Fr. Barron and hell?

[Catolico65]

What a broad brush you paint this scripture with. How awry is your interpretation of Jesus’ words! There is no way to understand our Lord’s meaning that certain persons will be surprised at the moment of judgment and be sent to hell, after a person has truly lived a holy life following God’s will. What is worse, is that you want others to believe your POV, and have posted this three times now.

Please read the correct interpretation from the Bishops’ website:

You are confused. I never stated that a person who has “has truly lived a holy life following God’s will” will go to hell.

I would ask you in the future to request a clarification as opposed to making claims on my behalf as it is not charitable.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Judgment? Yes. Speculation? No. There is not ban on philosophy.

How is it philosophy to speculate on who is in hell? How is it charitable to do so? How is it fruitful?

I see no purpose to speculating on who is in hell. When I said this, I meant individual people, and not whether or not hell is empty or full, though even that, to me, is pointless and beyond our knowledge.

 

[Sirach2]

You are confused. I never stated that a person who has “has truly lived a holy life following God’s will” will go to hell.

You misread my post. I added that after quoting your interpretation that you presented three times.

There is no way to understand our Lord’s meaning that certain persons will be surprised at the moment of judgment and be sent to hell, [my addition afterwards] … after a person has truly lived a holy life following God’s will.

I was actually addressing your false gospel that “some people will indeed desire to go to heaven at the end of their life but will be sent to hell nonetheless according to Jesus Himself.”

Okay. Do you have another way of expressing this, or did the 3-time posting mean what I think it meant? If your gospel message is damnation to people as a sudden surprise at their life’s end, then it is horribly false.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Catholics are obligated to believe hell exists, but I could find nothing in Catholic teaching that addresses the issue of believing people are in it. It seems to me that if no one were in it, hell wouldn’t need to exist-- and that is one reason that I’m not quite accepting Fr. Barron’s opinion on the matter. The Church and the Scripture teach that it is God’s desire that all saved (1 Tim 2:4). Thus, in order to go to hell, we must willfully choose to reject God.

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 from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

For this particular discussion, I will add that Fr. Barron also affirmed that hell exists in different parts of his talk. But I was bothered by some of his statements. He said that if we believe that God is love and we have free will, then we must admit to the possibility of hell. Hell isn’t a possibility. Hell absolutely does exist according the Catholic and biblical teaching. I suspect Fr. Barron likely meant that hell is a possibility* to an individual soul*, but I wish he would have said “you have to admit to the existence of hell”.

I have enjoyed many of Fr. Barron’s talks, and while I appreciate the very important point he was making about hope, I think he was exaggerating to make that point. To his credit, he kept coming back to the point of hope in Christ, the power of the cross, the depths to which God reached to accomplish salvation, the mercy of God and the fact that God wills all men to be saved. These are all things I certainly won’t argue with. In light of all those things, he said “we have reasonable hope that hell is empty”. He rightly pointed out that the Catholic Church has never pronounced an individual as damned. All of these things are very real indicators that we can have supreme hope in the salvation of men. But all men? I have a hard time believing that in light of the following:

Mt 25:41 Then he** will** say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;

2 Th 1:9 They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

Mt 25:46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Mt 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction,** and there are many who enter through it**.

Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death."

It seems to me that the Scripture affirms that at least some are going to reject God and go to hell (actually Mt 7:13 indicates that it will be more than some).

 

[Catolico65]

You misread my post. I added that after quoting your interpretation that you presented three times.

There is no way to understand our Lord’s meaning that certain persons will be surprised at the moment of judgment and be sent to hell, [my addition afterwards] … after a person has truly lived a holy life following God’s will.

I was actually addressing your false gospel that “some people will indeed desire to go to heaven at the end of their life but will be sent to hell nonetheless according to Jesus Himself.”

Okay. Do you have another way of expressing this, or did the 3-time posting mean what I think it meant? If your gospel message is damnation to people as a sudden surprise at their life’s end, then it is horribly false.

With all due respect your claim that I inferred that those who “have truly lived a holy life following God’s will” will go to hell against their will is clear.

Furthermore, you have presented no doctrinal evidence that I cannot interpret the referenced Scripture according to what it states, so stating my interpretation is “false Gospel” is disingenuous, to say the least. On the contrary, your reference clearly points out that people will go to hell against their will, like miracle workers for example.

I believe the problem could be that you do not trust God to make just decisions. Not to worry, He won’t send anyone to hell that doesn’t deserve it and gives each and gives people enough time to make the right decisions. Nonetheless, some people do hate God just like Satan does.

 

[Catolico65]

Catholics are obligated to believe hell exists, but I could find nothing in Catholic teaching that addresses the issue of believing people are in it. It seems to me that if no one were in it, hell wouldn’t need to exist-- and that is one reason that I’m not quite accepting Fr. Barron’s opinion on the matter. The Church and the Scripture teach that it is God’s desire that all saved (1 Tim 2:4). Thus, in order to go to hell, we must willfully choose to reject God.

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 from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

For this particular discussion, I will add that Fr. Barron also affirmed that hell exists in different parts of his talk. But I was bothered by some of his statements. He said that if we believe that God is love and we have free will, then we must admit to the possibility of hell. Hell isn’t a possibility. Hell absolutely does exist according the Catholic and biblical teaching. I suspect Fr. Barron likely meant that hell is a possibility* to an individual soul*, but I wish he would have said “you have to admit to the existence of hell”.

I have enjoyed many of Fr. Barron’s talks, and while I appreciate the very important point he was making about hope, I think he was exaggerating to make that point. To his credit, he kept coming back to the point of hope in Christ, the power of the cross, the depths to which God reached to accomplish salvation, the mercy of God and the fact that God wills all men to be saved. These are all things I certainly won’t argue with. In light of all those things, he said “we have reasonable hope that hell is empty”. He rightly pointed out that the Catholic Church has never pronounced an individual as damned. All of these things are very real indicators that we can have supreme hope in the salvation of men. But all men? I have a hard time believing that in light of the following:

It seems to me that the Scripture affirms that at least some are going to reject God and go to hell (actually Mt 7:13 indicates that it will be more than some).

It is certain Fr. Baron believes in hell. Therefore, I think it is prudent to assume that he has made a pastoral decision to project a perspective which I believe he believes is essential to reach those who are in dire doubt about God’s goodness. Nonetheless, in my own case when I came up with this concept due to my lack of comprehension of God’s love and justice I was challenged (by a protestant no less) and after researching Scripture as was suggested to me I acquiesced to Scripture. After all, any good soldier at times has to defer to the master, no matter how inconvenient it becomes personally.

 

[Gorgias]

Catholics are obligated to believe hell exists, but I could find nothing in Catholic teaching that addresses the issue of believing people are in it. It seems to me that if no one were in it, hell wouldn’t need to exist-- and that is one reason that I’m not quite accepting Fr. Barron’s opinion on the matter.

Fr Barron is talking about people in hell, not fallen angels in hell. Even if there were no people in hell, it would still be populated by Satan and his fallen angels, wouldn’t it be? Therefore, there would be a “need for hell to exist”…

He said that if we believe that God is love and we have free will, then we must admit to the possibility of hell. Hell isn’t a possibility.

That’s not how he put it. He said, “I think that, you can’t hold those two [propositions – God’s infinite love and human free will] without holding the possibility of hell.” In other words, if someone is claiming that hell is impossible due to the idea of God’s infinite love, then this claim is unreasonable: you have to – at the very least – also hold that hell is a possible destination. Note that Fr Barron isn’t saying “the existence of hell is a possibility;” rather, he’s simply saying that, if you’re trying to work through the question logically, you can’t eliminate even the possibility of hell as a terminal destination.

I suspect Fr. Barron likely meant that hell is a possibility* to an individual soul*,

Yes, but not in the way you’re thinking about it: he meant that a universalist – one who claims that hell does not exist – cannot logically make that claim; at the least, he would have to concede that hell might be the destination of an arbitrary person. His argument continues: “the minute you say ‘freedom’, then you have admit to the possibility of the abuse of freedom”. And there’s where the notion of ‘possibility’ comes in: it’s not that hell possibly exists, it’s that it’s possibly occupied by humans.

but I wish he would have said “you have to admit to the existence of hell”.

Remember, he’s only dealing with the argument from the perspective of God as love and humans as free-willed. From this perspective, you only get the possibility of hell as a consequence of free will decisions. (The question of the existence of hell, then, is a separate issue.)

All of these things are very real indicators that we can have supreme hope in the salvation of men. But all men? I have a hard time believing that in light of the following:

The question, of course, is whether Jesus meant these statements as a prediction of a definite event or as a warning of what could happen…

 

[Memaw]

I am definitely in the category of people who believe in a Hell, believe that it’s very very possible that people will end up there, but also believe/hope that Hell will ultimately be emptied of all that it contains.

The fire of the Love of God will cause the dross of impurity to rise to the top, be discarded, and result in pure gold in all beings.

I look to St. Gregory of Nyssa a lot on this issue – my patron saint.

Additionally, I love the attitude of St. Isaac the Syrian on these matters. He prayed even for the demons and Satan.

These are my hopes. God’s fire is the fire of God’s love. That fire cannot be escaped. Some experience that fire as torture (for a period of time) while others exult in that love. Either way, it is my hope that eventually that fire will be experienced BY ALL BEINGS as love, and thus as heaven.

Our Lord told us that Hell is everlasting, so I don’t think it will ever be emptied. Seems to me that your throwing all 3, Heaven. Hell and Purgatory all together. It’s not like that at all. You need to study up on the 4 last things. God Bless, Memaw

 

[hazcompat]

I am definitely in the category of people who believe in a Hell, believe that it’s very very possible that people will end up there, but also believe/hope that Hell will ultimately be emptied of all that it contains.

The fire of the Love of God will cause the dross of impurity to rise to the top, be discarded, and result in pure gold in all beings.

I look to St. Gregory of Nyssa a lot on this issue – my patron saint.

Additionally, I love the attitude of St. Isaac the Syrian on these matters. He prayed even for the demons and Satan.

These are my hopes. God’s fire is the fire of God’s love. That fire cannot be escaped. Some experience that fire as torture (for a period of time) while others exult in that love. Either way, it is my hope that eventually that fire will be experienced BY ALL BEINGS as love, and thus as heaven.

Still…your hope is as Our Father’s, that none be lost.

Peace

 

[Sirach2]

Catolico65:

With all due respect your claim that I inferred that those who “have truly lived a holy life following God’s will” will go to hell against their will is clear.

:ehh: Even though I clarified that I was not inferring that you held that meaning, but noted it was** my** addition to your previous comment?

Furthermore, you have presented no doctrinal evidence that** I cannot interpret** the referenced Scripture according to what it states, so stating my interpretation is “false Gospel” is disingenuous, to say the least.

Ah, there’s where you’re mistaken. You CAN interpret the scriptures as you wish, in accord with this scripture: *“In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction.” *2 Pet. 3:16

On the contrary, your reference clearly points out that people will go to hell against their will, like miracle workers for example.

I guess you missed the part that “clearly” said these “miracle workers” were corrupt. Jesus was not referring to miracle workers who genuinely use their gifts in union with the Holy Spirit who bestowed them, but those who presume certainty of salvation solely on their use of these gifts, even though the fruit of their lives was evil.

But then again, your interpretation surely overrides that of the Church, yes?

I am unsubscribing from this fruitless discussion with you.

 

[Gorgias]

people will go to hell against their will, like miracle workers for example.

There’s a difference between people who want to go to heaven on God’s terms, and those who want to go to heaven on their own terms, don’t you think? I would assert that the latter aren’t presented as “going to hell against their will,” but rather, are going exactly where they’ve willed to go – yet are simply surprised at where that sends them.

 

[Catolico65]

There’s a difference between people who want to go to heaven on God’s terms, and those who want to go to heaven on their own terms, don’t you think? I would assert that the latter aren’t presented as “going to hell against their will,” but rather, are going exactly where they’ve willed to go – yet are simply surprised at where that sends them.

As I’ve stated before I understand the “need” to believe this “concept” because it would seem to conflict with an all loving perfect God.

Nonetheless, the Bible has plenty of examples where God has judged people against their will so the fact that Jesus states some people will call out to Him yet will be rejected should come of no surprise. The lesson is that God isn’t looking for lip service only. Apparently, this is troublesome for some. It could be because of lack of understanding of the Gospel, as was in my case, or maybe because one’s concept of being a disciple is mostly one of appearance.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Fr Barron is talking about people in hell, not fallen angels in hell. Even if there were no people in hell, it would still be populated by Satan and his fallen angels, wouldn’t it be? Therefore, there would be a “need for hell to exist”…

Ok, I can see this. However, the existence of the angels in hell weakens Fr. Barron’s argument, in my opinion. Are we to believe that God loves them less than us? That His will for them was different than His will for us?

That’s not how he put it. He said, “I think that, you can’t hold those two [propositions – God’s infinite love and human free will] without holding the possibility of hell.” In other words, if someone is claiming that hell is impossible due to the idea of God’s infinite love, then this claim is unreasonable: you have to – at the very least – also hold that hell is a possible destination. Note that Fr Barron isn’t saying “the existence of hell is a possibility;” rather, he’s simply saying that, if you’re trying to work through the question logically, you can’t eliminate even the possibility of hell as a terminal destination.

Ok, I didn’t quote him exactly. I said, “He said that if we believe that God is love and we have free will, then we must admit to the possibility of hell.” I still think it would have been better to say “I think that, you can’t hold those two [propositions – God’s infinite love and human free will] without holding the existence of hell.” But let us not quibble over this, I understand your point.

Yes, but not in the way you’re thinking about it: he meant that a universalist – one who claims that hell does not exist – cannot logically make that claim; at the least, he would have to concede that hell might be the destination of an arbitrary person. His argument continues: “the minute you say ‘freedom’, then you have admit to the possibility of the abuse of freedom”. And there’s where the notion of ‘possibility’ comes in: it’s not that hell possibly exists, it’s that it’s possibly occupied by humans.

Ok

Remember, he’s only dealing with the argument from the perspective of God as love and humans as free-willed. From this perspective, you only get the possibility of hell as a consequence of free will decisions. (The question of the existence of hell, then, is a separate issue.)

Ok

The question, of course, is whether Jesus meant these statements as a prediction of a definite event or as a warning of what could happen…
Respectfully, I don’t think there is a question, but I guess that is subject to interpretation. I think these Scriptures reveal a warning* and* a prediction. If Fr. Barron is correct in his assessment, it sure seems like the Church has wasted a lot of time in talking about mortal sin, the need for confession, the necessity of baptism, the importance of evangelization, etc. It just doesn’t add up, in my opinion.

 

[Gorgias]

The lesson is that God isn’t looking for lip service only.

You have an odd notion of “against their will,” then, it seems.

If I were to tell you “I really want to go to the Super Bowl,” but then, do nothing to get myself there – or worse yet, do things guaranteed to ensure I don’t get there – would you really say that my will was to go to the Super Bowl? Or that I really expected that I’d get there? Of course not. There’s a difference between saying “I want this thing” and actually wanting it. That’s where the ‘need’ to believe in this ‘concept’ comes in: God gives you exactly what you’ve demonstrated you want. Not what you’ve claimed to want; not what you expected you’d get; but what your life has shown you want. That’s not “against a person’s will” at all. But hey – I can see your need to believe in this concept…

Apparently, this is troublesome for some. It could be because of lack of understanding of the Gospel, as was in my case, or maybe because one’s concept of being a disciple is mostly one of appearance.

Wow. So, in one fell swoop, you’ve decided that we misunderstand the Gospel or are lukewarm Christians? Who’s the pot calling the kettle black on the notion of charity in one’s posts?

 

[Catolico65]

You have an odd notion of “against their will,” then, it seems.

If I were to tell you “I really want to go to the Super Bowl,” but then, do nothing to get myself there – or worse yet, do things guaranteed to ensure I don’t get there – would you really say that my will was to go to the Super Bowl? Or that I really expected that I’d get there? Of course not. There’s a difference between saying “I want this thing” and actually wanting it. That’s where the ‘need’ to believe in this ‘concept’ comes in: God gives you exactly what you’ve demonstrated you want. Not what you’ve claimed to want; not what you expected you’d get; but what your life has shown you want. That’s not “against a person’s will” at all. But hey – I can see your need to believe in this concept…

Wow. So, in one fell swoop, you’ve decided that we misunderstand the Gospel or are lukewarm Christians? Who’s the pot calling the kettle black on the notion of charity in one’s posts?

As much as I love my fellow Christians I will defer to Christ’s Word before theirs. Jesus statement is clear.

Nonetheless, as I pointed out I used to believe in the stated concept yet I also changed my mind when confronted with Scripture. After all it’s not our will but God’s. It’s much better that way my friend.

 

[Sirach2]

Prayer_Warrior:

If Fr. Barron is correct in his assessment,** it sure seems like the Church has wasted a lot of time in talking about mortal sin**, the need for confession, the necessity of baptism, the importance of evangelization, etc. It just doesn’t add up, in my opinion.

Pope Benedict XVI, well-known for his solid theological expertise and writings, had this to say in a recent document, Spe Salvi, 47:

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.**

Catholic theology does not stop with fear and trembling, but embraces the theological virtue of “hope” with trust in God’s mercy.

ACT OF HOPE

O my God, relying on thy infinite goodness and promises, I hope to obtain the pardon of my sins, the help of thy grace, and life everlasting. Amen. [Baltimore Catechism]

 

[Gorgias]

As much as I love my fellow Christians I will defer to Christ’s Word before theirs. Jesus statement is clear.

Which statement would that be… “judge not, lest…”? Or maybe “let him without sin…”? I appreciate that you’ve changed your mind, based on someone’s interpretation of Scripture. Yet, it is not the Church’s, per se – she tells us that we cannot presume that any person is in hell. (Does that mean that we should presume that no one’s in hell? Not precisely; but it’s a far cry from your “Scripturally based” conclusions… )

 

[Sirach2]

Catolico65:

As much as I love my fellow Christians I will defer to Christ’s Word before theirs. Jesus statement is clear.

I couldn’t resist: Sola Scriptura, coupled with private literal interpretation, devoid of all other scriptural references and Magisterial teachings!

 

[Gorgias]

If Fr. Barron is correct in his assessment, it sure seems like the Church has wasted a lot of time in talking about mortal sin, the need for confession, the necessity of baptism, the importance of evangelization, etc.

You were doing so well, up until this point!

Fr Barron’s assessment doesn’t mean that mortal sin isn’t important, or that confession or baptism aren’t unnecessary, or that evangelization isn’t critical! All of these things are true! In fact, we hope that no human goes to hell precisely because we believe in the efficacy of the sacraments and the need to avoid sin and the requirement to preach the Gospel to all nations!

Fr Barron isn’t saying “we hope that God gives everyone a free ride,” but rather, “we hope that all come to the love of God and conformance to His will such that they will experience His mercy and attain to heaven rather than to hell”…!!!

 

[Gorgias]

the existence of the angels in hell weakens Fr. Barron’s argument, in my opinion.

Are we to believe that God loves them less than us? That His will for them was different than His will for us?

Actually, yes, God’s will for the angels is different in substance than it is for us! They were created as purely spiritual beings, with the ability to perceive God directly and not through the mediation of physical creation. They were given an intellect and an opportunity to see God fully and truly, and to make a single act of free will in deciding whether to follow God’s will or not. And, having made their act of free will, God honored their decision, eternally.

So, no, God doesn’t “love angels less than” He loves humans. Yet, we are created differently, and as a result, our paths to heaven differ.