Follow Up

[Kevin]

A bit before Christmas I posted a thread about some doubts I was having and a lot of people said they would pray for me. I just wanted to thank the people who did. I feel I have gotten over a lot of my doubts.

 

But at the same time, I am also confronting some new issues. Part of the reason I started to overcome some of my doubts, was looking into some of the Marian apparitions, and seeing that they in many cases had a more merit to them than I thought. But on the other hand, those apparitions also create another issue, because a lot of them seems to portray an image of God that lacks any of the mercy or love I would want to associate with him. In a way, they make it seem like the Traditionalists are right, and there is no salvation outside the Church, and even in the Church most people are probably going to Hell anyway.

 

Then I look at some of the things that the Church seems to have said and taught in the past - take this essay on the fate of unbaptized infants, which though it is from a sedevacantist seems to at least make the point that this was at one time the Church's, or this one on how much God "If ‘God is love’ (I St. John 4:8) to those few upon whom he has mercy, whom he spares his gratuitous wrath, then he is hate to the mass of humanity. He hates them unto everlasting damnation, not because of their sins, which he permits and facilitates but of himself."

 

I can't help but feel like these sorts of Traditionalist diatribes, even though they don't jibe with post-Vatican II belief, would probably be warmly accepted by the Church even a few hundred years ago. This is something I found on a different site (the copy here is on the same sight as the others, but that's just because it was the most well-laid out version I could find), a sermon written by a man who is now a saint, saying 5 in 33,000, or about .01% of even the faithful end up in heaven. Maybe we are just kidding ourselves by trying to say these things are not as cut and dry as the Church once taught, and there is no salvation outside the Church, and probably very little in it as well.

 

But the result for me now is that the God of Christianity seems to be a Demiurge who created most of humanity just for pretty much all of us to go to Hell, including plenty of people who go to Hell through absolutely no fault of their own because they died at the wrong time or weren't born in the right country. I feel like I would rather go to Hell anyway, if that is what God is like, since there is no way on Earth I can twist my mind into accepting nearly universal damnation as justice.

 

On the other hand, I don't believe that Hell can be discarded. Some people are definitely in Hell, and should be there. But I don't know how to reconcile my distaste for the Church's previous emphasis on it, at least if the Church is supposed to be infalible.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Kevin

[Beati Pacifici]

I usually don't comment on threads like this but I will give it a shot.

 

I don't claim to be a scholar, a historian, a apologist or even a good Catholic. I have never been to seminary before and I am the furthest from being a saint that you could ever imagine. Take my opinion with a grain of salt, but at least give it a shot.

 

God loves you, plain and simple. I would like to start off with that preface because I believe in your current mindset, that is what you truly need to hear the most. You can go on any website or look up any writing of a saint, and though they are wise and in heaven, they were still human and even given their tremendous insight into matters of the soul, it does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that they speak for God. I welcome any heat I get by saying that, but I'm shooting from the hip right now.

 

I have had several struggles with my faith. I was originally born non-denominational and I floated around from every faith imaginable (from agnosticism all the way to, believe it or not, Hinduism) until finding the Church. Doubt is what I am used to and no matter how much faith I have, doubt is one thing that will never go away.

 

But to avoid going off topic: Why focus on the potential negatives or opinions that do not express an attitude of charity and love? I know it is only natural to explore these type of things and I am not judging you for it, but I do not find it healthy to the growing of faith to continually ponder the punitive aspects of God or solely focus on one aspect in general for that matter.

 

First off, in regards to the essay you posted. It appears to be a website that is more or less an apologist website for Jansenism, which the Church has already condemned as a heresy a long time ago. In fact, according to Catholic-culture.org, that's apparently what it is meant to do: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=2532

 

With that said, why trust a site that apparently doesn't care about it's standing with the Church and promotes heresy?

 

Also, as far as attitudes from hundreds of years are concerned, I cannot change your mind about that. One could easily point at the fact that scrupulosity has existed throughout the ages and also that the Catholic Church, while Her doctrines and dogmas are infallible, the Church is not infallible as a whole (as far as people and their attitudes). One can only trust the Holy Spirit in this regard, as even with the virtues of the Church throughout history, the Church (in terms of Her faithful) has made mistakes in both attitudes and action. Mistakes that She has admitted and that Her faithful still make to this day.

 

I can tell you that you are an intelligent guy, hell, probably more so than me. Intellect breeds curiosity, so it is only understandable. But as someone who has had these same doubts, I understand where you are coming from. But it's ultimately a choice that you have to make and I will be the first to admit that embracing faith as the agent of life is a scary choice, but one that has many rewards.

[Kevin]

Yeah, I'm aware that the site is heretical. But I've been lurking at other forums like CAF, and I can't help but feel like, even compared to other Catholics, I'm certainly by no means a righteous person. I try to be good to others, but as I guess the Fatima girl said, most people are going to Hell for sins of the flesh, and I can see myself in that camp.

 

But the thing is, I don't really even feel much doubt anymore. I had read that there was a reporter for a secular, anti-clerical newspaper who, after having written skeptically beforehand of the Fatima miracles, described the Miracle of the Sun as he saw it happening as a real miracle. I am surrounded by non-believers and skeptics of just this sorts, and that at least struck me, that a cynic would not turn on a dime like that if it was nothing.

 

But now, when I read about Fatima, it seems like the message is all about how God is disappointed with us, and how we are all sensual and worldly and need to spend our lives in constant penance and prayer if we don't want to go to Hell. And I just don't know if I'm going to make it - at least, it seems very unlikely.

[Beati Pacifici]

Yeah, I'm aware that the site is heretical. But I've been lurking at other forums like CAF, and I can't help but feel like, even compared to other Catholics, I'm certainly by no means a righteous person. I try to be good to others, but as I guess the Fatima girl said, most people are going to Hell for sins of the flesh, and I can see myself in that camp.

 

The fact that Our Lady would even appear to the world shows us that we are truly blessed. She loves us enough to warn us about our lives and how we lead them. Please don't take it as something that keep your head down about, but rather, something to keep your head up about. That we are not left in the cold about our present state.

 

But now, when I read about Fatima, it seems like the message is all about how God is disappointed with us, and how we are all sensual and worldly and need to spend our lives in constant penance and prayer if we don't want to go to Hell. And I just don't know if I'm going to make it - at least, it seems very unlikely.

 

When I was at Mass last Saturday, the Priest gave a homily on the woman caught in adultery in the New Testament. I listened as he put special emphasis on "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". It really caused me to reflect on the nature of it, that to me, Jesus wasn't just talking about judging others, but ourselves. We shouldn't cast the first stone on ourselves. Please, do not judge yourself as God hasn't judged you yet.

 

God is with you through all of this. Your primary responsibility is to just try as hard as possible. He isn't expecting perfection and it's not an overnight change. I know I am the pot calling the kettle black right now, but please don't be discouraged.

 

I wish I could give you a more scholarly answer with tons of quotes of the Bible, CCC, Summa, and so on and so forth, or perhaps express it a little more eloquently, but I can't. It's not my style.

 

I think you are a good guy. The very fact that you are concerned is a good thing, as we should all have healthy concern for where we are going. But please do not let it drag you down into a constant state of loathing, when if anything it should be fuel to go forward.

[Kevin]

Well, thank you for your thoughts. But the thing is, I'm not really throwing stones at myself. Rather, I feel like I'm not a bad person, but according to the standards of the Church I am probably still going to Hell, and even more pressingly, many people who I know who I think are basically good people are probably going to Hell too. Of course, I could be interpretting Church doctrine too scrupulously, but when I look at how many things the Church deems grave sins that only seem to me minor sins, I'm surprised anyone avoids Hell.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Kevin

[Kevin]

I should have added to my last post - that given how many things are grave sins according to the Church, my mother, who died in her sleep from an accidental overdose of sleeping medication about 10 years ago, is probably in Hell. She wasn't a perfect person by any means, and all of the priests I talked to about this when it happened said that her suffering due to her prolonged chronic pain may have sanctified her somehow, but still - according to the strict definition, she died unshriven and without a chance to even make an act of contrition, and given how many things are considered grave sins, it's likely she's in Hell.

 

But then, when I read things like this:

 

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

 

I think, if such things are the doctrines of the Church, or were in the past, I simply cannot accept the Church's teachings as legitimate.

[MIKolbe]

why?  what's wrong with that bolded sentence?

[Kevin]

why?  what's wrong with that bolded sentence?

 

According to this, for example, the Russian Orthodox priests, even if they were not Catholic through no fault of their own, in spite of being tortured and killed in the name of Christ by the Red Army would have been sent to Hell. If this is what the Church believes, I cannot accept it.

 

Though, given that it says "remain" I suppose it can be interpreted as only applying to those who deliberately left or rejected the Church.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Kevin

[MIKolbe]

oh..

 

thank goodness the Church doesn't teach this.

[Kevin]

oh..

 

thank goodness the Church doesn't teach this.

 

No, I don't think this is what the Church teaches. I suppose it just bothers me that there are probably people out there who think it does teach this, or that it should.

[MIKolbe]

does it upset you that Jesus said this:

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.^"

[Kevin]

does it upset you that Jesus said this:

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.^"

 

No, because in Mark 9:40 he says "For whoever is not against us is for us."

 

But actually, I would really just prefer if this thread were deleted or locked or allowed to die. I feel like I am just amplifying my own anxiety in a way that is not helpful to me all by discussing it in this way.

[MIKolbe]

I think the key to alieviating your anxiety is to see how the Church (in totality) reconciles your quoted verse, and my quoted verse.

 

But, peace to you nonetheless.

[Kevin]

I think the key to alieviating your anxiety is to see how the Church (in totality) reconciles your quoted verse, and my quoted verse.

 

But, peace to you nonetheless.

 

I agree, and thank you. I think I just need to reflect on this on my own at this point.

[Nihil Obstat]

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
—Kallistos Ware (An Orthodox bishop)