Souls in Hell

[Chris_Burgwald]

fix:

Yes, we can and do disagree in this matter. Have you read that the Pope was mistranslated in the quote you offerred?

I know that the English translation of a different audience on Hell was mistranslated to imply that Hell is only a state and not a place, but I haven’t heard anything about a mistranslation of this audience.

…

Here’s the Italian original of the sentence in question: “La dannazione rimane una reale possibilità, ma non ci è dato di conoscere, senza speciale rivelazione divina, se e quali esseri umani vi siano effettivamente coinvolti.”

I think the english is a good rendering of the Italian original… JPII says “se e quali esserie umani”… “if and which human beings” literally, but in a readable translation, “whether or which human beings” is perfectly legitimate (and much more readable).

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Southernrich:

The fact remains. A liturgical prayer is not the equivalent of Scripture.

True. But I think it can be argued that what is expressed in the liturgy is the mind of the Church. (I certainly don’t think that a liturgical prayer could ever be heterodox, but [thank goodness] our argument isn’t about the orthodoxy of von B’s position.)

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Southernrich:

Okay, I see. It’s like those medievalists trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

No, it’s more like Dominicans and Jesuits arguing about free will and grace

The latter is a real dispute, and of importance. The former is unhistorical, and used merely to denigrate Aquinas, Bonaventure, et al. I’m guessing that you don’t think poorly of Thomas and the boys, Southernrich, so I’m a little surprised you’d employ it.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

larryo:

it’s very reasonable to conclude that many souls who die unrepentant do in fact go to hell.

Absolutely… if someone dies in a state of mortal sin, they are hellbound.

larryo:

The bootom line for each of us is that hell is real and we should do everything to avoid ending up there.

Amen.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Southernrich:

The Church teaches that there is the Particular Judgment when we die and then the Final Judgment when Christ returns.

The Church also teaches that dying in the state of mortal sin damns one.

Certainly, many die in the state of mortal sin. As they are judged immediately at the Particular Judgment, where else would they be except in Hell? I’ve never hear of any “holding pens” waiting on the Final Judgment or of God allowing one to repent after death (something some people actually think will happen).

If Chris means that we can’t know with ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE what occurs to a particular individual after his death, then Chris is correct in his hypothesis.

But, we certainly have a “moral assurance” that some people have died in a state of mortal sin, and have been damned.

Is it probable that some people (maybe even a lot of people) have died in a state of mortal sin? Yes. Do we know with metaphysical certitude or the certitude of faith that that is the case? No. So should we then hope and pray for the salvation of all? Why not?

But I think – based on your comment here, Southernrich – we basically agree.

 

[BW2]

With Jesus’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus,we can be assured of human souls being in Hell !!Pray for the Poor Souls in Purgatory.God save us from liberal priests.

 

[Scholastic]

In the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, Chapter 3 it says, “Even if it is true that He (Christ) died for all (2 Cor 5:15), not all receive the benefits of His death, only those to whom the merit of His passion is given.” Can someone go to heaven without recieving the benefits of Christ’s death? This, along with the words of Christ, give us absolute certitude that there are souls in hell. Dare we hope that Christ is a liar?

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Scholastic:

In the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, Chapter 3 it says, “Even if it is true that He (Christ) died for all (2 Cor 5:15), not all receive the benefits of His death, only those to whom the merit of His passion is given.” Can someone go to heaven without recieving the benefits of Christ’s death? This, along with the words of Christ, give us absolute certitude that there are souls in hell. Dare we hope that Christ is a liar?

Scholastic, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise… no one said that a soul can go to Heaven w/o the grace of Christ… that’s a given recognized by everyone. Your presuming that we know that people have died w/o that grace, and this is something we simply do not have metaphysical certitude about. Who knows what happens in the last moments of life.

There’s no question of anyone accusing Jesus of lying.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

BW2:

With Jesus’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus,we can be assured of human souls being in Hell !!

It’s a parable, BW2, not an assertion about eschatological realities.

BW2:

Pray for the Poor Souls in Purgatory.God save us from liberal priests.

Amen!

 

[space_ghost]

Chris Burgwald:

There is an important distinction between the assertion that there are no human souls in hell and the assertion that we do not know if there are any human souls in hell; von B et al hold only the latter, not the former.

As far as the “age” of the thesis, von B discusses some early Fathers who hold something like it, and Dulles references some Fathers in the article I linked.

I know that Jimmy Akin disagrees with this thesis, and I believe Karl Keating does as well. And that’s fine… both positions are allowable within the pale of Catholic orthodoxy. This is one of those “fun” areas where we can disagree, and even vehemently so, while acknowledging that neither position is anathema. (In that way, it’s like the Dominican-Jesuit controversies over grace & free will in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.)

Beware… there is someone who hopes we all forget hell, live life the way we want to… don’t worry… everybodys going to heaven… don’t listen to Scripture or that Sacred Tradition… you go on and interpret it as you see fit… don’t be influenced by the papist… this guy’s waiting for all of us to ignore the Church and establish our own set of rules… this guy also believes it’s better to rule in Hell then to serve in heaven…

 

[Scholastic]

Chris, you seem to have forgotten that my quote said, “not all receive the benefits of His death, only those to whom the merit of His passion is given.” There is no doubt that there are souls in hell. There are only two fathers who say that universal salvation is a possibility; St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. They did this because their theology was underdeveloped, unlike the scholastics. If von Balthasar wants to take a huge step backwards(to be joined by a small minority from the past) let him.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Scholastic:

Chris, you seem to have forgotten that my quote said, “not all receive the benefits of His death, only those to whom the merit of His passion is given.”

The point of the Tridentine Fathers was that the merits of Christ’s Passion have to be applied to us, i.e. that His Passion per se is insufficient for salvation. They weren’t making an assertion about who has or hasn’t received those benefits.

Scholastic:

There is no doubt that there are souls in hell.

No doubt whatsoever? Are you asserting metaphysical certitude that there are human souls in hell?

Scholastic:

There are only two fathers who say that universal salvation is a possibility; St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. They did this because their theology was underdeveloped, unlike the scholastics. If von Balthasar wants to take a huge step backwards(to be joined by a small minority from the past) let him.

Scholasticism was certainly a great step in the development and history of theology, and Thomas in particular continues to be a (if not the) model for theological method, but that doesn’t mean that they were right about everything, does it? Besides, a good number of theologians and hierarchs (Dulles, Schoenborn, JPII, Ratzinger) think that von B might be right, and that counts for something, doesn’t it?

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

space ghost:

Beware… there is someone who hopes we all forget hell, live life the way we want to… don’t worry… everybodys going to heaven… don’t listen to Scripture or that Sacred Tradition… you go on and interpret it as you see fit… don’t be influenced by the papist… this guy’s waiting for all of us to ignore the Church and establish our own set of rules… this guy also believes it’s better to rule in Hell then to serve in heaven…

I agree… we do need to beware and be alert to the one prowling about, waiting to devour us.

 

[Scholastic]

The point of the Tridentine Fathers was that the merits of Christ’s Passion have to be applied to us, i.e. that His Passion per se is insufficient for salvation. They weren’t making an assertion about who has or hasn’t received those benefits.

It says “not all recieve the benefits of His death.” Which is in no way reducable to your interpretation. How more clear could it be.

Are you asserting metaphysical certitude that there are human souls in hell?

Yes. The church teaches that God can neither decieve nor be decieved. Since, God told us that there are souls in hell, we have absolute certitude that that this is true.

Scholasticism was certainly a great step in the development and history of theology, and Thomas in particular continues to be a (if not the) model for theological method, but that doesn’t mean that they were right about everything, does it?

I didn’t say they were.

Besides, a good number of theologians and hierarchs (Dulles, Schoenborn, JPII, Ratzinger) think that von B might be right, and that counts for something, doesn’t it?

No. Even though they are not heretics, they are definitely not good theologians, in my opinion. As Aristotle says, “Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth.”

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Scholastic:

I didn’t say they were. No. Even though they are not heretics, they are definitely not good theologians, in my opinion.

Scholastic, I was going to respond to your other points, but I decided to focus on this one for the time being, as it struck me the most and piqued my curiosity the most.

I’m curious: why do you not think that the men I mentioned are good theologians? What is the criteria by which you judge the quality of a theologian? And according to that criteria, who in the latter half of the twentieth century do you judge to be a good theologian?

 

[Scholastic]

I’m curious: why do you not think that the men I mentioned are good theologians? What is the criteria by which you judge the quality of a theologian?

First of all, I want you to know that I am in no way a traditionalist. Second of all, when doing theology( I’m referring to dogmatic theology, not positive or scriptural theology) a philosophical system is applied to the sacred doctrine in order to clarify the truths of the faith and to reach more conclusions that logically proceed from revealed truth. I am a Thomist, so I apply thomistic philosophy to sacred doctrine which results in thomistic theology. JPII applies a thomistic/phenomenologist philosophy to sacred doctrine. But, since the phenomenological method has to do with “describing immediate knowledge” the very idea of phenomenology is false. All knowledge is abstracted, it is not intuited. With von Balthasar, his method is intrisically flawed. He seeks to describe the beauty of the faith, in order to reach theological truths. But this cannot be done, since truth is prior to and more simple an idea than truth. As we all know, we must proceed from what is more know to what is less known, not the reverse. Also, beauty is defined as “that which pleases when percieved.” But, theological truths cannot be seen but must be reasoned towards, unless their defined of course. As to Schonborn and Ratzinger, I don’t know what philosophy they follow, but I know they are not thomist, and not even scholastics. Scholastics apply universal laws of logic, and uncontestible principles to sacred doctrine. So, I think in order to be a good theologian they need to be at least scholastics.

And according to that criteria, who in the latter half of the twentieth century do you judge to be a good theologian?

Unfortunately, since VII, but not because of VII, there have been very very few scholastic theologians. The only scholastic that I am aware of that lived well into the second half of the 20th century is M.J. Nicolas, and Romanus Cessario, O.P. maybe. But this is not surprising. Whenever the church is in a thriving state and when the majority of catholics are othodox, there is an abundant source of scholastic theologians. Similarly, whenever the church is going through a tough time, there are very few scholastic theologians. So, it seems that scholastic theology is a fruit of othodoxy. I am not saying you have to be a scholastic theologian in order to be orthodox, but scholastic theology does not run the risk of falling into unorthodoxy, as a result of a bad method.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Thanks for the detailed response, Scholastic. I’d like to offer a couple of comments…

Scholastic:

JPII applies a thomistic/phenomenologist philosophy to sacred doctrine. But, since the phenomenological method has to do with “describing immediate knowledge” the very idea of phenomenology is false.

First, I am also not a proponent of phenomenological method. However, I don’t think you do phenomenology justice in your comments here. A number of scholars who describe themselves as phenomenological realists argue that they do reach the essences of things, via phenomenon. While I do not subscribe to their methodology, I grant that it is licit. And it seems to me that JPII has in fact done an admirable job of marrying the benefits of both Thomism and phenomenology, such as they are.

Scholastic:

With von Balthasar, his method is intrisically flawed. He seeks to describe the beauty of the faith, in order to reach theological truths.

I think your summary of von B is less adequate than that of phenomenology. His project is simply to give beauty (one of the transcendentals, along with truth, goodness, and unity) the place it deserves precisely as a transcendental. He believes that when beauty (again, as a transcendental) is shirked, the other transcendentals are diminished as well. This seems correct.

Scholastic:

But this cannot be done, since truth is prior to and more simple an idea than truth [beauty?]. As we all know, we must proceed from what is more know to what is less known, not the reverse. Also, beauty is defined as “that which pleases when percieved.” But, theological truths cannot be seen but must be reasoned towards, unless their defined of course.

What is truth? The classic (and accurate) definition is that truth is the correspondence of the mind to reality. But an even better definition is this: Jesus Christ. Truth qua Truth – Jesus of Nazareth, the Word Incarnate – can be seen, and in Him, the glory (beauty) of the Father shines forth.

Scholastic:

As to Schonborn and Ratzinger, I don’t know what philosophy they follow, but I know they are not thomist, and not even scholastics.

If you don’t know what philosophy they follow, how can you say that they aren’t scholastics? Schonborn, in fact, is a Dominican, and as such gives Thomas great regard. Ratzinger – while not a Thomist – is a “fan” of Bonaventure, who was definitely a great scholastic. So I’d question your assertion here.

Scholastic:

Similarly, whenever the church is going through a tough time, there are very few scholastic theologians. So, it seems that scholastic theology is a fruit of othodoxy.

I disagree, and as evidence, I cite the late Middle Ages, in which the dominant theology was what is commonly called “decadent scholasticism.” This is the period in which William of Ockham and his scholastic system gained ascendency, to the bane of orthodox thought.

 

[Scholastic]

From personal experience, and from metaphysics we know that we do not know the essences of things immediately. We only know sensations(the object of which is phenomena) immediately.

But, I think he forgets that a science is an organized body of truths concerning an object. So, all sciences-including theology-have to do with truth directly and beauty in only an indirect manner. Von Balthasar seemed to reject scholastic philosophy because he didn’t think it reflected the beauty of God or the catholic faith. But again, I think that not every truth has a perceptible beauty. For instance, 2+2=4 is true but it isn’t aesthetically pleasing. Similarly, I don’t think it would be right for a physicist to reform the science of physics, because he doesn’t think it reflects the beauty of the universe. I have great respect for the fact that modern theologians want to accomodate theology to modern man’s mind. But, I think they forget that scholastic theology is not founded upon a particular time period, but upon human reason itself. So, it is accomodated to men of all ages. The principles don’t have to change; just the way it is presented.
I would have to say that von Balthasar talks about transcendental truth, and not any particular exemplar of truth. But, to further explain my previous point, beauty always presupposes the idea of “attractiveness,” which is goodness, i.e. that which is desired. But goodness always presupposes the idea of truth, since nothing can be desired unless it is known. So, truth is logically prior to goodness and beauty.
I have in fact heard many impressive things from Schonborn. In fact, I think he would make an excellent pope. I have even read a speech of his, where he defends the “manualists traditions” that are so often attacked today. But, it seems, I’m not sure, that he also supports the ressourcement movement which Ratzinger was a big part of. I have no problem with studying the church fathers. But I don’t think that we should return to their theology. The scholastics of the middle ages, studied the fathers, organized their thought and perfected it. The study of the fathers is invaluable, but I don’t think we should take a step backwards and neglect the hard work of all those scholastics.
Even though William of Ockhan was from the same period I wouldn’t consider him a genuine scholastic, since he was a nominalists. Nominalism is a huge error, and it has to do with the science of logic. Since, you can’t make a mistake earlier in philosophy than in the area of logic, it corrupts his whole system.