Why it isn't possible to repent after death?

[LibralAteoJesus]

We have 3 analogies here:

1- Someone following Pascal’s wager, he did not believe but lived his life pretending to, in fear, because of a possible existence of Hell, died and went to Heaven.

2- Another person who does believe but lived all her life in sins, she repented few moments before her death as fear of Hell and to gain Heaven, she was forgiven and went to Heaven.

3- A third person who does not believe, lived his life in sins, died and then figured out that there is a God and that what he did in his life were sins without any repentence, this person goes to Hell. Except when he knew that, he asked for God’s forgiveness after death with a sincere heart.

Why repentence few moments before death is forgiven but not few moments after death? Specially when God is timeless.

Why those who reject God in heaven can go to hell as free will of their choices exp: The devil… But free will in Hell isn’t possible, so is God’s forgiveness?

 

[Della]

God is timeless, but we aren’t. As mortal beings we are born, live and die. We all know this–it’s no big secret. So, if a person knows there is a possibility he will have to give account of himself to God upon death, but rejects this truth, lives his life in sin–deliberately separating himself from God’s love–he’s supposed to suddenly realize he made a big mistake after he knew this all his life but rejected it, knowing the result would be damnation? How is that right?

Such a person may, at the moment of death be given the chance to realize that God is real and that he will have to account for his sins, and at that moment repent with perfect contrition–it’s possible, but no one should bet his eternal happiness on it.

As for the first two examples, I think saying they’d go to heaven might be misleading. If they had perfect contrition, that might be their fate. But, more likely they would go to purgatory first. Besides this, even if one mentally has doubts, still if one does what God asks how can that be a bad thing–in the case of the first person. In the case of the second person, again she would have to confess her mortal sins and/or have perfect contrition, and even so she would probably go to purgatory.

 

[sw85]

I recall reading a useful philosophical treatment of this a while back but I cannot remember where and frankly I only dimly recall the details. The gist is that the human soul is not a thing which exists independent of the body but the two are an integrated whole. This is because the soul, in traditional Catholic philosophical reckonings, is the “form of the body.” When the material body dies, the immaterial operations of the soul ought to die, too, because they are united to and integrated with the body. What goes to meet God is not the “soul” but the remains of the soul, i.e., immaterial operations of the body (like reason, free will, etc., the part of us that is even capable of repentance), which are preserved in the mind of God in a manner akin to a severed hand being preserved in a jar of fluid and occasionally induced to twitch by the application of electrical signals. Or, more appropriately, like a house exists in the mind of an architect who has not yet built it. So we too will exist only in the mind of God as a kind of blueprint awaiting our (re)construction at the Resurrection.

So it is impossible to repent after death because we literally can’t repent. We’re inert, incapable of any kind of meaningful action except whatever God himself gives us. He can induce us to speak but he cannot induce us to repent because repentance is a personal action and death means the death of the person.

I probably really butchered that old explanation in the re-telling of it so I apologize if anyone is scandalized.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I recall reading a useful philosophical treatment of this a while back but I cannot remember where and frankly I only dimly recall the details. The gist is that the human soul is not a thing which exists independent of the body but the two are an integrated whole. This is because the soul, in traditional Catholic philosophical reckonings, is the “form of the body.” When the material body dies, the immaterial operations of the soul ought to die, too, because they are united to and integrated with the body. What goes to meet God is not the “soul” but the remains of the soul, i.e., immaterial operations of the body (like reason, free will, etc., the part of us that is even capable of repentance), which are preserved in the mind of God in a manner akin to a severed hand being preserved in a jar of fluid and occasionally induced to twitch by the application of electrical signals. Or, more appropriately, like a house exists in the mind of an architect who has not yet built it. So we too will exist only in the mind of God as a kind of blueprint awaiting our (re)construction at the Resurrection.

So it is impossible to repent after death because we literally can’t repent. We’re inert, incapable of any kind of meaningful action except whatever God himself gives us. He can induce us to speak but he cannot induce us to repent because repentance is a personal action and death means the death of the person.

I probably really butchered that old explanation in the re-telling of it so I apologize if anyone is scandalized.

Then what experiences heaven, hell or purgatory?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The Summa discusses the eternity of hell in two places that I know of: Part IIb, Q87, a3-4 and Supp., Q99.

It is more about the question of God’s justice than about the metaphysics of being a disembodied soul, but I think you’ll find he gives many reasonable answers to why hell is eternal.

 

[Jozefo]

Then what experiences heaven, hell or purgatory?

The mind of God. Just my opinion.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Why repentence few moments before death is forgiven but not few moments after death? Specially when God is timeless.

It’s just good marketing. If you can repent after you die, there’s no reason to be a christian while you’re alive. It’s the old “Limited Time Offer!!” scheme. “Act now before this deal ends!!”
(Some terms and conditions apply. See store for details.)

Basically it’s just a way to keep people in fear of their eternal salvation. People who don’t have that fear about eternity tend to drift away from the church. And that’s bad for business.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You might argue that municipalities put up warning signs near cliffs and other potentially dangerous locations merely because they don’t want to be sued. That it’s bad for business. However, in itself, that does not mean the warning should be ignored because the warning was posted for less than the best of intentions.

The fact that someone, even someone who stands to lose or gain posted such warnings, does imply that the caution ought to be heeded because the loss or gain depends upon the safety of sojourner who is wandering near the danger. The cliff (and hell) is still a clear and present danger regardless of why the danger indicators were posted.

 

[Sparkythedog]

You might argue that municipalities put up warning signs near cliffs and other potentially dangerous locations merely because they don’t want to be sued. That it’s bad for business. However, in itself, that does not mean the warning should be ignored because the warning was posted for less than the best of intentions.

The fact that someone, even someone who stands to lose or gain posted such warnings, does imply that the caution ought to be heeded because the loss or gain depends upon the safety of sojourner who is wandering near the danger. The cliff (and hell) is still a clear and present danger regardless of why the danger indicators were posted.

I agree with part of what you say - that the danger in the warning might be real regardless of the intention of the messenger. However, I think you missed the mark with the analogy.

Generally, a municipality can’t do much about a cliff except maybe put up a fence and a warning sign. But God is much greater (so I’m told). He is omnipotent which means he can set things up any way he wishes. Why set things up in this way? What purpose does it serve to not be able to repent from Hell?

The way I see it, a better analogy is this. A municipality digs huge holes in the middle of the street and then puts up a sign that says “Caution: Holes”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree with part of what you say - that the danger in the warning might be real regardless of the intention of the messenger. However, I think you missed the mark with the analogy.

Generally, a municipality can’t do much about a cliff except maybe put up a fence and a warning sign. But God is much greater (so I’m told). He is omnipotent which means he can set things up any way he wishes. Why set things up in this way? What purpose does it serve to not be able to repent from Hell?

Omnipotent means he can do the logically possible. If God is Goodness itself (Aquinas) and eternal life is only possible as the union of a human soul with Goodness itself in eternity then (given free will) we have a logical problem. God cannot force a free moral agent to choose goodness as a free moral choice. If God has done everything feasible and possible to influence the free moral agent to turn from evil towards goodness - including “reminders” about the dangers of hell (putting up caution signs) - then, beyond rescinding the agent’s free moral will, God cannot logically do anything about the “fix” that the transgressing moral agent has put themselves in.

It is pointless arguing about the possible penitence of damned souls because if God is omniscient and omnibenevolent then, morally speaking, he would have a better grasp of who does or does not warrant hell than any human with a limited perspective can possibly come up with.

The Church has never made claims about individuals who are definitively “known” to be in hell even though it has made corresponding claims about which saints are in Heaven.

I generally leave speculation about who merits hell alone because we can’t know much about what fundamentally is involved at the depths of a person’s being.

Presuming God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence and free will, hell is not logically inconsistent with those being true. Someone who is intransigently evil would not be compatible with Goodness itself for eternity. The details of the consequences are best left to God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter

**Presuming God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence and free will, hell is not logically inconsistent with those being true. Someone who is intransigently evil would not be compatible with Goodness itself for eternity. The details of the consequences are best left to God. **

The atheist, repudiating God even on his own deathbed, has bargained either for eternal nothingness or eternal hell. He certainly does not want eternal heaven. He knows this even as he crosses over. God holds him to the bargain he has made. Satan will hold him to the same bargain.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree with part of what you say - that the danger in the warning might be real regardless of the intention of the messenger. However, I think you missed the mark with the analogy.

Generally, a municipality can’t do much about a cliff except maybe put up a fence and a warning sign. But God is much greater (so I’m told). He is omnipotent which means he can set things up any way he wishes. Why set things up in this way? What purpose does it serve to not be able to repent from Hell?

The way I see it, a better analogy is this. A municipality digs huge holes in the middle of the street and then puts up a sign that says “Caution: Holes”.

Actually to be completely frank[furter] about this (and I certainly don’t want you to raise your hackles or make you hot under the collar,) my analogy was quite fitting and didn’t miss the mark.

The implication of your first post was that it is the hierarchy of the Church who have the most to gain or profit from promoting the idea of hell. (Recall the "bad for business“ quip.) The analogical correspondence is between the municipality and Church authority (implied by your post,) not the municipality and God.

The Church authorities did not “create” hell, they merely caution about it as a corollary from the teachings of Jesus, just as the municipality did not create the dangerous cliffs; they merely post signage after recognizing the danger.

It’s just good marketing. If you can repent after you die, there’s no reason to be a christian while you’re alive. It’s the old “Limited Time Offer!!” scheme. “Act now before this deal ends!!”
(Some terms and conditions apply. See store for details.)

Basically it’s just a way to keep people in fear of their eternal salvation. People who don’t have that fear about eternity tend to drift away from the church. And that’s bad for business.

Again, the implication of “bad for business” is that Church authorities have something to profit from the teaching of hell - presumably money in the collection plate from increased membership.

It is difficult to see how God could profit from the existence of hell given that he wants large numbers to attend the Great Banquet but so many are giving excuses not to attend. (Cf. Luke 14:15-24) So your “bad for business” quip cannot apply to God, but only to the municipal coun… er Church authorities, who are not responsible for the cliffs… er hell, but only for the cautionary strategy they feel compelled to implement. Whether they act for profit, fear or self-interest is irrelevent to the existence of the danger.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

sparky
**
Basically it’s just a way to keep people in fear of their eternal salvation. People who don’t have that fear about eternity tend to drift away from the church. And that’s bad for business.**

It’s bad for law and order and our courts’ business too if people started to believe there was no lifelong consequence to their occasional bouts of homicidal fury. People should always be warned, as the Church warns her faithful, that actions bring consequences, good or bad, depending on the way we lean. The good citizen rightly behaves and is rightly judged. The bad citizen is also rightly judged and put away, sometimes forever. The Church, along with the courts, have their rightful authority to argue that it is bad for the business of a peaceful society if there is no fear of the law.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think a more fitting analogy would be to a zoo owner (God) who plans and builds a zoo with a large variety of animals - some small and innocuous, some graceful and beautiful, and others untamed and dangerous.

When the zoo owner invites visitors in, he would be negligent if he were not to warn the visitors about the dangerous creatures and provide a reasonably sound barrier keeping the visitors safe from the lions, tigers and bears.

However, if some visitors ignore the signs and barriers and “flirt” with the dangers they do so at their own peril.

Given that the lions, tigers and bears have a particularly awesome nature that includes the capacity to rip human beings apart and devour them, it is not clear that the zoo owner has the responsibility or right, even, to destroy or incapacitate these animals just because some humans have a penchant for recklessness or idiocy.

I have heard hell described as the effects of God’s all consuming love as they are felt by an evil soul, which would mean hell is the subjective state of an evil being in the presence of infinite Goodness. Since the state of the evil soul has been created by that individual him or herself, then how they perceive or receive infinite love is essentially what hell is, for them.

God bears no responsibility for becoming something more preferable or tolerable to an evil soul - by making himself more evil and less good, say - any more than the zoo owner must incapacitate, alter or destroy lions, tigers and bears just because foolish individuals exist who will ignore appropriate warnings about the dangers inherent in the nature of these awesome creatures.

Another important point is that even for an atheist, the possibility of death being rendered to a human being by a lion or tiger, is not nullified by the fact that the consequences are everlasting and therefore not fairly proportioned to the act that brought them about. Once you have been killed by a lion, you have been interminably killed - the “punishment” lasts forever. Is it thereby unjust because the consequences (never ending death) are far in excess of the action that precipitated the outcome. “Well officer, my husband just wanted to pet the large kitten. He meant no harm. Why did that awful cat have to kill him forever? It’s so unfair!”

It would seem that being very clear about possible consequences (whether petting large cats or committing sins) and weighing the costs associated with them would be the prudential thing to do, while you still have the opportunity to do so.

Petting a large cat could get any person (even an atheist) torn apart and dead forever. Turning yourself into an evil being could put you into a state of eternally suffering rather than enjoying the infinite goodness of God. The warning signs are very clear. Claiming ignorance or impulsivity won’t save you or give you second chance once the lion’s teeth have entered your flesh. That is just the way it is. You might claim the lion is just being unfair, mean or cruel but the reality is you cannot go back and undo the situation. No amount of protest will aid you. Life is like that.

Once you have distanced yourself from God irrevocably your fate may, indeed, be sealed. I am not clear that holding an “unfair” or "deserves a second chance” card in your back pocket will be any more effective with God than it would be with a lion. I certainly would not rely on that to abet your wrong choices in this life. It is far wiser to heed warnings than regret them later - that is a constant lesson taught by sequential time, probably for a reason. Once things are “fixed” by the present moving into the past, they cannot be undone.

A lion is a lion. God is God. He bears no responsibility to act humanely any more than a lion does. He is God, not a fallible human. He has a much better grasp of what is good and just than we do because he is Goodness Itself, Justice Itself. Of course you can, because of a heightened sense of self aggrandizement, believe that you can dictate to God what he should do, just as you might to a lion. I have a sense that God will no more “listen” to you trying to change reality to meet your sensibilities any more than a lion will.

 

[KindredSoul]

The way I see it is this: All is Grace, we must remember. The only reason that any of us, at all, can repent and turn to God is because of His Grace.

At death, God takes His Grace away, fully, from those who reject it on Earth.

This means that they are working with only their weak, fragile sense of human will to choose right and wrong. Now, for the sake of argument, let’s bypass the freewill conundrum by going ahead and assuming that, all things being equal, a human being could choose God even without God’s Grace drawing them. We must keep in mind that humans who are imperfect upon death ALL, both those who die in Grace and in Mortal Sin, undergo pain so intense (whether in Purgatory or Hell) that none of us here on Earth can even begin to imagine either pain. They will also have the knowledge that God Himself has permitted this fate to befall them.

Now, without God’s Grace, I think it very likely that ANY of us would be inclined, in our self-centered nature, to blame God, to loathe Him for letting us feel such pain. We would be very unlikely, if it were even remotely possible, to admit that He was justified, in the midst of our agony. If we apologized to God, it would probably just be a ploy to get out of our pain, not an act of genuine love that recognized that our fate was just. And without the Sacrament of Penance, which is itself a mercy that we haven’t earned, only that sort of true contrition CAN breach the gap with God.

The souls in Purgatory have the Grace to come to that true contrition, in spite of the overwhelming pain, as by God’s Grace they are free of the self-absorbed tendency to loathe anyone who would allow you to undergo SUCH extreme pain even if they are justified in allowing it. The souls in Hell, however, have rejected that grace, and thus from the moment their torment begins, they are on their own. I highly suspect that, without supernatural Grace, while they hypothetically have the free will to choose God, to truly love Him and genuinely admit that He is justified in punishing them (which would be required for True Contrition, and which the souls in Purgatory freely would choose and admit due to God’s Grace), they simply won’t do this. They will instead blame God for their fate, perhaps being compelled by an inability to lie to admit (in certain visions and apparitions) that their punishment is just, but always inwardly resenting it and only admitting it very grudgingly, not for love of God. And as long as this state is true, they cannot truly repent and enter Heaven. And without Grace, which they have willingly rejected or ignored when it was available, this state of being will be eternal, not because they’re “frozen” against their will, but precisely because they are never inclined to use their will to make a legitimate change.

God does not OWE them Grace; it is a free gift, one that He offered liberally in this lifetime. He doesn’t even OWE it to us in this life. I personally suspect that if a soul in Hell WOULD repent without God’s Grace, that soul would be saved, but I suspect that this just doesn’t ever happen.

So I think maybe it’s more of “It just isn’t a reality that anyone repents after death” rather than “impossible” in the sense that they couldn’t even if they wanted to do so. In a sense, if this is true, then it’s “impossible” in the sense that it just won’t happen, and God in His omniscience knows that it won’t and therefore it’s technically impossible that it will happen otherwise, but not because there will be souls in Hell who want desperately to repent but just can’t because they are somehow deprived, against their will, of choosing that option.

I hope this makes some sense, and of course these are my own musings; if any of them fall outside of Catholic orthodoxy without my realizing it, then I am definitely the wrong one, not the Church.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Sparkythedog]

Actually to be completely frank[furter] about this (and I certainly don’t want you to raise your hackles or make you hot under the collar,) my analogy was quite fitting and didn’t miss the mark.

The implication of your first post was that it is the hierarchy of the Church who have the most to gain or profit from promoting the idea of hell. (Recall the "bad for business“ quip.) The analogical correspondence is between the municipality and Church authority (implied by your post,) not the municipality and God.

The Church authorities did not “create” hell, they merely caution about it as a corollary from the teachings of Jesus, just as the municipality did not create the dangerous cliffs; they merely post signage after recognizing the danger.

I can see your point here. If that is the analogy then I agree.

Again, the implication of “bad for business” is that Church authorities have something to profit from the teaching of hell - presumably money in the collection plate from increased membership.

It is difficult to see how God could profit from the existence of hell given that he wants large numbers to attend the Great Banquet but so many are giving excuses not to attend. (Cf. Luke 14:15-24) So your “bad for business” quip cannot apply to God, but only to the municipal coun… er Church authorities, who are not responsible for the cliffs… er hell, but only for the cautionary strategy they feel compelled to implement. Whether they act for profit, fear or self-interest is irrelevent to the existence of the danger.

It seems this statement was a bit vague on my part and ended up being offensive to some so I’d like to explain.

The “bad for business” comment was not so much an implication that religions only exist for monetary gain (though in some instances that is the case). The “business” of many groups, religious or not, is to have members. If there are no members, there is no group. And in order to have members, those groups need to draw people in and keep them coming back.

There are thousands of religions out there, and they all have wildly varying beliefs. But I don’t think I’ve ever come across a religion that didn’t have negative consequences for the adherents that didn’t follow the particular tenets. Why is that? Why are there no “everything is the way it is and you don’t have to worry about it” religions?

I was once a believer. But when I started doubting the existence of eternal punishment, I had no reason to be a part of the church anymore. I had nothing against church but I just didn’t feel a need to be there. I knew nothing bad was going to happen to me if I wasn’t there, so I just stopped going.

But, how many people who attend church do so out of fear of what will happen to them if they don’t? How many other fear for their friends and family members who have left the church, and desperately try to convince them to return? Hell is a powerful motivator for keeping people coming back.

I have heard people say that they attend church out of love for God, and perhaps that’s true. But if your motivation to love someone is due to a fear of punishment, that’s not love.

Hopefully that helps explain my views a bit more clearly (and in a less snarky manner )

 

[Della]

I can see your point here. If that is the analogy then I agree.

It seems this statement was a bit vague on my part and ended up being offensive to some so I’d like to explain.

The “bad for business” comment was not so much an implication that religions only exist for monetary gain (though in some instances that is the case). The “business” of many groups, religious or not, is to have members. If there are no members, there is no group. And in order to have members, those groups need to draw people in and keep them coming back.

There are thousands of religions out there, and they all have wildly varying beliefs. But I don’t think I’ve ever come across a religion that didn’t have negative consequences for the adherents that didn’t follow the particular tenets. Why is that? Why are there no “everything is the way it is and you don’t have to worry about it” religions?

I was once a believer. But when I started doubting the existence of eternal punishment, I had no reason to be a part of the church anymore. I had nothing against church but I just didn’t feel a need to be there. I knew nothing bad was going to happen to me if I wasn’t there, so I just stopped going.

But, how many people who attend church do so out of fear of what will happen to them if they don’t? How many other fear for their friends and family members who have left the church, and desperately try to convince them to return? Hell is a powerful motivator for keeping people coming back.

I have heard people say that they attend church out of love for God, and perhaps that’s true. But if your motivation to love someone is due to a fear of punishment, that’s not love.

Hopefully that helps explain my views a bit more clearly (and in a less snarky manner )

Well, the puerile fear of God is certainly not the ideal. And God has not said that anything bad will happen to us in this life if we ignore him and his commandments, but then this life isn’t all there is.

The fear of God we ought to have is that of fearing to displease someone we love. What might be the consequences of doing so? And we have to remember that our beloved is not a mere human being but the eternal God–the source of life, love, beauty, truth, and so on.

God does not want people to go to hell, but if they insist on going there through their deliberate actions, he will not stop them. Would heaven be heaven for someone who didn’t want to be there? Apart from God there is no eternal happiness, so those who chose to separate themselves from God through deliberately committing serious sins are rejecting eternal happiness for momentary pleasure. Doing so is slapping God in the face, as if to say, “You can’t make me happy, only I can make me happy and I’ll prove it to you.” Where is that person’s love for the God who made them?

God is always calling to us, waiting for us, reaching out to us, but if we deaden our hearts and stop our ears he will not make us love him nor do what he knows is best for us. That’s our choice. It’s only right and proper that people be concerned about their loved one’s destinies, but in the end, each of us must stand before God alone. Our prayers can help them, but only if they want that help.

 

[Bob_Schiffer]

If we recall the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, we can find the answer to this question.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 16:19-31[/BIBLEDRB]

Here we find that the rich man, even after being sent to hell and shamed, has not changed his attitude. He was still a proud and arrogant man who saw Lazarus as inferior as seen when he asked Abraham to send Lazarus to fetch him some water.

In the same way, when a person dies, his attitude would not change. Thus, if a person was not repentant during his lifetime, then he would not be repentant after.

 

[tonyrey]

So I think maybe it’s more of “It just isn’t a reality that anyone repents after death” rather than “impossible” in the sense that they couldn’t even if they wanted to do so. In a sense, if this is true, then it’s “impossible” in the sense that it just won’t happen, and God in His omniscience knows that it won’t and therefore it’s technically impossible that it will happen otherwise, but not because there will be souls in Hell who want desperately to repent but just can’t because they are somehow deprived, against their will, of choosing that option.

If they want desperately to repent but just can’t they cannot be responsible for their predicament. Would God’s infinite love and mercy allow them to suffer forever if they are truly contrite. Does any sin deserve eternal punishment?

 

[Della]

If they want desperately to repent but just can’t they cannot be responsible for their predicament. Would God’s infinite love and mercy allow them to suffer forever if they are truly contrite.

It can be hard for us to understand how someone would not be contrite upon realizing they were destined for hell, but it’s not a decision they made on the spur of the moment after living lives of holiness. It’s how they patterned their whole lives until they so hardened their hearts they cannot repent any longer. This is why God tells us again and again to keep our hearts open to him.

Does any sin deserve eternal punishment?

This is the wrong question. The question is: “Is there any way of satisfying the eternal justice of God without repentance?” The answer is, to be baptized and believe (baptism being understood within the full context of the Church’s teaching). God has given us the means to be saved. It is our own doing if we deliberately ignore it and choose to reject it.