon told me “The Key to the Apocalypse” was out of print. I must say you are much younger then I thought. So far I find it well researched but the back cover picture is so grim.
Thanks Jay, that was my intention. Lol.
“most Christians go to Hell” Isn’t that an oxymoron. None of Christ sheep are in Hell or will go to Hell. No follower of Christ goes to Hell. If you follow Christ and obey the Father you will have everlasting life. That is the Christian path if you leave that path you are not a Christian
There is such a thing as a bad Christian. Most Christians end up dying in mortal sin. Now, once they die then you can say they are no longer Christ’s sheep because they are no longer part of the visible Church. So, it’s not an oxymoron because you and I don’t know who is and is not in mortal sin. As far we know, Christ’s visible members may be in mortal sin. Would you say they are not Christians? Neither you nor I, nor even the Church knows the hearts of men. Only those who visibly leave the Church through heresy, schism, etc., etc. are no longer considered members of the Church.
Do you agree?
@Jay Lowell
You cannot belong to Christ if you reject parts of His revelation and/or don’t adhere to His Church (St.Matthew. 28:20; St.Matthew. 18:17). That means you cannot belong to Christ if you reject the Papacy (St.Matthew.16:18-19) or the Eucharist (St.John 6:53) or Confession (St.John 20:23) or that justification is not by faith alone (St.James 2:24), etc. Non-Catholics who claim to follow Christ actually reject His teaching in many areas.They are thus not of Christ.
St. Ambrose (389): “Even the heretics appear to have Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ; yet, anyone who does not confess all that pertains to Christ does in fact deny Christ.”
Please watch the video on youtube called:
“Pastor” Steven Anderson Exposed – Documentary
uploader is vaticancatholic
I’ve met thousands of people in my life from all over the world. I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who is going to Heaven. But I believe many go to purgatory, much more than many of the Saints and Fathers of the Church believe. No Saint is infallible and like the Apostles ( Matt. 19:25-26) we cannot understand the things of heaven completely. I also believe that the Saints because of their holiness are attacked by evil to such a degree that they could fall into error and make pronouncements that are incorrect. A case in point, Padre Pio had stated that a certain soldier had died in the war, but the soldier came home to his family unharmed, God allowed the good Father to be wrong. I understand my view is not a popular one but if I had to put my chips on down, I would have to bet on God’s mercy rather then his righteous anger.
I’m going with what Jesus and our first pope said:
“For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate and how strait is the way that leads to life, and few there are that find it!” (St. Matthew 7:13-14)
“If the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly man and the sinner appear?” (I St. Peter 4:18)
As for Padre Pio, I’m not sure if he was a good father.
I got the impression in your book TKttA that you didn’t hold Padre Pio up as a candidate for Sainthood because of his belief in Garabandal is that a fair assessment.?
It’s actually several things, but his love for the heretical book The Poem of the Man/God is huge! Garabandal is not really one of them although it doesn’t go in his favor. Not saying he’s not in heaven, but I think raising him to the altar to be imitated is too far considering the anomalies and contradictions.
This is so depressing. I have a big family of non-believers, one gay brother, so many people I love almost certainly going to hell in light of this.
Chesterton said the secret of Catholicism is our joy — upon learning all this, how many people I see each day that are probably going to be eternally gnashing teeth, is beyond disheartening. Certainly drains me of any joy. How does anyone reconcile this and maintain a semblance of joy?
This is an awful thought, but it makes me think you’re better off killed in childhood or even aborted…
I maintain my joy by knowing that God loves me, died for me, and will share His Glory with me. Those who will be eternally lost is due to their own decision. They deserve hell for rejecting God and His love. That’s why hell is so bad. God is so great, so full of love…He is love and life itself.
I love my family and friends, but I also know that they many of them won’t make it. I understand that when I get to heaven (hoping with moral assurance) I’ll see that those who I loved on earth deserved the eternal fires of hell for what they chose. I won’t feel sad for them because God’s love will be far greater.
Jerome,
May I direct you to http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/
and this article
“Eternal” Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language .
I certainly sympathize with your outlook.
I disagree. It’s is true. The tentmaker website is heretical.
Steven,
You say I did not answer your question . My apologies. Which specific question did I fail to answer.
Does God infinitely love those whom His places on his Left? Remember, in John, Jesus says they will go to be burned with fire. Although, you don’t believe hell is eternal, it’s still fire. God still punishes souls for a very long time in fire. Seems to go against your belief that God is infinite love.
RK
Steven, You say I did not answer your question . My apologies. Which specific question did I fail to answer.
SS
SS Does God infinitely love those whom His places on his Left? Remember, in John, Jesus says they will go to be burned with fire. Although, you don’t believe hell is eternal, it’s still fire. God still punishes souls for a very long time in fire. Seems to go against your belief that God is infinite love.
RK
Both points were addressed previously Steven. I realize when one has convictions that one is not inclined to read objections carefully; however, if one decides not to just cast others viewpoints aside and, instead respond, it behooves that person to read the material more carefully as questions may have already been answered. Still here are the answers, but without the references previously mentioned.
First: SS“Does God infinitely love those whom His places on his Left?” Bible verses were provided to show such is the case.
Secondly: SS“. Although, you don’t believe hell is eternal, it’s still fire.”
God still punishes souls for a very long time in fire. Seems to go against your belief that God is infinite love. “
A couple of issues here A “eternity” and B “punishment”.
Point A: we have rehashed this until it is obviously a point that you choose to see as valid in spite of the fact that the word eternity , as translated in the bible comes from the Greek “aeon” meaning a long period of time. Examples abound in scripture in the bible where a thing is said to last forever but does not as we have been through before.
Point B: To punish does not mean a lack of love. To quote fro a source you are not fond of (but have never shown to be in error):
The Greek form for “everlasting punishment” in Matthew 25:46 is ”kolasin aionion.” Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means “punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit.” “Aionion” is the adjective form of “aion,” in the singular form and means “pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time.” (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed when bringing the Greek into English, that is, “kolasin aionion” literally punishment everlasting is reversed to everlasting punishment so as to make better sense in English.)
There is a great deal of difference, an infinite difference, between corrective punishment and torture without reprieve. Love is expressed in one as it is done for the betterment of the person. The other is torture, pure and simple insanity, for no possible purpose except for the perverted pleasure of insane minds
A third issue that should be considered is “fire”. This is a highly symbloic term in many languages. It usually indicates a period of severe stress or hardship. “A trial by fire” is a common expression in English. In Hebrew or Greek it becomes even more symbolic / figurative.
Best Wishes,
RK
———————————————————
Thank you!
Steven Speray
That’s total nonsense and you didn’t answer my question.
July 21, 2018
Steven,
I did answer your question again, but I do not see it posted. Possibly lost in transmission? I will keep my correspondence to you in a saved fille in case something does get lost in the future.
Holding that to the side, your response to my sheep and goats analysis of it being “total nonsense”, aside from being insulting, shows a lack of introspection on your part. “nonsense” is something that makes no sense. The article was very detailed and went from point to point quite logically. To dismiss something as illogical, or as you have in the past as heretical, shows you to be relying on buzzwords (Buzzword definition is – an important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen.)
This lacks argumentation as no reasons are used to refute what was said. Unless you can produce an argument that shows falseness or poor reasoning in that post I sent to you I must maintain that it was well reasoned and was refused consideration due to strongly held prior beliefs.
RK
It’s way too much to answer and completely useless to do so. There’s nothing logical about it.
Not a well thought out response Steven. The longer the article the easier it should be to find fault. Yet you found nothing. Does this speak of possible fault in the epistle or the reasoning ability of the critic?
Ok, I’ll give you a few points. Your commentary states: “the Scriptures clearly show that the coming of Christ in his kingdom and glory, took place in the days of the primitive Christians, and that some who listened to his instructions lived to witness his coming, in the spiritual manifestation of his truth.”
They base this on their private interpretation of Scripture verses Matt 16:28 where they take literally a metaphor. Then they use Matt. 10:23 and state, “Here is a positive assertion from the lips of the Savior, that the disciples should not go over the cities of Israel, before the coming of the Son of man should take place.” But that’s absurd. “Cities of Israel” means the people of Israel and they come in last. The Gentiles first.
They’ve totally have the Coming of Jesus in His Glory wrong! The Scriptures are abundantly clear that He has not yet come in his Glory and won’t do so until the end of time. The way they have taken the Scriptures out of context is amazing.
RK
Not a well thought out response Steven. The longer the article the easier it should be to find fault. Yet you found nothing. Does this speak of possible fault in the epistle or the reasoning ability of the critic?
SS
OK. I’ll give you a few points. Your commentary states: “the Scriptures clearly show that the coming of Christ in his kingdom and glory, took place in the days of the primitive Christians, and that some who listened to his instructions lived to witness his coming, in the spiritual manifestation of his truth.”
They base this on their private interpretation of Scripture verses Matt 16:28 where they take literally a metaphor. Then they use Matt. 10:23 and state, “Here is a positive assertion from the lips of the Savior, that the disciples should not go over the cities of Israel, before the coming of the Son of man should take place.” But that’s absurd. “Cities of Israel” means the people of Israel and they come in last. The Gentiles first. ***** That is your private interpretation. Correct? Cities are cities. This is sometimes translated as towns, but I have never read of a scripture scholar giving it a meaning outside of “centers of habitation”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not my private interpretation. It comes from the COMMENTARY OF CORNELIUS À LAPIDE.
Too we are not here talking about the Jews conversion, rather their being preached to by the apostles
RK We tend to choose the interpretation we were previously convinced of is the correct one. The one that fits in with our long held beliefs.
SPERAY REPLIES: Correct, but the bible is to be read according to the faith, not according to what we want or what we think if it goes against the faith.
What is the obvious choice here? Is there an indication of what is meant by the subsequent events or not? What is the context of a particular parable or dissertation? This is essential in order to understand the meaning of any further comments of our Lord.*****
SS They’ve totally have the Coming of Jesus in His Glory wrong! The Scriptures are abundantly clear that He has not yet come in his Glory and won’t do so until the end of time. The way they have taken the Scriptures out of context is amazing.
*****RK I don’t note a particular quote that is taken out of context. Where?
SPERAY REPLIES: All of it. They twist everything to their own destruction.
Too, as an aside, it is interesting you refer to “…the end of time” No time= no eternity. There can be no eternal hell is there is no time. This verse alone should put your mind at rest as to an unending fire.*****
SPERAY REPLIES: This is not correct. Eternity is the forever now. End of time means time as we know it ends.
As far as the end of the world, judgments, punishments, etc., they all seem to me and to a growing body of scripture researchers that they pertain to the end of Jews power in this world.
SPERAY REPLIES: Scripture researchers? How about the Catholic Church’s teaching?
Their worship, temple, civil authority and most customs were taken away from them in the cataclysm that occurred within the lifetime of many of those listening to Jesus per Jesus’ foretelling. Even the book of Revelation/ Apocalypse is being found by more and more evidence to have been composed prior to Jerusalem ruin and pertains to that destruction alone except the last few chapters which seem to be about an indefinite future in the far away.
St. Paul assures us over and over in his epistles that nothing can separate us from God. You seem to say that may be true but we can separate ourselves from him by our attitude. In other words you say that something can separate us from God. I go with St. Paul.
SPERAY REPLIES: St. Paul is talking about those whom God justifies. In fact, St. Paul says, “If God is for us, who is against us?” which implies that there are some who are not justified and are not in the love of Christ.
It is further written that God wills our welfare. You seem to say that “but we can separate ourselves from him” by our attitude. Our attitude then is greater than the will of God. It is further written that what God wills he brings about. You deny this.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re preaching a form of Calvinism, except they believe God only does to the saved what you think He does to every person. There are two wills of God. His permissive will allows us to choose against Him. The Bible tells us that we can separate ourselves from Him many times. It’s all over the place.
Not surprising to me is that in all of the Old testament and especially in the Epistles, where one might expect to find it if it was important at all, any warning about a never ending place of punishment.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s your private interpretation of Matt. 25:46. I go by the interpretation of the Church and most of the Church fathers. Granted a hand few believed as you say but the Church condemned it.
Fear is a poor instrument to bring about a satisfactory end to any endeavor. We have no need to fear our God. His love remains when ours fails.
Best wishes,
*****
RK
July 22, 2018
I learned a lot from this website, and I was able to draw some conclusions about our destiny from its words, which I will share below. The most poignant thing I learned was that, according to a reliable source on this site, only about 1 in 20,000 souls will be saved! That means if you live in, say, Chicago, which has about 3 million people, only 150 of you will be saved! One particularly important thing I learned is that, if you want to avoid hell, don’t live like the “herd” majority of people today. We’ve all got to get busy keenly observing the lives and habits of all those around us—our dear family members (including our children), our friends, even the kindly neighbor next door—sniffing out all signs of wickedness, learning what not to be, so we don’t end up being like them. Because here’s what is in store if we are one of those one in 19,999 (according to a reliable source):
Think about what’s at stake regarding hell. Imagine the land mass of the United States covered with a mile high pile of finely-grained sand—quadrillions upon quadrillions of grains of sand, to the nth power. Now, imagine that once every trillion years, one grain of this sand is taken away. After another trillion years, another. Imagine this process going on until every single grain of this mile-high pile of sand is finally gone. This unfathomable amount of time would not even register as the slightest tick of the clock of eternity. To get a sense of what would be happening all the while, place your hand close to a hot bed of barbecue coals. You can only do it for a very brief instant before a shock of pain makes you recoil. The damned would be lying on a bed of coals like that. There would be no destruction of nerve endings, so this intensity of pain would not cease. It would be inhumane and tasteless to describe what it is really like to witness someone burning alive—the startling involuntary twitching of the viscera, the deeply disturbing animal barks of agony. But if this is what is at stake for almost everyone, that we have to prepare ourselves for it.
But don’t worry: Even if you somehow make it to heaven, and you see your dear friends and family enduring the unendurable, it won’t bother you—in fact, you will exult in God’s justice!
Isn’t it true?
“We shall find out at the day of judgment that the greater number of Christians who are lost were damned because they did not know their own religion.”
— We need to get on the job of teaching everyone their religion,
because, according to it, if they have no chance of going to heaven (ok,
they have a 1 in 20,000 chance. . . ), they need to get mentally prepared
for the horror to come.
Something else I learned today: Some popes and most bishops and priests go to hell. This is good to know, because I know a couple young men who want to be priests, which, by this knowledge, means they will dial down their chances of being save considerably from the already grim 1 in 20,000 chances.
Been thinking about things:
“With the exception of those who die in childhood, most men will be damned.”
–A Christian could do no greater service to God than to lead
a soul to heaven. You are exercising great charity, then,
by killing your children while they are quite young, before
they can sin. Abortionists, in fact, should be seen as the
greatest benefactors to mankind, since look at how many
souls they send to heaven. In fact, if we could adhere to
this practice, we could incrementally eradicate the human
race and not have to worry about this stuff. And since we
only have a 1 in 20,000 chance to get into heaven—in
other words, no chance (this is explained later in the
post), killing our children won’t matter much to our souls
anyway.
The Heavenly Numbers:
“Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell.” (1 in 10,000)
“When I was presented before the Tribunal of God, sixty thousand people arrived at the same time from all parts of the world; out of that number, three were saved by going to Purgatory, and all the rest were damned.” (1 in 20,000)
–200 some odd people have been moved enough to reply
to this post. Statistically, you are all damned. So sorry.
The good news is that this website contains some very sharply-defined terms and conditions that give us a crystal clear idea of the spiritual maladies that lead to hell. I submit to you a few:
1) “They who are to be saved as Saints, and wish to be saved as imperfect souls, shall not be saved.”
2) “our sins darken our understanding”
3) “there are only two roads: one that leads to life and is narrow; the other that leads to death and is wide. There is no middle way.”
4) “The greater portion of mankind lives in sin unto the devil, and not unto Jesus Christ.”
5) “If thou wouldst be certain of being in the number of the elect, strive to be one of the few, not of the many. And if thou wouldst be quite sure of thy salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few… Do not follow the great majority of mankind, but follow those who enter upon the narrow way, who renounce the world, who give themselves to prayer, and who never relax their efforts by day or by night, that they may attain everlasting blessedness.”
6) “people send themselves there because they don’t truly love God in word and deed.”
It all comes down to believing. Close your eyes, concentrate, and think really hard about the meaning of that word: believing. Got it? Because, even though your chances are practically non-existent, believing offers you at least a glimmer of hope. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that just being a decent, upright, kind, hand-lending, peaceful, deeply human person will get you into heaven!
As a final thought, consider the awful predicament of those who, unlike us, are not cognizant of this razor sharp idea that at least offers the faintest glimmer of hope in a nearly hopeless situation:
We were so fortunate to be born in the bosom of the Roman Church, in Christian and Catholic kingdoms, a grace that has not been granted to the greater part of men, who are born among idolaters, Mohammedans, or heretics. […] How thankful we ought to be, then, to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, in Africa, in America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. He who does not believe shall be condemned. And thus, probably, we also would have been lost.”
Everyone who truly loves God will be saved. Most don’t and that’s why they are damned. Believing by itself doesn’t save at all for even demons believe. As for those who’ve never heard of Jesus, Pope Pius IX said “that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord who knows the heart and the thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer anyone to be lost forever without his own fault.” Almighty God, who is just condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, either by natural or supernatural means.
Steven, Tis sad to see someone who professes to have the “truth” to mislead so many about a God who loves us. You choose m wrongly interpreted words to try to convince others of God’s finite love for us instead of his infinite love for us.
Romans 8: 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. This means all of us as is made clear in the previous verses.
Better a bitter truth than a sweet lie. [Finnish)
“Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, but to weigh and consider.”
Sir Francis Bacon
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle’ We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
Carl Sagan
I was quoting Rev. Michael Muller which you apparently also think is wrong. It’s not about a God who loves us but a people that hates God. You quote St. Paul in Romans 8:39, but you don’t quote Jesus in John 15:6 when He states, “If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.” In verse 14, Jesus says, “You are my friends IF you do what I command you.”
What if you don’t do what He commands? What if you don’t abide in Jesus?
Jesus continues in verse 23, “He who hates me hates my Father also.” It’s about men hating God, Ronald.
St. John teaches in I John 3:14-15: “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”
We must love God and our neighbor.
I have a question for you, Ronald. Jesus said in Matt. 25:32: “And all nations shall be gathered together before him: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
33. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36. Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
38. Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
39. Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
40. And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41. Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
42. For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink.
43. I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.
44. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee?
45. Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.”
Does God infinitely love those He places on His left?
1) 1Tim 2:4 God will have all to be saved. (KJV) Can His will be thwarted?
SPERAY REPLIES: The “will” here doesn’t mean what you’re suggesting. If all will be saved, then none will be lost but Jesus says there will be those who will be lost. The verse means that it’s His will that all will be saved because He created all to be saved, but His permissive will will let those who reject Him be lost. IN fact, your interpretation makes God out to be a puppet master.
2) 1Tim 2:4 God desires all to come to the knowledge of truth. Will His desire come to pass?
SPERAY REPLIES: Already answered above.
3) 1Tim 2:6 Salvation of all is testified in due time. Are we judging God before due time?
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s not what it says. God does redeem all which means He saves them from absolutely going to hell. Now all have a chance. Big difference from how you interpreted it.
4) Jn 12:47 Jesus came to save all. Will He succeed?
SPERAY REPLIES: He did succeed already. He saved all from absolutely going to hell. It’s called redemption.
5) Eph 1:11 God works all after the counsel of His will. Can your will overcome His?
SPERAY REPLIES: You missed the point. He allows evil to bring about good.
6) Jn 4:42 Jesus is Savior of the world. Can He be Savior of all without saving all?
SPERAY REPLIES: You missed the point. He did save the world but not as you think.
7) 1Jn 4:14 Jesus is Savior of the world. Why don’t we believe it?
SPERAY REPLIES: I do believe it. He already saved the world at the cross but He didn’t grant eternal salvation to the world. The point you miss.
8) Jn 12:32 Jesus will draw all mankind unto Himself To roast or to love?
SPERAY REPLIES: Jesus does draw all men by grace but man can reject it. The point you seem not to understand.
The Sheep & Goats Story
We pass now to give what we regard as the correct interpretation of the text and context. The passage before us is the closing part of the parable of the sheep and goats, which is found in connection with a series of illustrations, which composed one unbroken discourse, recorded in the 24th and 25th chapters of Matthew.
All that is recorded in the parable was to be fulfilled, as the 31st verse of the context informs us: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.” This language is highly figurative, and cannot therefore bear, as many have erroneously supposed, a literal interpretation. In the sense in which this language was originally employed, the Scriptures clearly show that the coming of Christ in his kingdom and glory, took place in the days of the primitive Christians, and that some who listened to his instructions lived to witness his coming, in the spiritual manifestation of his truth.
For proof upon this point, we refer the reader to the 27th and 28th verses of the 16th chapter of Matthew, which read as follows:
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
The coming of Christ here spoken of, we think, is the same as is referred to in the 31st verse of the context. In both cases his coming is spoken of as a glorious event; he is represented as being attended with angels, and coming to reward men according to their works. He indicated the nearness of the event by saying, “There be some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Similar phraseology is found at the 1st verse of the 9th chapter of Mark:
“And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”
According to the declaration of the great Teacher, some who listened to his instructions should live to see the kingdom of God come with power, or the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Language similar to this may be found in Luke 9:27:
“But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.”
Jesus, in imparting instruction to his disciples in regard to the same event, employed the following language:
“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another; for verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come.” Matt. 10:23.
Here is a positive assertion from the lips of the Savior, that the disciples should not go over the cities of Israel, before the coming of the Son of man should take place.
These Scriptures have an important bearing upon the subject before us, as they show when the Son of man came in his kingdom and in his glory. This point established, we know when the events spoken of in the parable of the sheep and the goats took place. He came during the lifetime of some who heard him speak. Not that he came personally, for he never claimed that he would come thus; but he would come in his kingdom and glory, and in the glory of his Father; he would come by the manifestation of his grace and truth. Archbishop Newcome says:
“That any signal interposition in behalf of his church, or in the destruction of his enemies, may be metaphorically called a coming of Christ.”
Kenrick says:
“When the prophet Isaiah represents God as about to punish the Egyptians, he speaks of him as riding upon a swift cloud for that purpose. (Isa. 19:1). In that case there was no visible appearance of Jehovah upon a cloud; but it is the language which the prophet adopted, in order to express the evident hand of God in the calamities of Egypt. The same thing may be said of the language of Christ upon the present occasion.”
There was such an intimate connection between the establishment of Christ’s kingdom, and the breaking of the Jewish power, that those events are spoken of simultaneously, and one had such an important bearing upon the other, that they are associated together, and embraced in the same purpose as means and ends. Doubtless the destruction of that ill-fated city entered into the divine purpose, as a means to the advancement of the Word of God, inasmuch as it crippled the persecuting power of the Jews, weakened their opposition to the cause of Christ, so that the Word of God could have free course and be glorified. It entered into the divine purpose as a means to the better establishment of the kingdom of God; but that destruction did not constitute the main object of Christ’s coming, and formed no part of his glory. It removed one great obstacle to the establishment of Christianity. Christ’s kingdom here refers to the dispensation of grace and truth manifested to the world through him. And we have already seen, that some who heard him speak were to live to see the kingdom of God come with power. The kingdom of God refers here to the system of religion Christ came to establish, the gospel kingdom, which was not fully established till the persecuting Jews were humbled by the destruction of their magnificent city, their power broken, and they subjugated and dispersed. Then the kingdom of God was fully established in the earth, the Word of God run, had free course, and was glorified, and converts were multiplied to the faith of the Lord Jesus.
It is evident that Christ did not expect his kingdom would fully come, till the Mosaic economy should end, which did not occur till Jerusalem was destroyed, the civil polity of the Jews was taken away, their temple demolished, their altars laid in ruins, and they brought into subjection to another power. Then should Christ’s spiritual kingdom be set up in the earth, and established on the ruins of Judaism. He came with power to demolish the reign of Judaism, and in glory to establish his own spiritual kingdom.
The destruction of Jerusalem was to the disciples a deeply interesting event, for, to them, it was a sign that the kingdom of God should come with power. That we are correct upon this point, appears evident from the language of Luke, chapter 21 verses 24-32, inclusive, where the destruction of that city is foretold in the following language:
“And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads: for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable: Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.”
This language throws much light upon the subject. After the disciples were instructed concerning the Signs which should precede the destruction of that ill-fated city, Christ says, ” So likewise Ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the KingDom Of God Is Nigh At Hand.” The kingdom of God should immediately succeed the downfall of that city. Then the disciples should lift up their heads, “for your redemption draweth nigh.” That is, they were to be delivered from those severe persecutions to which they had been subject for embracing the truth. Their persecutors were humbled, and the kingdom of God was more successfully preached. Dr. Barnes comments thus, on the phrase, “Kingdom of God nigh at hand:”
“That is, from the time God will signally build up his kingdom. It shall be fully established when the Jewish polity shall come to an end; when the temple shall be destroyed, and the Jews scattered abroad. Then the power of the Jews shall come to an end; they shall no longer be able to persecute you; and you shall be completely delivered from all these trials and calamities in Judea.”
Having thus learned when. Christ was to come in his kingdom, and in the glory of his Father, we ascertain when all the events spoken of in the parable of the sheep and goats took place. We are now prepared to understand the preceding context.
In the preceding chapter, we learn that Jesus had spoken of the destruction of Jerusalem and the terrible fate that awaited the inhabitants of that magnificent city. The disciples desiring more information concerning the fearful calamity to which the Master had alluded, familiarly addressed him in the following language: “Tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world ?” (aion) or Age. The word here translated world is aion, from which aionios, rendered everlasting in the text is derived.
We read of the end of the world, or aion, in 1 Cor. 10:11, Heb. 9:26. This cannot mean eternity, for eternity has no end! The discourse of our Lord recorded in the 24th and 25th chapters of Matthew, contains a full reply to these queries of the disciples. The gospel of the kingdom was to be proclaimed very extensively prior to the destruction of that great city, though not as successfully as afterward. While many would remain faithful to the Master’s cause, others, through severe persecution, would turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements of Judaism. From the 5th to the 28th verse, inclusive, of the 24th chapter, Jesus enumerates the Signs which should precede the destruction of Jerusalem; and at the 29th verse, he predicts its downfall by saying that the sun should be darkened, the stars fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens should be shaken. This was in accordance with the ancient mode of speech. Fearful calamities and temporal national judgments were indicated by representing great convulsions in nature. See Isa. 13:10; 34; Ezek. 32; Joel 2.
Jesus then indicates the nearness of the events by the “Parable of the fig tree:” ” When it putteth forth leaves we know that summer is nigh; so likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.”
By this similitude, the disciples were instructed in regard to the end of the world, (aion) or age. And to impress this truth still more sensibly upon their minds, he confines the fulfillment of all the things he had mentioned to that generation; verse 34—”Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.” Upon this passage. Dr. Whitby comments as follows:
“These words, this age or generation shall not pass away, afford a full demonstration that all which Christ had mentioned hitherto, was to be accomplished, not at the time of the conversion of the Jews, or at the final day of judgment, but in that very age, or whilst some of that generation of men lived; for the phrase never bears any other sense in the New Testament, than the men of this age.”
The Son of man should come with power and great glory, and should send forth his angels, or ministers, or apostles, to gather together such as had been faithful in different places, where the gospel of the kingdom had been preached. Those who professed his religion are compared to ten virgins; those who were wise gave heed to his instructions, while the foolish turned away from the truth. The object of this parable was to inculcate watchfulness, which is followed by another concerning the talents, the moral of which is faithfulness. Then the parable of the sheep and goats is introduced, the object of which is to represent the separation that should take place between the wise and faithful and the foolish and unfaithful. Those who remained true and faithful should inherit the gospel kingdom, while those who opposed the gospel and persecuted the disciples, were to suffer in the general calamities which were to come upon the nation. The Christians who were in the enjoyment of gospel privileges, were said to be on the right hand, while the enemies of Christ being in a state of condemnation and misery, were said to be on the left hand. This simply represents the different conditions of the friends and enemies of the truth. The prominent opposers of the Savior’s religion, were called the devil and his angels; and after they had filled up the measure of their iniquities, they were to suffer age-lasting punishment, while the righteous, or faithful Christians were in possession of age-lasting life, a spiritual life they enjoyed as long as they remained faithful. The subject had no reference to the immortal resurrection world, but exclusive application to this life. The eternal life is the life the believer enjoys in this world by being brought to the knowledge of the truth. “This is life eternal that they might know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3. “He that believeth on the Son Hath everlasting life.” John 3:36, and 6:47. The true Christian believer lives Now in the enjoyment of everlasting life.
Thus we see that it is not necessary to go into the future world to enjoy everlasting life, for the true Christian believer is in possession of everlasting life; neither are men obliged to go into the immortal state of existence to suffer everlasting punishment. Both can be experienced in this life; one enjoyed and the other suffered. And as the subject under consideration had no reference to the future world, both the life and the punishment referred to, might end in this world. As long as the disciples loved and obeyed their Master, they lived in the enjoyment of eternal life; but when they forgot him, and heeded not his teachings, and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of hearty (Mark 16:14), then they did not enjoy everlasting life. The enemies of Christ suffered everlasting punishment. The severe judgments and calamities to come upon them were spoken of under the figure of fire. The prominent adversaries of Christ and their subordinate associates, were called the devil and his angels. Matt. 25:41.
The word here rendered devil is diabolos, which means adversary, an enemy or opposer. The prominent persecutors of Christians were called the Devil, “Behold the Devil shall cast some of you into prison.” Rev. 2:10. Severe national judgments are often spoken of under the figure of fire and furnace of fire. Isa. 9:19; Isa. 31:9; Jer. 17:27; Ezek. 20:47-48; Ezek. 22:18-22.
The word aionios translated “eternal” and “everlasting” in the text, does not show of itself that, either the life or the punishment is endless in duration. It is always the nature of the subject to which it was applied that defines its meaning. The hills are called everlasting. Gen. 49:26. In Habakkuk 3:6, the mountains are called everlasting, and the ways of God are everlasting. In each case, the nature of the subject defines the meaning of the word. When applied to the mountains it has a limited signification; when applied to God, it is unlimited as God himself. When applied to punishment it has a limited signification, as there is nothing in the nature of punishment, or fire, that is necessarily endless.
Although severe judgments were inflicted upon the Jews, so that they were banished from the presence of the Lord, and suffered age-lasting punishment, yet Paul assures us that all Israel shall be saved. “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all.” Rom. 11:32.
That’s total nonsense and you didn’t answer my question.
Plus: Halton C. Arp wrote, “… I gloomily came to the ironic conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.”
I believe it is best to leave the question of who is saved in God’s hands. On the surface, I can’t see anyone being saved, but St. John 3:16 and 3:18 gives hope to the Christian. We cannot know for sure our destination until the race is over, St Paul fretted over his own end. Many Christians do the same. Christ gave us the sacraments and the church but in these times finding a truly ordained priest may be more difficult than it looks on the surface it looks like God has abandoned us to a terrible fate and Satan has triumph but the things of God are hard for us to perceive our understanding of Scripture and church dogma is filtered through a glass stained with sin and human error. In the end, it will be up to God who is in his flock.
Jay,
That is a much better view than “if you commit a mortal sin and do not repent you will end up in hell to burn forever”.
I don’t think Jay is denying that “if you commit a mortal sin and do not repent you will end up in hell to burn forever”. He’s just saying that we don’t know who die in unrepentant mortal sin. God knows, and it’s all in His hands.
Steven,
How do you know, or even suspect, asJay did not respond.
Because Jay has made numerous comments on my website and others. I’m basing it on all the things he’s said in the past.
Your deduction then. Not his response. Thanx.
Correct. That’s why I said, “I don’t think Jay is denying….”
Yes, Steven, your understanding of my commentary was what I was trying to bring across to the reader.
Thanks Jay!
You are where you want to be. Sad.
We are where we are supposed to be…in the truth. I spoke to an old Greek cobbler whose first language is Greek. He told me that eternal, eternity, forever, etc. are the correct understanding of those Greek words. Btw, he’s not a Catholic but Greek Orthodox.
I doubt he has ever studied Greek. We are all pretty much to believe what we are taught and few ever make a study of what we are taught. Once we do we early on learn that much of what we have been taught is not true. Look at you. You believe in a definition of a word as fiery punishment and all it means is the word grave or abode of the dead.what ostbelieve is what we are taught as children and then we are taught to not question it or we might be punished forever if we do.. Steven, you know this is true.
Not exactly. I believe in the testimony of the witnesses of Jesus and His words about the Church. Therefore, I believe in the authority of the Church. Yet, you don’t believe in the authority of the Church but you do believe it when they tell what the Scripture is. Do you question the Scriptures? Why or why not? My Greek friend knows his own language like we know our own language. Do you question the Tentmaker’s explanation or do you just accept it without question? Have you actually studied Greek yourself? Have you attempted to find out if the Tentmaker’s explanation is correct? I have. I went to Greek speaking folks.
To answer a few of your questions.
I do question my understanding of scriptures &/ or what anyone says is the correct understanding of it. What the Church teaches about scripture is another thing. Is it contradictory understandings different popes have had about scripture details? Who is the Church? The body of believers?The pope? The theologians? Or is it the opinions of scripture scholars? Or is it merely the current popular opinions os believers that is the authority? We have a problem here no matter which answer we choose.
No, most people do not understand there own language from year to year. They can communicate effectively , but know nothing of the derivation of words, nor what the words they are using might have meant even a hundred years ago, let alone the implication the word may have had to those several hundred years ago.
The Tent makers informations will be questioned point by point as I fund it questionable. Someone calling it heresy refutes nothing and, I, as yet, have found nothing that challenges lis major points that the concept of Hell, as currently believed by most, is grossly misunderstood and separates us from our loving father. Plus the concept time concerning aeons. Nothing has been shown to me that makes me question the validity of the points they make.
I find their quotations by the early saints of the Church especially validating.
Languages: I do fair in Russian & Hebrew, but no I Am no Greek scholar. One does not need to have Cancer though, to become an expert on the topic. An open mind, a willingness to investigate can bring a world of information to the seeker.
You went to. A Greek speaker. The Tentmaker quotes Greek languagescholars and early Church saints for validation.
Hope this helps clarify somewhat of whereI come from.
Other Greek language scholars say differently. Many Bible translators, for instance, are Greek language scholars. Why should I accept Tentmaker’s scholars over the Church’s?
Also, who (what authority) defines what is heresy?
The Church’s authority are the popes. It’s true that popes can have different opinions but not against solemn pronouncements from each other. They have the final say.
You accept teachings of the pope. The question of solemn pronouncements was debated at Vat. I and defined. According to Vai.T.s definition of uinfallible pronounments there have only been four papal declarations that meet Vat. I’s definition of infallible. All else that we believe is up for debate.
You might want to check out. The Church’s teaching on Usury.. For centuries usury was taught to be a mortal sin. Then the popes decided that could make a lot of money by it and said it was okay to charge interest as long as it was not excessive and then created Monte Caritas BANK CHARGEING LESS INTEREST THANTHE Jews.To this day including the pre Vat. II popes they have paid and charged interest.The Church is not what you perceive, but is a very human institution.
Not exactly. There are different levels of infallible teaching. Vatican I is giving one type. Your statement that all else is up for debate is not correct and not Catholic. Pope Pius IX specifically addresses that very point.
As for usury, it’s still a mortal sin. What you’re talking about is something different. See http://www.ewtn.com/library/BUSINESS/CEUSURY.HTM
You won’t find a pope teaching contrary to any defined doctrine.
Also, you didn’t answer my question: Also, who (what authority) defines what is heresy?
The problem arises when we limit God in his judgment, we also limit Him in His mercy. Universalism is like adding dung to a glass of milk, how much would it take to consider the milk undrinkable. Many a schismatic would have you believe it would be wholesome filled to the top. When it comes to mankind none are good, by God’s mercy we are given the path to follow, though it be narrow.
This is the same god who preferred to spend his time with publicana and sinners rather than the Church authorities of his time? Just checking .
John 8:11
If you will examine the context of verses you quote on the fewness of the saved it will become clear that this reference is to the fewness of those who will escape the destruction that is to come upon Jerusalem. Just aa Jesus predicted very few escaped with their lives at that time. Likewise the sheep and goats were separated and the goats suffered fatally. The believers/, sheep, Christians escaped. You have fallen prey to the last day propaganda of protestat fundamentalists.
I totally disagree. I believe you have fallen prey to the propaganda of the tentmaker website.
But you are the one limiting Gods mercy. Not me.
Do you believe God’s justice is infinite or limited?
Steven , who are these Greek language authorities that you say disagrees with the Tentmaker Sita? From what I have read more and more scriptural translators are agreeing with them and there point of view. I sent you an article going into that in depth. Yes, even Catholic scripture scholars.
All the translators of the Catholic approved bibles are Greek scholars. Which ones are not?
Exactly. Which only shows you do not even consider the information I send as it showed how even catholic scripture scholars are young original Greek and Hebrew terms to get greater accuracy in their translations.
What Catholic scripture scholars reject what the Church has understood to mean eternal, forever, etc.? Do you have names or a name?
What about my question, who (what authority) defines what is heresy?
SS
What Catholic scripture scholars reject what the Church has understood to mean eternal, forever, etc.? Do you have names or a name?
————————————————-
RK
forever, etc.? Do you have names or a name?
‘ St. Bas
Source?
St. Basil condemned the idea that punishment was not eternal because many people believed it does end. He interpreted those Greek words to mean eternal.
Steven,
You have said “SS What Catholic scripture scholars reject what the Church has understood to mean eternal, forever, etc.? Do you have names or a name? “
It struck me to check the catholic bible in my house looking at the footnotes. Gaheena , translated “hell” is the garbage dump to the East of Jerusalem. No matter how you translate a word if it does not convey the original meaning it simply means that the translator has an agenda to impart an idea not conveyed in the original word. They are supporting dogma instead of faithfully translating the sense of the word along with the literal meaning. This seems to be where you are…looking for support for a dogma rather than a search for accuracy in translation.
Perhaps you will look at footnotes for words you seem not to understand.
Sheol, gahenna, hades, tartaros all have a literal meaning and to translat them to fit dogma might support previous conceptions, but to think they are accurate translations, as regards many words in the bible, is a fallible belief at best.
Footnotes might aid in your understanding the bible.
You have said elsewhere that all older religions believed in hell.
I find it not in the Old Testament except as a reference to the grave. Early Christians believed it not. For a major concern of yours it is not even mentioned by the epistle writers. Very negligent of them if the place was real.
Hell was brought into the church by the mass conversions of pagans after Constantine. It did not exist among early Christians, instead they taught about a loving God who died for us. It was/ is the difference between pagans and Christians.
Some will not let go of beliefs taught by their childhood leaders. They will make a hell out of their personal lives, and the lives of others rather than doubt. Their very “sanity” depends on it. I have tried to offer you enough reasons to inspire you to be open to an alternate view from what you grew up with. You hang on to what you have always believed. Emotionally there must be a great need for you to believe in others suffering and to retain a belief that you just may escape it. Who am I to provoke you to despair when the emotional stress would be more that you could bear.
Pax!
RK
You changed the argument. We can discuss the meaning of the other words later but we are talking about eternal vs non-eternal punishment. St. Basil held to eternal punishment. As for Gehenna, sheol, etc., yes, some have different meanings but Gehenna was a real place that was used as an illustration. See CORNELIUS À LAPIDE’s Bible commentary, which states: S. Jerome observes that Christ here first uses the word Gehenna for hell. It is nowhere in the Old Testament used in that sense. Gehenna is derived from ge, a valley, and Hinnom or Ennon, a Jew so called. Gehenna is the valley of Hinnom. It was a pleasant vale near Jerusalem, in which parents were accustomed to burn their children in sacrifice to Moloch; and they beat drums that their cries and wails might not be heard. Hence the same place was called Tophet, i.e., “a drum.” Wherefore, Christ here speaks of the Gehenna of fire, to show that nothing but fire, and that eternal fire, is meant. See Isaiah xxx.33, where Gehenna and its torments are graphically depicted. For Tophet is ordained of old, &c.
Steve,
Regardless of your desire “aeon” in Greek means the same thing as the English “eon”. It is simply a long period of time. To translate it to the word “eternal” is merely to fit translation to dogma. A not unusual practice among translators. We like to have trust and faith in people we entrust with our values, but it seldom pays.
I don’t think they translated it to fit a dogma. St. Jerome was one individual who didn’t hold to eternal punishment for the Baptized, yet he translated Matt 25:46 in Latin as “Et ibunt hi in supplicium æternum: iusti autem in vitam æternam.”
Eastern Fathers such as Sts. Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyprian of Carthage, Ignatius of Antioch, and others all taught of eternal and everlasting punishments.
Seve, I attach an article in two separate e-mails pertaining to the word “eternity”. If you are convinced of your correctness in your views to the point that you hold them t one beyond examination this will not be of interest; however, if you are one willing to gain a greater understanding of the depth of knowledge of God perhaps these articles will aid that. Always, the best, RK ———————————————————
—————————————-
Steven,
Here are a few quotes that are translated “eternal” from the root word “aeon”. From the context it is obvious that “eternal” is not a good translation, because of contradictory quotes elsewhere.
Sodom’s fiery judgment is “eternal” (Jude 7), that is–until–God “will restore the fortunes of Sodom” (Ez.16:53‑55);
Israel’s “affliction is incurable” (Jer. 30:12), that is‑‑until‑‑the Lord “will restore health” and heal her wounds (Jer. 30:17);
The sin of Samaria “is incurable” (Mic. 1:9) that is‑‑until‑‑ Lord “will restore … the fortunes of Samaria.” (Ez. 16:53);
Ammon is to become a “wasteland forever” and “rise no more” (Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27) that is‑until‑‑the Lord will “restore the fortunes of the Ammonites” (Jer. 49:6);
An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord’s congregation “forever”, that is‑‑until‑‑the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3):
Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were “everlasting”, that is‑‑until‑‑they “were shattered” Hab. 3:6);
The fire for Israel’s sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be ”perpetual” that is‑‑until‑‑Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12‑13, Heb. 8:6‑13);
God’s waves of wrath roll over Jonah “forever,” that is–until-‑the Lord delivers him from the large fish’s belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17);
Egypt and Elam will “rise no more” (Jer. 25:27)‑‑until‑‑the Lord will “restore the fortunes of Egypt” (Ez. 29:14) and “restore the fortunes of Elam” (Jer. 49:39).
“Moab is destroyed” (Jer. 48:4, 42)‑‑until‑‑the Lord “will restore the fortunes of Moab” (Jer. 48:47);
Israel’s judgment lasts “forever”‑‑until‑‑the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isa. 32:13‑15).
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
You’re confusing the issues and missing the distinctions. I’ll provide some info when I have more time. Thanks.
What is there to confuse? The word is translated Everlasting /Eternal yet it is obvious tha correct translation could not have meant everlasting or eternal as other versus contradicts that interpretation. Will you not admit contradictions when the are before your eyes? When you do not it brings into question what you have to say regarding other points.
There are no contradictions. For example: Jude 7 is talking about the people of those places and their afterlife but Ez 16:53-55 is talking about something else. Haydock writes: Ver. 53. Back, &c. This relates to the conversion of the Gentiles out of all nations, and of many of the Jews, to the Church of Christ. Ch. — Cyrus also liberated the tribes on the east as well as on the west of the Jordan, (H.) and in general all the captive nations. C. — And restore. Heb. “the captivity, even the captivity of Sodom.” Sept. “I will turn away their aversions, the,” &c. I will give them a more docile spirit. H. Ver. 54. Them. It affords some consolation to have partners in misery. C. Ver. 55. Ancient state. That is, to their former state of liberty, and their ancient possessions. In the spiritual sense, to the true liberty and the happy inheritance of the children of God, through faith in Christ. Ch. — All will be treated alike, whether Jew or Gentile. H. — When Sodom or the Gentiles shall have embraced the gospel, then also will the Jews. Rom. x. W.
Habacuc 3:6 is translated in the DR as ancient not everlasting. However, when everlasting is used in say the Knox Bible we understand the different meaning.
In all of your points (examples), you have missed the nuance, etc.
There is a very evident contradiction whic you choose not to see oradnit. Nuf sed.
I don’t see any contradictions but I know many people who don’t believe in the Bible at all because they believe it contradicts itself. There are only apparent contradiction but no real contradictions. You have chosen to believe as a real contradiction something that merely appears like it. It’s like illusionists. I have a brother who is convinced that there is something supernatural to the “magic” tricks we see even after I explain how the tricks are done.
You still didn’t answer my key question: Who (what authority) defines what is heresy?
Those who are willing to study in an unbiased way , or without preconceptions are certainly to be listened t. Theologians who have pre-held convictions and believe they have some divine authority, are probably least qualified to do so.
A topic may have many students and perusing their writings may give one a clearer. Insight into the topic, but to think one has answers without being willing to subject them to scrutiny merely allows a person to remain content in their delusions.
Egotism is the authority that defines what is heresy.
How are you not biased? You don’t want to believe in eternal hell fire punishment, therefore you see things the way you want to see them, right?
Egotism is not authority. It appears that you don’t really believe in any authority. Is that correct? If not, then who has the final say on what is heresy?
Why believe in the Scriptures at all? Who says they are the inspired Word of God?
I don’t follow your way of thinking at all.
SS
How are you not biased? You don’t want to believe in eternal hell fire punishment, therefore you see things the way you want to see them, right?
Egotism is not authority. It appears that you don’t really believe in any authority. Is that correct? If not, then who has the final say on what is heresy?
Why believe in the Scriptures at all? Who says they are the inspired Word of God?
I don’t follow your way of thinking at all.
RK
Steven ,
We jump from topic to topic. Heresy is a time-bound word: what is heretical in one era is ‘’truth” in another era. Accusations of heresy and questions of authority are like saying that when the proper authorities tell me what is the truth the matter is settled. Now for you that may be satisfactory, but when I look back at the history of the church and see that what was taught as a mortal sin in one era and then later it is accepted and practiced by the church herself it seems this is a very fallible group to put ones absolute faith in. I am not saying there is not a richness of views there. It has just been demonstrated over the centuries that teachings are flexible by her.
No, there is no authority for any teachings except ones own conscience. The Church herself teaches this saying that if after sincere study and reflection we disagree with any church teaching we must follow our own conscience. Here is a quote from an old catechism “ For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” So the final answer to all questions is you. You are the authority you must obey and it can never be dumped in another’s lap. Looking for an authority to bale one out of a disagreement does not work. In the end we will be judged on our conscience, and that alone.
Interestingly, in spite of attacks by many protestants that there is no room among Catholics for discussion there is actually much more room. Protestants are creed bound and is the very reason for their many sects. There is and has always been a much greater diversity of opinion in the Church on many topics than will ever be found among protestant sects.
Now you seem not impressed by the quotes that are shown by scripture itself to be a wrong translation. You accuse me of finding, or trying to find, contradictions in scripture and say there are no contradictions (errors?) in scripture. This is what is called in Logic 101 the Straw Man argument. You attack an argument that was never brought up. I never said there were contradictions in scripture, but when one finds faults in translation one ignores it to his own peril. It is accurately said, “No fault in scripture , but massive translation faults”. To translate meanings feelings, general impressions by the written word is an almost impossible task, but that is what we have. (50 years after its use can you tell me what ”23 Skiddoo” means? In 2000 years it would be a complete mystery.)
The whole purpose of new bible translations is to correct previous faults and understandings of scripture. No book, not even the bible, can give the same meaning centuries later that it had to the writer no matter how inspired he may have been.
It does seem from the study I have done that a much greater use of symbolism was used by the scripture writers than would be used today by writers. To think that inspired by God is equivalent to dictated by God is a gross misunderstanding. To think that Eon can be translated as forever has been demonstrated to be erroneous by scripture itself.
Terms like “forever and ever “ make little sense except as using the repetition for emphasis; however if the word to be translated were “eon after eon” I can see how the rendering could come about. Just render eon as ever and get forever and ever. Inaccurate but consistant.
New deeper understandings enrich us. They are not going to plunge us in to “hell”. Truth can never separate us from God. If we are not going to do as St. Paul admonished “to test all things and cling to that which is good” we will suffer for our unwillingness to seek truth and pursue it. Why ever fear a different opinion than our own.
There have been times in my life when I thought I had finally arrived at the truth only to find out years later that my fixed new views had a deeper understanding than I had ever conceived of originally.
You say, “How are you not biased? You don’t want to believe in eternal hell fire punishment, therefore you see things the way you want to see them, right?
I am always biased in favor or my present views. That does not mean I am unwilling to examine them. “God is the potter we are the clay”. To think that anyone one would create things for destruction is insanity. We create for use. Some products are defective, so we correct them. We do not continue making faulty goods. Yet some think an infinite God is so stupid he is going to continue making things just for his bonfire. Good Lord preserve us.
Punishment is for correction. Not even men torture senselessly. We hear of peoples or nations who do this and we are repulsed, but think God can do it if he wants Too. Such people attribute to God less virtue than they attribute to evil men.
More could be commented on that you have used to protest these views but I think I have answered the point you made above.
You say, “I don’t follow your way of thinking at all.”
Clearly this is true. I find that by rereading my correspondence I am often able to find more of the meaning the writer intended, but will admit my writing and communication skills do need help.
Any suggestions on how to clarify my communications?
I realize footnotes might help but do find it burdensome and of little use. If any statement verification would help let me know.
Best Wishes,
RK
——————————————————————
The Catechism about following conscience is talking about the natural law. The Church can’t go against the Divine and natural laws, therefore, there would be no need to follow conscience against the Church. Our conscience should be formed by the teachings of the Church. If you are your own authority, then there would be no need for the Church teaching us authoritatively. If your conscience tells you to follow the Church, then going against the Church because of one’s conscience is actually one’s conscience going against his own conscience.
The Church has never taught that something is a mortal sin at one time and then said it is not a mortal sin at another. Usury has been explained thoroughly. You can’t use that argument and you won’t be able to show where the Church has done what you claim it has done. If you can do so, then I’m through with Christianity, because all I know about Christianity has come the Church’s authority. If the Church is wrong, so is Christianity.
Sorry if my communications are hard to follow, too.
From your own mouth you state the very reasons you cannot reason.
Good luck where you are.
I use reason to explain everything. I recognize that I’m not the final authority. Jesus said, “…tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18: 17-18)
But you don’t listen to the church, Ronald.
St. Paul wrote in I Timothy 3:14-15: “I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
But you don’t believe the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth because you don’t believe the Church teaches the truth.
Perhaps you have a different take what the church is? But who has the final say of THE church to whom you must listen?
3 times you have spurned very clear scripture quotes , you expect me to grab a hold of yours. At least I tried to provide reasons and substantiation for the quotes I provided. I really cannot see you as open to non traditional ideas so, you must live with what you have earn or burn religion.. Enjoy.
You did attempt to provide reasons and substantiation, but so did I. I also gave you commentaries and church fathers. But you’re right, I’m not open to hear non-traditional ideas because St. Paul warned against it in I Tim. 4:1, I Tim. 1:3-10, Eph. 4:14, and also Titus 1:9. I follow Sacred Tradition as it has been handed down by the authority of the Church given to her by Christ Himself.
As the Jews do their rabbis and for the same reason—- “divine” authority. When any group given authority y God abuses that authority they lose it and teach traditions of men.
We are now at an impasse so let’s go our ways before this discussion becomes more weary and disjointed.
Steven, in your book TKtA the quote from St. Francis of Assisi on page 173 “4 pretty much sums up the dialogue with Ronald. The words of St. Francis could be today’s headlines.
Just to check, is this the same St. Francis who said” We are the dreamed of. Who we seek is the dreamer”
Do you have source for your quote Ronald? Thx.
The quote Jay is speaking goes like this:
“1. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
“2. The Devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.
“3. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
“4. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
“5. Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
“6. Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth, but the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, [Christ] these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
“7. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”
(Except for breaking up the narrative into numbered paragraphs and adding bold print for emphasis, the prophecy is presented without any alteration, as given in the Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250)
Source? No. I read it online, copied it& pasted for later use. I seldom copy & paste Sources as , from experience few ever ask for them. Having provided sources, notes, for years I found that few appreciate or use them Since then I have done search for the quote, but not found. I mainly use such quotes for my own insight, & realize that does not help you Much. Sorry. Yes, I have read the article you sent. Like scripture it seems this is open th ones own views. That is okay. God loves you as much as anyone else. You have your path & me mine. I would never say you are going to hell. God loves regardless of any faults you may have. You may doubt that.I do not. RK ————
Sent from my iPad
>
I don’t doubt God loves us regardless of any faults we have. The issue has never been about God’s love for us. It’s about our love for God. I don’t say you’re going to hell, either. Only God knows who’s going and who’s not, but I might say this or that person is going to hell, meaning they are on the path to hell. I don’t mean that they are actually going there because anybody can change their path and repent even at the moment of death.
Steven, have you read Divine Mercy? You said in the beginning of the article that the devil likes to trick people with the mercy of Jesus: One of the great deceptions from the devil is that God is so merciful that He will not send people to hell. But the diary of st faustina proves this article and what you said in it as wrong. Please take this into consideration, im instructing and not defending your ignorance of such manners when it comes to Gods mercy and the devil
Yes, I’ve read the Diary of Faustina a couple of times 20 years ago before I knew that Pope Pius XII put the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index of Prohibited Books. I believe the Diary to be a deception of the devil. I suggest you read: https://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
Sounds like an “ad hoc” fallacy to me. So, you reject St. Faustina solely on the basis of her work preaching that God is merciful.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! God is merciful.
But any and all apparitions which regard God as some sort of sadistic madman are automatically on the table.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! You’re the one making the fallacy arguments.
It almost sounds like it’s your doctrines which are a “deception of the devil”. What better way to promote Luciferianism than to portray the God of Love as a hatemongering, capricious monster who tortures the great majority of humanity for His amusement, while the lucky minority look on in gleeful, sadistic pleasure?
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.
In your version of the story, the Devil becomes the good guy, telling humans they can somehow break free from the evil deity that is making them and all their descendents playthings in his wicked scheme of torment. Note that I don’t actually believe that Satan is the good guy, but that’s because I have a conception of God that any decent human being actually wants to serve, aka the one which you believe is a “deception of the devil”.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! YOU JUST GET ONE THING WRONG AFTER ANOTHER.
[…] the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly man and the sinner appear? God help us all. […]
“Lastly, you’ll find the belief in eternal hell in other monotheistic religions. Can you provide me evidence that eternal hell was originally a pagan idea?”
Let’s discuss the comparative belief across world religions in the existence of an “eternal conscious torment” sort of existence:
In Islam, “Jahannam” or the fiery pit, is seen as temporary for the majority of its inhabitants. It is only permanent for a select few who are “apostates” (that is to say, have heard Islamic doctrine and rejected it). In the dominant Ash’ari school of Sunni Islam, all believing Muslims, even great sinners, will be eventually released from punishment, as will all those who were outside of Islam due to “jahiliyyah”, or ignorance (i.e. people living in some faraway tribe who did not get evangelized). Maturidi school seems to teach something similar, except that they believe that even pagans can arrive at a reasoning of monotheism without explicit appeals to revelation. In both cases, however, hell is seen as corrective in most instances, universal only for those who very explicitly reject Islam.
SPERAY REPLIES: They believe in eternal hell, which proves my point. I didn’t say every religion believes in an eternal hell.
In none of the Eastern religions is there any conception of an eternal hell. “Naraka” in Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) is a purely purgatorial realm, where souls of the wicked are tormented in order to prepare them for the next incarnation. Keep in mind that nothing in Buddhism is permanent until one attains Nirvana, anyway. Even the “heaven” realms (the realms of the devas) are merely temporal, although both heaven and hell realms can last for millions of years.
Taoism does not hold to a belief in eternal hell, and indeed any belief in hell at all seems to be mostly the result of Buddhist influence.
Traditional folk religions, which have been the major religions of the great bulk of humanity, and have typically coexisted with great world religions for the majority of people, rarely if ever taught a form of eternal conscious torment. Rather, they emphasized a continuity between the living and the dead, and a system of reciprocity whereby the ancestors live off the offerings and prayers of the living, and the living depend on the good will of the ancestors.
Non-Catholic Christians have been highly divided amongst themselves since antiquity on the issue of hell’s eternality, at least for most people. The dominant position within the Eastern Orthodox, as outlined by St. Paisios of Mt Athos, is probably closest to the Islamic position of the Ash’ari school: Hell is eternal for those who fully reject God, but only temporary (as “Hades” or the underworld) for the great majority. St. Mark of Ephesus, quoting numerous Church Fathers, makes a clear distinction between “Hades” and an eternal “Hell”. This distinction was present in the early Church, and continues to be made in all the most ancient Churches (Eastern Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East), and even by the Eastern Catholics — whom you claim are members of your own Communion.
In fact , some medieval and early modern writers in the East seem to have held firmly to an actual doctrine of universalism. The position that all would eventually be saved was held by the great majority in the Assyrian Church of the East all throughout the Middle Ages. This church, incidentally, was the largest church in the world in terms of numbers of adherents during this period.
Even several of the Church Fathers whom you quote as teaching that “very few are saved”, seemed to contradict this belief elsewhere. St Jerome is a quite notable example, believing that eventually “all people” would be restored to an Edenic state.
Now I am not one to argue specifically in favor of universalism, in fact I lean against TOTAL universalism. I certainly believe some are too evil to be redeemed. But where I, and a majority of Christians throughout history, take issue with the absurdist rigidity of so much of traditional Western Christian theology, is in the notion that “very few” are saved. This smacks of a form of belief in total depravity, and I think it’s no coincidence that Calvinist doctrines arose in the context of hyper-rigorist Catholic Christianity. Let’s just say this sort of belief would have been unthinkable within the cultural context of Eastern Christianity, where God’s infinite Love is much more fully, and in my opinion Biblically, stressed.
The problem, once again, seems to come down to the view of humanity and original sin. Augustine held a very negative view of humanity, probably in part because he himself led a very degenerate and unholy life, and perhaps even more because of his own background within Gnostic Manicheanism. In fact, when you think about it, the whole of post-Augustinian Western theology is very Gnostic. Aquinas’ “beatific vision” is a fully gnostic view, similar to some sort of Platonic conception or a “demi urge”. The view that we will “rejoice” in the sufferings of the damned is gnostic as well, since it tends to minimize the experience of empathy and bonds of common humanity between people, something that the ancient gnostics did. Because, of course, most of them were losers and social rejects who hated humanity and the flesh because of their own failures.
By contrast, very few other world systems have arrived at this belief in “total depravity” or anything like it. Most non-western religions in fact, believe in the opposite, something like total innocence or perfectability (“al-fitra” in Islam). Eastern Christians likewise do not believe humanity, or indeed any of creation, is ontologically evil, which is why the Eastern view of original sin is so fundamentally — and irreconcilably — different from the perversion that grew up in the West. This is also why most other world religious systems do not find the need to consign all “outsiders” to perdition. The West is fundamentally absorbed in its own pride and view of its own (racial and cultural) supremacy, and therefore comes up with absurd doctrines like “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” which no neurotypical person would ever accept, and the Church Fathers very unapologetically understood in a non-literal sense. It is truly only a very small step from “trad” Catholicism to Calvinism, if we now are equating salvation with being born geographically lucky.
Also, the Catholic Church has dogmatically rejected your interpretation of most people’s eternal fate, with the Second Vatican Council (which I know you don’t accept).
SPERAY REPLIES: Dogmatically?
The problem is that by refusing to accept the affirmation of this “ex cathedra” council, you are now putting yourself in the position that traditional Catholics throughout history would say is “the damned”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Vatican 2 didn’t teach “ex cathedra.” Paul VI made that clear. Since Vatican 2 was not Catholic, you’re the one putting yourself among the damned.
You are self-excommunicating by your arbitrary and evidence-free assertion that we no longer have to follow the “defective” See of Peter, which your very dogmas say can never defect.
SPERAY REPLIES: The See of Peter is not defective. False popes have reigned before. However, if you believe the Vatican 2 popes are true popes, you’re the one holding to a defective church for having errors taught officially.
So for all the sanctimony I have seen on this blog, you are finally almost surely — according to your own hyper-rigoristic “trad” position — going to the eternal torment that you say awaits everybody but a select few inside the Church (note I am not accusing you of eternal damnation, because I don’t believe this malarkey you are spouting, I am merely pointing out this is the logical conclusion of the system you, and all sedevacantists, purport to follow).
SPERAY REPLIES: You simply don’t believe in the Words of Our Lord who made it very clear that most go to hell.
Ok let’s unpack this.
“They believe in eternal hell, which proves my point. I didn’t say every religion believes in an eternal hell.”
No, but you did imply a sort of continuity among world religions.
Speray replies: As for as hell is concerned being eternal punishment, there is a sort of continuity. 3 of my best friends are Muslim. They believe very much like we do.
In fact, so does the entire theory of natural law which Catholic thought has been founded on, since medieval times. If it can be naturally reasoned that the vast majority of humanity are condemned to eternal conscious torment by a capricious madman deity, then you would think somebody else in some pagan religion somewhere would have come to that same conclusion.
SPERAY REPLIES: Paganism is not monotheistic. I wasn’t referring to them.
Yet, that hasn’t been the general consensus of non-Christian religions. Even Islam does not (except in some fundamentalist sects) teach that eternal hell will be the abode of the majority of humanity, merely that of a small few. And in fact, some Muslim scholars especially Sufis, have adopted a universalist position.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re changing the argument. Whether eternal hell exist and whether most go there are 2 different things. I was arguing with a man who doesn’t believe hell exists eternally.
“Vatican 2 didn’t teach “ex cathedra.” Paul VI made that clear. Since Vatican 2 was not Catholic, you’re the one putting yourself among the damned.”
Actually, Vatican II is considered “universal and ordinary magisteria” which according to Vatican I means that all Catholics are required (under pain of damnation) to follow it.
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree, but that’s not the same as “ex cathedra”. You were wrong. Are you going to admit it? But since Vatican 2 wasn’t approved by a true pope, it’s not binding anyway.
Sorry but you don’t get to pick and choose what you want “real” Catholicism to be and what you don’t, and then consign the over 1 billion Catholics who disagree with you to eternal hellfire.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Catholic Church already told us what real Catholicism is to be and Vatican 2 and the V2 popes rejected it. I’m sticking with the historic Catholic Church.
I don’t think anybody short of a real mental case would attempt to argue that the huge numbers of people who accept Vatican II, in the vast majority of cases because they honestly believe it is what the Church teaches and has always taught, are going to be damned forever because they haven’t happened to stumble on some sedevacantist blog to hear some random dude give his 2 cents on the “unchanging Truth” of Catholic teaching.
SPERAY REPLIES: We don’t say that. If you paid attention to the article, which you didn’t, some of it (not all) was saying the vast majority of true Catholics before Vatican 2 will be dammned. You don’t have to agree on that part, but you must accept the words of Christ that most go to hell overall.
In fact, such a position smacks of deep seated pride and arrogance, which is hardly surprising on a website that seems to mostly consist of petty infighting with other sedevacantists, and attempted “takedowns” of authors you disagree with.
SPERAY REPLIES: We don’t hold that so, your accusation is false. We are reaching out to ignorant Catholics to get out of the satantic Vatican 2 sect, so they have valid sacraments and have a better chance of being saved.
I have a hard time believing that 2,000 years after Jesus’ mission, the True Church He founded has now been reduced to a handful of internet keyboard-warriors engaged in intellectual catfighting and anathematizations of each other.
SPERAY REPLIES: Well, you go it wrong again on several levels. It has not been reduced to a handful of keyboard users. It has been reduced to a much smaller number like Cardinal Manning of Vatican I said would happen. He wrote: “Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” Then you have Scripture telling us about a great falling away. Remember seeing that verse in II Thess.? Don’t like that verse do you?
Oh and one more point surrounding the Vatican II issue, several Doctors of the Church, notably Catherine of Siena, have made the claim that even if Satan were to become Pope, you would still have follow him in universal and ordinary magisterium.
SPERAY REPLIES: I wrote about that here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/st-catherine-of-siena-and-sedevacantism/
It’s an old argument and you got it wrong again.
So no, the fact that you feel you have some superior revelation of truth over the Pope and the modern Magisterium in on way entitles you to “quit” Rome or the Papacy, and this is according to YOUR OWN system.
SPERAY REPLIES: We are saying follow the Catholic Church exactly as it was in 1958. You can’t even believe in the same doctrines because Vatican 2 is rejected some of them. You have to believe the death penalty is not intrinsically evil because as your pope teaches, it’s contrary to the dignity of the human person.
“The See of Peter is not defective. False popes have reigned before. However, if you believe the Vatican 2 popes are true popes, you’re the one holding to a defective church for having errors taught officially.”
And you’re the one who is insistent on having your cake and eating it too in terms of Catholic teaching.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. Are you ready to prove me right? Answer my question. Does the Catholic Church teach that the Eastern Orthodox are part of the Church of Christ? Yes or no? I will show you the contradiction between the Catholic Church and your false Vatican 2 religion.
Once again, you do not have the power, according to the very saints and Magisteral teaching you claim to be upholding, to make these sorts of judgments on what is or is not Catholic doctrine.
SPERAY REPLIES: Then answer my question about the Eastern Orthodox.
By any sane interpretation of Vatican I, there is no possible way of holding that Vatican II is erroneous or heretical.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong! By any sane interpretation of Vatican I, there is no possible way of holding Vatican 2 are true and safe.
The MOST you are allowed to do is hold as a private opinion that it may be heretical, but even this puts you in dangerous waters given the infallibility of ex cathedra teaching, which by all accounts (even that of Paul IV) Vatican II qualifies.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong again! You are not permitted to hold that a Catholic council is heretical in private opinion. You have no idea how ignorant you are. You come on my site without knowing the Catholic faith and then argue with me. Lol.
“You simply don’t believe in the Words of Our Lord who made it very clear that most go to hell.”
I don’t believe in automatically going with one facile, cataphatic interpretation of scripture and sticking with it. It might “seem” clear to you that Jesus was saying “the vast majority of humanity will spend eternity in conscious torment because of sins they committed in this life, repaying finite evils with infinite torture, while the very few who were fortunate enough to find an obscure blog somewhere look down at them laughing at their misfortunes for all eternity” when He said to strive to enter by the narrow gate, but that in no way makes it true, and to admit of only one possible interpretation is to commit an ad hoc fallacy.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re the one making the fallacy because that’s not what we’re saying at all.
Consider, for instance, if we maintain the Hades-Hell distinction of the early Church, which continues to be held in all the Eastern Christian churches (including those in communion with Rome). Under this definition, it is very possible for only a minority to enter paradise upon their particular judgment, while the great majority perish into a temporary “Hades”, a state of torment or suffering but only a temporary one, until they have been secured a place in Heaven by the prayers and intercession of the living. Consider also, the possibility that this passage is meant to imply the difficulty or near impossibility of attaining paradise ON ONE’S OWN, that is to say, without the assistance of God, “in whom all things are possible”. These and many other interpretations are perfectly valid, traditional views on what the word’s of Jesus mean. The only problem with them is that seem to contradict the neat little system you wish to impose on Scripture and Tradition.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG YET AGAIN. You have completely twisted Our Lord’s Words. He said quite plainly, “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, AND MANY THERE ARE WHO GO in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and FEW THERE ARE THAT FIND IT!” Very clear stuff. You have chosen not to hear the Words of Our Lord!
“As for as hell is concerned being eternal punishment, there is a sort of continuity. 3 of my best friends are Muslim. They believe very much like we do.”
Muslim friends? But aren’t Muslims intrinsically evil and headed towards eternal fire? How can you be friends with Muh Outgroup????
SPERAY REPLIES: Is that what you think?
On a more serious note, no Islamic scholar has ever argued, except a few fundamentalistic ones, that the near totality of humanity is damned forever. Even though many Muslims believe the vast majority will be damned for a short while, it is not viewed as eternal in most cases. In some, yes, but in the large majority, no. There are numerous hadiths in which Mohammed states that all believers will eventually make it to heaven, and Ash’ari and Maturidi scholars both assume that “believers” include those outside of Islam who possess invincible ignorance.
SPERAY REPLIES: Did you not read what I wrote? I didn’t say they necessarily believed most go to hell. I said they believe in an eternal hell. YOU CAN’T COMPREHEND WHAT YOU READ!
“Paganism is not monotheistic. I wasn’t referring to them.”
If you look at monotheistic religions, the situation becomes more, not less, confused.
SPERAY REPLIES: There you go again. I didn’t say every monotheistic religion. YOU JUST MAKE UP STUFF AS YOU GO.
Keep in mind most monotheistic religions are traditional Nilotic and Cushitic religions from central and Eastern Africa. Most of these have a typical view of the afterlife as a spirit world full of ancestors, good and evil spirits etc. Very few of them believe in an afterlife of rewards or punishments, period.
” You’re changing the argument. Whether eternal hell exist and whether most go there are 2 different things. I was arguing with a man who doesn’t believe hell exists eternally.”
I thought you were arguing with me.
SPERAY REPLIES: It was to Ronald Knarr. Are you Ronald Knarr?
I prefaced this by saying I am not a convinced universalist, rather I am someone who is convinced that eternal punishment is not the fate of the majority (by the way, Padre Pio said the same thing, but I assume you diss him as “demonic” or “liberal” because he died after Vatican II).
SPERAY REPLIES: THERE YOU GO AGAIN. JUST MAKING STUFF UP.
Universalism is, to me, merely an opinion, which is probably not a valid one, though I don’t claim to know and I certainly don’t claim that those who hold it are all evil or heretical.
” I agree, but that’s not the same as “ex cathedra”. You were wrong. Are you going to admit it? But since Vatican 2 wasn’t approved by a true pope, it’s not binding anyway.”
Who gives you the authority to decide who is the pope and who isn’t?
SPERAY REPLIES: Not going to admit you were wrong? You’re a prideful man. Christ gave all Catholics authority to beware of false prophets and teachers. Look it up. False teachers are not popes. Who gave you authority to decide that heretics are popes?
What is there about Pope John XXIII that made him “illegitimate”?
SPERAY REPLIES: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2017/10/08/pope-st-john-xxiii-or-antipope-john-xxiii/
How can you say? And why arbitrarily define him as the first ‘non-heretical’ pope?
SPERAY REPLIES: He was heretical.
Literally every one of these arguments sound word-for-word paraphrased from the exact same ad-hoc fallacies used by Union of Utrecht Old Catholics.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! You are the one using false arguments.
They also believed they could dispense with Catholicism and Catholic dogma when it conflicted with their neat, tidy little view of how the Church was supposed to look.
SPERAY REPLIES: We don’t say that. You do. By holding to Vatican 2, you’re dispensing with Catholicism and Catholic dogmas.
Fast forward a century and a half and they are now rainbow flag worshipping crazies.
SPERAY REPLIES: THAT’S YOUR RELIGION! YOUR POPES ARE THE RAINBOW FLAG WORSHIPPING CRAZIES!
It turns out that founding a little sect of purists who thought they were superior to the Pope didn’t work out too well for them.
SPERAY REPLIES: They went against a true pope, like you’re doing by holding to the Vatican 2 popes. You must reject the teachings of real Catholic popes to hold to the Vatican 2 popes.
“The Catholic Church already told us what real Catholicism is to be and Vatican 2 and the V2 popes rejected it. I’m sticking with the historic Catholic Church.”
OK, what is the valid form of the Mass?
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius V told us what’s needed for a valid form at mass. Valid masses and illicit masses are two different things.
Is it the Tridentine model? Which only dates back to the Council of Trent and was a total innovation at the time.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! It wasn’t an innovation. It’s basically the same mass as the beginning. There are of course changes as many changes are made throughout history. There are many other valid forms of the liturgy as many rites exist in the Catholic Church.
What about the issue of married priests? Nobody with any serious understanding of Catholic history would claim that for the past 2,000 years, the Latin Church has consistently taught clerical celibacy.
SPERAY REPLIES: I actually wrote a book about married popes. Who are you arguing with? Certainly not us.
In fact, even today the Church allows millions of Eastern Rite Catholic priests to marry and have kids just like the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and Assyrian Church of the East clergy do. Ditto for a lot of other Catholic teachings and beliefs viz a viz Eastern Catholics. Are all Eastern Catholics heretics and schismatics? Practically all of them entered communion with Rome before Vatican II so you’d be dissing the “historic Catholic Church” by saying yes.
SPERAY REPLIES: Well, you’re not arguing with me. The Latin rite had married priests, too. Where did you get the idea that sedevacantists believed married priests in contrary to Catholicism?
“We don’t say that. If you paid attention to the article, which you didn’t, some of it (not all) was saying the vast majority of true Catholics before Vatican 2 will be dammned. You don’t have to agree on that part, but you must accept the words of Christ that most go to hell overall.”
Only if one arbitrarily accepts that is what Jesus was saying.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! You didn’t read the article. Pope St. Gregory the Great repeated it many times and Pope St. Pius X said so in an official prayer that you must reject. St. Peter, our First Pope said so in the Bible, ” If the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly man and the sinner appear? (I St. Peter 4:18)” What does scarcely mean?
The issue is that you have latched on to one possible interpretation of a single passage in Scripture, merely because a number of medieval scholastics interpreted it in that way, thereby making it “traditional bro”.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! I FOLLOW THE TEACHING OF POPES, TOO. YOU DON’T!
By the way, most of those same medieval scholastics believed that babies didn’t acquire souls until 40 days after conception, so abortion wasn’t murder for the first 40 days.
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s called soul infusement and it’s actually taught in the Roman Catechism. I accept it, but it doesn’t say 40 days. Just a certain time later.
I guess we need to revert to baby killing because those lindy, trad Medieval bros said it was ok.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOW YOU LIE! They didn’t say it was okay to kill within the first 40 days. What a demonic liar you are!!!! They all condemned contraception, which is what it would be the first days after conception.
Again, there are multiple alternative explanations, and the Catholic Church admits of them, but apparently this is not legitimate since the acceptable development of doctrine ceased in 1958 and everything since then has been an evil conspiracy to subvert Tradition.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have said it!
“We don’t hold that so, your accusation is false. We are reaching out to ignorant Catholics to get out of the satantic Vatican 2 sect, so they have valid sacraments and have a better chance of being saved.”
Where is the ‘valid’ Catholic Church? Given that much of this blog consists of petty criticisms of fellow sedevacantists, it doesn’t seem that most of your spiritual allies have much going for them either.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m not casting pearls before swine! You are swine and deserve your Vatican 2 religion!
“Well, you go it wrong again on several levels. It has not been reduced to a handful of keyboard users. It has been reduced to a much smaller number like Cardinal Manning of Vatican I said would happen. He wrote: “Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” Then you have Scripture telling us about a great falling away. Remember seeing that verse in II Thess.? Don’t like that verse do you?”
I would hesitate to give modern day interpretations of much of Scripture.
SPERAY REPLIES: Well Cardinal Manning gave it and told us it was the universal testimony of the Church fathers. But you don’t believe them because you belong to the demonic VAtican 2 sect that hates Catholicism!
Not because I am some sort of higher-critic liberal who views everything as being already fulfilled, but because I regard 1. that most of both Revelation and the prophecies of the New Testament as referring to events which have already come to pass (which is the traditional Catholic position as well) and
SPERAY REPLIES: You are not permitted to hold that view on the great apostasy. The Roman Catechism already laid it down for our future!
2. because I think trying to interpret current day prophetic meaning to the texts more often than not leads to spiritual delusion and insanity. This is one of my issues with the “rad-trad” world, both the ‘insiders’ like the FSSP and the ‘outsiders’ like sedevacantists: they end up sounding like Protestant evangelicals spouting end-times BS.
SPERAY REPLIES: So that’s what you think of the Roman Catechism and the universal testimony of the Church fathers? Wow, you’re such a modernist!!!!
“I wrote about that here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/st-catherine-of-siena-and-sedevacantism/”
Once again, I see a lot of semantic squabbles and word games to justify holding a position that has been deemed heretical within the traditional Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! I made proper distinctions, something you don’t do. You lie about our position and make stuff up as you go.
No, just arbitrarily defining the post-VII popes as “antipopes” doesn’t absolve you from a responsibility to submit to their authority.
SPERAY REPLIES: TOTAL BS!
And if they are antipopes, shouldn’t there be a valid pope somewhere?
SPERAY REPLIES: Not necessarily. The Church has existed many times for long periods without popes. https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/how-long-can-the-church-exist-without-a-pope/
Who is that valid pope?
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius XII was the last true pope.
And on what authority do you claim to know the validity of one pope and the “antipope” status of another?
SPERAY REPLIES: I just wrote a piece explaining that very thing.
Was Honorius an “anti-pope”?
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope!
And if so, how do you explain the fact that he has always been included in every list of popes, including those BEFORE everything suddenly went to hell in a handbasket at Vatican II?
SPERAY REPLIES: He wasn’t a heretic. Very simple. He was a true pope. You should do some reading before showing your ignorance. Card. Manning talks about Honorius as does many saints and theologians.
“We are saying follow the Catholic Church exactly as it was in 1958. You can’t even believe in the same doctrines because Vatican 2 is rejected some of them. You have to believe the death penalty is not intrinsically evil because as your pope teaches, it’s contrary to the dignity of the human person.”
Why arbitrarily fix it at that point in time?
SPERAY REPLIES: Do you know what arbitrarily means? That’s not what we’re doing. There is strong proof for our position. Do you not read? You just argue without knowing the facts of your opponent. What pride you have!!!!
If the Church can defect,
SPERAY REPLEIS: THE CHURCH CAN’T DEFECT!!! THAT’S WHY WE’RE SEDEVACANTISTS. IF IT COULD DEFECT, I WOULDN’T BE A CHRISTIAN.
then why not make the claim the Union of Utrecht makes that it defected back in the 1800s?
SPERAY REPLIES: Because they were strong Catholic popes then. Duh!
Why not take it back further and agree with the Eastern Orthodox that it started in 1054?
SPERAY REPLIES: THEY WERE STRONG CATHOLIC POPES THEN, TOO!
Heck, the Ethiopian and Armenian churches argue it goes all the way back to the 450s.
SPERAY REPLIES: The modern-day Arians go back to the 300’s. And?
On what authority to do you presume to know they are wrong and you are correct?
SPERAY REPLIES: If you read, you would know, but I’m going to help you here. Answer the question and you’ll find out.
Especially given that innovative doctrines have occurred all throughout Catholic history, and the Church has always admitted this (“the development of doctrine”). Once again, it sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Nothing in the real world is that simple.
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh yes it is. You’ll find out next.
“Then answer my question about the Eastern Orthodox.”
I don’t know if you are familiar with the Council of Florence, but it was an attempt (and a very serious one which almost succeeded) to restore union between the Western and Eastern churches.
SPERAY REPLIES: I know the council well but it was clear that Eastern Orthodox were not part of the Church of Christ. They had to return! YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!
And once again, there is the Eastern Catholic question. Despite wanting the pre-Vatican II system to be a nice, neat little non-contradictory and simplistic system where everything was easy, obvious and made perfect logical sense, I’m afraid the truth is that such a world has never existed, within any religion, at any point in history.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Eastern Catholics are Uniates. They had to return to the Church of Christ! They were heretical and schismatic before their return. YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!
Just take a look at the fact that some of the Eastern Catholic Churches, like the Syro-Malabar Church which descends from the Assyrian Church of the East, venerate Nestorius (!). Explain to me the Melkite and Byzantine Rite Churches, both of which existed long before Vatican II, with their veneration of Palamas — a strong opponent of western theology. Beyond that, explain the long history of ecumenical relations that medieval Catholics — including popes and cardinals — enjoyed with Muslims. And explain the long history of perennialism and hermeticism in the Vatican.
SPERAY REPLIES: THEY WEREN’T PART OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST UNTIL THEY RETURED WHICH IS MY WHOLE POINT. I’m not talking about Eastern Catholics who returned. I’m asking about the Eastern Orthodox who have not returned. Are they part of the Church of Christ? ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
“Wrong! By any sane interpretation of Vatican I, there is no possible way of holding Vatican 2 are true and safe.”
Except that the text of Vatican I itself clearly states that neither you, not any other member of the laity or even the clergy, has the right to make such a presumptuous statement.
SPERAY REPLIES: BALONEY. Vatican I declared: For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
Once again, the “universal and ordinary magisterium” must be obeyed, even if you don’t like it.
SPERAY REPLIES: I AGREE BUT VAT2 WASN’T ACTUALLY THE MAGISTERIUM AT ALL.
Even if you think it contradicts. Even if it upsets the apple cart that you have invested over a decade of Extremely Online keyboard-warrioring into defending. Turns out you don’t get to play God in Catholicism. Boo hoo.
SPERAY REPLIES: SO FAR, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT WILL LAY THIS ALL TO REST BECAUSE YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADMIT A SERIOUS CONTRADICTION AND YOU’RE NOT GOING TO LIKE IT. BOO HOO TO YOU!
“Wrong again! You are not permitted to hold that a Catholic council is heretical in private opinion. You have no idea how ignorant you are. You come on my site without knowing the Catholic faith and then argue with me. Lol.”
I don’t claim to know every intimate detail or every jot and tittle of medieval Catholic scholarship.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING! You’re spouting nonsense after nonsense!
But I do claim to know that putting personal interpretation and what “makes sense to me” over Magisterial declarations is Protestantism. Congrats. Luther would have been proud.
SPERAY REPLIES: FOR YOUR INFO: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2020/03/23/the-vaticans-veneration-of-arch-heretic-martin-luther/
YOUR POPES VENERATE LUTHER!
“You’re the one making the fallacy because that’s not what we’re saying at all.”
Except it is. Apparently God simultaneously “wills the salvation of all” as per the Bible, but makes it so difficult to carry His yoke which “easy and His burden light” that very few people are able to make it to Heaven, even devout Christians.
SPERAY REPLIES: There you go again. If you’re devout, that’s a different thing. People go to hell because they don’t abide in Christ. You’ve missed the entire point!
Which is another way of saying you believe God creates the vast majority of humanity just so He can damn them, and so the few who are saved may glorify in the sufferings of the damned, as Aquinas writes. “Good news” my foot. I think most people would rather live in blissful ignorance than find out the “good news” that some nutjob who enjoys torturing them controls their eternity.
SPERAY REPLIES: St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): There are a select few who are saved. (Summa Theologica I, Qu.23, art.7, ad 3.) Those who are saved are in the minority. (Summa Theologica I q.23, art.8, ad.3) But you don’t believe it. He also believed in soul infusement, too.
“WRONG YET AGAIN. You have completely twisted Our Lord’s Words. He said quite plainly, “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, AND MANY THERE ARE WHO GO in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and FEW THERE ARE THAT FIND IT!” Very clear stuff. You have chosen not to hear the Words of Our Lord!”
No, I am 100 percent familiar with that verse, and 100 percent familiar with how it is used by both rad-trad fundamentalist Catholics, and insane fundamentalist Protestants, to support their view that very few can be saved. My responses as to alternative explanations of these verses can more than apply to this verse. “All things are possible with God”. Apparently that isn’t a popular verse in the world of the rad-trads.
SPERAY REPLIES: You just did what all the Protestants do. You took a Bible quote out of context. Try reading a commentary: “All things are possible”: That is to say, it is impossible by natural strength, but by the power of the grace given by God it is possible. Just as that a camel should pass through the eye of a needle is possible by the power of God. That this is possible with God is plain from a similar case; namely from the quantity of the body of Christ, which in the Eucharist is wholly contained in a very small Host, yea in every particle of it. For if God is able to place the whole body of Christ in a particle of a consecrated Host, He is able also to make a camel pass through the eye of a needle.”
It doesn’t mean that it’s possible for God to contradict Himself or to deceive, etc. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EASTERN ORTHODOX ARE PART OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OR DON’T REPLY AGAIN. You’d just be proving that you’re dishonest as your Vatican 2 religion.