Yes, in hell, but why forever

[yammerGee]

The 4th Lateran Council article seems to indicate that the resurrection of those going to hell will have the body and soul united in the same manner as those going to heaven.

It is the de fide doctrine of the Catholic Church that all men shall not only rise again with a body but shall rise again with the same body they have had on earth. For the moment we may remark that, according to this doctrine, the good and wicked will alike arise with their bodies.

…

The larger group of theologians, following Aquinas, declares that mere identity of soul is not sufficient for identity of body. The soul must be reunited to at least some of the matter that once essentially belonged to it. . . .

 

[sudy]

I’m here to learn, too…I can’t pretend to know the answer to your question as I haven’t studied it. I was merely offering my thoughts. My starting point is that I accept that Christ is speaking the truth when Scripture tells us in Matthew 25:45-46

He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

[yammerGee]

I appreciate the discussion. I’m trying to figure things out too. My main concern is with that article. I don’t know…Karlo is a famous Catholic apologist but I don’t see how his assertion about the body adds up when juxtaposed with other Catholic teachings…

 

[sudy]

What he said made sense to me.

I think that it’s not making that claim (at least, with respect to the eschaton). Rather, it’s saying that a person’s choice becomes irrevocable while they’re a disembodied soul. Because it’s irrevocable, there’s no “fleeting passions, change in habit, or correction of intellectual error” in hell, even in the eschaton.

Christ tells us that there is eternal punishment and the Catholic Church [established by Christ] confirms it. In my opinion we have to understand things from that starting point. How we understand hell itself may be open to interpretation as there are several descriptions of hell… second death, outer darkness, a lake of fire, etc. We do know that hell is separation from God, though.

 

[yammerGee]

I don’t see how the eternity of hell contradicts the idea that those in hell can have bodies and be capable of repenting.

Just because they are able to repent in hell, that doesn’t mean they will be granted the ability to leave hell due to that repentance. Hell can still be eternal.

 

[sudy]

Just because they are able to repent in hell, that doesn’t mean they will be granted the ability to leave hell due to that repentance. Hell can still be eternal.

I’m struggling to understand how you could support this idea. The ability to repent but unable to leave would cast God in a terrible light.

Edited to rephrase what I meant.

 

[Magnanimity]

And, if you disagree with that one – which, as a Christian, one hopes you do – then you’ll have to admit that the same principle holds with God vis-a-vis humanity: He’s not the cause of our suffering, either.

All of us Catholics respond to the atheist’s argument on the problem of evil with some sort of a “to bring about a greater good” answer. We say that God permits “natural” evils (tsunamis) and evils resulting from human free will, but all of this will one day be rectified and culminate in all things being made new again—new heavens and a new earth, where God will be all in all.

However, such a “to bring about a greater good” response is inadequate to the problem of the medieval Hell because no answer is provided (or even imaginable) for how Sarah’s unending torment and suffering and forever being thwarted of her final end (beatitude) is somehow a greater good. Sarah’s unending torment is very obviously worse than many other scenarios.

Because it still falls under the realm of His providence. Or is that too simple a view for you to accept?

No, that’s perfect. You have finally gotten the Thomistic position here. God, in his providence, permits Sarah to unendingly suffer in Hell, according to St Thomas, because he did not wish the particular good of eternal life to Sarah. Not because God respects the ‘almighty choices’ of Sarah but because he does not love her as much as he loves those who are destined for eternal life. It’s called predilection, and for Aquinas, it even extends his understanding of Hell.

If you deny the principle of predilection, then how do you understand Aquinas’ phrase? God wishes some good to all men, but he does not wish the particular good of eternal life to all. “So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life—He is said to hate or reprobate them.” ST 1.23.3

He loves by honoring our choice

That’s right, “the greatest good” in the cosmos—human choice. God honors it so highly that He will be perfectly fine with a person ruining herself for all time, all for the great virtue of honoring choice. God loves Sarah so much he lets her ruin herself forever in unending misery. With a god like that, who needs enemies?

He loves by willing His justice; He loves by rewarding virtue and punishing vice

Another false dilemma. There is nothing about justice that necessitates unending punishment. Every universalist under the sun believes that God rewards virtue and punishes vice.

 

[Magnanimity]

All sin is an offense against God, isn’t it? God is not finite. Therefore, the offense is not finite. Not sure whether you’ve never run up against that train of thought, or are just ignoring it…

In any case, you might be interested in Aquinas’ take on the question.

With all due respect Gorigias, I don’t have any reason to believe you’ve read Aquinas closer on this issue than I have. All I can do is repeat myself. Feel free to try to present a counter argument or undermine the following:

Just as when you commit a loving act toward God, no one would say that you are loving God infinitely, so too, when you offend God, it cannot be said that you offend him infinitely.

No one on CAF will argue for the infinity of God more ardently than I, but it does not follow that any act you could commit toward such a being is ipso facto an infinite act. All of your acts are finite by their very natures.

So, when a person doesn’t work for God’s good for His own sake, then he doesn’t love God. Therefore, it’s both just and good (and an expression of love) for God to give him what he himself has demonstrated he wanted.

Non sequitur. Maybe try to write the argument in syllogism. Your conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the one premise.

So… heaven is unjust, too? After all, it’s eternal reward for temporal love…! Boy, you must have a hard time of it – God’s evil for allowing hell, and He’s wrong for allowing heaven!

As if you’ve never heard of mercy and forgiveness, Gorgias… As if you’re unaware that God granting mercy to you is not to give you what you deserve. If all God did was give people what they have earned, then I guess there would be, what, 3 people in Heaven?

 

[yammerGee]

I agree. I don’t support the idea. I am trying to steer this discussion back to Karlo’s assertion in his article by pointing out that hell’s eternity isn’t technically relevant to the issue. Discussing God’s goodness on this matter would only steer the discussion further away. So instead of getting sidetracked let’s revisit my initial questions:

1: Do we have bodies in hell? Y/N?
2: Is repentance in hell possible? Y/N?
3: If it is not possible, and we do have bodies in hell, then why not?

 

[SeekSalvation]

Upon death you no longer have the ability to ask for forgiveness. In hell you no longer have the ability to Love. Every person born to this world was given one shared gift, Everlasting. It’s your choice on which side of Eternal Everlasting gift you decide to be on; life or damnation.

 

[SeekSalvation]

1. Yes, but not the spiritual body you would have received in the New Heaven and Earth
2. No. Not possible. The ability to repent ends at death. In Hell you have no ability to Love
3. You have a body in Hell. Might I recommend Father Isaac Mary Relyea on this very topic. His sermons on this very topic may change you for life.

https://www.audiosancto.org/

 

[sudy]

I am trying to steer this discussion back to Karlo’s assertion in his article by pointing out that hell’s eternity isn’t technically relevant to the issue.

Hell’s eternity is technically relevant to this discussion because that’s what the whole thread is about. Karlo may not be accurate in his theological insight, though he actually may be, too… I’m really not in a position to determine that. It’s possible that it’s not strictly the soul being separated from the body that ends its ability to repent, but rather death itself that ends it. Once we know of Our Lord and His judgement for fact, this may be the actual turning point. All we really know for certain is what Christ has revealed and how His Church interprets that revelation.

 

[yammerGee]

I poked around a bit more for answers and Jimmy Akin says it’s because after death we’ll have a different sort of free will, rather than the answer having anything to do with the lack of a body.

So it sounds like Karlo is mistaken since his answer is not only different but seems to clearly contradict the 4th Lateran Council.

 

[Ridgerunner]

seeing him and all the glory behind him that you’d feel compelled to ask for forgiveness and not spurn him away.

Pride is an amazing this, and causes people to do all sorts of things you wouldn’t think it would. Besides, how do we know He appears in all His glory? Perhaps He appears as every downtrodden, diseased, ugly person who ever lived, simultaneously.

One might think of life as a process of training ourselves to be much more loving and humble people than we are naturally inclined to be. And if we don’t do it now, will we do it then? How did Jesus put it? “…If if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

 

[Gorgias]

However, such a “to bring about a greater good” response is inadequate to the problem of the medieval Hell because no answer is provided (or even imaginable) for how Sarah’s unending torment and suffering and forever being thwarted of her final end (beatitude) is somehow a greater good. Sarah’s unending torment is very obviously worse than many other scenarios.

The ‘torment’ and ‘suffering’ are the knowledge that she chose her final end. It wasn’t imposed on her. Her free will choice isn’t primary, but it’s inviolable. To think that God will impose His will on us is the “worst scenario.” Think Scripturally: on the cross, one thief asks for mercy and receives it, along with the promise of eternal bliss. The other does not ask for it… and Jesus doesn’t badger him or force him into accepting it. In one brief moment, we see both God’s mercy and God’s justice… and both are good.

I hear what you’re saying, and I get your concern. I just think that the wish to force an unwanted ‘greater good’ on a person makes sense sentimentally, but no sense in the context of the goodness and justice of God. After all, it would mean that God’s sitting there saying, “hey, I’m gonna let you suffer through your life on earth, but don’t worry: nothing you do really matters anyway, because at the end, I’m gonna force you to choose me, even if you don’t want to!” That’s what tyrants and dictators do!

God, in his providence, permits Sarah to unendingly suffer in Hell, according to St Thomas, because he did not wish the particular good of eternal life to Sarah. Not because God respects the ‘almighty choices’ of Sarah but because he does not love her as much as he loves those who are destined for eternal life.

No. You start with Aquinas, and then you veer off course. Aquinas makes recourse to “God’s will” phraseology, but his point is that God allows, rather than dictates a person’s choice:

t is part of [God’s] providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end.

(ST I.23.3)
So, ask yourself: if God “wishes all [people] some good” (ST 1.23.3 ad 1), then what is the good He’s wishing for those “who turn aside from that end”? It follows that the good is that of honoring a freely made choice to turn aside.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s right, “the greatest good” in the cosmos—human choice.

No. Again: not the greatest good, but an inviolable gift.

There is nothing about justice that necessitates unending punishment.

“Duration” is the red herring in this argument.

Just as when you commit a loving act toward God, no one would say that you are loving God infinitely, so too, when you offend God, it cannot be said that you offend him infinitely.

Fine. Where’s the justice in eternal bliss in return for finite love? Either both heaven and hell are disproportionate, or both are just. Which is it?

Besides, your comment here – notwithstanding your jab at my reading of Aquinas – betrays that you haven’t read the link from the compendium of his work. (There, just as a subtle hint, Aquinas defines why your argument about the injustice of infinite condemnation fails.)

Your conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the one premise.

My conclusion follows from your premise. You’re forgetting where I got that line of thought.

As if you’ve never heard of mercy and forgiveness, Gorgias… As if you’re unaware that God granting mercy to you is not to give you what you deserve.

So, your claim is that God’s mercy exists, but not His justice. Got it.

 

[OneSheep]

Q. So, since God loves/forgives unconditionally, then it is a given that the “If it is not redeemed” by God’s forgiveness will simply not happen.
A. God does forgive the repentant one. If it is not redeemed by repentance is what was said.

A: Since God’s love is unconditional, then so is His forgiveness. Jesus did not wait for the for the crowd to repent before He forgave. God’s mercy is without limit, and forgiveness is an act of mercy.

Q. Hardness of heart is also a matter of blindness/lack of awareness.
A. Yes, through which a person can be finally unrepentant and self-condemn, never to experience the Beatific Vision.

A: God forgives those who self-condemn, for the above reasons. God does all He can possibly do to change the minds of those who self-condemn. There is nothing automatic about choosing hell. The universe is not so cold, Vico; it is filled with the love of the Father.

Q. can you see the poster’s “why forever?”. It comes from knowing God as the father of the prodigal son!
A. No, not based upon his very general statement. In the parable, the son actually was repentent, and of course in actuality, the Father in Heaven knows those that are finally repentent and those that are not.

Your image of God is one for which it is very important that a person be repentant in order for God to forgive, as if God’s mercy and love is limited by the condition of the sinner.

Matt. 6:14–15 (Conditions)

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

The priest scripture scholar who taught us stated that if this is taken literally, it conflicts with other parts of scripture. What is meant is that if we do not forgive, we will not realize God’s forgiveness. His mercy is unlimited, so then His forgiveness, but without forgiving others, we will not comprehend this image of unconditional forgiveness, and live an insecure faith.

Matthew 23
33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

Arguably, that is a rhetorical question intended to motivate the scribes and Pharisees to change their behavior. It appeals to people who have an unforgiving image of God.

 

[OneSheep]

John 16

3 And these things will they do to you; because they have not known the Father nor me.

This has nothing to do with conditions we are discussing Vico.

2 Peter 2

20 For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.

This is because of the workings of our own consciences. When we know a rule, and then, because of blindness, break it, we experience the torture of guilt. Peter is very acquainted with the torture of guilt.

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity. …

A: Yes, contrary to reason, which elaborates on the point that we do not know what we are doing when we sin; we are either blind or lacking awareness. The part about “wounding” may refer to addiction, but is confusing because God created our nature, and all He created is Good, especially our nature. God created us; we, at our depth, do not create ourselves. Sin definitely injures our solidarity.

1859 … Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart 133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

A: CCC 1859 is not meant to conflict with CCC 1700, which asserts human dignity. When people feign ignorance, or have hardness of heart, their actions are indeed voluntary. All human behavior other than breathing, sneezing, and the like are voluntary. Feigned ignorance and harness of heart occur when people are blind or lacking awareness. Their actions are indeed voluntary no matter what condition of mind.

Seeing that people do not know what they are doing when they sin is an observation that can only be verified by the individual. I invite you, Vico, to investigate your own sins and verify your own lack of reason when you chose to sin! Then, you will see that we can see human beauty and innocence, which underscores that humans indeed have dignity.

 

[OneSheep]

No. You’re confusing “a particular instance of judgment” with “the definition of what a judgment is”. C’mon, man… you’re really grasping at straws, now…

If the Church insists that any particular individual has committed a mortal sin, then that is indeed an instance of judging, which is in conflict with Jesus’ command that we not judge one another. The Church has never insisted that any individual has committed a mortal sin.

OK: so, let me get this straight – you’re saying that it’s unjust of God to allow a person to receive the outcome of the option they’ve chosen through their freely-willed actions

God’s justice is mercy. If a person does actually go to hell, he chooses it freely. If the “outcome” is forced, then this is not free will.

it’s just of God to punish a person before they’ve made the choice that warrants that outcome?

The Father does not punish for the sake of purposeless “justice”, but in purgatory there is a purging of that which is distorted, that which led to sin. True justice has a purpose grounded in mercy and care for the sinner. It is up to God to know what that purging will involve, and we can trust His infinite mercy.

God does not do evil , but rather, makes good come of the evil that takes place.

So, to uphold that view, if a person chooses hell, then that will be an evil that takes place. For God to make good of it, He opens His arms to those who would rather not be there after experiencing it. That works, yes.

Actually, our parents’ choice.

God creates, not our parents.

We incarcerate either to justly

Again, the purpose of justice is mercy.

We do not “expose [criminals] to a bit of suffering for the purpose of revealing grace”

We expose them to suffering, but not for the purpose of suffering itself. It is for the purpose of rehabilitation. People suffer in prison; and hopefully they learn from it, but the suffering alone does little to rehabilitate. Much more should be done to actually help rehabilitate.

 

[Gorgias]

If the Church insists that any particular individual has committed a mortal sin

That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the definition of mortal sin, and the Church has defined it.

For God to make good of it, He opens His arms to those who would rather not be there after experiencing it. That works, yes.

There is no “changing your mind” in hell, according to the teachings of the Church.