E
expectthebest
Guest
Is this theology compatible with the Catholic Faith?
- Status
N
Nita
Guest
No.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#IV
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs
E
expectthebest
Guest
Thank you. Is this an infallible teaching?
N
Nita
Guest
Yes.
Here are some of the references given in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott — a great book to add to your reference library.
The Athanasian Creed declares: * “But those who have done evil will go into eternal fire.” *
Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD): * …all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ."*
Benedict XII declared in the Dogmatic Constitution “Benedictus Deus” (issued in 1336 AD): “According to God’s general ordinance, the souls of those who die in a personal grevious sin descend immediately into hell, where they will be tormented by the pains of hell.”
Here are some of the references given in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott — a great book to add to your reference library.
The Athanasian Creed declares: * “But those who have done evil will go into eternal fire.” *
Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD): * …all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ."*
Benedict XII declared in the Dogmatic Constitution “Benedictus Deus” (issued in 1336 AD): “According to God’s general ordinance, the souls of those who die in a personal grevious sin descend immediately into hell, where they will be tormented by the pains of hell.”
N
Nita
Guest
I just wanted to add that the Church’s teaching is based on God’s revelation in Scripture. Here are a few biblical references.
OLD TESTAMENT:
Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
See also: Judith 16:20 et seq.; Wisdom 4:19; Isaiah 66:24;
NEW TESTAMENT:
Matthew 25:41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
See also: Mt. 25:46; Mark 9:46; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Romans 2:6-9; Revelations 20:9-10
OLD TESTAMENT:
Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
See also: Judith 16:20 et seq.; Wisdom 4:19; Isaiah 66:24;
NEW TESTAMENT:
Matthew 25:41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
See also: Mt. 25:46; Mark 9:46; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Romans 2:6-9; Revelations 20:9-10
F
fanasry18
Guest
Play the game of golf with an long-standing man
A youthful gentleman prefers to carry out golf, but, he persistently can’t shell out for the entire time struggling. one day, he been given two online golf shop a very long time of no cost afternoon, he strategies to carry out the game of golf a very small faster, and complete 9 holes, and he could catch up while using meeting. So he quickly completely ready at the tee.When he was going to serve, an long-standing gentleman confirmed up and requested if he could complete a group. The youthful cheap golf equipment gentleman have not been given time for you to refuse, the long-standing gentleman would complete golf. it is completely impressed how the long-standing gentleman completely actively playing a instead quick speed, serve, and no important faults delays.
A youthful gentleman prefers to carry out golf, but, he persistently can’t shell out for the entire time struggling. one day, he been given two online golf shop a very long time of no cost afternoon, he strategies to carry out the game of golf a very small faster, and complete 9 holes, and he could catch up while using meeting. So he quickly completely ready at the tee.When he was going to serve, an long-standing gentleman confirmed up and requested if he could complete a group. The youthful cheap golf equipment gentleman have not been given time for you to refuse, the long-standing gentleman would complete golf. it is completely impressed how the long-standing gentleman completely actively playing a instead quick speed, serve, and no important faults delays.
J
jo5
Guest
Hello,
I’m an Orthodox Christian who is taking some time to view some Catholic doctrines, specifically related to the afterlife. I thought that the RCC didn’t accept Annihilationism, but I have a RC friend who argues otherwise.
I’m speaking with a Catholic currently who takes an Annihilationism position. I’m confused here. If the Catholic Church rejects Annihilationism, where has it done this and when?
The pro-annihilationism article written by said Catholic is here. He states that the RCC hasn’t addressed this issue and having read the anathemas of Constantinople 2, he states that they’ve not touched on Annihilationism at all. I was wondering if anyone could clarify this issue for me. Can one be an Annihilationist and be in good standing with the RCC?
Also, the your link above doesn’t take me to a portion of the RC catechism. I get sent to a webpage where I have to click on a language (English, of course) and from there to a main page. If another link could be given, that would be helpful.
Thank you for your time in assisting me in trying to figure this puzzle out.
Jo5
I’m an Orthodox Christian who is taking some time to view some Catholic doctrines, specifically related to the afterlife. I thought that the RCC didn’t accept Annihilationism, but I have a RC friend who argues otherwise.
I’m speaking with a Catholic currently who takes an Annihilationism position. I’m confused here. If the Catholic Church rejects Annihilationism, where has it done this and when?
The pro-annihilationism article written by said Catholic is here. He states that the RCC hasn’t addressed this issue and having read the anathemas of Constantinople 2, he states that they’ve not touched on Annihilationism at all. I was wondering if anyone could clarify this issue for me. Can one be an Annihilationist and be in good standing with the RCC?
Also, the your link above doesn’t take me to a portion of the RC catechism. I get sent to a webpage where I have to click on a language (English, of course) and from there to a main page. If another link could be given, that would be helpful.
Thank you for your time in assisting me in trying to figure this puzzle out.
Jo5
N
Nita
Guest
My understanding is that Annihilationism holds there is no hell and no eternal existence for the damned; that God instead totally annihilates souls not worthy to enter heaven. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The three references given in Post #4 are Church declarations that constitute part of the infallible teaching on the existence of hell and that those who die in a state of grevious/mortal sin go there.
The Constantinople Council is hardly the only source of infallible dogmas – it is only one of many sources. Also, it is not necessary for the word “anathema” to be a part of an infallible teaching.
Sorry about that. Try this one, it should take you right to the section for the paragraph I cited.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM
Here is a link for the Table of Contents for the entire Catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
D
danserr
Guest
The Church doesn’t seem to accept a pure annihilation, but there might be room for a sort of modified annihilationism of the sort proposed by CS Lewis and NT Wright that suggests that hell is indeed eternal and the damned are not entirely annihilated. They suggest, however, that what is in hell is not persons, but the remains of persons. C.S. Lewis says that what is cast into hell is not a person, it is remains, and NT Wright calls these “creatures in an ex-human state.” I think this idea makes sense, and it is compatible with the continuing existence of hell.
N
Nita
Guest
Could you explain how that position can be compatible with the Church’s Catechism statement (#1035) and the cited Council statements.
What are the “remains” of persons??? Souls are “simple” - that is, a “soul” can not be broken into parts; it is one/simple. The Church teaches that all bodies are resurrected and united to their souls. So, retaining those infallible teachings, how would you define “remains”?
E
Evan
Guest
In trying to justify a Catholic dogma, it is interesting that C.S. Lewis, a protestant, would be cited
J
jo5
Guest
Thank you for the links. I did find within the RCC what you had previously cited.
I noticed that my Catholic friend Daniel agrees with the eternality of hell itself (the place) but denies that eternal suffering of those people who would eventually go there and of course, at some point be annihilated.
Is there any reference in the RCC to the eternal suffering of the condemned?
Or is it possible, as some have suggested, that some form of annihilationism is compatible with RC dogma. My friend Daniel seems to be alone on this matter, judging from the Catholics I know personally who I have talked to about this.
If anyone cares to read the post, it is linked in my earlier posts. I just don’t know what the point of hell is, if someone isn’t there. If the place is eternal and serves no purpose (i.e. everyone who was there has been annihilated) why does it exist?
I noticed that my Catholic friend Daniel agrees with the eternality of hell itself (the place) but denies that eternal suffering of those people who would eventually go there and of course, at some point be annihilated.
Is there any reference in the RCC to the eternal suffering of the condemned?
Or is it possible, as some have suggested, that some form of annihilationism is compatible with RC dogma. My friend Daniel seems to be alone on this matter, judging from the Catholics I know personally who I have talked to about this.
If anyone cares to read the post, it is linked in my earlier posts. I just don’t know what the point of hell is, if someone isn’t there. If the place is eternal and serves no purpose (i.e. everyone who was there has been annihilated) why does it exist?
D
Daniel_Rubio
Guest
I am the author of the defense in question. A few points where people seem to be confused:
(1) The form of annihilation I am advocating does not deny that there is a place ‘Hell.’ What it does deny is that rational free beings will be eternally tormented there. For people stuck on the need for fire and brimestone (I am not one of them), it may even have fire.
Does the fact that people are not termented eternally there mean it has no purpose? I don’t think so. I think it can serve a redemptive purpose (for those who are able to leave it, via the same processes that allow people to leave purgatory for heaven), or the annihilative purpose (for those who are totally corrupted).
(2) Does this go against the catechism?
I think not. The catechism stipulates total separation from God as part of hell. How, precisely, does one exist who has been separated from the source and sustainer of existence? Unless you want to argue that souls exist necessarily (in which case, good luck), I think you must grant that they cannot. In which case, the catechism is either inconsistent or it does not deny annihilation.
(3) This is different from Lewis’s view, although it does share a number of features. Lewis saw hell as an eternal destination for some people, but a place “locked from the inside.” I deny that such a place can be locked from the inside by free beings.
(1) The form of annihilation I am advocating does not deny that there is a place ‘Hell.’ What it does deny is that rational free beings will be eternally tormented there. For people stuck on the need for fire and brimestone (I am not one of them), it may even have fire.
Does the fact that people are not termented eternally there mean it has no purpose? I don’t think so. I think it can serve a redemptive purpose (for those who are able to leave it, via the same processes that allow people to leave purgatory for heaven), or the annihilative purpose (for those who are totally corrupted).
(2) Does this go against the catechism?
I think not. The catechism stipulates total separation from God as part of hell. How, precisely, does one exist who has been separated from the source and sustainer of existence? Unless you want to argue that souls exist necessarily (in which case, good luck), I think you must grant that they cannot. In which case, the catechism is either inconsistent or it does not deny annihilation.
(3) This is different from Lewis’s view, although it does share a number of features. Lewis saw hell as an eternal destination for some people, but a place “locked from the inside.” I deny that such a place can be locked from the inside by free beings.
J
jo5
Guest
So, does the above mentioned by Daniel affirm or deny RC dogma regarding hell? I apologize for not posting my second post, above, sooner (I assumed that whoever read the thread, read the article).
J
jo5
Guest
I think you have said nothing contributing to the conversation here. Did you even read Daniel’s article? You’ve wasted your time, nothing more. I’m looking for an answer to this question, not a useless troll response. Thanks.
J
jo5
Guest
None of those quotes disqualifies Daniel’s article. The quote from the Lateran council, specifically the word “punishment” can be interpreted as “annihilation” which Daniel does accordingly.
Also, Benedict’s statement says that people will be tormented by the pains of hell, but not eternally.
Is there something that specifically mentions eternal suffering. Punishment is too broad a word, and just saying that people suffer torments does not mean that it is eternal. Most statements, including the RC catechism, state that hell (the place) is eternal, but not the suffering. Again, any reference to punishment can be interpreted as annihilation, unless something official (pope, council, creed) says otherwise.
I’m looking for something definitive here, either for or against Daniel’s position. Anyone who has any relevant knowledge regarding RC dogma (not just vague “this is heresy” please, that’s not helpful) that can contribute would be helpful.
N
Nita
Guest
The Church teaches that our souls are immortal. If something is immortal, it cannot cease to exist – be annihilated.
CCC #366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – … – and also that** it is immortal**: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.
CCC #997 …In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant** incorruptible life to our bodies **by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection.
“incorruptible life to our bodies” – in other words, the body will never again be separated from its soul.
CCC #998 * Who will rise? * All the dead will rise, “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”
I scanned Rubio’s article. As I recall he makes another error – indicating the possibility that hell could be a temporary place for some, similar to Purgatory!!! Temporary IS Purgatory. Hell is eternal for those who are condemned to it.
D
danserr
Guest
Don’t be sarcastic, CS Lewis was a high church anglican, who are not typically considered Protestant. And I was not citing him as as authority on the Church, but as the author of an idea I believe may be compatible with Church teaching on the eternity of hell.
Are you certain those canons are dogma or doctrine, what is your source? Remember that not all doctrine are infallible dogma.
-souls are simple: it does not follow that they still cannot suffer corruption. Consider St. Augustine’s fondness for talking about how people are made for God, if we reach full completeness in God, it stands to reason that eternally cut off from Him, we would suffer corruption and be less than we would be with Him.
-this is compatible with 1035 because it admits both the continuing existence of hell (as I said already) as well as admitting that the chief punishment of hell is separation from God (as 1035 says)
The Church has not made an officialy ruling on this idea, which developed after those later councils, so I think Catholics probably have some flexibility on the issue. Of course, if the Church did consider the issue and make a ruling on it, that would be binding.
N
Nita
Guest
Temporary suffering/pain/torment/punishment after death is Purgatory – never Hell. There is no release from Hell. The punishment is “eternal”, not temporary. (#1038 “…And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal lfie.”)
Could you give the Catechism reference that stipulates “total separation” from God as part of hell? And specifically in the sense that you propose – whereby the separation is so complete that it separates one even from God’s will to uphold that person in existence.
CCC#1035 speaks of the "eternal separation from God". But “eternal” does not mean “total”.
CCC#1033 …To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”[Not experiencing “communion” with God (and the blessed) does not mean separation so total that one is annihilated.]
- Status