Ask A Catholic II

[Jehoshua]

Less silly question, who goes to hell?

people who aren't saved

 

[Perfection]

people who aren't saved

Who aren't saved?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Divorce is not allowed, period.

No, but marriage counseling is recommended

Buh? Aside from the fact that Matthew's gospel allows divorce, what about spousal abuse?
And, referring to the anti-divorce sentiment upthread, why should a Catholic be opposed to secular divorce legislation being passed. You know, so an abused wife can leave her husband ...

How common of a sentiment would this be? "The Maltese government should not allow divorce"?

Spousal abuse is of course gravely immoral, however I would think that the Church (I am not sure on any specific teaching or rule of jurisprudence in this area) that it would prefer alternative means to resolve the issue, such as marriage councelling.

As to pro-marriage (anti-divorce) sentiment, a catholic would be opposed to divorce legislation (especially in 95% catholic malta) because it is encouraging a moral and societal ill which harms the social structure of any particular society. Furthermore it would be considered uncharitable to sit idly by why the rest of society falls into a harmful or even sinful position or mentality (such as say abortion to highlight a well known example). Thus it is the responsibility of Catholics to work to ensure the good of society is maintained in light of the teachings of Christ.

What Jesus says on divorce from Matthew 19:

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The relevant portion is bolded. Jesus allows divorce in cases of sexual immorality. Why does the RCC not allow it in those cases?

 

[Leoreth]

Divorce is a sacrilege because it violates the sacrament of marriage. It also is damaging to society generally. Malta is a catholic country and thus the Church worked to prevent this social evil from entering into that country and a) perhaps leading people into sacilegious separation from matrimony b) prevent a social ill from entering maltese society.

I havent checked if the referendum permitted it (I hope it didn;t) but I know it was neck and neck last time I checked.

2% of the Maltese population aren't Catholic, and we don't know how much of the 98% are practicing Catholics. Even 2%, while it doesn't sound like much, is a significant part of the population. Maybe they feel their society damaged because of someone else's views?

That isn't even going into the fact that only because something is not legally possible, it will stop the people from acting just the same way.

Again: if divorce is truly a sacrilege, then God will surely judge them accordingly. Why bother mundane courts with the matter?

 

[Capt_Lightning]

Hi everyone, I just graduated from high school, and I've been going to Catholic Schools all my life. I am by no means an expert on Catholicism, but I did just remember something about divorce that was mentioned in my religion class. Here we go:

The seperation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

Divorce is not allowed, period.

So yeah, not entirely true. It is allowed under certain circumstances, but generally it is not allowed. And its never encouraged, just "tolerated" under the circumstances outlined above.

 

[civ_king]

In Malta you can file for separation which means you basically go your separate ways, but you can't remarry and if you get an annulment it is recognized by Malta

 

[Jehoshua]

What Jesus says on divorce from Matthew 19:

The relevant portion is bolded. Jesus allows divorce in cases of sexual immorality. Why does the RCC not allow it in those cases?

The Church would try every other means possible such as marriage counselling.

However in the case that other means are impossible there are three options. Annulment which indicates the marriage was never valid (in this case that the spouse never had any intent of having children or being faithful to their spouse) or separation as in Malta in which the couple still remains married but they live apart. I think the Church (my opinion) doesn;t permit divorce in these cases, historically because sexual immorality on the part of catholics was considered unlikely (although with the rise of the cafateria catholic and internal heretic much more likely), and also contemporaneously as if it did then you would have an inrush of people requeting divorce for every other issue. Basically its now (thanks to contemporary society) an issue of open a crack in teh door and the flood comes raging in.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The Church would try every other means possible such as marriage counselling.

However in the case that other means are impossible there are three options. Annulment which indicates the marriage was never valid (in this case that the spouse never had any intent of having children or being faithful to their spouse) or separation as in Malta in which the couple still remains married but they live apart. I think the Church (my opinion) doesn;t permit divorce in these cases, historically because sexual immorality on the part of catholics was considered unlikely (although with the rise of the cafateria catholic and internal heretic much more likely), and also contemporaneously as if it did then you would have an inrush of people requeting divorce for every other issue. Basically its now (thanks to contemporary society) an issue of open a crack in teh door and the flood comes raging in.

I'm not suggesting people should be able to use an "Affair" that didn't actually happen as an excuse to divorce and remarry, but I fail to see the logic in punishing an innocent spouse and not allowing them to be married because their spouse is abusing them or having an affair.

Now, I can see how you can say, if such a person as I described above is repentant, the other spouse should take them back. I think in such a case, the best option would be to take them back. I don't think its required, but you could argue it.

But what if they aren't repentant? What if they don't want counseling? What if the unrepentant spouse has no intent of stopping the affair or abuse. Should not divorce be allowed by necessity?

 

[GhostWriter16]

No they do not have to remarry, however they do have to have their marriage confirmed by the Church.

But their marriage is considered legitimate correct? So, they weren't committing fornication for the entire time right?

Im afraid Civ_king may be incorrect somewhat here. If one is unrepentant and goes before their particular judgement (the one after you die, compared to the general judgement at the end of time) in unrepentant mortal sin you will go to hell. One can only repent before this time, not after.

However it has been theorised that there is a brief period after natural death and before teh judgement when one can repent, however this is not dogma and is merely the musings of various theologians who are naturally fallible. This teaching is not proclaimed by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church.

Is this teaching incorrect, or is it possibly correct?

But in regards to this area Augustine is right in the understanding that even if you hadn;t heard of it you were and are exceedingly likely to commit mortal sin (almost a guarantee that you would do so) as people are naturally inclined to sin. Thus considering this Augustine concluded that no one outside the Church could be saved since they lacked the Church to guide them from their sin and onto the path of sanctification. This was especially so considering hte society he lived in which was basically the collapsing of the roman empire and paganism was still rife amongst a large portion of the population (the vandals conquered North Africa during his time)

This has developed but not changed simply in that it acknowledges that a non-catholic can theoretically be saved if he has not commited any personal mortal sin in his life. However this is quite literally the most extremely unlikely incident that its natural that Augustine considered during his day that no non catholic could be saved, and even then it is said that of a great city theoretically full of catholics only a few hundred would achieve the beatific vision. It doesn't take a Hitler to go to hell.

Well, first of all, Augustine taught that even unbaptized infants were damned. I know most Catholics nowadays do not believe this, and most think their destination is limbo or Heaven (To insert a question into that, what is the most likely fate, in your opinion, of the infant who dies unbaptized?)

Also, it seems that if a mortal sin is committed, genuine repentance is a possibility as well, even if you are outside the Catholic Church, so did Augustine honestly believe that nobody, anywhere, would genuinely repent but didn't know about the Catholic Church? That seems much more like a Calvinist viewpoint than a Catholic viewpoint.

Also, for the Catholic, is there any way to be certain you will not go to Hell?

EDIT: Sorry for the double post, apparently I missed the answer to my question on page 24 and it was linked to me in another thread.

 

[Takhisis]

Buh? Aside from the fact that Matthew's gospel allows divorce, what about spousal abuse?
And, referring to the anti-divorce sentiment upthread, why should a Catholic be opposed to secular divorce legislation being passed. You know, so an abused wife can leave her husband ...

How common of a sentiment would this be? "The Maltese government should not allow divorce"?

I don't know about Malta and what the laws are down there, but I'm -personally- against just anyone divorcing anyone else. You can't take marriage as a disposable pretty thing which you can throw away whenever you like. It's a lifelong commitment. Severe cases, maybe, after all the Bible doesn't ban it outright,

What Jesus says on divorce from Matthew 19:

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The relevant portion is bolded. Jesus allows divorce in cases of sexual immorality. Why does the RCC not allow it in those cases?

Hmmm, the Church doesn't allow for 'religious' divorce, the sacrament of matrimony is 'until death do us part', 'for better or for worse' etc. etc.

You could have pasted the following, too:

19:10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!” 19:11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 19:12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.

Marriage is not for everyone.

Hi everyone, I just graduated from high school, and I've been going to Catholic Schools all my life. I am by no means an expert on Catholicism, but I did just remember something about divorce that was mentioned in my religion class. Here we go:

The seperation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

So yeah, not entirely true. It is allowed under certain circumstances, but generally it is not allowed. And its never encouraged, just "tolerated" under the circumstances outlined above.

As I said before, that's 'civil' or 'secular' divorce. The sacrament cannot be undone.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Tak- Certainly. Surely, even not being able to divorce except for marital unfaithfulness is still quite a tough statement. And it would still prohibit many divorces that are "The other person's fault."

However, it makes more sense to me that Mark would omit a piece of info than that Matthew would incorrectly insert info in the light of 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

[JollyRoger]

However, it makes more sense to me that Mark would omit a piece of info than that Matthew would incorrectly insert info in the light of 2 Timothy 3:16.

Did you ever consider that 2 Timothy 3:16 may have gotten it wrong?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Did you ever consider that 2 Timothy 3:16 may have gotten it wrong?

Well, Catholics accept the inerrancy of the Bible so that's irrelevant.

In any case, that's like saying "I trust the claims of X, except the claim that they are trustworthy," it makes no sense.

Its like if you say "I trust you Dommy," and I say "Trust me on this, I am right this time, God told me so," and you say "Nope, he didn't." Do you really trust me then? Now, it might not be wise to trust me, but then you miss the point. As Christians, we DO trust the Bible, and the Bible speaks of its own inerrancy, so we should believe it.

This isn't a topic for this thread. My apologies to the Catholics here. I hope you guys will still answer my question

 

[Ajidica]

Well, Catholics accept the inerrancy of the Bible so that's irrelevant.

Not exactly. The pope has basicaly said that given all of the evidence supporting evolution and an 'old earth' theory, the strict seven day creation myth and 'new earth' theory as expoused in the bible are not accurate.

and the Bible speaks of its own inerrancy, so we should believe it.

The book Demon states that it is the account of the End of the World and enclosed within it is the fate of humanity. Can you prove to me that it is not inerrant?

 

[Jehoshua]

Catholics accept the innerancy of the bible. However we do not accept biblical literalism, that is that everything is literally as it says, sections of the bible are meant to be taken metaphorically. Furthermore the bible never states its innerancy as far as im aware, there is the warning in revelation against corrupting its text but I can not recall a statement of absolute innerancy in the bible (although there might be one I simply cant recall at this time)

 

[Jehoshua]

But their marriage is considered legitimate correct? So, they weren't committing fornication for the entire time right?

Is this teaching incorrect, or is it possibly correct?

If their marraige is invalid because one partner had the incorrect intent then they would be commiting fornication but the person who had the correct intent because of the sacramental union would not as they would have the correct intent and correct form.

As to the teaching regarding a possible period after deat hand before judgement in which one can repent it is merely a hypothesis on the part of theologians and no teaching on the matter has been pronounced by the Church.

Well, first of all, Augustine taught that even unbaptized infants were damned. I know most Catholics nowadays do not believe this, and most think their destination is limbo or Heaven (To insert a question into that, what is the most likely fate, in your opinion, of the infant who dies unbaptized?)

The Church imparts the fate of infants to God's mercy and does not know where their souls rest upon death. However they commited no personal sin so we hope they can achieve salvation but the Church does not have the ability to pronounce their fate, just as no man can pronounce the fate of another.

Also, it seems that if a mortal sin is committed, genuine repentance is a possibility as well, even if you are outside the Catholic Church, so did Augustine honestly believe that nobody, anywhere, would genuinely repent but didn't know about the Catholic Church? That seems much more like a Calvinist viewpoint than a Catholic viewpoint.

I can;t know what Augustine thoughts on the matter. However repentance outside the Church is exceedingly unlikely as once you fall into sin it becomes a habit, sin is a natural inclination to evil foudn in every man. So although it is exceedingly unlikely for one outside the Church to repent with perfect contrition it is theoretically possible and as I said, Augustine in his time frame would have seen a world which owuld naturally make one doubt the possibility of repentance outside the Church. (and he was a manichean before he converted and thus a rejection of their philosophy on sin played a part. [they did not accept the people are responsible for sin])

Also, for the Catholic, is there any way to be certain you will not go to Hell?

No.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post, apparently I missed the answer to my question on page 24 and it was linked to me in another thread.[/QUOTE]

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not exactly. The pope has basicaly said that given all of the evidence supporting evolution and an 'old earth' theory, the strict seven day creation myth and 'new earth' theory as expoused in the bible are not accurate.

IIRC, this isn't dogma though, and thus Catholics do not have to agree with the Pope on it. Regardless, one can say the Bible is perfectly true, but not always literal, as Jehoshua said. In fact, I doubt anyone takes ALL of it literally, (Passages of the Beast out of the Sea come to mind) but some people feel more should be taken literally than others. I doubt any Christian would say NONE of the Bible is to be taken literally either, so its just a matter of how much is literal and how much has a different explanation.

The book Demon states that it is the account of the End of the World and enclosed within it is the fate of humanity. Can you prove to me that it is not inerrant?

You miss the point. The book "Demon" is not something I accept as true. If you don't accept the Bible as true, fine. But if you accept it as true, yet deny what it says about itself, that doesn't make sense.

Catholics accept the innerancy of the bible. However we do not accept biblical literalism, that is that everything is literally as it says, sections of the bible are meant to be taken metaphorically.

Do Catholics HAVE to take particular portions (Such as seven-day creation) metaphorically, or is this up to the conviction of the individual Catholic?

Furthermore the bible never states its innerancy as far as im aware, there is the warning in revelation against corrupting its text but I can not recall a statement of absolute innerancy in the bible (although there might be one I simply cant recall at this time)

Well, the Bible doesn't use those words, but "God-breathed" Sounds pretty close, especially with the numerous passages that talk about God's perfection.

If their marraige is invalid because one partner had the incorrect intent then they would be commiting fornication but the person who had the correct intent because of the sacramental union would not as they would have the correct intent and correct form.

This was about two Protestants married in a Protestant Church. You must have incorrectly understodd the question because that answer doesn't even make sense in relation to what I asked.

I asked if a Protestant Marriage is legitimate, and basically, I asked if it is accurate that the two Protestants were not sinning by sleeping together because they were married.

As to the teaching regarding a possible period after deat hand before judgement in which one can repent it is merely a hypothesis on the part of theologians and no teaching on the matter has been pronounced by the Church.

OK, just curious but what do you believe on this? (Probably not terribly relevant but I'm curious.)

The Church imparts the fate of infants to God's mercy and does not know where their souls rest upon death. However they commited no personal sin so we hope they can achieve salvation but the Church does not have the ability to pronounce their fate, just as no man can pronounce the fate of another.

OK that reasoning is logical. Is it safe to say they aren't burning in Hell though?

I can;t know what Augustine thoughts on the matter. However repentance outside the Church is exceedingly unlikely as once you fall into sin it becomes a habit, sin is a natural inclination to evil foudn in every man. So although it is exceedingly unlikely for one outside the Church to repent with perfect contrition it is theoretically possible and as I said, Augustine in his time frame would have seen a world which owuld naturally make one doubt the possibility of repentance outside the Church. (and he was a manichean before he converted and thus a rejection of their philosophy on sin played a part. [they did not accept the people are responsible for sin])

OK fair enough. Just curious, but how uncommon do you think it is? Do you think its a safe bet that most non-Catholic Christians are damned, or do you think a sizable portion of them will be saved? When you look at a non-Catholic Christian, do you fear he is damned, or not?

No.

Just curious, but how do you explain this?

http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/5-17.htm

Can a new creation become an "Old" Creation again? And especially, can one dance back and forth between being a new and old creation? Catholicism teaches that you can lose your salvation and get it back again, but the passage above seems to imply that we can know for sure.

Also, doesn't the fact that you know you may be damned if you fall into sin and do not come to repentance a pretty scary thought? We are adopted in the family of Christ. Would a parent let go of his child because he transgressed against him? Surely not! How much more with God!

 

[_random_]

What is the Thomistic view of human nature?

 

[Jehoshua]

1: One can believe in a literal seven day creation and not be considered heretical as nothing on the matter has been declared dogma, however the general view is that it is metaphor. So although you can hold your personal conviction on the matter your holding to a view that is in the minority and is also blatantly contrary to reason and scientific evidence.

2: scripture is inspired but it does not neccesarily have to be innerant, they are two very different things. Inspired means that it reveals something about God and the human relationship with him, innerant means it is totally correct on everything. Therefore an innerant bible would contain no scientific errors, whereas an inspired one could but would contain no theological error and would reveal truth.

3:I honestly don't know if a protestant marraige is considered valid, however I think it would be considering the fact that a marriage does not need to be repeated and only merely confirmed for a protestant couple who converted to the Church.

4:I hold no opinion on the matter of post death pre judgement repentance as since I happen to be alive it concerns me not. It is much more important to focus on living in fidelity to all Christ commanded and repenting my sins now than musing over what happens after one dies, which naturally the living cannot know.

5:As to infants we cannot know their fate, since no man can pronounce the fate of another. We can merely entrust the unbaptised infant to God's mercy.

6:Exceedingly few are saved. Many of the doctors of the Church wrote that out of a city of thousands only a few hundred would be saves. The fewness of those who are saved is emphasised everywhere amongst the church fathers. So I think it is a safe bet that the vast majority of people who are catholic will not achieve salvation, and I would think that the prospect for those who lack the guidance of the Church is dim.

The path to hell is wide and flat, the path to heaven is winding, steep. The gates to hell are wide, the gates to heaven narrow.

7: To be baptised a christian is to be ontologically changed as the original sin of the person is washed away. Furthermore through the sacraments of the Church man is ontologically changed through the grace of God on the path towards sanctification his soul being changed and purified by Christ. The spirit within him strengthens him against the world and whispers to him calling him forward on the path, however that does not negate the free will of man for man can reject the Lord. By God's grace one is made a new man in Christ, however this does not mean one is automatically saved, for even the foulest of sinners who is baptised has the intrinsic mark of a christian on their soul, they even in their state of depravity are distinguished from the unbaptised, for the mark of Christ is in them, yet should they choose to reject Christ they still face the just end for their rejection.

Furthermore to choose God over sin is a choice. God does not reject anyone who chooses to follow him. As I have said before God damns no one to hell, rather the sinner throws himself into hell, for having made the choice to remain in unrepentant sin God respects that choice and as the pain of God's infinite love to the sinner is exeedingly great, the sinner throws himself away from God into hell to avoid that burning fire, for it is less harsh in hell for the one marred by mortal sin than in the presence of the perfect God, and nothing imperfect can exist in God's presence.

Thus it is not so frightening that one would be damned for falling into the depravity of sin. Rather whats frightening is that so many make the choice to do so.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Biblical inerrancy and literalism are not the same thing, and one can hold one view without the other (although I doubt there are any Literalists who are not Inerrantists, rather than the other way around).