Where in the Roman Catholic bible does it say that those who mock the holy spirit will never get forgiven?

Ezekiel 4:27….

“Yea and behold, they which sayeth sarcasticeth words toward Heaven shall lo be strucketh down by fatherly lightni

Do you mean the Roman Catholics’ interpretation of the Bible? Catholics tend to use the New International Version. But the going Catholic belief is that on Earth, God is always giving opportunities for forgiveness through Penance and Reconciliation. A sin, an offense against reason, truth, and conscience (CCC 1849), can be one of two “levels” of “bad”: venial and mortal. Venial sins are lesser than mortal sins. I’d say Catholics would consider mocking the Holy Spirit a mortal sin. This type of sin requires some serious Penance and Reconciliation. If it goes unreconciled, you are pretty much guaranteed a spot in Hell. (CCC 1861)

“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.” — Mark 3:28–29 (CEV)

@Judi cited what I was going to. Probably all Christian bibles have that same line written in one way or another. I’ve seen the words eternal damnation in some bible versions, but basically the message is the same, risk of no forgiveness for speaking against the Holy Spirit.

@dxs Why emphasize interpretation? It implies the Catholic version is not the real version. For Catholics that is their bible.

Note: the Catholic Bible predates the King James Bible.

Keep in mind that Bible verses are interpreted and not always taken for face value. So @Judi‘s verse is probably the one you’re looking for, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Catholics believe in that.
@JLeslie Because he’s talking about Roman Catholicism. To my knowledge there is not a “Roman Catholic Bible.” Throughout my catechism classes we always used the New International version (while constantly shaming King James for rewriting the Sacred Book to his liking).

So, if your child is taken from you painfully, over months, by disease, and one day you break down and mutter, “Damn you God!” as a lapse in your otherwise unshakeable faith, HE can never forgive or forget that? HE doesn’t have another cheek?

@ibstubro Outstanding questions that cut to the heart of the matter. Wish I had some answers, but I don’t.

It isn’t generally recognized, but the Catholic Church goes to great lengths to avoid the bulk of the fantastical Old Testament. In some 9 years of Catechism indoctrination, I cannot recall a single reference to the book beyond the 10 commandments.

@ibstubro The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. He is not God the creator in the usual sense. I hope I don’t start something.

@sahID I finally came to the realization that there is only one answer. That answer is that there is no God.
See how neatly that answers things?

Never heard that one. The Catholics use a bible that predates the King James version, as @Bill1939 mentioned. The Latin version just before the KJ version, if I recall correctly what my mother told me.

@dxs But interpretation of what? God’s word? It’s all translated into English ( English for our purposes here) and there is always things lost in translation. Then, each sect has their own version. I guess maybe I’m just getting caught up in the word interpretation and maybe I shouldn’t. A Catholic might have their interpretation, but what’s written is written, and the OP was looking for a quote or reference in the bible, not really our interpretation.

That’s how I think of it anyway. Might just be semantics. I’m not really arguing with you, just curious about your thought process.

@JLeslie I was pointing out that saying “the Roman Catholic Bible” is not very…..PC for lack of a better description. They use, as I said, the New International version. Along with this, however, I wanted to convey the message that passages are not always taken face value in the bible, and this can be one instance of that. So basically, I did not want @talljasperman to leave with the idea that Catholics believe that those who mock the Holy Spirit will never get forgiven.

Catholicism is an institutionalized religion, so they’re the interpretations of the establishment. Technically, what makes one Catholic is that they “agree” with these pretty much objective interpretations. The truth is, the Roman Catholic Church has a big fat book of its doctrines (No kidding! Most people don’t know this…it’s called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or CCC for short), so there’s not much wiggle room when it comes to interpretation of central biblical concepts.

As far as the practicality of their interpretations, that’s a question for the Catholics, not me.

I read @Judi ‘s passage when I was young, maybe eight or nine years old. It was slightly different and used the word blasphemy. I remember having to ask my Grandmother what blasphemy was and being terrified that I may have committed it without even knowing it. What a shitty deal, condemned to eternal damnation and not even aware of having done the crime.

Now, as a serial blasphemer, I worry more about offending good people like @Judi than going to any kind of hell.

@JLeslie Things lost in translation began when the first bible was written, not just in the later King James English translation.

Of course. That’s my point. They are all translated.

I hate to break it to you, but the entire concept of a literal UNENDING, ETERNAL punishment in hell has far more to do with the imagery presented in Dante’s Inferno than anything that Jesus ever taught.

That entire doctrine is based upon a purposeful emphasis in a faulty translation (The Latin Vulgate upon which both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims relied heavily) designed to keep the illiterate masses in line and compliant through fear.

The earliest Christians (approx. first three centuries or so) did not universally believe this nonsense because, plain and simple, Jesus did not teach it.
So much of the things of which he spoke and taught were metaphorical in parables. It
doesn’t even make any logical sense because a fire consumes what it is burning and cannot literally be unending.

There are three main words in various languages of that time which are now presented in English as Hell.

The phrase most frequently translated into The English language is from the Greek and is presented as a concept rather than just one word.

That phrase in a Literal translation is “unto the ages of the ages” (ages, or age is the Greek AION or AIONIOS or in English EON of EONS).

If, instead of just the shortcut word, “hell” we were presented with AIONS/EONS (or ages) it wouid me immediately clear that EON means a rather long period of time but not an unending period of time. There is a difference between the two.

Anyhow, both the RC church, as well as most Protestant denominations have gotten it so wrong for centuries that it’s almost impossible to clarify because the vast majority of Christian groups consider the possibility that hell is NOT unending to be heresy.

I still have a hard time trying to understand WHY they are so invested in defending the worst possible picture of a cruel God that this eternal hell concept creates. You’d think they wouid regard it as terrifically wonderful a realization that it’s a translation error based upon medieval thinking.

Anyhow, I regard it as a moot point whether or not a simple utterance against the Holy Spirit (likely made in either ignorance or anger) could doom someone to roast eternity in never ending flames.

If one teaches and believes in a God of love, this whole unending punishment in literal flames is just too much cognitive dissonance for most people to handle. I know of is for me.

I never really understood just what “The Holy Spirit” is. Had this wild idea once that is was the shuttle craft used by the other two.

@Buttonstc @ibstubro Why are you discussing these things? It is not along the lines of what @talljasperman asked. Oh, because this is in social? Well in that case you’re on quite the soapbox right now.

They’re on-topic, @dxs. Hell has everything to do with his question

@dxs

The essence of the verse he asked about appears in both RC as well as Protestant Bibles and carries with it the (presumed) penalty of eternally roasting in the never-ending flames of hell.

But if that entire concept (eternsl hellfire) is flawed due to a clearly biased translation propping up a horrible doctrine to begin with, then the verse in question can’t possibly be that accurate (or even relevant to one’s life.)

Anything I’ve stated can be independently verified if someone cares to do the research. It’s not as if I’m the only one who believes the “heresy” of the nonexistent eternal hellfire.

And if one is an avowed agnostic/atheist, then presumably, the entire subject of this particular verse is of little interest or consequence.

The OP has previously stated numerous times that he leans far more toward skepticism and agnosticism (and yet he’s asking this question, so I presume it is of interest to him.)

I’m just answering it in the context in which it exists. I’m not out to convert him to anything. Whether he ever changes from an agnostic stance is his business, not mine. He is an adult and can make up his own mind.

I just think that an alternative to the standard harsh Christian Fundy judgementalism is not a bad thing.

I was merely providing an alternative different from the standard orthodox party line which condemns someone to eyernal flames and no possibility of forgiveness in this life or the next because they’ve “offended the Holy Spirit” whatever that means.

That’s basically a paraphrase of the parameters of the particular verse in discussion here.

Have you ever even read it? The primary reason I ask is because if one is familiar with the verse in question, it should be blatantly obvious why the existence (or not) of the standard viewpoint about neverending flaming punishment with no forgiveness is an integral part of the discussion.

And yet you sound so annoyed about it, which I find puzzling. If you are either agnostic or atheist, that’s fine by me. But his question was about a very specific verse in the Christian bible so of course the discussion will include various Christian points of view.

If your distaste for religion is that strong, then why not just avoid the Q altogether instead of crapping all over people expressing ot refuting specific doctrinal viewpoints? That’s the entire point of his question, so why are you getting your shorts in a knot over it?

If he only wanted the specific chapter and verse without any context he could have put it in General or just Googled it. Obviously he was interested in a discussion about its further ramifications.

If I’m wrong about assuming that, then you can hang me at high noon :)

I meant to respond sooner to @kritiper‘s comment, “I never really understood just what “The Holy Spirit” is. ...”

@kritiper, The Holy Spirit is like the current of a stream flowing from a source to the sea. Inside the flow and moving with it, one is unlikely to experience it. If a life were like a leaf in the stream, it would have no choice but to go with the flow. However if it is like a fish, then it has the ability to alter its movement, swim to the left and right, up and down. It can even try to swim against the current. In this sense, it has free will. Our fish, however, cannot swim upstream as fast as the stream is flowing and so is carried downstream despite its efforts. In this analogy, The Father would be the source and the sea, and The Son would be the manifestation of the stream.

@talljasperman’s question applies to a commonly held view by Christians, Muslims and members of other religions. It arises from a desire for justice in a next life, since in this life many avoid retribution for their actions. It is my view that going against the flow of creation causes consequences that increase suffering. While selfishness may produce pleasure, it does not produce happiness. The isolation of egocentrism awakens the unconscious infantile fear of abandonment, which fosters a need to escape from the rising angst by focusing on the pursuits of material goals and other distractions such as sexual and substance abuse. While selflessness can never be fully realized, increasing the awareness of suffering and seeking ways in to mitigate it one experiences the interconnection of all life and maximizes happiness.

@Bill1939 Really? You’d think the Catholic Church would have explained at least some of that to me. Not that I give a rat’s patootie about it now…

@Bill1939,

“In this analogy, The Father would be the source and the sea, and The Son would be the manifestation of the stream.”

Where’s the flush Hell?

@kritiper, I am not a Catholic. I was until I was 15, then after sampling a variety of Christian faiths I became a Unitarian. Ten years later I explored westernized versions of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, “New Age” philosophies, “Old Age” philosophies (Theosophy, Astrology, I Ching, Tarot, et al.) and lastly the Liberal Catholic Church. In the end I synthesized some aspects of each into my own philosophy. My Holy Spirit analogy does not represent my belief, but how I think the Trinity could be conceptualized by believers. However, even if this explanation had been given to me sixty years ago, I would likely have followed the path of my spiritual search.

@ibstubro, some reasons I gave up Christianity are that I could not reconcile a loving God with the possibility of an eternal Hell, accept the existence of a “Golden City on the Hill” or a religious hierarchy base on the rule of royalty (God is Lord?). Obedience to an authority or suffer the consequences seems more secular than spiritual.

Amazing to me that you passed through the Eastern religions and ended with liberal Catholicism, @Bill1939.
I thought Episcopalian was liberal Catholic?

@ibstubro, the Liberal Catholic Church broke away from the Roman Catholic Church some hundred-and-fifty years ago. It experienced a schism and split into the Liberal Catholic Church and The Liberal Catholic Church (ego, ego, ego). Mass was very much like what I had known in my youth, but the doctrine was progressive. Unfortunately, they still held to the Paternalistic structure of the RCC; women could not enter the Priesthood, for example.

The focus of their service was the channeling of spiritual energy through the Priest who focused that force in the service of healing and mitigation of suffering around the world. At the time, I was able to relate my emerging spiritual philosophy with that of the church, but the congregation and the Priest found the political structure too confining and we dissolved it. Nearly a score of years have passed since then.

While I still feel that the spiritual power of a gathering of people is valuable in keeping awareness of the spiritual reality centered in the individual’s consciousness, it is not a necessity for me. The core of my belief is that service to others should never be secondary to serving my own needs. In as much as most religions have this component, they are useful. Sadly, few do not suffer from the desire of some individual’s egos to be the focus of importance and arbitrator of truth.

@Bill1939.

L. Ron Hubbard founded a religion with a quarter of your knowledge?

@ibstubro, L. Ron Hubbard also denounced the religion he founded. Any philosophy that becomes a religion is corrupted. Even if God gave an individual Truth, that Truth could never be communicated to others. Most if not all of it would be lost in translations into terms they could grasp and/or accept.