Annihilationism

[Tomster]

Is this theology compatible with the Catholic Faith?

It may be suggessted that instead of eternal punishment, God might have decreed annihilation. But annihilation is in itself no sanction at all. It is a mere cessation of being; the non-existent cannot undergo any requital for past deeds. Such annihilation would presumably take place when the sinner was at the height of his sin, when he would suddenly pass away without any retribution whatever into nothingness. Perhaps the suggestion may be carried further that a period of punishment should precede the moment of annihilation. But this suggestion leaves the problem as it was before. Such a period of punishment would either improve the sinner or make him worse, or leave it as it found him. If it had improved him, it is strange that it should followed by annihilation; if it left him as it found him, or made him worse, annihilation is delayed without rhyme or reason, for his state immediately previous to annihilation would demand retribution as much as, or more than the state un which he was before the first retribution took place. Moreover, annihilation of a being by nature immortal means a reversal of God’s own plan; it is a kind of stultification of his own work and a frustration of energy unworthy of the wisdom of God; it would be, as it were, a confession of impotence. The root of the difficulty against eternal punishment lies in this, that people picture it to themselves as a satiating of a lust of vengeance in God; they picture to themselves the damned begging eternally for mercy and God eternally refusing it in spite of their unceasing supplication.

Now this conception is faulty. The devils and the damned NEVER ask for mercy. One moment’s repentance would empty hell. But that moment NEVER comes. The damned have made their choice and abide by it; that is why their abode is hell.

No one suggests that the damned want hell because they enjoy its torments; the damned want hell because they have decided once for all that they do not want God, and there is no heaven without God. They need God eternally, but eternally they do not want him.

 

[Nita]

Are you certain those canons are dogma or doctrine, what is your source? Remember that not all doctrine are infallible dogma.

Am I certain? Yes.
I’m not sure what you mean by source – I identified the source of the quotes, a Church creed, a council declaration, and a Pope’s decree. If you mean what books did I read that led me to those quotes, there are 2:

1. “Fundamentals of Caholic Dogma” in it’s background for **“The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. (De fide).” **
2. Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma”

Infallibility is not limited to dogmas; doctrines can also be infallible.

-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.

The word “remains” just seemed to imply to me a breaking down, or breaking apart, of the human nature. It was that sense I was questioning since the Church teaches that all risen bodies will forever be incorruptible. I was looking for a definition of “remains” that would incorporate the eternal union of one’s body and soul

-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.

Annihilation would mean that the Church has erroneously led her faithful, throughout 2000 years, to believe that if they went to hell they would experience the pain/torment/anguish of hell eternally. One has to “exist” to be able to experience pain, etc.

Separation from God is certainly the chief punishment, but that hardly means it is the only punishment.

Annihilation is not some new idea that has just arisen. Could you give any reference to the Church okaying, or allowing, speculation that annihilation can be in conformity with Church teaching about hell.

 

[danserr]

Annihilation would mean that the Church has erroneously led her faithful, throughout 2000 years, to believe that if they went to hell they would experience the pain/torment/anguish of hell eternally. One has to “exist” to be able to experience pain, etc.

Separation from God is certainly the chief punishment, but that hardly means it is the only punishment.

Annihilation is not some new idea that has just arisen. Could you give any reference to the Church okaying, or allowing, speculation that annihilation can be in conformity with Church teaching about hell.

Now you are not paying attention. I am not defending a pure annihilationism! I am suggesting a modified one where the damned continue to exist in a state of torment, but that they are not persons, but the remains of persons.

I do not have to specifically show the church allowing discussion of it, rather you have to show where they forbid discussion of the sort of modified annhilationism I am suggesting. Heresy does not become heresy until it is explicitly rejected by the Church. If the Church does not officially say that a idea is banned, then there is typically leniency to discuss it and see what its merits may be.

Infallibility is not limited to dogmas; doctrines can also be infallible.

agreed, but I am asking you to show me that these are and that there is anything in an infalible dogma that would ban a modified annihilationism. I concede the eternal suffering of hell, but that is compatible with a modified annihiliationism.

 

[Nita]

Now you are not paying attention. I am not defending a pure annihilationism! I am suggesting a modified one where the damned continue to exist in a state of torment, but that they are not persons, but the remains of persons.

I do not have to specifically show the church allowing discussion of it, rather you have to show where they forbid discussion of the sort of modified annhilationism I am suggesting. Heresy does not become heresy until it is explicitly rejected by the Church. If the Church does not officially say that a idea is banned, then there is typically leniency to discuss it and see what its merits may be.

Excuse me. I ended up meshing your position with the annihilation the OP was speaking of. Apologies.

Personhood is a mysterious topic. No real clear definition of it that I know of.
Except for Jesus, human personhood is generally understood as being bestowed at the union of a human body (physical matter) with a human soul. (Among other things, from the moment of conception it is a human person in the womb.) Can’t even imagine how there could be a being with a united human body and soul without any “person” being part of it. If “it” isn’t a person, what is it?!?

I think the whole issue of annihilation, and perhaps modified annihilation also, arises for one of two reasons:

1. Either someone has a hard time reconciling God being loving and merciful, yet allowing eternal anguish/pain/suffering
   or
2. altho believing in God and judgement, they seek finding a judgement that would allow them freedom from experiencing eternal anguish/pain/suffering.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Is this theology compatible with the Catholic Faith?

No, nor is it in line with what Jesus taught in Matthew 25:46 either.

I knew a man, who believed that God was only going to destroy or put out of existence the wicked. So, not fearing being simply destoryed he lived his life without God, and lived a life of pleasure. There was another man named Joe, who lived his life for God and repented of his sins daily, depending on Jesus to be his lawyer at the judgement.
After death, the wicked man was in torment and Joe was in the bosom of Abe in paradise. The wicked man, said this is ok because it is only for a short time and then either I will be purified of sin or be destoryed. But, in the meantime he did not like being under torment and asked Abe if there was a way to turn down the heat and to avoid the torment. Abe, then tells the wicked man about eternal torment and that there is no way for him to turn down the heat or to avoid eternal torment. Then the wicked man asked Abe if Joe could be resurrected to warn his family whom he influnced on earth to live as he had. Abe looked at Joe, and in tears Joe said, that is not possible, too much red tape. Abe, said they have the scriptures, christian media and the church to warn them. And, if they will not listen to the sources of comminication they have avilable to them now, they will not even listen to Joe after being resurrected to warn them.

The sad part is I did know a man in this life who did believe in annihilation and lived his life according to the sin nature with the understanding that he will simply be destroyed.
Problem is someone sold him a contract that God did not make with him. And, in the end that man will likely end up in eternal torment.

Yes, there are some people who go to church because they believe in eternal torment, hell. There are people who avoid the church altogether because they are living under a false contract, that in the end they will just be destroyed. And, there are people who have listened to the scriptures or listen to the church or listened to christian media and have given themselves to Jesus.

In short, really read the contract, scripture — discuss it with God’s people, the church.

 

[Evan]

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.

Not being sarcastic. High church anglican is a protestant. They are the spiritual descendants of the protest of the King against the Church. Their believes have led some high some low and some middle and some have left the protestant world to join the Church.

If you are in communion with the Church, you are a Catholic; if you are not, you are a non-catholic. And non-catholics that came from the reformation are called ‘protestant’

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Protestant

 

[danserr]

Not being sarcastic. High church anglican is a protestant. They are the spiritual descendants of the protest of the King against the Church. Their believes have led some high some low and some middle and some have left the protestant world to join the Church.

If you are in communion with the Church, you are a Catholic; if you are not, you are a non-catholic. And non-catholics that came from the reformation are called ‘protestant’

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Protestant

christchurchanglican.org/ang_topix/protestant.html

“In these limited senses, Anglicanism is indeed “Protestant,” and honorably so. However, the objection to thinking of all Anglicanism primarily in terms of “Protestant” is that it serves to obscure the fact that, theologically and historically, Anglican Churches are Catholic.”

high church Anglicans don’t like to consider themselves protestants, and anyway, you missed my point, since I was not citing cs lewis as an authority on catholic teaching.

 

[Nita]

…
agreed, but I am asking you to show me that these are and that there is anything in an infalible dogma that would ban a modified annihilationism. I concede the eternal suffering of hell, but that is compatible with a modified annihiliationism.

The modified annihilationism you spoke of depends on the deterioration of human persons into something called “remains”. If you can give me a definition as to what “remains” means – what constitutes these remains; what is absent in them that was present prior to their becoming “remains” – I’ll see what I can find. If it’s just the absence of “personhood”, then please give your understanding of personhood. To be inconformity to Church teaching the “remains” would have to include both the soul and the resurrected body. Before I start searching, I have to know what I’m supposed to be searching for.

 

[Daniel_Rubio]

There seems to be, at the very least, a category error going in the attempt to argue from souls are immortal to souls being indesctructible.

An immortal soul is one that has an indefinite and unbounded duration.

An industrictible soul is one that exists necessarily.

A soul might be immortal but still destructible: namely, if the antecedent condition on which it exists fails to obtain (ie it ceases to be sustained by God). If you deny this, you must argue that the essence of a soul implies existence. I would consider that conclusion a reductio of the argument.

I would be interested in an argument for why separation does not entail total separation. It seems to me that if A is not totally separated from B, then A is in some way connected to B, in which case A is not separated from B. Separation is bivalent: it does not admit of degrees.

The last counterargument I’ve seen (and forgive if I missed one) is that simply defines hell is being a place that admits of no exit. That is simply begging the question against me.

 

[jo5]

1. “Fundamentals of Caholic Dogma” in it’s background for **“The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. (De fide).” **

Nita,

Once again, let me say that merely saying that punishment lasts for all eternity is vague. Daniel’s claim is that the punishment here is annihilation, although not expressly stated. And, of course, that annihilation is eternal. Someone’s soul won’t be brought back from non-existence. What one needs to bring to the table is evidence that:

1. The subject in hell suffers for all eternity. A non-entity cannot suffer, therefore this would negate the possibility of annihilation.
2. An statement explicitly stating that those in hell have no chance of redemption. While this wouldn’t undermine Daniel’s entire argument (he would just say that those w/o redemption would be annihilated, which is why point 1 above is necessary) but it would at least posit that those in Hell cannot be redeemed as Daniel argues in his article on the Blackbird. It would negate any possibility of Hell being a form of purgatory for non-Catholics.

I think if these two points are sufficiently answered, Daniel’s article would be definitively refuted. I understand that there is a possibility that Daniel’s argument does not run counter to Catholic Dogma. If such information is not available, then I think it is plausible that Daniel’s hypothesis is, at the very least consistent with Catholic dogma, even if it is not true.

Please answer the above points. I apologize that I do not have access to the same Catholic resources as do many Catholics. I am unable to search through the relevant material (aside from the CCC, I don’t even know where to look).

 

[Nita]

Nita,

Once again, let me say that merely saying that punishment lasts for all eternity is vague. Daniel’s claim is that the punishment here is annihilation, although not expressly stated. And, of course, that annihilation is eternal. Someone’s soul won’t be brought back from non-existence. What one needs to bring to the table is evidence that:

I’m disputing the possibility of the soul becoming a non-entity.

1. The Catechism refers to the soul as immortal
   *CCC#990 The “resurrection of the flesh” … means not only that the **immortal soul *will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again.
   CCC #1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul **at the very moment of his death, …
   Something “immortal” does not cease to exist!
2. This immortality will also extend to our resurrected bodies. *
   (CCC #996 …On no point does the Christian faith encounter more opposition than on the resurrection of the body. …body, so clearly mortal, could rise to everlasting life?) *
   Again, how can something have everlasting life if it doesn’t exist?

What one needs to bring to the table is evidence that:

1. The subject in hell suffers for all eternity. A non-entity cannot suffer, therefore this would negate the possibility of annihilation.

*CCC #1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna,” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and tyey will gather…all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”

CCC #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.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation…
(Note the punishments to be “suffered” are plural, unquenchable fire being one mentioned by Jesus. How can a non-entity suffer punishments in the plural? I don’t see how experiencing “unquenchable fire” can be equated to just being annihilated.)

1. An statement explicitly stating that those in hell have no chance of redemption. While this wouldn’t undermine Daniel’s entire argument (he would just say that those w/o redemption would be annihilated, which is why point 1 above is necessary) but it would at least posit that those in Hell cannot be redeemed as Daniel argues in his article on the Blackbird. It would negate any possibility of Hell being a form of purgatory for non-Catholics.

*CCC #1038 …but the goats at the left…And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.*The judgement is “into eternal punishment”.

The Lateran Council IV says it this way: * "…everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ.*Synod at Constantinople 543AD (refuting some of Origen’s teachings):
Canon 9 If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.

Please answer the above points. I apologize that I do not have access to the same Catholic resources as do many Catholics. I am unable to search through the relevant material (aside from the CCC, I don’t even know where to look).

As you can see, you can get most of the answers right from the CCC. Just check out the sections on resurrection of the body, hell, and final judgment.

Part of the difficulty is that there are so many materials!!! The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years, holding councils and producing documents. Almost every conceivable heresy has arisen and been answered over the years. If you wish to expand your library, I would definitely suggest investing in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott. It’s a gold mine, and not that expensive.
amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig/dp/0895550091
It gives the doctrine - then history surrounding its formulation, Scripture source for the doctrine, support in early Church fathers… All this in very clear, concise form.

 

[jo5]

Thank you very much for the info you’ve provided. I think that does sufficiently answer Daniel’s article, though he may not think so.

I might look into the book, though I’ve got a list started so this one would have to be added to the bottom. Thanks for the resource.

Jo5

 

[Daniel_Rubio]

1. The Catechism refers to the soul as immortal
   CCC#990 The “resurrection of the flesh” … means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again.
   CCC #1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, …
   Something “immortal” does not cease to exist!

1. This immortality will also extend to our resurrected bodies.
   (CCC #996 …On no point does the Christian faith encounter more opposition than on the resurrection of the body. …body, so clearly mortal, could rise to everlasting life?)
   Again, how can something have everlasting life if it doesn’t exist?

“immortal” and “everlasting life” could mean one of two things

(1) The soul’s essence implies existence. It exists necessarily. It cannot be destroyed.

(2) The soul’s life is indeterminate and unbounded going forward.

If (1) is correct, then not even God can undo a soul. Funny asymmetry: God can create souls, but he can’t annihilate them. It would also mean souls are and are not contingent. A contradiction. (1) is incoherent.

If (2) is correct, then it is consistent with annihilation, because the soul will have reached a God-imposed limit.

(Note the punishments to be “suffered” are plural, unquenchable fire being one mentioned by Jesus. How can a non-entity suffer punishments in the plural? I don’t see how experiencing “unquenchable fire” can be equated to just being annihilated.)

Unquenchable fire does not equal unending suffering. Punishment (1) [if we really must use the language of punishment] is the suffering of the lower regions of existence. Punishment (2) is the annihilation of the totally corrupt.

I’ve also explained how annihilation can be an everlasting or unending punishment. Coincidentally, this also doesn’t contradict Lateran IV, because the true punishment of the totally corrupt is not temporary. Annihilation is as permanent as it gets.

 

[Tomster]

It may be suggessted that instead of eternal punishment, God might have decreed annihilation. But annihilation is in itself no sanction at all. It is a mere cessation of being; the non-existent cannot undergo any requital for past deeds. Such annihilation would presumably take place when the sinner was at the height of his sin, when he would suddenly pass away without any retribution whatever into nothingness. Perhaps the suggestion may be carried further that a period of punishment should precede the moment of annihilation. But this suggestion leaves the problem as it was before. Such a period of punishment would either improve the sinner or make him worse, or leave it as it found him. If it had improved him, it is strange that it should followed by annihilation; if it left him as it found him, or made him worse, annihilation is delayed without rhyme or reason, for his state immediately previous to annihilation would demand retribution as much as, or more than the state un which he was before the first retribution took place. Moreover, annihilation of a being by nature immortal means a reversal of God’s own plan; it is a kind of stultification of his own work and a frustration of energy unworthy of the wisdom of God; it would be, as it were, a confession of impotence. The root of the difficulty against eternal punishment lies in this, that people picture it to themselves as a satiating of a lust of vengeance in God; they picture to themselves the damned begging eternally for mercy and God eternally refusing it in spite of their unceasing supplication.

Now this conception is faulty. The devils and the damned NEVER ask for mercy. One moment’s repentance would empty hell. But that moment NEVER comes. The damned have made their choice and abide by it; that is why their abode is hell.

No one suggests that the damned want hell because they enjoy its torments; the damned want hell because they have decided once for all that they do not want God, and there is no heaven without God. They need God eternally, but eternally they do not want him.

. . . annihilation of a being by nature immortal means a reversal of God’s own plan . . .

 

[Daniel_Rubio]

. . . annihilation of a being by nature immortal means a reversal of God’s own plan . . .

I don’t know what that even means. If God is atemporal, then he makes no plans because planning entails temporal sequence. If God is temporal, then you have bigger problems than annihilation to worry about.

 

[Tomster]

“immortal” and “everlasting life” could mean one of two things

(1) The soul’s essence implies existence. It exists necessarily. It cannot be destroyed.

(2) The soul’s life is indeterminate and unbounded going forward.

If (1) is correct, then not even God can undo a soul. Funny asymmetry: God can create souls, but he can’t annihilate them. It would also mean souls are and are not contingent. A contradiction. (1) is incoherent.

If (2) is correct, then it is consistent with annihilation, because the soul will have reached a God-imposed limit.

Let consider the immortality of the soul, which is at once a truth of faith and reason. Divine revelation is wholly ordered to eternal life, the supernatural destiny of man. In Holy Scripture, life on earth is termed a pilgrimage to a country above (Genesis 47:9; Hebrews 11:13-16). Ecclesiastes states the same explicitly: “before . . . the dust return into its earth from whence it was, and the Spirit return to God, who gave it” (12:7): the allusion is to the creation of man, whom God made of a body formed from the earth and soul infused directly by Himself into the body (Genesis 2:7).

In the Gospel Jesus refutes the Sadducees by reminding them that God is the God of Abraham and of the other Patriarchs, who cannot be altogether dead, because God is the God of the living, not of the dead (Matthew 22:31 ff.); and in another place He admonishes: “Fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Tradition is unanimous on this doctrine, and that is why the magisterium of the Church has never felt the need of defining a truth which has always been apparent in the conscience of the faithful: only Lateran V spoke up against the audacious denials of certain neo-Aristotelians.

Thus the immortality of the soul is a truth of faith. But it is also a truth of reason. The best of the old philosophers admited and proved it: a famous dialogue of Plato, perhaps the most beautiful he ever wrote, the Phaedon, is also a celebrated demonstration of the immortality of the soul. The soul of its very nature is immortal: Christian philosophy and theology prove it with the following arguments:

(1) The human soul is spiritual, as demostrated from the fact that its specific operation, intellection and volition and consequently its being, is independent of matter. Now, spirit is of its nature simple, i.e. not composed of parts, and so, not corruptible, not subject to decomposition, like matter.

(2) Man naturally aspires to immortality; witness history and human institutions. Now, this aspiration which is rooted in the conscience of mankind cannot be a mere idle aspiration.

(3) Man conceives truth, which is eternal, timeless, and spaceless. But he could not conceive it unless he too were of the same make-up, for there must be proportion between conceiver and conceived, between substance and object.

(4) No adequate sanction is had in this life for man’s goodness or malice. God’s wisdom and justice demand such a sanction; hence there must be another life.

 

[Tomster]

I don’t know what that even means. If God is atemporal, then he makes no plans because planning entails temporal sequence. If God is temporal, then you have bigger problems than annihilation to worry about.

It is obvious you don’t.

 

[Tomster]

I don’t know what that even means. If God is atemporal, then he makes no plans because planning entails temporal sequence. If God is temporal, then you have bigger problems than annihilation to worry about.

Let me just say that to be Catholic means that one believes that a human soul is immortal.

 

[Tomster]

I don’t know what that even means. If God is atemporal, then he makes no plans because planning entails temporal sequence. If God is temporal, then you have bigger problems than annihilation to worry about.

Just for your consideration.

(a) The soul is created by God and was directly infused in the body of Adam: “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life , and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7)

(b) In his soul man resembles God and reflects His image in a particular manner (Genesis 1:6, 26); such affirmation implies that the soul is not something material (Eccles. 12:7).

(c) The soul is immortal; the Gospel gives ample testimony to this truth (Matthew 10:28); as regards the Old Testament, see particularly Wisdom 2:23; 3:1, 4, 10; Pslams 48:15-16, etc.

(d) From these texts is also proved that the soul is the formal element of man, the vital and rational principle on account of which man is man, i.e., a living animal specifically distinct from other animals.

 

[Tomster]

I don’t know what that even means. If God is atemporal, then he makes no plans because planning entails temporal sequence. If God is temporal, then you have bigger problems than annihilation to worry about.

Think about this.

If man had no final state, he would be an anomaly in God’s universe. Annihilation is not a state. No act of his could influence his ultimate state, or produce an absolute and permanent result. If his will-acts are indefinitely reversible, then he flounders through an endless existence in helpless impotence.