Last Things: A Discussion on the Eternal State

[servus]

Jesus says in Hell there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.

Why don’t people believe Jesus?

No one disagrees with Jesus. In hell there will indeed be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The question is, how long will this go on.

Those who favor apocatastasis, believe (the soul being immortal) those in hell will eventually be restored.

I believe that the soul itself is mortal. There are no second chances after this life. Immortality comes when we accept Christ. We do not have immortality at all by ourselves. That is why even at the resurrection it will be needful that this “mortal put on immortality, and this corruption put on immortality” as Paul says.

 

[servus]

Ahimsa:
Beautiful post. However, one could interpret Basil’s position on the immortality of the soul either way. I love his illustration of a father and son. God’s love fro his children is love and joy to them. But God’s love to those who reject Him is as Hebrews says, "a consuming fire (ch. XII, 29)

servus

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Where in the Apocalypse after Jesus separates the evil from the good do we hear of him welcoming back the damned?

If Jesus was going to one day welcome back the damned or cease their punishment–why wouldn’t He have told us?

The scriptures say “Love does not demand its own way”.

If any person decides to Reject the greatest most Infinite amount of love that is beyond all comprehension

and Choose to Go to Hell

and Choose to reject that Infinite Love

If God truely is a Just God

How could He treat as of no consequence the Infinite Act of Love by Jesus by

Not Letting those people go to Hell and stay there

because that is what they truely wish
and to do any less would be like saying that Jesus’ death on the Cross

meant less than the Infinite Act of Love it was!

Always beware of the Finite minds of “so called” theolgians that try to minimize the Infiniteness of God or Jesus’ Act of Love on the Cross!

That may not be modern theology–it is what the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years!

 

[tdgesq]

But a perpetual sentence of punishment can be lifted by a judge (like how people are pardoned) And, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) says:

“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. Thus some argued from a false interpretation of I Peter 3:19 sq., that Christ freed several damned souls on the occasion of His descent into hell. Others were misled by untrustworthy stories into the belief that the prayers of Gregory the Great rescued the Emperor Trajan from hell. But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted.”

Since I can’t see the entire quote in context, I can only comment on what is here. But it appears to me that the author is coming to a conclusion that is the opposite of yours - that God does not liberate souls from hell. It seems that such a teaching would directly conflict with the Fourth Lateran Council. I know that those who hold to the apocatastasis doctrine are formally under anathema of the synod of Constantinople. I don’t know whether that was an ecumenical council or not though.

It also appears to me that the declaration “*n itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell . . .” from the old Catholic Encyclopedia is actually a statement from a person with which the CE disagrees; not a reference to a dogma of the Church. Again, I can’t say for sure without seeing the whole statement in context.

Furthermore the same article cites some contemporary (contemporary to 1912) “Catholics” who argued that some souls could be freed from Hell:

"Among Catholics

, Hirscher and Schell have recently expressed the opinion that those who do not die in the state of grace can still be converted after death if they are not too wicked and impenitent"

Apparently, this pre-Vatican II Catholic Encyclopedia considers these two gentleman still to be “Catholics” even though they express the opinion that some can be converted after death.

It is difficult for me to tell what Hirscher and Schell are saying here. But if they are saying something opposed to this statement from the same article, then they are gravely mistaken:

The constant teaching of the Catholic Church supports the idea that there are two classes: the saved and the damned. Three general councils of the Church (Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439) and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) have taught that everyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the eternal punishments of hell. This belief has perdured without question in the Catholic Church to this day, and is repeated almost verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC §1022, 1035). Several local councils in the Middle Ages, without apparently intending to define the point, state in passing that some have actually died in a state of sin and been punished by eternal damnation.

I would point out though that this is really more about whether someone outside of a state of grace goes to hell immediately, not whether the punishment of hell is eternal.

The great Jacques Maritain btw held to a form of the apocastastasis (natural happiness for those in hell):

. . . he contemplates the possibility that the damned, although eternally in hell, may be able at some point to escape from pain. In response to the prayers of the saints, he imagines, God may miraculously convert their wills, so that from hating Him they come to love Him. After being pardoned, they will then be delivered from the pain of sense and placed in a kind of limbo. They will still be technically in hell, since they will lack the beatific vision, but they will enjoy a kind of natural felicity, like that of infants who die without baptism.

Maritain is primarily a philosopher. With respect to some speculative theology he wrote down that was published after his death for which he admits he has no support - well - just not very convincing. Furthermore, he is stating that there are different levels of punishment in hell, and that God could move a soul to a lesser level of punishment; not that they will be liberated from the eternal punishment of hell.

It’s also not apparent what kind of condemnation of the doctrine the Holy Office gave. The Holy Office could have merely said for example that it cannot be “safely” taught – which would be a far cry from say heresy.

Whatever it was, it was obviously serious enough for him to publicly recant. None of this changes the fact that the punishment of hell is eternal as a matter of Catholic dogma.*

 

[cor]

Since I can’t see the entire quote in context, I can only comment on what is here.

Oops, sorry. I forgot to include the link:

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

You can now read to your heart’s content

But it appears to me that the author is coming to a conclusion that is the opposite of yours - that God does not liberate souls from hell.

That’s true, but he still maintains that “in itself” it is not a rejection of Catholic dogma, at least when it is under the rubric of “at times” “by way of exception”

It also appears to me that the declaration "n itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell . . ." from the old Catholic Encyclopedia is actually a statement from a person with which the CE disagrees; not a reference to a dogma of the Church. Again, I can’t say for sure without seeing the whole statement in context.

Read it in the link; it’s a statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

It is difficult for me to tell what Hirscher and Schell are saying here. But if they are saying something opposed to this statement from the same article, then they are gravely mistaken:

You can, again, read it in the link if you want.

Whatever it was, it was obviously serious enough for him to publicly recant. None of this changes the fact that the punishment of hell is eternal as a matter of Catholic dogma.

Please read the context to the statement in the link to your pleasure

 

[tdgesq]

Oops, sorry. I forgot to include the link:

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

You can now read to your heart’s content

LOL! You are right! It’s a mistake. I haven’t seen one before in New Advent. That first sentence is so discordant with the rest of the inquiry that I thought it must be out of context. It is a dogma of the Church that the punishment of hell is eternal, as you can see from this previous paragraph:

The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned. Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy.

Sorry man. I know you want it to be otherwise, but that’s the de fide teaching of the Church.

That’s true, but he still maintains that “in itself” it is not a rejection of Catholic dogma, at least when it is under the rubric of “at times” “by way of exception”
Read it in the link; it’s a statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
You can, again, read it in the link if you want.

Here’s the exact quote, and we will see next where the clerical mistake is:

In itself, it is a rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell. Thus some argued from a false interpretation of I Peter 3:19 sq., that Christ freed several damned souls on the occasion of His descent into hell. Others were misled by untrustworthy stories into the belief that the prayers of Gregory the Great rescued the Emperor Trajan from hell. But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted. If this be true, how can the Church pray in the Offertory of the Mass for the dead: “Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu” etc.? Many think the Church uses these words to designate purgatory. They can be explained more readily, however, if we take into consideration the peculiar spirit of the Church’s liturgy; sometimes she refers her prayers not to the time at which they are said, but to the time for which they are said. Thus the offertory in question is referred to the moment when the soul is about to leave the body, although it is actually said some time after that moment; and as if he were actually at the death-beds of the faithful, the priest implores God to preserve their souls from hell. But whichever explanation be preferred, this much remains certain, that in saying that offertory the Church intends to implore only those graces which the soul is still capable of receiving, namely, the grace of a happy death or the release from purgatory.

Notice that I replaced the word “no” with the word “a.” Now read the rest of the paragraph and you will see that it makes sense. I will contact New Advent and let them know of the mistake.

 

[Ahimsa]

LOL! You are right! It’s a mistake. I haven’t seen one before in New Advent. That first sentence is so discordant with the rest of the inquiry that I thought it must be out of context. It is a dogma of the Church that the punishment of hell is eternal, as you can see from this previous paragraph:

The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned

But if the Church cannot determine who is damned, then should She not pray for all?

 

[Ahimsa]

Here’s the exact quote, and we will see next where the clerical mistake is:

  	 				In itself, it is ***a***

I await with baited breath how New Advent responds. Having said that, you may be mistaken in your editing process. One could argue that the word “no” is the correct word, instead of “a”: (1) it is a fact that past Christians did interpret certain scripture and other texts, to mean that some individuals did escape hell; (2) and the Encyclopedia admits that these sorts of interpretations occurred; (3) so, clearly, the people who did these interpretations were still seen as Christians, and not as heretics; but (4) contemporary, present-day theologians have decided that these interpretations are not valid; and therefore (5) present-day Christians should not engage in such interpretations.

Thus, one could argue that, true, it is not inherently contradictory to Christian thought to suppose a few people in hell eventually escaped eternity in hell, via God’s Grace; but theologians have now disproved that interpretation, so contemporary Catholics have no business believing in such stories.

 

[tdgesq]

Possibly. We’ll see what they say. But if your interpretation is correct then you have successfully demolished your own argument. If it’s really to say that early Christians couldn’t be called heretics because there was no clear teaching on the point, but now there is, then how could it not now be heresy? Perhaps more to the point, why have you latched on to one ambiguous sentence when in the same article it states this:

Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy.

The teachings of various theologians don’t make this dogma, the Fourth Lateran Council and the constant teaching of the Church do. The punishment of hell is eternal, and to say that it is possibly otherwise is heresy.

To answer your other question, the Church prays for all souls other than those who are damned. The fact that it can’t know the state of any individual soul does not change this.

 

[Ahimsa]

Possibly. We’ll see what they say. But if your interpretation is correct then you have successfully demolished your own argument. If it’s really to say that early Christians couldn’t be called heretics because there was no clear teaching on the point, but now there is, then how could it not now be heresy?

I agree that something might be heresy now, that was not heresy at some earlier point in time.

Perhaps more to the point, why have you latched on to one ambiguous sentence when in the same article it states this:

Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy.

According to current Church teaching, one may – without heresy – hope for the salvation of all.

To answer your other question, the Church prays for all souls other than those who are damned. The fact that it can’t know the state of any individual soul does not change this.

Do you know the exact phrasing of this particular prayer? It would seem to me that if you don’t know who precisely is damned, then the fair thing to do would be to simply pray for all.

 

[tdgesq]

I agree that something might be heresy now, that was not heresy at some earlier point in time.

I believe you are correct. It would probably be classified as an error in theology and not formal heresy. Nonetheless, it was not then and is not now in accordance with the Divine law. And it doesn’t change the fact that it now is heresy to call into doubt the possibility that the pains of hell are not eternal.

According to current Church teaching, one may – without heresy – hope for the salvation of all.

True enough. Check out my post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2156338&postcount=2

Do you know the exact phrasing of this particular prayer? It would seem to me that if you don’t know who precisely is damned, then the fair thing to do would be to simply pray for all.

It is not uncommon in my parish to pray for the souls in purgatory during the petition period. But to answer your question, I don’t know of any prayer that explicitly excludes souls that may be in hell. That we don’t know if any particular soul is in hell does not in any way change the fact that we have no reason to believe that our prayers for them will be efficacious. So why would a prayer for “all souls” include them?

The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned.

New Advent again. I realize that you wish you had evidence that the Church does pray for the damned in order to give your argument traction that hell does not equal eternal punishment. But it just isn’t what the Church teaches.

 

[Ahimsa]

That we don’t know if any particular soul is in hell does not in any way change the fact that we have no reason to believe that our prayers for them will be efficacious. So why would a prayer for “all souls” include them?

I’m no expert on Orthodox prayer, but the Orthodox apparently do pray for “all souls”, even the ones in inferno:

Enlightened by the illumination of the Most High, Saint Macarius heard a voice from a pagan skull: “When you pray for those suffering in Hell, there is relief for the heathen.” O wonderful power of Christian prayer, by which even the infernal regions are illumined! Both believers and unbelievers receive comfort when we cry for the whole world: ALLELUIA.

I don’t see where this prayer necessarily contradicts Catholic sentiments.

 

[tdgesq]

I’m no expert on Orthodox prayer, but the Orthodox apparently do pray for “all souls”, even the ones in inferno:

I don’t see where this prayer necessarily contradicts Catholic sentiments.

I don’t know. I’m not EO, I’m RC. I would suggest asking over on the Eastern Christianity forum.