Go to Hell - Stay there forever

[Magnanimity]

No @Vico, I’ve already adressed this above (can’t remember if it was to you directly). Here is what I said:

The emperorJustinian was not impressed by the particular apokatastasis of Origen. He wrote several anathemas that he wanted the council fathers at Constantinople II to adopt—he wanted the force of an ecumenical council behind his condemnations of the particular teachings of Origen on this issue. However, as Norman Tanner notes in his introduction to Const II in his Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council,” (pp. 105-106).

So Vico, the emperor was clearly in favor of anathematizing the particular universalism that he understood Origen to be advocating. That’s all well and good, but modern scholarship does not attribute the anathemas to the Council—there just isn’t enough historical evidence that they were promulgated under the authority of the Council fathers. That’s it. That’s the current historical situation on this issue. If you want to argue against it, you’ll need to enter the scholarly debate in the university journals. I myself am not a scholar, so I just have to take their word for it. So it appears plain that Const II does not have the force against apokatastasis that you would like it to.

Also, just no to this:

Condemnation is also consistent with a Father that loves his creation

My goodness Vico, I’m not sure if you can take a step back, create some distance and try to just analyze a statement like the one you made above.

Condemnation is consistent with love?!? When? Where? In what context besides this supposed God sending his image and likeness to everlasting torment and suffering? Give me any other example. Just one from this current world where a person is said to love another so much that he would even give his life so that his beloved might live…only to, in the end, reverse all of that and condemn the beloved. Just one example Vico.

“Condemnation is also consistent with a Father that loves his creation” offends the very definition, the very essence, of love.

 

[Vico]

…
“Condemnation is also consistent with a Father that loves his creation” offends the very definition, the very essence, of love.

No, love is voluntary. It cannot be forced – so a person in order to receive the Beatific Vision of heaven must be voluntarily perfected in charity. It is through the love of God that God makes it possible to be sharers in his divinity. (Catechism 460)

I am addressing the Orthodox belief, shown in the liturgy, regardless of if the Latin Church does not accept the Synod of Constantinople. Lex orandi , lex credendi.

The Catholic Church does accept the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils. There is a hell and those there remain eternally, and enter at the immediate judgement at death.

Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declares: “Those (the rejected) will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil.”

The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-45) which declared: illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo originali decedunt, max in infemum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas (the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell but their punishment is very different).

Catechism

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."617 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.

617 Cf. DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG § 12.
CPG = Solemn Profession of faith: Credo of the People of God

CPG
§ 12. He dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. He proclaimed and established the Kingdom of God and made us know in Himself the Father. He gave us His new commandment to love one another as He loved us. He taught us the way of the beatitudes of the Gospel: poverty in spirit, meekness, suffering borne with patience, thirst after justice, mercy, purity of heart, will for peace, persecution suffered for justice sake. Under Pontius Pilate He suffered—the Lamb of God bearing on Himself the sins of the world, and He died for us on the cross, saving us by His redeeming blood. He was buried, and, of His own power, rose on the third day, raising us by His resurrection to that sharing in the divine life which is the life of grace. He ascended to heaven, and He will come again, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead: each according to his merits—those who have responded to the love and piety of God going to eternal life, those who have refused them to the end going to the fire that is not extinguished.

Hebrews 9:27 “Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,”

Matthew 12:31: “Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.”

 

[mythbuster1]

He gives sufficient grace to all to be saved, but those who resist grace cannot expect more grace. There are some who would treat God’s grace as a license to sin. What cure can there be for such malice?

 

[Magnanimity]

those who resist grace cannot expect more grace.

You resist grace every time you sin as a believer. This is the clear message from the book of Hebrews, chapter 10. And yet, you do expect God’s grace to continually be there for you. We all resist grace and expect more grace. It’s called being a sinner. Although, I’ll grant you that presumption is an ugly practice. We all are called to do/be our best within the life of God’s grace.

What cure can there be for such malice?

The incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

 

[Magnanimity]

No, love is voluntary. It cannot be forced – so a person in order to receive the Beatific Vision of heaven must be voluntarily perfected in charity. It is through the love of God that God makes it possible to be sharers in his divinity.

Vico, I grant you this, but surely you don’t somehow believe that this comment is a repudiation of mine, right? That is, I affirm that you are correct here, and I simultaneously affirm that condemnation is inconsistent with love. Those two beliefs are not at odds with one another.

Also, you did not provide an example from this world regarding my challenge. When has the “no greater love” of Christ eventuated in the lover casting out the beloved in the end? It does not happen. Love is not vindictive–it is perpetually merciful.

I understand that you want to make human freedom the be-all-end-all of this discussion. But, you’re not being a very good Thomist by doing this. Nothing that God does is contingent on humanity, so salvation is not God foreseeing our response to his grace and, on the basis of that foreknowledge, God saving some (and not others). Ultimately, for the Thomist (and I count myself among them!) salvation comes down to God. Around these CAF parts, we hear a ton about free-will this and free-will that. But on the Thomistic vision, although there is room for a “secondary causation” and freedom of will, primarily salvation is from God alone. And since that is the case, one has to ask why some are saved and not others.

Garrigou-Lagrange’s answer (which is basically just an entailment from Aquinas): God loves some more than he loves others. This is the “principle of predilection (to be better than another, one must be more loved by God)” - Garrigou-Lagrange, REALITY—A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought

Now, I don’t necessarily find predilection to be entirely wrong-headed. At the very least, something like predilection would seem to be necessary to explain the Blessed Mother. As in, why was she chosen by God as the theotokos (among the untold billions of human females throughout history)? Predilection speaks to the “blessed are thou among women…” However, this theory expands and encapsulates the damned, for the Thomist. This is plainly seen in St Thomas himself in his remarks on reprobation in the ST. “God wills some good to all, but he does not will the good of salvation to all men…” So, your salvation is not as a result of your freedom, it is a result of God willing your salvation (even with your “secondary causation” factored in).

 

[Magnanimity]

Lex orandi , lex credendi .

Absolutely! In the mass and in the rosary, we pray for the salvation of A-L-L! Not merely some…

dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils. There is a hell and those there remain eternally,

You can’t point to an ecumenical council of the whole church that teaches that souls are in Hell everlastingly. You tried to use Const II, but scholarship is against you. I know you’re doing your best to save the bleak, Augustinian vision of Hell. I don’t know why. Everyone outside of the church finds the idea of massa damnata to not only be wrong, but repulsive. But, you’ve given it a good effort.

I’m with the majority of the patristics, the Orthodox and contemporary theologians on this one (both East and West)–I’m not opposed to the teaching of Hell. I can even get on board with Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus in the belief that a wicked soul could pass “aeons” of time there. But what is the purpose of those aeons? Is it merely punitive, or is it rehabilitative? To what would the human soul orient itself in such a place? Where is the good for the soul’s direction? All these questions, you have not bothered to answer. And, I’ve asked them repeatedly. As St Thomas Aquinas plainly teaches, humans are made for beatitude.

So what might be the final goal of such a state as Hell? Restoration. The final cause of Hell would be restoration. Love wins, in the end. Not love plus evil, indefinitely into the future.
Only love/being/goodness endure indefinitely into the future. This is the hopeful vision of the new heavens and the new earth.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Lex orandi , lex credendi .

Absolutely! In the mass and in the rosary, we pray for the salvation of A-L-L! Not merely some…

dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils. There is a hell and those there remain eternally,

You can’t point to an ecumenical council of the whole church that teaches that souls are in Hell everlastingly. You tried to use Const II, but scholarship is against you. I know you’re doing your best to save the bleak, Augustinian vision of Hell. I don’t know why. Everyone outside of the church finds the idea of massa damnata to not only be wrong, but repulsive. But, you’ve given it a good effort.

I’m with the majority of the patristics, the Orthodox and contemporary theologians on this one (both East and West)–I’m not opposed to the teaching of Hell. I can even get on board with Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus in the belief that a wicked soul could pass “aeons” of time there. But what is the purpose of those aeons? Is it merely punitive, or is it rehabilitative? To what would the human soul orient itself in such a place? Where is the good for the soul’s direction? All these questions, you have not bothered to answer. And, I’ve asked them repeatedly. As St Thomas Aquinas plainly teaches, humans are made for beatitude.

So what might be the final goal of such a state as Hell? Restoration. The final cause of Hell would be restoration. Love wins, in the end. Not love plus evil, indefinitely into the future.
Only love/being/goodness endure indefinitely into the future. This is the hopeful vision of the new heavens and the new earth.

Hell is justice for those that will never love God. God knows who they are. Man has no right to the vision of God, of Theosis, rather it is a gift for those that love God. The others will never have it.

 

[prayerrider]

Sometimes I forget that the great Fr. Hardon was a Jesuit.

 

[Magnanimity]

Hell is justice for those that will never love God.

Only if, as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus argue, that individual eventually returns to the source/the Good/God. An unending sentence of torment and suffering could never be just. But even if it could, so what? What’s so great about justice? Mercy and love is what we’re all clamoring for in this life (and trying to show toward others, like our children).

We, being evil, have our acts of mercy trump justice on a regular basis throughout life. It could be no less with the one whose image and likeness we bear.

Man has no right to the vision of God, of Theosis, rather it is a gift for those that love God. The others will never have it.

That is consistent with the vision of Hell as spelled out by Maximus above. Distinctions can be made in the qualitative experience of God that people have into eternity, without having to commit ourselves to the repulsive belief of the loving God condemning his creatures to unending suffering and torment.

 

[Vico]

…

In the damnation of the reprobate mercy is even seen in punishing short of what is deserved. But what is deserved is due because of free will, and without free will there is no love, and without love there is no ability to be perfected in charity and thereby attain the Beatific Vision. In short condemnation is a result of allowing free will, a necessary thing for Theosis. Not having the Beatific Vision is the chief suffering for those that do not love. It is self-exclusion.

 

[Magnanimity]

In the damnation of the reprobate mercy is even seen in punishing short of what is deserved.

Presumably, your Augustinian vision of Hell is a place of everlasting torment and suffering from which there is no exit. I’m curious of how it could be worse. You say the God of love sending someone there is a punishment short of what is deserved. Would the addition of torture be what you have in mind? Again just curious what could be worse than the Augustinian Hell.

 

[oliver109]

I am talking about the way God can ensure someone gets to Heaven while enabling the person to go there with free will, lets go back to my example of the priest who has sex with a parishioner and then is killed suddenly by an airplane that crashes on his house, yes he did use his free will to go against God, to go against his church and have sex with a woman but he also was the sort of person who would go to confession each and every time he committed a mortal sin, why would God give up on him? why could he not ensure he is saved in the 0.00002 seconds between the plane hitting his house and his soul being separated from his body?

 

[Magnanimity]

But what is deserved is due because of free will,

Your idea of freedom suggests that a person is a tabula rasa, perfectly capable of apprehending truth/goodness/beauty without error. However, we all live in a fallen world, and that fallenness undeniably affects your judgment and ability to see truth with no admixture of error. We all “see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12), but you make it seem as if we see as in a mirror with the perfect amount of light and clarity of vision. Prejudices, errors in judgment, false beliefs, the wrongheaded opinions of our parents or professors or friends—all of these things affect constantly and impede our ability to connect readily and easily with the truth. Free will does not amount to very much in such a fallen world.

You underestimate the dramatic effects of this fallen world on all of us.

It is self-exclusion.

It’s a good story Vico, but since human wills are oriented toward the good, how would a person unendingly self-exclude from the good? What would that even mean? As St Thomas Aquinas taught, humans are made for beatitude.

 

[Vico]

I am talking about the way God can ensure someone gets to Heaven while enabling the person to go there with free will, lets go back to my example of the priest who has sex with a parishioner and then is killed suddenly by an airplane that crashes on his house, yes he did use his free will to go against God, to go against his church and have sex with a woman but he also was the sort of person who would go to confession each and every time he committed a mortal sin, why would God give up on him? why could he not ensure he is saved in the 0.00002 seconds between the plane hitting his house and his soul being separated from his body?

If the state of sanctifying grace is lost then is restored through perfect contrition. We do not know if God will allow an opportunity for providing that just at the moment of death. We know, however, that the fundamental option theory is not acceptable. See Veritatis Splendor of St. Pope John Paul II:

68. Here an important pastoral consideration must be added. According to the logic of the positions mentioned above, an individual could, by virtue of a fundamental option, remain faithful to God independently of whether or not certain of his choices and his acts are in conformity with specific moral norms or rules. By virtue of a primordial option for charity, that individual could continue to be morally good, persevere in God’s grace and attain salvation, even if certain of his specific kinds of behaviour were deliberately and gravely contrary to God’s commandments as set forth by the Church.

In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made “a free self-commitment to God”.113 With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses “sanctifying grace”, “charity” and “eternal happiness”.114 As the Council of Trent teaches, “the grace of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin”.115

 

[oliver109]

What we really need to hope for is Gods mercy, the priest in my scenario clearly knew he was doing wrong, he clearly knew that his actions deserved Hell, he still went ahead and did it. What he also believed was that God also forgives the greatest sinner so long as the sinner wants to stop sinning. Lets look at a different case say of a murderer, they love seeing their victims suffer, they love to hear the screams and pain and are even disappointed at the fact that they would not have the opportunity to do that in Heaven, such a person would be virtually impossible to save.

 

[Vico]

…

The descendants of Adam must now grapple with concupiscence, so there is not a proper orientation to moral good.

A person is not personally culpable without free will, so that is why some acts or omissions are called material sin not actual sin. Self-exclusion is mortal sin without repenting.

Catholics believe in the particular judgment, and no reincarnation (other than the one resurrection).

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.

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1013 Death is the end of man’s earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When “the single course of our earthly life” is completed,586 we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once."587 There is no “reincarnation” after death.

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul–a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593

 

[Vico]

What we really need to hope for is Gods mercy, the priest in my scenario clearly knew he was doing wrong, he clearly knew that his actions deserved Hell, he still went ahead and did it. What he also believed was that God also forgives the greatest sinner so long as the sinner wants to stop sinning. Lets look at a different case say of a murderer, they love seeing their victims suffer, they love to hear the screams and pain and are even disappointed at the fact that they would not have the opportunity to do that in Heaven, such a person would be virtually impossible to save.

So the sin that destroys sanctifying grace in the soul is grace matter and done willfully with sufficient reflection (enough to be a personal choice). Some sins do not meet this criteria so do not destroy sanctifying grace. Suppose the person does sin gravely and looses sanctifying grace. Then prefect contrition will remit it, that is the “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again” arising from a love by which God is loved above all else, and including a “firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible”. (Catechism 1451, 1452.)

Any remaining attachments to sin in those that die justified are removed in purgatory.

 

[oliver109]

No mortal sin can completely destroy a relationship with God or the sacrament of Confession would be pointless, I just cannot see how a soul can go to Hell unless God refuses to do something in those very moments before the soul is separated from the body, the hour of death is significant, I believe that God can make it appear much longer than an hour for the worse sinners in that he can show them the mistakes they have done in their life, ask them to confess their sins, show them the impact their sins have made, if the soul is still resisting God he will tell the soul there is no more he can do then separate it from it’s body and let it end up in Hell. I really believe that God does not let a soul slip away to Hell as easily as making a trip to a fish and chip restaurant.

 

[Magnanimity]

there is not a proper orientation to moral good.

It’s more than just moral good, as the CCC 405 quote states. Human nature is inclined to sin, yes. But as that quote states, human nature is also prone to ignorance. The human nature has been “corrupted.” The gift of baptism can orient a person back to God but the human nature still persists in a “weakened” state, as the quote says.

Enough culpability to banish a person forever from the Good might exist in the case of a person who is not prone to ignorance and sin—a person not in a weakened state. But there are no such persons. The fallen world affects all people, inclining them all toward ignorance and sin. Culpability is therefore mitigated by this fallenness (how could it not be?) and the proper response toward the human is to look on him with mercy, not harsh judgment.

As I said, you continue to underestimate the dramatic effects of this fallen world on all of us.

Everlasting damnation is the harshest of judgments, and it is not warranted by the facts of this present reality (concupicense, ignorance, weakness of will). What is called for is mercy, and it just so happens to be that we serve a God whose “mercy endures forever,” Psalm 136.

 

[Vico]

…
Enough culpability to banish a person forever from the Good might exist in the case of a person who is not prone to ignorance and sin—a person not in a weakened state. But there are no such persons. The fallen world affects all people, inclining them all toward ignorance and sin. Culpability is therefore mitigated by this fallenness (how could it not be?) and the proper response toward the human is to look on him with mercy, not harsh judgment.
…

Man can do morally good acts without grace, even in the fallen state. Salvation depends, however upon grace. By grace God makes is possible to remain free from serious sin, under the influence of concupiscence. Rom 5:20 “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more”.

Catechism

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace , the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

Council of Trent (dogma de fide):

Can. 18. If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are even for a man who is justified and confirmed in grace impossible to observe: let him be anathema.