Is this teaching on hell OK or is it heresy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter noactionreaction
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Generally, the people who think Hell doesn’t exist or that no one is in it say that God wouldn’t allow people to go the Hell becasue that would be evil.

They see Hell as the greater evil.
Maybe it is my background in Protestantism, but most people I know who are against hell think that it is God punishing people for all eternity or that people are choosing to be tortured. The former comes more from resistance to Calvinist teachings on hell, not Catholic teachings on it, and the latter is a strawman.
 
Well… in point of fact it’s both.

It is both the choice of the person, and the result of God’s judgment. Once a person denies God’s mercy and chooses Hell, they suffer the full wrath of His Judgment, and the punishment due for their sins. That is what Hell is spoken of as punishment.

God’s mercy and His justice are intertwined, they are really the same thing. He is as merciful as He is just, and if we are not recipients of His mercy then we will be recipients of His justice… although His mercy is also just, and his justice is, in its own way, merciful…

It’s a very complex topic.
 
Last edited:
Please give the specific quote from the council saying this.
Good question – trying to find this myself. I did find this statement from the Second Council of Constantinople:
If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the γνῶσις and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema.
To be honest, however, the meaning of this passage is not entirely clear to me. Understood one way, it seems to me that it could be anathematizing anyone who believes in ALL of the statements spelled out in the sentence rather than any single one, based on the use of the word “and” rather than “or.” But I could very well be missing something.

For the record, my understanding is that apocatastasis is heretical, but I would also like to find an official statement by the Church to that effect.
 
We cannot agree on which is the greater evil (even though the Church and its philosophers have had a clear stance on this for centuries), and so we cannot agree on anything
I believe this part of the reason Christ gave us a Church and not just a Bible. He knew we would always be able to reach an agreement as individuals. Moreover, it really doesn’t change anything whether we all agree or not – either Hell is eternal or it isn’t; whether we accept that or not changes nothing.
 
It is placing anathema on the belief that we will be united with the Godhead in that we will lose our identities and be a literal part of God. Sort of like those people who think we become one with the universe. It also appears to be addressing the belief that there will be no resurrection of the body.
 
I agree with you. I was just outlining the problem is a (mostly) neutral way.
 
Right, except for the damned. Not sure how they reconcile that, but so long as I’M numbered among the elect, as they’re sure is true for themselves, then…I guess He’s just alright.
 
Last edited:
Now I’d rather live my life without the influence of ancient taboos and scare tactics.
So do Christians. We live ours under the influence of a loving God, who wishes us to have eternal life. 😉
 
Does anyone really believe someone would choose to be tortured forever?
If an angel can look right at God and reject Him to His face – the face of the Beatific Vision – and refuse to serve Him, we humans certainly can as well. You don’t think the angels knew the price of their defiance?
 
One must ask. Why is it fine for you to speculate that not everyone will be saved, but the priest is condemned for his speculation that they might? The teachings of the Church support neither of you definitively.
I’m glad you asked. This will help clear up the confusion you seem to be having, regarding this question.

There’s a subtle difference between “every person may be saved, on an individual basis” and “every person may be saved, universally.” The former speaks to an individual’s free will and the opportunity to make a personal choice, while the latter speaks to God’s will.

And, the Church has spoken on this definitively: the former is what the Church teaches, and the latter is what the Church rejects.

Hope that clears it up for you.
Yet, you seem absolutely sure you are right.
I am, because I understand the Church’s teaching on this matter.
Unless you’ve visited Hell, how could you possibly know if anyone is there?
Immaterial to the question. I hope you see that, now.
 
Once a person denies God’s mercy and chooses Hell, they suffer the full wrath of His Judgment, and the punishment due for their sins. That is what Hell is spoken of as punishment.
Except a lot of people don’t really have that perspective of hell, and I haven’t seen it come up much among Catholics. As far as I know, it is more Evangelical in nature. The more common thing I’ve heard is that the torment of it comes from the separation from God, from Whom all good things come, and in the absence of that good - health, love, joy, etc. - there can only be torment. There’s even the idea of hell being “locked on the inside”, in that God wants people to come be with Him, but even in the midst of the torment of hell, they still resist.
 
I’ve never heard that position from an Evangelical, but then, I haven’t had as many discussions with them as you.

That position is, to my understand, very Catholic. We know that Hell is a punishment, and we know that people chose it freely. In order for both things to be true, it kind of necessitates my argument.
 
This will help clear up the confusion you seem to be having, regarding this question.
The Old Colonel is experiencing no confusion on the matter. But he’s still awaiting a response not so lacking in substance. You do realize that you’re merely supporting your claims by making even more claims? 😎
 
Last edited:
I’ve never heard that position from an Evangelical, but then, I haven’t had as many discussions with them as you.
At least among the Evangelicals I was raised among, hell is basically entirely punishment.

And just to be clear, I’m taking punishment as being more a place of torture, not just torment. I guess there is the concept of punishment in Catholicism, but even that is chiefly the separation from God (CCC 1035).
 
The Old Colonel is experiencing no confusion on the matter.
Really, he is. Perhaps you might inform him of it. 😉
But he’s still awaiting a response not so lacking in substance.
Not quite sure I can help you, if you can’t see the distinction between “universalism” and “the hope of salvation for individuals”. 🤷‍♂️
You do realize that you’re merely supporting your claims by making more claims?
No. I’m pointing out the difference between two topics. If you feel that the two are identical, please explain why you believe that to be the case. The Church has clearly spoken on both notions, and as distinction notions, to boot. Are you asking for a citation to Church documents on salvation?
 
Separation from God is certainly the chief punishment of Hell, but there is also the fire, and the Saints seem to all agree that there are other, external torments from the environment, demons, and even other damned souls.

I do believe there is a long history in Catholic thought of the damned being tortured by the demonic souls, so that’s not just an Evangelical position. We just also believe that the soul is choosing to be damned, and wouldn’t revoke that choice even if given a chance. It’s not something we can really understand, but it is something we believe.
 
Indeed. Providing a citation or citations of the Church speaking definitively that any particular human or humans abide in Hell would certainly be of merit. That should be easy for one with so much understanding. Until then, this is how what you’ve said thus far appears to the Old Colonel. 😎

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
It seems that you’re being deliberatley obtuse on this.

We’ve already admitted that the Church has not definitively stated that anyone is in Hell, and holds out the hope of salvation for every individual person.

That is exceptionally different from the believe that all people will be save. It’s a matter of can vs will. All people can be saved, but not all people will. (Once again, refer to Jesus’ own words for that, as well as the revelations given to various saints).
 
Last edited:
Providing a citation or citations of the Church speaking definitively that any particular human or humans abide in Hell would certainly be of merit.
That is precisely not the issue in question, as @ProdglArchitect points out, as well.

If you want to keep chasing your tail on this one, be my guest. I prefer views that are more attractive. 😉
 
It seems that you’re being deliberatley obtuse on this.
Indeed. Please excuse my blatant and reckless obtusity. But tell me. What specifically in Catholic doctrine forbids one to hold an opinion or otherwise speculate that, in the end, God might very well save every last human being who ever lived?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top