Why do Catholics insist on a final judgment over sin?

Just to throw this in. The Council of Trent carefully addressed the variety of ideas floating around with the Reformation. The anathemas were the language of a very non-ecumenical period, but were meant to convey the idea of shunning the holder of these views. Not relevant at this point, while the teachings themselves are:

Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12.
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy,[117] which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 19.
If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.

Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe,[122] as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.

Canon 24.
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 26.
If anyone says that the just ought not for the good works done in God[127] to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and by keeping the divine commandments they persevere to the end,[128 [MATT 24:13]] let him be anathema.

I’m sorry I disagree. It matters who He is speaking to and why He is speaking. It also matters when He is speaking in relation the cross. It matters in every way. When Jesus made the multiple statements of how one is eternally saved from John’s gospel, He is more consistent than any other on the subject. To “believe” is the only qualifier found in each statement. This is repeated over and over and over again in John’s evangelistic gospel.

But Johaniah approach is not found in the sermon on the mount or any other gospel for that matter. Mathew, Mark and Luke did not record this narrow subject about eternal life in the way John did.

His example of how it is better to pluck one’s right eye out is better than the whole body to perish in hell, is not some kind of equivalent to answer the same question about eternal life. non-sense.

The LittleLady,

Look, I’ve got at least 5 or 6 people on this site who all want an exhaustive explanation of what I say. You are just one. I cut through a lot but I try to make my point. I also have a full time job, a wife and four kids under my roof. My answers are short and to the point in most cases. I stand on what I said concerning this passage. You can take it or leave it. I’m good either way, friend.

Perhaps you could go to the person who is teaching you this set of doctrines?

You are posting on a Catholic forum, stating things that are in direct opposition to not only the teachings of the Catholic Church but of the majority of mainline Christians. I’d think you would expect people to ask some hard questions.

What is your reason for posting here?


Oh please, you’re question begging. You say that only John records about the path to eternal life, and yet when presented with a pretty glaring example in Matthew, you say it can’t be about eternal life because only John recorded about it. You say that the quoted passage isn’t about eternal life. Why? Because you say so? Even though Jesus’ statement was very simple. He’s clearing connecting sinning with Hell.

And why should who he is speaking to make a difference? To you all any Christian, Jew, pagan, atheist, whatever, has to do is except Jesus as their savior. Then why is Jesus clearing telling people different? And why does when he is speaking matter? Are you suggesting that before Jesus’ death you were to avoid hell by avoiding sinning, and only after the Crucifixion you are saved through faith alone? That’s close to saying that before his death, it was possible to save yourself, which is nonsense.

This passage pokes a pretty big hole in your reasoning. Dismissing it is not the same as refuting it.

1 Like

this I know. however my doctrine is not unorthodox. It is reformed theology embraced by many groups.

Puritans, Arminianist, and Catholics, reject it but that can be expected. I come on this site as the Lord leads me to do so.

Yes He is. Sinners go to hell. I agree. Matthew’s answer to how one can be eternally saved is not found in the sermon on the mount. That is my only point.

Well then, if Jesus is telling us that sinners go to hell, and in the same breath saying you should take positive steps (pluck out your own eye if necessary) to avoid sin and therefore avoid going to Hell, then logically he’s stating that our actions can lead us to Hell. Which seems to be at odds with your claim that to avoid Hell we merely have to have faith, and that our actions are irrelevant.

It would seem that Jesus thinks that our actions are extremely important to whether or not we go to Hell (and therefore don’t go to Heaven).

The thing is, if he isn’t actually telling people how to avoid Hell than he’s being terribly misleading, as he gives no indication that he intends to say anything else. If it was true that all we have to do to avoid Hell is have faith, why did he say the exact opposite here? He didn’t say “have faith in me to avoid Hell”, or “if you sin, you’ll lose your inheritance in heaven”. He clearly says that if you sin - your actions - send you tell. Clearly then our actions and not just our faith, are relevant to avoiding Hell/reaching heaven.


And the Lord leads you here why? Since you know He ‘leads’ you and you do post, you must have some inkling why you’re led here. . .so clue us in.

1 Like

I have news for you. You and I were born dead to God. We came from Adam, who fell in transgression. All the good works in the world can not change the fact that all people are born to die in hell. Only through a new birth can change happen.

If just an eye was the cause of us going to hell, it would be better to go blind to ensure eternal

This statement misrepresents me. We place our faith in Christ alone who paid a sinner’s debt. He paid all of it, not just some. My good works and yours, do not add to what He did, nor does it finish what He did. His sacrifice on the cross was all that was needed to take care of the sin debt, forever. This is why Jesus said judgment for sin has passed in Jn 5:24.

If our works mean nothing in terms of what Christ did, why does Paul say "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:24)?

Christ paid the penalty, true. But something is still lacking that we Christians need to complete. And this is both true and possible because WE are His body and only in US and OUR works is HIS work fully completed!

THAT is why there are so many times in the Gospels where Our Lord urges us to good works.


The called out ones! that visible house! Those who call upon the name of Jesus who is the Christ, the eternal Son, the head of the house.

So, St Paul was just, what, drunk? lying? when he wrote to the Colossians?

1 Like

It sounds like you rely on your faith, itself, that Jesus did what He did. Anyway, the Church, again teaches with wisdom and balance:

Canon 12.
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy,[117] which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 13.
If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary for every man to believe with certainty and without any hesitation arising from his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema.

Canon 14.
If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified,[118] or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

1 Like

Yes, I agree with you. And if that’s all you were saying we won’t have any difficulties. If all you were saying was that good works alone can’t save us, we’d agree. Or that the grace of God through Jesus is a necessary part of salvation, then again we’d agree. But you’re not. Time and time again through this thread you’ve stated that actions are completely irrelevant to if you are saved - that the only part they play is in gain or loss of ‘inheritance’. That a person could freely sin (an action that Jesus says will lead you to hell, and that you yourself must refrain from to avoid that fate) and still be accepted to heaven, with only a loss of inheritance. That is where we disagree. The thing is that all of the scripture you’ve posted can be reconciled with the Catholic view of faith and works. The scripture I provided simply can’t be reconciled to saved through faith alone.


Can you give an example of those ‘poor choices’?

This is another strange interpretation. Weeping and gnashing of teeth, in Heaven? That this is a loss in inheritance, or even an awful realization (again, in Heaven?) is a pretty flimsy interpretation. Pretty much everyone who’ read this immediately thinks of Hell.
“And the angels will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:42

How anyone can confuse this with Heaven is beyond me.


@tgGodsway You keep skirting around the issue, and never giving a clear and unambiguous answer to these simple questions. Why ?

I’m not satisfied with your inheritance explanation, because it still doesn’t explain why some will be, in your own words, “at the bottom” of God’s kingdom, why some will enjoy better places.

I’m beginning to suspect you don’t know what to think yourself.

1 Like

Bless the Lord that there was a Reformation.

I guess so, if we prefer apostasy, heresy, division, and confusion, which the Reformation created in spades. Either way the Lord certainly had nothing to do with it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.