Proper views on hell

[Contarini]

From the catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I, Articles VII and XI:

*Again, as the just and the wicked performed their good and evil actions in this life not without the cooperation of the body, it necessarily follows that these actions belong also to the body as to their instrument. It was, therefore, altogether suitable that the body should share with the soul the due rewards of eternal glory or punishment. But this can only be accomplished by means of a general resurrection and of a general judgment. *

*The wicked, too, shall rise with all their members, even with those lost through their own fault. The greater the number of members which they shall have, the greater will be their torments; and therefore this restoration of members will serve to increase not their happiness but their sorrow and misery; for merit or demerit is ascribed not to the members, but to the person to whose body they are united. To those, therefore, who shall have done penance, they shall be restored as sources of reward; and to those who shall have contemned it, as instruments of punishment. *

OK, but this puts it in a somewhat different context, because the point is that people sinned through their bodies. Or to put it in a different way, we are body/soul unities. The whole person sins, the whole person repents, the whole person reaps the consequences of their choices. The Catechism does not say that God could have mercifully chosen to allow people to remain disembodied but chose not to because He wanted them to suffer more.

Still, this is an official document (not, I think, dogma, but certainly a summary of the ordinary teaching of the Church as expressed and formulated up to that point, just as the present CCC is) and does give more weight to the “restoration of members” view than I had been giving it. Thanks for the correction! (I bought that catechism a year ago and should read it more thoroughly.)

Edwin

 

[JMatthewA]

what do you guys think.

on the one hand, we shouldn’t pretend that hell doesn’t exist. on the other, is it really necessary to focus excessively on it? we have nothing to fear if we abide in Christ

If I didn’t know about hell and mortal sin cutting off salvation I’d never want to go to confession. I think hell needs to be talked about because why would a person admit their sins to a priest without need? It’s embarrassing. People who don’t believe in hell could think ‘Why not masturbate, and have premarital sex if God has already forgiven me of any future sins?’ The most effective reason I can think of that a regular spiritually lazy Catholic would be motivated by in our present culture is fear of hell. If there is only sorrow for offending God and not a fear of hell then why would the Catholic choose to confess to a priest instead of to God directly? I think sometimes they’d just confess directly instead (not in addition).

 

[Contarini]

If I didn’t know about hell and mortal sin cutting off salvation I’d never want to go to confession. I think hell needs to be talked about because why would a person admit their sins to a priest without need? It’s embarrassing. People who don’t believe in hell could think ‘Why not masturbate, and have premarital sex if God has already forgiven me of any future sins?’ The most effective reason I can think of that a regular spiritually lazy Catholic would be motivated by in our present culture is fear of hell. If there is only sorrow for offending God and not a fear of hell then why would the Catholic choose to confess to a priest instead of to God directly? I think sometimes they’d just confess directly instead (not in addition).

The problem here, as I see it, is that you’re acting as if the “fear of hell” is something added to the inherent consequences of sin. But hell simply is the consequence of grave sin unrepentant of. And to imagine a world in which sin doesn’t have consequences is to imagine something totally monstrous and incoherent. (The people who appear to believe this, are in my opinion, confused and really don’t believe that certain acts are sins. As soon as you confront them with something they really think is wrong, they have no problem saying that these actions have consequences, though they may not want to use the word “sin” because of their prejudice against the traditional Christian way of talking about sin)

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

The view that “we know for sure that there will be people in hell but we don’t know who they will be.” The authors I mentioned disagree with that–they do not think that we can be certain that there will be human beings in hell, although they believe that hell is a real possibility.

Staying with the quote, and the premise, would you then surmise the authors you mention come to the conclusion that we know for sure that there will not be people in hell?
or do you think the problematical part of the sentence is "know for sure"and everything else is left alone?

Here’s where I’m coming from

Jesus told us hell exists, and He even gave an example of one in hell Luke 16:21-23 … ] who is clearly tormented. I also add the following to the discussion. 633 as I do the following passages

Matthew 25:31-46 don’t miss the last line

Matthew 7:13
C:

If I’m not mistaken, you hold to the view above. Certainly your following remark implies that:
"When Jesus said Matthew 7:13 I think he ought to know. "

Again, how do you interpret that passage in light of the other passages presented?

Jesus didn’t stop being God just because He took on human nature. He’s savior & judge. Jesus tells us this reality. Otherwise we couldn’t make this stuff up and have it carry any weight… I’m thinking, why does Jesus even say it this way or even mention it, if people either aren’t in hell, or won’t be going to hell?
C:

So you do you believe that more will be damned than will be saved? If you don’t think the passage necessarily means that, then I don’t see how it says anything at all about whether anyone will finally be damned. (I suppose there is the view that Jesus was talking about the people in His immediate context–first-century Jews who heard His message and were smug in their chosenness.)

Edwin

I don’t see those passages being a warning for only Jesus time, nor have an expiration date to them. As for ratio of saved vs damned, that’s for God to decide. And God is telling us in advance,

13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easyd] that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[steve_b]

“633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.”

I didn’t say that Jesus went to “hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation”, I have said before and I say again that Jesus went to everyone’s hell by taking everyone’s sin/sins upon Himself and by doing this “won” the “keys” and will use these “keys” in due time, God’s Time.

Just because Jesus went to the “abode of the dead” and did what He did, does not mean that that is the only thing that was happeing concerning God-Incarnate’s “work” on the cross.

Re: #633 from the CCC, I brought that up because there are people who are mistaken about what Jesus did when He descended to hell. That’s all I meant by refering to it…

 

[Contarini]

Staying with the quote, and the premise, would you then surmise the authors you mention come to the conclusion that we know for sure that there will not be people in hell?

Of course not.

To repeat what I thought I had already made clear:
It is clearly not orthodox to say that you know everyone will be saved.
It clearly is orthodox to say not only that some will be saved, but that certain specific people (the saints) already are.
It appears from recent Catholic teaching that it is unorthodox, or at least presumptuous, to say of any specific dead person that you know they are in hell.

What remains uncertain is whether it is orthodox to say that it is possible that hell will be empty. A number of theologians whose general orthodoxy seems to be acknowledged (i.e., they not only are not open dissenters but seem to value orthodoxy and tradition highly, and are for the most part highly regarded by those who value orthodoxy and tradition) have suggested this possibility. They have not been condemned by the Magisterium. Hence, it appears to be an open possibility, although that could change either way.
Yes

Here’s where I’m coming from

Jesus told us hell exists, and He even gave an example of one in hell

A character in a parable. You would be better off arguing from Judas.The two strongest arguments in your favor, in fact, are Jesus’ words about Judas and the saying about the broad and narrow ways. But both of these prove too much–that is to say, if taken “literally” they prove things that Catholics seem generally to acknowledge we don’t know for sure (that a specific person is damned and that more people will be damned than saved).

I also add the following to the discussion. 633

Contradicts nothing I’m saying.

Matthew 25:31-46 don’t miss the last line

Again, this is a parable. There are stronger examples which aren’t clearly in a parable. But all this language, whether in a parable or not, is conditional: those who fulfill X conditions will be damned. One may charitably hope that no one will fulfill those conditions. I will not argue with you if you say that this is an unreasonable and unlikely hope. But I do not concede that it is heretical.

Matthew 7:13

Again, how do you interpret that passage in light of the other passages presented?

I answered you already: as a warning against complacency.

Jesus didn’t stop being God just because He took on human nature. He’s savior & judge. Jesus tells us this reality. Otherwise we couldn’t make this stuff up and have it carry any weight… I’m thinking, why does Jesus even say it this way or even mention it, if people either aren’t in hell, or won’t be going to hell?

So that they won’t. Jesus’ humanity and divinity are not somehow in competition, nor are the capacities of savior and judge.

I don’t see those passages being a warning for only Jesus time, nor have an expiration date to them.

Nor do I. The primary context, though, is those who prided themselves on being the chosen people and may have thought that on that basis admission to “the world to come” would be pretty easy for them, while it would probably be harder for those less favored (as far as I know the evidence does not indicate that most ancient Jews, any more than modern Jews, thought that all Gentiles were damned). Jesus is saying: no, you had better strive to enter in (i.e., listen to the message of the kingdom, repent of your sins, practice charity to your neighbors, stop priding yourself on your supposed righteousness), because otherwise you will come to the Last Judgment and not be able to enter the Kingdom.

Another passage in the same chapter that seems to tell against my argument is vv. 21-23, which says predictively "many will say in that day . . . . " But I think we have to look at the character of this entire passage. Matt. 7 begins with the admonition “not to judge,” so it would be odd if these passages were encouraging us to make judgments about other people’s spiritual destiny. The entire Sermon on the Mount is full of hyperbolic and figurative language. Most Christians seem to have no problem “explaining away” most of the Sermon on the Mount–the parts where Jesus is telling us to give to anyone who asks of us and turn the other cheek and give an oppressive government more than it asks for and not to worry about food or clothing. We can easily see (or persuade ourselves) that this language is hyperbolic. But suddenly these passages are to be taken literally?

As for ratio of saved vs damned, that’s for God to decide. And God is telling us in advance,

So you are saying not only that we know some people will be damned but that more people will be damned than saved?

One final note here: although I disagree with you on this, I recognize that the conservative Catholic position is radically different from the conservative Protestant one, because when Catholics say “I know some people will be damned” or even “more will be damned than saved,” that comes with the addendum, “and I might be one of those people.” The conservative Protestant position, on the other hand, is thoroughly vicious, because it fosters both complacency about one’s own salvation and harsh judgment toward “outsiders.”

Edwin

 

[RPRPsych]

One final note here: although I disagree with you on this, I recognize that the conservative Catholic position is radically different from the conservative Protestant one, because when Catholics say “I know some people will be damned” or even “more will be damned than saved,” that comes with the addendum, “and I might be one of those people.” The conservative Protestant position, on the other hand, is thoroughly vicious, because it fosters both complacency about one’s own salvation and harsh judgment toward “outsiders.”

True. Being “one of the elect” or “once saved, always saved” is not a Catholic idea. Which is perhaps why you’ll never find Catholic Chick Tracts.

 

[steve_b]

It appears from recent Catholic teaching that it is unorthodox, or at least presumptuous, to say of any specific dead person that you know they are in hell.

True but that isn’t recent. It’s always been that way.
C:

What remains uncertain is whether it is orthodox to say that it is possible that hell will be empty.

Does scripture or the Church say hell will be empty? Not that I’ve found. But I’m always open to evidence.
C:

A number of theologians whose general orthodoxy seems to be acknowledged (i.e., they not only are not open dissenters but seem to value orthodoxy and tradition highly, and are for the most part highly regarded by those who value orthodoxy and tradition) have suggested this possibility. They have not been condemned by the Magisterium. Hence, it appears to be an open possibility, although that could change either way.

“possibility” still has to be supported by some form of evidence for credability. Does the speculation that hell is empty, come from Scripture? The Church? If either is a source, I would ask anyone for that information properly documented. I truly would want to see it.

Re: the Magesterium condemning this or that opinion, it depends on what the subject is and how it is presented.
C:

The two strongest arguments in your favor, in fact, are Jesus’ words about Judas and the saying about the broad and narrow ways. But both of these prove too much–that is to say, if taken “literally” they prove things that Catholics seem generally to acknowledge we don’t know for sure (that a specific person is damned and that more people will be damned than saved).

Bottomline, where IS the support for the hope hell will be empty found? Matthew 7:13 & Matthew 25:31-46 can’t be dismissed because they are parables. Not when it’s the judge telling us in advance what is coming when He judges and how He will judge.
C:

Again, this is a parable.

Parables express truth. Jesus told us why He used parables. Matthew 13:12-14 it absolutely doesn’t negate parables. If anything, it ups the ante
C:

I will not argue with you if you say that this is an unreasonable and unlikely hope. But I do not concede that it is heretical.

As I said previously this is a pious thought and a good one. But where is it’s support?
C:

Another passage in the same chapter that seems to tell against my argument is vv. 21-23, which says predictively "many will say in that day . . . . " But I think we have to look at the character of this entire passage. Matt. 7 begins with the admonition “not to judge,” so it would be odd if these passages were encouraging us to make judgments about other people’s spiritual destiny.

Jesus is telling us how He will judge. By refering to what He said, doesn’t translate into We are doing the judging as a result.
C:

The entire Sermon on the Mount is full of hyperbolic and figurative language. Most Christians seem to have no problem “explaining away” most of the Sermon on the Mount–the parts where Jesus is telling us to give to anyone who asks of us and turn the other cheek and give an oppressive government more than it asks for and not to worry about food or clothing. We can easily see (or persuade ourselves) that this language is hyperbolic. But suddenly these passages are to be taken literally?

I trust the Church that gave us the scriptures, knows how to distinguish and navigate between genres.
C:

So you are saying not only that we know some people will be damned but that more people will be damned than saved?

What I’m saying, this is NOT about what WE know about the damned as if somehow we make the decisions about others… Jesus is telling us in advance what HE knows about the damned. And how that happens. Therefore, refering to Him and what He said about hell and souls in hell, doesn’t translate to, we are now making those judgements about souls in hell.

We can otoh make judgements about activities. It’s not like we are prohibited from making judgements.