The Pre-Eminent Virtue of Unity!

St Veronica · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:36 pm

torn wrote:

St Veronica wrote:

He wants it how he wants it, he doesn't care what Jesus (or the Church) said....he's a cultural Catholic period.

SV

http://www.romancatholicism.org/cormac-apokatastasis.htm

Quote:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor Speaks of His Hope for Universal Salvation

The head of the Roman Catholic in England and Wales recently expressed his hope and belief that God will save all people in an interview he gave for the Catholic Herald.

“We’re not bound to believe that anybody’s there (in hell), let’s face it… I cannot think of heaven without thinking of being in communion with all the saints and with all the people I've loved on this earth.”

Catholic Herald, 7 January 2005

In an interview with The Catholic Herald this week, the Cardinal reveals his optimism for mankind as he sets out his vision of both heaven and hell.

Hell, he implies, may even be empty – conforming with Our Lord’s wish to save all souls. And heaven is a place where believers and non- believers may meet.

“We’re not bound to believe that anybody’s there (in hell), let’s face it,” he says. “But certainly in the Scriptures there’s a stark confrontation between heaven and hell.

“But when Jesus talks about hell, it’s also exhorting people to repent, to turn away.

“It is in the context not of ‘you will be damned’, but ‘repent and turn to God’. I believe that hell exists and it is really the absence of God.”

Extract from the interview

Q: Many people in this country, including Christians, are confused about what the Church teaches about life after death. To judge from films and fantasy novels, the people of our time have an intense interest in the afterlife. And yet, if they were to go to a Catholic church, they would be unlikely to hear a homily about heaven, hell and purgatory. Has the Church lost the confidence to proclaim that there will be a final reckoning after death?

A: The four last things death, judgment, heaven – and hell – are realities. They should be preached I do so myself, particularly in November, at the time of the feasts of All Saints and All Souls. If there is any reluctance – and I wouldn't necessarily accept that there is – then I would be sorry about that, because we are bound to believe, and we do believe, not only the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, but in our own resurrection at the last day.

With regard to purgatory, all I can say is that most of us feel that when we die, we are not ready for the beatific vision. And, however God is going to purify us, the Church expresses that through its doctrine on purgatory.

I often tell people to read or listen to The Dream of Gerontius, that wonderful poem of Newman, where, Gerontius is confronted by God as he is dying and wants to be prepared for the Beatific Vision. It's beautifully expressed in words – I don't think I could do it better.

Q: And hell?

A: We're not bound to believe that anybody’s there, let's face it. But certainly in the Scriptures there's a stark confrontation between heaven and hell.

But when Jesus talks about hell, it's also exhorting people to repent, to turn away. It is in the context not of “you will be damned”, but “repent and turn to God”. I believe that hell exists and it is really the absence of God.

Q: What do you think heaven is like?

A: Well, I have not seen nor yet heard what God has prepared for those who love him, as St Paul says. Heaven for me is communio. It’s communion with other people, communion with the infinite beauty and blessedness of God, communion with myself in a new, strange way. And it’s a communion that gives everlasting joy.

I cannot think of heaven without thinking of being in communion with all the saints and with all the people I’ve loved on this earth.

Q: It is sometimes said that there will be a separate heaven for Bavarians because they would not be in a state of eternal happiness if they had to share heaven with the Prussians. Will Catholics and Protestants be together in heaven?

A: I hope they won't be separate. I think that the divisions manifest here on earth will be reconciled in some mysterious way in heaven. I'm not thinking just of Catholics and Protestants, but people of other faiths and people of no faith. We are all children of God.

Q: So we shouldn't be surprised if we were to meet in heaven someone who was a Muslim or an atheist on earth?

A: I hope I will be surprised in heaven... I think I will be.

You don't care what the Church teaches, you don't care what Christ taught. You are your own pope and magisterium. You cherry pick whoever supports your idea of 'we really aren't held accountable for our sins' and 'no one is going to hell'.

I've been here for years and seen you with this tired old song and dance routine. It gets tiresome. At this point I only talk to you for the benefit of others.

SV

St Veronica · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:39 pm

Quote:

On the other hand, one could take the traditional view that He is talking about Hell and still not have a contradiction with the previous verses. Jesus obviously isn't making poverty a condition of salvation. He is, at best, making willingess to be in poverty a condition of salvation. Still more likely, He is pointing out that the rich trust their riches more than they trust God, and to do that is the same as to not trust (believe in) God.

And that sometimes applies to the not so rich either.

SV

torn · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:48 pm

jac3510 wrote:

That's not a contradiction. It just means (assuming that He is speaking on the same subject here) that only a few will ask.

But that is very obviously untrue. Millions have already asked - or do you think that almost all of them are just pretending?

jac3510 wrote:

"Few" is also relative. Assuming ALL Catholics are "real" Catholics (something I imagine everyone here would dispute), Catholics are still a minority compared to the world population, and moreso compared to the total population that has ever lived. In that context, even all Catholics would still only be a "few."

If that's what you think, then you have a very poor grasp of language. A very large minority is most certainly not a "few". Nowhere else in the bible, where the word "few" is used, does it mean a very large number. Nowhere else in the English language does a "few" mean a very large number. I challenge you to give me even one example from any reputable source in the English language where a few means a very large minority.

Edited to add a few examples of a "few" in the Bible:
Matthew 15:34

Quote:

And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes.

Mark 6:5

Quote:

And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

Mark 8:7

Quote:

And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them.

1 Peter 3:20

Quote:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

kage_ar · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:10 pm

torn wrote:

kage_ar wrote:

torn wrote:

kage_ar wrote:

torn wrote:

Everyone has their own path to follow. What may seem the right path for you, however true you may believe it to be, may not necessarily be the right path for someone else. We all have different spiritual lessons to learn, and different ways of learning, different ways of developing, so it does no good to try and insist that the path you are on is the "one true" path for everyone.

What did Jesus say about that???

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.

How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few."

And that's supposed to be the "Good News"! :scratch:

If that's your interpretation, as you imply, you must worry a lot about your family and friends whom you love, especially about those for whom you believe it is too late to change anything.

My faith in God fills me with love and hope, not fear and despair, and I believe that that's the Catholic teaching, which I hear everytime I go to a Catholic funeral, where friends and relatives may be sad but are not in despair. Quite the contrary.

But, according to what you seem to believe, only a "few" will be saved, and therefore only a "few" Catholics will be saved.

There are more than a billion Catholics in the world today, and you believe that only a "few" will be saved.

Even if you believe that only about one in a ten Catholics will be saved, that would still be more than 100,000,000 Catholics saved. A hundred million is not a few, by no-one's definition.

So you must believe that more than 90 per cent of Catholics will not be saved.

Even if you believed that only about one in a hundred Catholics will be saved, that is still ten million people. Ten million is not a few. There were only about half a million Jews in Palestine 2,000 years ago. So how could ten million be "a few"? A few is a very small number. Yet you seem to believe that only a few will be saved, and that more than 99 per cent of Catholics will be damned. That makes no sense. Think again.

You do realize, these are words that came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ, not something I drempt up last night over a glass of wine.

You do realise that the words that came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ were Aramaic words. His words were not recorded, they were remembered (how well remembered, we do not know) and written down many years later, and interpreted and translated, into ancient Greek, and then interpreted and translated again, eventually into English, and then interpreted again by you.

Quote:

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.

How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few."

Those words - even if they are an exact translation of the exact words spoken by Jesus Christ - are open to many interpretations. For example, Jesus is speaking in the present tense, it is not a prediction, it is a description of the present. Jesus did not say that only a few will ever find it.

Furthermore, if Jesus meant that only a few will ever be saved, then he contradicted himself, because immediately before that, according to Matthew's gospel, he said:

Quote:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

So, if only a few will ever be saved, and yet everyone who asks to be saved will be saved, then that must mean that only a few will ever ask to be saved - which is clearly untrue, as we know that very many people want to be saved and ask to be saved. There are more than two billion Christians in the world today, are you expecting me to believe that only a few out of two billion Christians have asked to be saved? :nooo:

According to the Bible, Jesus also said:

Quote:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God."

Do you believe that literally too? If so, you must despair for any of your Catholic relatives or friends who are rich - because, if only a few will be saved, and it is so difficult for a rich person to be saved, you can't have much hope for their chances. Why are you not demanding that they give their money to the poor?

torn, first thing, have you read the teaching of the Church regarding Sacred Scripture? If not, do, I believe what the Church teaches.

Despair is a grave sin. You love to accuse people of this sin, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.

Lastly, the "eye of a needle" is a gate in Jerusalem. A camel can pass through the eye of the needle gate, however, that camel must be careful wen doing so. As we all must be careful that we do not make a god of our possessions.

The rich people I know are the most generous and most some of the most holy people I know. I thank God for them every day and pray that I can be as Christlike as they are.

TheJack · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:21 pm

torn wrote:

But that is very obviously untrue. Millions have already asked - or do you think that almost all of them are just pretending?

Are you sure about that?

Quote:

If that's what you think, then you have a very poor grasp of language. A very large minority is most certainly not a "few". Nowhere else in the bible, where the word "few" is used, does it mean a very large number. Nowhere else in the English language does a "few" mean a very large number. I challenge you to give me even one example from any reputable source in the English language where a few means a very large minority.

Just one? I'll give you five (just to be a smart-a)

1) Matt 9:37 - are you saying there are only a couple of hundred laborers throughout time? Or perhaps you would argue that verse doesn't apply anymore?
2) Heb 12:10 - in that culture, boys were disciplined for at least thirteen years, roughly a quarter of a person's life expectancy. And there is reason to believe they could have been chastened even longer (until marriage when they became the heads of their own house), which would here then mean close to half if not the majority of one's life.
3) James 4:14 - here "a few" refers to your entire life.
4) 1 Pet 1:6 - how long is the season of suffering? In reality, again, it's your entire natural life
5) Rev 12:12 - on an amillennial view, these "few days" have been 2000 years. Even on a dispensational view, it's no less than seven years.

I could offer more, but I think that's sufficient. You really should note that "few" is a comparative term. Something is only "a few" compared to something else. It's not absolute.

torn · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:32 pm

jac3510 wrote:

torn wrote:

But that is very obviously untrue. Millions have already asked - or do you think that almost all of them are just pretending?

Are you sure about that?

Quote:

If that's what you think, then you have a very poor grasp of language. A very large minority is most certainly not a "few". Nowhere else in the bible, where the word "few" is used, does it mean a very large number. Nowhere else in the English language does a "few" mean a very large number. I challenge you to give me even one example from any reputable source in the English language where a few means a very large minority.

Just one? I'll give you five (just to be a smart-a)

1) Matt 9:37 - are you saying there are only a couple of hundred laborers throughout time? Or perhaps you would argue that verse doesn't apply anymore?
2) Heb 12:10 - in that culture, boys were disciplined for at least thirteen years, roughly a quarter of a person's life expectancy. And there is reason to believe they could have been chastened even longer (until marriage when they became the heads of their own house), which would here then mean close to half if not the majority of one's life.
3) James 4:14 - here "a few" refers to your entire life.
4) 1 Pet 1:6 - how long is the season of suffering? In reality, again, it's your entire natural life
5) Rev 12:12 - on an amillennial view, these "few days" have been 2000 years. Even on a dispensational view, it's no less than seven years.

I could offer more, but I think that's sufficient. You really should note that "few" is a comparative term. Something is only "a few" compared to something else. It's not absolute.

None of your examples are examples of "few" meaning "many". Some of your examples don't even mention "few" at all.

What's the largest "few" you can find in the Bible, apart from the one in question where I am expected to believe that "few" means many many millions?

TheJack · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:34 pm

torn wrote:

None of your examples are examples of "few" meaning "many". Some of your examples don't even mention "few" at all.

What's the largest "few" you can find in the Bible, apart from the one in question where I am expected to believe that "few" means many many millions?

Haha, okay, torn. I don't think for one second I'm going to change your mind. I think it's obvious enough to anyone who bothers reading this that you're factually wrong. Case is closed. Continue on, sir.

Yes, I'm laughing at you.

torn · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:45 pm

jac3510 wrote:

You really should note that "few" is a comparative term. Something is only "a few" compared to something else. It's not absolute.

But it is still only a few! Something is only "a few" compared to the vast majority which is something else. It is very sloppy use of language to describe "many" - though a minority - as a "few". A "few" does not mean less than half of the total. A "few" is a much smaller number.

torn · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:49 pm

jac3510 wrote:

torn wrote:

None of your examples are examples of "few" meaning "many". Some of your examples don't even mention "few" at all.

What's the largest "few" you can find in the Bible, apart from the one in question where I am expected to believe that "few" means many many millions?

Haha, okay, torn. I don't think for one second I'm going to change your mind. I think it's obvious enough to anyone who bothers reading this that you're factually wrong. Case is closed. Continue on, sir.

Yes, I'm laughing at you.

In other words, you cannot answer the question without admitting that nowhere in the Bible is the word "few" used to mean a huge number.

torn · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:24 pm

kage_ar wrote:

Lastly, the "eye of a needle" is a gate in Jerusalem. A camel can pass through the eye of the needle gate, however, that camel must be careful wen doing so. As we all must be careful that we do not make a god of our possessions.

The rich people I know are the most generous and most some of the most holy people I know. I thank God for them every day and pray that I can be as Christlike as they are.

I'm not disputing that. My point is that if you don't take this literally:

Quote:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God."

then why do you expect me to take this literally:

Quote:

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.

How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few."

kage_ar wrote:

Despair is a grave sin. You love to accuse people of this sin, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.

I haven't accused anyone. But people who believe that all but a few will suffer in hell forever offer no hope for the vast majority of human beings.

So if you were at a funeral of someone who did not share all your beliefs, would you have much hope for that person? How could you have much hope for many people who did not share your beliefs, if only a few are saved?

ellietrish · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:58 pm

This explanation comes from a general audience by Pope JP2 in 1999...

"3.The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).

“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.

4. Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God.

Damnation remains a real possibility, but it is not granted to us, without special divine revelation, to know which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6).

This prospect, rich in hope, prevails in Christian proclamation. It is effectively reflected in the liturgical tradition of the Church, as the words of the Roman Canon attest: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family ... save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen”."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... 99_en.html

kage_ar · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:19 am

torn wrote:

kage_ar wrote:

Lastly, the "eye of a needle" is a gate in Jerusalem. A camel can pass through the eye of the needle gate, however, that camel must be careful wen doing so. As we all must be careful that we do not make a god of our possessions.

The rich people I know are the most generous and most some of the most holy people I know. I thank God for them every day and pray that I can be as Christlike as they are.

I'm not disputing that. My point is that if you don't take this literally:

Quote:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God."

then why do you expect me to take this literally:

Quote:

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.

How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few."

kage_ar wrote:

Despair is a grave sin. You love to accuse people of this sin, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.

I haven't accused anyone. But people who believe that all but a few will suffer in hell forever offer no hope for the vast majority of human beings.

So if you were at a funeral of someone who did not share all your beliefs, would you have much hope for that person? How could you have much hope for many people who did not share your beliefs, if only a few are saved?

Sigh.

The eye of the needle reference was very apparent to those people standing there hearing what Jesus said. It was VERY literal.

Really, I am serious, have you ever done any Catholic Bible Study? There are good solid studies on line, please, look into them.

http://www.amm.org/chss.htm

http://www.cssprogram.net/

Bagheera · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:51 am

kage_ar wrote:

The eye of the needle reference was very apparent to those people standing there hearing what Jesus said. It was VERY literal.

That is one interpretation, it is not however the interpretation and we should be careful to assign any sort of authority to it:

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Luke18.php

Quote:

THEOPHYL. Our Lord, seeing that the rich man was sorrowful when it was told him to surrender his riches marveled, saying, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! He says not, It is impossible for them to enter, but it is difficult. For they might through their riches reap a heavenly reward, but it is a hard thing, seeing that riches are more tenacious than birdlime, and hardly is the soul ever plucked away, that is once seized by them.

But he next speaks of it as impossible. It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye. The word in the Greek answers equally to the animal called the camel, and to a cable, or ship rope. However we may understand it, impossibility is implied. What must we say then? First of all that the thing is positively true, for we must remember that the rich man differs from the steward, or dispenser of riches. The rich man is he who reserves his riches to himself, the steward or dispenser one who holds them entrusted to his care for the benefit of others.

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Mark10.php

Quote:

BEDE; But there is a great difference between having riches, and loving them; wherefore also Solomon says not, He that has silver, but, He that loves silver shall not be satisfied with silver. Therefore the Lord unfolds the words of His former saying to His astonished disciples, as follows: But Jesus answered again, and said to them, Children, how hard it is for them that trust in their riches to enter the kingdom of God. Where we must observe that He says not, how impossible, but how hard; for what is impossible cannot in any way come to pass, what is difficult can be compassed, though with labor.

CHRYS. Or else, after saying difficult, He then shows that it is impossible, and that not simply, but with a certain vehemence; and he shows this by an example, saying, It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Catena ... thew19.php

Quote:

GLOSS; It is explained otherwise; That at Jerusalem there was a certain gate, called, The needle's eye, through which a camel could not pass, but on its bended knees, and after its burden had been taken off; and so the rich should not be able to pass along the narrow way that leads to life, till he had put off the burden of sin, and of riches, that is, by ceasing to love them.

It is a gloss on the text, but it does not appear to be an interpretation taught by the Fathers (who are, admittedly, divided on the interpretation of this passage).

kage_ar · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:32 am

torn, in order to not lead you further down an errant path, I will bow out.

The Pre-Eminent Virtue of Unity!

Who is online