Hebrews 6: 4-8

[blovedwolfofgod]

Okay, so it says:

[quote]For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him in contempt.[/quote]

I dont understand. I thought that all sin was forgivable.

Okay, to clarify things, my interpretation is probably wrong cause it doesnt seem to mesh with the Church. What I was thinking was that the verse referred to mortal sin.

Then a little later I read:

[quote]If we sin deliberatly after recieving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgement and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God? Heb. 10: 26-29[/quote]

So, its starting to seem that a mortal sin sends you to hell, however there is no repentance once you come to the Eucharist... but that cant be right... it goes against everything I learned about forgiveness and the sacrament of penance. Then after reading about sacraments, in order to recieve grace, you must be open to it because of the ex opere operatis nature of it... so if one is in mortal sin then can they recieve the grace of forgiveness despite the fact that they cut themselves off from grace?

bleh...

[thessalonian]

A difficult passage to be sure. Many Protestants think it hypothetical and that such a thing cannot happen, in the OSAS vein. I do not see God as the divine bluffer. Is there no forgiveness for some? Perhaps it is related to the passage about the unforgivable sin? Does it mean that those who leave the Church will never come back? In this day and age with so many reverts to the Church I don't think that is the case. Here is the way I look at it. I see it from man's perspective rather than God. What I mean is that as the passage indicates, those who were of the faith and knew the faith well and then willfully joined in to apostacy, being in the state of mortal sin, cannot be restored to the true faith by us or themselves. They are in a state that was worse than their first state and it is impossible for US to restore them or for THEY to restore THEMSELVES. Does this mean they cannot be restored? No. But only God's grace can restore them and bring them to the repentance that is neccessary for their renewal. I think the passage is about presumption and that we cannot presume upon God's grace to restore us as well. My experience with former Catholics who have become anti-catholic does shed light on this passage. They simply will not listen and are of the most venemous against the Church. It does seem impossible to convert them. For me I truly believe it is, yet I know that God's grace can overcome.

I don't have it but have read the Navarre Commentary on this question. As I recall it was something similar. Perhaps phat, whom I know has it can post it.

Edited April 19, 2006 by thessalonian

[phatcatholic]

well, think about it, what type of "falling away" would be so grave that it would propose the "recrucifying of the Son of God"? this would be the sin of apostasy, of deliberately separating oneself from the faith. this is not a mere doubt of Church teaching, or a stuggling with something that you want to believe but have trouble believing. apostasy involves a sense of obstinancy, in which you refuse to be reconciled with the Church on a certain point. as long as such a person remains obstinant, it is indeed "impossible", as the passage says, "to bring him to repentances again."

heb 6 from the navarre is not online yet, and it is too long to type out. i hope what i have written here is helpful. here are some other commentaries as well:

--[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/hebrews/hebrews6.htm#foot4"]Heb 6:6, Footnote from the NAB[/url]
--[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/65006.htm"]Heb 6:4, Footnote from the DRB[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=85"]Fr. William G. Most: Commentary on the Letter to the Hebrews[/url]
--[url="http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/heb5b.htm"]Heb 5:11--6:8, Refusal to Grow[/url]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[blovedwolfofgod]

I think I understand. Its essentially refusing to even be open to the grace that God offers. So its not so much applied to the ex opere operatis aspect of grace, but more of a refusal. Okay, so mortal sin and apostasy are different... they have the same relationship as a rectangle and a square... But I thought that a mortal sin was a denying of Christ in and of itself? So its [i]not[/i] apostasy, but apostasy is a mortal sin?

[thessalonian]

Actually thanks for your words, they helped my perspective.

Yes, apostacy would be mortal sin. But like you say it is worse because it denies the avenues of grace to return to grace (i.e. confession) and the authorities that can administer the sacrament. When a priest is excommunicated he also has his rights to hear confessions revoked. So apostate groups with validly ordained preists still don't have this sacrament. Mortal sin is a denial of Christ but the sinner is still open to the avenues of grace and actual, ( not sanctifying grace), may still be active I would think, moving them to repentence. An apostate it seems is resisting even actual grace.

Edited April 20, 2006 by thessalonian

[blovedwolfofgod]

okay... that makes more sense.

[Chester]

I like St Aquinas's commentary on this, here is a portion of it:

[quote]. . . Then when he says, and then commit apostasy, he shows the difficulty in rising, after one has fallen. Here it should be noted that he does not say, ‘fallen’, but ‘fallen away’, i.e. completely fallen, because if they had merely fallen, it should not be difficult to rise: ‘A just man shall fall seven times, and shall rise again’ (Pr. 24:16). But if the Apostle had said it is impossible for those who have fallen away to rise again, then it might be said that in this he was signifying how extremely difficult it is to rise, both because of sin and because of pride, as in the devils. But because he says that those who have once fallen away cannot be renewed unto penance, and there is no sin in this world that man cannot repent of, there must be another explanation.

Hence, it should be noted that a certain Novatian, who was a priest of the church in Rome, made this the occasion of his error. For he declared that no one could rise to penance after baptism. But this opinion is false, as Athanasius says in a letter to Serapion, because Paul himself received the incestuous Corinthians, as shown in 2 Cor (chap. 2); and likewise in Gal (4:19), because he says: ‘My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you.’ Therefore, it must be understood, as Augustine says, that he does not say that it is impossible to repent, but that it is impossible to be renewed again, i.e., baptized: ‘By the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit’ (Tit 3:5). For a man could never repent in such a way that he could be baptized again. The Apostle says this because according to the Law, the Jews were baptized frequently, as is shown in Mark (chap. 7). Consequently, it was in order to remove that error that the Apostle says this.

Then when he says, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account, he gives the reason why baptism cannot be repeated, namely because baptism is a configuration to Christ’s death, as is clear from Romans (6:13); ‘all we who are baptized in Christ, are baptized in his death.’ But this death is not repeated, because ‘Christ rising again from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9). Therefore, those who are repeatedly baptized crucify Christ again. Or, another way, it denotes that is repugnant to Christ’s grace for people to sin frequently and then be baptized again. Then the emphasis is not on the repetition of baptism, but on the falling away of the sinner, who, as far as in him lies, crucifies Christ again: ‘Christ died once for our sins’ (1 Pt. 3:18). Therefore, when you sin after baptism, then as far as in you lies, you give occasion for Christ to be crucified again; and in this way hold him up to contempt and stain yourself, washed in His blood: ‘He loved us and washed us fro our sins in his blood’ (Rev. 1:15).[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

is that online anywhere?

[blovedwolfofgod]

uhhh.....


okay, now im not one to disagree often with the Fathers... (except DeMontfort... me and him have words over some of his points, and his blatant disregard for scripture in context... but as a whole, his works are good) but this seems kinda like making the scripture say whatever it is he wants it to say... (a pet peeve of mine, because alot of the old writers do this, ruining completely valid points and orthodox teachings... kinda like he had to include five sources for his paper when he only needed two).

So perhaps someone could dumb it down? Cause i read it... and i read some of phat's materials he posted for me, but yeah... i'd also be interest in the citation for that.

[Chester]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='956457' date='Apr 21 2006, 02:56 PM']
is that online anywhere?
[/quote]
[url="http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Commentaries.asp"]Right here[/url].

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Chester' post='956966' date='Apr 22 2006, 09:18 AM']
[url="http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Commentaries.asp"]Right here[/url].
[/quote]
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!!