Timeline for According to the Catholicism, is a conscious denial of the gospel of Christ a mortal sin?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Aug 14, 2016 at 4:47 | comment | added | Geremia | @Caleb "In summary you are saying that according to Catholisim, ignorance is bliss—that not knowing or properly understanding the Gospel will keep you out of hell‽" I can see how you have that interpretation, but he does quote a document saying "He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5)". This is in accord with "the truth shall set you free" (Jn. 8:32). | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 10:49 | vote | accept | Cannabijoy | ||
| Aug 12, 2016 at 10:49 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | Also, it seems the authoritative conclusion is "Who knows how this is supposed to work, it's a mystery". I've heard this argument for a certain other Christian concept that's likewise incomprehensible and loaded with inconsistencies. I was going to edit the question and place the woman in America, but that should probably be a separate question. Anyways, thank you AthanasiusOfAlex. Although I don't understand this whatsoever, you did answer my question with a Catholic perspective so I'll accept this answer. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 10:49 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | 2) I can enjoy becoming a son of God for my temporary and meaningless life, but if I ever deny the faith I'll spend eternity having my flesh burned, 3) or as soon as I hear the full gospel, I could kill myself so that I never have to worry about denying later in life or committing a grave matter. But then that would also have me sent to have my flesh burned forever. So my safest bet today (since I'm not Catholic and obviously ignorant of the full gospel) is to stop talking immediately before I learn too much. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 10:48 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | Okay, this answer is really long and I don't think there is near enough room in the comments section to discuss it all. Regardless, I'm still having trouble seeing how ignorance and covering my ears is not the best bet to avoid eternal flesh burning. It seems what you're saying is, 1) I can either be ignorant and miss out on the title "a son of god" for my temporary and meaningless life, and then be whisked away into heaven to spend eternity as a son of God, | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 9:46 | history | edited | AthanasiusOfAlex | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Missing :
|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 9:40 | comment | added | AthanasiusOfAlex | @MattGutting Added a lengthy note with background on extra ecclesia nulla salus. That should probably be its own question.... | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 9:38 | history | edited | AthanasiusOfAlex | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Excursus on _extra ecclesia nulla salus_; added note on baptism of desire; specified _formal_ membership.
|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 9:30 | history | edited | AthanasiusOfAlex | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Excursus on _extra ecclesia nulla salus_
|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 9:01 | comment | added | Matt Gutting | This is in fact current Catholic doctrine, @Caleb; it's not new per se although it's been more clearly stated in the last century and a half or so. I'm not seeing a contradiction between the original version and the edit: what's the issue in your understanding? Finally, I'm unaware of any "portion(s) of the Catholic world" outside some sedevacantists, whom I consider doubtfully part of the Church, who have a different answer. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 8:35 | comment | added | Caleb | I'm going to have to -1 this as not useful in answering the question because the original version conflates the sins of believers with the issue of non-believers and the edited section and new citations seem to contradict the conclusion presented. Also if it turns out the conclusion you're prensenting is current Catholic doctrine, this is a clear change of position and you don't identifiy when and where this position originated or what portion(s) of the Catholic world have gotten on board with this and which ones might give a different answer. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 8:34 | comment | added | AthanasiusOfAlex | @anonymouswho No, it’s not like that. The benefit of becoming a believer is that one becomes a son of God already in this life. That is a tremendous good that should be shared to all men. In fact, rejecting the Gospel is grave matter precisely because it entails depriving oneself of the means of salvation (i.e., grace). Also, you can’t expect a person who has heard all his life that the Gospel is evil to suddenly understand that it is good and immediately overcome all his fears. Conversion is above all the work of grace, and grace generally works slowly. God understands that, obviously. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 8:24 | comment | added | AthanasiusOfAlex | @Caleb I was answering according to the presuppositions of the original question: whether someone who was invincibly and gravely misinformed about the Gospel, was convinced it was a kind of evil, and was in grave fear of converting, would be held accountable for not converting on the spot. The answer is clearly “no.” This is not a “default” or “guarantee” of salvation, but simply the fact that the material rejection of the Gospel, in a case like this, would certainly not be an impediment for salvation. Edited to clarify. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 8:24 | history | edited | AthanasiusOfAlex | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarified that salvation is not "default"
|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 8:08 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | It seems that if I wish to avoid eternal burning of my flesh, then when somebody tries to explain the gospel I should quickly cover my ears and shout "blah, blah, blah!" If I try to teach another the gospel, and he later denies it, should I feel bad for laying the foundation that eventually leads this man to have his flesh burned forever and ever? Are these logical conclusions to this doctrine? | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 8:08 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | Thank you AthanasiusOfAlex. Although I agree with Caleb that this could definitely use more references, I say (+1) for making me feel a little better about the eternal torture chamber of burning flesh in hell. If I'm not mistaken, are you saying that as long as a man is ignorant of the full revelation of the gospel, it's more than likely he will be forgiven for both his ignorance and sin? Does this mean that the only people that are surely going to hell are those that study the Scriptures their entire lives but choose to ignore them to follow a false god? | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 7:38 | comment | added | Caleb | In summary you are saying that according to Catholisim, ignorance is bliss—that not knowing or properly understanding the Gospel will keep you out of hell‽ This sounds more like your personal opinion and a liberaization of theology than it does historic Roman Catholisim. I think this answer calls for some more refereces to back up the idea that good-ish non-Christians default to going to heaven instead of hell and that judgement only applies to well informed rejectors of the Gospel (which is what this answer seems to conclude). The current citations are for side issues. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 7:24 | history | answered | AthanasiusOfAlex | CC BY-SA 3.0 |