Does Suffering in Hell gain merit?

[TK421]

I don’t think that’s necessary. I felt it was important to respond to negativity towards a Catholic Ecumenical Council. The Councils and the Fathers of the Councils are how and why we enjoy such a rich and internally consistent theology in the present day.

Peace.

 

[Neithan]

Without charity and grace there is no merit for suffering, because it is the just consequence of sin. As all souls in hell lack charity and are guilty of mortal sin, their suffering serves the justice of God.

Suffering on earth is different because we often suffer as a consequence of a fallen world and our vulnerability to nature or the sins of others. The suffering of the damned is what is left of their own doing and refusal to accept the redemption offered in Christ.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Council of Florence Session 6 — July 6,1439

Why are you posting something that implies that unbaptized people go to hell?

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Note that baptism is of three kinds: water, blood, and desire. The basic teaching is that a person without merit will not receive the Beatific Vision (heaven). The Catechism states about baptism:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism …

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. …

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood , like the desire for Baptism , brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism , the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. …

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You left out most of paragraph 1257. Not sure why you would do that.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

I could even make an argument that this paragraph contradicts itself:

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism…

contradicts??

…but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The other means is God’s action. If there is no contradiction between the two means, it would seem to mean that baptism is actually an act of God, not a ritual performed by a person.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The basic teaching is that a person without merit will not receive the Beatific Vision (heaven).

I don’t think so.

 

[TK421]

@1Lord1Faith

Yes. This is what we believe today. The Church is not Pelagian. The grace of God is necessary for the Beatific Vision, either through the sacraments or through extraordinary means.

There are no contradictions. What is it that you find contradictory?

 

[po18guy]

Welcome! Short answer: No.
Merit is a good and there is no good or love in hell. Good must occur for there to be merit.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

There are no contradictions. What is it that you find contradictory?

The apparent contradiction is plain to see. I’m not saying that there is actually a contradiction - that would imply that the Church knows that there is one. I’m saying that it’s obvious from the way the paragraph is written that the Church doesn’t know everything thing about it. Given the fact that the Church doesn’t know everything about it, definitive looking statements from the Middle Ages appear to be somewhat undeveloped, and so, not useful today.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The basic teaching is that a person without merit will not receive the Beatific Vision (heaven).

I don’t think so.

Condign merit comes to those in a state of grace, and the state of grace at death is required for the Beatific Vision. See the Council of Trent, Session 6:

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Again, your following statement is confusing, out of any context, and therefore unhelpful. If the Church admits to not fully understanding it, it would probably be good if you did too.

The basic teaching is that a person without merit will not receive the Beatific Vision (heaven).

 

[John10]

My understanding is that it does not. Those torments and terrible punishment are completely just and fair given the damned souls absolute rejection of God and His Mercy.

Sadly there is nothing left for those poor souls to do except suffer and for all eternity !! (we barely manage, although our sufferings on Earth are always limited by God)

Rest assured there is no greater disgrace than ending up in Hell.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “You left out most of paragraph 1257. Not sure why you would do that.”
A. It was not needed to include it in describing succinctly the necessity of baptism.

You wrote: “baptism is actually an act of God”.
A. God gives the actual graces necessary for conversion, but a rational soul, in exercising free will, is not made to cooperate with grace – one is a partial cause of one’s own salvation.

 

[Vico]

Again, your following statement is confusing, out of any context, and therefore unhelpful. …

There can be no assurance of salvation, only hope, such as for unbaptized infants. Perhaps God will allow them a moment at their death to assent or not by supplying the use of a rational mind for an instant.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You wrote: “You left out most of paragraph 1257. Not sure why you would do that.”
A. It was not needed to include it in describing succinctly the necessity of baptism.

IMO, it was needed. It would seem obvious to include who is included in any necessity of baptism. Especially since not everyone is included, which was my whole point to begin with. So, again, not sure why you left it out.

Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

but a rational soul, in exercising free will, is not made to cooperate with grace – one is a partial cause of one’s own salvation.

To me, this is just a poor understanding of grace. It comes across as being simply academic, and it just gives the wrong impression. It also seems to contradict itself. Although, I’m sure you didn’t mean to.

 

[Vico]

Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

This speaks of the baptism of water. Infants that die, before attaining the use of reason, attain salvation through the sacrament of baptism of water. Baptism of desire through which a person attains salvation is not a sacrament and suffices for those attaining the use of reason (for which the example of catechumens is given). And also baptism of desire is described in Catechism 1260 " Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

For predestination, note from the Catholic Encylopedia:

Owing to the infallible decisions laid down by the Church, every orthodox theory on predestination and reprobation must keep within the limits marked out by the following theses:

a) At least in the order of execution in time (in ordine executionis) the meritorious works of the predestined are the partial cause of their eternal happiness;
b) hell cannot even in the order of intention (in ordine intentionis) have been positively decreed to the damned, even though it is inflicted on them in time as the just punishment of their misdeeds;
c) there is absolutely no predestination to sin as a means to eternal damnation.

Pohle, J. (1911). Predestination. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

 

[St.Leonard]

If there is suffering in hell, would that suffering gain merit for that soul–or maybe merit for another soul?

No.

The only time I would think it could would be when St. John Bosco was shown Hell and he burnt his hand, when he woke it was all peeling and blistered, he could have offered this up for the conversion of sinners but the souls in Hell are lost forever.