Defending Purgatory

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight - do you not pray the Apostle’s Creed each Sunday with the rest of your Catholic brothers? I’ll elaborate in a moment.

You can’t use scripture to invalidate scripture. It’s not possible. Where there is apparent contradiction it can only imply a human error in interpretation or misunderstanding by the reader with respect to the intent of the human author. Generally, the problems come in when one forces a “fundamentalist” & “literal” reads of scripture. I suggest that you are making a literal interpretation that is in error.

I don’t personally have the time to go scan the full scriptural repository to exhaustively prove to you how it is not a contradiction that a person in hell may “appear” to have an impossible “compassion” for the living. All I need say is that God has complete control and dominion over all creatures above and below (heaven, earth and hell). He can order a soul to state any truth he wants to reveal no matter where it is disposed without contradicting Himself. So I only need point to another scripture that makes a similar contradiction to your position to make the case that you are the one in error. Recall from your Apostles Creed (we Catholics should be saying every Sunday) and from scripture that Jesus descended to Hell after His death. He did this to claim His absolute lordship and authority over every matter in heaven, earth and the underworld.

Do you imagine that God through Jesus can not enter into the Hell he created and remain completely unscratched, holy and undefiled and full of all grace? So do you still deny that it is not easily within God’s power to command a corrupt soul to speak in the semantics of human relationships and remain truthful even in Hell; and to recollect a familial relationship (that was probably selfish in life)?

Do you deny that God has dominion over Hell & has the power to freely enter into it unscathed and fully Holy and can order vile and corrupt souls to speak truthfully? I didn’t think so.

Do you really want to deny that Jesus descended to Hell as fully Holy as if its a contradiction to scripture? Hell is not mightier than God.

So how do you not find it within God’s ability to command a fallen soul to speak in the manner he did if it brings glory to God & manifests scripture? Also consider, outside a fundamentalist perspective the scripture writer may have been speaking through literary imagery as well.

Personally I don’t worry too much about these smaller details of scripture. But the bigger issue that alarms me here is that you seem to be actively fixated in holding a fundamental view as if to find evidence that either serves to diminish God or makes a case that He lied. It’s very dangerous to play the devil’s advocate here.

And you can not use scripture to contradict Church teaching. Where there is apparent contradiction it can only imply that your interpretation is incorrect.

First off, most church scholars are of the opinion that Jesus did not actually enter hell itself (what reason would He have for going there?) but intead entered Hades (the Bosom of Abraham which refers to a place of comfort in sheol – see here) for the purpose of bringing to heaven the faithful ones of the OT.

By definition, hell is the absence of God so it would be impossible for Jesus to enter hell for once He did, it would stop being hell.

Secondly, if those in hell can receive graces from God (as you are arguing) then that significantly narrows the differences between hell and purgatory. It would also imply that they could accumulate enough graces to get out of hell. A concept that is taught by Eastern Catholic Churches but rejected by Roman Catholic Churches – there is tons of discussion regarding this point in the Eastern Catholic forum on this board. The bottom line is that Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics disagree on this point.

I accept the Roman Catholic position that those in hell are forever trapped there and are cut off from God’s graces. If you support the Eastern Catholic position that those in hell can receive grace from God and eventually get out of hell, then we need to agree to disagree on this point because just as the Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics can not come to terms on this point, neither will we be able to.

Finally, with regards to praying the Apostle’s Creed each Sunday with the rest of our Catholic brothers … I don’t know what is done in the Eastern Churches but in every single Roman Catholic church that I have ever attended on Sunday during the past four decades, we have said Nicene Creed which makes no mention of Jesus descending into hell.

 

[CentralFLJames]

And you can not use scripture to contradict Church teaching. Where there is apparent contradiction it can only imply that your interpretation is incorrect.

I don’t know what is done in the Eastern Churches but in every single Roman Catholic church that I have ever attended on Sunday during the past four decades, we have said Nicene Creed which makes no mention of Jesus descending into hell.

Sir K,

You make a charge of contradiction that is without merit and are splitting hairs on semantics that are not all that materially important.

We are really both on the same side here. There is no merit to be gained by “doing the typical guy thing” & further clanging metal over such minor points.

I am a devout Roman Catholic. The East & West Church was sadly split over the very minor theological concept of the double procession of the Holy Spirit (Filioque). It’s ironic and terribly unfortunate that the good intentions of Rome to head off the Arian heresy resulted in the protocol breach which split the Church. My take of the history of events is that the schism was less about theological differences as it was more about petty human pride, stubbornness and territorial authority. That same pride is not a productive pattern for you and I to repeat and resurrect here.

But I think you would have a more accurate mental model of this area of theology if you thought less in terms of academic “definitions” of Hell expressed as a negation of grace or “Absence of God”. I think there is more to be seen from a perspective that embraces the awesome magnitude of God’s Universal Power, Dominion & Justice. God can never be limited nor constrained by subordinate dominions or by any aspect of His mere creation. He is infinitely above all aspects of it. If God is constrained at all by a theology it is only through His self imposed consistency to His reveled & held Divine nature (and intuitively His Word). And God no doubt has infinitely more still to reveal about Himself to those who get to heaven and share in The Beatific Vision.

If you prefer to think in terms of human language constructs and tight literal reads of scripture ask yourself the following. ‘Do you imagine Satan chained himself in the lowest pits of hell or do you imagine God’s angels did (with God’s full grace present in each of Angelic being)’? So I do not think you can safely intuit the nature of the access to hell from an exegesis of the opposite condition about the verse that says “nothing impure can enter heaven”. That operates to put a restriction on God that contradicts His revealed dominion. In other words I think it’s a logical non sequitor to attempt to infer that “nothing pure may enter hell”. This appears as a fallacy since it would limit God and His ability to have dominion over the damned & to fully punish with His personal wrath. Nay, God is so holy that even the filth of hell can not impart a stain of contempt if He (even through his beings or 2nd person) were to choose to enter and make them all bend and worship him (ref: Phil 2:9). Don’t worry about the mechanics since it’s clear that God would have to extend some protective grace to prevent the damned from being completely annihilated by his Holiness (and thereby do the impossible and escape His eternal punishment). Nothing lives or even exists without it being God’s will – including those damned for eternity. The question becomes “is Divine Will grace?”

While it is not essential to my faith I believe that Jesus descended not only into purgatory to rescue souls but also into Hell to assert his authority. I believe that He forced those fallen souls to kneel to Him and shriek in horror and despair at His majesty so they would fully feel the weight of their punishment and the severity of their loss. That does not mean that God operated to benefit those damned souls with an infusion of grace. It may mean however he turned up the heat.

If really interested in academic arguments you might want to reconsider some of the things you mention by reconsidering the esoteric differences between the various liturgical “forms” (and languages) of Nicene Creed, The Creed, The Apostle’s Creed (both T and R versions of the “Old Roman” forms), The Profession of Faith, The Credo etc.

Also, I’d go to a Catholic website rather than structuring your belief along anything coming from the dubious pedigree of Wikipedia.

I fully embrace the teaching of The Roman Catholic Church. If there is no specific teaching in an area or a lack of depth I study the saints and go with my conscience.

Peace,
James

 

[Sir_Knight]

You make a charge of contradiction that is without merit and are splitting hairs on semantics that are not all that materially important.

It’s an important hair to split. Those in hell are either cut off from God’s graces or they are not. If they are not, then it changes the Catholic notion of what hell is.

There is no merit to be gained by “doing the typical guy thing” & further clanging metal over such minor points.

Then why are you continuing to defend your position if it is such a minor point and there is no merit to be gained? Why do you expect me to concede this “minor point” when you apparently are not able to do so yourself?

Also, I’d go to a Catholic website rather than structuring your belief along anything coming from the dubious pedigree of Wikipedia.

Before you accuse me of “structuring my beliefs” from non-Catholic sources, I suggest you look at The New Advent website more closing and you will see that the early church fathers also defined hell as the absence of God.

Just as darkness is the absence of light, hell is the absence of God. If God were to enter hell, hell would no longer be hell.

 

[Sir_Knight]

EDITTED TO ADD:

The question of “where is purgatory mentioned in the bible” was asked in “Ask an Apologist” on THIS discussion board (certainly a CATHOLIC reference website).

One of the references offered by the Apologist in answering the question was “The Biblical Doctrine of Purgatory” which states …

*In Luke 16, Christ mentions a third state after death not heaven not hell where he discussed the temporary fates of Lazarus and the Rich Man This is a glimpse of a third state that exists after death — not heaven or hell:

“There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

"The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’

“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead’” (Luke 16:19-31).

Remember that Abraham and Lazarus were not in hell; nor were they in heaven. This was because the Lord had not yet died on the cross, so the gates of heaven were still closed. These two men were in a special place of waiting (what theologians sometimes call the “Limbo of the Fathers”). This was the place (or state) in which the souls of the just anxiously awaited Christ’s redemptive sacrifice on the cross that would enable them to finally enter into heaven.

Notice too a striking element of this passage: Christ tells us that the Rich Man was interceding on behalf of his brothers who were still alive. Christ Himself gives us the evidence of a deceased person interceding on behalf of the living. Now, this would seem to indicate that the Rich Man, although in a place of “fiery torment,” was not in hell. After all, the damned are incapable of showing charity, and the Rich Man was clearly doing so for his brothers. The Rich Man may have been in purgatory, since he was praying for his brothers. This is an act of charity of which the damned in hell are incapable.*

… Which is almost EXACTLY the same thing that I said earlier – the Rich Man was in purgatory … straight from a Catholic source!

 

[CentralFLJames]

OK - I should have gone back and re-read the original scripture. I got fixated on a different concept that I have been interested in - namely God establishing his authority and dominion over Heaven, Earth and Under Earth (e.g. heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory and any other things that are not revealed to us). So I did not recheck the verses on that particular part of the discussion. You now apparently have answered your own question. Congratulations.

The key in this scripture was the use of the acknowledgment of “son” by Abraham. So with respect to this scripture I agree that this was not hell and that this person was suffering either limbo or purgatory. It’s important though if its limbo or purgatory since souls in purgatory all eventually get to heaven while our revelation of limbo is fuzzy and seems to be pushed out more and more from modern teaching.

Nonetheless on the other topic about hell - from my readings of the revelations from the saints it is clear to me that Angelic beings do go into hell on missions for God (and in doing so cause great pain and torment to the damned by their contrasted purity). I also still believe that Jesus descended to Hell to manifest his lordship and authority over all things. If you can show me an ex cathedra teaching that contradicts this I will be interested in seeing it.

James

 

[DylanO]

Hi again, a different Protestant (who seems to be a polite and well mannered fellow) responded to an article I found showing the validity of Purgatory from the Scriptures.

Here is what he had to say in regards to the article. (The Protestant’s response is bolded):

Purgatory - Biblical and Patristic Insight
All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. This is because unless they are perfect they will not enter heaven because in the book of Revelation 21:27 St John Says “Nothing unclean shall enter it” (referring to heaven) .

From this alone one would clearly see that to say that pergatory doesn’t exist would be foolish because Which among us, can claim to be free of selfishness, even at the moments of our deaths? this would then mean that only the perfect people enter heaven and you can imagine how few people are perfect . Few doctrines are clearer in Scripture than the necessity of absolute holiness in order to enter heaven. On this, Protestants and Catholics are in total agreement. The word purgatory is derived from the Latin purgatorio, (“cleansing,” “purifying”) in Hebrew its Sheol.

I do not agree that this points to “purgatory”. The shed blood of Christ is enough to purify us. It is through His shed blood that the sins of those who blieve are forgiven and we are then purified and are able to enter Heaven. The short of it is that Christ’s blood IS sufficent. Without His blood NONE shall enter Heaven. Christ himself clearly said that only through Him shall they come to the Father. There is no mention of a “secondary” stop, purgatory, along the way.

St Matthew also makes this known: (Matthew 5:22) “But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, “You fool!” shall be liable to the fire of Hell. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will NEVER GET OUT TILL YOU HAVE PAID THE LAST PENNY”. Here is one of our lord’s parables referring to purgatory because he is the Judge you will One day stand before and he is the one who will past the sentence but here he says you Will get out of the prisons that in which you are placed but not until you have paid the last penny .

This is Christ teachings from the Sermon the Mount. The point was to let those who would listen how far we have strayed form God’s word. The comments about “paying the last penny” are only to show you how foolish pride is and that we are to be humble, again part of Christ’s teachings. Those who go with pride and do not humble themselves and seek forgiveness form their accuser are likely to the judge, found guilty of the debt and tossed into prison. No purgatory here.

---

Much of what Christ taught was “new” Scripture. It was not all part of the old “law” handed down. He was making new law and clarifying old law that had been perverted. It is also easy to understand after Jesus finishes speaking that is just cannot be done. We, as humans, do not have the capacity to uphold what we are taught. Our sinful nature will not allow it. This brings us to the real reason for Christ’s coming, forgiveness. Again, His blood is sufficent for that forgiveness.

Continued below…

 

[DylanO]

…Continued from above:

What is the presumption? Once you pay the last penny, you are going to get out. Where are you going to go then? To hell? No. You paid the last penny. You’re going to enter into the blessing at that point but only after you’ve paid the fine.

This was not a “Heavenly” fine. It plainly refers to an earty debt one might incur if we do not “make amends” before going to trial. It is teaching humility.

The fact that Jesus warns his disciples against blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, saying it “will not be forgiven either in this world, nor in the NEXT.” (Matthew 12:32) shows us that their is a forgiveness in the next life (purgatory) for some acts/omissions committed by the Christian (namely venial sins) however their are those things (such as sinning against the Holy Ghost) their is no forgiveness for either in this life or the next.

This life or the next is exactly what is meant. If you blashpeme agianst the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven. In this it means you will not be forgiven here on earth and thus you cannot be forgiven after you die and will be condemed and NOT enter Heaven. It is harsh but then God is God and we answer to Him not Him to us.

Philippians 2:10-11 / Revelation 5:3,13 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. If God refuses to receive prayer, praise and worship from the unrepentant sinner (as shown in salm 66:18, Proverbs 1:28-30, Isaiah 1:15, 59:2, Jeremiah 6:20, Amos 5:21-24, Micah 3:4, Malachi 1:10, John 9:31, Hebrews 10:38), why would He permit the damned to undertake this practice? Furthermore, if God does not compel human beings to follow Him and to enjoy His presence for eternity contrary to their free will, then it seems that He would not - as far as we can tell from Scripture - compel them to praise Him, as this would be meaningless, if not repulsive.

Therefore, under the earth must refer to purgatory. Revelation 5:13 especially makes sense under this interpretation, as the praise spoken there does not in any way appear forced, but rather, heartfelt and seemingly spontaneous (which would not be at all expected of persons eternally consigned to hell - see Matthew 8:29, Luke 4:34, 8:28, James 2:19).

The term “under the earth” most likely refers to people in caves i.e. under the earth. If you will note in the same part of the text it refers to “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea”. Unless you also conclude there are “creatures” in need of time in purgatory then this quote does not “prove” pergatory but refers to people and creatures in caves. It was meant to be an all encompassing comment.

Again we also read in: 2 Timothy 1:16-18 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me - may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day - and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Onesiphorus appears to be dead at the time St. Paul writes this letter to Timothy. If that is true, then Paul is praying for the dead .

If you will recall Christ Himself says the God is the God of the living. He refers to Noah and Abraham as “living” and not dead. Paul could indeed be speaking of Onesiphorus after his earthly death since God is indeed the God of the living and if he is a Christian he is living, just not on earth.

Continued below…

 

[DylanO]

…Continued from above:

While Christ was on the cross he had said to one of the criminals “I say to you this day you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). This is often used by some to refute the doctrine of purgatory since the thief did not have to spend any time in purgatory but was with Christ in paradise on the same day? In response to this, we know that Jesus was not speaking literally because he did not enter heaven until after his ascension (40 days after the resurrection). This we know because Christ himself declares it to the woman weeping (John 20:17) when he says, “Do not hold on to me for I have not yet returned to the father”(see also Mk 16:19). Further we note that Christ said to the dying thief “this day I say to you”, in other words on that particular day Christ was going to affirm something to the thief, namely that he would one day enter heaven. This is often misinterpreted and so it is read as meaning “this day you shall be in Paradise”.

**Jesus body laid in the ground for 3 days not His soul. We believe He descended into Hell but was found blameless and rose. I don’t recall a time fram for His time in Hell so indeed Jesus and the thief were in pardise THAT VERY DAY. **

When Christ was reunited with His glorified body He was here to show proof of the things He had taught. He was indeed the Savior we were waiting for. He had conquered death and the grave. This was done so WE might be certain and have faith in Him and follow His teachings and through Christ’s blood and forgiveness enter Heaven.

Further Jesus himself affirms it saying (John 24:25) “Did not Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory”. This shows us that not until he rose from the dead was he to enter into his due glory (heaven). Jesus tells us that he will be in the underworld (sheol) for three days when he declares to the Pharisees " For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt 12: 40).

**Again His BODY was in the grave. We know that body and soul are different. This is taught in numerous places throughtout the Bible. **

This makes it eminently clear that long before Our Lord lived among us the concept of living intercession for the dead and its implicit corollaries was accepted among His people, and the doctrine was passed along by the early Christians as another segment of that portion of our own tradition handed down to us from Mosaism. The doctrine was as well-established in the Church by the Second Century A.D. as it had been among the Israelites in the Second Century B.C. The Israelites offered atonement and prayer for their deceased brethren, who had clearly violated Mosaic Law. Such a practice presupposes purgatory, since those in heaven wouldn’t need any help, and those in hell are beyond it. The Israelite people, therefore, believed in prayer for the dead (whether or not this book is scriptural - Protestants deny that it is). Jesus Christ did not correct this belief, as He surely would have done if it were erroneous (see Matthew 5:22,25-26, 12:32, Luke 12:58-59, 16:9,19-31 below). When our Lord and Savior talks about the afterlife, He never denies the fact that there is a third state, and the overall evidence of His utterances in this regard strongly indicates that He accepted the existence of purgatory.

I must have missed the part where He stated there was a “third state”. Since He has not spoke of a “third state” why would he deny it? I would counter that in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Christ clearly spoke of only Heaven and Hell. The rich man even asked if someone could go and tell his borthers so that they would not end up in Hell. If there was a “third” place that would have been a great time to speak of it. He did not do so.

Continued below…

 

[DylanO]

Continued from above…

Fire, in Scripture, usually indicates judgment, leading sometimes to condemnation, and sometimes to purification through fire. David wrote; “You tested us, God, you refined [purified] us like silver…but now the ordeal by fire and water is over.” (Psalm 66:10-12) When Isaiah was called to be a prophet, he protested that he had unclean lips. “Then one of the seraphs flew to me holding in his hand a live coal which we had taken from the altar with a pair of tongs. With this he touched my mouth and said: ‘See now, this has touched your lips, your sin is taken away, your iniquity is purged.’” This passage is a noteworthy example of what happens when men experience God’s presence directly. An immediate recognition of one’s own unholiness occurs, along with the corresponding feeling of inadequacy. Like Isaiah, we must all undergo a self-conscious and voluntary purging upon approaching God more closely than in this present life. (Isaiah 6:6-7) Through Isaiah the Lord promises: “I will smelt away your dross in the furnace, I will remove all base metal from you!”

Agreed we are indeed not able to be before the Lord. Our path to the Heavenly Father is clear…Jesus the Christ. Christ is sufficent. His blood turns our blotted soul pure white.

Early Christian Belief in Purgatory
The doctrine of purgatory has the unanimous support of the Church Fathers (early Christians) who addressed the matter, either in direct references to an intermediate state prior to heaven, or in reference to prayers for the dead. Fathers Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Venerable Bede and second-millennium theologians such as Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas and Bonaventure supported the doctrine of purgatory. Both purgatory and prayers for the dead were upheld by the major councils, beginning with the Council of Carthage in 394 A.D. to the Council of Trent in 1554 A.D. Evidence of prayers for the dead also appeared in inscriptions on the walls of Christian catacombs in the very early years of the Church. In addition, all the liturgies of the early Church, without exception, made references to prayers for the dead.

I really hate to bring this up but…cold hard cash. It is well know that the early Catholic church use to sell "indulgencies (boy I hope I spelled that right). They would tell people their family members were in “purgatory” but if the family memebers would only bring some cold hard cash, pigs, cows, chickens, or anything of value, the priest would pray and their loved one would get out of purgatory faster. Sad but true. I see NO difference between the money changers Christ ran out of the temple and these pathetic people who perverted God’s message for their own reward.

Look up Martin Luther for more information on problems of the Church at that time.

I know I’ve edited your post but it was just to dang long!!! I tried to pick the ones that gave me the most trouble. I don’t expect you to agreee, it’s quite obivous you have very firm beliefs and I respect that. From what I read I come to different conclusions.

I would hope we can agreee as Christians that Jesus was the Son of God. He did rise from the grave and ascend into Heaven and that as He said …"nonoe may come to the Father except by Me.

Like I’ve said before I’m kind of a beginner in Apologetics and have just started reading about Church history so, does anyone have anyone know how to respond? Thanks.

 

[Vincent]

From Pope Benedict XVI’s new encyclical, Spes Salvi (44-45):
Emphasis Added

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgment, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.

This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbors—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfillment what they already are.

Continued below . . .

 

[Vincent]

From Pope Benedict XVI’s new encyclical, Spes Salvi (46):
Emphasis Added

Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God’s judgment according to each person’s particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death. Then Paul continues: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (*1 Cor *3:12-15). In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.

Continued below . . .

 

[Vincent]

From Pope Benedict XVI’s new encyclical, Spes Salvi (47):
Emphasis Added

Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgment. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion. At the moment of judgment we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. **It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart’s time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ. The judgment of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgment and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. *1 Jn *2:1).

 

[Sir_Knight]

OK - I should have gone back and re-read the original scripture. I got fixated on a different concept that I have been interested in - namely God establishing his authority and dominion over Heaven, Earth and Under Earth (e.g. heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory and any other things that are not revealed to us). So I did not recheck the verses on that particular part of the discussion. You now apparently have answered your own question. Congratulations.

I don’t recall asking a question. I also don’t recall ever questioning God’s “authority and dominion over Heaven, Earth and Under Earth (e.g. heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory and any other things that are not revealed to us)”.

God established certain rules in creation and He follows those rules. Scripture tells us that God desires ALL to be saved. Yet all are not saved. Why? Because God created us with a free will to be able to truly love Him and not to be mindless zombies. But with that free will comes the possibility that some will reject God and conflict with God’s desire for all to be saved.

None of that conflicts with God’s “authority and dominion over Heaven, Earth and Under Earth (e.g. heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory and any other things that are not revealed to us)”.

The key in this scripture was the use of the acknowledgment of “son” by Abraham. So with respect to this scripture I agree that this was not hell and that this person was suffering either limbo or purgatory. It’s important though if its limbo or purgatory since souls in purgatory all eventually get to heaven while our revelation of limbo is fuzzy and seems to be pushed out more and more from modern teaching.

Nonetheless on the other topic about hell - from my readings of the revelations from the saints it is clear to me that Angelic beings do go into hell on missions for God (and in doing so cause great pain and torment to the damned by their contrasted purity). I also still believe that Jesus descended to Hell to manifest his lordship and authority over all things. If you can show me an ex cathedra teaching that contradicts this I will be interested in seeing it.

I never said that Angelic beings can not enter hell. Angelic beings, saints, etc.; are not God. God is God. And hell is the absence of God just as darkness is the absence of light. Once you light a match or turn on a flashlight or introduce photons from the visible light region of the spectrum, you no longer have darkness. Darkness would not exist because light was present.

If God were to enter hell, hell would no longer exist. If Jesus descended into hell, then hell ceased to exist because God was no longer absent from there.

It’s really a simple concept. Hell = no God.

Note CCC 632 …

The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection. This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Saviour, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.

… When the creed says that Jesus descended into hell, they are referring to the abode of the dead – purgatory, the bosom of Abraham, etc. NOT to actually hell. Note that official church teaching tells us that Jesus went there to “proclaim the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there”. What possible Good News could Jesus bring to the poor souls forever trapped in hell. None. He could only bring good news to those that were NOT trapped in hell – news that because of His death, they would eventually see heaven.

 

[Sir_Knight]

DylanO, unfortunately it will take me some time to address the points that you have brought up but I will tackle a few of them and maybe others will come along to tackle the rest.

Since I’ve been hammering this one already, let’s start with …
*

I must have missed the part where He stated there was a “third state”. Since He has not spoke of a “third state” why would he deny it? I would counter that in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Christ clearly spoke of only Heaven and Hell. The rich man even asked if someone could go and tell his borthers so that they would not end up in Hell. If there was a “third” place that would have been a great time to speak of it. He did not do so.

… Everything in the bible is not always directly spelled out. Look at the concept of the Trinity. It is never directly mentioned but alluded to in many places. Same with this passage with Lazarus and the Rich Man. The Rich Man is in pain in suffering. There is no pain and suffering in heaven. The Rich Man expresses concern for his brothers. Compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever deprived of God graces so he isn’t in hell either. If he can’t be in heaven or in hell, that IMPLES that there is a THIRD state. If there isn’t, then you have a serious problem where the Rich Man is.

Okay, now let’s start at the beginning …
*

I do not agree that this points to “purgatory”. The shed blood of Christ is enough to purify us. It is through His shed blood that the sins of those who blieve are forgiven and we are then purified and are able to enter Heaven. The short of it is that Christ’s blood IS sufficent. Without His blood NONE shall enter Heaven. Christ himself clearly said that only through Him shall they come to the Father. There is no mention of a “secondary” stop, purgatory, along the way.

… No one is denying that without Christ’s blood, none shall enter heaven but to say that “Christ’s blood IS sufficent”, conflicts with the bible. Ask him to read Hebrews 10:26-26 …

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

… and explain it to you. There are only two VALID explanations that he can offer …

1. • The passage is talking about hell and that means that no one is saved because we all sin even after receiving knowledge of the truth …
   Ecclesiastes 7:20 = “There is no virtuous man on earth who, doing good, is ever free of sin”
   
   1 Kings 8:46 = “There is no man who does not sin”
   
   Proverbs 24:16 = “… The virtuous man falls seven times …”
   
   1 John 1:8 = “If we say we have no sin in us, we are deceiving ourselves and refusing to admit the truth”
   • The passage is talking about purgatory where we have to atone for the sins that we committed after receiving knowledge of the truth.
     … there is no other answer. Either that passage referrs to hell and no one is saved because we all sin or that passage refers to purgatory.
   Have him chew on those two for a while. Both biblical prove purgatory and to prove something, only one proof is needed and here you are presenting him with two proofs.

 

[CentralFLJames]

None of that conflicts with God's "authority and dominion over Heaven, Earth and Under Earth (e.g. heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory and any other things that are not revealed to us)".

Sorry I am certain that Hell is much more (or “less” depending on perspective ) than absence of God.

The notion has the following logical errors:

1. It implies that Hell pre-existed creation in the “void” of nothingness; that elevates Hell to a state of self-existence and sentience that becomes god-like itself.
2. It operates to restrict God to only punishing indirectly through an “instrument” of punishment (like a paddle). Thus it denies and limits God from punishing and invoking his wrath on his enemies in a personal and infinitely more severe way (e.g. like spanking with his hand).
3. It implies that mere “entities” or “things” can exist onto themselves as independent “immortals” without God’s will

To this I argue:

1. Nay, Hell did not always exist - it was either created by God or was indirectly permitted to be manifest by God as a natural consequence of His natural laws through improper and unlawful exercise of free will by His created creatures.
2. Nay, God can not be restricted by anything but Himself and what He willfully manifests as His elected and self consistent good nature and word. Just as we can not define “God” in a negative sense through any semantic that is limited by a simple equation conceivable in human terms (e.g. God is that which is not evil") we can not express the full dimension of anything created by God with a similar simple human expression using a concept of negation. This is inadequate since it operates to reduce God or his creation to a mere construct of grammatical syntax and formula. It restricts the infinite dimensions of God’s “good” nature that we might imagine exist - but will never be able to conceive even in small measure. I posit that the best equation humans could ever come up with is “God is God” or perhaps, borrowing from the angelic wisdom of heaven, “Who is like unto God?!” (e.g. Archangel Michael).

Thus from my readings of the Saints I posit that Hell is a place absent of God’s beneficial grace but it is not necessarily a place that is absent God’s personal wrath. Therefore, I hold that Hell is “less” (“as more”) than a place absent God. It is possibly and probably a place full of the presence of God’s personal and inescapable wrath - and that is an unimaginably terrifying thing!

My perspective is held on the assumption that Hell is a place of maximum punishment with perhaps a descending hiearchy who’s lowest level (where Satan is) is a place who’s only mercy is God’s granting a permission for a soul to “exist” to experience His infinite punishment. Thus, I think the logic will hold that it is a greater punishment for God to maintain a perpetual punitive relationship with damned souls through His active personal chastisement than it is for Him to simply toss souls into a terrible furnace and severe His hatred (e.g. no relationship at all) and contempt for these lost souls. From what I have read from the saints the damned are not only tormented in flames and by other vile creatures who claw and eat at them and torture them but they are also tortured by God himself! There are accounts that God sends the damned images of those they knew on earth who are in heaven. This suggests that God “gets in their face” so to speak in a very personal way. I am positing that God as spirit can be there in a presence of will to invoke personal punishment.

1. And finally, if God abandoned souls to hell and did not let them retain at least the impression of a “creative” relationship with God then Hell and all souls in it would simply become “nothing” and annihilate. But we know that does not happen from scripture and that would imply that there is no consequence or meaning to life since history would change as a consequence of removing entities. That would also put us as abstract entities role playing in the context of a vivid and divine dream that has no real purpose other than entertainment to God. I hold it that God’s Love is as authentic as He is. What I shudder to imagine or further contemplate is if his Hate for His enemies is as great as His Love for His Children?

Concluding: “Hell is Hell” and none of us want to ever go there or have to face God’s Holy Wrath in a personal way. Also, in a manner I think the fires of hell are also a deliberately apportioned act of God’s mercy. The pain is a distraction to the utter despair of knowing that there is no hope - forever. The fires of hell are the closest thing to an objective companion to the damned. So I imagine the pain is the single thing that can distract from the horror of knowing that the damned are “all they may ever be” - an immortal and hideous creature that is doomed to despise even its very existence.

James

 

[Sir_Knight]

1. It implies that Hell pre-existed creation in the “void” of nothingness; that elevates Hell to a state of self-existence and sentience that becomes god-like itself.

Doesn’t imply that at all.

1. It operates to restrict God to only punishing indirectly through an “instrument” of punishment (like a paddle). Thus it denies and limits God from punishing and invoking his wrath on his enemies in a personal and infinitely more severe way (e.g. like spanking with his hand).

Does our free will LIMIT God?

1. It implies that mere “entities” or “things” can exist onto themselves as independent “immortals” without God’s will

Doesn’t imply that.

To this I argue:

1. Nay, Hell did not always exist

You are arguing a point that I never made.

1. Nay, God can not be restricted by anything but Himself and what He willfully manifests as His elected and self consistent good nature and word.

You said it yourself … “God can not be restricted by anything but Himself” and hell is the absence of God.

Thus from my readings of the Saints I posit that Hell is a place absent of God’s beneficial grace but it is not necessarily a place that is absent God’s personal wrath. Therefore, I hold that Hell is “less” (“as more”) than a place absent God. It is possibly and probably a place full of the presence of God’s personal and inescapable wrath - and that is an unimaginably terrifying thing!

God’s wrath may be present but God Himself is not and your comment here … “Hell is a place absent of God’s beneficial grace” … is all that we need to agree upon for the topic of this thread. Everything else is taking this thread off-topic and is not helping the opening post address his question.

My perspective is held on the assumption that Hell is a place of maximum punishment with perhaps a descending hiearchy who’s lowest level (where Satan is) is a place who’s only mercy is God’s granting a permission for a soul to “exist” to experience His infinite punishment. Thus, I think the logic will hold that it is a greater punishment for God to maintain a perpetual punitive relationship with damned souls through His active personal chastisement than it is for Him to simply toss souls into a terrible furnace and severe His hatred (e.g. no relationship at all) and contempt for these lost souls. From what I have read from the saints the damned are not only tormented in flames and by other vile creatures who claw and eat at them and torture them but they are also tortured by God himself! There are accounts that God sends the damned images of those they knew on earth who are in heaven. This suggests that God “gets in their face” so to speak in a very personal way. I am positing that God as spirit can be there in a presence of will to invoke personal punishment.

References please.

1. And finally, if God abandoned souls to hell and did not let them retain at least the impression of a “creative” relationship with God then Hell and all souls in it would simply become “nothing” and annihilate. But we know that does not happen from scripture and that would imply that there is no consequence or meaning to life since history would change as a consequence of removing entities. That would also put us as abstract entities role playing in the context of a vivid and divine dream that has no real purpose other than entertainment to God. I hold it that God’s Love is as authentic as He is. What I shudder to imagine or further contemplate is if his Hate for His enemies is as great as His Love for His Children?

Doesn’t Jesus tell us not to fear the one who can kill the body but to fear the one who can kill the body and the soul? How can one kill the soul if it is immortal? You server it’s relationship with God by casting it into hell. Once in hell. It becomes a part of hell. It has been professed by the saints that if the gates of hell were to be opened, no one would leave because the souls there become part of hell.

Concluding: “Hell is Hell” and none of us want to ever go there or have to face God’s Holy Wrath in a personal way. Also, in a manner I think the fires of hell are also a deliberately apportioned act of God’s mercy. The pain is a distraction to the utter despair of knowing that there is no hope - forever. The fires of hell are the closest thing to an objective companion to the damned. So I imagine the pain is the single thing that can distract from the horror of knowing that the damned are “all they may ever be” - an immortal and hideous creature that is doomed to despise even its very existence.

Saint Don Bosco wrote that he saw souls running to hell and freely jumping in, in order to escape God’s buring wrath.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Doesn’t imply that at all.

Does our free will LIMIT God?

Doesn’t imply that.

You are arguing a point that I never made.

You said it yourself … “God can not be restricted by anything but Himself” and hell is the absence of God.

God’s wrath may be present but God Himself is not and your comment here … “Hell is a place absent of God’s beneficial grace” … is all that we need to agree upon for the topic of this thread. Everything else is taking this thread off-topic and is not helping the opening post address his question.

References please.

Doesn’t Jesus tell us not to fear the one who can kill the body but to fear the one who can kill the body and the soul? How can one kill the soul if it is immortal? You server it’s relationship with God by casting it into hell. Once in hell. It becomes a part of hell. It has been professed by the saints that if the gates of hell were to be opened, no one would leave because the souls there become part of hell.

Saint Don Bosco wrote that he saw souls running to hell and freely jumping in, in order to escape God’s buring wrath.

Interesting that you mentioned Don Bosco - I just read his works this week. But while we have some differences of opinions on matter whose details are hopefully not important to either of us personally or to anyone we personally know I agree that it is getting off topic so I will stop here.

James