« Read A Little Closer, James | Main | Prayer Intentions? »
June 30, 2006
The Nature Of Hell
(Jimmy Akin)
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!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Theology | Permalink
Comments
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.
Posted by: Dave | Jun 30, 2006 9:43:24 AM
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.
Posted by: Bender | Jun 30, 2006 9:56:31 AM
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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Jun 30, 2006 10:40:06 AM
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.
Posted by: francis 03 | Jun 30, 2006 10:40:39 AM
Ahhhh ... Finally, James Akin at his best.
More, please!
Posted by: anon | Jun 30, 2006 11:15:20 AM
Who is this "James Akin" of whom you speak?
-El S.
Posted by: El S. | Jun 30, 2006 11:56:59 AM
El S.,
Jimmy/James Akin are one and the same, my friend.
If you want his biography, click on the link to the left.
Posted by: David B. | Jun 30, 2006 12:08:23 PM
El S. is pointing out that the name is Jimmy. Not James.
Posted by: SDG | Jun 30, 2006 12:15:49 PM
Uh, I must seem REALLY dum ;-)
Posted by: David B. | Jun 30, 2006 12:20:41 PM
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.)
Posted by: Jack Trehawke | Jun 30, 2006 12:27:18 PM
"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?" :(
Posted by: Jack Trehawke | Jun 30, 2006 12:28:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Jun 30, 2006 1:56:10 PM
I always thought that Hell was the sulfurous fire that is the second death (Revelation 20:10)???
Posted by: Jimi | Jun 30, 2006 1:56:10 PM
+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,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Jun 30, 2006 2:07:04 PM
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):
O LORD, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.If I may cite an orthodox article:Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night," even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you.
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,
God is Truth and Light. God's judgment is nothing else than our coming into contact with truth and light. In the day of the Great Judgment all men will appear naked before this penetrating light of truth. The "books" will be opened. What are these "books"? They are our hearts. Our hearts will be opened by the penetrating light of God, and what is in these hearts will be revealed. If in those hearts there is love for God, those hearts will rejoice seeing God's light. If, on the contrary, there is hatred for God in those hearts, these men will suffer by receiving on their opened hearts this penetrating light of truth which they detested all their life.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,
Posted by: Kjetil Kringlebotten | Jun 30, 2006 2:07:10 PM
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.
Posted by: El S. | Jun 30, 2006 2:10:40 PM
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 … "
Posted by: Jimi | Jun 30, 2006 2:19:01 PM
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.
Posted by: John Kasaian | Jun 30, 2006 2:19:19 PM
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.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Jun 30, 2006 2:42:26 PM
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?
Posted by: JohnD | Jun 30, 2006 2:59:46 PM
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
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Jun 30, 2006 3:13:11 PM
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.
Posted by: JohnD | Jun 30, 2006 3:46:02 PM
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.
Posted by: michael hugo | Jun 30, 2006 4:55:07 PM
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.
Posted by: michael hugo | Jun 30, 2006 5:01:00 PM
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.
Posted by: michael hugo | Jun 30, 2006 5:04:26 PM
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
Posted by: michael hugo | Jun 30, 2006 5:19:26 PM
I suppose there is only one way to know for sure... we wait. ;).
-El S.
Posted by: El S. | Jun 30, 2006 6:05:29 PM
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?
Posted by: Breier | Jun 30, 2006 7:40:27 PM
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!
Posted by: LarryD | Jun 30, 2006 9:10:31 PM
"it", in my last sentence, referring to Hell, of course.
Posted by: LarryD | Jun 30, 2006 9:11:38 PM
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.
Posted by: Cienwen | Jun 30, 2006 9:24:24 PM
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
Posted by: Some Day | Jun 30, 2006 9:46:01 PM
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.
Posted by: Anne Louise | Jul 1, 2006 3:28:25 AM
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,
Posted by: Kjetil Kringlebotten | Jul 1, 2006 4:31:00 AM
Just one small comment:
In 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, Paul says that,
For he [Christ] must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. And the enemy, death, shall be destroyed last: For he hath put all things under his feet. And whereas he saith: All things are put under him; undoubtedly, he is excepted, who put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (Douay-Rheims, my emphasis)This is often used by univerialists, but what if hell is in the presence of God?
Best,
Posted by: Kjetil Kringlebotten | Jul 1, 2006 4:41:23 AM
"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.
Posted by: michael hugo | Jul 1, 2006 8:24:29 AM
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.
Posted by: michael hugo | Jul 1, 2006 8:30:31 AM
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,
Posted by: Kjetil Kringlebotten | Jul 1, 2006 9:35:36 AM
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.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 1, 2006 9:48:16 AM
+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,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Jul 1, 2006 2:43:55 PM
+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,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Jul 1, 2006 3:06:03 PM
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.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Jul 1, 2006 4:54:26 PM
Do you know if there is anyone in hell, Jeb Protestant?
Are you God?
Best,
Posted by: Kjetil Kringlebotten | Jul 1, 2006 5:16:27 PM
+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,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Jul 1, 2006 5:24:30 PM
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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Jul 1, 2006 5:36:15 PM
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.
Posted by: Dr. Eric | Jul 1, 2006 5:36:31 PM
Rosemarie,
Do you agree with von Balthasar's theory?
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Jul 1, 2006 5:37:35 PM
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.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Jul 1, 2006 5:47:15 PM
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.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott IV) | Jul 1, 2006 6:01:50 PM
+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,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Jul 1, 2006 6:21:38 PM
