Hell is Real. People Really Go There. Why Modern Man Can’t Understand This…

[JanR]

We taste a little bit of hell right here on earth. And we live a little bit of Purgatory, as well. The difference is degree, I believe. The two World Wars were a sample of hell on earth. There is some debate as to whether or not Hitler was insane or possessed. But I’m sure the devil has a lot to do with wars on that scale, and the unspeakable atrocities that world leaders commit, such as the concentration camps, the gas chambers, and the wholesale executions of innocent people.

Purgatory on earth is primarily confined to our personal sufferings, as each soul will suffer individually in Purgatory. I believe that’s more of an individual experience than an all-out collective catastrophe such as global warfare.

We need to heed examples of hell and Purgatory on earth, as they show us on a smaller and less severe scale what they will be like in the afterlife. We receive clues right here in this realm. And sometimes, it has to be gigantic clue, like a major world war, to really get our attention.

Still, we never seem to learn from our history, so we’re doomed to repeat it, again and again, until we finally get it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If Hell is a punishment there is no amount of sin anyone could do in a finite lifetime that could ever merit it.

The gravity of the wrongfulness of an act comes in part from the person offended by that act. It is more grievous for me to strike my wife or child than to strike a stranger in a bar.

Sin offends God, the Perfect Good. Every individual sin against God is infinitely grievous because it is committed against our infinitely good and loving creator. As such, every single last sin is worthy of the punishment of eternal damnation.

It is God’s mercy that spares us from damnation, but that mercy is something we must accept, it cannot be forced on us.

Hell is punishment as much as it is a choice. When we reject God’s mercy, when we make the choice to turn away from that salvation, we become subject to the full extent of His Justice, and we subject ourselves to the punishment due for our transgressions.

 

[Aquinas11]

The majority view of the fathers is that Hell is temporary.

Everyone please ignore that post. COMPLETE HERESY.

Listen to Christ, don’t listen to “the majority of the fathers” (whoever that is)

Matthew 25

[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

 

[Mark121359]

No sir, you’re off by a mile. St Augustine himself acknowledged that “indeed very many” fathers during his own time rejected the idea of an “eternal” Hell.

Is that so? Here’s just a small sample of quotes that says otherwise.

“Not all, nor even a majority, are saved. . . They are indeed many, if regarded by themselves, but they are few in comparison with the far larger number of those who shall be punished with the devil. It is certain that few are saved.”
~St. Augustine, Doctor and Father of the Church~

“What do you think? How many of the inhabitants of this city may perhaps be saved? What I am about to tell you is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with its thousands of inhabitants not one hundred people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that!”
~St. John Chrysostom, Doctor and Father of the Church~

“All persons desire to be saved, but the greater part, because they will not adopt the means of being saved, fall into sin and are lost. . . In fact, the Elect are much fewer than the damned, for the reprobate are much more numerous than the Elect.”
~St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church~

“The number of the saved is as few as the number of grapes left after the vinepickers have passed.”
~St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars, Patron Saint of Parish Priests~

“Out of one hundred thousand sinners who continue in sin until death, scarcely one will be saved.”
~St. Jerome, Doctor and Father of the Church~

“I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think. I do not think that many bishops are saved, but that those who perish are far more numerous.”
~St. John Chrysostom, Doctor and Father of the Church~

“Notwithstanding assurances that God did not create any man for Hell, and that He wishes all men to be saved, it remains equally true that only few will be saved; that only few will go to Heaven; and that the greater part of mankind will be lost forever.”
~St. John Neumann~

“Since their eternal happiness, consisting in the vision of God, exceeds the common state of nature, and especially in so far as this is deprived of grace through the corruption of original sin, those who are saved are in the minority. In this especially, however, appears the mercy of God, that He has chosen some for that salvation, from which very many in accordance with the common course and tendency of nature fall short.”
~St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church~

“There are a select few who are saved.
Those who are saved are in the minority.”
~St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church~

 

[Mark121359]

Yes, Mark, it is so.

So just to be clear here Magnanimity. Are you trying to say that hell is temporary. And that in the end all will be saved?

 

[Aquinas11]

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 think he’s talking to this thread. HE’s also pointing out that most people don’t like the idea of eternal hell so are in denial. Once again, still true today as proven by many of posts in this thread.

 

[Aquinas11]

The list includes ….St. Jerome

Oh so now the Saint who provided the above translation doesn’t believe what he translated.

 

[Mark121359]

As for me, I side with the greatest Catholic minds of the 20th century in their rejection of the bleak and repulsive Augustinian vision of Hell, to include Cardinal Daniélou, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal De Lubac, Cardinal-elect Von Balthasar and Karl Rahner. I have heard very few good arguments for being committed to the Augustinian vision here.

So you’re saying that you believe hell is empty, correct?

 

[Magnanimity]

Oh so now the Saint who provided the above translation doesn’t believe what he translated.

St Augustine did not originally read the NT St Jerome translation. (I can’t recall whose translation he read. And he didn’t read Greek. He was reliant on translations, as we here are. Note all the English-translation NT quotes above, which import the Augustinian theology).

 

[Aquinas11]

St Augustine did not

I’m talking about St Jerome…you listed him as believing Hell is temporary yet his translation says its everlasting. Did he also not read Greek? The Saint who translated the BIble from Greek to Latin?

 

[Aquinas11]

Cardinal De Lubac, Cardinal-elect Von Balthasar

De Lubac confused our natural end (natural curiosity about God) with our supernatural end (participating in Holy Sacraments as conveyed by Divine Revelation), consequently is the reason we have modernity where people think anything they do that fulfills their natural end (staring at stars, going to yoga class, meditating at Buddhist temple) will also fulfill their supernatural end which it won’t since that is only possible through Sacraments.

 

[stpurl]

A mortal sin which is unrepented at one’s death does not ‘stop existing’ when we die. The unrepented sin existing at death will continue to exist --just as we will continue to exist–for eternity.

No, you’ve misunderstood. Sin is not something one ‘does’ and then POOF it stops existing. Oh hey, I committed an act of adultery that lasted for 15 minutes on the clock. ‘Finite sin’ you know, one and done. . . NO. The act of adultery, unrepented, lives on in its effect on the soul (Mortal Sin. Mortal. Kills. Kills the Soul’s relationship with God as long as the sin is unrepented and forgiven). That’s why an unrepented mortal sin at death (which has continued to exist in its mortal effect on the soul) will go on existing after death. The soul continues to exist after death, n’est-ce pas? The effects on that soul continue as well. Infinite sin, infinite judgment. Hell is not an eternal punishment for a finite sin, it is an eternal EFFECT due to the cause of an ETERNAL sin.

 

[Aquinas11]

Your namesake (St Thomas Aquinas) helps us to understand that beatitude is the final end of man

No, De Lubac misinterpreted Aquinas who actually said mans natural end and supernatural end are related but distinct, like two sides of a hinge. Subtle error but catastrophic consequences for De Lubac and all his subsequent followers

 

[vz71]

I get the formulaic Catholic stuff — moral sin = cut off from God’s Grace. Any other reasons besides this formula?

Because it is true?

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

It makes quite a bit more sense as the consequence of a deliberate and irrevocable choice, though.

How so? If a human is necessarily finite and has her reason darkened by the Fall, how would it follow to assign to her “irrevocable” consequences for her actions? Don’t the Psalms say that His mercy endures forever?

That’s why I use the term consequences rather than punishment. If you drink poison, you will die. It’s not a punishment, no one is judging you and finding you guilty, it is just the natural consequence of your actions. If God offers you Heaven and you separate yourself from Him anyways, where else is there to go? God isn’t sending you to Hell, you are sending yourself there.

If indeed you stay there forever it is not because He found your sins so great as to merit eternal damnation, but because you chose your path and He is letting you have your way.

 

[Magnanimity]

De Lubac misinterpreted Aquinas

I don’t quite see the point of your remarks. The Catholic Ressourcement led to the rediscovery of the Fathers, especially the forgotten Eastern fathers, nearly all of whom held views of Hell that were world’s apart from that of St Augustine. This was a legitimate rediscovery for the Catholic Church. The Ressourcement itself led to all the great 20th century intellects I mentioned above. There is no evidence that either Von Balthasar or Rahner dumbly followed De Lubac. All three were widely regarded as preeminent theologians in their own right—the 3 most prominent of the century.

And the Thomistic teaching that beatitude is the final end of man is clear, irrespective of 20th century theology.

 

[Aquinas11]

And the Thomistic teaching that beatitude is the final end of man is clear,

No as I said, it’s premised on a false interpretation of Aquinas who said man has a two-fold end (duplex), thus natural end and supernatural end that are related but distinct. Man has a natural end (curiosity about God, wondering who made the world, etc) related to but distinct from a supernatural end (practicing the Holy Sacraments known only through divine revelation). De Lubac misinterpreted Aquinas thus thinks they’re both the same and that anything man does in this life fulfills his supernatural end. False due to his misinterpretation of Aquinas

Since De Lubac falsely held that man is always directed toward the supernatural end, he effectively tried to erase the concept of sin. No matter what you do, you’re always directed toward the supernatural beatific end. This is why we have all the paganism infecting the Church. It’s why we have so many Catholics no longer believing in hell or sin or going to mass. Why would they if they believed this lunacy? This is why De Lubac received a Papal Censure in 1950 from Pope Pius XII. And yes of course it was removed post Vat II by JPII because he was sympathetic to this thinking but it’s simply false since it’s all rooted in a misinterpretation of Aquinas.

 

[Aquinas11]

I’ve yet to meet, or even hear about, anyone who willingly endures unending torment and suffering here on Earth. In fact, when torment and suffering get extreme in a person’s life, he will take extreme measures to be rid of it—ranging from substance abuse all the way to suicide. No one just willingly endures this state on Earth. So, we’re to believe that some folks in the hereafter would be any different?

Nobody willingly suffers forever on Earth therefore nobody would willingly suffer forever in hell.

So now not only is hell temporary but it’s also voluntary!
Heck, no wonder so many are sinning.

 

[Inquiry]

Tons of people willingly accept torment and suffering on earth. Indeed many even inflict it on themselves. The spiteful man who will go to extreme lengths for petty revenge no matter how many times he shoots himself in the foot. The emotional manipulator who will hurt himself to make others feel sorry for him. The egotist who will accept anything except that he is wrong. Take those behaviors, let them magnify over the course of eternity, and what do you think they make existence like?

Also, even if I accepted a temporary Hell (and I am open to the possibility, though I will not assume it to be the case), I am fairly sure further self destruction is not a path out.

 

[Magnanimity]

No as I said, it’s premised on a false interpretation of Aquinas who said man has a two-fold end (duplex),

Let me know what you think of this quote that supports your two-fold end understanding of Aquinas:

Aquinas teaches that there is a twofold end or beatitude of man. One is proportioned to his natural abilities; the other is supernatural and becomes proportionate to man only if he is given divine grace ( De ver. 14.2, 10; 27.2; In 2 sent. 41.1.1; Summa theologiae 1a, 62.1; la2ae, 62.1–2). (2) He presents only one end, heavenly beatitude, as the absolutely ultimate goal of human life ( C. gent. 3.1–63). (3) Beatitude means the perfect and stable attainment of a perfect good; it is a happiness that leaves nothing to be desired. Only the supernatural end is perfect beatitude. The natural end is an imperfect beatitude, a happiness that is somewhat like perfect beatitude but lacks the perfection required for it ( Summa theologiae 1a2ae, 3).

Rev Garrigou-Lagrange referred (not kindly) to the theologians of the Ressourcement as engaged in a nouvelle theologie. And Garrigou (whom I have read) strikes me as the quintessential Thomistic purist. And I suppose this internal conflict still persists within the Catholic Church to this day. But there can be no denying the enormous influence all those men I alluded to above had on late 20th century Catholic thought—much more than Thomistic purists had.

But all this discussion can get us lost in the recent-history weeds. If you have a different pov on the 20th century theological history, it doesn’t matter to me.

Let’s stick with beatitude—it hardly matters whether there is a two-fold understanding here, does it? In both cases, happiness is the goal, whether perfect (beatific vision) or imperfect—man’s happiness remains his final end. . . .