Those popes who bear the name, "Pius," are the greatest guardians of the Church against heresy. This blog is a watchdog for modernism in the Church. In reality, outside this blog, the members of the board temper their criticisms and opinions with prudence and charity so as to help souls in their journey towards Christ. But sometimes, for the sake of their own sanity, the authors of this blog just need to blow off some steam. The result is Totus Pius.

01 June 2006

"Well in some things there are gray areas...I dont believe that, but, you know, for some people..."

We know we should be ranting but...we just have to get this out there: some people really do know what's going on. That's a good thing. When it comes to a world where Christian philosophers are found in the HISTORY section of the bookstore while Modernists are found in the PHILOSOPHY section, it is rare to find fellow true Christians. we have been blessed at school, where we have grown with like-minded individuals. But since being home, it has been tough because very few people outside of the famed "Bubble" see the truth and try to live it. Few people see that the Christian life is difficult. Few people see that "Emotionalism" in religion is driven by false intentions and is ultimately bribery. Few people see that certain truths of Christianity can be known by natural reason ALONE, truths both theological and moral. Few people see that hell exists and that damnation of souls actually does happen. Few admit that the use of reason is good and that faith is a rational assent of the intellect to truth presented to it from an exterior source (God).

Since coming home we have encountered very few who share these beliefs, and those who do scare us (SSPX, say no more say no more).

But this afternoon we were blessed to have a conversation with a former high school teacher of ours who really does know what's going on. It was she who said that when it comes to matters of morality, people know that there is a line you don't cross, either by revelation through Scripture or through the natural law alone. There may be some "wiggle room" for ignorance, but at some point it becomes manifestly wrong. Good stuff, that.

Gratias agimus tibi, magistra.

Now, to ranting. Something else she and we discussed: predestination gone wrong. Now we are currently studying the concept of predestination, foreknowledge, all that jazz. It's pretty complicated stuff and we don't pretend to know what we're talking about in detail, compared to Papa Sanctus Pius X of the blog. However, Trent does state definitively that "No one, moreover, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination as to determine for certain that he is assuredly among the number of the predestined; as if it were true that he who is justified either cannot sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance. For except by special revelation it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself." (Denz. 805)

Now, its clear that those who are among the elect, however they come to be elected (see Pius X for a discussion on that, of the blog), DO NOT KNOW THAT THEY ARE ELECTED EXCEPT BY RARE AND SPECIAL REVELATION. This is what makes us most angry. Presumption is a sin against hope, as is despair. Check your Baltimore Catechisms, kiddies. When people (read: proddies (read: Protestants)) PRESUME salvation because they "know" they are among the Elect and run around mortally sinning etc...WE CANNOT tolerate it. Why can't we tolerate it? Because they are (1) proudly presuming what is in the mind of God, (2) lording their election over others, (3) using their election to justify the SIN FROM WHICH CHRIST FREES US, and finally (4) THEYRE WRONG.

If you are among the elect, you are unable to commit mortal sin. Period. If you are committing mortal sin, you are still a slave to the flesh (in one form or another) and the ELECT - however you believe they became elected - are marked by transformation of the flesh and ordered desires. People who think they are among the elect and think that they can go around sinning anyways will be gravely (!) surprised when they meet our Lord.

And the bottom line is, if you think that you can indulge in sin and still get to heaven, you have another thing coming. If you become addicted to sin, will you be able to live in a sinless eternity? Of course not. People who go to hell, on some level, want to be there. On some level they hate God and don't want to live with Him forever. God is loving, and if you dont want Him, He loves you enough to grant you your wish. God LOVINGLY AND MERCIFULLY DAMNS PEOPLE TO HELL.

Christianity is hard. Virtue is hard. HEAVEN is HARD.

But it is worth it, in time and in eternity.


Joseph, M.T.S. said...


I think this sentence is poorly worded and not entirely supported by your argument. First, I would argue that God does not lovingly damn people to Hell. God lovingly allows people to have free will and they damn themselves to Hell if they reject God.

Second, how do you view God damning people to Hell as merciful? To be mericiful, there must be an alternative that is worse, and, thus, condemning someone to Hell would be better than that alternative and therefore merciful. However, Hell by its very definition is as bad as it gets since it is a separation from God. There is no worse alternative.

Papa Beatus Pius IX said...

You are correct in saying that God lovingly allows people to have free will. But there is a flip-side to that love which grants to those who choose sin the ability to experience its eternal consequence. People dont damn themselves, instead they choose sin whose consequence is damnation. These souls desire damnation as a result of a malicious will which rejects order and denies God. He could deny them this consequence - deny them the damnation which they desire. But in His LOVE He not only allows them to choose to sin but also allows its consequence, damnation, to follow.

With regard to mercy, I grant you your criticism.

However, I maintain that on some level it would be worse for mortally sinful souls to be saved, either to experience purgation or heavenly glorification. There are worse alternatives than hell - from the perspective of the damned - and those are the hope of purgatory and the happiness of heaven. The souls who are attached to mortal sin hate God and would prefer hell to temporary purgation and the hope of glory...and they would most certainly prefer hell to heaven. So in some sense, yes, God is being merciful in damning those who wish to be damned.

But, again, I grant you your criticism of my use of the word "mercifully."

Joseph, M.T.S. said...

"But in His LOVE He not only allows them to choose to sin but also allows its consequence, damnation, to follow."

I think we agree on this nuance; it's basically what my point is - that God's love for us allows us to reject Him.

With regards to mercy, you seem to be arguing that it would be more merciful for a condemned person to go to Hell than for that same person, after rejecting God, to go to Heaven. There are two problems with this argument.

First, someone who rejects God through mortal sin has separated himself from God and it is not possible for him to go to Heaven unless he asks for God's forgiveness through the Sacrament of Confession or through a perfect act of contrition before death. It is a moot point to even entertain the possibility (but I'll do so anyway for the sake of argument).

Second, even if that person who was in mortal sin was able to go to Purgatory and have the temporal punishment removed and then entered Heaven, this would not be a worse alternative than Hell for that particular person. Since that person is in Heaven, he is absolutely happy since he is with God; everyone in Heaven has conformed themselves to God's will. Now, you may say, "How could a person who has rejected God be happy in being with God?" This leads me back to my first point, that a person who has rejected God through mortal sin cannot enter Heaven without first repenting and going to Confession or perfect contrition at time of death. Thus, there would be a contradiction - someone who has not conformed his will to that of God existing in a place where only those who have conformed wills can be; this is an impossiblity.

Papa Beatus Pius IX said...

First, the nuance of my use of "lovingly," although it "is basically what" your point is...was what my point was originally. You're criticism of my use of "lovingly" added nothing to its original meaning.

Secondly, with regard to "mercifully," you're right, strictly speaking it is an impossibility. But on some level those to be damned desire hell more than heaven.

Did you miss my twice granting you your criticism on that part? Maybe not, so I'll say it a third time:

I grant you your criticism of my use of the word "lovingly."


Papa Beatus Pius IX said...

Just to clarify that it was my original point:

"God is loving, and if you dont want Him, He loves you enough to grant you your wish."

Joseph, M.T.S. said...

Of course I noticed your granting of the criticism regarding "mercifully". That is why I was responding to the "at some level" part of your original reply to my comment - a shift in the criticism based upon new information. In your latest reply, you have shifted the "at some level" to mean that at some level these people desire Hell over God, which is true, but not the original context of "on some level it would be worse for mortally sinful souls to be saved".

Regarding the nuance, whether or not it was your point originally (which was unclear, hence the need for nuance), I was merely agreeing with the nuance that clarified the original.

Papa Sanctus Pius X said...

We find this hilarious...

Papa Beatus Pius IX said...

Just as a follow up...I was incorrect in my defense of my use of "mercifully." That criticism was granted, as said above.

However, this is not to deny that in every act of God - even in the act of damning souls to hell - there is mercy, for "All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth" (Ps 24.10). So, even in the act of damning souls to hell He shows mercy, as the Doctor states:

"Certain works are attributed to justice, and certain others to mercy, because in some justice appears more forcibly and in others mercy. Even in the damnation of the reprobate mercy is seen, which, though it does not totally remit, yet somewhat alleviates, in punishing short of what is deserved."

Check it out

So, mercy is present, though not predominantly forcible and not for the reasons I gave.

Now that the Doctor has answered the question, I think we can close this particular debate.

Pax semper sit vobiscum.

Papa Beatus Pius IX said...

Correction: though not appearing predominantly or forcibly*