The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
I don't think Florence is ruling out the possibility that you could have a confused man who visibly identifies as Protestant, who's actually of good faith and is actually Catholic.You cannot be a protestant and a catholic at the same time. Either you believe that Christ gives us His body and blood in the Eucharist, which is necessary for salvation, or you do not. Either you believe that you must submit to the Church and the pope to be saved, or you do not. Either you believe that Our Lady was born spotless from sin, and remained so for Her entire life, and was Assumed into Heaven as Queen, or you do not.
Did you mean to post the following?Yes, that's right. Thank you.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm
Chapter 1
1. The Apostle Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) has said: A man that is an heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) after the first and second admonition reject, knowing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) that he that is such is subverted and sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit003.htm#verse10) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm) who had been misguided and had fallen into error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm), and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). Were it not that I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm), however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) resistance to truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. On this ground I wrote even to some of the chief of the Donatists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm), not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to pagans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm). These letters, however, though they have sometimes read them, they have not been willing, or perhaps it is more probable, have not been able, to answer. In these cases, it seems to me that I have discharged the obligation laid on me by that love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) which the Holy Spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) teaches us to render, not only to our own, but to all, saying by the apostle: The Lord make you to increase and abound in love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) one toward another, and toward all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). 1 Thessalonians 3:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1th003.htm#verse12) In another place we are warned that those who are of a different opinion from us must be corrected with meekness, if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm), who are taken captive by him at his will. 2 Timothy 2:25-26 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ti002.htm#verse25)
2. I have said these things by way of preface, lest any one should think, because you are not of our communion, that I have been influenced by forwardness rather than consideration in sending this letter, and in desiring thus to confer with you regarding the welfare of the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm); though I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) that, if I were writing to you about an affair of property, or the settlement of some dispute about money, no one would find fault with me. So precious is this world in the esteem of men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15677a.htm) in my vindication at the bar of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), who knows (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Matthew 5:9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#verse9)
You cannot be a protestant and a catholic at the same time. Either you believe that Christ gives us His body and blood in the Eucharist, which is necessary for salvation, or you do not. Either you believe that you must submit to the Church and the pope to be saved, or you do not. Either you believe that Our Lady was born spotless from sin, and remained so for Her entire life, and was Assumed into Heaven as Queen, or you do not.I was purposely precise. "visibly identified as Protestant." He thinks he's Protestant.
.
A confused protestant may not be guilty of heresy (for a time) but they are not a catholic, since they identify with heresy. Confusion, like ignorance, is a punishment for sin. If that person has good will and strives for natural goodness, God will remove his confusion and send him the truths of the Faith. I say that the protestant is not guilty "for a time" because if he stays in his confusion and does not seek truth, he is guilty of spiritual sloth and God will not bless him with the truths which he lazily did not seek. We cannot say, per Church doctrine, that a confused protestant can be saved. We can only say that this person, IF HE BECOMES A CATHOLIC, and rejects his protestant errors, can be saved.
Obstinately denying any of the above is damnable. Since we can't know for sure that someone is in good faith, we should pray for the salvation of all Protestants, and assume that they are not safe where they are.One who identifies as Protestant denies the above doctrines, by definition. They cannot be saved as a Protestant, no matter their good will. How do you define "good will" anyway? They can only be saved if they ACTIVELY reject their heresies, their protestant religion and become catholic. Salvation is not in the mind. Being a catholic is not a mental state. Christ told us to (actively) do good and avoid evil. We must EAT His Flesh and DRINK His blood to be saved; we cannot just believe. To become a catholic is to act to join the Faith. "Good will" is a mental first step, but it requires the fulfillment of the desire for Truth. "Good will" does not supply the sacraments; it does not supply membership in the Church; it cannot supply heaven.
One who identifies as Protestant denies the above doctrines, by definition. They cannot be saved as a Protestant, no matter their good will. How do you define "good will" anyway? They can only be saved if they ACTIVELY reject their heresies, their protestant religion and become catholic. Salvation is not in the mind. Being a catholic is not a mental state. Christ told us to (actively) do good and avoid evil. We must EAT His Flesh and DRINK His blood to be saved; we cannot just believe. To become a catholic is to act to join the Faith. "Good will" is a mental first step, but it requires the fulfillment of the desire for Truth. "Good will" does not supply the sacraments; it does not supply membership in the Church; it cannot supply heaven.If the John 6 passage allows for no exceptions whatsoever, why is it that baptized infants in the Western Rite aren't damned? (Since, unlike the Eastern Rite, the western rite does not allow infants to receive communion.)
If the John 6 passage allows for no exceptions whatsoever, why is it that baptized infants in the Western Rite aren't damned? (Since, unlike the Eastern Rite, the western rite does not allow infants to receive communion.)
That's because there are two different types of necessity involved. Only Baptism is necessary by necessity of means for salvation. Holy Communion is not. I'll try to look up the theological passages on this subject later.Contextually, we were discussing the view that all who claim to be Protestants are damned. So it wasn't about baptism of desire per se there. I forget exactly how we got there, because I'm in all three of the discussions on this issue that are going on at the moment.
Byzcat, to be clear Feenyism denies baptism of blood and desireIt seems like the logic behind denying baptism of desire and baptism of blood would be similar, right?
Some here deny any baptism of desire only
Some hold that there is limited baptism of desire (for example they believe that if you are of good will and desire to join the Church you are in the same state as a catechumen ) trying to follow the doctrine of the Church which says that it is possible to obtain the state of sanctifying grace before the reception of the sacraments (like for example how a perfect act of contrition justifies before confession). Which is borne out in scripture (Peter referring to the saved outside the ark, and the paralytic who was told his sins were forgiven by Christ without either faith or contrition, as well as St. Emerentiana and countless martyrs saved without water baptism and prayed to in countless liturgies)
Yes essentially Feenyites are Dogmatic about it.
About what? We are certainly dogmatic about the fact that there's no salvation outside the Church. What do you have in mind here?Not just that. Also a particular definition of what it means to be outside the church. Which is the issue at hand.
I honestly see zero issue with what +Lefebvre said about this issue
One can hold a EENS without being a heretic for believing in baptism of blood. To a Feenyite it would be heresy.That's not true. BOD/BOB is not heresy, yet it's not "de fide". The gray area which the Church has yet to define applies to catechumens only. Feeneyites call heresy when anyone speaks of BOD/BOB in relation to people who are not formal catechumens. This is the only situation that the Church Fathers, St Thomas and St Alphonsus speak of it. They too, would consider it heresy.
Not just that. Also a particular definition of what it means to be outside the church. Which is the issue at hand.
Ladislas I am not suggesting anything else than that they hold as dogmatic opinions not expressly condemned. One can hold a EENS without being a heretic for believing in baptism of blood. To a Feenyite it would be heresy. Hope that clarifys my statement
That's not true. BOD/BOB is not heresy, yet it's not "de fide". The gray area which the Church has yet to define applies to catechumens only. Feeneyites call heresy when anyone speaks of BOD/BOB in relation to people who are not formal catechumens. This is the only situation that the Church Fathers, St Thomas and St Alphonsus speak of it. They too, would consider it heresy.
Again, dogmatic about what? We're dogmatic about some aspects of EENS but not dogmatic about others.Basically what Pax Vobis said. I realize you aren't dogmatic about BOD as applied to formal catechumens (well, the Dimonds are, but I realize you guys aren't in agreement with the Dimonds.) But, at least as far as I understand, Feeneyites *would* consider it heretical to believe that its possible that some individuals who ARE NOT formal catechumens might be inside the Church despite not being formal members by baptism of implicit desire or (in the case of Protestants or EOs) being ignorant enough to not rise to the level of formal heresy, which cuts one off from the member of the Church.
Right. This goes back to the fact that until the Jesuit innovators came along around the year 1600, no Catholic ever believed or taught that salvation was possible without explicit knowledge of and belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. Now, if I were living in the year 1400, I would rightly classify that unanimity among the Church Fathers and of the entire Ecclesia Credens as an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. One might even call the Athanasian Creed an expression of the solemn Magisterium as it had the approbation of multiple popes. But then one day someone wakes up in the year 1600 and it's no longer infallible and certain because one guy decided to question it out of the blue? That's nonsense. Otherwise, one would have to claim that something taught infallibly as a matter of faith can over time cease to be an infallible matter of faith.Dante did. But he's definitely not of enough weight to challenge the consensus on his own. Justin Martyr thought Socrates, and those pagans who lived in accordance with reason before the coming of Christ, would be saved, but I don't know for sure if he extended that out to pagans who hadn't heard of Christ AFTER Christ came. At the least it seems reasonable to me that his reasoning could be extended in that way, but I need to look at First Apology again (I'm gonna start a thread soon on this particular section of First Apology, as that seems worth its own separate discussion. Augustine does say that some Donatists shouldn't be considered heretics. I realize Donatists believed in the Holy Trinity, so strictly speaking they don't conflict with your argument, however, Augustine's words there do present problems for *other* aspects of your interpretation of EENS (for instance, as far as I understand, you and Pax wouldn't believe that anyone who's visibly associated with Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy can be saved either. While a separate issue to "virtuous pagans", it still deserves discussion.)
The argument, at least so far as I can make sense of it, is not that those people are saved "outside" the Church (since dogmatically that's impossible) but that in some way those people, if they are in fact saved, are somehow inside the Church despite not being formal members of it. If I understand you and Pax correctly, you would consider such speculation to be heretical, even though its possible to frame it in a manner that doesn't conflict with the dogma per se.
If you believe it as fact, it's heretical because no saint, nor pope, nor council has ever taught such a thing. (if you want to just speculate on it, then heresy may not be involved, but I'd suggest you pray hard for wisdom since such errors can take root quickly). The Church Fathers, St Thomas, St Alphonsus, etc never applied BOD to anyone but formal catechumens. If you want to argue that this new view is catholic, you have a lot to prove.That's what I'm trying to figure out. Whether its actually a new position. It doesn't seem to be. I presented Justin Martyr on another thread. I've cited Augustine's Letter 43 several times, regarding the Donatists (not relevant to BOD 'cause they were baptized and trinitarian, but seemingly relevant to the Protestantism issue). I have too many question marks at this point to state that its "fact." For one thing, it definitely does not seem to me that *all* of the Fathers taught this. It might even be the case that the majority of them were absolutists, but again, I'm not sure (proof-texting quotes can go wrong quickly as well.) Assuming Vatican II is not dogmatic, I don't think there's anything dogmatic about this. As far as Vatican II goes, Lumen Gentium seems to allow for the possibility of non-Christians being saved, but you could easily enough interpret that (and we should if its more traditional) to mean that a soul who follows the natural law and is not evangelized through no fault of his own will somehow supernaturally (Perhaps an angel will come to them) be enlightened to the Catholic faith. Unitatis Redintegratio says that non-Catholic communities are a means of salvation, and that majorly, majorly bothers me (my best attempt to reconcile it, were I to try, would be to point to the valid baptisms in Protestant sects, combined with Augustine's theory on certain donatists, but I still think that section is a ticking time bomb that was from its inception abuseable).
.
The corruption of BOD began in the 1700-1800s when such novelties were inserted into the Baltimore Catechism in America and it took off from there (adding to the fact that during this time, in America society, more and more Catholics were becoming friends with Protestants, so the social and sentimental reasons for wanting your non-Catholic friends to be saved increased).
.
By the 1940s and 50s, it had gotten so liberal that the formerly-catholic Harvard University was openly teaching that non-catholics can be saved. This is when Fr Feeney stepped in to debate them, since he lived in the Massachusetts area. Then modernist rome officials stepped in to silence him (because this was only a few years before V2, and this idea of universal salvation was a key component of their V2 plans). And the rest is history.
But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12083c.htm), taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) who were born before Him were irresponsible — let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) is the first-born (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06081a.htm) of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), even though they have been thought atheists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm); as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01051a.htm), and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm)it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) and hostile to Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), and slew those who lived reasonably. But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm) of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm) as a man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And we, since the proof (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to the proof (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of those things which are urgent.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]1. The Apostle Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) has said: A man that is an heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) after the first and second admonition reject, knowing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) that he that is such is subverted and sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit003.htm#verse10) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm) who had been misguided and had fallen into error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm), and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). Were it not that I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm), however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) resistance to truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. On this ground I wrote even to some of the chief of the Donatists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm), not indeed letters of communion, which on account of their perversity they have long ceased to receive from the undivided Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) which is spread throughout the world, but letters of a private kind, such as we may send even to pagans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm). These letters, however, though they have sometimes read them, they have not been willing, or perhaps it is more probable, have not been able, to answer. In these cases, it seems to me that I have discharged the obligation laid on me by that love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) which the Holy Spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) teaches us to render, not only to our own, but to all, saying by the apostle: The Lord make you to increase and abound in love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) one toward another, and toward all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). 1 Thessalonians 3:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1th003.htm#verse12) In another place we are warned that those who are of a different opinion from us must be corrected with meekness, if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm), who are taken captive by him at his will. 2 Timothy 2:25-26 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ti002.htm#verse25)[/color]Quote[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]2. I have said these things by way of preface, lest any one should think, because you are not of our communion, that I have been influenced by forwardness rather than consideration in sending this letter, and in desiring thus to confer with you regarding the welfare of the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm); though I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) that, if I were writing to you about an affair of property, or the settlement of some dispute about money, no one would find fault with me. So precious is this world in the esteem of men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and so small is the value which they set upon themselves! This letter, therefore, shall be a witness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15677a.htm) in my vindication at the bar of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), who knows (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the spirit in which I write, and who has said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Matthew 5:9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#verse9)[/color]
I've cited Augustine's Letter 43 several times, regarding the Donatists (not relevant to BOD 'cause they were baptized and trinitarian, but seemingly relevant to the Protestantism issue).
Ok, but I thought we were talking about +ABL and hindus? There are 3 different salvation questions and if they are mixed together, confusion reigns.OK yes, you're right. That's confusing.
.
1. Non-catholics / BOD-BOB
2. Baptized heretics / rejection of error
3. Catholics in material heresy
.
Just like not every catholic who was infected with the Arian heresy was damned, so not every Donatist was. Only God knows the extent to which they accepted error. In the beginning years, Anglicans in England were basically 99% catholic except they rejected the pope (not that this rejection is a small matter, but it's an example to show that heresy can often be only 1 error, while all the other beliefs are true.) Did every Englishman who went along with Henry VIII fully understand the error? Maybe not. Only God knows.
So I guess in different places I've been arguing for #1 and for #2. I've been arguing for the possibility of #1 based on St Justin, and for the possibility of #2 based on St Augustine. I believe Feeneyites would reject both.Here's how we have to understand this doctrine. The Church infallibly teaches, which is what God wants us to believe, that there is no salvation outside the Church for both 1) non-Catholics and 2) heretics. We must believe this in a general sense.
Here's how we have to understand this doctrine. The Church infallibly teaches, which is what God wants us to believe, that there is no salvation outside the Church for both 1) non-Catholics and 2) heretics. We must believe this in a general sense.I feel like the second part of this is a concession to the point I've been making the whole time, and furthermore, that I haven't denied the first part, unless I'm missing something.
.
Has the Church ever said, specifically, that 1) Joe Blow pagan is in hell? No. 2) Or that Sally heretic is in hell? No. It's not our job, nor the Church's to specifically damn anyone to hell. This is God's own doing. However, we must teach/believe the general doctrine and leave the rest to God.
Has the Church ever said, specifically, that 1) Joe Blow pagan is in hell? No. 2) Or that Sally heretic is in hell? No. It's not our job, nor the Church's to specifically damn anyone to hell.But the Church does teach that if Joe Pagan and Sally heretic didn't join the Church before they died, they were not saved. What does "joining the Church" mean? It can only mean Baptism or (in the case of Sally, who's baptized and already a member, an abjuration of heresies).
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
EPISTOLA
DEL SOMMO PONTEFICE
GREGORIO XVIDOLOREM QUO
[...]
Certo non altro vogliono i ministri protestanti se non che il clero cattolico, indotto a un tal modo di agire, attenui poi nel popolo fedele la memoria di quel dogma che riguarda la necessità della fede e dell’unità cattolica, al fine di raggiungere la salvezza; così essi potranno più facilmente adescare molti altri, in modo che si allontanino dallo stretto sentiero della verità cattolica e imbocchino sciaguratamente l’ampia via dell’errore e della perdizione.
[...]
Of course, Protestant ministers want nothing more than for the Catholic clergy, induced to act in such a way, to soften in the faithful people the memory of that dogma that concerns the necessity of faith and Catholic unity, in order to reach salvation; in this way they can more easily lure many others away from the narrow path of Catholic truth and take the wide path of error and perdition.
[font=",serif]#1 they think that Hell is an amorphous solid mass of horrific punishmentsScripture describes Hell as a place of fire and torment. I challenge you to find any passage either in Scripture or a theologian that supports your idea of the uncomfortable-but-not-horrible places in Hell. I have never come across anything resembling that in anything I have read on the Faith. Every saint I have ever read also describes Hell as a place of, in your words, "horrific punishments".
[/font][/size]
Scripture describes Hell as a place of fire and torment. I challenge you to find any passage either in Scripture or a theologian that supports your idea of the uncomfortable-but-not-horrible places in Hell. I have never come across anything resembling that in anything I have read on the Faith. Every saint I have ever read also describes Hell as a place of, in your words, "horrific punishments".Why would I defend something I didn't say?
Scripture describes Hell as a place of fire and torment. I challenge you to find any passage either in Scripture or a theologian that supports your idea of the uncomfortable-but-not-horrible places in Hell. I have never come across anything resembling that in anything I have read on the Faith. Every saint I have ever read also describes Hell as a place of, in your words, "horrific punishments".I'm curious about this. Last Tradhican rightly replied that Limbo is a paradise in Hell. So one does wonder if a naturally virtuous pagan who didn't have supernatural faith but had few mortal sins could perhaps get something that is not quite that but maybe somewhat close to it, perhaps suffering the pain of loss alone, as is shown by Dante's 1st circle, or perhaps some mild torment.
Scripture describes Hell as a place of fire and torment. I challenge you to find any passage either in Scripture or a theologian that supports your idea of the uncomfortable-but-not-horrible places in Hell. I have never come across anything resembling that in anything I have read on the Faith. Every saint I have ever read also describes Hell as a place of, in your words, "horrific punishments".That's true, but the Church has also always taught that the punishments in Hell are proportional to the offences that got you there. If the minimum in Hell for committing one unconfessed mortal sin is unimaginable, incomprehensible tortures, does proportional punishment even matter at that point? I suppose it's impossible to understand what Hell is like, but it's hard to grasp how the minimum could be, well, hellish torment while still allowing for degrees of punishment a thousand times worse than that again. I wonder if any theologian has ever elaborated on how the torments would differ depending on the sin's, a version of Dante's Inferno but based on actual Church teaching.
That's true, but the Church has also always taught that the punishments in Hell are proportional to the offences that got you there..
If the minimum in Hell for committing one unconfessed mortal sin is unimaginable, incomprehensible tortures, does proportional punishment even matter at that point?
I suppose it's impossible to understand what Hell is like, but it's hard to grasp how the minimum could be, well, hellish torment while still allowing for degrees of punishment a thousand times worse than that again.
I wonder if any theologian has ever elaborated on how the torments would differ depending on the sin's, a version of Dante's Inferno but based on actual Church teaching.
I'm curious about this. Last Tradhican rightly replied that Limbo is a paradise in Hell..
So one does wonder if a naturally virtuous pagan who didn't have supernatural faith but had few mortal sins could perhaps get something that is not quite that but maybe somewhat close to it, perhaps suffering the pain of loss alone, as is shown by Dante's 1st circle, or perhaps some mild torment..
as is shown by Dante's
From what I'm aware, the *images* of Hell in Scripture and Tradition are primarily intended to make people fearful to end up there (though that's not to say they aren't accurate, understand.) And since Scripture is written to Catholics, could we *speculate* that what's being described there is the kind of torment that Catholics who don't cooperate with the many graces they are given are going to end up with? And that perhaps, say, some Muslim in the sand dunes of Saudi Arabia who lives a naturally good life might end up with an eternity that's.... something closer to just living in Saudi Arabia? ;).
I find the speculation interesting at any rate and I'm curious if anything would rule it out.
Well, to argue against you, Yeti, if there can be a Limbo of the Infants which is a part of hell and has no fire and the children there are even somewhat happy, then why can there not be other parts of hell with no or slight punishment?.
Like the place for an unbeliever who never had the faith but was a good man and never committed a mortal sin other than unbelief, or for a Catholic whose only sin was eating a hot dog one Friday?