Go to Hell - Stay there forever

[Vico]

Vico:

Because there is not a positive will to damnation, is what makes it different.

I understand the distinction you’re trying to draw out, but it manifestly appears to be a distinction that makes no difference. In his reply to objection 1, St Thomas was answering “It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man…” This is the plain objection that we all bring to this problem of predestining souls for Hell. St Thomas’ simple answer? God does not will the particular good of eternal life to all…

It is not logically possible to force a person to love, for love by definition, is a free gift.

… “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.” …

St. Thomas Aquinas taught passive reprobation not double predestination (double is a heresy). ST 1:23:3.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

Yes, the angels and mankind can freely choose damnation. We read of this first with the fall of the angels. Rational beings aim “at some good” but it may be immoral. It can be an unending will because it can mean final impenitence – since the choice is only made before death. For angels that do not have discoursive reasoning, it was final with one choice, with no repentence possible.

Catechism

1767 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; 620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. …
620 Cf. Council of Orange II (529)S 397; Council of Trent (1547):1567.

St. Thomas Aquinas quotes St. Augustine “not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved”. – Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 19 The will of God > Article 6. Whether the will of God is always fulfilled? > Reply to Objection 1

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 189, by Ludwig Ott:

Accordingly the Schoolmen distinguish between adequacy (sufficientia) and efficacy or success (efficacia) of the atonement, and teach that Christ offered atonement for all mankind, according to the sufficiency (secundum sufficientiam), but not according to the efficacy (secundum efficaciam). In other words: in the first act (in acto primo) Christ’s atonement is universal; in the second act (actu secundo), it is particular. Cf. S.c.G. IV 55.

Summa Contra Gentiles (St. Thomas Aquinas) IV 55.

https://genius.com/St-thomas-aquinas-summa-contra-gentiles-book-iv-annotated

 

[wkj_123]

I always have struggled with this. So basically it’s like saying well I can’t force my child to love me, so I guess the only alternative is to put my child into a lake of fire forever? I feel Good is all powerful. God set all this up beforehand. I just feel like we love our children enough that if we created them, hell would never have been an option, no matter if they loved us back or not.

I wanted to clarify I trust the Church completely and accept the teachings on hell. I have always struggled with the concept. The view that seems to resonate with me the best is kind of like the Eastern view that the fires of hell are God’s love to those who reject him and don’t want his love. I believe God never stops loving us.

 

[Kyparissiotes]

Let us quote the book of Wisdom-

Yes, naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and who, from good things seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is, or, by studying the works, have not recognised the Artificer.

2 Fire, however, or wind, or the swift air, the sphere of the stars, impetuous water, heaven’s lamps, are what they have held to be the gods who govern the world.

3 If, charmed by their beauty, they have taken these for gods, let them know how much the Master of these excels them, since he was the very source of beauty that created them.

4 And if they have been impressed by their power and energy, let them deduce from these how much mightier is he that has formed them,

5 since through the grandeur and beauty of the creatures we may, by analogy, contemplate their Author.

6 Small blame, however, attaches to them, for perhaps they go astray only in their search for God and their eagerness to find him;

7 familiar with his works, they investigate them and fall victim to appearances, seeing so much beauty.

8 But even so, they have no excuse:

9 if they are capable of acquiring enough knowledge to be able to investigate the world, how have they been so slow to find its Master?

10 But wretched are they, with their hopes set on dead things, who have given the title of gods to human artefacts, gold or silver, skilfully worked, figures of animals, or useless stone, carved by some hand long ago.

This is a Jewish work that is representative of Post-Exilic Jewish Thought Echoed by the Pharisee Paul in Romans 2.

So I am sorry, but the inexcusability of men’s ignorance of God in light of his creation is a thoroughly Jewish Concept. Perhaps not Post 70 ad, but definitely in the first century.

There is not natural goodness deserving of heaven apart from faith, that is aheresy for Catholics.

 

[Rabbi]

That book wasn’t canonized in the Jewish Scriptures, so you might as well have quoted me the Buddha.

Again, the god you worship (most Catholics don’t even worship your version of god), is a monster.

 

[Kyparissiotes]

It doesn’t matter, it’s a historical witness of Jewish thought, canonization aside.

No, what did God say to Moses?

“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

If that’s a monster, blame Moses for introducing his worship, but not us.

Inequitability is not the same as unfairness. The sovereign Lord of Spirits, the God over creation is totally free to distribute his goods as he sees fit, for we, in our unworthiness have no claim on him. Your argumentation is like the friends of Job. Rather, listen to Elihu-

“ 1 Moreover Eliu spoke these words:

2 Doth thy thought seem right to thee, that thou shouldst say: I am more just than God?

No, you are not.

 

[Magnanimity]

St. Thomas Aquinas taught passive reprobation not double predestination (which is a heresy). ST 1:23:3.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

Yes, the angels and mankind can freely choose damnation. We read of this first with the fall of the angels. Rational beings aim “at some good” but it may be immoral. It can be an unending will because it can mean final impenitence – since the choice is only made before death. For angels that do not have discoursive reasoning, it was final with one choice, with no repentence possible.

Let’s backtrack a little bit. If St Thomas asserts that God does not will the good of eternal life to all, then on the basis of what would he not will it? It could not be on the basis of a foreknowledge of how we would respond to his gift of grace–that would be Protestant Armenianism. It would also place a fundamental contingency within the very divine will itself (which is a truly “free” will).

Also, how is death some “magic moment” where a human will cannot continue to introspect, remember and reason? St Thomas does not teach atemporality in Hell–just the opposite. Hell, for him, does have a successiveness to it–a duration. So, if there is a temporal dimension to this “state,” why would introspection, reason and memory be excluded?

Also, as I’ve said, when we sin we “miss the mark.” We took a shot at something we thought good, but we missed. Something was “off” in the shot. There aren’t any sins that are absolute evils (Augustine’s “evil as a privation”)–they all have “some good” within them, which is further evidence that humans are oriented toward the good.

To claim that one would be oriented toward a non-good, everlastingly is not to make a coherent claim. To be human is to be oriented toward the good (or, more properly, toward the Good–the final end that man was created for). That orientation can be twisted, it can be bruised, it can be beaten down–but it can’t be obliterated. It would cease to be human in that case. But, like a good Thomist, I follow your reasoning on the angels. As fully actualized, pure intellects, once their wills are set, they cannot be unset. I don’t know if that’s true, but I see the logic of it. I do not, however, see a comparable logic for humans. Humans wills bounce about here and there and everywhere over time…

 

[Vico]

…

Love can only be freely given, therefore God cannot make a person love. Since love is required for the Beatific Vision (which is the heavenly state), heaven cannot be obtained without a free will choice. God gives the gift of grace that a person can freely choose love over the inclination to sin, however, God does not owe any creature the Beatific Vision. Adam and Eve’s original sin was not one of sensuality (concupiscence) but through of the irascible appetite (general good), a knowing and willful prideful choice opposing God (a mortal sin). Concupiscence came after the fall and is what their descendants are born with. Although a person can choose to do a moral good, there is an inclination to do what is not morally good. A person is a composite of rational soul and physical body. With death that composite no longer functions as a complete person until reunited at the resurrection.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. …

The good thief will be with Jesus in heaven that day: Luke 23:43
Death is sleep awaiting resurrection: 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18
The Bull Benedictus Deus (1336) declares:

Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately ( mox ) after death and there suffer the pain of hell. Nevertheless, on the day of judgment all men will appear with their bodies “before the judgment seat of Christ” to give an account of their personal deeds, “so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor. 5.10).

Benedictus Deus On the Beatific Vision of God - Papal Encyclicals Online

Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336 By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority.

www.papalencyclicals.net

 

[oliver109]

What Magnanimity was trying to say was that our souls are constantly choosing between good and evil, at least many of our souls are. While there are saints who stop sinning one day and do not sin again for the next 50 years there are those who try to stop sinning but through their own fault they fall into sin but have enough sorrow for their sins to go to Confession. Why would God allow a soul to be damned because it died just after committing a mortal sin? I am sorry but it is completely unfair as it is as if God somehow is unable to give that person anymore chances to ask for forgiveness, it makes no sense for God to lock someone in sin at the moment of their death.

 

[Vico]

Why would God allow a soul to be damned

The time period is irrelevant. Some live short lives and some long lives. Some die in original sin alone. As is taught by the Church original sin alone is enough to not receive the Beatific Vision. God does not owe anyone the Beatific Vision. There is hope, however, for unbaptized infants, but not certainty.

Catechism

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. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” 63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[oliver109]

I recognize that we are not owed the beatific vision, I recognize that salvation is not a right I also recognize that God has mercy and he would surely do all he can to get a soul to Heaven. I don’t think a soul that happened to die just after committing a mortal sin would be in the state of rejecting God for good especially if that person was the sort of person who would always go to Confession after commiting mortal sins.

 

[Rabbi]

What did Avraham Avinu say to HaShem in Bereshis 18? “Far be it from You! Will the Judge of the entire earth not perform justice?”

Here’s what HaShem told Iyov (Job). 1) That He wouldn’t abandon him, that He’d show up for him, 2) that one’s savior may be another’s tragedy, see it from another perspective, and 3), that anthropocentrism is the wrong interpretation, as G-d created all existence, not just human existence, and that justice and fairness are human concepts, not natural ones. G-d told Job’s friends they were wrong not because he didn’t deserve the punishment, but because they thought them to be punishments at all.

Therefore, who’s the monster? Surely not the G-d of the Bible, but your version of Him.

 

[mythbuster1]

And how do you suppose one would die right after committing a mortal sin? It is either as a direct consequence of the sin itself (e.g. being shot in self-defense by the one you intended to rob, rape, or murder) or else a consequence of presumption or despair on the part of the sinner (e.g. losing faith in God on your deathbed).

 

[Magnanimity]

God does not owe any creature the Beatific Vision.

Humans are divine image-bearers, oriented toward the good. It’s who we are, all of us, our very deepest natures. We most certainly are made for paradise. The good is our natural end—that toward which we tend. It’s right to say that Heaven is not a debt that God pays us. But no one is arguing that. The question I put to you was:

If St Thomas asserts that God does not will the good of eternal life to all, then on the basis of what would he not will it?

I don’t think you’re fully grappling with this problem. Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange answered my question above that it must mean that St Thomas’ position entails that God simply loves some more than others. He loves some enough to grant them eternal life, but he doesn’t love all men that much. This seems plainly to be what Aquinas is suggesting in his response to Obj 1.

And, it’s true enough to claim that the fallenness of this world affects our judgment and ability to perceive the good and properly aim at it. We are prone to follow Adam and Eve. But, if anything, that fallen state and propensity to miss the mark lessens our culpability. How could it increase it? We are not blank slates all on a level moral playing field at all times. We bring with us through life the prejudices of our parents, the opinions of our professors, the slant of the news-sources we pay attention to, our own weakness of will by habituation in various vices, our lack of knowledge, which often affects (for the worse) how we even hear various truths, like the gospel, and some of us have brain-chemical disorders towards substance abuse (possibly as high as 12%!). And on and on it goes. We are, all of us, amalgamations of complicated psychologies and propensities and biases and knowledge. None of us stands in a simple relation to the good, the true or the beautiful. Therefore, culpability enters in where exactly? Much of God’s love and mercy subsists in simply breaking through our various blinders during our lives, imo.

I know the CCC teaching of death as a “magic moment.” What I was asking was what justifies the belief that one is in stasis from that moment onward? Introspection, memory and reason are mental activities—ones which (presumably) disembodied spirits could do. But even if you didn’t want to grant that, at the resurrection we all get bodies back, which means we get brains back, which entails that those three epistemological grounds for knowledge return to us. Therefore mental activity continues, therefore a changing of the mind/heart is possible.

I understand CCC teaching. What I’m seeking is the justification for the teaching, the reasons for believing it. We all know the CCC isn’t infallible, so quoting it isn’t good enough to win an argument like this one.

 

[Vico]

… I don’t think a soul that happened to die just after committing a mortal sin would be in the state of rejecting God for good …

So God has nothing to do with the timing of death and does not know about it then?

 

[Vico]

…

Part I

You wrote: “that fallen state and propensity to miss the mark lessens our culpability. How could it increase it?”

So our state at birth is without personal sin but with original sin but without grace we are not able to attain the Beatific Vision. Since God gave Adam and Eve sanctifying grace and freedom from concupiscence they were culpable for that fall and not their descendants, yet their descendants that die in original sin alone are not saved. Council of Trent, Session 5 “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Grace makes us personally culpable. Council of Trent, Fifth Session: "But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. "

Catechism

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. …
295 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513.

 

[Vico]

…

Part II

S.T. I, Q23, A3 “Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation.” … “Reply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (I:19:3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.”

The Rational Soul after death:

Paul J. Glen wrote some notes from the S.T. of Aquinas: “When the soul is separated from the body by death, its own faculties remain in it. It is still formally an intellective operator; it still exercises intellect and will. But the soul is only virtually vegetal and sentient, and, when it is severed from the body, it has no need or ability actually to exercise the operations of vegetal and sensitive life.”

http://www.catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part1.php?q=527

 

[Latin]

The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible. ( De fide. )

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide.)
.
There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will. (De fide.)
.
For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary. (De fide.)

.
308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
.
2022; “The divine initiative in the work of grace PRECEDES, PREPARES , and ELICITS the free response of man. …”
.
298 Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them.148
And since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.

.
God’s graces never hinders our free will, in fact efficacious graces aides our free will and we always freely, infallibly, without any force, gladly choose the good, the good God wills for us.

.
THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION John Salza

“Hence, a sufficient grace has an operating effect only ( empowering the will to act),

whereas an efficacious grace has both an operating and cooperating effect ( applying the will to act).

Sufficient grace remains an interior impulse, whereas an efficacious grace produces an exterior act.

Sufficient grace gives man the potency to do good, but efficacious grace is required to move him from potency to act.
.
Therefore, sufficient grace is insufficient to move him to act, the power remains in potency and is never actualized.

.
When God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g., prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace ) that infallibly produces the end ( the act willed by God ).
.
If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient, and not an efficacious, grace.

The distinctions between these graces reveal that God is responsible for man’s salvation. ”
.
God bless

 

[Isearch]

I do agree that something as pertinent as the Truth should be preached for their salvation (if we Christians do have the Truth, that is). But the Jews have their ancient traditions that are currently being utilized as objections to Christianity; the religion they see as an innovation to the unchangeable teachings of God to Moses and the other prophets. How can we, then, preach to them what we perceived as truth if we can’t answer their formidable objections to the Messiahship of Jesus? They view us Christians and our beliefs as similar to how we Christians view Mormons and their beliefs.

 

[Vico]

…
God is responsible for man’s salvation. ”
…

And the individual is the partial cause (cooperation) of that by assenting.
Council of Trent

Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema.

 

[openmind77]

Hell only lasts 11 months.

I’m sorry, after, the soul enters heaven. Unless one is reincarnated to live again and correct past mistakes.

All this sounds very similar to Hindu beliefs. That both hell as well as heaven are temporary places you go to, between lives, before you reincarnate again as a human being (although in Hinduism reincarnation is almost certain, unless you have reached enlightenment/liberation and it can be much more than 11 months). This site gives a good description of the process :http://heaven-hell-back.com/