Where Is Heaven and Hell? Is It In Our Universe?

[Melodeonist]

I’m not sure what the official Church teaching on this matter is, but I personally believe they are other planes of existence.

 

[BrunoMaria]

Where Is Heaven and Hell? Is It In Our Universe? seems a question far beyond any belief.
A question no believer would ever put.
Either a believer believes what Jesus Christ told us about heaven and hell, or he is a disbeliever and pagan.
It takes belief to know (and not just vaguely believe) what Jesus told us - among mung more, that there is heaven and hell. If we’d know where exactly heaven and hell is, then belief would be redundant - for we would know.
However: Real believers who live in God never doubt heaven and hell and would never ask like where all that is Jesus spoke about.
“Show me so I can believe” is pagan language and the doubt of Thomas who broke down when Christ offered to really show, with MY LORD AND MY GOD!
Every word Christ spoke is fact, and His flock hears His voice and knows the truth.

Yours
Bruno

 

[Gorgias]

If our duel nature has not changed, then what happens to the body, which through concupiscence, probably has a lot to do why the two natures are in that place in the first place?

Well… this sounds a bit ‘gnostic’, if you don’t mind me saying so. What I mean is that some gnostics (as dyed-in-the-wool dualists) used to claim that the body was sinful while the soul was not sinful. Therefore, sin comes from our corporeal, rather than our spiritual, self.

The Church doesn’t agree with that assertion. We don’t assign sin to the “body” or the “soul” – sin is a human problem.

So, first off, I would disagree that concupiscence is a bodily problem.

That being the case, unless you object, I think I can answer your question simply: “what happens to the body”, you ask? It gets buried. It returns to the earth from which it came – “ashes to ashes, dust to dust”, as it were.

(Aquinas would assert that, although the souls of the dead can attain to heaven prior to the eschaton – and therefore, prior to the point we receive our glorified bodies – there is something ‘incomplete’ to the experience of heaven for us, because we’ve been created to be body/soul composites. Therefore, it is altogether fitting that, in eternity, we once again become body/soul composites. Does that come close to addressing the question you have/

Fr. Ripperger is an exorcist, and it would seem has been given new revelations

Hmm… just thinking out loud, but I think I would be concerned about a priest who doesn’t teach public revelation, but instead, teaches private revelation, especially if it’s private revelation that hasn’t been officially approved by the Church. Is he a diocesan priest or a religious order priest? Which diocese or religious order is he from?

His lectures(Sensus Fidelium) on Spiritual Warfare can be viewed on YouTube.

I’ll have to look them up… thanks!

 

[BlackFriar]

So, first off, I would disagree that concupiscence is a bodily problem.

Sorry but I think this is mistaken.
Concupiscence is primarily a disorder of the body’s relationship to the soul - classically due to an imperfection in human semen.

In Eden the body was perfectly ordered to the soul and obeyed it. After the fall this complete subordination failed due to an inherited deficit of some type in the body.
The deficit was regarded as passed down by the male side.
Which is one traditional reason why Jesus was free of original sin.

Its pretty complicated theology.

 

[Gorgias]

Concupiscence is primarily a disorder of the body’s relationship to the soul - classically due to an imperfection in human semen.

In Eden the body was perfectly ordered to the soul and obeyed it. After the fall this complete subordination failed due to an inherited deficit of some type in the body.
The deficit was regarded as passed down by the male side.
Which is one traditional reason why Jesus was free of original sin.

Its pretty complicated theology.

No… it’s mistaken theology. The Church does not teach that original sin is passed down through physical means – semen or otherwise. Rather, the Church teaches that the “deficits” inherited as ‘original sin’ are transmitted by virtue of the inheritance of human nature. I’m sorry, but you’re very mistaken on this point.

 

[BlackFriar]

I dont know what the current teaching is on this point because the CCC doesnt go into detail though the traditional Theology Manuals did.

Traditionally up until a few centuries ago it was clearly acceptably taught just as I say, passed down physically by the male semen. It was mainstream view even if not definitive like limbo. Neither teaching has ever been denied even if no longer mainstream and now soft peddled. The semen teaching is significantly stronger than that on limbo.

Now the male side bit may be mistaken, but clearly it is passed down by physical means. That is certainly current status of the teaching on Original Sin and therefore concupiscence. Check out Aquinas for an intro.

Why do you interpret inheritance of human nature as contradicting this? Souls are not inherited, only physical matter is passed through from parents.

 

[Benadam]

I have to agree

The male is the generating force. The female is the passive force.

Adam was able to use this force to treat Eve as she deserved.

So this could finally happen

she bore a son and named him Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another child

and this

To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord.

In the Jerusalem bible 1st it say’s a child in the image and likeness of his father.
When Cain was born she said this:

she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.”

Eve’s disposition has changed alot between Cain and Seth. From her being in her mind the 'producer of man to " God has granted"

She gives glory to God. I think Adam wouldn’t generate man untill she could.

It’s a soul thing here. Not a flesh thing.

 

[2towers]

from what I remember this was what I read.

 

[Gorgias]

Now the male side bit may be mistaken, but clearly it is passed down by physical means.

From the Catechism:
CCC 404:

[Original sin] is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Original sin is propagated by the transmission of human nature, not by the transmission of physical material. Can’t quite argue with the Catechism, can you?

That is certainly current status of the teaching on Original Sin and therefore concupiscence. Check out Aquinas for an intro.

Aquinas’ take on the biology of conception is notoriously suspect.

 

[hazcompat]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

Heaven as the fullness of communion with God was the theme of the Holy Father’s catechesis at the General Audience of 21 July 1999. Heaven “is neither an abstraction not a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit,” the Pope said.

Peace

 

[Dr.newsman]

I’m going to have to disagree. I was not saying that hell and heaven (and purgatory) weren’t real. I was just wondering where they existed. I’ m really sure that I will not know until I die. I just want to know others opinions.
God bless your soul!

 

[Thom18]

I’m fairly certain that they are both outside of space and time. So, they wouldn’t be “in” our universe because they can’t be contained within it.

 

[BlackFriar]

Original sin is propagated by the transmission of human nature, not by the transmission of physical material. Can’t quite argue with the Catechism, can you?

As I say “human nature” is not an easy substitute for soul.
And I would think humanity is propagated via a defect in matter not by transmission of a defect in a human soul somehow passed from parents to child.
So the CCC really has nothing clear to say on this narrow topic.
It is likely intentionally done this way to indicate its a subtle and complicated topic not for beginners.
To rely on the CCC to communicate the libraries of books written on this topic by the Church’s greatest minds over 100s of years would seem to be a very long bow to draw.

Have you consulted any Theology Manuals, done any Systematic Theology papers or studied Aquinas in depth on this topic?

Aquinas’ take on the biology of conception is notoriously suspect.

I don’t think this is a particularly serious drawback.
Geocentrism was wrong but the principle that man is the pinnacle of creation remains.

And as I said, “Now the male side bit may be mistaken, but clearly it is passed down by physical means.”

If you can find a clear Magisterial teaching that wholly denies Aquinas and my summary of tradition please quote?

You may like to read how Trent dealt with this extremely subtle and well debated point here:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/ev/ev_01evolution_sin9.html

The following quotes are relevant arguments:

Appealing to Augustine and Thomas, the draft proposes as not unacceptable the Thomistic formula according to which the formal element of original sin is forgiven by Baptism, while the material element (concupiscence) remains.

The Fathers discussed it during the week which followed. Is it not self-contradictory, some asked, to state that Baptism completely blots out original sin; to say that nothing remains in the soul after Baptism which could be offensive in the eyes of God; and then to turn around and state that relics of original sin remain in the soul? The question was posed but not answered…The final decree is so worded that it did not clarify the matter.

Trent also softened greatly the phrases of the preparatory draft which alleged that the sin resulted in catastrophic wounds of body and soul for Adam. Canon 1 now reads only that "the whole Adam, body and soul, was changed for the worse through the offence of his sin.

Trent’s final definition states more clearly what concupiscence is not than what it is.

I also observe above that Trent is not talking about how concupiscence is propagated but rather where the defect lies.
But it is clear the expression “human nature” was purposely made ambiguous in the CCC - just as Trent never decided clearly where the defect actually sits.

 

[BrunoMaria]

Oh, I well understood that „Dr.Newsman“ of course did not say that hell and heaven (and purgatory) weren’t real. He (and others) are just wondering as to WHERE they existed.

I answered; that such questions are „far beyond belief“.
They indeed are, because if we’d know where heaven etc. is, we could see it and needed no belief for KNOWING they are and exist as Christ told us.

Just match the whole item with scientist’s questions, like: The question of the location of this or that Mayan or Hindu temple - of the location of that ancient town - of that sunk ship… is unclear. Hence these scientists even question their existence, even though others swear it must exist. Doubts though - if it’s found and if ever so, we finally got proof that it exists - are far beyond belief that it does.

There are other, related questions in the wide field of Christianity, the questioner doesn’t even realize that it’s DOUBTS that drive him to enquire.

Oh, there are masses of Questions of this and similar kind in all Christian forums world-wide, which - if the questioner analyzes his question, turn out to be mere doubts „far beyond belief“.
Now - many answers Christ gave questioners, made that clear. Take just one out of very many, when Christ answered to Phipip in John 14,9: Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not recognized Me, Philip? The person who has seen Me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

One might compare the question as to WHERE heaven and hell is, with this John 14:9 - like „show us where heaven and hell is“….

Yours
Bruno

 

[BrunoMaria]

SOrry - I didn’t get this picture into my post above.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Benadam]

Original sin is propagated by the transmission of human nature, not by the transmission of physical material. Can’t quite argue with the Catechism, can you?

A disembodied soul exists in an unnatural state of being. Human nature requires a body for the soul to animate. The Church doesn’t seem to address whether it is just the soul or both body and soul that propagates sin. imo

 

[BlackFriar]

The main difficulty with the soul propagation thesis is that it would imply that after the Fall God purposely and directly damaged the soul for future generations.

But if God directly and instantaneously creates each and every soul at the moment of conception then we then seem bound to say He creates imperfection directly. This is not possible.

Imperfection (evil) is due to indirect created causes interfering with other good creative causalities God has already set in motion. Therefore imperfection of a nature cannot happen at the level of first causality but only secondary causality by the interference of Satan or our own wickedness wounding ourselves or our world. But as God alone is directly responsible for creating our souls as the primary cause (not even angels are involved) … that only leaves the material bodily order as somehow the place for this ongoung imperfection being passed down.

So like a statue of Aphrodite the artists form is perfect.
But if it is formed from sandstone rather than hard marble the resolution/rendition will be coarse and grainy and imperfect. But the form/soul the artist intended remains pristine and perfect.

 

[Dr.newsman]

Thanks!
God bless!

 

[Gorgias]

The main difficulty with the soul propagation thesis is that it would imply that after the Fall God purposely and directly damaged the soul for future generations.

But if God directly and instantaneously creates each and every soul at the moment of conception then we then seem bound to say He creates imperfection directly. This is not possible.

That’s why we place it neither in the ‘body’ nor the ‘soul’, but in human nature.

 

[BlackFriar]

That’s why we place it neither in the ‘body’ nor the ‘soul’, but in human nature.

That’s a bit of a non sequitor.
You have a knack for stating things in ways that is not entirely clear:

I would disagree that concupiscence is a bodily problem.

That only leaves a “soul problem” then doesn’t it.
Perhaps you really mean it is only partially a bodily problem?

Concupiscence is primarily a disorder of the body’s relationship to the soul - classically due to an imperfection in human semen.

Traditionally up until a few centuries ago it was clearly acceptably taught just as I say, passed down physically by the male semen. It was mainstream view even if not definitive like limbo.

The Church does not teach that original sin is passed down through physical means

Cannot get more physical than copulation I would have thought.
In any case, I stated it was a mainstream teaching. Currently it is not, but it is still valid to hold to such a teaching as it has never been clearly decided on to this degree. Just as one may still validly hold to limbo.

That’s why we place it neither in the ‘body’ nor the ‘soul’, but in human nature.

As I say “human nature” is not an easy substitute for soul.
So the CCC really has nothing clear to say on this narrow topic.

Concupiscence is primarily a disorder of the body’s relationship to the soul

At last we are agreed. it involves both somehow and in their imperfect relationship to each other.
Mainstream teaching has traditionally placed the imperfection of the relationship on the basis of the bodily side. Though the jury is still out.
However it is a hard battle to say the defect is in both principles because one must solve the problem of how God directly makes imperfect souls. See post #37 above.