There are people including small children with cancer who bravely
Fight to live.

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: GJC

This man is 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt in hell for eternity, tormented by remorse.

That is a subjective judgment, reserved for God alone. You and I are not permitted to pronounce judgment in such matters.

Objective matters are different. We are free to say (and ought to say): Objectively, Robin Williams was not a Catholic, and was a public sinner. Objectively, he had no chance of salvation. Those judgments are acceptable to make.

The Church Herself never pronounces judgment on subjective matters, and never declares even the worst sinners and heretics to be "100% beyond a shadow of a doubt in hell for eternity." Don't arrogate to yourself authority that even Holy Mother Church Herself does not have.

Stick to objective judgment and leave subjective matters to God.

At this point in time it is not surprising to read some of the comments left in this thread. It is a sign of the times.

This is a perfect example of how of a bad thing can actually be a good thing, in so far as we have opportunity to pray for those that not only deceive themselves but everyone they speak to.

Your objective/subjective reasoning is human, and a clear indication that the Divinely revealed truths of God might not be true. When you speak objectively, as you say, you reduce Dogma to a theory, axiom, or a system that is in place that if subjectively not believed could equate to salvation because of good faith, good will or sincerity.

Contemplate for a moment St Francis Xavier. This man of God had two major obstacles in bringing the faith to the Japanese, the first was the language barrier, and the second was convincing these people of God's mercy.

It was hard for those pagans to understand the mercy of God when they were told that the emperors of old along with family members, relatives and friends were all in hell for eternity because the gospel had not yet reached them. It is even recorded that these Japanese asked St. Francis if by prayer that God might show mercy on those in hell, and the Saint's reply was that there was NOTHING that could be done.

Did he respond and say objectively they were lost, but subjectively we really just do not know? Did St. Francis deceive these people into believing there was some kind of hope, like the local frauds do today? Did he lie and tell them to pray for these lost souls because they were having a hard time accepting this news? No, and the reason why he told the truth is because he is a CATHOLIC!

In bold (above) is a perfect example of the curse of modernism upon you.
You are clearly asserting that God acts independently of His Church and reduce the Dogma (EENS) to some kind of interpretation that God really reveals at judgment. St Pius X condemned this nonsense in Lamentabile.

Young Trad men tend to be very long on zeal and very short on wisdom.

You sound very young. Hopefully you are merely young and ignorant, and not old and stupid.

In the account you give above, St Francis' answer was an objective judgment. The fact that you are unable to discern that is evidence that you should probably know what you are talking about before pontificating on it. That's common sense. Look before you leap. Aim before you fire.

What you don't know could fill libraries of books - in fact, it does. Why don't you start reading some of them?

Brush up on your Thomism. Perhaps you'll come to realize the fundamental importance of making distinctions between objective and subjective; formal and material; act and potency.

Or was St Thomas Aquinas a Modernist too?

50 yrs. old.

Very short on wisdom is true, that is why I pray for it daily.

So, you wouldn't make the same comments about St Francis because even though he is crystal clear that those are in hell 100% (because the Gospel had not reached them yet) he was only speaking objectively and REALLY down deep did not believe what he was saying,  and wasn't really sure?

Please direct me to St Thomas' writing's about objective/subjective speaking.

And how Holy Mother the Church, as you say, does not have the authority to judge, but God does.  Thank you

The Church pronounces anathemas against heresy and those who promote it. The Church excommunicates unrepentant heretics. The Church defines the conditions necessary for mortal sin, reproves those who sin publicly and notoriously, and gives fair warning that those who die in mortal sin, or who die outside of the Church have no chance of salvation and are doomed to spend eternity in hell.

All of this is objective in nature. It is judgment according to what is known and certain.

The Church has never solemnly declared any single person to be certainly in hell. Not Luther, not Arius, not even Judas. The Church has never claimed the authority nor the competency to judge subjective matters; which is to say, the Church has never claimed to know interior things (intention, motivation, interior disposition) which is known to God alone. And as God alone is privy to the interior disposition of a man, it is also God alone Who has the Authority and Right to judge a soul based on those intentions and condemn him to hell.

Article 2. Whether it is lawful to judge?

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to judge. For nothing is punished except what is unlawful. Now those who judge are threatened with punishment, which those who judge not will escape, according to Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Therefore it is unlawful to judge.
 
Objection 2. Further, it is written (Romans 14:4): "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant. To his own lord he standeth or falleth." Now God is the Lord of all. Therefore to no man is it lawful to judge.
 
Objection 3. Further, no man is sinless, according to 1 John 1:8, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Now it is unlawful for a sinner to judge, according to Romans 2:1, "Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art, that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou dost the same things which thou judgest." Therefore to no man is it lawful to judge.
 
On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 16:18): "Thou shalt appoint judges and magistrates in all thy gates . . . that they may judge the people with just judgment."
 
I answer that, Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. First, when it is contrary to the rectitude of justice, and then it is called "perverted" or "unjust": secondly, when a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority, and this is called judgment "by usurpation": thirdly, when the reason lacks certainty, as when a man, without any solid motive, forms a judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, and then it is called judgment by "suspicion" or "rash" judgment.
 
Reply to Objection 1. In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 18). Or else He forbids judgment about Divine things, which we ought not to judge, but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary declares in his commentary on Matthew 5. Or again according to Chrysostom [Hom. xvii in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John of the Cross], He forbids the judgment which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart.

Reply to Objection 2. A judge is appointed as God's servant; wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 1:16): "Judge that which is just," and further on (Deuteronomy 1:17), "because it is the judgment of God."
 
Reply to Objection 3. Those who stand guilty of grievous sins should not judge those who are guilty of the same or lesser sins, as Chrysostom [Hom. xxiv] says on the words of Matthew 7:1, "Judge not." Above all does this hold when such sins are public, because there would be an occasion of scandal arising in the hearts of others. If however they are not public but hidden, and there be an urgent necessity for the judge to pronounce judgment, because it is his duty, he can reprove or judge with humility and fear. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19): "If we find that we are guilty of the same sin as another man, we should groan together with him, and invite him to strive against it together with us." And yet it is not through acting thus that a man condemns himself so as to deserve to be condemned once again, but when, in condemning another, he shows himself to be equally deserving of condemnation on account of another or a like sin.
 

By the way what is his last movie?  

Read This:

Robin Williams Channeled evil spirits for his comedy act.

Who says he is not in hell right now.

 http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2014/08/robin-williams-acknowledged-he-channeled-demonic-spirits-for-comedic-power-2460332.html

There are some things that are known only to God. We can conjecture, but we could very easily be mistaken.

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: GJC

This man is 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt in hell for eternity, tormented by remorse.

That is a subjective judgment, reserved for God alone. You and I are not permitted to pronounce judgment in such matters.

Objective matters are different. We are free to say (and ought to say): Objectively, Robin Williams was not a Catholic, and was a public sinner. Objectively, he had no chance of salvation. Those judgments are acceptable to make.

The Church Herself never pronounces judgment on subjective matters, and never declares even the worst sinners and heretics to be "100% beyond a shadow of a doubt in hell for eternity." Don't arrogate to yourself authority that even Holy Mother Church Herself does not have.

Stick to objective judgment and leave subjective matters to God.

At this point in time it is not surprising to read some of the comments left in this thread. It is a sign of the times.

This is a perfect example of how of a bad thing can actually be a good thing, in so far as we have opportunity to pray for those that not only deceive themselves but everyone they speak to.

Your objective/subjective reasoning is human, and a clear indication that the Divinely revealed truths of God might not be true. When you speak objectively, as you say, you reduce Dogma to a theory, axiom, or a system that is in place that if subjectively not believed could equate to salvation because of good faith, good will or sincerity.

Contemplate for a moment St Francis Xavier. This man of God had two major obstacles in bringing the faith to the Japanese, the first was the language barrier, and the second was convincing these people of God's mercy.

It was hard for those pagans to understand the mercy of God when they were told that the emperors of old along with family members, relatives and friends were all in hell for eternity because the gospel had not yet reached them. It is even recorded that these Japanese asked St. Francis if by prayer that God might show mercy on those in hell, and the Saint's reply was that there was NOTHING that could be done.

Did he respond and say objectively they were lost, but subjectively we really just do not know? Did St. Francis deceive these people into believing there was some kind of hope, like the local frauds do today? Did he lie and tell them to pray for these lost souls because they were having a hard time accepting this news? No, and the reason why he told the truth is because he is a CATHOLIC!

In bold (above) is a perfect example of the curse of modernism upon you.
You are clearly asserting that God acts independently of His Church and reduce the Dogma (EENS) to some kind of interpretation that God really reveals at judgment. St Pius X condemned this nonsense in Lamentabile.

Young Trad men tend to be very long on zeal and very short on wisdom.

You sound very young. Hopefully you are merely young and ignorant, and not old and stupid.

In the account you give above, St Francis' answer was an objective judgment. The fact that you are unable to discern that is evidence that you should probably know what you are talking about before pontificating on it. That's common sense. Look before you leap. Aim before you fire.

What you don't know could fill libraries of books - in fact, it does. Why don't you start reading some of them?

Brush up on your Thomism. Perhaps you'll come to realize the fundamental importance of making distinctions between objective and subjective; formal and material; act and potency.

Or was St Thomas Aquinas a Modernist too?

50 yrs. old.

Very short on wisdom is true, that is why I pray for it daily.

So, you wouldn't make the same comments about St Francis because even though he is crystal clear that those are in hell 100% (because the Gospel had not reached them yet) he was only speaking objectively and REALLY down deep did not believe what he was saying,  and wasn't really sure?

Please direct me to St Thomas' writing's about objective/subjective speaking.

And how Holy Mother the Church, as you say, does not have the authority to judge, but God does.  Thank you

The Church pronounces anathemas against heresy and those who promote it. The Church excommunicates unrepentant heretics. The Church defines the conditions necessary for mortal sin, reproves those who sin publicly and notoriously, and gives fair warning that those who die in mortal sin, or who die outside of the Church have no chance of salvation and are doomed to spend eternity in hell.

All of this is objective in nature. It is judgment according to what is known and certain.

The Church has never solemnly declared any single person to be certainly in hell. Not Luther, not Arius, not even Judas. The Church has never claimed the authority nor the competency to judge subjective matters; which is to say, the Church has never claimed to know interior things (intention, motivation, interior disposition) which is known to God alone. And as God alone is privy to the interior disposition of a man, it is also God alone Who has the Authority and Right to judge a soul based on those intentions and condemn him to hell.

Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas

Article 2. Whether it is lawful to judge?

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to judge. For nothing is punished except what is unlawful. Now those who judge are threatened with punishment, which those who judge not will escape, according to Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Therefore it is unlawful to judge.
 
Objection 2. Further, it is written (Romans 14:4): "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant. To his own lord he standeth or falleth." Now God is the Lord of all. Therefore to no man is it lawful to judge.
 
Objection 3. Further, no man is sinless, according to 1 John 1:8, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Now it is unlawful for a sinner to judge, according to Romans 2:1, "Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art, that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou dost the same things which thou judgest." Therefore to no man is it lawful to judge.
 
On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 16:18): "Thou shalt appoint judges and magistrates in all thy gates . . . that they may judge the people with just judgment."
 
I answer that, Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. First, when it is contrary to the rectitude of justice, and then it is called "perverted" or "unjust": secondly, when a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority, and this is called judgment "by usurpation": thirdly, when the reason lacks certainty, as when a man, without any solid motive, forms a judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, and then it is called judgment by "suspicion" or "rash" judgment.
 
Reply to Objection 1. In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 18). Or else He forbids judgment about Divine things, which we ought not to judge, but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary declares in his commentary on Matthew 5. Or again according to Chrysostom [Hom. xvii in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John of the Cross], He forbids the judgment which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart.

Reply to Objection 2. A judge is appointed as God's servant; wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 1:16): "Judge that which is just," and further on (Deuteronomy 1:17), "because it is the judgment of God."
 
Reply to Objection 3. Those who stand guilty of grievous sins should not judge those who are guilty of the same or lesser sins, as Chrysostom [Hom. xxiv] says on the words of Matthew 7:1, "Judge not." Above all does this hold when such sins are public, because there would be an occasion of scandal arising in the hearts of others. If however they are not public but hidden, and there be an urgent necessity for the judge to pronounce judgment, because it is his duty, he can reprove or judge with humility and fear. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19): "If we find that we are guilty of the same sin as another man, we should groan together with him, and invite him to strive against it together with us." And yet it is not through acting thus that a man condemns himself so as to deserve to be condemned once again, but when, in condemning another, he shows himself to be equally deserving of condemnation on account of another or a like sin.
 

Thanks for the reference to St Thomas. This is however irrelevant to this discussion.  I challenge you to read what you highlighted and contemplate. None of the three conditions are present when a person judges correctly as taught by Christ.

I would love to discuss this further somewhere else. I have no more comments in this thread about R. Williams my position is crystal clear.

Oh, I know your position is crystal clear. But it is also in contradiction to the Church's position on judgment, which is also crystal clear. Therein lies the problem.

St. Thomas Aquinas' article on the lawfulness of judgment, which clarifies the Church's official stance on the meaning of Our Lord's admonition against rash judgment, is "irrelevant" in a thread consisting of judgments about a deceased public figure? The onus is on you to prove that manifestly absurd assertion.

When someone says of any deceased person, as you did here, that he is "100% beyond a shadow of a doubt in hell for eternity," he renders his judgment unlawful because, as per St. Thomas, it is rash and a usurpation of judgment; rash because it presumes to know that which is hidden, namely the interior intention of the subject (which is known with certainty only by God) and it is a usurpation because it seeks to pronounce definitively on the sentence of a soul to eternal damnation, which is God's Jursdiction alone.

Consider the fact that, on the flip side, the Church never eulogizes. In a Traditional Catholic funeral Mass, the priest will preach about the Four Last Things, the dire importance of remaining in the State of Grace, and the duty to pray for the dead that God will show him Mercy. Now I'm sure most people reading these words would be scandalized if they heard a priest pronounce from the pulpit that the dear departed was "100% beyond a shadow of a doubt in heaven for eternity," no matter how holy the deceased was in life. This would immediately be recognized for what it is - a very Protestant-sounding bit of presumption... a rash judgment of usurpation. So it would be.

The problem with Traditional Catholic forums is that they often become a showcase for the competetive soul who wishes to demonstrate that he is the staunchest, "trad-est" trad in the room. Prudence and rationality are usually the first casualties in that endeavor. This is lamentably common - though forgiveable - in young men. But you and I aren't young men... If I'm too old for that sort of foolishness at 36, how much more so are you at 50?

Take a moment to consider the fact that you have debated me here with your own personal opinion. I debated you with the words of the Angelic Doctor (placing, as I do, infinitely more confidence in him than in myself).

So here's my challenge to you:

At your next Confession - or whenever your next meeting is with a Traditional priest - print out this exchange between you and me and show it to him. Then listen to what he says and gain some of that wisdom you've been praying for.

Robin Williams Acknowledged He Channeled Demonic Spirits For Comedic Power
Thursday, August 14, 2014 14:46

Fame in Hollywood often comes with a deadly price
“And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.” Mark 5:9
Everybody is currently talking about Robin Williams and his tragic ѕυιcιdє. Many are puzzled as to how a man, who made so many people laugh, could be so depressed that he would violently end his life. What people are not learning is the deeper truth about the insidious forces that tormented Robin Williams and drove him to ѕυιcιdє.
Robin Williams acknowledged that he had opened himself up to transformative demonic powers that aided him on stage. Without the aid of such demonic powers, it is likely that you would have never have heard of
Robin Williams and many other famous celebrities.

“Yeah! Literally, it’s like possession ‑ all of a sudden you’re in, and because it’s in front of a live audience, you just get this energy that just starts going…” – Robin Williams

Williams also recognized that these powers had manifested a very evil influence on stage and that there could be a hefty price to pay for their assistance. Williams told James Kaplan of US Weekly:
“Yeah! Literally, it’s like possession ‑ all of a sudden you’re in, and because it’s in front of a live audience, you just get this energy that just starts going…But there’s also that thing ‑ it is possession. In the old days you’d be burned for it…But there is something empowering about it. I mean, it is a place where you are totally ‑ it is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, where you really can become this other force. Maybe that’s why I don’t need to play evil characters [in movies], ’cause sometimes onstage you can cross that line and come back. Clubs are a weird kind of petri dish environment. I mean, that’s where people can get as dark as they can in comedy ‑ in the name of comedy, be talking about outrageous stuff and somehow come out the other side. I mean, that’s one place where you really want to push it” (Robin Williams, “Robin Williams,” by James Kaplan, US Weekly, January, 1999, p. 53).
Williams’ last statement quoted above answers the question as to why the demonic powers use entertainers. Their goal is to promote evil and darkness and increase mankind’s rebellion against God.
Williams went on to say on the heels of that admission:
“The people I’ve ad­mired ‑ Jonathan Winters, in his best days, was out. Gone. But the price he paid for it was deep”
Sadly, it seems that the price Robin Williams has now paid is just as deep as that of his idol, Jonathan Winters. In fact, in the same US Weekly Interview, James Kaplan says:
“With a gift for mimicry and improvisation that verged on demonic possession, Williams could even approach the artistry of his idol Jonathan Winters—a man whose genius took him, once or twice, over the edge into mental illness. Williams’ own version of hell has been extensively chronicled”.
Like Robin Williams, Jonathan Winters had to contend with the tormenting demonic powers he utilized for fame and fortune. “These voices are always screaming to get out,” Winters told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, further admitting “They follow me around pretty much all day and night.”
At the height of Winter’s success, he voluntarily committed himself to a psychiatric hospital for eight months. Winters would later claim that if he were not careful, the authorities would put him back in the  “zoo,” an obvious reference to the mental institution. Winters, like Williams, often fell into deep depression and struggled with heavy drinking.
While many only knew Robin Williams to be what they considered a somewhat “family friendly” actor, he was one of the most successful crude stand-up comics who ever lived. It was during his stand-up where he was most able to tap into what he calls “possession…Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde… that’s where people can get as dark as they can in comedy ‑ in the name of comedy” .
It was in Williams’ stand-up where he would go into his manic, stream-of-consciousness rants filled with vulgar language, perverse sɛҳuąƖity and the glorification of illicit drugs and drunkenness. Many people express shock after seeing Williams’ stand-up, not knowing his act was so perverse. Comedians, like many famous musicians, pay the price for their fame by becoming enslaved to the demonic forces that possess and torment them.
Jim Morrison, the frontman of America’s most successful band in the 60’s, admitted that he had to drink “to silence the constant voices of the demons” (James Riordin, “Break on Through: The Life and Death of Jim Morrison,” p. 23). The Door’s photographer, Frank Lisciandro, stated that,“Jim drank to quiet the ceaseless clamor of the demons, ghosts and spirits. He drank because there were demons and voices and spirits shouting inside of his head and he found that one of the ways to quell them was with alcohol”

Quote from: poche

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

Read This:

Robin Williams Channeled evil spirits for his comedy act.

Who says he is not in hell right now.

 http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2014/08/robin-williams-acknowledged-he-channeled-demonic-spirits-for-comedic-power-2460332.html

There are some things that are known only to God. We can conjecture, but we could very easily be mistaken.

Poche, as usual, you go too far in the other direction. Praying for the soul of a notorious public sinner who comitted the grave crime of ѕυιcιdє, placing his name among or alongside "all the souls of the faithful departed" skirts dangerously close to entertaining good hope for his salvation, an error condemned by Pope Pius IX.

A brief "May God have mercy on his soul" fulfills your duty of Christian Charity without giving the false and scandalous impression that this man can seriously be considered in the same breath as the faithful departed.

I would agree with your balanced approach.