A JUDAS TYPE OF REPENTANCE

Selene · Jul 21, 2013

Vale, below is what you stated in your post #20. This is not what the Catholic Church says. It doesn't even interpret Matthew 26:24 the way you interpreted it.

This Vale Of Tears said:
I should point out something that nearly everyone misses when talking about Judas Iscariot. Jesus said of him, "Woe to that man by whom (the son of man) is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born! While I don't go around saying who's in heaven and who's in hell, I can say confidently that Judas was damned because any other fate would make meaningless what Jesus said about him. Don't expect to see him in heaven, you'll be quite disappointed.

There is a difference between the Church being silent and the Church claiming "I don't know." In Judas case, the Church is saying they do not know whether Judas is in Hell or not. In the case of the Shroud of Turin, they remain silent. In fact, they don't even say whether the shroud of Turin is authentic or not. They simply say nothing. They don't even say "I don't know."

Lay Catholics are not supposed to make any private interpretation of scripture, which is what you did in Matthew 26:24. There is a reason why the Church warns us against private interpretation of scripture. As I've shown you, Catholic Answers did not interpret Matthew 26:25 the way you did. They followed the Church's interpretation.

I already pointed out that Pope John Paul II does not believe in universal salvation. The Pope is fallible only in matters outside of faith and morals. Whatever he says privately is also fallible. However, having a book published where the faithful are able to read his words is not private. In writing a book, he is making it public. Humane Vitae is one of his greatest writings, and what is remarkable about that book is that all the things he says are now happening in our modern times. And this was made public, not private.

This Vale Of Tears · Jul 21, 2013

Selene said:
Vale, below is what you stated in your post #20. This is not what the Catholic Church says. It doesn't even interpret Matthew 26:24 the way you interpreted it.
It doesn't interpret it in contravention to what I said either. It's something you clearly don't want to see.

There is a difference between the Church being silent and the Church claiming "I don't know." In Judas case, the Church is saying they do not know whether Judas is in Hell or not. In the case of the Shroud of Turin, they remain silent. In fact, they don't even say whether the shroud of Turin is authentic or not. They simply say nothing. They don't even say "I don't know."

You clearly didn't understand the example of the doctrine of Limbo. There really is none so blind as those who won't see.

Lay Catholics are not supposed to make any private interpretation of scripture, which is what you did in Matthew 26:24. There is a reason why the Church warns us against private interpretation of scripture. As I've shown you, Catholic Answers did not interpret Matthew 26:25 the way you did. They followed the Church's interpretation.

Yes, lay Catholics are not supposed to apply private interpretation to scriptures, but that's not what's going on here. What's going on is that you're assuming that your interpretation is official and anyone who disagrees is in schism rather than admitting that we have 2 different opinions, none more conforming than the other. And I also find it laughable that you bring up Catholic Answers when you refused to allow the reference I supplied from that sight to correct your erroneous view on papal infallibility. So save it.

I already pointed out that Pope John Paul II does not believe in universal salvation. The Pope is fallible only in matters outside of faith and morals. Whatever he says privately is also fallible. However, having a book published where the faithful are able to read his words is not private. In writing a book, he is making it public. Humane Vitae is one of his greatest writings, and what is remarkable about that book is that all the things he says are now happening in our modern times. And this was made public, not private.

Popes throughout history have believed many outlandish things at loggerheads with the Magisterium and for JPII to believe in universal salvation is benign by comparison. But yes, he did believe in it, and wrote about those beliefs in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, most specifically that it's possible that hell is not eternal but terminal. I can't supply an internet reference because it was written long before the reign of the internet age. But speaking of acquiescence to the private opinions of Popes, I happen to agree with JPII on that point.

Selene · Jul 21, 2013

Vale, you only provided a reference on infallibility on Catholic Answers. It says nothing about Judas Iscariot. I provided the viewpoint of the Church on Matthew 26:24 from Catholic Answers. In regards to Judas Iscariot, the Church does not hold two different viewpoints.

You say that you can't supply "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" on the Internet. Well.....I can. Below is the entire book of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope." It includes the entire book with chapters. Show me the quote where the Pope says that Hell is terminal and that he believes in universal salvation. If you have a problem with finding it, I'll help you.

http://www.2heartsnetwork.org/Crossing.the.Threshold.ofHope-PopeJPII.pdf

This is what I found on page 75 in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" written by Pope John Paul II:

The Council speaks of membership in the Church for Christians and of being related to the Church
for non-Christian believers in God, for people of goodwill (cf. Lumen Gentium 15-16). Both these
dimensions are important for salvation, and each one possesses varying levels. People are saved
through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they always are saved by the grace of Christ.
Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of
relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam,
when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 101-117),
which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of
relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement "Outside the
Church there is no salvation."

It would be difficult to deny that this doctrine is extremely open. It cannot be accused of an
ecclesiological exclusivism. Those who rebel against claims allegedly made by the Catholic Church
probably do not have an adequate understanding of this teaching.

Although the Catholic Church knows that it has received the fullness of the means of salvation, it
rejoices when other Christian communities join her in preaching the Gospel. This is the proper
context for understanding the Council's teaching that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic
Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 8; Unitatis Redintegratio 4).

Doesn't sound like universal salvation to me. In fact, the Pope did an excellent job in referencing his Catholic sources. As for Hell, this is what the Pope says about Hell in his book found on page 96.

The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and
continuing in our time with Sergey Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. In point of fact, the
ancient councils rejected the theory of the "final apocatastasis," according to which the world
would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which
indirectly abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit
the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are
unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf.
Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This
is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The
silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when
Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mt
26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.

At the same time, however, there is something in man's moral conscience itself that rebels against
any loss of this conviction: Is not God who is Love also ultimate Justice? Can He tolerate these
terrible crimes, can they go unpunished? Isn't final punishment in some way necessary in order to
reestablish moral equilibrium in the complex history of humanity? Is not hell in a certain sense the
ultimate safeguard of man's moral conscience?

This Vale Of Tears · Jul 21, 2013

Selene. My position does not contradict the Church's teaching or what the Bible clearly says about the eternal nature of perdition. That God would be just to consign the wicked to eternal punishment is uncontestable, but I also offer the possibility that he might not. I look at the Babylonian captivity which was supposed to last 490 years and justly so, but reprieve was granted 7 years short and so the period of captivity was abbreviated. All I do is suggest ever so gently that mercy will have the final word as demonstrated by precedent. It is within God's purview to do so, and so it can't be discounted as impossible. This was JPII's position as espoused in this book, that even the eternity of hell may succumb to God's mercy. I'm sorry I can't find it for you and it certainly isn't in the passages you alluded. It's a very interesting controversy to be sure, it doesn't militate against the Church's teaching.

horsecamp · Jul 21, 2013

Thanks for the reply's. evey one

KevinMiller · Jul 29, 2013

In a biblical context, repentance is recognizing that our sin is offensive to God. Repentance can be shallow, such as the remorse we feel because of fear of punishment or it can be deep, such as realizing how much our sins cost Jesus the Christ and how his saving grace washes us clean. Many think the word repent means “to get your act together” or to “get religion”. Repentance requires taking in a whole new point of view; looking at it God’s way. God simply asks us to turn. This is the way we accept His gift. When we do, certain outcomes are promised. If we don’t, or we “turn back”, alternate outcomes are promised.

Search

Search

A JUDAS TYPE OF REPENTANCE

Selene

New Member

This Vale Of Tears

Indian Papist

Selene

New Member

This Vale Of Tears

Indian Papist

horsecamp

New Member

KevinMiller

New Member

Similar threads