Pope JPII and Hell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cruxis117
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cruxis117

Guest
A protestant friend of mine gave me these two links:

robertfulford.com//JohnPaul.html

ovrlnd.com/Cults/poprejectshell.html

Basically, the idea is that Blessed Pope John Paul II doesn’t believe in Hell, that’s what both articles are asserting. However, From what I’m reading, it does seem plain that Pope John Paul II isn’t syaing that at all, but is simply expressing what the pains of hell are. I know that he approved/authorized the CCC, which has this to say about hell:

CCC said:
1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” 612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. 613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. 614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” 615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!” 616

1035 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.” 617 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.
Click to expand...

From everything I’ve looked up, what the Blessed Pope is saying is orthodox with what the CCC is saying. I’m looking at this as an earlier case of “Papal Misquotation”, where the media will take something which is orthodox, but could be twisted to sound heterodox, and then does so for kicks and publicity. It’s this kind of false journalism that makes me sick, really. Check out the links, please, and tell me what you think about it.
 
He isn’t rejecting Hell, at all, in neither literal, metaphysical, nor spiritual sense. He’s just rejecting the belief, in past milenium, of a physical place called Hell. It isn’t deep in the earth as is poetically shown; nor is Heaven somewhere in the sky.

It’s as simple as that. The authors above are confusing “literal” with “physical.” Hell literally exists, but isn’t physical.
 
Gahenna was the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.

Everybody back then who heard Jesus speak knew … had first-hand knowledge … all about what a horrible place Gahenna was.
 
The_Scott said:
He isn’t rejecting Hell, at all, in neither literal, metaphysical, nor spiritual sense. He’s just rejecting the belief, in past milenium, of a physical place called Hell. It isn’t deep in the earth as is poetically shown; nor is Heaven somewhere in the sky.

It’s as simple as that. The authors above are confusing “literal” with “physical.” Hell literally exists, but isn’t physical.
Click to expand...
👍

My response is this: we’re talking about the pope who revived the ministry of exorcism, which hinges around the idea that evil is real, personal, and acts with a will… and the basic corollary to that understanding that demons and hell are VERY real as well. No one who doubted the existance of hell would revive such a ministry.
 
The_Scott said:
He isn’t rejecting Hell, at all, in neither literal, metaphysical, nor spiritual sense. He’s just rejecting the belief, in past milenium, of a physical place called Hell. It isn’t deep in the earth as is poetically shown; nor is Heaven somewhere in the sky.

It’s as simple as that. The authors above are confusing “literal” with “physical.” Hell literally exists, but isn’t physical.
Click to expand...
Just a quick comment.

At the resurrection of the body, at the end of the world, the soul depending on where it has been since the time of death of the body, is reunited to their resurrected body. Whatever that resurrected body is. If the soul was in heaven they return body and soul to heaven. If the soul was in hell they return to hell body and soul. Purgatory at that point ceases to exist. Those souls who are there at the end of time, are reunited to their bodies and go to heaven.

Right now, Jesus and Mary are in heaven with resurrected bodies. Whatever a resurrected body is like. But we know, Thomas put his fingers into Our Lord’s wounds. He still has those marks of the crucifixion, fully visible.
 
The_Scott said:
He isn’t rejecting Hell, at all, in neither literal, metaphysical, nor spiritual sense. He’s just rejecting the belief, in past milenium, of a physical place called Hell. It isn’t deep in the earth as is poetically shown; nor is Heaven somewhere in the sky.

It’s as simple as that. The authors above are confusing “literal” with “physical.” Hell literally exists, but isn’t physical.
Click to expand...
Amen, brother!🙂
 
John Paul II affirmed his belief in Hell in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope and in a series of speechs on the Last Things which you can find at ewtn.com. I remember reading in his biography how he said about Italian mafia gansters “Don’t you know you can go to hell for murder” or something to that effect. He also told the American bishops that they could go to hell for negligence, and mentioned hell in a speech in gave to the youth in America. But in his book A Sign of Contradiction, he says that perhaps there is a time after te Last Judgment at which the damned will eventually be saved; very sad
 
John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis #11: “… for the dignity that **each **human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of **both the grace of divine adoption **and the inner truth of humanity, a truth which – if in the common awareness of the modern world it has been given such fundamental importance…”

I hope somebody can explain to me how that isn’t heresy
 
aquinasg said:
John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis #11: “… for the dignity that **each **human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of **both the grace of divine adoption **and the inner truth of humanity, a truth which – if in the common awareness of the modern world it has been given such fundamental importance…”

I hope somebody can explain to me how that isn’t heresy
Click to expand...
Because it has nothing at all to do with Hell, Heaven, the Last Judgement, or anything pertaining to the afterlife. Instead, it talks about how Christendom must unite in order to show the world the unified message of Christ.

I’ll underline what you quoted, for reference.
All of us who are Christ’s followers must therefore meet and unite around him. This unity in the various fields of the life, tradition, structures and discipline of the individual Christian Churches and ecclesial Communities cannot be brought about without effective work aimed at getting to know each other and removing the obstacles blocking the way to perfect unity. However, we can and must immediately reach and display to the world our unity in proclaiming the mystery of Christ, in revealing the divine dimension and also the human dimension of the Redemption, and in struggling with unwearying perseverance for the dignity that each human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of both the grace of divine adoption and the inner truth of humanity, a truth which-if in the common awareness of the modern world it has been given such fundamental importance- for us is still clearer in the light of the reality that is Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis_en.html

Or are you specifically wondering about the “grace of divine adoption” expression, specifically? If so, that’s another topic altogether that deserves its own thread. I can’t help but notice that all your posts are something similar to “isn’t this heresy? how can the popes after VII do this?”…
 
The_Scott said:
Or are you specifically wondering about the “grace of divine adoption” expression, specifically? If so, that’s another topic altogether that deserves its own thread. I can’t help but notice that all your posts are something similar to “isn’t this heresy? how can the popes after VII do this?”…
Click to expand...
Yes, the “grace of divine adoption” seems to contradict Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11: “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred…”

Yes I bring these topics a lot because they have truly disturbed my peace
 
aquinasg said:
Yes, the “grace of divine adoption” seems to contradict Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11: “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred…”

Yes I bring these topics a lot because they have truly disturbed my peace
Click to expand...
I honestly see no contradiction; I see the exact same thing, actually. Either way, you can make another thread about this - don’t want to get away from the topic too much.

Also, regarding:
But in his book A Sign of Contradiction, he says that perhaps there is a time after te Last Judgment at which the damned will eventually be saved; very sad.
Click to expand...
Can you give a source?
 
Thank you for kind invitation. I am very interested in reading the interventions in your forum. At the moment I do’nt feel being sufficiently skilled in English. God bless you
Turbatus:)🙂
 
The_Scott said:
He isn’t rejecting Hell, at all, in neither literal, metaphysical, nor spiritual sense. He’s just rejecting the belief, in past milenium, of a physical place called Hell. It isn’t deep in the earth as is poetically shown; nor is Heaven somewhere in the sky.

It’s as simple as that. The authors above are confusing “literal” with “physical.” Hell literally exists, but isn’t physical.
Click to expand...
Does the Church teach Hell is not a physical place?
 
aquinasg said:
John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis #11: “… for the dignity that **each **human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of **both the grace of divine adoption **and the inner truth of humanity, a truth which – if in the common awareness of the modern world it has been given such fundamental importance…”

I hope somebody can explain to me how that isn’t heresy
Click to expand...
I may have found the answer to my question (again).

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum #25, May 15, 1891: "But, if Christian precepts prevail, the respective classes will not only be united in the bonds of friendship, but also in those of brotherly love. For they will understand and feel that all men are children of the same common Father, who is God; that all have alike the same last end, which is God Himself, who alone can make either men or angels absolutely and perfectly happy; that EACH AND ALL are redeemed and made sons of God, by Jesus Christ, “the first-born among many brethren”; that the blessings of nature and the gifts of grace belong to the whole human race in common, and that from none except the unworthy is withheld the inheritance of the kingdom of Heaven. “If sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and co-heirs with Christ.”

So he basically said that same thing, although they are both ambiguous (only the baptized have the “santifying grace of adoption”). JPII must have used the “grace” in a non-technical way, much like the word mercy. As I said in my thread on Leo XIII, words are not always used in the same way.
 
Traditionally, theologians have spoken of two distinct kinds of pain experienced by the damned, namely, the pain of loss, and the pain of sense.

The first kind of pain, the pain of loss, is that pain which is experienced when the hope of enjoying the beatific vision is lost forever. This is the greatest kind of pain that the damned will experience; for, instead of enjoying God’s everlasting friendship, they will, on the other hand, experience—through their own fault—everlasting enmity with God (because they freely chose to reject God’s offer of mercy and friendship). I believe that it is what Blessed Pope John Paul II is saying in the aforementioned quotes is that the primary pain of hell is the pain of loss, which pain is even greater than the pain of sense (important note concerning the English translation of Bl. Pope JPII’s statement: the common English translation of one of the Holy Father’s statements reads, “*Rather *than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God….” However, this is a poor translation of the original Italian; a better translation would be, “More than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God….” The original Italian is “Piu che"; “more than” is a better translation of “Piu che” than is the word “rather”). Thus, it seems that what Bl. JPII was saying was that hell is *more than *a place, for it is primarily a state (meaning that the *primary *pain of hell is not that which stems from it being a physical place but, rather, the primary pain of hell is that which is found in it being a state of separation from God).

But, there really is a second kind of pain in hell, namely, the pain of sense, which is a real pain, and it is this pain which often evokes the greatest reaction in us due to its sensitive nature (even though it is, in fact, a pain of a lesser kind and degree from the primary pain, the pain of loss). This pain of sense is just that—a pain of sense, something that the damned will feel (with their real, physical bodies). This pain results from the fact that hell is not only a state of being, but it is also a real, physical place. The fact that hell is a real, physical place (in addition to it being a state of being) logically follows from the fact that, as has been mentioned already on this thread, at the general resurrection all of the dead-- including the damned-- will receive their bodies back. Thus, the damned will receive their real, physical bodies, and will go to hell with those bodies. Seeing that bodies cannot but be located in a place, and that the place that these bodies will be is hell, it necessarily follows that hell is also a place. This is, thus, a theological conclusion which necessarily follows from what has been revealed in Divine Revelation. It is, thus, the view not of mere mythical, poetical fancies, but of the Church’s soundest theologians (including, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Universal Doctor of the Church, to mention one among many theologians who teach thus). Also, the Council of Lyons does say that those who die with sins on their souls go to a “place”.

The benefit of knowing of such pains is, of course, to motivate us to do all we can to avoid such pains by living according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

“Jesus Christ is Lord!” (Phil. 2:11)
 
I’m sure JPII believed in hell. It would be headline news in both Catholic and Protestant circles if he didn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top