Hell

[NeedImprovement]

Well…being tortured for all eternity for a few actions would be unfair, no matter how bad they are. . . .

Provided that one repented of the bad actions , I would agree.

If one doesn’t repent , then it means they are content with the “bad” “actions” they performed . . . so logically . . .

. … I truly don’t think anyone would choose that fate knowingly or purposely.

. . .

It is difficult to say. We can’t really tell what is going on in the mind of someone else. Actually , I even find it difficult trying to figure out what is going on in my own mind sometimes. .:doh2:

Because of our free will, we admit that it* is* possible for a person to resist God’s grace - so then also His Mercy. If God offers His Mercy to a soul at the end of its earthly sojourn, and the soul refuses His Mercy, being fully aware of the consequences, what then is God to do ? Should God take away that person’s free will ?

Number of actions (a “few”) might be relative in so far as its repetition would be applicable. More to the point would be considerations such as* full consent* to the action and imputability of guilt.

Furthermore, without an idea/knowledge of the* moral gravity* of a sin/action , the “number” of actions remains an unsuitable criterion. So . . . can’t agree with the part “no matter how bad they are” :
Because* “no matter how bad they are”* implies there is no longer any need for an objective moral reference point - without which justice cannot exist - without which Mercy cannot exist.

. . .
I know the church doesn’t teach this, but when I thought of it being for all eternity, I always pictured hell as kind of like our present earth. People would be continuously searching for love and happiness and never truly find it. That would be torturous as it continues, because without God, you will never find happiness.

The recurring theme of that which helps us avoid Hell is love of others. This helps us to go “outside of ourselves” and to “find ourselves.” Human beings are social creatures when we are at our best. Even religious hermits live in community. As God said right from our beginning, “It is not good for the man to be alone.”

Giving of or sharing our wealth with others is important, but it isn’t half as important as giving of ourselves is.

 

[laylow]

Provided that one repented of the bad actions , I would agree.

If one doesn’t repent , then it means they are content with the “bad” “actions” they performed . . . so logically . . .

It is difficult to say. We can’t really tell what is going on in the mind of someone else. Actually , I even find it difficult trying to figure out what is going on in my own mind sometimes. .:doh2:

Because of our free will, we admit that it* is* possible for a person to resist God’s grace - so then also His Mercy. If God offers His Mercy to a soul at the end of its earthly sojourn, and the soul refuses His Mercy, being fully aware of the consequences, what then is God to do ? Should God take away that person’s free will ?

Number of actions (a “few”) might be relative in so far as its repetition would be applicable. More to the point would be considerations such as* full consent* to the action and imputability of guilt.

Furthermore, without an idea/knowledge of the* moral gravity* of a sin/action , the “number” of actions remains an unsuitable criterion. So . . . can’t agree with the part “no matter how bad they are” :
Because* “no matter how bad they are”* implies there is no longer any need for an objective moral reference point - without which justice cannot exist - without which Mercy cannot exist.

Yeah, I agree. I think God knows our hearts.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m concerned that almost all Catholics choose to follow what that feel like. Have you sold all of your possessions and followed Jesus as he asked the rich man? If not, are you asking Jesus to lower his standards?

I honestly don’t get the sense on any of your threads that you’re “concerned” about other Catholics. I get the sense that you just want to debate, and post various things you find on the web that you think are interesting.

 

[oyaji]

I am Catholic, I want to talk about Hell. I have so many things I want to bring up, but I would rather have people bring up their views and then I will discuss those…

The French philosopher Alain Badiou has written a fantastic book, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism which lays out a very convincing case that THE Saint Paul was indeed a Universalist.

The erudite Professor Ilaria Ramelli has written her tome The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis where she lays out in detail that universal reconciliation was a common belief in the ancient Church and she lists a large number of Saints in the Church who were universalist.

For those who like proof-texting to prove a point, the number of scripture versus that seem to point to universalism far out number those versus that seem to point to eternal conscious torment.

I would recommend going here afkimel.wordpress.com/essential-readings-on-universalism/ for a list of books written by Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, theologians, and philosophers who all present their case using scripture and logic for universalism.

I grew up in a hell, fire, and brimstone Southern Baptist Church so I understand the paralyzing fear that a belief in everlasting hell can cause. And I understand how hard it can be to believe that maybe what we have grown up believing about God and hell is wrong.

But if you have an open mind and delve into the topic and read a few of the books that I have suggested and to read scripture through the universalist lens, then you can experience the liberation of being a Christian based on love and not fear.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Catholicism differentiates between Biblical Universalism and Doctrinal Universalism.

Apokatastasis is defined as Doctrinal Universalism , and according to Fr. John Hardon, S.J. , Doctrinal Universalism was condemned by the Church in 543 A.D.

To a certain extent, one can empathize with the main sentiment of Doctrinal Universalism- a desire for all to be saved, for each and every one of God’s rational creatures to eventually love God and to live with God eternally . . . a sentiment which , one might argue is congruous to the one expressed in Matthew 18:14 :

DRV
" Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."

However, a major flaw in this type of thinking is the idea that the demons/fallen angels, “will be completely restored to their original state.”

Satan and his minions made a choice with eternal consequences - consequences of which they were fully aware when they made that choice. It was and is a definitive choice. To misunderstand that point, is to contemplate eternity in terms of time, and to try and attribute or equate a fallen human nature to the fallen angelic nature. Repentance is an existential impossibility for fallen angels.

From Father John Hardon S.J.'s Modern Catholic Dictionary :

UNIVERSALISM, BIBLICAL. The anti-nationalist teaching of the Hebrew prophets that God’s salvific will included other nations, and not only the people of Israel. This is particularly true of the prophet Jonah.

UNIVERSALISM, DOCTRINAL. The theory that hell is essentially a kind of purgatory in which sins are expiated, so that eventually everyone will be saved. Also called apokatastasis, it was condemned by the church in A.D. 543, against the Origenists, who claimed that “the punishment of devils and wicked men is temporary and will eventually cease, that is to say, that devils or the ungodly will be completely restored to their original state” (Denzinger 411).

DEMONIC ANGER. Anger with God, the foundation for blasphemy. It is called demonic because that is how the evil spirit is believed to react toward the divine justice for having condemned him to eternal punishment.

 

[laylow]

I honestly don’t get the sense on any of your threads that you’re “concerned” about other Catholics. I get the sense that you just want to debate, and post various things you find on the web that you think are interesting.

Sorry, I have lots of thoughts in my mind. I’m trying to get them out in conversation.

 

[oyaji]

Catholicism differentiates between Biblical Universalism and Doctrinal Universalism.

Apokatastasis is defined as Doctrinal Universalism , and according to Fr. John Hardon, S.J. , Doctrinal Universalism was condemned by the Church in 543 A.D.

To a certain extent, one can empathize with the main sentiment of Doctrinal Universalism- a desire for all to be saved, for each and every one of God’s rational creatures to eventually love God and to live with God eternally . . . a sentiment which , one might argue is congruous to the one expressed in Matthew 18:14 :

However, a major flaw in this type of thinking is the idea that the demons/fallen angels, “will be completely restored to their original state.”

Satan and his minions made a choice with eternal consequences - consequences of which they were fully aware when they made that choice. It was and is a definitive choice. To misunderstand that point, is to contemplate eternity in terms of time, and to try and attribute or equate a fallen human nature to the fallen angelic nature. Repentance is an existential impossibility for fallen angels.

From Father John Hardon S.J.'s Modern Catholic Dictionary :

Universalism was never formally condemned in 543 A.D. and there are Christian Saints and early Church thinkers who espoused the ultimate reconciliation of all souls, or leaned heavily in that direction, and were never condemned by any Church council for their beliefs and teachings on the subject, so the notion that universalism was quashed in the early Church is nonsense.

A list of said saints and thinkers:

Theophilus of Antioch
St Clement of Alexandria
Origen of Alexandria
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Diodore of Tarsus
St Macrina the Younger
St Gregory of Nyssa
Eusebius of Caesarea
Didymus the Blind
Evagrius Ponticus
Theodoret of Cyrus
St Isaac the Syrian

 

[NeedImprovement]

Universalism was never formally condemned in 543 A.D. and there are Christian Saints and early Church thinkers who espoused the ultimate reconciliation of all souls, or leaned heavily in that direction, and were never condemned by any Church council for their beliefs and teachings on the subject, so the notion that universalism was quashed in the early Church is nonsense. . .

So . . .I guess that means we are given the choice whether to believe what you say - without any substantive proof (which incidentally, converges much more accurately towards the definition of “nonsense” than the definition of nonsense which you attempted to provide). . .

or to believe Father John Hardon, S.J. who acted, on the request of Pope John Paul II as a special consultant for the drafting of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , and who has ALL THE CREDENTIALS.

. That’s a fairly easy choice to make.

 

[NeedImprovement]

As Catholics , we should almost naturally find the concept of Universalism to be a foreign one ; and this, logically. Generally,those who believe in Universalism have already denied the doctrine of Purgatory and either do not have the benefit of the sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation or do not avail themselves of this sacrament. So they are left to try and construct for themselves another way to provide for God’s mercy, a provision which invariably comes out as a distortion - a distortion of both God, and of His Mercy.

The mildest condemnation of Universalism was that it was heterodox. But the more it rears its head today, the more it is now revealed as a heresy - and a dangerous heresy because on the surface it appears to speak in favour if mercy.

But not only Catholics. Father John Whiteford is the pastor of St. Jonah Orthodox Church in Spring, Texas. Here are several snippets from his article Is Universalism a Heresy ?

Question: “Is the teaching that ultimately all men will be saved (the apokatastasis) a heresy, or is it an acceptable theological opinion within the bounds of Orthodoxy?”

Origen taught the heretical doctrine of the apokatastasis, that ultimately everyone, even the devil, would be saved. The Church condemned this teaching at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The Church has ever taught this as a fact since that time. However, in recent times we have had a rebirth of this heresy, and have many who try to argue that the Fifth Ecumenical Council did not condemn this teaching.

. . . Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) devotes an entire chapter to this subject in his book "Life After Death (Chapter 8 The restoration of all things, pp. 273-312), affirms that this heresy was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and goes to great lengths to make the case that St. Gregory of Nyssa did not in fact teach it, but rather taught that hell (gehenna) and its punishments are unending, and that those who attribute this teaching to him are simply failing to understand them in the context of his complete teachings on the subject. If one rejects the argument that St. Gregory of Nyssa did not teach this doctrine, that would only prove St. Gregory to be in error, because Ecumenical Councils are infallible, whereas no Church Father, as an individual, is. However, it certainly is interesting that in the one instance in which, if he was a universalist, you would expect him to put that on display, St. Gregory of Nyssa not only does not affirm universalism in his treatise on the death of unbaptized infants, but directly refutes it when speaking of Judas as an example of one who died in his sins . . .

St. Justinian issued his anathemas against Origen before the Council, which he convoked, and the last of those anathemas is as follows:
“If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.”

The first of the Council’s anathemas states:
“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) which follows from it: let him be anathema.”

 

[NeedImprovement]

Now from a Catholic priest - Fr. Dwight Longenecker : Several short excerpts from an article posted by our friends over at catholic.org entitled Fr. Dwight Longenecker Addresses the Danger of Universalism

To go off on a tangent a little, we also have to understand the context of Jesus saying at the Last Supper. When he says ‘shed for many for the forgiveness of sins’ the emphasis is actually on his inclusiveness, not his exclusiveness. He is looking to ‘those other sheep’ of the Gentiles, and his word ‘many’ therefore means, “Many, many more than are here present who you apostles cannot imagine right now.” This is an opening up, not a narrowing down.

In any case, this is not the real problem. The quarrel over the words is just a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is that the modern Catholic Church is shot through with the heresy of universalism and semi-universalism.

What is universalism? The belief that “everyone will eventually be saved no matter what.” Semi-universalism is “we hope and believe that everyone will be saved no matter what.” In other words, semi- universalism is universalism for those who don’t have the guts to be universalists.

Universalism is a heresy because it is a half truth. Christ did die for all, but the universalist only holds on to that part of the truth. He denies the other half of the full truth, that not everyone will accept that grace and therefore some will go to hell.
It is a sentimentalist heresy because it is based not on clear thinking or logic or the authority of Church teaching or the catechism or the Sacred Scriptures, for there is no support anywhere for universalism in the Catholic faith. Instead it is based on people’s longing to be nice and ‘not hurt anyone’s feelings’ and the syrupy sentiment that, “God is too loving to send anyone to hell.”

The effects of universalism on the church are catastrophic. It’s not real hard to understand. People aren’t dumb. If everyone is going to be saved, then why bother to go to church? If everyone is going to be saved there is no such thing as mortal sin. If everyone is going to be saved there is no need for evangelism. If everyone is going to be saved there is no need to feed the hungry, become a priest, build the church and become a saint.

Of all the various Hydra heads of modernism, universalism is probably the most insidious and diabolical and destructive of them all. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s sweetness and light and sentimentality and underneath it’s poison.

 

[oyaji]

So . . .I guess that means we are given the choice whether to believe what you say - without any substantive proof (which incidentally, converges much more accurately towards the definition of “nonsense” than the definition of nonsense which you attempted to provide). . .

or to believe Father John Hardon, S.J. who acted, on the request of Pope John Paul II as a special consultant for the drafting of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , and who has ALL THE CREDENTIALS.

. That’s a fairly easy choice to make.

All I am saying is that the idea that eventually all souls will go to heaven (whatever that means) has never been condemned, it just hasn’t no matter how hard you want to believe it has. Now the RCC may have dogmatized a belief in eternal conscience torment, but the Eastern Churches have not.

Do you have a link to what Father Hardon has said about Universalism?

 

[eddie_too]

if hell were not eternal, do you really think Jesus would have left His sheep ignorant of that fact?

repeatedly Jesus speaks of eternal punishment. nowhere does Jesus speak of all human beings gaining eternal life.

 

[JohnR77]

Universalism was never formally condemned in 543 A.D. and there are Christian Saints and early Church thinkers who espoused the ultimate reconciliation of all souls, or leaned heavily in that direction, and were never condemned by any Church council for their beliefs and teachings on the subject, so the notion that universalism was quashed in the early Church is nonsense.

A list of said saints and thinkers:

Theophilus of Antioch
St Clement of Alexandria
Origen of Alexandria
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Diodore of Tarsus
St Macrina the Younger
St Gregory of Nyssa
Eusebius of Caesarea
Didymus the Blind
Evagrius Ponticus
Theodoret of Cyrus
St Isaac the Syrian

Hi,

I am looking to research this more.
Do you have the actual quotations ?
Thanks for whatever you can provide.
John
.

 

[thistle]

All I am saying is that the idea that eventually all souls will go to heaven (whatever that means) has never been condemned, it just hasn’t no matter how hard you want to believe it has. Now the RCC may have dogmatized a belief in eternal conscience torment, but the Eastern Churches have not.

Do you have a link to what Father Hardon has said about Universalism?

Modern Catholic Dictionary by Father John Hardon:

UNIVERSALISM, DOCTRINAL. The theory that hell is essentially a kind of purgatory in which sins are expiated, so that eventually everyone will be saved. Also called apokatastasis,** it was condemned by the church in A.D. 543, against the Origenists**, who claimed that “the punishment of devils and wicked men is temporary and will eventually cease, that is to say, that devils or the ungodly will be completely restored to their original state” (Denzinger 411).

 

[NeedImprovement]

Some of the transcripts from The Necessity of the Sacraments and the Error of apocatastasis & universalism , Dr. David Anders ,EWTN Radio

(Blue bolds : mine . ** bolds** - Dr. Anders own verbal emphasis)

"The idea that because Jesus died, our moral lives become insignificant as a result - that’s just a misunderstanding of the atonement as well as of the whole sacramental system. . .

Apocatastasis was actually condemned as a heresy in the early Church . . . which all Christians have rejected since late antiquity down to our own day. Where this comes from is a teaching that is very scriptural that God desires the salvation of all men . . . The theme that Paul always plays back and forth is the constriction of salvation , or the perception that it was constrained to the Jewish people. And then the great glory of the Gospel which is that the covenant people of God is now thrown open to the whole world , and it’s no longer just the physical children of Abraham who belong to that covenant people. But through faith in Christ all people- Jews and gentiles are invited into that fellowship.

So that the universal aspect that Paul has in view here is not that every rational soul without distinction , but every kind of person - Jew, gentile,slave,free,male,female has the promise of salvation thrown open to them through faith in Christ ; no longer just by keeping the Mosaic law. We know this is what Paul means: It’s very obvious because there are many other passages in St. Paul where he warns that the gift of salvation will not come if you reject the grace of God by living an immoral life.

So for example in Romans Chapter 2, we read that ‘to those who are self-seeking and reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger, trouble and distress’ for every human being who does evil - first for the Jew and then for the gentile , but glory, honor,peace and immortality for everyone who does good - first for the Jew and then for the gentile, for God does not show favoritism. So that’s really the context here that Paul is talking about - the universal extent both to Jew and gentile , but doesn’t excuse us from a life of virtue."

Dr. David Anders, PhD, is a convert to Catholicism and host of Called to Communion, a call-in radio show airing on EWTN Radio at 2:00 p.m. EST, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursdays.

 

[laylow]

Universalism was never formally condemned in 543 A.D. and there are Christian Saints and early Church thinkers who espoused the ultimate reconciliation of all souls, or leaned heavily in that direction, and were never condemned by any Church council for their beliefs and teachings on the subject, so the notion that universalism was quashed in the early Church is nonsense.

A list of said saints and thinkers:

Theophilus of Antioch
St Clement of Alexandria
Origen of Alexandria
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Diodore of Tarsus
St Macrina the Younger
St Gregory of Nyssa
Eusebius of Caesarea
Didymus the Blind
Evagrius Ponticus
Theodoret of Cyrus
St Isaac the Syrian

The Fifth Ecumenical Council did not occupy itself with the duration of the torments of hell. The Emperor Justinian (who for a while resembled Jonah, who was righteously angry because the wicked escaped punishment) presented his personal teaching to the Patriarch Menas in 543. The Patriarch used it to elaborate some arguments against neo-Origenism. Pope Vigilius confirmed them. By mistake, they have been attributed to the Fifth Ecumenical Council itself, but the teaching was only a personal opinion, and the contradictory teaching of St Gregory of Nyssa has never been condemned. The question remains open, the answer depending perhaps on human charity. St Anthony’s explanation is one of the most profound: apocatastasis, the salvation of all, is not a doctrine, but a prayer for the salvation of all except me, for whom alone hell exists. (Orthodoxy, p. 338)

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . Just wondering whether you might have the entire book - Orthodoxy ( by Paul Evdokimov) available laylow ?

I’d love to know what’s written on page 339 , but Google Books says page 339 is not part of the preview -

 

[NeedImprovement]

To all my Catholic brothers and sisters following this thread:

Please know that I have a lot of respect and love for the Orthodox Church and her members. Less than a month ago, I was invited to, and attended, a Wedding ceremony followed by a Baptism of the child of some Greek Orthodox friends of mine.

The priest celebrated both in the Greek and English languages, so I was able to understand all the prayers, which I found to be nothing less than awesome. The Orthodox faith is steeped in tradition and they have preserved much of the prayers in all their richness.

In my 20 plus years apostolate as a lay assistant to a Catholic chaplain in a large long-term and palliative care facility, I have also ministered to my Orthodox brothers and sisters ; and in all cases, there was never any question as to their belief in Christ.

But this a Catholic forum , and we have been putting up with several individuals’ efforts to present a heresy to us while simultaneously claiming it is not heresy as they then proceed to try and apply the stamp of the entire Orthodox Church to this heresy .

It’s time to point out, for the sake of other Catholics following this thread, the dangers of this error - and the kind of individual spiritual disasters believing it can lead to.

Basically, if we follow it’s logical path, we will discover that it goes against the law of the Church.

 

[NeedImprovement]

How about we start on the same page of the book which laylow posted in post #135 ?

Although Google Books doesn’t have the page following page 338 - p. 339 , they do provide us with the 2 paragraphs which directly precede the quote laylow provided. This comes from that same page 138 : (Funny how this part got left out -)

The general view of eternal torment is only a textbook opinion, simplistic theology (of the penitential sort) which neglects the depth of texts such as John 3.17 and 12.47. Can we really believe that, alongside the eternity of the kingdom of God, God has provided another eternity of hell ? Surely, this would amount to a failure in the divine plan, even a partial victory of evil? Now Paul in 1 Cor. 15.55, states quite the opposite. St Augustine did indeed oppose the more generous interpretations of the tender mercies of God, but that was out of concern to avoid libertinism and sentimentality; besides, fear would not only be useless in a peadagogical argument today, but would make Christianity dangerous like Islam. A healthy trembling before holy things keeps the world from becoming bland, but real fear is driven out by perfect love (1 John 4.18)

Perhaps we should say that hell is neither in eternity, nor in objectively measured time, but in subjective isolation, and is consequently ghostly and unreal, a form of subjective inexistence.

Measure those words carefully guys. Evdokimov is saying that “eternal torment is : just a textbook opinion, simplistic theology, a failure in the divine plan.”

Now compare that to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Hell (bolds mine):

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.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

More can be read on it here : Catechism of the Catholic Church ; Hell

 

[steve_b]

OK, I guess I haven’t piqued anyone’s interest. I would truly like to know if anyone (especially Catholics) believes in Hell in the way it is taught? I mean, let’s think about this. If anyone has experienced chronic pain, chronic illness, chronic insomnia, etc, they will truly understand how bad it really is. It pushes you to the brink, you just want it to stop. Imagining that being external is unfathomable. If you truly believed that, you would spend every second in paralyzing fear. It is especially bad when it is somewhat taught that the way is narrow and also the gate. So that would seem to indicate that few would make it.

I would argue that anyone who lives a remotely comfortable life would be out, no many how many “deeds” they do.

Thoughts? Let’s get the discussion going.

It’s not “somewhat taught”. It’s real

Jesus said (all emphasis mine)

**Matthew 7:13-14 , **

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,[a] that leads to destruction, ἀπώλεια, ] and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

**Luke 13:23-28 , **
23 And some one said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, 24 “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us.’ He will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ 26 Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!’ 28 There you will weep and gnash your teeth,"

Did Jesus correct the questioner for being wrong about only a few are saved? No. Jesus validated it.

He ought to know, since He is the one who will do all the judging.

One has to ask,

What does Jesus mean by “workers of iniquity”? ἀδικίας. ]

Here’s one example of iniquity, in God’s eyes.

Deliberately missing mass on Sunday. Look at the consequences for that action

#25