Hell, Angels, and eternity

[Richca]

Angels are not unchanging as God is who is the infinite and eternal pure act. All creatures are a composition of act and potency. Angels can and do change their thoughts and produce new affections or movements of their wills. They do not have infinite knowledge or an infinite will but are finite creatures. The thoughts and movements of the angels’ wills in heaven are always in accord with God’s will though. They receive new revelations from God all the time in their administration of carrying out God’s providence over the universe and human affairs.

The wills of the good angels in heaven necessarily adhere to the infinite good which is God due to the beatific vision similarly as God necessarily wills his own infinite goodness. The will’s object is the good and God created the wills of angels and human beings for himself. Also, an angel or human being in heaven would not enjoy perfect happiness and share in God’s own eternal blessedness if there was the possibility of losing that happiness and God’s presence.

 

[TK421]

@Richca

Angels and people continue to learn and grow in Heaven, because God is infinite and the process of knowing Him is also infinite, but angels immediately have superabundant knowledge from the very beginning when it comes to the basic question of whether to serve God or to reject God. When the angels rejected God it wasn’t because of ignorance or confusion, as is often the case with human beings. It was an act of pure narcissism and one in which they would never desire to take back.

 

[rdj88]

When the angels rejected God it wasn’t because of ignorance or confusion, as is often the case with human beings. It was an act of pure narcissism and one in which they would never desire to take back.

With this in mind, does what I said not make sense about it being unjust for someone who’s lived a largely holy life to be eternally damned if they slip in a moment of weakness or anger or frustration or whatever it may be, and commit a mortal sin, then die?

I guess I’m beginning to wonder if my conception of mortal sin is inaccurate. People can be striving to follow God and yet commit mortal sin anyway for a variety of reasons, but this isn’t “an act of pure narcissism that they would never desire to take back,” so does that mean they wouldn’t then be damned for eternity?

Every time I’ve committed mortal sin, I’ve repented - usually very soon after - and so I’ve gone to confession. So, if right after one of these sins I had died and been eternally damned, that wouldn’t be very just would it? Because if given the opportunity, I would indeed have turned back towards God.

So, are we only actually damned if we sin like you describe the angels doing, by an act of pure narcissism that we’d never choose to take back?

 

[GLam1761]

It is not for us HUMANS to speculate about the angels, and
other spiritual/extraterrestrial beings, it fosters a lot of harm
and discord. Just know that the scriptures say that Christ
came NOT to save angelic beings but Children of Abraham
Heb. 2:16, also God’s will is that all MANKIND be saved, no
mention about angelic beings. See 1 Tim. 2:4

That being said, we should not be afraid of the angelic/demonic
sphere of this life, it enriches and helps us understand that
there is more to History than meets the eye, there is a Battle
going on here, it is for the souls of human beings. We, the
Church are supposed to get as many souls “saved” as possible.
“Leave no man/woman behind!”.

 

[Vico]

…
Every time I’ve committed mortal sin, I’ve repented - usually very soon after - and so I’ve gone to confession. So, if right after one of these sins I had died and been eternally damned, that wouldn’t be very just would it? Because if given the opportunity, I would indeed have turned back towards God.
…

Catechism

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible. 51

 

[debgab]

You should, if you haven’t, read C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce” I think the story contains good insights into the whole mystery of what happens to souls when they die.
But the questions you posed are really good ones. It reminds me of the richness of
the faith; no question is too hard or beyond asking.
Debbie

 

[1ke]

I’d encourage you to read Theology For Beginners by Frank Sheed.

Angels were not created “outside time”, they are created beings which is “in time”. They hadn’t yet been admitted to the beatific vision when they made their choice.

Sheed’s book is an excellent read on such deep topics of theology.

 

[TK421]

TK421:

When the angels rejected God it wasn’t because of ignorance or confusion, as is often the case with human beings. It was an act of pure narcissism and one in which they would never desire to take back.

With this in mind, does what I said not make sense about it being unjust for someone who’s lived a largely holy life to be eternally damned if they slip in a moment of weakness or anger or frustration or whatever it may be, and commit a mortal sin, then die?

I guess I’m beginning to wonder if my conception of mortal sin is inaccurate. People can be striving to follow God and yet commit mortal sin anyway for a variety of reasons, but this isn’t “an act of pure narcissism that they would never desire to take back,” so does that mean they wouldn’t then be damned for eternity?

Every time I’ve committed mortal sin, I’ve repented - usually very soon after - and so I’ve gone to confession. So, if right after one of these sins I had died and been eternally damned, that wouldn’t be very just would it? Because if given the opportunity, I would indeed have turned back towards God.

So, are we only actually damned if we sin like you describe the angels doing, by an act of pure narcissism that we’d never choose to take back?

I don’t know when a person does or doesn’t commit mortal sin, but if a person follows the advice from Tradition consistently by regularly examining their conscience, then sin in their life will decrease and self-control and other virtues will increase. A virtue is a habit of doing something good and a vice is a habit of doing something evil. So if a person has various vices from years of practice or from years of following the wrong role models, it will take time for those vices to be turned into virtues.

It has also been said by various mystics that a person is always given a final opportunity to repent before judgment. God wants people to go to Heaven and have life to the fullest more than we do, so he does absolutely everything possible to make this happen and gives his mercy at every possible opportunity. God forfeits his omnipotence when he creates a person with free will though, so the final decision still has to come from the individual.

 

[Magnanimity]

You’ve asked great question @rdj88. I sympathize with your concerns. As I understand him, our universal doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, reasons like this. The only way for a rational creature like a human to change his mind is to have new information added, or the ability to consider old information in a new light. This is how professor Eleanore Stump interprets Aquinas. But at the moment of death when you enter the afterlife, there will be no more new information given to you and your mind will be made up in such a way that you will not be able to consider old information in a new light. This is a very reasonable argument.

However, when I studied epistemology in college, I learned that there are at least five sources and grounds for knowledge. They are as follows: perception, testimony, memory, introspection, and reason. Now, even if we were to assume that there would be no perception and no testimony in hell, there would still be the other three sources and grounds for knowledge, all three of which can lead to the reconsideration of old information in a new light. Introspection, memory and reason all serve these functions in our minds right now. All three extend our knowledge into new places. In other words, they move the mind from what is known to the unknown. So, I think there is good reason for rejecting Saint Thomas’ psychological argument for why a rational mind could not change in hell. At least, I do not find it successful. The Catholic Church remains obstinately aligned with the Augustinian vision of hell as “unending and inescapable,” but I take comfort in the fact that Augustine was in the minority among the Fathers.

As for the angels, St Thomas says that (unlike humans) they are “fully actualized” at the instant of their creation.

 

[TK421]

The Catholic Church remains obstinately aligned with the Augustinian vision of hell as “unending and inescapable,” but I take comfort in the fact that Augustine was in the minority among the Fathers.

It is not a uniquely Augustinian view, and he wasn’t in the minority, and the Church isn’t obstinate it simply reiterates what has always been taught.

 

[Magnanimity]

It is not a uniquely Augustinian view

Then present to us the other major fathers who held the same view as Augustine. You might find two, if you’re lucky. The rest held a view of hell as temporary and all humanity returning to God. Again, feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

he wasn’t in the minority,

St Augustine himself noted that the ‘hopeful’s’ enjoyed the majority view.

it simply reiterates what has always been taught.

There is no “always” here. This is either fiction (you don’t know) or revisionist history (you do know and you’re trying to rewrite the situation). I invite you to familiarize yourself with St Gregory of Nyssa, Origen and St Maximus the Confessor.

 

[englands123]

That being said, we should not be afraid of the angelic/demonic
sphere of this life, it enriches and helps us understand that
there is more to History than meets the eye, there is a Battle
going on here, it is for the souls of human beings. We, the
Church are supposed to get as many souls “saved” as possible.
“Leave no man/woman behind!”.

Totally agree with that statement 100%

 

[TK421]

@Magnanimity

No brother, I’m not spending time digging around for exact quotes. Granted it wouldn’t take long because I have hardcopy references handy but I just don’t feel like it because what you’re saying is downright silly.

The consensus of the Fathers did not believe in a temporary hell and this is common knowledge. If you want to believe whatever it is you want to believe that is your choice but you shouldn’t just make things up to make your view sound more authoritative than what it is. The part of hell that is Purgatory is temporary but damnation means exactly that: you cross a threshold and you never go back.

 

[Magnanimity]

The consensus of the Fathers did not believe in a temporary hell and this is common knowledge.

False. But lack of knowledge is preferable to rewriting history. So, I don’t blame you. You just don’t know any better.

If you want to believe whatever it is you want to believe that is your choice but you shouldn’t just make things up to make your view sound more authoritative than what it is.

This is just you refusing to research. That’s ok. You’d be disappointed if you tried. I only know this bc I myself have tried. But unless/until you undermine my points with actual references, they stand as is. I’ve noted 3 of the most prominent church fathers. You’ve noted none. The Augustinian view, therefore, is the minority view of the church fathers. The majority believed in a hell that was indeed punitive but temporary.

 

[rdj88]

No brother, I’m not spending time digging around for exact quotes. Granted it wouldn’t take long because I have hardcopy references handy but I just don’t feel like it because what you’re saying is downright silly.

I’m going to have to agree with @Magnanimity; if you can prove him wrong - and so easily, as you claim - then please do so. Otherwise, to be frank, you’re the one who ends up looking silly.

Either way, I appreciate both of your contributions to the discussion. I love learning about these things.

 

[TK421]

if you can prove him wrong - and so easily, as you claim - then please do so. Otherwise, to be frank, you’re the one who ends up looking silly.

I’m okay with that. I’ve responded to absurd claims before (conspiracy theories on other forums) and I’ve never actually had a person satisfied with my answer.

The fact is, even extremely optimistic bishops, such as Bishop Barron, are under no illusion what the Church Fathers taught and preached and believed. The early Church didn’t teach what Magnanimity is claiming, but if somebody wants to believe something really bad there is nothing I can do to change that.

For somebody reading this who is interested in learning and self-improvement as a person, “The Father’s Know Best”, is a good resource to buy here on CAF. I’m going to unsubscribe to the thread now. Thank you.

 

[Magnanimity]

The fact is, even extremely optimistic bishops, such as Bishop Barron, are under no illusion what the Church Fathers taught and preached and believed. The early Church didn’t teach what Magnanimity is claiming,

Let’s go to St Augustine himself for the answer here. New Advent has his Enchiridion where he writes in chapter/section 112:

It is in vain, then, that some, indeed very many [immo quam plurimi], make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so; not, indeed, that they directly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture but, at the suggestion of their own feelings, they soften down everything that seems hard, and give a milder turn to statements which they think are rather designed to terrify than to be received as literally true.

I have no interest in making anyone seem silly or embarrassed. I’m sure that @TK421 knows a great deal more than me on quite a few issues. But I’ve been looking into this hell issue for quite some time. This vast majority (immo quam plurimi) that St Augustine refers to is no small number. The list includes Clement, Origen, Didymus, St. Anthony, St. Pamphilus Martyr, Methodius, St. Macrina, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John of Jerusalem, Rufinus, St. Jerome, Cassian, St. Issac of Nineveh, St. John of Dalyatha, Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Maximus the Confessor, John Scotus Eriugena, etc.

The greatest Catholic theologians of the 20th century rediscovered all of this in the Ressourcement movement. And that’s why Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal De Lubac, Cardinal Daniélou, Cardinal-elect Von Balthasar and Karl Rahner all moved away from the Augustinian position on Hell and all moved back to the majority ancient view of ultimate reconciliation of all of humanity back to God (though the nuances of their particular positions were all slightly different).

This is public record. The Catholic lay-faithful remain far too unaware of the ancient (and 20th century) situations because, I can only assume, they mistakenly believe that the Catholic church’s historical embrace of the Augustinian position on Hell is some sort of alliance that cannot be broken. But the ancient and recent situation have exposed the tenuous nature of the Augustinian embrace.

 

[Richca]

Magnanimity:

The Catholic Church remains obstinately aligned with the Augustinian vision of hell as “unending and inescapable,” but I take comfort in the fact that Augustine was in the minority among the Fathers.

It is not a uniquely Augustinian view, and he wasn’t in the minority, and the Church isn’t obstinate it simply reiterates what has always been taught.

Yes, Holy Scripture, the word of God, speaks of the eternal punishment of hell in the Old Testament, Jesus himself in the gospels, St Paul, and the other apostles in the New Testament. The Church fathers before Origin were unanimous in affirming the eternal duration of the punishment of hell. It seems Origin, influenced by Platonism, was the originator of the temporality of the punishment of hell in his opinion. A few fathers, probably mostly from the east, followed his opinion such as St Gregory of Nyssa also influenced by Platonism, who was the brother of St Basil the Great which Basil taught of the eternal duration of the punishment of hell. The official teaching Church corrected the error of Origin and others who followed his opinion in this in the early Church from the popes, synods, and ecumenical councils. Sources: CCC, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Denzinger - Enchiridion Symbolorum (43rd edition), The Faith of the Early Fathers (William A. Jurgens).

 

[Magnanimity]

The Church fathers before Origin were unanimous in affirming the eternal duration of the punishment of hell.

Origen was more or less the first of the church fathers and influenced all who followed him, so it’s unclear who you’re referring to as being “before” him.

A few fathers, probably mostly from the east, followed his opinion such as St Gregory of Nyssa

I gave the long list above. It was, in St Augustine’s own words, the vast majority of early fathers who held the hopeful view. St Augustine was unique (and alone) in his dreary view that most would be damned to neverending torment.

The official teaching Church corrected the error of Origin and others who followed his opinion in this in the early Church from the popes, synods, and ecumenical councils.

What are you talking about? What ‘official teaching’ are you referring to? If it’s the “anathemas” of the emperor Justinian, they are not attributable to an ecumenical council, as modern scholarship acknowledges. (You are citing old sources.) The Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils edited by Norman Tanner notes that, “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).

 

[Dan_Defender]

CCC 1033 … 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.