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

[BrunoMaria]

No-one on earth knows the exact location of Heaven or Hell. We are not told that for a reason of course. If we’d know, we’d see it. Might even be the earth and universe is amidst heaven, and those in heaven can watch us, as we can watch the life in an aquarium

Hell though, definitely is not in our earth as some think. Satan and his legions where banned onto earth though, where they also lost their image in which they where created - the image of God. But much later hell was created as a place for them - far off the earth. And after Last Judgement, hell will be so far off all life around God, that hell and it’s inhabitants won’t even come back to our mind. Match Isaiah 65,17 - Lk 17,26–30, Revelation 14,14–21,1.
As hell is eternal and earth is not, hell can’t be in here anyhow.

As to heaven, I often brought the sample „Aquarium“-like amidst heaven - to be watched all the time.
But it’s ever so clear, that we of course aren’t allowed to know where is, for it takes believe to earn (inherit) heaven and live forever together with God.

Christ’s disciples saw Jesus ascending to heaven. His disciples are we. So we saw Jesus Christ ascending to heaven in Acts 1:9 - …and when He had spoken these things, while they beheld, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

 

[BrunoMaria]

Of course so. All in the Bible is ever so logic. We saw Christ ascending. If He would simply have disappeared, we’d think peculiar things, other than ascending to heaven.
And if Christ’s ascending would not finally have been veiled by a cloud out of our sight, we’d anticipate there or there is „the“ heaven as we saw Jesus Christ going there.
God even then granted Angels to teach us undeservedly: …why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven.

These Angels told us in a one-sentence crash course once more about heaven - going to and coming from heaven - even though Jesus had told us before at length, in great detail.
Though two things we ought to keep in mind:
1.
Jesus gave all these secrets to His Church He founded on St. Peter. Matthew 16:18
2.
Jesus said in Mt 13,11-18:
…to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given……
Hence it’s not so much a matter of course that we comprehend, but a matter of open hearted belief.

No-one is in the state to accuse Christ for not having told him, for then he was skeptical anyway in the first place and refused to understand with his heart. Anyone’s eyes and ears will be blessed to hear and see and understand - as soon as he opens his heart to hear and see. If however he does not, but instead reacts in material human logic of >THIS CAN’T BE SO< then Satan himself will snatch out of his heart what God has sown into it.

They indeed never will comprehend, and I for one really quit to speak religious to some of my acquaintances, but just speak smalltalk. Let them be happy, for their life now is all the got.
That of course does not relief us off the command to teach our brothers and sisters! But those who won’t hear - let them as God said to Ezechiel in Ez 3,27 He that heareth, let him hear: and he that forbeareth, let him forbear.

Yours
Bruno

 

[BlackFriar]

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

As there seems to be nothing other than body and soul in human nature then this simply means the Church has not settled the matter definitively. However it is clear mainstream teaching has always preferred the body, and sometimes in both, never purely in the soul alone which appears Protestant. As mentioned if one asserts it is purely or partially in the soul one has formidable theological difficulties to solve. God cannot be said to create and infuse imperfect souls into matter at conception.

But the issue is not where it is located but how it is propogated.
Generatation, as in copulation, is clearly bodily. If not through a defect in semen then a defect in the gametes of both. Human souls are not passed from one generation to the next by the sexual act I wouldve thought.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

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

You have a knack for stating things in ways that is not entirely clear

It’s called ‘subtlety’ and ‘nuance’. They’re good things…

BlackFriar:

Gorgias:

I would disagree that concupiscence is a bodily problem.

That only leaves a “soul problem” then doesn’t it.

Of course not! It merely says that ‘body’ is not the locus of the problem! (Then again, it doesn’t say “body isn’t involved in the problem”, either!)

Perhaps you really mean it is only partially a bodily problem?

It’s a human nature problem.

BlackFriar:

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

BlackFriar:

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.

BlackFriar:

Gorgias:

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

Cannot get more physical than copulation I would have thought.

The Church doesn’t teach that copulation is the means by which original sin is transmitted.

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.

The problem is that it attempts to make a scientific assertion about a theological reality. If it’s passed on “through semen”, then you can point to a component in semen that transmits original sin… right? (Have fun proving that one… )

If, on the other hand, it’s not “in” semen, then you cannot claim that it’s passed on through semen. Easy peasy.

Just as one may still validly hold to limbo.

You mean, as something that the Church doesn’t teach but which individuals might give assent to on an individual basis? OK… fair enough.

Gorgias:

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

BlackFriar:

As I say “human nature” is not an easy substitute for soul.

Umm… that’s because it’s not supposed to be a ‘substitute’ for the soul.

So the CCC really has nothing clear to say on this narrow topic.

What’s clear is that the CCC isn’t saying what you say the Church teaches. That’s clear. And, it should be very telling, as well…

BlackFriar:

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

At last we are agreed.

I’m confused. You agree with yourself? Cool.

However it is a hard battle to say the defect is in both principles

I’m not saying that, either. It’s not in the one, or in the other; it’s
in the person – that is, in the composite. Therefore, we avoid both of the problematic assertions you’re making.

 

[BlackFriar]

It merely says that ‘body’ is not the locus of the problem! (Then again, it doesn’t say “body isn’t involved in the problem”, either!)

At last you have conceded the point you have up until now given every impression of denying.
For example you appeared to contradict the above when you said " It’s not in the one, or in the other."

It merely says that ‘body’ is not the locus of the problem!

No, it does not say that at all from what I can see.
How can it as this has been mainstream Catholic teaching for centuries.
“Human nature” simply intentionally leaves the issue vague and undefined and could be read any number of ways. Which is pretty much what Trent did.

But as I say:
(a) to base concupiscence defect in the soul you must come up with a solution to the traditional problem I summarised. I don’t believe anybody has. Perhaps you know of something?;

(b) It appears to be passed on by human reproduction as Trent states: " If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own…" Why would you think copulation/generation is not of the body? As celebrated conservative Theologian Fr John Hardon states:
“This sin is transmitted from Adam by propagation, namely, through generation. It takes place at the moment of conception, when the soul is united with its matter, which has been properly disposed by the parents. Propagation is generally interpreted as paternal generation because the father is the active generative principle.”

As I say, I have no great commitment to concupiscence being passed down bodily through the male line.
You can validly hold otherwise if you wish. But the male thing has always been the mainstream traditional teaching and according to Fr Hardon still is.

If you still disagree with my summary I think its well past time you supplied something more than an intentionally vague CCC quote aimed at keeping things simple for lay persons.

 

[pianistclare]

There is nothing to be gained by looking around for hell.
WHy would anyone care?
What does it matter?
If a person is going there, they’ll find out its loathesome location eventually.
Aspire to heaven. Then all will be well.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

It merely says that ‘body’ is not the locus of the problem! (Then again, it doesn’t say “body isn’t involved in the problem”, either!)

At last you have conceded the point you have up until now given every impression of denying.
For example you appeared to contradict the above when you said " It’s not in the one, or in the other."

No, I haven’t conceded the point. By saying that “you cannot say that it is (or isn’t) the body”, how does that contradict “it’s not in one or the other”?

No, it does not say that at all from what I can see.
How can it as this has been mainstream Catholic teaching for centuries.

Because it’s a statement about science, not theology.

“Human nature” simply intentionally leaves the issue vague and undefined

No… it just doesn’t say what you wish it says.

But as I say:
(a) to base concupiscence defect in the soul you must come up with a solution to the traditional problem I summarised. I don’t believe anybody has. Perhaps you know of something?;

I’m not saying it’s in the soul.

Why would you think copulation/generation is not of the body?

Copulation is a bodily act. Does copulation – itself, and alone – create an ensouled human person?

As celebrated conservative Theologian Fr John Hardon states:
Propagation is generally interpreted as paternal generation because the father is the active generative principle."

Celebrated or not, is he magisterial authority?

In any case, “active generative principle” (when discussed in the context of procreation) harkens back to Aquinas’ biological musings… in which semen is the active generational principle and menstrual blood is the passive generational principle. Are you really gonna hang your hat on a theory that depends on this kind of faulty biology? One would hope not.

But the male thing has always been the mainstream traditional teaching and according to Fr Hardon still is.

No… he simply states that is a “general interpretation”, and it seems to be based on bad biology.

If you still disagree with my summary I think its well past time you supplied something more than an intentionally vague CCC quote aimed at keeping things simple for lay persons.

It’s your assertion; the burden lies on you to prove it. Show it from the magisterium, and then we can talk. Otherwise, your assertions are simply a matter of “quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”…

 

[Hope1960]

If you’re talking about the end of the world, NO ONE knows when that is.

 

[Hope1960]

Yes, but then how do the glorified bodies of Jesus and Mary reside there?

 

[Vico]

Yes, but then how do the glorified bodies of Jesus and Mary reside there?

heaven

Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has decided nothing on this subject.
Hontheim, J. (1910). Heaven. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

Heaven exists in the absence of the earth and beyond the limits of the earth.

 

[Hope1960]

What does that articles first sentence mean?

 

[hazcompat]

Pope Saint John Paul II

"It is always necessary to maintain a certain restraint in describing these “ultimate realities” since their depiction is always unsatisfactory. Today, personalist language is better suited to describing the state of happiness and peace we will enjoy in our definitive communion with God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums up the Church’s teaching on this truth: "By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has “opened’ heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ” (n. 1026). "

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

Peace

 

[Hope1960]

Still, this doesn’t tell us where Jesus and Mary’s bodies are.

 

[hazcompat]

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

1. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,(47) immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.(48)

Peace

 

[Hope1960]

Yeah, she’s in Heaven I know that. What your article doesn’t tell us is WHERE Heaven is.
If you don’t know with certainty, a few plausible possibilities would suffice.

 

[Benadam]

I think their bodies are wherever they will to present it. Their souls enjoy freedom over any law including the laws of physics. Their bodies obey their wills.

 

[BrunoMaria]

“Hope 1960”, you repeat: “Your article doesn’t tell us is WHERE Heaven is”.

Now this was answered in this thread repeatedly.
Does it really make no sense to answer here, with members spending a lot of time answering with a lot of lifeblood, and the questioners then disregard it all but just want to hear themselves speaking?! The forum and all efforts become a stillborn child then.

 

[BlackFriar]

No, I haven’t conceded the point. By saying that “you cannot say that it is (or isn’t) the body”, how does that contradict “it’s not in one or the other”?

This is getting pedantic, it is what it is.
Lets leave others to decide for themselves if your English is less than precise.

Because it’s a statement about science, not theology.

Yes it seems to involve both as does The Annunciation, The Virgin Birth, The Empty Tomb, Jesus’s miracles etc.

I’m not saying it’s in the soul.

Well if none of its causality is in either the soul or in the body then it seems there is nothing left of “human nature” for it to be in for most people I suggest.

Copulation is a bodily act. Does copulation – itself, and alone – create an ensouled human person?

Yes the act of generation communicates concupiscence to all men through the biological matter.
When this expression was composed the presence of a human soul was not assumed as necessary.
It therefore seems it is not relevant to the truth stated. The transmission of concupiscence appears to be by a biological substratum. No soul, human or otherwise, was explicitly mentioned.

Celebrated or not, is he magisterial authority?

Again we seem to be going pedantic here. He is not personally authoritative but identifying what is - and he is celebrated as very skilled at doing so. You are welcome to reject him with a disagreeing authority.

So if anyone is capable of identifying traditional mainstream Catholic teaching it is Fr Hardon.
So far you only have your own authority and an intentionally vague one line CCC quote that settles nothing but leaves the question open. It does not deny what I have reasonably demonstrated is a traditional view.

I have repeatedly invited clear authoritative texts or persons to support that your view (whatever exactly it is) is the more traditional.

No… he simply states that is a “general interpretation”, and it seems to be based on bad biology.

Then provide an authoritative source to support your personal view it is bad theology?
As I say I am not hung up on semen, it could be both gametes. The point is he sees the means of transmission as via the gametes from the parents which conclusion he takes from the expression quoted. Sounds physical to me.

If I have to choose between Aquinas, Fr Hardon and many Doctors/Fathers and just yourself I have to go with them. Until you are able to provide your own sources this probably ends the discussion.

If you don’t wish to that’s fine, my point is well made for stray readers here.

 

[BlackFriar]

Well they obviously aren’t in the same sort of physical cosmos that we dwell in.
They may not even be in a “place” if glorified bodies do not have to possess the physical property of extension.

Obviously “heaven” for disembodied souls is an immaterial state of union with God not a place. Souls have no physical extension and therefore cannot be “located”.

 

[Vico]

What does that articles first sentence mean?

Catholic Encylopedia on heaven:

Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits.

heaven

Heaven exists, not within the earth, but without earth and beyond its limits.

Psalm 96:

11 Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad, let the sea be moved, and the fulness thereof:
12 the fields and all things that are in them shall be joyful. Then shall all the trees of the woods rejoice
13 before the face of the Lord, because he cometh: because he cometh to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with justice, and the people with his truth.