Souls in heaven rejoicing at the sight of the damned?
#21
(02-05-2012, 02:38 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Yes, he is not a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

Not a saint of the RCC = 100% wrong on each and every thing they ever said.  :eyeroll:
Reply
#22
(02-05-2012, 03:24 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 02:38 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Yes, he is not a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

Not a saint of the RCC = 100% wrong on each and every thing they ever said.   :eyeroll:

For your accusation and disdain for St. Thomas, I think you should not expect much sympathy here.

Reply
#23
(02-05-2012, 03:31 PM)su Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 03:24 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 02:38 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Yes, he is not a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

Not a saint of the RCC = 100% wrong on each and every thing they ever said.   :eyeroll:

For your accusation and disdain for St. Thomas, I think you should not expect much sympathy here.

He has my sympathy. I have a great deal of respect for St. Thomas Aquinas, but he was human, and therefore capable of error, and I think he was wrong on this point. The thought of anybody (either God or the souls in Heaven) rejoicing in the suffering of the damned is absolutely disgusting to me. If I weren't already Catholic, that would be enough to turn me away -- "If this is what Catholics believe, I want no part of their religion." Fortunately, it's not what all of us believe. I'm 100% on Melkite's side on this issue.
Reply
#24
(02-05-2012, 03:24 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 02:38 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Yes, he is not a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

Not a saint of the RCC = 100% wrong on each and every thing they ever said.   :eyeroll:


But of course!

Either way, truth is truth regardless of who says it. That they reject St Silouan's words here says much more about them than anything else.
Reply
#25
(02-05-2012, 03:55 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 03:31 PM)su Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 03:24 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 02:38 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Yes, he is not a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

Not a saint of the RCC = 100% wrong on each and every thing they ever said.   :eyeroll:

For your accusation and disdain for St. Thomas, I think you should not expect much sympathy here.

He has my sympathy. I have a great deal of respect for St. Thomas Aquinas, but he was human, and therefore capable of error, and I think he was wrong on this point. The thought of anybody (either God or the souls in Heaven) rejoicing in the suffering of the damned is absolutely disgusting to me. If I weren't already Catholic, that would be enough to turn me away -- "If this is what Catholics believe, I want no part of their religion." Fortunately, it's not what all of us believe. I'm 100% on Melkite's side on this issue.

You think the saved exist with eternal sorrow for the results of God's justice?

That is what this is about. Are the people in Heaven happy for themselves, but sorrowful for others? Do they wish God had judged otherwise?

This proper understanding of the "rejoicing" is necessary. It is not the focus on the sorrow of others as humans are so inclined.
Reply
#26
(02-05-2012, 04:01 PM)su Wrote: You think the saved exist with eternal sorrow for the results of God's justice?


What is God's justice?
Reply
#27
(02-05-2012, 03:55 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 03:31 PM)su Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 03:24 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 02:38 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Yes, he is not a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

Not a saint of the RCC = 100% wrong on each and every thing they ever said.   :eyeroll:

For your accusation and disdain for St. Thomas, I think you should not expect much sympathy here.

He has my sympathy. I have a great deal of respect for St. Thomas Aquinas, but he was human, and therefore capable of error, and I think he was wrong on this point. The thought of anybody (either God or the souls in Heaven) rejoicing in the suffering of the damned is absolutely disgusting to me. If I weren't already Catholic, that would be enough to turn me away -- "If this is what Catholics believe, I want no part of their religion." Fortunately, it's not what all of us believe. I'm 100% on Melkite's side on this issue.

I'm with you guys. No offense to Aragon, but I put these kinds of threads in the same category as those that use scripture to calculate the number of souls in hell. We can believe in the existence of hell without these morbid exercises.
Reply
#28
(02-05-2012, 03:31 PM)su Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 03:24 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 02:38 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Yes, he is not a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

Not a saint of the RCC = 100% wrong on each and every thing they ever said.   :eyeroll:

For your accusation and disdain for St. Thomas, I think you should not expect much sympathy here.


On this point St Thomas and John Calvin were in 100% agreement. That by itself would be enough to give me pause.
Reply
#29
(02-05-2012, 04:01 PM)su Wrote: You think the saved exist with eternal sorrow for the results of God's justice?

That is what this is about. Are the people in Heaven happy for themselves, but sorrowful for others? Do they wish God had judged otherwise?

This proper understanding of the "rejoicing" is necessary. It is not the focus on the sorrow of others as humans are so inclined.

I don't claim perfect understanding of Heaven. I would expect that we would be perfectly happy there, but that needn't include actual rejoicing over the suffering of others. I'll accept your definition of "rejoicing" as meaning something other than what we would literally take it to mean, but some others here appear to be taking it literally and being OK with that. And that bothers me. I would hope that if I make it to Heaven, I won't be thinking about the souls in Hell at all. I certainly hope I won't be laughing at them, because that would be disgusting.
Reply
#30
(02-05-2012, 03:20 PM)su Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 01:50 PM)Melkite Wrote: I'm sorry it bothers you so much that I'm not willing to show Aquinas the same unwavering deference as you, however, Scripture explicitly states that God wills none to perish.  If he does not will people to perish, then he is not in heaven eternally rejoicing at their suffering.  Insofar as Aquinas thought as much, he is wrong.  Anywhere that Aquinas contradicts Scripture, Aquinas is wrong.  Every.  Time.

Scripture contradicts  itself in some places as far as wording goes.

The meaning, not just the barest understanding of the wording, is what is important. I doubt you'd be able to find real errors in St. Thomas's works.

There are a few "errors", but they are not errors in principle.

This is true. When one understands what it means that God does not WILL anyone to perish, one understands that this is not a contradiction to "rejoicing" at the suffering in hell. There is a big difference between God personally making an act of the will for a person to perish and them bringing about their own destruction, being judged accordingly and everyone else having satisfaction in the just attributes of God. Also when we speak of hell we tend to address God's justice as if his attributes are separate, as if His justice is separate from His charity. But that is again a flaw in our limited understanding. God is whole, He is the perfect and constant blend of all those attributes at once at all times no matter the circumstance. He IS Truth. If something is a truth then all His attributes which we must break down into parts because that's how we operate are all present in all their perfection. If one believes hell and its torments are a truth then he must know that God's charity and love are just as present in the existence of hell as they are in the existence of heaven. The case can be made and has been made iirc that charity demands the existence of hell and the rejoicing at the suffering in hell just as much as justice does even though justice is the one we tend to focus on.     
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)