A reader writes:
I’m currently lutheran, seeking the Catholic Church. But there is one thing that’s bothering me; the definition of hell. I have allways found the orthodox understanding, that hell is the presence of God, or of the truth and light of God, and that heaven and hell is the same "place." While listening to a talk called "Time and Eternity," Peter Kreeft explained some of it. He said:
"[The truth of God] is the esential nature of both heaven and hell. Heaven is truth embraced, hell is truth refused. Thus we could even say that heaven and hell are the same objective reality, experienced in opposite subjective ways. Metaphoracally, heaven and hell are the same place. Think of the dwarfs at the end of The Last Battle [the seventh Narnia-book]. Or think of a rocker and a opera buff sitting side by side at a rock concert or an opera. What is hell to one, is heaven to the other. So the very fires of hell may consist of the eternal truth and goodness and love of God, that is ultimate reality; every creature’s ultimate other. Those wo have cultivated what Lewis calls «the taste for the other,» love it when it finally appears. Those who have supressed and resented this taste are shocked and squashed by the other. Like Sartre, in «No Exit,» proclaiming the presice creed of the damned; «hell is the others.»"
My question is: what is the position of the Catholic church? Would I be considered a "heretic" for believing this?
You wouldn’t be considered a heretic because the precise nature of hell has not been infallibly defined, and without an infallible definition there is no heresy.
That being said, the language that Peter uses in his explanation is at least different in tone than that which the Church conventionally uses. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
At first glance, this makes it sound like the opposite of what you are talking about: Hell as being removed from God’s presence rather than being confronted unpleasantly by God’s presence.
But the two are not necessarily incompatible. Apart from the Incarnation, God does not have a bodily, physical form from which one can be absent or present. It seems to me that speaking of being separated from God here refers to spiritual separation from him–some form of eternal opposition toward God rather than being in union with him in our hearts.
If the eternal separation of hell is understood this way then it could be compatible to say that all are ultimately confronted with the reality of God and, for those who are spiritually united (in harmony) with him it is a wonderful, glorious experience, while for those who are spiritually separated (in opposition) from him it is an unpleasant, painful experience.
I would therefore put the kind of thing that you and Peter are articulating in the category of permitted speculation about the nature of hell. It is one way of trying to envision and understand hell.
It does run against the grain of the language that the Church has traditionally used–which is based on Jesus’ language about the damned being thrown out into the darkness and thus shut out of the presence of the King–but this language is likely to contain a significant element of metaphor to help us have a feel for realities that go beyond our present ability to comprehend.
Hope this helps!
Please refer to the Fatima visions, and the Divine Mercy revelations, and what they tell us about hell. As a simple person, I find these very helpful.
Hell, like evil, is best understood by reference to what it is not. That is, just as evil is best defined as the absence of good, Hell is best defined as the absence of God. And, like evil, God does not cause this separation — the sinner himself causes it by his own free will. God doesn’t damn people to Hell, people choose it. People choose to reject God, and God permits it because He will not force Himself upon anyone.
As for fire and gnashing of teeth, take a look at any young child suffering separation anxiety due to being apart from a parent — or any older person being dumped by a spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend, and the associated distress from the break-up — and you will see the real nature of Hell. The pain of being separate and apart from a loved one, especially our Heavenly Father, that is, He who is Truth, Love, and Light, is far greater than fire.
If you are reading Kreeft and coming to this blog, then you are in the best of hands. I wish you a lovely and smooth voyage home.
May the light of Illuvatar be with you.
This is an absolutely wonderful post. We are so disinclined to think about eternal punishment, and it’s such a tricky topic even when we do. Thank you, Jimmy.
Ahhhh … Finally, James Akin at his best.
More, please!
Who is this “James Akin” of whom you speak?
-El S.
El S.,
Jimmy/James Akin are one and the same, my friend.
If you want his biography, click on the link to the left.
El S. is pointing out that the name is Jimmy. Not James.
Uh, I must seem REALLY dum 😉
I was going to post “Who’s Jimmy Akin?” myself, but El S beat me to it. 🙁
This gives me an idea. I think we should start a new tradition at JimmyAkin.com. Kind of like “No, it is I who will eat you!”
It is this: Whenever anyone says “James Akin,” let’s see who can be the first to post “Who’s James Akin?”
Kind of like seeing who can post “FIRST!” first at aintitcool.com, but less geeky-loserish.
Gentlemen, start your engines….
(I didn’t say it would be a frequent tradition.)
“I was going to post “Who’s Jimmy Akin?” myself, but El S beat me to it.”
Of course I MEANT I was going to type “Who’s JAMES Akin?” 🙁
I’ve never been a fan of Kreeft. He waters down the differences between the Catholic and Protestant views of justification, the reality of hell and the differences between Christianity and non-Christian religions.
I always thought that Hell was the sulfurous fire that is the second death (Revelation 20:10)???
+J.M.J+
>>>It seems to me that speaking of being separated from God here refers to spiritual separation from him–some form of eternal opposition toward God rather than being in union with him in our hearts.
Perhaps “alienation from God” is a better way to express it than “separation from God”?
“Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present.” (Psalm 138(139): 7-8)
That being said, I don’t know whether I agree that hellfire is identical with the Holy and Consuming Fire of God. It’s a theologically tricky question.
>>>I always thought that Hell was the sulfurous fire that is the second death (Revelation 20:10)???
Except that the Apocalypse distinguishes between hell and the lake of fire: “And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death.” (v. 14)
In Jesu et Maria,
Bender,
“Hell, like evil, is best understood by reference to what it is not. That is, just as evil is best defined as the absence of good, Hell is best defined as the absence of God.”
What about Psalm 139, vv. 1-12? It says (ESV):
If I may cite an orthodox article:
In “River of Fire,” a very polemeical speech, given at an orthodox youth convention, Alexandre Kalomiros says that the “word DIKAIWSUNH, “justice”, is a translation of the Hebraic word tsedaka. This word means “the divine energy which accomplishes man’s salvation”. It is parallel and almost synonymous to the other Hebraic word, hesed which means “mercy”, “compassion”, “love”, and to the word, emeth which means “fidelity”, “truth”. This, as you see, gives a completely other dimension to what we usually conceive as justice.”
Later he adds that,
And Jimi, in old times sulfur was considered a holy thing an “fire and sulfur” could also be called “holy fire” or “divine fire.” Our God is “a consuming fire, a jealous God.” (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29)
Best,
Jimi, Revelation is perhaps the most symbolic book in the Bible. Hopefully Jesus wont have seven eyes when he comes back (Rev. 5:6).
I dont like the idea that Hell is the presence of God to all who have rejected Him; free will is a mark of the soul, and it is our souls that go to eternity. Therefore, wouldnt that imply the ability to accept Him, even in the afterlife? Or is my logic mistaken?
No, I think Hell is the feeling of failure magnified to a degree we cant experience here. You know, that feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when you discover that the one thing that you really wanted is gone? Like losing a loved one, except with no way to cope. Ever. *shudders*
Meanwhile, Heaven is like the joy of having a child magnified to the same degree, without the anxiety of having to change diapers.
-El S.
I hate to do this, but I think it’s time for me to resort to copy and paste…
Here are some of the Scriptures from the book of Matthew:
3:10 ” … and thrown into the fire.”
3:12 ” … with unquenchable fire.”
5:30 ” … than for your whole body to go into hell.”
7:19 ” … thrown into the fire.”
8:12 ” … will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
10:28 “Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
13:40 ” … burned in the fire … ”
13:24 ” … into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
13:50 ” … and throw them into the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
18:8 ” … be thrown into eternal fire.”
18:9 ” … and be thrown into the fire of hell.”
22:13 ” … and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
The next Scripture quotes come after the seven woes declared by Jesus in Matthew 23. I reasoned that if hell was real and important to Jesus, He would likely have mentioned it here. He did in verse 33:
23:33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
24:51 ” … and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
25:30 ” … into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
25:41 ” … depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment … ”
The 80 year old Hungarian psychiatrist/catechist/ex-seminarian who presides over our Communio circle explained it this way: Hell is not the eternal absence of God but the eternal presence of God to souls who don’t want Him around. In other words they, like Lucifer, cannot abide by God being a Greater Being than themselves.
Comparing the quotes from Matthew with what the Catechism (and also JP II) it’s hard to miss the attempt to water down the seriousness of the punishment in hell.
In fact, JP II was cagey about whether there was anyone in hell.
JebProtestant,
Read this:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1033
(Including the footnotes).
I don’t see any watering down of the punishment of hell. Are you expecting hell to be described as “really, really, really, REALLY bad”? How many times does it have to quote Sacred Scripture on the “unquenchable fire” of hell?
JohnD,
It still seems watered down to me. Notice in 1035 that “eternal fire” is redifined as “eternal separation from God.” Most non-Christians seems more or less content with there existening separation from God.
And what about John Paul II’s ruminations?
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0305/articles/dulles.html
Jeb,
It’s not “redefined”. In no way is “eternal/unquenchable fire” negated for another meaning.
Perhaps in the next life the realization of the boundless goodness of God will make you concretely understand the profound horror of rejecting Him. Sometimes you don’t appreciate the terror of a fall until you’re standing at the edge of the cliff.
Hmmm. A discussion about HELL, and most of the posts are about identifying Jimmy Akin. What are we to gleen from that?
If hell was best defined as being perpetually “in the absence of” God, and Heaven were bese described as being “in the presence of God”, I would think that Jesus and the Apostles would have used that kind of abstract terminology. I mean, who really cares about hell? Most people would say our current state sounds like hell, by that definition.
Once you start trying to make the description meaningful, it seems to me that you are very quickly going to have to start using more visceral language. Something people can FEEL, or understand in a more “human” way.
Theologians love that kind of language, because it removes the understanding of heaven and hell out of the hands of the great unwashed.
All of the descriptions above are WHOLLY unsatisfying for me. They reduce the ULTIMATE, most extreme goal of salvation seem like two, dry words; presence vs. absence, or darkness vs. light. Personally (at my most cynical) I think the post VII abstraction of heaven and hell is part of the liberal desire to make the issue of salvation meaningless. As opposed to “social justice”, for example.
I hold to the way Jesus described hell and heaven (as little as he did refer to it). It doesn’t mean I “know” any better than someone that is satisfied with abstractions, but at least I can get my head around it.
I think that is why Jesus and the Church (for the first 1965 years) stuck with the basics; hell is a bad, painful place and heaven is a beautiful, joy-filled place. I have a picture in my mind of both. If theologians think that’s medieval and simplistic, I can accept that.
JohnD
I would point out that even you had to resort to the word “horror” to turn the bland, inconsequential sounding description of “separation from God”.
If you were to say to me, Michael, you are going to have to stand at the edge of that cliff for the REST OF ETERNITY, you can see how that lacks a certain “oomph”. Throw the word HORROR in there, and suddenly, I might want to really stay away from the cliff.
In short, words are important to humans. What Jeb is pointing out is that Jesus and the Church have tradtionally used words and images that people could understand and relate to.
oops! My alzheimers is setting in…
Meant to say:
I would point out that even you had to resort to the word “horror” to turn the bland, inconsequential sounding description of “separation from God” (here’s what I left out)… into something the average person would uderstand as REALLY BAD.
El S.
Are you sure Jesus won’t have seven eyes? Cherubim and Seraphim have “many eyes”. I understand that Angels are different, but I wouldn’t presume to say how Jesus is going to appear to us, bodily or not!
I mean, if we have reduced something as ETERNALLY important as HEAVEN and HELL into a something as dry as a traffic sign description in a DMV test booklet from comments like ETERNAL FIRE (and Jimi’s other cut&pastes), why can’t we reduce Jesus’ physical return to “we will be filled with a sense of goodness”?
I’m only suggesting that the bibilical descriptions (not just Revelations) are very graphic and “physical”. By physical, I mean that they are clearly understandable by 1st century jews and 21st Century Catholic. The CCC descriptions, and most other contemporary theological descriptions are meaningless to most people. Myself included.
dc
I suppose there is only one way to know for sure… we wait. ;).
-El S.
What is God’s presence, if not participation in his life by being in a state of grace, and sharing in the beatific vision? This whole discussion stems from a lack of precision, and a fuzziness caused by the abandoned of scholastic theology. The damned are not in a state of grace. They do not have the beatific vision. To claim that they do seems to me well nigh heretical. Are people really claiming that, that the damned are in the eternal sight of God? That they “see” God? Yes indeed, this seems contrary to the scriptural text, and to Catholic truth. A reference to “metaphor” solves nothing. Obviously God doesn’t have a physical nature, we won’t literally be tossed out of a physical kingdom by an earthly king. But we will be absent from the heavenly kingdom. Or do people really think the damned and the blessed comingle?
St Paul says that “eye has not seen and ear has not heard” what God has is store for those who will be with him for eternity. Logically, the same applies for those who will be in Hell for eternity. I have found a little book called “The Four Last Things – Death, Judgment, Hell and Heaven” to be a great way to help me either a) get back on the narrow path or b) stay on the narrow path. All I know is, it ain’t where I wanna be come Judgment Day!
“it”, in my last sentence, referring to Hell, of course.
It is an interesting thought. Is there a place in all creation that God is not? How can a place exist without God? Isn’t it more likely that Hell is like the dwarves in the last book of Narnia? They where in the realm of the eternal and could not feel nor see any of God’s goodness. One can burn with a love for God or burn with despair. Hell is no hope.
I did not want to read the other 31 posts due to time, yet I know one thing for sure, Hell is a physical place, in which there is an eternal separation from God, ergo the the Truth, because Truth is an aspect so to say of God. St.Thomas Aquaintas said that Hell is the center of the Earth. That is arguable, yet I don’t put myself in a possition to argue with the Angelic Doctor
Somehow this discussion reminds me of C S Lewis’s book: The Great Divorce. His ideas were interesting (he said that they were a product of his imagination) though I am not sure how I can rearticulate the essence of them. The book speaks of persons on the way to Heaven being purified (willingly) before they get to meet God.
Those who were not going to Heaven chose it to be so and because to most of them, the idea of letting go of everything (pride, earthly love, intellectual self-aggrandization etc) they held to be ultimately important to be with God was just….well, it seemed to me that they were so blinded by their obsession with their false gods to the point of not seeing God or, to be actively reject and therefore, separate themselves from Him.
I don’t know whether that’s being too ‘soft’ on those who are damned, but their predicament didn’t seem like a tea party to me. It was as if in ‘choosing’ Hell, they ended up creating/living out their own hells.
A long comment:
Breier,
The verse most people quote while discussing hell is 2Thess 1:9. In most Bibles, the verse says that the damnation is “away from the presence of the Lord…” But the word translated “away from,” ano (don’t know how to write greek words here), means “from.” So the verse literally means: “Who shall suffer eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength.”
This translation is reflected in both KJV (and NKJV) and the Douay-Rheims Bible.
And, as I pointed out, sulfur/brimstone was considered holy in old times. The word translated brimstone/sulfur is theion, and it is closely related to theios, meaning “godlike (neuter as noun, divinity): – divine, godhead.”
According to the Alchemy Electronic Dictionary, sulfur was “one of the three heavenly substances.”
So, “fire and brimstone” or “fire and sulfur” could indeed mean “divine fire.” And isn’t our God “a consuming fire, a jealous God”?
Consider now Revelation 14:9-11, with “divine fire” in your minds:
“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice: If any man shall adore the beast and his image and receive his character in his forehead or in his hand, He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mingled with pure wine in the cup of his wrath: and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torments, shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast and his image and whoever receiveth the character of his name.” (Douay-Rheims, my emphasis)
The KJV use: “in the presence of.”
Best,
Just one small comment:
In 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, Paul says that,
This is often used by univerialists, but what if hell is in the presence of God?
Best,
“Is there a place in all creation that God is not?”
And can God create a rock so heavy that even HE cannot lift it?
sigh.
So, since hell is now a place that is no longer EVEN seperated from God, we are left with an even MORE abastract understanding (which is ridiculous anyway) about hell being “un-good”.
Gosh, is sounds so benign, I’m almost curious enough to check it out. So, now that you have all made it so copacetic, who will be responsible for leading people there?
I mean, who needs salvation from this “scary” place? That isn’t even a place. Oooooooooooh.
I mean it could just be a state of sleep, no?
It could just be a time-out.
Michael Hugo,
It seems that you think that hell has to be a physical place to be horrible. Why? Does it say that in the Bible and, if it does, is it impossible to regard it as an image of our inner attitude? “The kingdom of God is within you,” said Jesus (Luke 17:21). Couldn’t this also be true of hell? Does that make hell less or more of a punsihment?
In Lord of the Rings, Gollum hates the pure and good stuff of the elves, especially the lembas bread. For him, the good is horrible, he hates it. “With the holy one thou wilt be holy: and with the valiant perfect. With the elect thou wilt be elect: and with the perverse thou wilt be perverted.” (2. Samuel 22:26-27, Douay-Rheims)
But hell is not a physical place, it is a spiritual realm, like Sheol. Both Lazarus and the rich man was sent there, but the first enjoyed it, the other did not.
Best,
Dear El S, David B, et al.
With regard to the fact that I referred to this blog’s owner as James Akin, I wish to say what follows.
Mr. Akin became a Catholic in 1992. I have known about his life story and conversion since mid-1994, even before it was published in the first volume of “Surprised by Truth.” At that time, he went by the name, “James,” and he continued to do so for perhaps another ten years, during which period I followed his career avidly.
Only relatively recently has he taken to calling himself, “Jimmy” in public. No one (not even Mr. Akin) will get the “James” out of my system. He will never be “Jimmy” to me, even if that’s what it says on his birth certificate.
+J.M.J+
Jeb Protestant writes:
>>>Notice in 1035 that “eternal fire” is redifined as “eternal separation from God.”
No, the Catechism is talking about the two different forms of suffering in Hell: poena sensus (pain of sense, i.e. “eternal fire”) and poena damni (pain of loss, caused by loss of the Beatific Vision i.e. “eternal separation from God”). The Church has always taught that the latter is the chief agony in Hell, and the Catechism clearly shows that nothing has changed in that regard.
Honestly, I can’t see how anyone can read that section of the Catechism and conclude that it “waters down” Hell. Especially this paragraph:
1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”
Watered down? You must be kidding.
Breier writes:
>>>This whole discussion stems from a lack of precision, and a fuzziness caused by the abandoned of scholastic theology. The damned are not in a state of grace. They do not have the beatific vision. To claim that they do seems to me well nigh heretical. Are people really claiming that, that the damned are in the eternal sight of God? That they “see” God? Yes indeed, this seems contrary to the scriptural text, and to Catholic truth.
I guess the idea that hellfire = the Holy Fire of God could be expressed in such a way as to deny that the damned experience the Beatific Vision. Perhaps they only “feel” a sense of His Presence, which is painful to them, but don’t see Him “face-to-face” as do the saints. Nonetheless, I agree that there is a lack of theological precision in the notion that hellfire = Holy Fire. That’s why I don’t care for it myself.
Larry D. writes:
>>>I have found a little book called “The Four Last Things – Death, Judgment, Hell and Heaven”
Yeah, that’s a good book, though I think some people might not be able to handle it.
Michael Hugo writes:
>>>So, since hell is now a place that is no longer EVEN seperated from God, we are left with an even MORE abastract understanding (which is ridiculous anyway) about hell being “un-good”.
Michael, I’m curious how you understand Psalm 138:8 “If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present.” (I’m quoting from the Douay Bible, BTW). It says that God is present in Hell. Granted, He is not at all present there by grace, since all Hell’s inhabitants lack sanctifying grace, but His sustaining power is present to all His creatures, keeping them in existence at every second. The same goes for the damned.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
I checked out the First Things article; Cardinal Dulles only quotes part of JPG’s General Audience of July 28, 1999. Here is a link to the entire text in English on the Vatican website:
http://snipurl.com/JP2_on_hell
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
I don’t know how reading the pope’s entire message changes anything. He appears to accept von Balthasar’s nonsense about not knowing whether there is anyone in hell. (Of course, he made von Balthasar cardinal.)
Yes, it is watered down. The Catechism converts the language about torment into the pain of separation from God. Jews and Moslems are separate from God and it doesn’t seem to bother them.
Do you know if there is anyone in hell, Jeb Protestant?
Are you God?
Best,
+J.M.J+
>>>Yes, it is watered down. The Catechism converts the language about torment into the pain of separation from God.
You simply ignored what I said above. I repeat: The Church has always taught that there are two types of punishments in Hell: poena damni and poena sensus. The worst of these is poena damni – eternal separation from God – because the greatest joy of Heaven is the polar opposite of this: the Beatific Vision. Poena sensus is secondary to poena damni, even as the other joys and delights of Heaven are secondary to the Beatific Vision.
Now let’s look at CCC 1035 very carefully:
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (emphasis mine)
Note that it speaks first of the “punishmentS of hell” and then of the “chief punishment of hell”. The first is plural, the second issingular. The Catechism is clearly not identifying the latter with the former, it is delineating two distinct types of punishment, as the Church has always done. Poena damni is a single punishment (loss of the Beatific Vision) while poena sensus consists of many distinct pains (as explained in the book The Four Last Things) and is therefore best described as “punishments” plural.
>>>Jews and Moslems are separate from God and it doesn’t seem to bother them.
That’s because they’re not in Hell yet! As long as they are on earth, God’s grace reaches out to them, trying to draw them to Himself with kindness and small blessings in their lives. Yet if people persist in rejecting God to the end of their lives, then after death God will definitively withdraw His grace and blessings from then, at which point they will experience poena damni.
In Jesu et Maria,
Jeb please try not mix concepts. Separation from God on Earth is different than separation from God in the afterlife.
Of course most of what you say are poorly conceived extrapolations based on insufficient knowledge.
Your misunderstanding of the JPII’s words notwithstanding, you seem to be working from the mistaken perspective that the words of a pope can change or nullify what is written in Sacred Scripture — even if they come from the mouth of Christ himself.
(Ironically) only Protestants believe the pope could have such power.
The teachings of the Majesterium can only clarify, elucidate, or flesh out Sacred Scripture.
They cannot change, contradict, or void them.
Context context context.
That you have not taken the time to read what else JPII had to say about Hell does not surprise me in the least.
Arguing about whether Hell is eternal separation from God or the eternal gnashing of teeth with burning and suffering is like arguing if the supermarket is the place where I get my food or the store down the street from my apartment.
It is BOTH.
May our Lord AND Father, both God AND Man be with you in peace to the end of AS he sits upon his throne in Heaven.
The Douay-Rheims version in Psalm 138:8 is using Hell in the sense of Sheol as we say in the Apostles Creed “He descended into Hell and on the Third Day he rose again”
The Jews of that day had no concept of Hell as we know it. They just knew of Sheol, the abode of the dead that existed under the earth.
Rosemarie,
Do you agree with von Balthasar’s theory?
Rosemarie,
BTW, please try to read what I say before criticizing it, that tends to help.
Being separate from God may well be painful. However, to tell people that they should be afraid of Hell because they will suffer the pain of separation from God isn’t going to impress them of the severity. It sounds a lot less painful then eternal fire.
It seems to me to be petty & a little bit pathetic for people to argue over the nature of the fires of Hell to the point where they state or imply those who disagree with them are not faithful orthodox believing Christians.
This is like arguing over the origin of Cain’s wife or the menu at the last supper only twice as useless. The fact is if a person ends up in Hell it is going to major, major, major, major, major, bite out loud for that poor sap. They won’t care one wiff if the horrible suffering they must endure is from “real fire” or some awful “spiritual”type of agony. It will be beyond painful regardless & worst than the worst nightmare they have ever had. So as to the fire being literal or figurative. Who cares! Repent your sins to Jesus so you don’t have to find out.
BTW I read the FOUR LAST THINGS. Hell is filled with many vile torments but ALL the spiritual writers of the Christian world (regardless of wuther they believed the fire was literal or a metaphor for spiritual agony & even Protestants agreed with them) taught the loss of fellowship with God & the experience of God directly(Beatific Vision) was the worst punishment.
The devils in Hell still remember the joys they once had in Heaven as angels and know they can never again have them. In the FOUR LAST THINGS the writer drove home how bad loss of the Beatific Vision is by stating if God sent an angel into Hell to announce to the Damned that they may request the lifting of only ONE of their many punishments the damned would all cry out “Give us back the Beatific Vision”! All the other horrors of Hell would mean nothing to them & they could endure them with great ease if they had the Beatific Vision. Indeed ff God then took away the Beatific Vision from the Blessed in Heaven then all of the other joys of Heaven would be as Hell to them & the Blessed would gladly cast themselves down into Hell just to get back the Beatific Vision. Do note this senerio is hypothetical but valid. God will not remit the punishmenets of the Damned or Damn the blessed.
The Beatific Vision is the goal of Salvation. It is what Messiah Yeshua has won for us on the Cross. One belittles the importance and value of this great gift to their eternal peril.
+J.M.J+
>>>Do you agree with von Balthasar’s theory?
First of all, my (admittedly non-infallible) interpretation of Scripture makes me believe that Judas Iscariot is damned. When God the Son calls someone a “son of perdition” and says that he would have been better off had he never been born, that doesn’t exactly sound like a soul who’s headed for the pearly gates (so to speak). I also believe that there are many more people in Hell as well.
So I basically don’t agree with von B. Granted, his theory is very nuanced and he clearly did not intend to teach the condemned heresy of Universalism – that nobody at all will be eternally damned. Of course, no Ecumenical Council has ever taught that anybody is in Hell – with the exception of the fallen angels. I guess that’s where his theory tries to find some “wiggle room”, but I don’t care for his theory.
>>>Being separate from God may well be painful. However, to tell people that they should be afraid of Hell because they will suffer the pain of separation from God isn’t going to impress them of the severity. It sounds a lot less painful then eternal fire.
Who says it’s either/or? The damned experience both poena damni and poena sensus; so if people are not impressed by A then maybe B will get them.
However, they would really be selling poena damni short if they thought, “Separation from God? Big deal!” It IS a big deal; St. Augustine said that God created us for Himself and our hearts are restless until they rest in Him. The damned will never rest in Him.
“But the wicked are like the raging sea, which cannot rest, and the waves thereof cast up dirt and mire. There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord God.” – Isaias 57:20-21
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>The Jews of that day had no concept of Hell as we know it. They just knew of Sheol, the abode of the dead that existed under the earth.
Yet when Our Lord describes Sheol in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, He portrays it as having two distinct parts: Abraham’s Bosom (the Limbo of the Fathers) and a place of torment for the reprobate.
Again, theologians tell us that God is present to all His creatures by His power since He sustains their existence. Surely He is present to the damned in Hell in the same way, otherwise they would cease to exist. Therefore, God is present in Hell. That does not necessarily mean that hellfire = Holy Fire, however.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
I don’t think Augustine’s situation is typical. Most people are very comfortable in their unbelief from what I can tell. To an atheist the concept of being separate from God sounds like not winning 200 million in powerball.
Incidentally, you might compare JP II’s mamby-pamby discussion to what one of the great saints said —
http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm
One clarification.
When I wrote above that “no Ecumenical Council has ever taught that anybody is in Hell – with the exception of the fallen angels”, that means that no Council ever specified any particular individual as being damned. That does not mean that any Ecumenical Councils taught that there are no humans in Hell – they never taught any such thing. In fact, they taught that people who die in a state of sin will go straight to Hell – they just didn’t “name names”, so to speak.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>Most people are very comfortable in their unbelief from what I can tell.
I think the operative phrase there is “from what I can tell”. We don’t know what is in a man’s heart. I’ve long believed that the pursuit of alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. is really a misguided pursuit for God – they’re trying to fill that empty void.
>>>To an atheist the concept of being separate from God sounds like not winning 200 million in powerball.
He’ll change his mind when he gets to Hell . . . .
>>>Incidentally, you might compare JP II’s mamby-pamby discussion to what one of the great saints said
I’ve read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God before, thanks. Don’t particularly care for it.
In Jesu et Maria,
_Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_ is unfit reading since it is filled with Calvinist heresy.
Anyway without the Beatific Vision Heaven would be like Hell(at best it would be Limbo). If for some reason the Beatific Vision was granted to the damned (speaking hypothetically of course) then Hell would be a more desired place to be than a Heaven minus the Beatific Vision.
>Jeb please try not mix concepts. Separation from God on Earth is different than separation from God in the afterlife.
>Of course most of what you say are poorly conceived extrapolations based on insufficient knowledge.
>Your misunderstanding of the JPII’s words notwithstanding,
I reply: I agree.
Jeb let me key you in on something. I greatly respect Protestants who can portray the beliefs of other Religions or individual persons fairly & correctly & then tell me why they think those beliefs are incorrect.
But Persons who don’t make a good faith effort to understand what they think they don’t believe in have nothing to say to me. Plus such behavior is self defeating.
You may want to look into that. Their’s a good fellow.
KK,
I don’t claim to know what hell is. My point is that much modernist scholarship and liberal theology, intentionally or not, have defanged the concept of hell, stripping their descriptions of any linguistic verisimilitude. The result it no longer seems “hellish” to those that believe in its existence, and a myth to the most “enlightened” among us.
One of the hallmarks of liberalism is the usurpation of language. Anyone that controls the language, ultimately controls society. “Abortion” means one thing to our culture. “Murder” means something else. “Baby” versus “fetus”, is another example. How these words are applied affects how the society perceives them, conceptually.
As I have already said, descriptions such “removed from the presence of God” lack any human, visceral, imaginative power. Maybe there is some dysfunctional engineer that has nightmares thinking about “not being in God’s presence”, but most people, even Catholic have stopped believing in hell or caring about it. I am positing a relationship between the bland, abstract, unrelatable descriptions of hell and the lack of concern about heaven and hell.
So is hell a place? I don’t know. You referred to LOR. I recently read a novel called “The Corner of His Eye”. The author plays with the idea of quantum mechanics and theology. Could hell be a different dimension? Could that be what the separation from God is?
If so, it could, in fact BE a place. It begs the question, of course, what is space? Time? Might heaven and hell exist outside of time and space?
We could investigate our navels forever. I believe, to the depth of my belief in Jesus as my Lord and Savior, that Jesus didn’t want to save me from being a bad person. He wanted to save me from HELL. And HELL is BAAAAAAAAAAD. Eternal fire works for me. “Separated from God’s presence” doesn’t. What’s more, I don’t believe it works for most people, and I sincerely hope the Church comes to grips with this.
How about you? Are your REEEEEAAAALLLLLLYYYYYY motivated to avoid hell, as imagined in your abstract way? Then that’s all that matters, for the here and now.
I believe heaven is a “place”, whatever that means. And I hope we’re there together!
God Bless.
You die, unfortunately on an April 1st, and St. Peter meets you at the gate: “You are going to either Heaven or Hell. Open this door marked H. It could be Heaven, it could be Hell. Based only on what you see, you decide whether you want to be in that place or not. If you decide not to stay in that place, you automatically get sent to the other place.”
You open the door and see inside:
Karl Keating and James White seated together eternally.
Rosemarie,
139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
(do you know why the Douay’s numbering is different from the other versions?)
Well, you and I could offer possible explanations ’til the cows come home. If I had to guess with my puny human understanding of things, I’d say that God is there in the same sense that he is here. He is evident in all things, but is out of reach. Our current separation creates a longing. I do NOT think that his “presence” in hell is meant as some kind of consolation. Somehow, it will add to the agony of hell, as others have said, above.
MT 25:41. Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
Depart from me…hmmm.
You have a great point, and it makes me want to read and study more. Ultimately, though, the Church is my understanding. My puny thoughts are just “mental toys”.
I’ll tell you, though, this part:
“into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”
…is really, really, really scary. This is someplace I do NOT want to be. Job done. Whew!
+JMJ+
Francis DS,
“Karl Keating and James White seated together eternally.”
Who’s sweating more?
+JMJ+
“This is often used by univerialists, but what if hell is in the presence of God?”
This is simple. It means that the phrase “presence of God” means nothing.
If poison doesn’t kill you, and tastes like ice cream, people will LOVE poison. If chocolate tastes like dog poop and makes you break out in boils, people won’t eat it anymore (although some women will be tempted).
If you start to threaten me with poison, I won’t react the way people have traditionally reacted to the threat of poisoning. I’ll actually think you are offering me a treat.
The point is that WORDS become meaningless when we begin to weaken or redefine not just the connotative and denotative meaning of words, but the acutal intent of words.
What does “presence” mean if hell and heaven aren’t “places”. Presence implies proximity. Distance is a concept that requires “space”. So is hell an actual place? “Eternal fire” implies time. Time and space are connected (theoretically) so again, space is implied. Fire is hot and can burn. Does that mean people will burn in hell? Fire also causes pain (associated with burning). Does this mean that people will not burn, but experience pain? Or is fire used to explicitly explain the specific nature of the pain experienced by the damned? Fire is also warm and inviting. Are the damned sitting around fires drinking hot chocolate?
Jesus and the Apostles did NOT use the meaningless, mind-numbing description “presence of God” to describe heaven or hell. They used human language (Father’s house, eternal fire, unquenchable fire), with all of its inherent limitations to try to communicate something.
To read the bibilical texts and Church teaching and come away with the idea the hell is in the presence of God requires, it seems to me, an immense effort to rid the biblical texts of their pure intent; to tell us that Hell is really bad and Heaven is really great.
It is fine to ask questions about the nature of Heaven and Hell, but I think it is dangerous to stray too far away from the obvious, clear statements of our Lord and his Apostles.
One man’s opinion.
+JMJ+
+J.M.J+
I found an online copy of the text of the aforementioned book, The Four Last Things by Fr. Martin von Cochem. Here is the section on Hell:
http://www.catholicmatters.com/hell00.htm
It makes Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God look pretty mamby-pamby in comparison!
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>(do you know why the Douay’s numbering is different from the other versions?)
The Douay goes by the numbering of the Psalms used in the Septuagint, which is different from the Hebrew numbering for most of the book (between Psalms 9 and 147). Protestant Bibles since the KJV and most modern Catholic Bibles use the Hebrew numbering.
In Jesu et Maria,
Mr. Scott,
Would you please refer me to a Roman Church document indicating that Calvinism is a heresy? I searched and couldn’t find it.
Rome openly engages in dialogue with “Calvinists” (actually so-called Calvinists who agree with Rome on higher criticism and evolution) so I don’t imagine Rome considers Calvinism a heresy.
Maybe you should do a little research into your own “religion.”
+J.M.J+
The Council of Trent condemned all the tenets of Protestantism as heresy, including those of John Calvin. Later popes condemned the teachings of Jansenism, which held many beliefs in common with Calvinism (such as limited atonement).
Just because the Church dialogues with a certain group doesn’t mean She agrees with everything they believe or no longer considers their teachings heretical.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
But not too long ago Rome supported the death penalty and opposed religous liberty, but now takes the opposite positions. Since Rome changes its teachings so often, I would like the contemporary Roman Catholic position.
+J.M.J+
I’m sure others must have tried to explain to you the difference between defined dogma (which cannot change) and other non-defined matters which can change (development of doctrine).
The Church’s views on the death penalty and religous freedom are still developing, while Her condemnation of the tenets of Calvinism were infallibly declared at the Council of Trent and so will not change.
Here are some relevant quotes from Trent as they relate to the five points of Calvinism:
(The quotes below are from Trent’s Canons Concerning Justification, unless otherwise noted)
1. Total Depravity
Canon 5. If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.
Canon 7. If anyone says that all works done before justification, in whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins, let him be anathema.
2. Unconditional Election
Canon 17. If anyone says that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.
3. Limited Atonement
(from Session 6 on Justification, Chapter 2)
Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fulness of the time was come, sent unto men, Jesus Christ, His own Son-who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised-that He might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.
4. Irresistible Grace
Canon 4. If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
5. Perseverence of the Saints
Canon 16. If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.
All of the above are infallible declarations and so cannot change. The Church has not yet infallibly declared anything on the matters of religious liberty or the death penalty, so they are still open for further development under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
In Jesu et Maria,
This is an incomplete metaphor and Im probably way in over my head here, but could God’s presence in Hell be akin to the presence of water and fruit to Tantalus ?
i.e. enough to sustain its being, but no more?
*shrugs* dunno, thats my 2¢.
I’ll leave the rest to the experts.
-El S.
The Council of Trent condemned all the tenets of Protestantism as heresy,
Rosemarie, please be more careful with what you’re claiming regarding Protestantism.
Trent *clearly* did not condemn all the tenets of Protestantism as heresy.
Many Protestant tenets are quite true–such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Resurrection, just to name three.
The Church’s attitude toward the five points of Calvinism is also more complex than you are representing it.
Rosemarie,
Prior to Vatican II, John Courtney Murray was silenced for his view on religious liberty; at Vatican II they were adopted. If the older views were not infallible, then why were people silenced? And did the Holy Spirit change his mind within a matter of 10 years?
+J.M.J+
>>>Rosemarie, please be more careful with what you’re claiming regarding Protestantism.
I apologize for not being clearer, Jimmy. I meant that all the tenets unique to Protestantism were condemned at Trent – certainly not the truths that Protestantism derived from Catholicism.
Jeb: The fact that Murray was silenced does not prove that the Church’s view on religious liberty back then was infallible dogma. The Vatican can silence someone based on a non-infallible teaching or pastoral policy, if it suspects that the person is teaching error. If, after further investigation, the Church decides that the person is not in error, that ruling can be reversed. This has happened other times as well; Murray isn’t the only example.
A reversal does not mean that the Vatican was wrong to silence someone in the first place – it was a prudential pastoral judgment at the time to make sure he wasn’t teaching heresy. Back when the Church had the Index of Forbidden Books, some works were placed on the Index because of suspicion of heresy, only to be removed later when the suspicion was proven unfounded. Again, the contents of the Index were a pastoral decision, not an infallible declaration. The same goes for silencing people – it’s a pastoral act, not infallible dogma.
Besides, the Second Vatican Council did not teach absolute religious liberty. If a heathen wants to sacrifice his child to Baal, V2 says that the state must stop that from happening.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Jimmy: Yes, I recall that article on TULIP. It’s true that Catholics can perhaps find some common ground with some modern Calvinist theologians who, as you point out, have a looser understanding of the five points. After all, TULIP is also often subject to the private interpretation of those who profess it.
However, in your article you do point out that some more strict interpretations of the five points are unacceptable for Catholics. These are perhaps the interpretions that prevailed among Calvinists at the time of Trent, which the Council had to condemn. So Calvinism is still heretical in its strictest form, but thank God some modern Calvinists have softened its harshness, which may perhaps make them open to dialogue with the Church.
In Jesu et Maria,
I believe, to the depth of my belief in Jesus as my Lord and Savior, that Jesus didn’t want to save me from being a bad person. He wanted to save me from HELL.
Then you are gravely mistaken. John the Baptist did not tell his discipiles, about to become Jesus’s, “Behold, the Lamb of God who saves the world from Hell,” but “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
Indeed, repenting of your sins because you fear Hell is a Good Thing, but it is still imperfect contrition. In perfect contrition, you would repent of your sins because they are sinful.
Jul 2,
Just some short comments:
You write, “What does “presence” mean if hell and heaven aren’t “places”. Presence implies proximity. Distance is a concept that requires “space”. So is hell an actual place? “Eternal fire” implies time.” (…)
“Jesus and the Apostles did NOT use the meaningless, mind-numbing description “presence of God” to describe heaven or hell. They used human language (Father’s house, eternal fire, unquenchable fire), with all of its inherent limitations to try to communicate something.”
Why couldn’t it be an image? Jesus used images all the time, as does many other jews. Eastern and oriental cultures is known for their use of images and for the use of hyperboles. And eternal does not imply time, it is timeless.
You write, “To read the bibilical texts and Church teaching and come away with the idea the hell is in the presence of God requires, it seems to me, an immense effort to rid the biblical texts of their pure intent; to tell us that Hell is really bad and Heaven is really great.”
You seem to imply that being in the presence of God has to be a good thing. Why? And what about St. Paul? He wrote that God will be “all in all.” If he wasn’t an univerialist (and I don’t think he was), was does that phrase mean?
Best,
“The Vatican can silence someone based on a non-infallible teaching or pastoral policy, if it suspects that the person is teaching error.”
The Vatican, or even a local bishop, can silence someone based merely on the fact that there is an unhealthy controversy brewing. It need not mean that there is any implication of heresy.
Regardless of what priests, bishops say, the Church never and will never be infavor of having the right to religious liberty.
Now that we should have some sort of respect yes.
Can we force them to convert? No.
That they have a right to spread errors? No.
That is precisely what they can’t do.
Ergo the diffusion and promotion of any religion other than the true religion, which we Catholics profess is wrongful and DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUBLICLY PROMOTE IT.
So do what you want alone and in secrecy.
Don’t make others twice more deserving of Hell.
Ergo the diffusion and promotion of any religion other than the true religion, which we Catholics profess, is wrongful and DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUBLICLY PROMOTE IT.
Thats freedom to proselytize, not freedom of religion; they’re two different things.
Freedom of religion is intrinsic to religion because of the personal nature of religion: Church membership isnt worth its weight in spit without the personal relationship with Christ thats central to Catholicism. Its one thing to know ABOUT Christ. Its another thing to know him. Therefore attempts to “enforce” Catholicism lead to cafeteria catholicism or even worse, apostasy. You can lead a horse to salvation, but you cant make him drink.
The Church learned that lesson the hard way in the Wars of Religion when Phillip II fought the Netherlands et al. over the freedom for religion. It not only hastened the spread of Protestantism but caused the fall of the Spanish Empire.
After all, free will is central to Catholic teaching. Thats why the Council of Trent had so much to say about Calvinism. Without free will (and subsequently, freedom of religion), Catholicism just isnt Catholicism.
God has the power to operate on free will without compromising it. We seek to emulate that by sharing the Gospel, not force-feeding it.
-El S.
I bet you could install perl on the catholic.com servers, and have someone write an automated script to change every instance of “James Akin” to “Jimmy Akin” and let it search and overnight through the articles. Shouldn’t be too hard to make the script. Just a thought!
This is an interesting conversation and I am impressed with the extent of knowledge. I want to put in a word of caution in some of the Scriptural verses being employed.
Check your Greek.
Any place that you see the word “Hades” we are not talking of “Hell” as we understand “Hell” today. Hades is not the place of the damned but the place of the dead. It is the equivalent of the Greek “Sheol.”
Secondly when you see Gehenna – we are talking about Hell but in comparison to the Valley of Hinnom. The Valley of Hinnom was a valley where there was brimstone constantly burning and garbage was thrown. Also the bodies of the condemned and unfortunately human sacrifices were also thrown.
The last is Tartarus which Scripture is unclear as to whether it is reserved for just the fallen Angels or all of the fallen.
“Sheol” isn’t Greek. And if Hades doesn’t include Hell, why is the rich man in torment?
You are right typing too fast. Sheol is Hebrew. For The Ancient Greeks Hades didn’t even mean Hell, it was simply the place that the dead went guarded by Cerberus. Tarterus was the Ancient Greek version of Hell which is used elsewhere in the Bible to speak of such. They had another name for the land of eternal punishment that is escaping me at this time. So when one had to translate Sheol over to Greek Hades was the most logical word of choice. Check your Old Testament Septuagint. Insert Hell into every OT instance of Hades. It doesn’t make sense. Also notice in the Vulgate they do not stay with the same translation of Hades/Sheol when there is a switch to Gehenna. Read the commentaries of the people around the time of the forming of the Vulgate to find out why.
Now in regards the Parable of the Rich Man. First off we are dealing with a parable so we need to be careful. Secondly, if you are Catholic, and I am not sure that you are, why do people in Purgatory experience a level of torment. Will we not all be cleansed as if by fire? I am not saying the Christ is speaking of Purgatory but just using that as a point.
Secondly remember your Creeds and other Bible Passages. Christ descended into Hades to tell of the Good News after his crucifixion. Why would there be righteous in the land of the damned? There would not be… nor would it make sense for the Jewish to pray for the damned.
Lastly look at the writings of the Church fathers. The misunderstanding of Hades as Hell has been a new problem associated with contemporary Biblical translations. Look to those that still use the Greek daily such as the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Rights. All will tell you that Hades is not the land of the damned.
Dante is still the greatest when it comes to describing these concepts
In the original Italian is the best
if possible
also some interesting Latin translations
some interesting illustrations
but the words are best
DANTE IS AMAZING
For a Jewish, and Orthodox Haredi view on HELL, which may surprise some check out:
http://www.askmoses.com
Kreeft is also pro-Muslim
he believes they are allies against secularism (that was pre 9-11 though he may have changed his views)
Kreeft also believes there is promiscuity in heaven
Shibboleth, you say “Insert Hell into every OT instance of Hades. It doesn’t make sense.”
No, of course not. The last things were less understood in OT times, and Sheol/Hades was used for both the limbo of the fathers (where Christ descended) and the place of the damned, and, I believe, for Purgatory as well.
Since Abraham tells the rich man, “…between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us”, it is clear that the rich man is not in Purgatory but Hell.
Shibbolth,
“Now in regards the Parable of the Rich Man. First off we are dealing with a parable so we need to be careful.”
Why? In every other parable, Christ used things people understood, normal things as they were. So whay should this parable be any different?
“Secondly, if you are Catholic, and I am not sure that you are, why do people in Purgatory experience a level of torment. Will we not all be cleansed as if by fire? I am not saying the Christ is speaking of Purgatory but just using that as a point.”
In 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, you can read of what I regard as purgatory. But considering that God is a “consuming fire” (Deut 4:24, Hebrews 12:29), this might as well be a close encounter with God. What saves those who are “saved, yet so as by fire” (1. Cor 3:15) is the foundation of Christ (1. Cor 3:11).
I would like to make something clear: I don’t say that heaven and hell is in the same “place,” because I don’t see heaven and hell as “physical” places. Psalm 138 (139) states that God is prsent everywhere: “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present. If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea: Even there also shall thy hand lead me: and thy right hand shall hold me. And I said: Perhaps darkness shall cover me: and night shall be my light in my pleasures. But darkness shall not be dark to thee, and night shall be light all the day: the darkness thereof, and the light thereof are alike to thee.” (V. 7-12, Douay-Rheims)
And, as I asked before, how do we interpretate St. Paul’s words, that God will be “all inn all” (1. Cor. 15:28)? If this is not universialist, which I don’t believe it is, what is it?
Best,
“Kreeft also believes there is promiscuity in heaven.”
Gen. 1:28: “And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.”
Does anyone have an Aramaic translation of the Parable of the Rich Man. I am interrested in how it is translated into the language of Christ. My guess is that it is Shyol (Sh’ol)
That would be my guess too – and although I don’t read Aramaic, and I don’t know anything about this version, the interlinear on this website has the English as Sheol.
http://www.peshitta.org/
+J.M.J+
The Aramaic New Covenant, a translation of the Peshitta, says, “and when in torment in sheol he lifts his eyes”.
In Jesu et Maria,
It was said in earlier post that it doesn’t look too good for Judas, in so far as hell is concerned. That very eminent Scripture scholar and theologian, Fr William Most has stated that “the words of Mt 26:24 need not indicate final damnation of Judas. If Judas had not been born, he might have died before birth and then his eternal fate would have according to the principles we have considered for unbaptized babies – which need not mean hell at all. Having been born, he might be saved but only after a most terrible purgatory perhaps lasting until the end of time). http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/search.cfm?status=search
I am Orthodox so this sways my responses but…
Few people know as much about the Father’s writings as Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. In a dissertation he writes:
http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.01.htm
Quote:
Here hades, not Hell, is being referred to. For Hell will begin after the Second Coming of Christ and the future judgement, while the souls of sinners experience hades after their departure from the body. According to the teaching of the holy Fathers, hades is an intelligible place, it is the foretaste of Hell, when a person receives the caustic energy of God.
End Quote:
+J.M.J+
Shibboleth: When I was researching Eastern Orthodox eschathology a few months ago, I found that many Orthodox believe that souls don’t presently go to Heaven or Hell when they die. Rather, they say that the righteous go to Paradise and the wicked to Hades, until the Last Judgment. At that time, the righteous will enter Heaven (or perhaps just the New Heavens and the New Earth, not Heaven itself) and the wicked will go to Hell – which to the Orthdox is evidently identical with Gehenna/the lake of fire.
(Some of what I read indicated that the Theotokos may be the exception to saints not being in Heaven. But I’m not sure whether that’s a universal belief.)
I agree that there is a difference between Hell and Gehenna (or Hades and Hell, as the Orthodox put it.) Can’t totally agree with the “Paradise” part, but it’s still interesting.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
MaryW: I respect Fr William Most, but am not sure I agree with that explanation of Mt 26:24. “That he had never been born” could very well mean “that he had never come into existence”, which would change the meaning entirely.
Also, Jesus still called Judas the “son of perdition”. I read somewhere that calling someone the “son of” some abstract quality was a Hebraism. It meant that the person possessed the abtract quality to such a degree that it was as though that quality were his very “father”.
If Judas is a “son of perdition”,
then it is as though he possesses perdition – even as though he were sired by perdition. “Son of perdition” essentially means someone who is doomed to destruction. The same term is used of the Antichrist in 2 Thess. 2:3. Now, we know that the Antichrist is doomed to eternal damnation (Apoc. 19:20), so what might that imply about Judas Iscariot?
Like I said, I’m not infallible and could be wrong about this, but when I weigh everything Scripture has to say about Judas (including St. Peter’s statement in Acts 1:25 that Judas went “to his own place”) seems incompatable with the notion that he somehow made it to Heaven. Add to this certain statements from the Fathers and a kind-of “sensus fidelium” over the centuries that Judas was damned, and the answer appears clear.
Again, though, I could be wrong.
In Jesu et Maria,
I ask again: what does 1. Cor. 15:25-28 mean?
Best,
+J.M.J+
1 Cor. 15:25-28 is not an easy passage to understand. I can quote a few commentaries, though:
from Orchard’s Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture:
‘All in all’ : everything in all creation, i.e. in all the redeemed creation there will no longer be anything alien or opposed to God.
from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: 1 & 2 Corinthians:
“everything to everyone”: Or, “all things in all”. In the end, creation and even the Incarnate Son will honor the Father as Lord of All and the absolute Origin of all life. (p.39)
from the Navarre Bible: Corinthians:
23-28. St Paul outlines very succinctly the entire messianic and redemptive work of Christ: by decree of the Father, Christ has been made Lord of the universe (cf. Mt 28:18), in fulfillment of Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:7. When it says here that “the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him”, this must be understood as referring to Christ in his capacity of Messiah and head of the Church; not Christ as God, because the Son is “begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father” (“Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”).
Christ’s sovereignty over all creation comes about in history, but it will achieve its final, complete, form after the Last Judgment. The Apostle presents that last event–a mystery to us–as a solemn act of homage to the Father. Christ will offer all creation to his Father as a kind of trophy, offering him the Kingdom which up to then had been confided to his care. From that moment on, the sovereignty of God and Christ will be absolute, they will have no enemies, no rivals; the stage of combat will have given way to that of contemplation, as St Augustine puts it (cf. “De Trinitate”, 1, 8)….
28. The subjection of the Son which St Paul speaks of here is in no way opposed to his divinity. He is referring to what will happen when Christ’s mission as Redeemer and Messiah comes to an end, that is, once final victory is won over the devil, sin and its consequences. The final victory of Jesus Christ will restore to all creation its original harmony, which sin destroyed.
“Who can realize”, St Bernard comments, “the indescribable sweetness contained in these few words: God will be everything to everyone? Not to speak of the body, I see three things in the soul–mind, will and memory; and these three are one and the same. Everyone who lives according to the spirit senses in this present life how far he falls short of wholeness and perfection. Why is this, if not because God is not yet everything to everyone? That is why ones’ mind is so often mistaken in the judgment it makes, that is why one’s will experiences such restlessness, why one’s memory is thrown into confusion by many things. The noble person is, without wanting to be, at the mercy of this triple vanity, yet he does not lose hope. For he who responds so generously to the desires of the soul must also provide the mind with fullness and light, the will with abundance of peace, and the memory with visions of eternity. O truth, O charity, O eternity, O blessed and blessing Trinity! This wretched trinity of mine, sighs for thee, for it is unfortunately still far from thee” (“Sermon on the Song of Songs”, 11). (pp.146-148)
I apologize for the length of this post.
In Jesu et Maria,
Orthodox scholar David Hart has done a thorough analysis of that River of Fire stuff, showing that it is neither Scriptural nor patristic, and that it defies common sense. I will look for the link. Mr. Hart is one formidable guy. 🙂
I found the explanation of poena sensus (pain of sense) and poena damni (pain of eternal separation from God) to be a very good explanation of Hell. Strangely, I am reminded of my great-grandfather’s suffering after the Thumb Fire of 1881, which killed his pregnant wife and all but one of his children. It also burned him to the point that other veterans had to identify him so he could get his pension. He suffered for months as he recovered, both physically but also emotionally as he considered the loss of his family and what he might have done differently to save them. He wondered also how he would support his daughter when the farm was burned to ashes. And yet he had hope of seeing his family again and trusted God to restore his daughter (if not himself).
As for Jeb’s comments, I must say that some people won’t be bothered by any description of Hell. They’ve got no faith in God and no belief in anything other than the material world. I’ve heard a man opine that hellfire would burn him into nothingness and “that would be end of it” – as if such a burning were a walk in the park. It’s similar to some teenagerss’ blasé comments about violence, sex, the death of family members – everything that should bother them but doesn’t. They’re self-centered to the point that they can’t see past their personal Here and Now. For me, the idea of never being in God’s presence – being able to experience Him fully – is sickeningly horrible. I’m aware of God’s presence in my life, even if I have an imperfect sense of the Holy Spirit at work. Therefore, the idea of being cut off from Him forever
I also think there will be a separation, but I think the separation is a spiritual, or mental, one, hate towards God. By mental, I mean the intellect, the noetic faculty of man, not the reason.
People separate themselves from God, but God is omnipresent, also in the spiritual realm. “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present.” (Psalm 138:7-8, Douay-Rheims)
They will of course not live in his love as we do, mainly because they are not “partakers of the divine nature” (2Pet 1:4), and are so because they want to “manage things themselves,” and thus separate themselves from others. Man is created in the image of the triune God, and is therefore created to live with “the other[s],” to paraphraze Emmanuel Lévinas (and not the movie).
Christ used an image of a man cast out of heaven. He wasn’t driven to another country, he was just outside the castle. He could maybe see the feast, but he certaibly didn’t partake in it.
Just my 0.02c