Heaven, Hell, And Us

[XIX]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1721739' date='Dec 7 2008, 04:27 PM']I don't know if this has been posted before in the earlier discussion.

[url="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=488"]This is Avery Cardinal Dulles discussion of this subject in[/url] [i]First Things[/i]. It is very helpful to see how different theologians approach this subject.

If you read the whole thing, the Cardinal points out Saint Teresa Benedicta (Edith Stein,) Balthazar, and others who accepted the possibility that Hell may be empty.

"Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of [u][b]whether [/b][/u]or which human beings are effectively involved in it. " ~ Pope John Paul II

(emphasis mine)[/quote]
I think I see what you are saying. I think it's absurdly silly and naive to believe that no souls are in Hell. In theory it is possible.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='XIX' post='1721769' date='Dec 7 2008, 05:42 PM']I think I see what you are saying. I think it's absurdly silly and naive to believe that no souls are in Hell. In theory it is possible.[/quote]

To me, it does seem to go contrary to the evidence. I do put stock in some of the private revelations, (which of course we are not required to believe) and they certainly make it clear that Hell is populated by human beings. There is a strong theological tradition which teaches that not only is Hell populated, but the majority of people, even the majority of Christians, go there.

On the other hand, I was impressed by Edith Stein. She was by no means stupid, silly or naive, and she certainly had personal experience with the kind of evil deserving eternal punishment. But she still thought the way she did about Hell. Also a mystic and a Saint. It gives me pause.

[dairygirl4u2c]

“Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.” ~1905 Catechism of Pope Pius X"

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]QUOTE
He spoke also of the schemes of the traitor Judas, and the Blessed Virgin prayed for him.

This is, above all, what gives me hope that Judas was saved.

QUOTE (Aloysius)
GF, we believe in a hell and we know people go to hell, that's a fact of our faith. we can't know the fate of certain souls, but it is revealed in the book of revelation that there are those who are eternally damned.

I'm not denying the doctrine of hell. In fact, I believe it's entirely possible that there are very many people in hell, but I assert that we as Catholics can have hope that hell is empty. This is not universalism, which denies the doctrine of hell altogether.

As usual, Aloysius, it's not as cut and dry as you'd like to think. I didn't come up with this on my own, it's been explained by several theologians, in particular Hans Urs von Balthasar. Here's a quote from Cardinal Avery Dulles' article on this theology:

QUOTE (Cardinal Avery Dulles @ The Population of Hell)
The most sophisticated theological argument againt the conviction that some human beings in fact go to hell has been proposed by Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved?" He rejects the ideas that hell will be emptied at the end of time and that the damned souls and demons will be reconciled with God. He also avoids asserting as a fact that everyone will be saved. But he does say that we have a right and even a duty to hope for the salvation of all, because it is not impossible that even the worst sinners may be moved by God's grace to repent before they die. He concedes, however, that the opposite is also possible. Since we are able to resist the grace of God, none of us is safe. We must therefore leave the question speculatively open, thinking primarily of the danger in which we ourselves stand.

At one point in his book Balthasar incorporates a long quotation from Edith Stein, now Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, who defends a position very like Balthasar's. Since God's all-merciful love, she says, descends upon everyone, it is probable that this love produces transforming effects in their lives. To the extent that people open themselves to that love, they enter the realm of redemption. On this ground Stein finds it possible to hope that God's omnipotent love finds ways of, so to speak, outwitting human resistance. Balthasar says that he agrees with Stein.

This position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox. It does not contradict any ecumenical councils or definitions of the faith. It can be reconciled with everything in Scripture, at least if the statements of Jesus on hell are taken as minatory rather than predictive. Balthasar's position, moreover, does not undermine a healthy fear of being lost. But the position is at least adventurous. It runs against the obvious interpretation of the words of Jesus in the New Testament and against the dominant theological opinion down through the centuries, which maintains that some, and in fact very many, are lost.

Although Cardinal Dulles disagrees with Balthasar's theological opinion, he finds it orthodox. Moreover, by beatifying and canonizing St. Edith Stein, the Church affirmed that all of her writings, including those on hell, were free of heresy. Thus, while we may certainly be wrong about the possibility that everyone is saved (a fact that we admit), the hope that everyone can be saved is not contradictory to Scripture or Tradition -- this is affirmed by Cardinal Dulles and the Church, inasmuch as she canonized St. Edith Stein and deemed her writings free from heresy.

I agree with St. Edith Stein and Hans Urs von Balthasar. If you don't, that's fine, but please don't try to tell me I'm de facto wrong, especially when you haven't looked into the issue at all and when you're only going on your private interpretation of Scripture. St. Edith Stein and Hans Urs von Balthasar were not morons, and neither am I.[/quote]

this was about judas, but applicable here

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1721817' date='Dec 7 2008, 06:56 PM']“Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.” ~1905 Catechism of Pope Pius X"[/quote]


The development of the teaching on limbo is interesting, because at the same time the idea of limbo was being explored, it went hand in hand with the teaching that the only four last things are death, judgment, heaven and hell.

When the Lord comes again, those will be the last four things. There will be no more purgatory and no more limbo. The people who came up with the limbo hypothesis knew this, so I'm interested to find out where the population of limbo theoretically ended up in their system.

[Mr_Private_Person]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_2.jpg[/img]

Forbids me from commenting about Smucknuck!

It's forbidden!

A land where there is no spaghetti, no meatballs, no sauce!

It's horrible!

[Lilllabettt]

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1721562' date='Dec 7 2008, 11:39 AM']just because it's in the catechism doesn't mean it's final. if the way catholics treat it and i understand it to be correct.

for example, the current catechism says the death penalty should be almost nonexistant, but catholics want it to be used liberally.[/quote]
But it doesn't say the state has no right to execute people to protect others, which is what you'd need it to say to make this argument.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't know why that's what i'd need to argue.
it says it should be rare and next to non-existant. catholics don't want it to be rare and non-existant and they think it should be common. the intent is there and it's obvious, and yet it's not being followed. the violation of what is said is obvious.

i might be missing your point. are you saying that the people are not who's the guage, but the catechism's the guage? are you claiming it was never strictly taught?

i guess my point is more that it was one thing, now it's the other, in the teaching.
that the people don't follow, and follow the traditional, is more just evidence.