Yes, in hell, but why forever

[Magnanimity]

Do you see that those who wanted the crucifixion were desiring justice? And when we are seeing the tormented as deserving punishment, that in our minds the value of the “evildoer” is negative? (non-deliberately dehumanized?)

The religious leaders who contrived to have Jesus put to death were seeking justice? Though, I’m not sure that that was the clear motivation. It seemed more to me that Jesus was perceived to be a threat to their authority and so it was an attempt to do away with the threat.
But I like how you phrased that last portion, “non-deliberately dehumanized.” The problem with any attempt to dehumanize is that of course all humans bear the divine image and likeness, which is intrinsic to them, it is inalienable. To no longer bear this image and likeness is to no longer be human. And that would certainly seem to be a cruel and bizarre form of punishment.

unconscionable to release an evildoer

So all Catholics are aware that they themselves do evil. They are also aware that justice is not what they see from God. Rather, they seek that God will be toward them a loving father. They seek his mercy, not his justice. So I don’t know who these people are who would find it unconscionable that God would grant mercy over justice. That is what we day daily hope for from him for ourselves. What would be the reason why we would not hope for it for others?

conditionally loving/forgiving God, then the idea of an everlasting hell is perfectly reasonable. Agree?

Unfortunately, no. The way that most humans love is just like that, they love conditionally. And yet, I cannot imagine a human court handing down a never ending sentence. All of humanity would be united in a belief that such a sentence, such a punishment, would be both cruel and unusual. There is no crime or series of crimes that anyone could commit that would necessitate a punishment that never ever ends as “just.” And this is true for humans who love conditionally. So for a divine being who loves unconditionally, the prospect of the never ending inescapable hell is, to use your word, unconscionable.

Perhaps intuiting is more than the book stuff! Did Thomas A. support an eternal hell? If so, why?

Yes, bc he was Augustinian, as were all the scholastics.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Some folks are apologists for Hell bc the church in the West during the Middle Ages held to a belief (following St Augustine) that a state of perpetual, inescapable suffering and torment exists and is taught in the NT. That is it. That’s all I can see.

You’ve said this a few times. Can you give the cliff notes version of why the NT references to hell or enteral damnation are not references to eternal damnation and why the magisterium has been wrong to condemn universalism?

If it helps you, I’ll note that I don’t hold to medieval descriptions of hell. Rather I consider hell to be the eternal lack of what we are oriented toward: the love of God. I consider medieval descriptions to be our feeble human attempt to imagine the unimaginable: the absence of God’s love.

 

[Fatima-Crusader]

Some Thoughts on Hell - YouTube this is a good video on it

 

[Magnanimity]

If only, Agatha! “Ignorance is bliss.” And a large part of me wishes I never read St Augustine claim that the entire human race is, by default, a mass of the damned and God in his inscrutable mystery will save a few (most will be damned). Or St Thomas Aquinas who is my intellectual hero - it was heartbreaking to learn that he taught that all are not saved simply bc “although God wishes some good to all men, He does not wish the particular good of eternal life to all.” -ST So much for God so loving the world, eh? John 3:16 is just a slight of hand, I suppose.

I appreciate the distinction you are trying to draw, but those Catholics here who are ardent apologists of the Augustinian hell will frequently point to Matthew 25 and the book of Revelation as the scriptural justifications for their beliefs. In those passages, folks are certainly being “cast away” by the Judge at the end of time. God sends them there in those passages—they do not “choose” banishment. They are sent. Torment and suffering are universal descriptors of hell by everyone I’ve run into here at CAF. Many will stop short of stating that God tortures, but torment and suffering are part and parcel of this place to which the “just Judge” sends them.

 

[Magnanimity]

The question begged is “Would God even allow a person to choose hell with such blindness?”

That is correct. That is the question. Given humanity’s fallen state, what role does “justice” play as over against “mercy?” A diminished one, I would imagine.

 

[Bonaventurian]

In those passages, folks are certainly being “cast away” by the Judge at the end of time. God sends them there in those passages—they do not “choose” banishment. They are sent. Torment and suffering are universal descriptors of hell by everyone I’ve run into here at CAF. Many will stop short of stating that God tortures, but torment and suffering are part and parcel of this place to which the “just Judge” sends them.

They are sent there based upon their own actions, in the exact same way that a convict is condemned to punishment based upon their actions. And in the case of hell, the punishment is to reap the result of their own actions in this life which was to reject the Good. The final mercy that God gives the damned is to limit their suffering to less than is deserved.

And these torments you speak of are self-inflicted, “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished” Matthew 9:45. They are afflicted by their own conscience eternally as a result of their choice to choose sin over the Good. We need to remember that God gives us every grace for salvation, either through the Church or the natural law.

 

[Magnanimity]

why the magisterium has been wrong to condemn universalism?

Sure, so the emperor Justinian was very unimpressed with the apokatastasis as taught by Origen. He enumerated several anathemas and sent them to the fathers at the ecumenical council of Constantinople II for conciliar ratification. However, in the contemporary scholarly work Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, the editor Norman Tanner states, “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen, since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council,” (pp. 105-6). So, there has been no ecumenical council that has condemned apokatastasis. At most, one could say that the particular apokatastasis of Origen has been rejected.

Can you give the cliff notes version of why the NT references to hell or enteral damnation are not references to eternal damnation

Which passage are you thinking of in particular? The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25)? Let’s use that one as an example. If there is anything that is crystal clear from that parable it is this: Christ requires of his people that they help the vulnerable and least-fortunate—the hungry, thirsty, naked, stranger, prisoner, the sick—we must help them. It’s not an option, and Christ drives home the significance of this requirement by couching it in terms of an end-times, eschatological event, in a similar way that he drives home the point of avoiding things which cause us to sin by stating that we should maim ourselves (cut off hand, eye, foot). It is hyperbole for the sake of effect. Christ does not really wish you to pluck out your eye, but to plainly and simply read those passages, one might conclude that He really does want you to maim yourself. Just as we might miss the requirement to help the very unfortunate and instead think He is really speaking about a future, end-times event. Follow me so far?

And here is the thing, many of the greatest minds in the church have read all those passages in the gospels and in revelation and have nevertheless ended up in some form of apokatastasis. So, the scriptures alone do not settle the matter.

If it helps you, I’ll note that I don’t hold to medieval descriptions of hell. Rather I consider hell to be the eternal lack of what we are oriented toward: the love of God

Well, that’s something. The problem is that we are not only oriented toward the love of God—we were created for it. Beatitude is our destiny, our final end. To deprive a human of his final end forever would be the most intense and particularly cruel form of punishment imaginable.

And for what? Justice?! What’s so great about everyone constantly getting what they deserve? We opt for the mercy of God over his justice every single day—we’re groping for it and yet want to deny it to “the others,” who are bound for hell.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Bonaventurian]

Just like the heroin addict doesn’t want to slowly crumble and die under addiction, they still choose it because it gives them pleasure in the moment.

 

[Magnanimity]

I only ask that you think this all the way through, Agatha. How can a human choose to be everlastingly separated from the Good? Idk even know what that means. The good is what humans are ever seeking, all the time, everyday, even when we intermingle it with some privation (some lack of a good that makes the act “disordered”).

Then why is there weeping and gnashing of teeth? If they are willingly there, why the tears and sorrow and torment? I don’t even think it’s possible to give a coherent argument for a human willingly separating herself from all Goodness.

I’m a thoroughgoing and proud Catholic (western rite). Just an ordinary American Catholic, although I am not a cradle one—entered the church in 2004. But I am so confident in my faith that I read all over the place, including the early church fathers (who were strongly universalist) and the greatest 20th century Catholics (who were also universalists) and the Orthodox (again, predominantly universalists). :v:t3:

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I might be persuaded by your interpetation of Matt 25 if not for the fact that Christ at varying other times said he would send some to an eternal punishment or otherwise made reference to eternal damnation.

So, if I understand you, everytime Christ spoke of damning someone he was using hyperbole? And everytime Paul or others spoke about eternal damnation they were using hyperbole, too? Is there even a final judgement at all? Why even have a concept of sin if it doesn’t matter? Why have any commandments at all?

To deprive a human of his final end forever would be the most intense and particularly cruel form of punishment imaginable.

Except that God doesn’t actively will that anyone be in hell. They have made their choice. And they wouldn’t make another. Are you suggesting that the only way God can be just is to violate our will? How is that just?

 

[JimG]

I suppose that God could drag into heaven, against their will, those who don’t want to be there. He could put them in heaven against their will, but they would not be happy.

 

[Magnanimity]

might be persuaded by your interpetation of Matt 25

I appreciate the flattery, but that isn’t my interpretation. That is the inescapable meaning of the passage—that Christ’s flock is required to care for the marginalized and suffering here on earth, and if you don’t, there will be serious consequences. Now whether you or anyone else wants to make the parable into some sort of end-times prophecy as well is a separate matter. I’ve made this point several times in this thread, but it apparently bears repeating here. All the greatest minds of the entire church, those who believed in an Augustinian Hell and those who believed in the restoration of all things all read the same New Testament.

It stands to reason therefore that if the NT so obviously teaches a place of eternal punishment, then how is it that many of the church’s greatest minds have not seen this obvious scriptural message? Christ often used hyperbole, did he not?

How often did St Paul speak of “damnation?” Sin does matter—we all know this. Christ himself plainly taught a lack of equality in Heaven—“he who wishes to be first will be last.” There are “greater” and “lesser” in Heaven. Christ does not use a parable to teach this—he speaks plainly. This life and how we live it does matter. but whether a loving God will forever condemn his beloved creature is a unique question, separate from the question of sin having consequences.

violate our will?

Your will was created for the Good—that is its proper end. Goodness, beauty and love are compelling, maybe not forcibly so. But the compelling nature of love cannot be denied. We all experience it. Every person was made for beatitude. It is the only place you can “rest.”

 

[mrsdizzyd]

It stands to reason therefore that if the NT so obviously teaches a place of eternal punishment, then how is it that many of the church’s greatest minds have not seen this obvious scriptural message?

You know, I could ask you the same question since you just told me that the way you explained Matt 25 is the “inescapable meaning” of the passage.

The thing is that the NT quite literally teaches eternal punishment. In order for me to see it any other way I’d have to interpret away from the text AND disregard the teaching authority of the church. No thanks.

Why do I think that so many great minds have not been able to assent to an eternal hell? Because it is a hard saying. Because it is hard to believe that anyone would hate God so much. Because it is hard to believe that anyone would make that choice.

But the compelling nature of love cannot be denied.

Unfortunately, I have known a couple blasphemers of the Holy Spirit. A couple of people who if they had been stuck down at that moment would have relished the thought of spitting in Christ’s face. People who lived their lives running away from God and denying him at every turn. For God to force them to be with Him forever when they were clearly not interested would be unjust. It would be merciless. Such a usurpation of the will would be contrary to charity.

 

[Magnanimity]

That’s good. So I have a question for you. Who is the church? Is it the catechism? Is it only the magisterium? Is it only the Catholic Church or does it include the Orthodox too (unitatis redintegratio)? You say you are following the church, believing in her authority and listening to her.

As it happens, i completely believe that I’m doing the same. Only, following dei verbum I understand the “church” to include all the “faithful.” The people (non-magisterium and magisterium) who ponder things in their hearts. Let me quote the document:

“This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.” (DV, 8)

So, I read the catechism, and I read the ecumenical councils, I read the saints and I read the great theological minds (East and West)—this is the “church,” the totality.

“Many” are damned? This is truth, huh? Not your opinion?

So I continue to ask this question of people: who chooses punishment? Who chooses absence from the good? What does that even mean? I challenge that you cannot imagine what it would be like for a human to be unable to orient herself toward any good. What would that look like, forever?

I don’t know what this means, unless you’re referring to the CCC? There is no ecumenical council of the whole church that teaches eternal damnation. None. Zero. Doesn’t exist. However, as I’ve stated, St Augustine taught an eternal hell for most people, and the Catholic church of the Middle Ages more or less followed him in this belief.

The majority of the early church fathers? Universalists

The majority of the East? Universalists

The majority of contemporary, preeminent Catholic scholars? Universalists

I do not believe the CCC is infallible, and neither should you. Have a good night, Agatha! I appreciate the conversation.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

The majority of the early church fathers? Universalists

The majority of the East? Universalists

The majority of contemporary, preeminent Catholic scholars? Universalists

Do you have citations for these claims?

This website seems to disagree with you: The Hell There Is! The Bible and Church Fathers on Eternal Hell, and Conscious, Everlasting Torment

 

[Bonaventurian]

Agatha is saying that the teachings of Jesus Christ on the matter are infallible. And very clear. Unless you’re saying Christ is a liar?

 

[Magnanimity]

You know, I could ask you the same question since you just told me that the way you explained Matt 25 is the “inescapable meaning” of the passage.

I don’t think so. Those who believe the passage is also an end-times prophecy do not deny the moral imperative to help the needy. That is, beyond any doubt, a universally-held meaning of the passage. Don’t think so? Feel free to quote a prominent Catholic who disagrees. Just quote one.

disregard the teaching authority of the church. No thanks.

As I said to Agatha, so I must say to you: “I don’t know what this means, unless you’re referring to the CCC? There is no ecumenical council of the whole church that teaches eternal damnation. None. Zero. Doesn’t exist. However, as I’ve stated, St Augustine taught an eternal hell for most people, and the Catholic church of the Middle Ages more or less followed him in this belief.”

Because it is a hard saying. Because it is hard to believe that anyone would hate God so much.

No, what is hard (read, impossible) is a God who is infinite Love creating a beloved creature only to, in the end, send that creature to a realm of neverending torment and suffering.

Such a usurpation of the will would be contrary to charity.

Ah, the ultimate triumph of the human will—it must really be the most powerful entity in the universe—able to determine eternal destinies all on its own! It’s almost as if it’s more powerful than God himself. As in, God may want to save you, but you say “NO!” and thereby thwart the will of God. Incredible…

 

[Magnanimity]

Do you have citations for these claims?

Sure. You can start here. But even for the more careful and reserved Catholic universalists (e.g., Hans Urs Von Balthasar), he states the same as my claims here in Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? The central claim? Outside of the western church in the Middle Ages, there is not widespread support for Hell as defined as neverending, inescapable torment and suffering.

 

[Magnanimity]

Agatha is saying that the teachings of Jesus Christ on the matter are infallible.

Since Christ is God, this would be true by definition.

And very clear.

Sometimes Christ is clear. At other times, he seems opaque.

Unless you’re saying Christ is a liar?

How about I just say something less inflammatory? You may or may not be in possession of the truth of Christ on the issue of Hell. That way, we both get to admit that human error is possible, and nobody had to call Christ a liar! Win, win.

 

[JimG]

Sure. You can start here.

I would note that “Eclectic Orthodoxy” is not a Catholic website. It’s owner is an Eastern Orthodox. And it seems to me that its title is a contradiction in terms.