Francis denies Hell

[CatherineM]

Just because it takes us some time to figure things out, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t mean it isn’t a truth. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

47 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

Just because it takes us some time to figure things out, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t mean it isn’t a truth. 

I am inclined to disagree in this case. I don't think this is really as settled 'truth' as many Catholics take it as even within the doctrinal contexts of the Catholic Church.

Origen of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, though not entirely consistent, proposed a reconciliation view of the afterlife, that eventually all of creation would be reconciled to god. Saint Ambrose later proposed a more timid version that the faithful would at least be spared the eternity of hell. Up through the middle ages masses and prayers to alleviate the sufferings of hell can be found. Even those who propose an eternal punishment in the early Christianity if that is meant to be in a hell-like state is not totally clear and could possibly meant that they would live with the memory of having so endured hell despite eventually being reconciled to god. The idea hell looking Michelangelo’s “Last Judgement" likewise happened quite a bit later...

Early Christian views also included annihilist views, though less common, that the fate of the damned were to eventual or immediate non-existence. Pope France's alleged comments I think could be read in this light which is a little surprising and a little bit more disturbing than there being no hell.

When looking at the bible, moreover the new testament, I am just not convinced that there is an eternal hell. Catholics who concede that purgatory is apart of hell and that scripture supports the notion of a purgatory at all are in an odd situation of arguing both sides of a position that wasn't really all that christian to begin with.

Personally... I think the whole concept of hell is wholly and utterly contrary to any and all notion of justice, mercy, and/or love. It puts god into a category worse than human despots. Is that your god? If it is it doesn't sound like the one in the gospels that called us children and asked us to call god affectionately father.

Edited April 3, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[Luigi]

"Personally... I think the whole concept of hell is wholly and utterly contrary to any and all notion of justice, mercy, and/or love. It puts god into a category worse than human despots. Is that your god? If it is it doesn't sound like the one in the gospels that called us children and asked us to call god affectionately father."

First of all, it's not contrary to "any and all notion of justice." If you do the crime, you kind of have to expect to do the time.

In terms of mercy, God grants mercy to those who ask for it by showing some contrition, humility, desire to repent if even they haven't repented effectively.

In terms of love, it's about a relationship. If the soul doesn't want to be loved by God and love God in return, then is God going to force the soul to be loved and love in return? Even in pop music - notoriously unrelated to theology - Bonnie Raitt sings, "I can't make you love me if you don't; You can't make your heart feel something it won't," and Mary Chapin Carpenter sings, "I can't bring you love if you don't love." Yes, God calls us children and asks us to call God affectionately Father, but not everybody actually responds to the call. We are each endowed with free will, and God lets us exercise our own free will.

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

First of all, it's not contrary to "any and all notion of justice." If you do the crime, you kind of have to expect to do the time.

Lets start out by defining justice a little bit...
 

Quote

jus·tice n.

1. The quality of being just; fairness: In the interest of justice, we should treat everyone the same.
2. a. The principle of moral rightness; decency.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness: argued for the justice of his cause.
3. a. The attainment of what is just, especially that which is fair, moral, right, merited, or in accordance with law: My client has not received justice in this hearing.
b. Law: The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law: We seek justice in this matter from the court.
c. The administration, system, methods, or procedures of law: a conspiracy to obstruct justice; a miscarriage of justice.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.

Idiom: do justice to
To treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation: The subject is so complex that I cannot do justice to it in a brief survey.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin iūstitia, from iūstus, just; see just1.]

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

And some entomology for good measure:

Quote

justice (n.)

mid-12c., "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment;" also "quality of being fair and just; moral soundness and conformity to truth," from Old French justice "justice, legal rights, jurisdiction" (11c.), from Latin iustitia "righteousness, equity," from iustus "upright, just" (see just (adj.)).

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. ["The Federalist," No. 51]

Meaning "right order, equity, the rewarding to everyone of that which is his due" in English is from late 14c. The Old French word had widespread senses including also "uprightness, equity, vindication of right, court of justice, judge." In English c. 1400-1700 sometimes also with a vindictive sense "infliction of punishment, legal vengeance." As a title for a judicial officer, c. 1200. Justice of the peace first attested early 14c. To do justice to (someone or something) "deal with as is right or fitting" is from 1670s. In the Mercian hymns, Latin iustitia is glossed by Old English rehtwisnisse.

I thusly would submit that justice is a lot deeper and more complex of a meaning than purely dishing out punishment. In fact I would say that punishment in the vindictive sense is contrary to Catholicism:

Quote

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

Peoples rights, civil society, safeguard of the common good. None of that is served by hell or at very least plenty of alternatives can very easily exist (moreover for an all-powerful god). Hell, moreover an eternal hell, is absolutely contrary to any proportionality... and the common Catholic apologetic point that it has to do with who is offended isn't here... it needs to be proportional to the offense (not the person offended). To make it proportional is to be unjust, at least unequal and as we establish above equitableness is apart of justice. There is no redressing of disorder and does not contribute to correcting the guilty party.

The Catholic Church eagerly opposes the American view of justice and corrections, Pope Francis has continued a condemnation of the death penalty and life sentences, which is traditional Catholic Social doctrine. Which to note the whole concept of prisons is a post-Christian innovation. Almost all references to prison in the Bible are in a negative context, specifically injustice, very rare and few are mentions otherwise. At the time of the Bible and through the Roman Republic/Empire there were no prisons (only jails to temporarily hold people as they awaited judgement). So in every meaningful sense 'do the time' is contrary to what early Christians would identify or understand as justice. Prisons emerged out of a dual evolution of extreme delay of judgement and/or the belief that a long sentence in jail was more merciful than death (or slavery, or lashings, or other common punishments that were then normal).

The Catholic Church also strongly argues that prison conditions must be humane... which the United States desperately lags behind. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 urges mercy and love in punishment "This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person, so that on the contrary you should forgive and encourage him instead, or else the person may be overwhelmed by excessive pain. Therefore, I urge you to reaffirm your love for him." There are more than a few verses like this in the New Testament.

It is also fair to say that humans exist in a rather abysmal state, one which hindered knowledge and volition, to be liable for an eternal punishment is truly quite laughable in this context. Even god in the bible concedes that we are by comparison without knowledge and wander in blindness. Jesus on the cross surprisingly prayed that those who put him on the cross knew not what they were doing. So how could any judge of justice sit back and ignore some rather major mitigating factors that are intrinsically unavoidable to the human condition and that have already been well established in the opinion of that judge?

So no... not just... not even slightly...

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

In terms of mercy, God grants mercy to those who ask for it by showing some contrition, humility, desire to repent if even they haven't repented effectively.

Jesus in the bible says that those who are merciful will receive mercy. "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." (Matthew 5:7) And god's mercy is not limited to those who ask for it or express it, rather Matthew 5 goes on "that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust." I think it is worth while to mention the parable of the good Samaritan because it illustrates that mercy is wholly unmerited " But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead. A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. Likewise a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.  But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight. He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn and cared for him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, ‘Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back.’ Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?” He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”"

This story is the story of the cross in a sense, of Jesus, at least in some reflections upon this parable. For it is man who has fallen victim and left for dead on the side of the road, it is the former religious and the Jewish faith that passed him for they could not save, but Jesus the good Samaritan came without being asked to save the man, tended to his wounds, and gave him a place to rest and heal.

So I very strongly disagree with your imagining of mercy...

In fact in reference to mercy and the afterlife 1 Peter 3:18-20 "For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water."

This is a traditional Catholic verse brought up for purgatory. Though who the spirits are exactly is not clear, possibly rebellious demons or souls from the deluge (who were rather upsetting to god considering he in the flood myth destroyed the world). It notes that despite this only eight were spared this imprisonment, those who were in the ark, which the verses go on to explain the ark prefigured the church and baptism.

So Jesus preaches to the spirits in prison, who likely did not repeat of their ways, and were not in the ark. Why would Jesus preach to them unless there was some need or benefit to accept the gospel? The whole message of the gospel and its benefit is salvation.

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

In terms of love, it's about a relationship. If the soul doesn't want to be loved by God and love God in return, then is God going to force the soul to be loved and love in return? Even in pop music - notoriously unrelated to theology - Bonnie Raitt sings, "I can't make you love me if you don't; You can't make your heart feel something it won't," and Mary Chapin Carpenter sings, "I can't bring you love if you don't love." Yes, God calls us children and asks us to call God affectionately Father, but not everybody actually responds to the call. We are each endowed with will, and God lets us exercise our own will.

God is all-loving and all-present, at least according to traditional Christian theology, so yes god imposes and envelopes his love to all. But does god make a soul love him? I suppose you could say its not a very voluntary action due to the possible threat and authority nature involved in such a relationship... but no I would be willing to concede its not something that is inherent or unavoidable. But god's love for us is not dependent or conditional on our love for god.

If your child didn't love you... would you throw them outside your home and torture them on the front lawn for all to see? If you do I think we would know what would happen. And I think we both know that isn't love.
 

Edited April 4, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[Guest]

Quote

Matthew Ch25 V29 :

Jesus tells us:

..........."...........For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'

Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.."..........

 

The above is good enough for me  

 

 

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

"Personally... I think the whole concept of hell is wholly and utterly contrary to any and all notion of justice, mercy, and/or love. It puts god into a category worse than human despots. Is that your god? If it is it doesn't sound like the one in the gospels that called us children and asked us to call god affectionately father."

First of all, it's not contrary to "any and all notion of justice." If you do the crime, you kind of have to expect to do the time.

In terms of mercy, God grants mercy to those who ask for it by showing some contrition, humility, desire to repent if even they haven't repented effectively.

In terms of love, it's about a relationship. If the soul doesn't want to be loved by God and love God in return, then is God going to force the soul to be loved and love in return? Even in pop music - notoriously unrelated to theology - Bonnie Raitt sings, "I can't make you love me if you don't; You can't make your heart feel something it won't," and Mary Chapin Carpenter sings, "I can't bring you love if you don't love." Yes, God calls us children and asks us to call God affectionately Father, but not everybody actually responds to the call. We are each endowed with free will, and God lets us exercise our own free will.

Well said

Edited April 4, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[Luigi]

@GreenScapularedHuman - TLDR

Maybe you're right. It doesn't matter to me one way or another. God can do anything He wants to. There's nothing I can do to stop Him. I'm not gonna second guess Him. I'll find out soon enough.

 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

18 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.."..........

The above is good enough for me  

Which continues the metaphor (unless one wants to argue hellfire is literal, which one would then have to say hellfire has the unique property of being both a literal fire and able to burn spirit, which is some fire-and-brim-stone sort of thinking there) the metaphor that the fires of hell are continual/eternal. But what exactly those fires are is not so very clear. It is also not clear if those sent into the fires will stay there continually/eternally.

18 minutes ago, Luigi said:

@GreenScapularedHuman - TLDR

Maybe you're right. It doesn't matter to me one way or another. God can do anything He wants to. There's nothing I can do to stop Him. I'm not gonna second guess Him. I'll find out soon enough.

That is where you are a little bit mistaken moreover in the Catholic context... prayer. Even by the middle ages when the Catholic Church held the normative view that hell was an eternal sentence there were prayers to alleviate the sufferings of hell. Thomas Aquinas disagreed with this for various reasons and the practice for such prayers fell out of use.

But I'm not saying I am right... merely presenting my views. But saying it doesn't matter I think is missing how the threat of hell can be very deleterious to the belief and hope of many. Also how it can skew how people think.

[Guest]

What the fires of Hell are precisely, I don't know - literal or otherwise.  The fires are eternal and my own belief is that those who have condemned themselves to the "lake of fire" will be there eternally and that follows the teaching of Scripture and The Church i.e. that Hell is eternal separation from God and an eternity of hellish reality for sure.

 

Catholic Answers "What is Hell?" (Tim Staples - Director Apologetics & Evangelization at Catholic Answers)................the whole article makes for a good and even necessary read:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-hell

Excerpt only.............

In Revelation 20:10, St. John describes Hell ("the lake of fire," more specifically) in relation to the Devil and the False Prophet of the end times in terms difficult to misunderstand:

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Then, in Revelation 20:14-15, St. John again mentions this same "lake of fire" and explicitly and specifically declares that humans will go to the same place—and that means "for ever and ever."

This is the second death, the lake of fire; and if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown in the lake of fire.

 

If I say to the wicked, "You shall surely die," and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life (Ez. 3:18-19).

In I Tim. 4:16, St. Paul says to Timothy:

Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Ezekiel seems to indicate that if ...........read more on above Catholic Answers link

[GreenScapularedHuman]

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:14-15; The New American Bible Revised)

With all respect and sensitivity I don't see 'forever and ever' or any terms that would indicate that to me.

There are some verses that seem to possibly hint that the sentence of hell is eternal... like "The smoke of the fire that torments them will rise forever and ever, and there will be no relief day or night for those who worship the beast or its image or accept the mark of its name." (Revelation 14:11) But that is predicated on discerning if the smoke of the torments is the fire itself (which the new testament repeats frequently is eternal) or if it is the tormented. The former seems more likely given the context and grammar.

There is in fact only one possible scripture that seems to explicitly say there is an eternal punishment, that is "And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46) The eternal reference hinges on the term 'aionion' (which is very closely related in term and entomology to the English equivalent to aeon) which aeon means an indefinite and very long period of time. There is also the deity Aion, who was allegedly unbounded by the constraints of time and was able to basically be in all times at once, thus he is sometimes imagined as a god of eternity and time... possibly why the term aionion has a connotation of eternity but even that is kind a misunderstanding of Aion. But it can possibly mean an eternity, it is a valid use of the term, and arguably when speaking of eternal salvation (unless something again happens in god's divine plans, a reoccurring theme of god's) the same term is used.

There are other verses which this discussion could venture but quite simply I think the most telling interpretation is the early christian fathers and scholars themselves who very rarely considered hell eternal or a place of profound torment, although be it terrible. The development of the idea of hell as eternal, profound torment, and without any relief seems to be developments that happened much later on... to which it seems not even the Catholic Church has definitively decided the matter (which they sure can, they committed more than a little to pen and paper in exacting detail).

Addendum: The Book of Revelation is a pretty (ahem-trippy-ahem) book. I am not so sure how seriously I would read into any of it. And the eternal punishment, if it is, it still isn't clear if it is 'an eternal dwelling in hell'... though it is the closest Jesus comes to in the canonical gospels to saying there is an 'eternal punishment' rather than saying the fire is eternal. That is again how one translates I suppose.

[Luigi]

"Entomology" is the study of bugs. You mean "etymology."

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

"Entomology" is the study of bugs. You mean "etymology."

Typo. But yes. Kinda trivial.

[CatherineM]

One of the greatest gifts God gave us was free will. Like any good parent, he knew what we’d do with it, but he still let us have it. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

9 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

One of the greatest gifts God gave us was will. Like any good parent, he knew what we’d do with it, but he still let us have it. 

I could be mistaken doesn't Catholicism subscribe to a more ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ )? Because people don't choose the circumstances that form them nor the circumstances of those circumstances. As I mentioned above the human condition is one that is at very best very limited (moreover in a divine view) and at worst is very troubled (also a divine view)... and arguably how humans were made in either case if one believe god literally designed humanity.

But even if it were true that people had the ability to choose as much they can with sufficient knowledge, despite Jesus saying on the cross they didn't know and the Bible being filled with references to the ignorance of humanity moreover of divine matters, no just/merciful/loving parent would let their child suffer the ill consequences of their decisions even if that meant fighting their children for what is better.

Its why parents get police to bring back runaways and even more controversially try to get guardianship rights for adult-children when they are in dire need. Also why parents let their children move back in with them when their kids have no where else to go and even put up with a lot. A lot a lot a lot.

And I can't imagine any parent who would abandon their children even if they don't try to take them in. Even the worst of parents I have seen at very least want their children in homeless shelters, hospitals, jails/prisons, or elsewhere. Hell is the absolute worst I mind you.

So there isn't anything parental about this. At least unless we venture into just abjectly horrible parents...

[Jack4]

411 Dz 211 Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema. 

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dwu.htm

 

On 4/1/2018 at 1:47 AM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

He is a reputable and creditable journalist. Not known to lie or to be corrupt.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/04/an-interesting-development-in-hellgate/

On 4/1/2018 at 1:47 AM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

 

On 4/1/2018 at 12:21 AM, Seven77 said:

And who cares what a significant number of Catholics believe. I mean it's not something to be concerned/ unconcerned about,  it just a significant number of Catholics believing something doesn't mean that it's true/untrue.

92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55

 

Although theological faith as such then cannot err, the believer can still have erroneous opinions since all his thoughts do not spring from faith. Not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith. This is all the more so given that people can be swayed by a public opinion influenced by modern communications media... Polling public opinion to determine the proper thing to think or do, opposing the Magisterium by exerting the pressure of public opinion, making the excuse of a "consensus" among theologians, maintaining that the theologian is the prophetical spokesman of a "base" or autonomous community which would be the source of all truth, all this indicates a grave loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

On 4/5/2018 at 4:44 AM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

So there isn't anything parental about this. At least unless we venture into just abjectly horrible parents...

I think you apply the concept of love univocally to God, when he is transcendent. Moreover, God's love is not in opposition to his holiness and justice. 

On 4/4/2018 at 10:18 AM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

the threat of hell can be very deleterious to the belief and hope of many.

To protest against God in the name of justice is not helpful. A world without God is a world without hope (cf. Eph 2:12). Only God can create justice. And faith gives us the certainty that he does so. The image of the Last Judgement is not primarily an image of terror, but an image of hope; for us it may even be the decisive image of hope. Is it not also a frightening image? I would say: it is an image that evokes responsibility, an image, therefore, of that fear of which Saint Hilary spoke when he said that all our fear has its place in love[35]. God is justice and creates justice. This is our consolation and our hope. And in his justice there is also grace. This we know by turning our gaze to the crucified and risen Christ. Both these things—justice and grace—must be seen in their correct inner relationship. Grace does not cancel out justice. It does not make wrong into right. It is not a sponge which wipes everything away, so that whatever someone has done on earth ends up being of equal value. Dostoevsky, for example, was right to protest against this kind of Heaven and this kind of grace in his novel The Brothers Karamazov. Evildoers, in the end, do not sit at table at the eternal banquet beside their victims without distinction, as though nothing had happened. Here I would like to quote a passage from Plato which expresses a premonition of just judgement that in many respects remains true and salutary for Christians too. Albeit using mythological images, he expresses the truth with an unambiguous clarity, saying that in the end souls will stand naked before the judge. It no longer matters what they once were in history, but only what they are in truth: “Often, when it is the king or some other monarch or potentate that he (the judge) has to deal with, he finds that there is no soundness in the soul whatever; he finds it scourged and scarred by the various acts of perjury and wrong-doing ...; it is twisted and warped by lies and vanity, and nothing is straight because truth has had no part in its development. Power, luxury, pride, and debauchery have left it so full of disproportion and ugliness that when he has inspected it (he) sends it straight to prison, where on its arrival it will undergo the appropriate punishment ... Sometimes, though, the eye of the judge lights on a different soul which has lived in purity and truth ... then he is struck with admiration and sends him to the isles of the blessed”[36]. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.

... With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.  http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html

[GreenScapularedHuman]

8 hours ago, Jack4 said:

411 Dz 211 Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema. 

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dwu.htm

Anathema statements are not infallible, or at least they are not a good determination in of themselves, that is if my memory from seminary is still up to speed. Also the Second Synod of Orange was a local/particular council, as such I don't think this is exactly a very compelling argument.

Also I don't think this quite says what I think you think it says. One of the very consistent caveats or lack of clarity is what is the nature of that punishment? If the word 'complete' was dropped it would say what I think you want it to say. But with it there it certainly adds to a traditional tread of belief with the early Christians that apart of the eternal punishment for sin would be the memory of sin and its punishment. That cannot be really taken away.

Also I could be mistaken here but I don't think the church has the authority to definitively define anything that they are not taking from some unanimous consensus of the church's deposit of faith. I mean I know the First and Second Vatican Councils pushed papal and conciliar infallibility in limited contexts, but I am not quite recalling if that is one of the requirements or not.

Personally I think the infallibility argument for Catholics is taken a wee bit too far and/or is a mistake. I recall a doctor of catholic theology and history telling me something along the lines that the doctrine of infallibility is a result of the indefectible nature of the church, saying something along the lines of that in this sense its the authority of the church that god blesses to bind and loosen, and that god will honor those definitions even if they be lacking or wrong, thus someone who believes such god will honor and those who do not... not so much.

But I would have to get some old books out to think about the previous paragraph some more.

8 hours ago, Jack4 said:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/04/an-interesting-development-in-hellgate/

 

Reading the full opinion piece... Piergiorgio Odifreddi's objection to his former boss is not that he lacks credibility but that he doesn't do enough to engender trust... such as taking notes, making recordings, not sensationalizing the news, and so on. In the opinion piece he admits that Eugenio Scalfari has retracted statements in the past. Not really the hallmark of 'fake news'.

The Catholic Church also has a pretty tenuous relationship with putting truth behind its agenda, rather the Catholic Church has a very long track record of putting its agenda first and truth sometimes comes later. So I am not in particular very impressed that the Catholic Church didn't like the reporting.

Which is basically Piergiorgio Odifredd's whole point. That it was made first page.

Also Piergiorgio Odifreddi QUIT, he says it right in his piece (that funny enough he cited) and explains why. Also Eugenio Scalfari is NOT a communist. So whoever this blogger is seems to either not grasp the Italian all that well or is really injecting his own fake news into the situation.

9 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Although theological faith as such then cannot err, the believer can still have erroneous opinions since all his thoughts do not spring from faith. Not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith. This is all the more so given that people can be swayed by a public opinion influenced by modern communications media... Polling public opinion to determine the proper thing to think or do, opposing the Magisterium by exerting the pressure of public opinion, making the excuse of a "consensus" among theologians, maintaining that the theologian is the prophetical spokesman of a "base" or autonomous community which would be the source of all truth, all this indicates a grave loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Yes, I am aware that Benedict XVI does not agree with the Second Vatican Council.

The Second Vatican Council had a lot of very difficult to fully process aspects to it. I don't think any Pope has ever said its been fully implemented or well understood by anyone.

9 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I think you apply the concept of love univocally to God, when he is transcendent. Moreover, God's love is not in opposition to his holiness and justice.

No. I think that is a cop-out answer firstly. Secondly, I argued it is in opposition to even basic justice and holiness (citing the catechism of the Catholic Church and the gospels).

I mean lets be really blunt. If hell is as bad as conservative Christianity proposes then god's hell looks worse than North Korea's death camps. Isn't that a little embarrassing to you that if true you could say 'well that hilter... at least he wasn't as mean as god.'?

9 hours ago, Jack4 said:

To protest against God in the name of justice is not helpful. A world without God is a world without hope (cf. Eph 2:12). Only God can create justice. And faith gives us the certainty that he does so. The image of the Last Judgement is not primarily an image of terror, but an image of hope; for us it may even be the decisive image of hope. Is it not also a frightening image? I would say: it is an image that evokes responsibility, an image, therefore, of that fear of which Saint Hilary spoke when he said that all our fear has its place in love[35]. God is justice and creates justice. This is our consolation and our hope. And in his justice there is also grace. This we know by turning our gaze to the crucified and risen Christ. Both these things—justice and grace—must be seen in their correct inner relationship. Grace does not cancel out justice. It does not make wrong into right. It is not a sponge which wipes everything away, so that whatever someone has done on earth ends up being of equal value. Dostoevsky, for example, was right to protest against this kind of Heaven and this kind of grace in his novel The Brothers Karamazov. Evildoers, in the end, do not sit at table at the eternal banquet beside their victims without distinction, as though nothing had happened. Here I would like to quote a passage from Plato which expresses a premonition of just judgement that in many respects remains true and salutary for Christians too. Albeit using mythological images, he expresses the truth with an unambiguous clarity, saying that in the end souls will stand naked before the judge. It no longer matters what they once were in history, but only what they are in truth: “Often, when it is the king or some other monarch or potentate that he (the judge) has to deal with, he finds that there is no soundness in the soul whatever; he finds it scourged and scarred by the various acts of perjury and wrong-doing ...; it is twisted and warped by lies and vanity, and nothing is straight because truth has had no part in its development. Power, luxury, pride, and debauchery have left it so full of disproportion and ugliness that when he has inspected it (he) sends it straight to prison, where on its arrival it will undergo the appropriate punishment ... Sometimes, though, the eye of the judge lights on a different soul which has lived in purity and truth ... then he is struck with admiration and sends him to the isles of the blessed”[36]. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.

... With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.  http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html

So basically this summed up is, 'god is justice, because justice is god, therefor god cannot be unjust, and justice cannot be god'? That basically sounds like you are making the word justice utterly meaningless.

So based on what was written here... define for me justice.