Hell

[RobedWithLight]

FelixBlue:

I reject the doctrine of hell for the following reasons:

1. Full culpability requires full knowledge. But here, even though the crime is technically against the Infinite/Eternal God, man does not have full knowledge of God. At best, man’s knowledge is abstract. Following the idea of Cardinal Newman, our knowledge of the infinitude of God is notional…abstract. At anyrate, I could quote any number of Church Fathers on the fact that our knowledge of God is incomplete (Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Thomas, etc.).

Thus a simple sylogism:

Full culpability requires full knowledge.
Man does not have full knowledge.
Therefore, man is not fully culpable.

Ergo, no hell.

.

The argument is invalid since it** confuses** full knowledge of the sin with full knowledge of God, which are not the same. One can have full knowledge of Sin and hence full culpability on our part because our reason permits us to understand these things. Full knowledge of the sin simply means that you are very well aware what you do is evil, both in the moral and legal sense, and yet despite this, you still willingly committed it, without any remorse on your part. That indeed, is full culpability.

A mass murderer who, despite knowing that what he does is abominable, still gleefully slaughters people for the fun of it certainly is a prime candidate for hell. Even secular authorities usually punish these people with execution, or life imprisonment with hard labor depending on the prevailing laws, which are usually human society’s equivalent of hell, simply because there is nothing else heavier human society could do with such hopelessly recalcitrant and evil individuals.

If you are a Christian and sincerely believes in God because Holy Scripture says so, there is really no need for a rational or logical understanding of **what really God is in Himself, the true nature or God. **Scripture itself simply asks us to believe and be faithful, and be wary of the consequences of sin.

Gerry

 

[Riley259]

A prominent but dissident priest in the archdiocese of Boston recently was interviewed recently by The Boston Globe and stated that he did not believe in in the existence of Hell. As a result of this statement, the archdiocesion newpaper, The Pilot, had to reiterate the Church’s teaching on Hell by printing the Pope’s discourse on the topic of Hell from his general audience in Rome in July 1999. If you can get a copy of that talk, it explains everything a faithful Catholic needs to know about Hell.

 

[Oren]

ok, i really wanted to read this whole thread before i posted but its really long, its late, and i need to say some stuff before i forget em lol. sorry if ive repeated anything.

One thing I think thats going wrong here is that some posts aren’t really adressing the main point (i may do the same however, tho i hope not heh). I do have some experience in the whole, I could never be Christian because I don’t believe in Hell position (that was a while ago of course, as I am now Christian). The first way I got over it was that I put my faith in Jesus Christ, and in the Church, both of which know waaaaaaaaay better than me! I know this has been put forth as an argument, and I think it is the best. However, the other way i ‘got over it’ was through a lot of reading, thinking etc, over a long period of time, all the time keeping my faith with Christ and the Church. It is not a good way to figure something out to start out rejecting it I have to tell you. Although you seem to say you did do this for 12 years. I guess I’ll just have to take your word for that one.

Ok on to some of my points here. Here is a quote from you Felix, ‘God is Heaven.’ Now I have done some reading and it is quite interesting on this particular point. What I read (which was by an Eastern Orthodox writer so I’m not really clear on how valid it is or could be) is that Hell is this: The person is in ‘Heaven’, but the presence of God acts as a fire to this person, thus his experience of heaven is in fact hell because of the persons lack of love etc. The writer explained that the fire of God on a ‘righteous’ person is experienced as love, as joy etc, the fire of God on a ‘sinner’ is experienced as something terrible. The fire is the same, but the people experience it differently. Again I don’t know how in line this is with Church teaching, though it is an interesting idea. And if it isn’t in line, someone can tell me, and why, thanks.

Another point, is that after we die we go into eternity. Its kind of like how the angels couldn’t change their mind after they decided against God. We get a mercy from God in that we can change our minds as long as we live. But when we die we are outside of time and into eternity, and so we CAN’T CHANGE (at least not radically as per purgatory). That is someone elses argument I heard.

Yet another point is this: I think you are thinking of the whole thing wrongly. You’re assuming that God isn’t working on the person as much as He can during that person’s life. But you need to think or meditate more deeply on providence. It is an AWESOME thing to think about. God’s providence works on the person in every conceivable way in order to save them, God wills everyone saved! You’re assuming that they could have yet another chance ie after death to choose God, but God doesn’t see it that way. Maybe He gives an infinte amount of chances to the person (although we may just see it that we only get like 50, God sees that it is the most the person deserves and/or will respond to), in other words ALL THE CHANCES. Im not saying that is how it is exactly, I’m just saying that maybe you could think of it more in that way, as in positively, God is giving all the chances, not, well God doesn’t give us enough.

Another thing a lot of people think is well, God just shouldn’t have made that person since He knew the person would go to hell. Again its wrongheaded. God is Love. And God Loves that soul despite it, and God Loves soooooo much and so fiercely that He would create the soul even though it would go to Hell. It’s hard to see it God’s way, but if even I can understand it in a limited way, I think everyone else can too. It’s like loving your enemy. We can’t really understand it, if someone kills your baby, how could you love them? But God says, even though you would kill yourself (choose hell) or lead another to hell (killing them), who are My babies, I still love you.

 

[Oren]

cont…

I for one do think that most people go to Hell, because of what a lot of Saints have said. I wish it wouldn’t happen, but they know more than I do, and I trust that. As for your whole thing about how most people don’t act enough like there is a Hell, well all I can say to that is ‘duh!’, and it shouldn’t be that way. But again, there isn’t a whole lot we can do, at least actively, its all up to the person. And to say that it isn’t promulagated enough is to take personal responsibility away from people who can go and learn it for themselves. It’s all out there for em. And if I, a person who was raised as nothing, and hated Christianity for years, can respond to Grace and learn about it, then anyone else could as well. Again you’re thinking as if God isn’t giving out Grace to people left and right, which He is! The thing is, God can’t ‘make’ the person change anymore than we can! God made us so that we are completely free to love Him or not, otherwise it would not be love, which is against what God is. So it’s just the nature of the beast if you will, that to create beings such as Himself, God must make us with Free Will, thus we are Free not to choose Him. Your argument that we just aren’t given enough knowledge or chances etc, is again thinking lowly of God in my opinion. That is a bad assumption to make, not only because you are debasing God in a sense but also because it just isn’t true.
Another thing is you’re going off the assumption that you can somehow deny an eternal hell which you can’t and still be a true Christian which you also cannot do, and if you were honest you’d see that. I think you are just looking for loop holes or something…and you should see how weak of a position that is.

The last thing I would stress here is for you to meditate deeply about God’s Providence. Obviously you need to take a hard look at your obedience to the Church and the reasons for that, and in your state as a Christian. But I think meditating on God’s Providence would help a lot with your general mistaken world view and maybe get at the root of your problem. Maybe. It has helped me immensely.

Sorry if my argument was all over the place, or just not very good, but this is what I think, and its all I got heh. Hope it helps in some small way at least.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello FelixBlue,

I have compassion for your struggling with this question. I have been struggling with related questions regarding free will and predestination. Romans 9:18-22 speaks of the mystery of grace.

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans9.htm

I think sometimes when we ask these questions we think we may be the first ones struggling with this. I imagine that many times before, the faithful have struggled with these questions. These are difficult questions and the fact that you have arrived at these questions does not mean it’s time to leave Catholicism. Much to the contrary, the fact that you have arrived at these questions may very well be your advancement by God’s grace. The struggle for the answer to these questions may lead you to a more advanced understanding of your relationship with God.

I think you will find this helpful:
newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

**Excerpts from the article: **

For the malice of men cannot compel God to prolong the appointed time of probation and to grant them again and again, without end, the power of deciding their lot for eternity…

In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.

I imagine the above statement might surprise you! I think you’ll find the article interesting.

May God Bless You
Greg

 

[The_Augustinian]

I’m not going to go over the Greek issue, because I have no knowledge of Greek. But, if I remember correctly, Jesus used the same word for eternal punishment (where the worm "dieth not, nor the fire is not quenched.") for eternal life. How’s that for parallelism? Unless you claim that the inspired author to be using aionios as one meaning when speaking of Heaven, and another meaning when speaking of Hell, then unless you can somehow cough up a basis for that you have no linguistic leg to stand on. I suggest you consult someone more knowledgeable of the Bible and the original languages, like Fr. John Echert of EWTN.

As for the anathema regarding usury, you should read official church documents (which I unfortunately do not have on hand) or this paper written by a priest for his Master’s Degree:

geocities.com/frcoulter/usury/

As for the other anathemas regarding Honorius, certainly you agree that the heresy he supported was an error, correct? I do believe he was acting unofficially, since he was teaching error through private letters and not a public proclamation.

Infallibility does not only apply to the Pope, but also the Magisterium, especially when they are working through an Ecumenical Council. If you think that neither Pope nor Council is infallible, then you are seriously removing yourself from any kind of orthodox position. If you think Councils are not guided by the Holy Sprit, then you are in danger.

As for Luther, the Tridentine anathemas on Justification have not changed. We have not changed any of our sorteriology. Perhaps we are coming to a better understanding of Luther’s theology, but the beliefs concerning Justification are still condemned. Even in the Joint Catholic-Lutheran declaration, the Tridentine anathemas were not considered as erroneous by the Church. The wording of the declaration itself was vague enough for both Catholics and Lutherans to generally share major points on Justification.

I’ll pick up the gauntlet and state that the Catholic Church has always taught an eternal Hell, and that through the sensus fidelium, various Papal pronouncements, and the words of the Second Council of Constantinople as well as the plain words of Holy Scripture have unequivocally condemned the apokatastasis, and that anyone who does not follow the teaching of the Church is a heretic.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[The_Augustinian]

From the Constantinople II:

IX. 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 (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[Greg_McPherran]

From the Constantinople II:
Quote:
IX. 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 (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

 

[Apologia100]

I am wondering when people are going to figure out that this whole thread is a troll. I figured that out early last week.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Greg: Even if this were true, the exception proves the rule.

Apologia: Perhaps this thread is a troll. I’m not sure if it is. FelixBlue sounds sincere enough. However, even if it was, it’s an interesting way to ponder the reasons why eternal punishment is necessary.

The Augustinian

 

[Monarchy]

I can honestly say that the concept of hell is one of the big things that keeps me away from christianity. Infinite torture is not loving.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

The Augustinian:

Greg: Even if this were true, the exception proves the rule.

Yes. I was contrasting this to the Constantinople II anathema and was wondering if that anathema was infallible. Was it?

On my other posts you will see that I seek to understand the nature and operation of infallibility.

 

[fix]

**

For the malice of men cannot compel

God to prolong the appointed time of probation and to grant them again and again, without end, the power of deciding their lot for eternity…**

In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.

I imagine the above statement might surprise you! I think you’ll find the article interesting.
Taken out of context. No souls will ever be let out of the hell of the damned. Never. To believe this would be manifest heresy.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

fix:

Taken out of context. No souls will ever be let out of the hell of the damned. Never. To believe this would be manifest heresy.
Hello,

Thank you for the response.

This was a direct quote taken from the Catholic Encycolpedia and I included the link so that people could see the context for themselves. New Advent is accepted by the most orthodox as reliable.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

How could it be heretical if the statement itself says: **“it is no rejection of Catholic dogma”. **Isn’t that the whole point of the statement, that in fact **it is not heretical? **

It is not me who wrote this statement. However, since it is there I do seek to understand what it is saying and what the purpose of the statement is. What is the point of that statement in the Catholic Encycolpedia?

I agree that the article shows that nonetheless the unanimous agreement among theologians is that no soul is ever freed from hell and this should be accepted. That’s why I find this confusing because the statement itself seems to leave a door open especially if the Church has not pronounced it infallibly.

I also ask, if the Church has pronounced the eternity of hell infallibly (e.g. the anathema in Constantinople II), then why would the Catholic Encyclopedia say it is no recjection of Catholic Dogma to suppose otherwise? I find this confusing and I seek an explanation.

Thank You,
Greg

 

[ncgolf]

Monarchy:

I can honestly say that the concept of hell is one of the big things that keeps me away from christianity. Infinite torture is not loving.

Here is a snippet from a Peter Kreeft passage on the problem of evil,
"The worst aspect of the problem of evil is eternal evil, hell. Does hell not contradict a loving and omnipotent God? No, for hell is the consequence of free will. We freely choose hell for ourselves; God does not cast anyone into hell against his will. If a creature is really free to say yes or no to the Creator’s offer of love and spiritual marriage, then it must be possible for the creature to say no. And that is what hell is, essentially. Free will, in turn, was created out of God’s love. Therefore hell is a result of God’s love. Everything is.

No sane person wants hell to exist. No sane person wants evil to exist. But hell is just evil eternalized. If there is evil and if there is eternity, there can be hell. If it is intellectually dishonest to disbelieve in evil just because it is shocking and uncomfortable, it is the same with hell. Reality has hard corners, surprises, and terrible dangers in it. We desperately need a true road map, not nice feelings, if we are to get home. It is true, as people often say, that “hell just feels unreal, impossible.” Yes. So does Auschwitz. So does Calvary. "

Something to chew on.

 

[fix]

Greg_McPherran:
Hello,

Thank you for the response.

This was a direct quote taken from the Catholic Encycolpedia and I included the link so that people could see the context for themselves. New Advent is accepted by the most orthodox as reliable.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

How could it be heretical if the statement itself says: **“it is no rejection of Catholic dogma”. **Isn’t that the whole point of the statement, that in fact **it is not heretical? **

It is not me who wrote this statement, I myself was surprised by it. However, since it is there I do seek to understand what it is saying and what the purpose of the statement is. What is the point of that statement in the Catholic Encycolpedia?

I agree that the article shows that nonetheless the unanimous agreement among theologians is that no soul is ever freed from hell and this should be accepted. That’s why I find this confusing because the statement itself seems to leave a door open especially if the Church has not pronounced it infallibly.

I also ask, if the Church has pronounced the eternity of hell infallibly (e.g. the anathema in Constantinople II), then why would the Catholic Encyclopedia say it is no recjection of Catholic Dogma to suppose otherwise? I find this confusing and I seek an explanation.

Thank You,
GregI do not think that site is a magisterial document. I can’t claim to understand the contradiction. I do know hell is for eternity. No one escapes.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello,

The best insight I have so far, I received from the Catholic Encyclopedia article. God cannot wait for an eternity for us to repent and therefore must draw the line somewhere. Also, I think that God could see whether someone would ever repent for all eternity. He can close the door knowing that they would never repent even if given eternity to do so, so He just settles the issue.

This explanation for the eternity of hell does make sense to me. My real questions would now refer back to our culpability, free will, original sin, and grace. So perhaps FelixBlue could now understand that the eternity of hell is less of a mystery than free will and predestination.

Why God predestines some to heaven is indeed mysterious and in fact theological questions and doubts related to predestination are apparently not resolved:

newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

The Thomistic School is distinguished from other schools of theology chiefly by its doctrines on the difficult questions relating to [God’s (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) action on the free will of man, God’s foreknowledge, grace, and predestination. In the articles on these subjects will be found an exposition of the different theories advanced by the different schools in their effort to explain these mysteries, for such they are in reality. As to the value of these theories the following points should be borne in mind:

• **No theory has as yet been proposed which avoids all difficulties and solves all doubts; **

I think that St. Paul indicates this mystery in Romans 9:18-20:

Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.You will say to me then, “Why (then) does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?” But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker,“Why have you created me so?”

Greg

 

[Monarchy]

ncgolf:

Here is a snippet from a Peter Kreeft passage on the problem of evil,
"The worst aspect of the problem of evil is eternal evil, hell. Does hell not contradict a loving and omnipotent God? No, for hell is the consequence of free will. We freely choose hell for ourselves; God does not cast anyone into hell against his will. If a creature is really free to say yes or no to the Creator’s offer of love and spiritual marriage, then it must be possible for the creature to say no. And that is what hell is, essentially. Free will, in turn, was created out of God’s love. Therefore hell is a result of God’s love. Everything is.

No sane person wants hell to exist. No sane person wants evil to exist. But hell is just evil eternalized. If there is evil and if there is eternity, there can be hell. If it is intellectually dishonest to disbelieve in evil just because it is shocking and uncomfortable, it is the same with hell. Reality has hard corners, surprises, and terrible dangers in it. We desperately need a true road map, not nice feelings, if we are to get home. It is true, as people often say, that “hell just feels unreal, impossible.” Yes. So does Auschwitz. So does Calvary. "

Something to chew on.

God could have just made it so people who don’t go to heaven cease to exist. I in no way choose hell. I have been shown absoulutly NO evidence for the existance of god, and have been told simply to have faith. I cannot believe in something simply because I have to.

 

[FelixBlue]

RobedWithLight:

The argument is invalid since it** confuses** full knowledge of the sin with full knowledge of God, which are not the same. One can have full knowledge of Sin and hence full culpability on our part because our reason permits us to understand these things. Full knowledge of the sin simply means that you are very well aware what you do is evil, both in the moral and legal sense, and yet despite this, you still willingly committed it, without any remorse on your part. That indeed, is full culpability.

A mass murderer who, despite knowing that what he does is abominable, still gleefully slaughters people for the fun of it certainly is a prime candidate for hell. Even secular authorities usually punish these people with execution, or life imprisonment with hard labor depending on the prevailing laws, which are usually human society’s equivalent of hell, simply because there is nothing else heavier human society could do with such hopelessly recalcitrant and evil individuals.

If you are a Christian and sincerely believes in God because Holy Scripture says so, there is really no need for a rational or logical understanding of **what really God is in Himself, the true nature or God. **Scripture itself simply asks us to believe and be faithful, and be wary of the consequences of sin.

Gerry

You seem to separate the sin from what it has to do with God. To a certain extent I agree: one can know and understand that the sin is wrong without the implication that he knows he is sinning fully and with full knowledge against the infinite God. Thus, your reasoning seems to support what I’m arguing: while our knowledge of the sin may be complete, or even relatively complete, our knowledge of God is not. Thus we are culpable and should be “punished” but not in a irremediable way.

Your example of the mass murderer doesn’t fly simply because capital punishment is (on the eternal scale of things) temporal, whereas hell is final, eternal.

I agree with you about the need to not know who God is in himself, etc. He is fundamentally mystery. As Thomas says, we only know him by analogies or by the via negativa.

 

[FelixBlue]

Riley259:

A prominent but dissident priest in the archdiocese of Boston recently was interviewed recently by The Boston Globe and stated that he did not believe in in the existence of Hell. As a result of this statement, the archdiocesion newpaper, The Pilot, had to reiterate the Church’s teaching on Hell by printing the Pope’s discourse on the topic of Hell from his general audience in Rome in July 1999. If you can get a copy of that talk, it explains everything a faithful Catholic needs to know about Hell.

Do you have a link or know where I could get a copy?

Thanks.