? - nonbelievers in heaven

[Maria3m]

Last night, we had our first adult class on “Catholicism 101”. It actually went better than RCIA last year because the people there actually participated! Questions were flying at the instructor one after another. No one sat quiet looking shy.

Basically, the instructor (the parish DRE) was explaining that baptism isn’t necessary to get into heaven. (Someone had asked about children who died before receiving this Sacrament.) Our instructor said many will be suprised when they reach heaven because when they look to their right there will be a Buddist & a __________. meanig others who weren’t baptised.

I wanted clarification and said something like “Yes, because through no fault of their own they weren’t taught about Jesus, but lived their life good. However, a Buddist who sat down with someone and discussed Christ or read and studied, but then rejected Christ is different.” Well, he said no because it’s not the persons fault how they were taught first.

I’m still confused about that. Classmates made the example that hell could be empty for all we know because we don’t know Judas or Hilter or anyone is there. OK. No, I don’t know if at the last moment they asked for forgiveness directly to God.

However, how about someone who had a GREAT teacher…the Pope for instance, but still rejected Christ?

There’s no reason to ever become Catholic specifically, but Christian at all.

Totally confused.
Can anyone help?

ETA: I believe in “trust in the mercy of God” when it comes to unbaptized children or adults who never were taught about Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your teacher was certainly overstating his case. We don’t know who God will save. He told us that the road is wide that leads to hell, and we ought to take that quite seriously. Certainly many “Christians” run the risk of hellfire; perhaps many non-Christians will enjoy beatitude.

As for the “taught by the Pope” angle, I tend to agree. If a virtuous and sincere confrontation with Truth is refused, it seems that salvation is refused as well. Still, if we are to be quite honest, how many really holy men and women are there to give such solid teaching? A thousand? A hundred? Ten?

There’s no reason to ever become Catholic specifically, but Christian at all.

What?!?

The teaching of the Church is TRUE. Just because you don’t HAVE to believe something to be saved doesn’t mean you should ignore the truth! We will experience more joy in this life and in the life to come if we acknowledge the truth than if we resist it.

Loving God is *not *a means to an end. We ought to love Him, even if we had no hope of heaven.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Last night, we had our first adult class on “Catholicism 101”. It actually went better than RCIA last year because the people there actually participated! Questions were flying at the instructor one after another. No one sat quiet looking shy.

Basically, the instructor (the parish DRE) was explaining that baptism isn’t necessary to get into heaven. (Someone had asked about children who died before receiving this Sacrament.) Our instructor said many will be suprised when they reach heaven because when they look to their right there will be a Buddist & a __________. meanig others who weren’t baptised.

I wanted clarification and said something like “Yes, because through no fault of their own they weren’t taught about Jesus, but lived their life good. However, a Buddist who sat down with someone and discussed Christ or read and studied, but then rejected Christ is different.” Well, he said no because it’s not the persons fault how they were taught first.

I’m still confused about that. Classmates made the example that hell could be empty for all we know because we don’t know Judas or Hilter or anyone is there. OK. No, I don’t know if at the last moment they asked for forgiveness directly to God.

However, how about someone who had a GREAT teacher…the Pope for instance, but still rejected Christ?

There’s no reason to ever become Catholic specifically, but Christian at all.

Totally confused.
Can anyone help?

ETA: I believe in “trust in the mercy of God” when it comes to unbaptized children or adults who never were taught about Christ.

Two of these are easy.

1. Yes, Hell could be empty for all we know.
2. We don’t know what happens to children who die before Baptism.

You are correct about someone having the opportunity to hear the Gospel and believe in Christ but chooses to reject Him. This is different from someone who has been raised in a culture that rejects Christ and because their culture rejects Christ they reject Him. They did not personally reject Christ in a sense but did so because of cultural conditioning, therefore there is a possibility that they could be saved. Note I did not say they were saved by their ignorance but could be.

 

[asteroid]

Here’s a Pope. I came across this this morning when looking for something else:

In article 16 of his Apostolic Letter Fidei Depositum of 11 October 1992, Pope John Paul II declared: “The Catholic Church teaches that through the graces Jesus won for humanity by sacrificing himself on the cross, salvation is possible even for those outside the visible boundaries of the Church. Christians and even non-Christians, if in life they respond positively to the grace and truth that God reveals to them through the mercy of Christ may be saved.”

I won’t comment on that. But will say that there are still lots of good reasons to be Catholic even if there is a possibility for a non-Christian to receive salvation through Christ’s mercy.

That word possibility is important. So Br. Rich used it and John Paul II used possible. Possible, not certain. And only possible if they respond to the grace & truth that God reveals to them.

Oops, stop commenting Asteroid. You said you wouldn’t.

 

[RyanL]

Two of these are easy.

1. Yes, Hell could be empty for all we know.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. Lucifer is in Hell, and this is a revealed Truth; therefore, Hell can’t be empty, strictly speaking.

But are there any humans in Hell?
Jesus the Christ:

Luke 12:23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”

He said to them, 24 "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many**, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.**

25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ "But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’

Jesus says that “many” will go to Hell, and I believe Him. How many is “many”? Two? Possibly. Zero? No.

We’re Catholics - we’re not “Universalists”.

Recommended reading: “The Reality of Hell.”

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. Lucifer is in Hell, and this is a revealed Truth; therefore, Hell can’t be empty, strictly speaking.

You got me I meant humans. There are several statements in Denzinger that say that no one is able to say specifically if any person (human) is in Hell.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If being Catholic–or ‘other’ Christian, is not ‘that important’ to salvation, then why pray tell did Jesus tell His disciples to go and preach the good news to all the world?

Yes, I agree that for those who, through no fault of their own, were never able to hear the word of God, salvation is possible.

BUT I certainly would not agree that the actual word of God–the actual gospel, good news of Jesus Christ–is not key to salvation in the NORMATIVE way.

He is the way, the truth, and the life, and nobody comes to the Father except through Him. Surely that good news is a keystone to salvation in the NORMATIVE way; and certainly IMO there should be a far greater emphasis on what NORMATIVE teaching is, and what the IDEAL is–the spread of the gospel–rather than attempting to shift the focus as some do to presenting the RARE case as though IT were the normative.

Again, IMO many things which are being taught to and discussed by Catholics (and nonCatholics) today suffer from precisely this flaw–the idea that because we trust that in a ‘worst case’ scenario of never learning about Christ that someone ‘might’ achieve salvation due to God’s mercy, this AUTOMATICALLY translates into "because someone might achieve salvation due to God’s mercy, this ‘worst case’ scenario is perfectly good, ok, and normal for ANYBODY, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, and there is thus no such thing as a ‘best case’ scenario because this would imply that we Catholics are attempting to lock people OUT of salvation unless they conform PRECISELY to our rigid system where we flat out state that OUR religion is ‘better than’ someone else’s religion, etc.

God save us.

 

[Maria3m]

Prodigal_Son: I just wanted to comment that I wrote "There’s no reason to ever become Catholic specifically, but Christian at all. because it seems like what is the point of trying to explain Christ to others if, in the end, it doesn’t matter.

It feels like a politcally correct way…try not to force or bother anyone because they will get to heaven. I understand completely your comments about experiencing joy by acknowledging truth.
Always saying we don’t know who is in hell seems to have turned into a nice PC attitutude.

Bro. Rich, thank you. I believe your wording “cultural conditioning” is basically what the instructor was trying to get across to me. The person can’t help how they were raised.

Something still doesn’t seem right about a person who learns about the truth, but rejects it. They aren’t acting on the grace & truth (in my mind).

Maybe it’s that attitude like my family member has when she tells me she does good things & knows she going to heaven. Derserves it. To me, there’s more to it. She doesn’t know Christ. She’s mad at God, but goes to church each Sunday with my family after much gentle persuasion from me. (OK, I can see how she is acting on God’s grace & hearing the truth.)

My thoughts last night were exactly in line with what Tantum ergo wrote. Scripture jumped in my mind (the exact scripture Tantum mentioned!) I looked at my key chain, and on it is the scripture I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE…John 14:6

Well, at least I know that the instructor wasn’t teaching something out in left field. I’m very uneasy about it, but now I have a better understanding of what he was attempting to say.

Thank you.

 

[RyanL]

You got me I meant humans. There are several statements in Denzinger that say that no one is able to say specifically if any person (human) is in Hell.

I wasn’t trying to sharp-shoot you - I was simply trying to state that Hell is definitely not empty.

Also…would you please check the Denzinger sources to see if they state that no one is able to say “if any person is in Hell” or “if any particular person is in Hell”? Do you see what I’m asking? My suspicion is that what the sources state is simply that we can’t canonize the damned like we canonize Saints and not that we are free to claim Hell is empty.

I’m pretty sure it’s heresy (an post-baptismal denial of revealed Truth or obstinant doubt regarding same) to believe that Hell does not have any human persons in it. From the Catechism:

“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” (CCC 1035).

To believe that Hell is empty seems to necessitate a belief that either (1) there’s no such thing as mortal sin, even avowed atheism, (2) everyone repents with sufficient contrition prior to earthly death, or (3) God simply doesn’t care about sin. (1) and (3) would be an explicit denial of revealed truth, and (2) just seems too silly to be believed – I just don’t see any way around it. Moreover, if no one goes to Hell then so many of Christ’s words become utterly empty. If you have another suggestion to this apparently heresy-only dilema, I’m all ears.

That said, I think there are two errors we’re likely to fall into when thinking about the damned. The first is to believe that too few people go there – this is the error of Universalism, and contains the heresies listed above. The second error is to believe that too many people go there – this is the error of those who insist on the rigorist interpretation of EENS, proclaiming that no one can go to Heaven unless formally members of the Catholic Church. I think this is why when Jesus was asked, “How many will be saved,” He simply responded by saying, “Strive to enter the narrow gate.” Simply put, it’s not our concern – our concern is to know, love and serve God.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Sir_Knight]

1. Yes, Hell could be empty for all we know.

A number of saints supposedly saw visions of hell and they stated that they saw human souls falling into hell and being tortured in hell.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I wasn’t trying to sharp-shoot you - I was simply trying to state that Hell is definitely not empty.

Also…would you please check the Denzinger sources to see if they state that no one is able to say “if any person is in Hell” or “if any particular person is in Hell”? Do you see what I’m asking? My suspicion is that what the sources state is simply that we can’t canonize the damned like we canonize Saints and not that we are free to claim Hell is empty.

I’m pretty sure it’s heresy (an post-baptismal denial of revealed Truth or obstinant doubt regarding same) to believe that Hell does not have any human persons in it. From the Catechism:
To believe that Hell is empty seems to necessitate a belief that either (1) there’s no such thing as mortal sin, even avowed atheism, (2) everyone repents with sufficient contrition prior to earthly death, or (3) God simply doesn’t care about sin. (1) and (3) would be an explicit denial of revealed truth, and (2) just seems too silly to be believed – I just don’t see any way around it. Moreover, if no one goes to Hell then so many of Christ’s words become utterly empty. If you have another suggestion to this apparently heresy-only dilema, I’m all ears.

That said, I think there are two errors we’re likely to fall into when thinking about the damned. The first is to believe that too few people go there – this is the error of Universalism, and contains the heresies listed above. The second error is to believe that too many people go there – this is the error of those who insist on the rigorist interpretation of EENS, proclaiming that no one can go to Heaven unless formally members of the Catholic Church. I think this is why when Jesus was asked, “How many will be saved,” He simply responded by saying, “Strive to enter the narrow gate.” Simply put, it’s not our concern – our concern is to know, love and serve God.

God Bless,
RyanL

It’s my wording again. I was trying to say we cannot say that any specific person is in Hell.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

A number of saints supposedly saw visions of hell and they stated that they saw human souls falling into hell and being tortured in hell.

Yes, but they are private revelations, not part of the Deposit of Faith. But something to think about personally.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. Lucifer is in Hell, and this is a revealed Truth; therefore, Hell can’t be empty, strictly speaking.

But are there any humans in Hell?

Jesus says that “many” will go to Hell, and I believe Him. How many is “many”? Two? Possibly. Zero? No.

We’re Catholics - we’re not “Universalists”.

Recommended reading: “The Reality of Hell.”

God Bless,
RyanL

---

I believe in what our Lord Jesus Christ said.

 

[Maria3m]

I believe in what our Lord Jesus Christ said.

You have a gift of brevity I see. As you may have noticed from my posts…I don’t. I have to talk things out to understand.

Would you mind expanding a little more on your comment?
Is it that you agree w/ the article Ryan posted?
I do.

I’d benefit from reading your (or anyone else’s) thoughts.

Thank you!

 

[Caldera]

What is truth? (As Pontius Pilate once asked Jesus according to the Gospels…)
I really don’t know myself. It takes faith to believe these things, and as the Church says, faith is a gift from God.

Really?

Why would the God who created the universe, and who is said to love everyone unconditionally, give this so-called “gift” to random people at random times in ones life? Why? Some people continue to sin horrifically (according to what is said to be sinful), while others who have this new gift of faith get to preach to those sinners in the name of God. (Who themselves will continue to sin in one way or another until the day they die!)

What is the purpose of the mystery of it all?

Why would God create the world to work in this way while risking people he claims to love fall away by not helping them too? (When he could have “saved/called” them like any other who he chose?)

Not everyone is going to be a Priest or Preacher of the word to help others. It takes God to raise people up to get away from “sin” and start preaching to others to change them from the way they were brought up by the influences in this modern world! So why does God “DELAY” (if you will) the process while SO MANY PEOPLE are in risk of condemnation according to the Gospel message IF it’s actually true!!

I can’t help believe certain things… I mean, I can’t help believe that this world was created to be this way.
Somehow i CAN believe that this world is a created world, but i don’t believe the creation stories. (Too many problems)

To me it’s like a game or something. You start off with a new character that you need to build from the ground up (birth), and if you’re lucky enough to discover the truth of how the game actually works, (if God “wills” it) then you’re on the right track for winning (if you can do it) …otherwise it’s “game over”?

How does it make sense? It doesn’t to me…

The issue is with the foundation of it all that starts with Genesis.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes, but they are private revelations, not part of the Deposit of Faith. But something to think about personally.

What about Jesus saying that many will be lost and only a few will be saved? Was that a reference to those that would go to hell?

(the above is a QUESTION and NOT a counter-arguement)

 

[RyanL]

What about Jesus saying that many will be lost and only a few will be saved? Was that a reference to those that would go to hell?

(the above is a QUESTION and NOT a counter-arguement)

Ok – now that I know what Bro. Rich is saying, I’m in 100% agreement.

What he’s saying is that if a Saint had a vision of Hitler or perhaps Judas in Hell, it’s a private revelation and the rest of the Catholics in the world do not need to believe it. From the Catechism:

**67 **Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

So that whether a particular individual, like Hitler or Judas, is in Hell will not be definitively known by us on earth is all that’s being said (because Private Revelation is not the same as General Revelation) . Many will be lost and few will be saved, to be sure – but we have now idea what “many” or “few” means in this context and it’s not very helpful to speculate.

Again, all Bro. Rich is saying is that we can’t name any of the souls in Hell, not that they’re not there. Make sense?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[rr1213]

Unfortunately, there will be plenty of people in hell. Jesus said…I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the father except through me. The way is narrow. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. Many will say Lord, Lord, but I will not know them…paraphrases, I don’t have the Scriptures in front of me. Of course, anything is possible for God…but God has already revealed to us that many will not be with him in paradise come the day of judgment.

 

[Walking_Home]

You have a gift of brevity I see. As you may have noticed from my posts…I don’t. I have to talk things out to understand.

Would you mind expanding a little more on your comment?
Is it that you agree w/ the article Ryan posted?
I do.

I’d benefit from reading your (or anyone else’s) thoughts.

Thank you!

---

Yes — it was in reference to RyanL’s post. I do believe in our Lords words. We are at a pt. where we have expanded to a limit the Truths entrusted to the Church. What happens outside the Church–truth be told----we don’t know. The Church says some outside “MAY” be saved thru our Lord Jesus and His Church. This “MAY” has been taken by many and turn into “YES” ---- where Hell will be close to empty.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

What about Jesus saying that many will be lost and only a few will be saved? Was that a reference to those that would go to hell?

(the above is a QUESTION and NOT a counter-arguement)

Yes, but we will not know who or how many until the end of time. Something again to really think about.