T
thinkandmull
Guest
Disembodied souls can be in “place” and feel intense heat. Also, Jesus said that sinners would be beaten.
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
I believe its metaphorical. The* absence of God *will make hell a place of pure torment. In fact, in “Jesus of Nazareth” Pope Benedict said that God is Heaven. I think we could just as we’ll describe hell as a place of sheer, cold, selfishness and pride: no place for God, no place for love, no way to obtain the satisfaction one keeps trying to obtain apart from the true Source of it.Hello, that’s my first post on this forum. Glad to be able to write with you all.
In this thread I’d like to consider the notion of hellfire. I know there have been like plenty threads on that. In all of them the majority of users claimed that hellfire is a metaphore for the psychological torments of the damned. I, too, did (because now I don’t know if still do) consider it in the same manner, i.e., resulting from the mere knowledge of losing God forever (although still distinct from ‘poena damni’, the pain of loss).
I read a bit on the topic, and although in many, especially ‘traditionalist’ Catholic places I saw statements on the fire of Hell being material, I also found information that – being a minority opinion of the theologians – it is still possible to interpret Hell fire metaphorically, as did, for instance, Ambrosius Catharinus, a 16th century Dominican. He might have been considered controversial, but was apparently never criticised for that particular view. So I held to my private opinion – I think that it is shared by many Catholics, among them JP2 and B16 – until recently.
Because recently I found out that certain theologians, while admitting that the material Hellfire is not de fide, said that to deny this view would be ‘harsh’ and even constitute a mortal sin. Elsewhere I also found a passage in which the author mentioned the reply of Sacred Penitentiary from the 19th century, where a priest was said to reprimend his penitent, who interpretted the fire of Hell metaphorically, under pain of denying absolution. Moreover, Cardinal Gasparri had this to say on that matter:
He mentions the opinion of the Penitentiary I referred to above.
So, given all those opinions, what are we to make of hellfire? My guess is that, like, 80% of modern Catholics do not believe in literal, material fire of Hell. Or perhaps we might ignore the Penitentiary as it was not dogmatic but disciplinary? If so, would the theological censures (‘rashness’) no longer be valid?
For the sake of argument let’s say that I do not side with either opinion right now. I just wonder what a Catholic must believe about the topic in question, having taken into consideration all the facts mentioned.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Jesus mentions a beating from without. Not internal torture. Perhaps it is temporary though, and the internal not
O
otjm
Guest
Heat is a physical property. disembodied souls have no physical property, so cannot feel heat. It is an oxymoron.
T
Telstar
Guest
If you’re talking about the parable of the lord of the house and his servants, it’s not meant to be a literal story. It’s a story that teaches a moral truth, but it uses figurative language to convey that moral truth, like fairy tales teach children basic moral concepts. The ‘beating’ represents the punishment of the evil servant, but is not necessarily an actual physical ‘beating’ as we would understand it. Jesus used parables because it was an easy way to get a point across to simple people that were less educated, or less familiar with complicated spiritual concepts.
T
tdgesq
Guest
The bodies of both the just and the damned will be resurrected. So it is at least possible that post-resurrection bodily pain could be experienced.
Y
yohji
Guest
I’ve always interpreted it as metaphorical. The Bible was written for finite beings. We have limited comprehension, especially in ancient times. Perhaps the most extreme pain imaginable at that time was burning flesh and that’s why it was used to illustrate the anguish of Hell. God inflicting eternal physical anguish seems a bit juvenile to be honest. There’s a difference between writhing in flames for all eternity and being separated from God, thus experiencing the most extreme emotional and spiritual anguish possible. The first scenario sounds like a horror film and the latter sounds more in tune with a spiritual consequence. The “burning lake of fire” sounds more like a threat and the spiritual separation sounds more like 2+2=4 reality (you reject God, you’re separated from God and that’s going to hurt). I’m not sure if I’m quite making sense and I know there’s no definitive answer from the Church, so it’s all a guessing game. I’m just trying to approach the issue logically.
Also, I thought that one of the perks of Heaven was no decay. If those in Hell are burning forever, in a physical sense, that means their bodies are incapable of dying or even going into shock (which is eventually what would happen when one is burning for an extended period of time). So God preserves the bodies of sinners just to experience physical pain forever??? That really, really sounds bizarre and unlike a loving God.
Also, I thought that one of the perks of Heaven was no decay. If those in Hell are burning forever, in a physical sense, that means their bodies are incapable of dying or even going into shock (which is eventually what would happen when one is burning for an extended period of time). So God preserves the bodies of sinners just to experience physical pain forever??? That really, really sounds bizarre and unlike a loving God.
O
otjm
Guest
You are trying to fit the issue (hellfire) to your concepts. I would suggest reading the accounts of the Risen Lord to get some idea of what a resurrected body is sub eject to - it would appear, from a careful reading that the answer is “Not much”.
The resurrected body seems not constrained by time/space locations; as there is at least an implication that Christ appeared to the two disciples on the road toe Emmaus while appearing elsewhere; He passed into locked rooms without opening the doors - you get the drift. The body was the same (Come, put your hands into My side) and yet it was not the same, and there is no evidence that a body which no longer comports to the rules of the physical world would suddenly be bound by them - as fire is a physical world issue.
furthermore, you are missing the point of what happens before the resurrection? None of the passages on hellfire indicate that it won’t start until the resurrection, indicating that it
is something which causes its effect in the spiritual world, not the material one.
Nice try, though. I wondered who would bring that up.
O
otjm
Guest
You are making sense.I’ve always interpreted it as metaphorical. The Bible was written for finite beings. We have limited comprehension, especially in ancient times. Perhaps the most extreme pain imaginable at that time was burning flesh and that’s why it was used to illustrate the anguish of Hell. God inflicting eternal physical anguish seems a bit juvenile to be honest. There’s a difference between writhing in flames for all eternity and being separated from God, thus experiencing the most extreme emotional and spiritual anguish possible. The first scenario sounds like a horror film and the latter sounds more in tune with a spiritual consequence. The “burning lake of fire” sounds more like a threat and the spiritual separation sounds more like 2+2=4 reality (you reject God, you’re separated from God and that’s going to hurt). I’m not sure if I’m quite making sense and I know there’s no definitive answer from the Church, so it’s all a guessing game. I’m just trying to approach the issue logically.
Also, I thought that one of the perks of Heaven was no decay. If those in Hell are burning forever, in a physical sense, that means their bodies are incapable of dying or even going into shock (which is eventually what would happen when one is burning for an extended period of time). So God preserves the bodies of sinners just to experience physical pain forever??? That really, really sounds bizarre and unlike a loving God.
As to a loving God, We also need to keep in mind a just God. I am not sure I would use the word “anguish”. One of the most powerful emotions is anger; and the experience I have with people who are totally beyond the pale is that they are (basically) perpetually angry. It take so much psychological energy; it is so destructive - not only to others but also to self - that anguish seems to not fit. Anger seeks to repel the “other”, but it in turn isolates the “self”. It is the constant turning inward, only to find nothingness there.
Perhaps you see the word “anguish” as meaning something else, but I see it as a recognition of a wrong choice and a desire that it could be changed; to me, hell is a constant sense of rejection that the choices were wrong; a rejection of the “right” choice.
T
Telstar
Guest
Well, I hate to throw a monkey into your wrench, but what you are describing is Jesus after the Resurrection. His Body is not only resurrected, it’s Glorified. It’s infused with the Light of God. The bodies of the Saints are also, glorified, but to a much lesser degree as St. Paul alludes to.
"1 Corinthians 15: [40] And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial. [41] One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory."But, the bodies of the damned will not be glorified. I tend to think they will be much more like normal bodies, but more twisted to reflect the state of their souls. Their bodies will probably not have the same properties as the Saints, or Jesus. So, I’m not so sure they would be impervious to physical suffering.
This is very true. But, the indication is that there will be some kind of pain involved, which could be more intellectual or spiritual, such as a spiritual ‘burning’ caused by separation from God. But, can you say for sure that God couldn’t create a fire that could burn a soul? Remember the burning bush? There is a possibility that the fire is only metaphorical, but we can’t really know for sure.
O
otjm
Guest
We don’t know what bodies will be like after the resurrection, only that they will not be mortal bodies.
But that all misses the point. If hellfire is to be a burning of a body, then what happens before the resurrection? Where are they and what are they subject to? If the damned are in hell, they are there in their soul, which is spiritual, not physical. Therefore, fire as we understand it doesn’t make sense, unless it is a metaphor or an allegory to explain that they will be subject to excruciating pain. and that pain will not be physical as there is no body to experience it.
My posts are not intended to say or imply that there is no pain; only that the pain is boing to be a spiritual pain of such intensity that the best way to describe it is in what we as humans know to be one of the most, if not the most painful experiences - being physically burned.
The problem is that we are stuck with the images of our childhood, and that is physical fire. We can’t seem to move on to anything else.
T
Telstar
Guest
Maybe you didn’t notice, but my last paragraph was about what you said concerning hell, before the resurrection of the body. I agree that it might be just the burning pain caused by their separation from God, or it may be a spiritual form of fire that burns the soul. Many Saints and other holy souls have had visions of Hell, most of them include both kinds of ‘burning fire’.
S
steve_b
Guest
I think there are way toooooooo many references to the"fire of hell" to be a metaphoreHello, that’s my first post on this forum
In this thread I’d like to consider the notion of hellfire. I know there have been like plenty threads on that. In all of them the majority of users claimed that hellfire is a metaphore for the psychological torments of the damned. I, too, did (because now I don’t know if still do) consider it in the same manner, i.e., resulting from the mere knowledge of losing God forever (although still distinct from ‘poena damni’, the pain of loss).
I read a bit on the topic, and although in many, especially ‘traditionalist’ Catholic places I saw statements on the fire of Hell being material, I also found information that – being a minority opinion of the theologians – it is still possible to interpret Hell fire metaphorically, as did, for instance, Ambrosius Catharinus, a 16th century Dominican. He might have been considered controversial, but was apparently never criticised for that particular view. So I held to my private opinion – I think that it is shared by many Catholics, among them JP2 and B16 – until recently.
Because recently I found out that certain theologians, while admitting that the material Hellfire is not de fide, said that to deny this view would be ‘harsh’ and even constitute a mortal sin. Elsewhere I also found a passage in which the author mentioned the reply of Sacred Penitentiary from the 19th century, where a priest was said to reprimend his penitent, who interpretted the fire of Hell metaphorically, under pain of denying absolution. Moreover, Cardinal Gasparri had this to say on that matter:
He mentions the opinion of the Penitentiary I referred to above.
So, given all those opinions, what are we to make of hellfire? My guess is that, like, 80% of modern Catholics do not believe in literal, material fire of Hell. Or perhaps we might ignore the Penitentiary as it was not dogmatic but disciplinary? If so, would the theological censures (‘rashness’) no longer be valid?
For the sake of argument let’s say that I do not side with either opinion right now. I just wonder what a Catholic must believe about the topic in question, having taken into consideration all the facts mentioned.
- and whoever says, “You fool!” shall be liable to the hell of fire. (Matt. 5:21-22)
- If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:43-48; see also Matt. 5:29-30; 18:8-9)
- “The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell” (Jas. 3:6).
- The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. (Matt. 13:42)
- Then he will say to those at his left hand, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”. . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Matt. 25:31-46)
- John the Baptist described the eternity of hell as “unquenchable fire” (Luke 3:17).
- “undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7).
- Lk 16: 22. The rich man also died and was buried; 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz′arus in his bosom. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz′arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’
None of that looks like metaphore to me. But that’s just me thinking outloud
T
tdgesq
Guest
Not really. I think it’s unlikely that the “fire” referred to in connection with hell is literal fire - ie. a combination of oxygen and combustible material heated to ignition.
The resurrected bodies of the just display the characteristic of subtility (spiritualized nature), not the bodies of the unjust. Aquinas affirms that the bodies of the just will be impassible (incapable of experiencing suffering), while the bodies of the damned will be capable of experiencing suffering. Summa.
Well, it is true that nothing in Scripture indicates that any poena sensus would begin post-resurrection, but it doesn’t exclude that possibility either. I admit that it seems odd that human beings after the resurrection would suffer differently than the fallen angels.
You’ll have to say “nice try” to Aquinas then, as well as Augustine for that matter. Historically the majority of western theologians have held that there will be pain of the senses for the damned. New Advent. I don’t necessarily agree, but I can’t simply ignore the arguments.
All of this is theological speculation. To answer the OP, we can interpret the fire of hell metaphorically in the sense that it does not refer to physical pain. There is even more consensus that hellfire is not ordinary fire, but some other type of fire. The Church hasn’t given a definitive teaching on these matters.
- Status