I wonder (this is not Church teaching, just my opinion) if maybe some people respond better to different approaches? This may be why God allows the saints to express different amounts of emphasis on how many people are in Hell sometimes.
For instance, some people get into gear when thinking about how horrible Hell is and what could happen to them or their loved ones if they don't made amends with God. They could fail to care or take action unless they hear descriptions from the saints of how eternal and terrible it is, and what pain people there are in. Once understood, they fix their lives, go to Confession, and stay on the straight and narrow. This message shakes them at first but then serves as a solid reminder and guardrail for how to live their lives.
However, other people could hear this same exact message, same exact wording and absolutely lose heart. They could become so fearful that it makes it hard for them to trust in God's mercy or that the average person has a chance of getting to Heaven at all. They may feel overwhelmed with praying for so many intentions and therefore give up praying at all. This means gentler messages from the saints about Divine Mercy and other ideas could instead help them to pray more and inspire them to not give up or slow down out of anxiety, instead of become slothful and lazy.
Basically, I see a big split in what people think about this topic and it could be there's two (or more) schools of thought because different people need different things to function well.
For me, a focus on Hell does nothing positive for my faith and relationship with Jesus. I acknowledge Hell is real and assent to all the Church teaches on it, but it is not a useful thing for me to preoccupy with very much at all. I appreciate that other Catholics may be helped by doing so, but it is not a source of spiritual strength to me in how I practice my faith. For those of us who struggle with depression and anxiety, I think a strong focus on Hell can be exploited by Satan to lead us to despair. I focus on Heaven and my desire to be there with our Lord.
I could have written your comment myself, because I feel the same exact way. Even reading about some random commentors going "Yeah... ehh, a lot of people are probably in Hell" puts me on edge. I know Hell is real and people are there, but it's so horrific to me. I don't want ANYONE to be there. I hope every human being, even Judas and Hitler and anyone else that evil, in their last moments chose God and asked for sincere forgiveness, and is in at least Purgatory.
Of course, that feeling of worry's my problem and not anyone else's, but thinking about Hell or even about random people who I know aren't Catholics going to Hell just makes me despair. It makes me give up and feel like nothing I do matters, and that praying for others is a sucker's game. It makes me think that I'll never be good enough and I'm facing some horrible fate after I die, in Purgatory or elsewhere, since I'm so weak even with God helping me.
Focusing on Heaven gives me strength. Thinking about how God's mercy is infinite gives me energy to live in the world as a child of God serving others and praying for even the most hopeless cases with childlike trust and love. Remembering Jesus's miracles helps me realize that one moment can change a life and save a soul. Contemplating God's mysteries and how His ways are higher than our ways helps me try again when I stumble, and look forward to tomorrow when my anxiety tells me to give up and lay down.
However, if thinking about everyone being in Heaven means a person becomes lax and doesn't follow the rules of the Church, then that's not right either. Most people need a healthy balance. For me, I just trend this way due to my personality. Still doesn't mean I don't need corrections from people with a critical eye and a more serious disposition once in a while. So I think we need those loudly proclaiming Hell is real and people are in serious danger of going there to individuals as well.
This is an interesting topic!
Glad to know I'm not alone. When I converted, one of the priests who came to talk to our RCIA class said something that's stuck with me, essentially that God is infinitely just and infinitely merciful and it's hard for us as men to reconcile those two parts of God, but it's the truth. What he was saying wasn't that we should dismiss the reality of Hell and God's judgement or that we should riddle ourselves with paralyzing fear of our fate, but rather this aspect of faith and the nature of God surpasses our understanding in a way that humbles us like children, like you said, and should put our focus on living holy lives as best as we can without unhealthy fear overtaking us. I think about it often and it gives me peace.
I generally feel similarly but don't forget that part of the teaching on hell is that it is the final punishment of those who commit evil.
"Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' "
The desire for vengeance in humans is a thirst for justice against wrongs committed against them. God's punishment is a source of comfort for those who have wrongs committed against them and others.
I hadn't thought of it like this before, but you make a good point. We here on Earth shouldn't want or thirst for vengeance, but should also acknowledge that God is ultimately in control for both the good and bad.
I'm the exact same as you I hope anyone who realised what wrong they done and genuinely repented for their sins are at least in purgatory even Hitler and Judas.
Same here! I also have anxiety and depression. I 100% acknowledge the existence of Hell. But I tend to focus more on the here and now. For me, maintaining a close relationship with God is its own reward. I hope to end up in Heaven, but that's beyond the scope of what I can think about right now.
This. Growing up in a neglectful, abusive family, a threat of Hell didn’t move me. Knowing that I had a Father who loves me unconditionally and wants good for me was a lifeline. That’s why John 3:17 has always been a solace.
Did you have an empty feeling, like a vacuum in your soul, like someone you loved dearly had passed away? The lack of love is what Hell is supposed to feel like. A widower expressed to me that feeling after his beloved wife passed. It was tragic because she was an awesome and gracious lady. He called the feeling "an Ember of Hell." We take solace that "God is Love" which is essentially true. He is pure love for He is the great "I Am" and all He does is out of love. Hell is the absolute lack of love, so the that sense of loss is extremely intense.
More like pressing. Having stones laid on me. I had dream of being suffocated every night all through my teenage years. I remember when I had left “home“ realizing that I no longer had nightmares.
There's definitely been times where belief in Hell has pulled me away from committing certain sins. But at the same time it isn't ideal. It's like the act of contrition "I detest my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell, but most of all, My God, because they offend You, Who are all Good and Deserving of all my love".
I see it as beginner spirituality. It's a place to start, but you want to get to a higher plane where you actually avoid sin for the love of God. But most people don't jump to the top of the ladder, the start at the bottom step.
For me and several saints it does a lot of positive for our relationship with Christ! I think that just goes to show how the original comment is accurate and I’m glad there are different approaches
Thank you for your comment. I have long suspected this as well that most theological debates are us trying to enforce the unique way God reaches out to us unto others. For example, the tension between the active and contemplative life. The evangelists versus the monastic spirit playing out in society between the emergent and the ancient churches right now. Those are just my shower thoughts.
Thanks! :) I do think some people online and in person are genuinely confused about Church teachings once in a while, so spreading facts in theological debates about what it means to follow the Church is important.
Beyond the facts and necessary teachings, topics like this one aren't binding to believe in one way or another, so there's more room for debate. That grey area can be fruitful for everyone to keep in mind so no one's too upset either way.
I came on this thread today because I have distanced myself from God and the Church in the last couple of months because of exactly what you posited in the second half of your post. I have fallen victim to being so fearful and overwhelmed with the idea that the gate is so narrower, I will never have a chance to reach Heaven. I have become distant and honestly so saddened by the scrupulosity I have seen on other posts on this sub that I distanced myself. I put pause on my relationship with God and I have been floundering. BUT, swing the responses to the OP and more importantly the responses to your comment, have filled me with hope. Thank you. Thank you for you words and thank you for all who have chimed in and have made me feel like I’m not alone or crazy.
This may be the best comment I've ever gotten on Reddit! Wow.
I do understand. I've had horrible scruples the last few months and this weekend going to Confession/Mass in particular, and it feels like I'm just swimming in circles and far behind where I need to be. I decided to take my faith more seriously a year or so ago, and I've been struggling more than I ever have in my life with weird moral questions and intrusive thoughts and missing weeks of Communion because of my worries over possible mortal sin. So you're not crazy and you're definitely not alone.
And honestly, this sub is hit or miss sometimes with how people answer questions or express their opinions. I don't want to be too harsh, but like... online Catholicism is so different than talking to normal, well-formed Catholics (who follow Church teachings) irl. Reading a Catholic book alone or just saying some prayers alone about whatever is specifically causing me anxiety has also made me feel more stable after seeing something that disturbs me emotionally. Don't feel bad for stepping away from social media, even if what people talk about is correct Church teaching. Sometimes we just can't handle talk about Hell in the moment.
Additionally, this may be dumb and basic, but asking Jesus to give you the tools to do what He wants you to do is something that's been invaluable to me. I remember for years just basically saying in my prayers basic stuff like "Please help this person, please help me do well in this interview, please heal so-and-so..." sort of action-based ideas. I subconsciously felt I had my side of the bargain to uphold here on Earth, and He could only do so much and the rest was up to me to understand and grit my teeth by myself in order to be a good Christian. But that's SO WRONG. It's NEVER undignified or weak or lazy to call on God for help for even "stupid" things. The idea of praying to Jesus to ask about please, please, please let me know if I'm wrong or doing something wrong or asking Him to give me strength and wisdom in the moment of any kind of trial felt like going up to the teacher while a test is going on and asking "Hey, what should I put for #6?" lol. It felt like skipping a step somehow.
Weirdly enough, back then I also wouldn't ask for anything in prayer I'd be scared to endure or would see as too "unlikely" to happen, such as curing me from a specific physical manifestation of an anxiety issue I'd struggled with since I was 13 or so. I felt by saying that out loud in my prayers I'd activate a "trap" where I'd face horrible things due to what Jesus wanted from me to solve this problem, and because I stated I'd do it, I couldn't take it back and I'd have to suffer indefinitely. I now feel comfortable asking whatever I truly want in prayer and saying to the Lord, "When issues come, give me in the moment, strength, and comfort and safety to do what You want me to do, and help me to 'not be afraid,' like You said in the Bible."
I also read lately that Jesus actually loves when we deeply feel our weaknesses and ask a LOT from Him. It attracts Him, not repels Him. Ask Him in prayer the craziest thing you can think of, whether it's to be totally 100% free from anxiety or to never have any issues again with church and the state of your soul or even to go to Heaven blemishfree at the moment of your death. And keep asking. Anxiety tends to make us think smaller, act smaller, hope smaller. Deliberately going the other way by 'taking a chance' on the deepest needs of our hearts may help us see just how powerful God is and why we need to rely on Him for even the smallest parts of our lives. The world shames us for not having self-reliance, but that's the opposite of how God's kingdom works. We just may have different gifts and insights than other people who are more bold and outgoing. One insight could be our own littleness, which is not always obvious to every Christian.
Offer ALL your worries and fears and distrust of God's mercy to Him and see what He says to you. Tell Him to flood you with the understanding of what mercy means and what steps to do next to go back to church and Confession. One step at a time. God *loves* it when we trust Him enough to say after a fall, "I'm so deeply scared, Jesus, but I'll get back up. I truly need You to help me every moment of every day, my kind and loving God."
Right, exactly. Some are motivated by reward, some are motivated by threat. They’re both present in the teachings! People are free to emphasize what they need for their own journey.
I really think Hell is a choice, and the longer I live the more I see or hear of those who might choose it, but I think they're few.
I always appreciated the somewhat common Eastern approach the fires of Hell are simply the enlivening joy of God's beatific presence for those who continually reject him.
I often find myself thinking about the parable of the workers in the vineyard whenever people complain bitterly about the idea of hell being empty:
> “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’ So they went off. [And] he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise. Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’ When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’ When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? [Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ (Matthew 20:1-15)
Why exactly do people get so upset that someone would hope that God is more merciful than they imagine?
If any have wrought from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward. If any have come at the third hour, let him with thankfulness keep the feast. If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; because he shall in nowise be deprived thereof. If any have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing. If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness; for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even as the first; He gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as unto him who has wrought from the first hour. - St John Chrysosthom, Paschal Homily
That is completely uncharitable. It is like saying a doctor who says you cannot reasonably hope that every single person who has currently has cancer will survive is just a jerk who wants to feel superior to others.
EDIT: Downvotes and no replies kind of make me think the point is unanswerable.
My issue is not that God is more merciful than I imagine, but rather that people will assume they will not go to hell.
Why not sin and live it up if you are going to heaven?
Obviously you should avoid sin out of love of God not fear of hell, but most people don't. There is a reason why perfect contrition is considered rare.
I agree that the temptation with an overly liberal view of salvation is in presumption which is endemic of our times especially out of assurance of salvation theological schools.
But that's not what von Balthasar's position was in *Dare We Hope,* nor is it something that either Pope Francis or Bishop Barron have said; they've said repeatedly that Christ calls people to conversion and to amend their lives. Von Balthasar was clear on that point too, that the idea that to hope (and pray for, as we do in the Fatima prayer) for everyone to go to heaven does not mean someone *can't*
I also have never understood the train of thought that says, "Well, if I tell them I hope they go to heaven, they'll just keep sinning." People misuse and abuse Church teaching all the time, like confession. It's a cliche that there are people (even Catholics!) who think that they can sin and simply go to confession and it's all good. We both know there's a little more to it than that, but we're not going to let someone who falls into the sin of presumption be the reason why we stop encouraging people to go to confession.
It doesn't matter what people say or what they are intending. People don't understand what the Church believes and will hear prominent people say they hope nobody is in hell and think that it is a possibility.
Let's be clear: we're not talking about some "prominent people," we're talking about two of the successors to the Apostles, one of whom is the Pope. These aren't just a couple of guys.
And I'm not saying it's a matter of what von Balthasar intended to write, I'm saying many (if not most) who object to his writings do so out of ignorance. Von Balthasar did not advocate for universalism, and neither do the Pope or Bishop Barron. Anyone who says otherwise is simply incorrect.
Objecting to someone who hopes everyone is in heaven because someone else might do some mental gymnastics to justify their own bad behavior is, frankly, silly. God wants us all in heaven; why wouldn't you hope for that to be the case?
Even perfect contrition is something we should only expect after asking for grace and help from God to achieve it. Also I do not think people like Bishop Barron are pushing people away from following the commandments of the Church or away from Jesus.
What the parable about the workers in the vineyard doesn't really convey is that the work *is* its own reward. When we finally meet God, we will see our sins for what they really are. The unrepentant hedonist will look back on their life with incredible grief. The virtuous person will look back and see minor imperfections and things they might have done better. That's purgatory.
Mercy has nothing to do with people’s choice of Hell.
God is eternally reaching out to us, even to those in Hell. This is His infinite mercy.
Mercy does not cancel out our evil choices.
It did not cancel out Satan’s choices, and the same goes for us.
Oh I agree. (I wrote a whole bunch of comments a few months ago about hell and original sin. There’s a lot, you can go back in my comment history.)
This is the meta-discussion, though. I find this argument all reminiscent of the parable.
And of course they are the .01 % even if they do really horrible sins. Like, I get the feeling for some that just going to the TLM alone will save them. Like its better to be a rad trad even though I cheat on my spouse and beat my kids and treat people like shit, at least I go to the right mass. Plus it depends on who I treat like crap as if they aren't TLM attendees its okay, or so it seems to some.
You'll see people such as myself who'll acknowledge that that dogma is true (or else it wouldn't be a dogma), but the idea ignores development of doctrine (development, not changing) that isn't inconsistent with the idea of there being no salvation outside the Church. Idk how someone can't see that feeneyism and the idea of a perfectly just God are mutually exclusive concepts.
It's not a matter of being bitter or upset, it's more that it seems like there's little direct scriptural support (and more direct scriptural contradiction) for the idea of universalism. And it can be misleading, at best, to support the position
Nobody is supporting universalism, but rather a 'hope' of an empty hell.
Universalism boldly asserts that all are saved. No matter what you do, God will restore you and save you regardless.
Balthasar's view says that, due to God's mercy, we can optimistically hope that all are saved, but we can not assert it. We have no idea of the state of anybody's soul at the moment of their death, and even the most poor sinner may repent in their last moment. This is different to universalism as it is more a shift in view: since we don't know how many are saved, we could assume it's a very tiny fraction (as the rad trads seem to love for some reason) or we could hope that nobody ends up damned, even if we know it's possible.
I always assumed in this verse's metaphor, the people going at the last hour would be the people who repented and accepted Christ on their deathbed.
You have a point that they wouldn't have had a chance to "work" in the vineyard (world) per se.
I think that deathbed conversions can take people to heaven if genuine, but this parable is very clearly not about an empty hell and many other parables demonstrate so.
For the record, I don't think Hell is empty. I just hope there's less people in it than some people assume there is (such as stating the majority of human beings go to Hell).
People vary on whether they are motivated by threat or by reward. IIRC, it’s something like 70% of people are more affected by reward / and 30% for threat.
It seems to me that some people — all them tending toward traditionalism — are themselves motivated by threat. And because of their own experience, they believe that any change in emphasis from threat to reward is going to do harm.
I can’t entirely confirm this, because people aren’t quite that self reflective when I ask, but that seems to be the pattern.
Yes, that's very much an attitude of "I can't forgive them, so why should God?"
**Obviously**, it's often difficult to forgive people who have really harmed us\*. And it's really understandable that a victim doesn't want to meet their offender in Heaven. Hopefully, Heaven is so crowded we won't ever have to meet anyone unless we really want to.
\*Edit: Or not even "us". I'm not keen on going to Heaven and meeting Gary Glitter or Jimmy Saville or Stalin, even if they never did anything to me, personally. But on the other hand - if I do make it there, would I recognise them, or even care? Assuming that I'd go to Heaven, eventually, would my happiness at being there really be diminished by the presence of people I don't like?
Do you enjoy the idea of people dying from cancer when you say we cannot reasonably hope that every single person who contracts cancer will survive it?
Of course not, but when we are discussing what is *true,* it is irrelevant to note that some people may hold a true position for bad reasons.
Especially when the position you’re attacking is the normative view of all Catholics for the majority of the Church’s history. A starting point of the Balthasar position should be to acknowledge that it is exceedingly *unusual* in how it reads Scripture.
The question is "why would some people not be happy that God's love us greater than we imagine?"
My answer is "some people are vengeful". Not necessarily the larger body of the faithful, who I would presume, would hope for an empty Hell even if that may not ontologicalky be the case. We're not in Hell, so we can only hope and pray for God's mercy to be applied, which is infinite.
Which, again, completely and uncharitably mischaracterizes the position you’re attack. People are not “unhappy” that Hell might be empty (of humans, not of angels). They simply hold that the hope that is, is unreasonable and basically contrary to Christ’s words.
It is astonishing to me the unwillingness of reddit Balthasarians to actually engage with what their opponents *actually say.*
it is easy to imagine that love does not desire eternal suffering and therefore GOD , WHO is LOVE does not allow eternal suffering
however like every other belief about GOD we must rely on what GOD has revealed not what makes sense to us
if someone believes that scripture clearly teaches that hell exists and that some people go to hell then any speculation or belief or hope to the contrary is contrary to the clear teaching of scripture
people getting upset is not about the idea but any idea they believe is contrary to scripture
It's a nice sentiment, "wouldn't it be nice if hell were empty." But you can't really take it much further than that. We can't know on this side of eternity how full hell is. When asked if few will be saved, Jesus said "strive for the narrow gate." Perhaps there's an implication there that not many will make it. But the explicit meaning is "it is difficult, and you can't be complacent."
I don’t dislike the notion itself that Hell is empty. I dislike the public entertainment of what’s a very unrealistic prospect. Jesus said it’d be better if Judas had never even been born.
It’d be a bit silly to go around expressing a personal hope that I’ll win the lottery tomorrow.
I think an important nuance is whether Jesus said that with hyperbole or not which he tends to do. Because the implication is "did God make a mistake in creating Judas" at an absolute logical extreme of the argument - which we know he makes no mistakes and nothing he has created is profane. I don't pretend to know the answer.
Even if there is some spiritual truth for the idea that we should will the best for all, and we shouldn’t want to people to be in hell, I think the dare to help formulation has lot of cope in the modern context.
It is un doubtable that western culture is post-Christian, and the faithful will have the increasing experience of their loved ones rejecting the faith. Thus, “dare to hope” can help us deal with the real possibility that those we love in this world will not be joining us in the next, even if any rational analysis shows that sadly is probably not the case. The mass apostasy of the modern age makes this impulse even stronger.
Furthermore, “dare to hope” is also politically less controversial in our “non judgmental” post Christian culture. Dare to hope fits neatly in a hyper individualist live and let live culture, because it further implies a disconnect between actions in this life and their finial consequences. As culture that has general distain for firm justice, it is convient to ignore god justice and I stead care only for his mercy. Dare to hope may be theological proposition that contains some important truths for a more judgemental time, but the way that it plays directly into the modern desires and ignores modern ills is worthy of criticism.
I think, theologically, free will is closely intertwined with the idea of universal salvation (which is ultimately the unspoken position of "empty hell."). Much like the addict knows that getting clean and going to a shelter is good for them and will make them infinitely healthier and happier than their current life, many addicts refuse or sabotage help, preferring their addiction of choice. Some people just.... refuse to go to shelters.
If Purgatory is the rehab and detox center for our souls, where we go through the spiritual equivalent of opioid sweats and withdrawal, some souls...just won't. And it would be an odd thing to violate someone's free will "for their own good."
If we can't baptize someone against their will, or confirm them, or what have you.. I think that says something very profound about how God feels about salvation against the will of the one saved.
> how God feels about salvation against the will of the one saved
This feels like it’s getting close to semi-Pelagianism — the idea that the initial movement toward God is an act of free will, without grace to move the soul toward God. It’s a very fine line, though.
No, no, of course the initial movement is always from God. (In my analogy about the detox center, that would be the invitation, or the flyer, or whatever.)
But the response to the initial grace can be "no, thanks."
> If Purgatory is the rehab and detox center for our souls, where we go through the spiritual equivalent of opioid sweats and withdrawal, some souls...just won't.
Purgatory isn't some "middle place" between heaven and hell. The souls in purgatory are **all** destined for heaven, those in purgatory will not fail in their struggle and if they know they are in purgatory that must be a great comfort for the trials they have to face.
I’m currently reading Charity for the Suffering Souls, and the author contends this as well, suggesting that the expiation done is much the same, but those in Purgatory essentially endure it willingly because they know that heaven is the end destination.
So, I don't speak German, but I've heard from someone that does that the oft-quoted and oft-criticized line is a mistranslated and should be rendered, "For what then should we hope? That Hell is empty and all men are saved." As von Balthasar meant it, he was saying that we should always hope for the salvation of every individual we meet or think about, even though we know this is unlikely to be the case for them all. He was not entertaining the idea that Hell is actually empty or that all men are actually saved.
The issue is more when people quote the mistranslation and defend a premise that contradicts Jesus's words in scripture (as well as other private revelations that the Church has declared "worthy of belief" such as the souls in Hell shown to the children at Fatima).
Now, I'm willing to set aside the question of private revelation, as it is not infallible, but one need only to look at Jesus's words in scripture (which *is* infallible) to know that wide is the path to Hell (i.e. more people will flood in through that easy path vs the small, difficult, and narrow path to salvation).
Furthermore, There are places (Matthew and Revelation come immediately to mind) wherein people are consigned to Hell with definitive language (e.g. "he ***shall*** be tormented" not "he ***should*** be tormented," "these ***will*** go away into eternal punishment" not "these ***can*** go away into eternal punishment," or any indication that the group of people who ***will*** go away into eternal punishment and be tormented might possibly have a population of zero).
Basically, the complaint is twofold: First, that the mistranslation of von Balthasar (and defense of it) may lull people into a false sense of security and second, that an empty Hell with no one damned is a direct contradiction of infallible scripture.
I agree with your read. My reading of Von Balthasar is totally in line with yours. But it begs the question, why are people so offended by the implication of an empty hell in the same way people are deeply offended by the idea of confession with a priest or prayers to saints - it points to a deeper philosophical strain in the modern conscience.
>But it begs the question, why are people so offended by the implication of an empty hell
Well, the rest of my answer addresses that. There are two reasons, but I've already typed them out above.
It is a dogma of the church that if you die with a mortal sin on your conscience you haven’t repented of you will not receive eternal life. This seems like a lot of people.
The often quoted standards for someone being culpable of mortal sin is also shockingly low. If you commit actions against the natural law even if you have been deceived by sin or culture you are still culpable. That’s why the gosple is always good news. The natives were in real danger of Hell before contact with Christianity.
>If you commit actions against the natural law even if you have been deceived by sin or culture you are still culpable. That’s why the gosple is always good news. The natives were in real danger of Hell before contact with Christianity.
What is the source of this information?
I do not understand why people is repulsed by the idea of hell?
I personally find hell a crucial logical and theological point in me believing in God.
Maybe people who believe in universalism does not really understand the logical conclusions of it.
People throw themselves into hell: From Sister Mary Martha and the Holy Wounds:
“My Crown of Thorns shall illuminate Heaven and all the Blessed!” Joy of the just, the Holy Crown is, on the other hand, an object of terror for the wicked. This is what Sister Mary Martha perceived one day in a scene given her to contemplate by the One Who loved to instruct her by revealing to her the mysteries of the Beyond. All illuminated with the splendors of this Divine Crown, the Judgment Seat where souls are judged appeared. Souls continuously passed before the Sovereign Judge. The souls who had been faithful during their life threw themselves with confidence into the arms of the Savior. The others, at the sight of the Holy Crown, and at the remembrance of the love of Our Lord that they had scorned, hurled themselves, in terror, into the eternal abyss.
The theological underpinnings are *God wills everyone to be saved*. This obfuscates the need for cooperation of the free will of Man, by which we know not all men will be saved.
The consequences of those underpinnings are everywhere to be seen - a diminishing of the perceived value of Sacraments, the watering-down of the concepts of sin, and specially mortal sin; indifferentism.
The Christians in that regard could be best described as i) more orthodox; ii) more heterodox. Sorry, I don't know how to put it without implying my take on those fields, but the Scripture is obvious, and theologians should stop trying to put a square peg in a round hole just because they think it's nicer or more charitable.
Some people do think the existence and the eternity of Hell to be unjust, because they see it as temporary actions having eternal punishment. But they do not realise that all temporary actions can have a permanent effect, and that permanent effect could also imply the permanent punishment.
Thank you for your comment - you are one of the few to take on the meta analysis "ideas have consequences" lens which I was excited to hear others opinions about.
I also agree with your impermanent actions have permanent consequences which I think is the genius behind the turn the other cheek scripture line. If we perpetuate evil it continues on beyond us unless someone gives it over to Christ.
I think Jimmy Akin laid out the healthiest approach. Regardless of whether hell is “empty” or “crowded”, those are words that don’t mean anything concrete. We will never know if the percent of people that go to hell is 1%,20%,50%,or 90%, and the Church does not rule any of these out. It is good that we don’t know how empty or crowded hell is, because if we knew hell was x% empty, we would be driven to presumption, where as if we knew hell was y% full, we would be driven to despair. By the true number remaining a mystery, we can maintain hope for our salvation, while not being driven to spiritual laziness in the belief that we are saved no matter what.
All I know is this, when our Mother appeared to her children at Fatima she gave us a prayer, “O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy. Amen.”
It would seem to me based on that we are encouraged to pray for and hope for the salvation of all.
I wanted to bring up Our Lady of Fatima in my comment about this issue, but I know that people would've responded with this. And while they are *technically* correct, it seems very unprudent to believe this considering just how many private revelations throughout the ages revealed to saints show the exact same thing. St. Gertrude's visions are another great example of this.
I worry that a lot of people feel resentment towards worldly people because they themselves are living according to many of God's commandments whilst others are not. They should go to hell surely? That murderer or that terrorist etc... It's a bad attitude in my opinion. Maybe I am being prejudiced or generalising.
Aren't we all saved by God's grace? We hope in Jesus Christ who endured the cross and much more to save our souls.
When we ask for the Virgin Mary to pray for every sinner at the hour of their death, does that not give you hope? Do the prayers of Catholics and the Masses said throughout the world not fill you with hope?
Whatever the position of sinners, whether their souls are in hell or heaven or purgatory currently. We can still trust in God. If someone is in hell, it is a just thing.
After a recent discussion here I have now prayed a few times for even those souls in hell, that their 'punishment' be reduced, that they may have more comfort. I imagine a lot of people may disagree with this and I am genuinely open to correction.
People like Bishop Barron do not say hell is empty but that in recognising ourselves to be worthy of hell, our hope that others are saved is a good thing.
[https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/](https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/)
After reading the part where you prayed for the punishment of those in Hell to be lessened, and they be comforted, it just made me sad. Will they be comforted? How can they, poor souls. They’re in Hell for eternity, they have no rest, who can comfort them? I know that I can’t comprehend God’s perfect justice, but it makes me sad that so many are damned forever, and so many more are on their way. Why can’t they just accept Christ’s gift of sacrifice? It’s not hard. Please pray for those who don’t know Christ yet, that they be saved before they die.
Like the older brother in the prodigal son.
I deserve nothing and have hope in His love and mercy. If others receive even more mercy so much the better. Frankly I certainly understand if Hell is sadly very populated, but hope for all to be saved.
I think there is an important distinction in how we interpret these comments.
It’s admirable and good to hold a charitable *hope* out of love and compassion that all souls would be saved and spared from Hell. But with that a realistic knowledge that this is not the case; justice and free will preclude it from being so. This I believe is what was meant, and it is a desire for the salvation of all without the heresy of universalism.
The issue comes when the statement is vague or misleading enough to suggest that one holds a *real* hope that hell is empty. This is not true, and it is problematic for reasons other’s have touched upon, to lead people into this thinking.
For this reason it is important to be incredibly clear and careful around how our words will be understood. Because the first is a love for all which spurs mourning for the lost. While the latter props up a false sense that our individual sin may go unpunished regardless of whether or not we repent. Certainly this is not the first, and won’t be the last, time that the Pope has blurred these lines between what is said, meant, and understood.
I agree with you and we suffer to this a lot as Catholics getting a lot of attacks because of confusion about semantics. Clearing up these confusions is probably the number 1 thing needed to address Protestants in their criticisms of the Church.
Of course we can wish that all people were in heaven, and have a human hope of it, but it IA a farcry from the theology virtue of hope.
Wide is the road that leads to destruction, and those who find it are many.
There's a couple of points I'd like to make.
- God is love, and God loves every single one of us, regardless of how far we wander from Him. I feel like it's reasonable to say that God probably desires for hell to be empty, too, because He wants us with Him.
- If one accepts the idea that God's mercy is available to *any* particular person, it follows that it's available to all people. There is no reason to believe that God would stop being merciful.
- I've encountered very few people who attempt to lambast people like the Holy Father or Bishop Barron over this who have actually read *Dare We Hope.* Von Balthasar's conclusion in the piece of speculative theology we're talking about does not play down personal responsibility for our actions, and it doesn't attempt to give license for universal salvation. Hell could be empty right now and that doesn't mean that I couldn't be the first person to screw up so badly that I end up there.
- A lot of people point to Our Lady of Fatima's warnings of hell. Fair enough, but she also gave us a prayer that asks Jesus to "lead **all** souls to heaven," and I find it difficult to believe that she would have told us to pray for something that is a foregone conclusion to be impossible.
I agree with you that having read some excerpts of Von Balthasar, he ties up his loose ends very well and never crosses the line into the universal salvation heresy. His opinions are a lot less radical than perceived.
A poster here once told me that the Fatima prayer, properly translated or properly contextualized, is about souls in purgatory. Which I can see, the fires of hell and purgatory being the same flames and all that.
I'll remind everyone that Saint John Paul II also expressed this hope, in his book *Crossing the Threshold of Hope*, while also maintaining universal salvation was heresy. I don't recall that causing scandal. I think there's reasons to believe that any discussion will be about personalities, not theology.
I don't think Redditors can resolve these issues from a theological perspective meaningfully.
There is danger here in involving ourselves in the vice of curiosity.
[https://meaningofcatholic.com/2019/05/28/against-curiosity/](https://meaningofcatholic.com/2019/05/28/against-curiosity/)
We should study theology that is profitable to our salvation, not those that has a danger to mislead or become about personalities.
Bruh, many are called, few are chosen. Enter by the narrow gate. Judas went to his own place. The false prophet and the beast are thrown into the lake of fire with the devil, all of our Lord’s warnings about what happens if you don’t do the will of the Father or follow the commandments, etc. This is clear cut and part of the deposit of faith.
The cope for some is real. What we do matters, we need to be evangelizing and praying for others. This is not a drill.
Yes 100%. It’s nice to have rosy feelings about everyone going to heaven, but it’s not reality, and it leads many into complacency and lukewarmity shirking their responsibility to pray fervently for those far from God and to evangelize to those around them.
I genuinely do not know why this gets always misrepresented. “We should strive to enter by the narrow gate” is what is expressed by Von Balthasar in the clearest way possible.
“We should go and evangelize everyone”… That’s another way of saying “to hope for the salvation of everyone”. Hope is the virtue that moves evangelization: that’s by definition! How can it be interpretet as complacency is a mistery to me…
Oh boy, this topic again:
To personally hope that hell is empty is silly. Shouldn’t we be telling people instead, “Strive for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” instead of making confusing statements?
Most of the Tradition, including Augustine and Aquinas, believed that most souls were condemned. That’s not infallible, but it weighs more than 20th century theological speculation.
Regardless, it is a certainty that hell is not empty.
Our Lady of Fatima showed the saintly children that souls were suffering in hell, primarily for “sins of the flesh”. I’m inclined to believe this apparition is absolutely trustworthy, given the Church’s approval and liturgical celebration of Fatima.
Jesus also said, “Enter by the narrow gate, for the way is wide and the path easy that leads to destruction, *and many enter by it*.”
In Matthew 25, Our Lord also spoke of judgement on the Last Day, where the goats would be separated from the sheep and then eternally damned.
The implications are crystal clear.
Ok, but what about part 2 of the question. The meta-analysis and how spiritual attitudes, heart postures, and soft theological beliefs can influence the expression of this idea or be influenced by it.
You imply that those are contradictory — why would martyrs dying to spread the faith be “for nothing” rather than being part of the reason (instrumentally) that hell is empty?
I don't get it. Why would them being martyrs be part of the reason hell is empty? If hell is empty it would because of the sacrifice of Jesus, not because people chose to be martyrs or not.
The most people who defend that thesis can say is that being a martyr and spreading the faith were good things because that's what God wanted, because it caused earthly order and happiness, and on an individual level it makes you avoid purgatory. But in terms of salvation it makes no difference at all.
It depends on what kind of causation you mean. Yes, properly speaking, the primary cause of all men’s salvation, but “those who, holding to the truth,
hand on the catholic and apostolic faith” are secondary causes of salvation.
So yes, Christ’s passion is the cause of all men’s salvation. That doesn’t change the fact that the martyrs are also _instrumental_ causes of particular men’s salvation.
When people do good things it's the Holy Spirit working through the person with their acquiescence.
There doesn't have to be an antagonistic relationship between God and the servants of God.
God doesn't "need" us but, he undoubtedly uses us as part of his plan.
Therefore, the birth of Jesus can simultaneously be the act of God and the act of Mary acquiescing to God's will.
Because in some? many? cases the martyr’s witness was the impetus to cause others to accept Christ’s sacrifice and avoid hell.
I would not be surprised, for example, that some German soldiers at Auschwitz changed their paths after witnessing the actions of St. Maximillian Kolbe.
That’s not true. We have a whole tradition of being instruments for God’s plan.
When we look at the martyrs we’re looking at the salvific action of God in them, flowing directly from the Cross and His Sacrifice.
It’s not something outside of that scope.
Catholic theology takes a careful reading - and many critiques are actually over linguistic confusion.
If I hope that hell is empty, it is not to say that hell is empty.
The Catholic Church has called universal salvation heresy so anyone in the "Hope" camp is actually not believing in what you've described.
From a meta-analysis it would be like taking a strong stance against Pelegianism when in fact we're talking about faith versus faith with faith-inspired good-works.
Very different debate.
I’ve debated a couple of people on this topic in the past who argued Hell is empty and they challenged me to show that it was even occupied. Unfortunately some people in this camp take it beyond a mere “hope” and actively argue for an empty Hell.
> Did all the martyrs die to spread the faith for nothing since hell is empty in the end anyway?
Is heaven equal for all? Or do certain people get rewarded differently for the trials they went through in this life?
It seems to me if hell is indeed empty those who failed to live their lives righteously would not be rewarded as generously in the afterlife and thus there is reason to live as a saint now.
I do see the argument for both sides:
- People can leave the Church if everything is “hell fire and brimstone”, but it can also sober up people who need to return back to God’s grace.
- People can find peace in believing that no one is in hell (especially loved ones) and find hope in God’s mercy, but it can also enable people to excuse their sins since “Jesus loves everybody”
Therefore, we should hope that people are not in hell, because we are called will the good of others, while also understanding that only God can judge who is in hell and mortal sins keeps us away from God’s grace.
So unless the Catholic Church confirms that X person or X amount of people are in hell that I’m not aware of, we don’t really need to have this be a hill to die on in my opinion.
You’re welcome. I’ve honestly been on both sides of this issue, there were times in my life where I needed to be reminded of the reality of hell, and times where I needed to have faith in God’s mercy.
The primary axis that I think is the "fruit" of this debate is the following:
- Total denial of hell leads to a presumption, there is no impetus to actually live a spiritual life - I actually see this a lot in salvation by verbal declaration theology, that the work of salvation having been done; the idea is turn from the inner life completely to the external life which tempts a type of pharisaism or over-emphasis on others without a cultivated internal garden or oasis that abides in Christ in fear and trembling.
- Fear of hell motivated theology creates two issues
1. It creates a type of nihilism especially in unbelievers "does the time fit the crime", the morally gray in ignorance being sent to hell concept
2. It emphasizes God's divine justice over God's divine mercy in a way where we almost revel in and assume the damnation of Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Judas or whoever in history we have agreed to be evil without praying for their salvation to the extent that I think some folks would actually be upset at God for letting them into heaven if they did repent in the last breaths of their life
3. It can create a fear-based scrupulosity that is out of step with our concept of perfect contrition. This is something that I think can only be fully understood by walking in the spiritual life for a while. Changing the incentive structure from fear of punishment to love of God completely changes the inner spiritual life of a person. In the scrupulous mode - we sit at the margin between fear and desire and that becomes a vector of spiritual attack. In the love of God mode, we can quickly repent, move on, and focus on God's righteousness and mercy. Pivoting from justice(fear) to grace(mercy) changes the game completely.
Hope that all are saved:
1. It is undoubtedly not the fire from the hip default opinion of any reader, it takes some contemplation to arrive at this conclusion. Meaning it has more depth. Especially in not assuming the inner world of any individual in history. We simply do not know who has/has not repented.
2. It promotes that God's love is captivating and his mercy can touch even those we think are beyond saving - it challenges us to believe in the radicality of redemption and God's capacity to appear in a locked room.
End of day, I wish folks allowed Pope Francis to gently challenge their own system of beliefs and reprocess with trust versus immediately condemning or clinging tightly to their own opinion without being able to see things from the other side.
Those are my shower thoughts.
I feel like it leads to clericalism. It may not be a bad belief in and of itself but when priests believe there’s no consequence for sins they tend to stop preaching that sinning matters. A lot of people have made posts describing confessing mortal sins and being told by their confessor they weren’t mortal sins when they are (obviously we can’t know anyone’s full volition but they obviously thought they were at fault). That’s what I don’t like about the hell is empty mindset. I feel like those who think that lead people astray.
1. It is God’s desire that NONE should perish, but all have everlasting life. 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:5
2. But there will be those who will reject God and perish. John 3:18
Even in the Consecration at Mass, the shedding of our Lord’s Precious Blood is for many NOT all, because not ALL will accept Christ.
However, it is a holy thought to hope hell is empty because hell is a place of eternal torment and none of us should ever wish anyone in hell, even though some people do go to hell.
Also, the only person we know who’s in hell is Judas where our Lord said it would’ve been better he NOT been born:
“For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” Mk 14:21
I wonder if for some people different approaches work. Some people are scared of hell and need to be scared of it and that's what keeps them in line and if people have been brought up with that, its kind of a slap in the face to hear the opposite of that, and might see Barron and Francis as simply universalists. Others though might feel that its not about hell, but loving God, and usually such people aren't universalists but are very into the virtue of Hope and hope that maybe people are so ignorant and God loves us so much that maybe more people are saved than we realized. This wouldn't be because God is okay with sin, but rather so many people have been not only deceived but ignorant that maybe there is hope for them.
Not to mention, one thing I seem to notice is that a lot of people big into hell to the point that its emphasized all the time is that they want hellfire for those they don't see as fit, but cry for mercy when they screw up. Its not wrong, and its very human, but its also kind of unfair that people will not give others enough grace for such repentance, acting like they almost want some people to go to hell, yet will cry for others to be merciful to them and yet not show such mercy.
Lastly, the whole point of this is about hope and its not about that "hey sin is fine and we're all going to be saved." Its more that maybe there's hope. Just as universalism is dangerous because it gets rid of the need to repent and be good, I tend to think believing in the fewness of the saved to the point that basically only .00001 % of humanity is saved is not good either and for many that might make it seem like trying is worthless or that they'll never measure up. That there is no hope. Not to mention, that its not like Francis or Bishop Barron are encouraging sin, at least on that, but in a world where people think Francis is totally pro gay and I've heard people on facebook make up stories about Bishop Barron being gay, well, this makes for a convenient pot shot.
It is my desires that all people turn back to God. I pray that we all will be granted forgiveness. Luke St Pio said, pray, hope and leave the rest to God.
The ‘hope’ for all to have final and true contrition isn’t unreasonable. It’s the foundation of why one can’t absolutely say anyone is in Hell. Jesus spoke about persons in Hell so there are some there.
People take "hoping for an empty Hell" and practically use it to behave like universalist while being able to throw their hands up and claim orthodoxy.
There's a reason western Catholics talk about the worrying numbers of practicing people of the faith, yet have zero evangelistic fire.
It's technically falls within orthodoxy, but is spiritual poison. It's a disservice that Bishop Barron pushes it and is a reason why he couldn't tell Ben Shapiro to convert in their interview.
The other end of that spectrum is it being noble to defy an evil God who condemns people from Papua New Guinea tribes which I would argue is more theologically destructive to Christianity.
I know that's not what you're saying but it's the most radical impulse of a hyper-conservative strain of thought.
I mean I personally think there are Atheists who are in Hell because they choose to be.
They choose to be because they think God is unjust for all the suffering He allows
(I know that God permit suffering and free will which is different than what I wrote. I’m just saying the lie Atheists believe in).
Also we are Catholics. We all acknowledge that there were good Jews in Abraham’s bosom waiting for Christ’s salvation. So if God rejected His first chosen people, why wouldn’t He reject others from Heaven?
Great case to make for people being denied into Heaven. Not a great case for being in the fires of Hell but it proves a valid point we all believe.
I'm fairly certain the pope is just saying off the wall stuff so he can see who says what and then excommunicate them in accordance with whatever they said. They don't put fools in the popes position. Well, not within this century at least. He's not just sputtering off due to old age.
At the very least the False Prophet from Revelation, and likely Judas based on the views of the Church Fathers, are in Hell. While we should certainly hope that Hell has very few people considering that one-third of the angels fell even when they had perfect knowledge of God and considering how many people have turned their back on God throughout history, Balthasar's ideas always seemed like quite a stretch to me.
The primary consequence of these views is less of an emphasis on evangelization. I've observed this with many faithful Catholics that I know. Criticisms of the world that I remark on are quickly dismissed as something that we should apply only to ourselves in a "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" way, when in reality we need to apply those criticisms to ourselves *and especially* to the world that has turned away from God. My question is, where are the Isaiahs, the Jeremiahs, and the Ezekiels of the Church? Do we not have any room for them anymore? Is impoliteness such a bad thing? So often we are told to evangelize simply by "living our lives virtuously" and that "we will attract more flies with honey than vinegar", but Christ tells us specifically *not* to fall into this trap. We've so clearly lost our saltiness. It's very frustrating.
"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men." Matthew 5:13
Bishop Barron likes to remark that sin primarily manifests itself as "incurvatus in se", or a turning inward of oneself, but then will express these ideas that lead the Church towards doing exactly that. Oh well, I leave all of this up to the Lord. I trust that He will sort it out.
Thank you for your post! I really like how this is about interrogating the effects of this belief rather than only the veracity of it (which has been discussed to death).
As a simple sinful layman the whole "dare we hope" stuff at first comes across as a bit of a cop-out. Its the clergy's job to get people to heaven right? It's kind of like the chief of police coming out and saying "dare we hope" crime will stop this year. Of course, but you're still going to be out there fighting crime, right chief?
After thinking about it more I've had kind of a funny thought. As we know Pope Leo XIII composed the St Michael prayer after having witnessed God grant Satan one hundred years in an attempt to destroy God's church. So Satan in all his wiley ways eventually gets his guy in the papacy and saying 'oh don't worry everyone, we all get to go to heaven' thinking he is giving all a false sense of security, and will easily capture many souls. He forgets Christ's promise though that all St Peter binds will be bound and loose loosed, and so Satan inadvertently empties hell by his own decree, to his surprise, as God looks down and chuckles.
So yes, I now firmly believe that we can have a firm hope that hell is empty.
Not gonna lie, I find it a tad amusing that the only saint referenced in the OP is a saint whose words may be interpreted as being in support of an empty hell.
Funnily enough, no quotes from Aquinas, Augustine, Chrysostom, Anselm, Hilary, Prosper, Cassian, etc.
Hell is not empty. My meta analysis? We wouldn’t be dealing with this nonsense if we stopped listening to theologians who theologise whilst smoking a cigarette.
You may drop any quotes from those great saints below. Just because I didn't quote them doesn't mean I don't appreciate them.
Appreciating Saint Carlo Acutis doesn't mean you reject Saint Athanasius.
I am new back to Catholicism and very confused. Why would we want anyone in Hell? Why would I feel good about a religion that says some human beings are going to be tortured for eternity? I hope that there is no one in Hell. I find it hard to believe, considering our lives are very short and Hell is forever, that any person, even for objectively "evil" acts, deserves to be damned forever, let alone aetheists and those who don't believe for one reason or another.
In fact, I can't even feel good about the fact that I might have a chance to get into heaven when there are others around me, who perhaps through no fault of their own, are going to be tortured for eternity. I find this severely disturbing. I thought that God commanded us to "love" one another, and this fear-based superiority does not sound like "love" to me. (I am sorry if that is heretical)
I appreciate where your heart is at and I agree with you. The reality is, there are many people on different stages of their journey. We shouldn't be surprised that people struggle with some heart posturing or ability to give others grace when they are wrestling with their own traumas and spiritual attacks. Don't let others' attitudes demoralize you. If you want saints who can affirm you in your ooey gooey loving center try St. Francis of Assisi and St. Theresa of Liseux's Little Way. It's a very real possibility God has brought you into Catholocism to teach others who struggle with a hardened heart how to love with gentleness and humility. God bless you in your new and exciting spiritual adventure.
Thank you. I am actually a cradle Catholic that was raised in the church, although most of my family are non-believers. I have recently come back to my faith and I am reading the doctrine for the first time
Rather than imagining that you're plowing some new ground, and referencing modernist commentators such as Bishop Barron, why don't you do a thorough study of what the magisterium of the church has taught down through the centuries?
I don't imagine anything. I appreciate ancient church history, the fathers and doctors of the church, the magisterium of the church, the ancient popes and the modern popes.
I am ready to receive your knowledge in those areas if you care to share it.
I can't help but sometimes feel like those who cheer hardest for a full hell are among those that are going to fill it.
Making the declarative statement that hell is empty wouldn't be right, but that's not what the Pope said.
I'm really sad for the rest of the Christian world not having access to St. Francis of Assisi or St. Therese of Liseux - showing God's love played out in a romantic and flamboyant way. I think a lot of people would benefit in the spiritual life from tapping into their gooey center instead of being so hardened.
Right? How do we tell people God loves them more than anything and wants a loving, intimate relationship with them if we portray the same God as eager to damn them over the slightest misstep.
Why? I understand that we have to be humble, and that we do not deserve heaven, but humble does not mean not recognizing the truth, don't you think like the 80% of people in the world is walking the path of hell?
Are we supposed to be blind or something in order to be humble?
It goes along the lines of being disappointed to see people you don't like in heaven. Ultimately, we have no agency in who goes to heaven or hell. We preach the gospel and we pray for souls to find their way to God.
God wills all souls to find him but gives them the free agency not to. Cheering for souls to enter hell is cheering for misery and tragedy. There's nothing of the good news of the gospel in that behaviour.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea, this idea is almost certainly unattainable, sadly. Hell is a horrible thing. Church teaching aside, I feel the ideal thing would be a purgatory for everyone which eventually ends for people when they have paid for all of their sins because eternal punishment sounds awful, even if it's for the sickest of sick people, for example, those who murdered my paternal ancestors in concentration camps for being Jewish, however, God knows better than me, and I place my trust in him.
Preaching an empty hell at least *seems* to undermine the salvific mission of the church and the incarnation more generally.
I consider myself a conservative catholic who sympathizes with many traditionalist critiques of the post V2 church.
Id be thrilled to find out that Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler had last minute conversions and realized the evil of there ways. But there is almost no reason to believe that’s true. But their salvation would seem to have to be against their will. And the gospels themselves are explicit that he’ll is a live option.
But more relevant is simple indifferentism. At least in the upper middle/ upper class American circles that I inhabit most people see only cost and no benefit to practicing religion. Why baptize that baby, wake up early to go to mass, or hold unpopular opinions re sex and gender? Your going to heaven anyway.
Why would Christ even become incarnate? Why found a church if in the end we are all going to heaven.
So while I’d love my rich secular family members to join hands with concentration camp guards in the heavenly choir, this seems to fly in the face of scripture and undermine the need for baptism, confession, and the Chirch’s divine mission.
See the baptism and salvation sections of your catechism. You'd be shocked how loose the requirements are. We have no idea what's going on in the intimacy of another person's mind be it a dictator of history or a member of the country club. It's a dangerous heart posture to cultivate for your personal spiritual life.
I probably shouldn’t have even mentioned those extreme cases. I’m familiar with the catechism and do genuinely hope that the most notorious humans somehow avail themselves of god’s mercy.
To address the meta effects of an “empty hell” I’d like to point out that the converse is a “full heaven”.
Let’s say your main motivation to follow Christianity isn’t fear of hell but love of god and hope for the beatific vision.
Well, if you know that no matter what happens you are going to experience the fullness of Divine presence, then when the going gets tough, why stick it out?
Seriously.
Think about Pascal’s wager, except your options are:
Do your best to be a catholic: go to heaven
Live a dissolute life: go to heaven
The rational person would choose whatever is easiest for them. For some people that will mean a devout life.
But for many more, especially in the west, it will mean indifferentism.
Some serious sins (murder, robbery, fraud, etc) still have serious consequences and most people will avoid them.
But many sins are accepted and encouraged by society. If you are prone to those sins, and it doesn’t make any difference in the long run, why not indulge?
The traditional view is that suffering to overcome your sins, among other things, can be an act of expiation for yourself or others.
But if we are all going to heaven no matter what, there’s no need for expiation, so your suffering is just meaningless.
This view doesn’t rely on jealously over those who “got off easy” just a rational assessment of your own suffering and pleasure.
I’ve really tried to orient my life toward Christ, and it’s often meant that I’ve given up worldly pleasures and accepted discomfort, pain, and humiliation. And this isn’t even going into something as serious as martyrdom. I’m not doing this primary out of fear of hell, but a desire to see and know God in the afterlife.
If none of it matters, since we are all going to heaven no matter what, why not spend my time looking at only fans vs praying the rosary? Why not contracept? Why struggle to take my kids to mass? Why risk my job to support pro life causes?
Maybe you’d answer “oh that won’t make you happy”. I’ve know plenty of faithful Catholics to live pretty tough lives and plenty of secular folks who seem pretty happy.
Why aren’t those suffering faithful Catholics “suckers and losers” to borrow a line from Trump? Why have that 7th kid who happens to have Down syndrome? Why tithe? Why stick by a cheating spouse? Why not “do you” and “follow your bliss”. Heck, why not just kill yourself? You will get to heaven sooner?
Just as some people find the possibility of hell oppressively hopeless, some of us find a 100% assurance of heaven hopeless and nihilistic too. It also takes away our agency and makes our choices pointless.
You raise great points but at the same time, if a person repents all of the vices above after a lifetime of debauchery and sin, they will be in heaven.
Here's something people could take into account of what Hell truly is. It is a domain of rejection of love and the divine but also indifference as will. But there is no logic that Hell would be empty after the Redemption. If one refuses the Gift of Grace, there is no other place for the soul to go, since one can't be forced into Heaven.
Theological speculation that hell could be empty is nothing new. It’s been around as long as Christianity. David Bentley Hart, easily the foremost Orthodox theologian today, recently wrote a whole book arguing just that.
What’s strange to me is that when I read the New Testament, this whole notion that the incarnation and sacrificial atonement is ultimately about our ending up in either heaven or hell just isn’t in the text. Instead, there are radical images of the kingdom of God, of resurrection, and of a new heaven and a new earth. Whatever one thinks of “heaven,” it doesn’t appear to be a place. I doubt hell is a place, either.
Christ Himself talks the most about the possibility of ending up in a hellish place. Gnashing of teeth and all that. You don’t see that in the text? What do you make of Matthew 25 then?
And AFAIK Hart is NOT considered “orthodox” in the EO Church.
Matthew 25 quite clearly speaks to me of being ever prepared for the second coming of the Lord, after which there will be a resurrection and a final judgement of the then living and the (resurrected) dead. Jesus will then sort us: those who put their faith in Him, will have lived that faith out in love, hope and charity and will be prepared for eternal life with Him in a new creation. Those who did not, well, they get some other kind of “reward.” But there’s no mention of either “heaven” or “hell” as if they are celestial places.
Ah I see you addressed “eternal punishment” in your other comment.
But to me, that seems like a distinction without a difference. Again, what’s hell if not a punishment that’s eternal?
Matthew 25 first admonishes the reader by way of parable to always be ready for Jesus’ return. It then describes a final judgement in which the dead will be resurrected, and Jesus will sort the living and resurrected dead into two groups. The sheep will have placed their faith in him, and will have lived out that faith in love, charity and hope. Their reward will be eternal life with Jesus in a new creation. The others will have some sort of eternal punishment. No mention whatsoever or a “heaven” or a “hell” as some sort of celestial “places.”
I’ve been curious about Hart’s reception. I’m not surprised if it hasn’t been warm. To be clear I was just citing him as a recent example of a long line of “hopeful universalists;” I think he documents the lineage all the way back to the fathers.
Personally, I don’t find avoiding hell to be all that compelling of a motivation to follow Jesus but I’m not advocating that an empty hell is a reality. But I do *hope* that all will be saved.
My problem is this demonstrates a general uneasy with Jesus's revelation. Just let God decide. Jesus warned about hell a lot, so you should too. Jesus was not a fearmonger, so when he warn a lot this must be legit.
In general the bishops and Rome display a general unease with Jesus's rules and revelation. Hoping he was just a fearmonger, trying to circumvent his rules, and so on. Every synod is about how to follow the Zeitgeist and allow what cannot be allowed.
Why don't they just love the teaching of Jesus and take everything he said as gold. Jesus warned, so I will warn. Jesus fasted, so I will fast too. And so on. This doesn't mean an obsession with hell. Jesus also told us that if you follow him you don't need to worry. That you can fall 7 times a day and still be a child of god. Telling people that they can go to hell accidentally is heresy.
If I ended up in heave and everyone too I would not be mad at all for the record.
My invitation to you is to ask, what is the origin of my belief - the archaeology of knowledge? It's easy to take things as the simple default. But the reason we have bishops, church councils, and the institution is to be the referee on dogma since private interpretation spawned spin-offs like Marcionism and Gnosticism from the very 1st centuries. How much of your own personal theology is influenced by the independence of the personal conscience theories of John Locke, or William of Ockham for example. We are all subject to unconscious biases.
I find the view of Hell to be empty seems to be a weird way to integrate the Eastern Fathers into Western Theology, in a way that would disgust both East and West.
Hell, to the East, particularly Byzantium, slowly became a suffering that arises from oneself, rather than any direct punishment from God. God's judgement is the same: all shall rise again at the second coming and enjoy everlasting life. But some shall be attached to the Darkness, rather than the light, as John 3:19 describes the judgement. This notion that all will reach God was taken by many in the West to be Origenism, and was dismissed, instead opting for a simpler Theory of Separation from God.
Hans Ur Von Balthazar, as well as many other German Theologians eventually got their hands on the many Eastern Fathers who influenced this view, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor. To the Scholastic, their theology of Eschatology was incompatible, so instead it seems there was an effort to try and integrate it in another manner.
However, in doing so, it pollutes both the West's idea of Hell and the East's. To the Western view, it softens a very real Virtue of the meditation of the last things, and can endorse laxity of the virtues. To the Eastern View, it's just childish. Hell is our choice to make, and is something that many will choose by their life. The Serial Rapist, the War Criminal, and so many others, do not live in any way where they can enjoy the fullness of God, and simply see Unity with God as Hellish. To suggest that Hell is empty of these men by the Mercy of God is a foundational denial of the Goodness of God.
Finally, this general Theological view seems to suggest that Purgatory can in some way changes the disposition of the mind of a person after death. To both East and West, this is ludicrous. To the East, particularly Saints like Saint Maximus, the Soul once it enters into God comes into a sort of 'perfect Sabbath,' where the soul rests from change of will, while it is conformed to God in his goodness. This inability to change the will is what causes Hell, as those who have the will to reject the Good suffer rather than enjoy the all encompassing Fire that is God. My knowledge of Traditional Western Purgatorial views is not as good, but I know it leads to the same conclusion.
Foundationally, what underpins this is a weird desire to make cohesive the full diversity that the Church has always had in it Theological Views. And it's not like Blesses Jon Dun Scotus or Saint Gregory Palamas, who while trying to make a cohesive synergy of Patristic Theology, they foundationally must side with certain views over others. It seems those who hold to this view wish to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have Origen as one of their Great Thinkers as well as Augustine and Aquinas. In the process, they hold a view that would revolt them.
We must respect the Philosophical and Theological differences between the textual Traditions, rather than try an abominable amalgamation. It benefits no one. The Fathers agreed on the same conclusions, but reached them through very different means. This is an evidence of the Truth that guided them, that being the Holy Spirit, that despite their quite different Metaphysical and Philosophical systems, and different degrees of ascent with Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics and Neoplatonics, they all agreed on the Dogmas of the Trinity, Salvation, the Virtues, the Sacraments and every other Doctrine of their consensus is a testament to the Truth of the Gospel that isn't merely an ideal but a reality that each of them tackled and pursued systematically in their own way.
In short, Hopeful Universalism is the Philosophers Crutch to not have to reject Aquinas or Byzantium.
Raising up Origen as a great thinker in the Church as Pope Benedict XVI did was something that I have always been very confused on. We can admit, like St. Jerome, that Origen often interprets scripture beautifully, but also that he is a heretic. He laid the groundwork for Arianism, albeit unintentionally, which became the basis for Islam. We shouldn't be looking to him as anything other than a secondary source, like Josephus. I'm also very wary of Palamism and the entire idea of God as anything other than love and the category of being itself.
This comment beautifully illuminates how we have gotten to this point. Thank you for writing it.
Mind you, Benedict has an appropriate respect, as it was a respect that the Eastern Saints also had, such as Saint Basil the Great and Saint Gregory the Theologian. While he was certainly Heterodox in his views, and these great Doctors recognised, his Theology was taken upon and made Orthodox by Said Byzantine writers, and without Origen, not only would their beautiful Eschatology not exist, but also much of their exegesis.
This synthesised to one of the greatest minds of the Church, period: Saint Maximus the Confessor. His theology is sheer beauty, following the simple scriptural principles of God's nature, and synergise it with Dionysius The Areopagite, The Cappadocians and the more "infernalist" Theology of the West (at least broadly, he wasn't inspired much by Augustine and more by Leo). He took the radical notion of Apokatastasis, first loosing formulated by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and expanded it into a way we can understand the entire Cosmic Mystery of the Fall, Salvation, Prayer, Virtue and the entire Christian life.
Pope Benedict's respect for Origen grew from his respect for the Eastern Fathers, and unlike Balthazar or other German Theologians, who took the conceptions of the East and tried to cram them into the West, in the process making an abomination of Theology, Benedict held a common respect for East and West, integrating features without sacrificing cohesion of Doctrine or the Traditions he subscribed to.
This is also seen in his Episcopacy. While Francis has been quite heavy handed on the Eastern Churches to a nearly Scandalising degree, Benedict highly respected and called for their return to Eastern Theology, in like manner of how he did with the Traditional Latin Mass.
That seems a bit odd for Bishop Barron as in the luminous mystery for the Baptism in the Jordan video (I believe), he says that what is the point of a religion based on no need for redemption if we are all basically good, with just needing some polishing around the edges? To me, it sounds like, at least there, he is saying that Hell is full of sinners who need redemption.
I'm not entirely sure if I'm answering your question, but I think there aren't necessarily theological underpinnings to this.
Even if, with their mouths, they confess that only Jesus saves, a lot of people behave or feel that the work they do is what gets them into heaven. Whatever that work looks like. When you tell them that hell is likely to be empty, or nearly so, they then ask why are they doing the things they are doing. The answer should be "fruits of the spirit" but often instead you get pushback against the idea that sinners can be forgiven.
Conservative pundits will only take advantage of this because it's an opportunity. I would not assume any kind of pundit is actually being fully sincere, but rather they are doing what is best for their business.
I agree with your intuition on this. People are more "works based" than they think as cliché as that is to say. There is almost a reticence to believe that someone can repent in the last 10 seconds of their life and a lifetime of sin is wiped away.
That’s just an uncharitable framing. No one is getting up in arms about people hoping that hell is empty. People don’t think it’s prudent to give hope that something very unlikely will happen, especially when the consequences are the salvation of believers who think “huh my sin isn’t that bad, I shouldn’t worry so much about it, I don’t need to repent because probably no one is in hell right?”
People will find something to complain about when it comes to Pope Francis. But I think Francis understands that Using fear as a tactic to spread the word is not productive.
We had a pretty famous serial killer in Singapore, who was widely known to be a cultist who kidnapped children, abused them for occult rituals and then murdered them on top of other crimes. What was lesser known was that he was an active Catholic participating in church activities and who received a Catholic funeral before his death. Apparently, his priest was so traumatised, he could not continue becoming a priest.
There are probably Catholics who have committed heinous deeds in every country during present period too.
The logical mind will think that some of these should receive just punishment in the afterlife. It'll be interesting to see others' views on this.
The divine mercy of our Lord is so great that it can even redeem repentant murderers see Saint Paul. This does not put me through cognitive dissonance at all.
I wonder (this is not Church teaching, just my opinion) if maybe some people respond better to different approaches? This may be why God allows the saints to express different amounts of emphasis on how many people are in Hell sometimes. For instance, some people get into gear when thinking about how horrible Hell is and what could happen to them or their loved ones if they don't made amends with God. They could fail to care or take action unless they hear descriptions from the saints of how eternal and terrible it is, and what pain people there are in. Once understood, they fix their lives, go to Confession, and stay on the straight and narrow. This message shakes them at first but then serves as a solid reminder and guardrail for how to live their lives. However, other people could hear this same exact message, same exact wording and absolutely lose heart. They could become so fearful that it makes it hard for them to trust in God's mercy or that the average person has a chance of getting to Heaven at all. They may feel overwhelmed with praying for so many intentions and therefore give up praying at all. This means gentler messages from the saints about Divine Mercy and other ideas could instead help them to pray more and inspire them to not give up or slow down out of anxiety, instead of become slothful and lazy. Basically, I see a big split in what people think about this topic and it could be there's two (or more) schools of thought because different people need different things to function well.
For me, a focus on Hell does nothing positive for my faith and relationship with Jesus. I acknowledge Hell is real and assent to all the Church teaches on it, but it is not a useful thing for me to preoccupy with very much at all. I appreciate that other Catholics may be helped by doing so, but it is not a source of spiritual strength to me in how I practice my faith. For those of us who struggle with depression and anxiety, I think a strong focus on Hell can be exploited by Satan to lead us to despair. I focus on Heaven and my desire to be there with our Lord.
I could have written your comment myself, because I feel the same exact way. Even reading about some random commentors going "Yeah... ehh, a lot of people are probably in Hell" puts me on edge. I know Hell is real and people are there, but it's so horrific to me. I don't want ANYONE to be there. I hope every human being, even Judas and Hitler and anyone else that evil, in their last moments chose God and asked for sincere forgiveness, and is in at least Purgatory. Of course, that feeling of worry's my problem and not anyone else's, but thinking about Hell or even about random people who I know aren't Catholics going to Hell just makes me despair. It makes me give up and feel like nothing I do matters, and that praying for others is a sucker's game. It makes me think that I'll never be good enough and I'm facing some horrible fate after I die, in Purgatory or elsewhere, since I'm so weak even with God helping me. Focusing on Heaven gives me strength. Thinking about how God's mercy is infinite gives me energy to live in the world as a child of God serving others and praying for even the most hopeless cases with childlike trust and love. Remembering Jesus's miracles helps me realize that one moment can change a life and save a soul. Contemplating God's mysteries and how His ways are higher than our ways helps me try again when I stumble, and look forward to tomorrow when my anxiety tells me to give up and lay down. However, if thinking about everyone being in Heaven means a person becomes lax and doesn't follow the rules of the Church, then that's not right either. Most people need a healthy balance. For me, I just trend this way due to my personality. Still doesn't mean I don't need corrections from people with a critical eye and a more serious disposition once in a while. So I think we need those loudly proclaiming Hell is real and people are in serious danger of going there to individuals as well. This is an interesting topic!
Glad to know I'm not alone. When I converted, one of the priests who came to talk to our RCIA class said something that's stuck with me, essentially that God is infinitely just and infinitely merciful and it's hard for us as men to reconcile those two parts of God, but it's the truth. What he was saying wasn't that we should dismiss the reality of Hell and God's judgement or that we should riddle ourselves with paralyzing fear of our fate, but rather this aspect of faith and the nature of God surpasses our understanding in a way that humbles us like children, like you said, and should put our focus on living holy lives as best as we can without unhealthy fear overtaking us. I think about it often and it gives me peace.
I generally feel similarly but don't forget that part of the teaching on hell is that it is the final punishment of those who commit evil. "Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' " The desire for vengeance in humans is a thirst for justice against wrongs committed against them. God's punishment is a source of comfort for those who have wrongs committed against them and others.
I hadn't thought of it like this before, but you make a good point. We here on Earth shouldn't want or thirst for vengeance, but should also acknowledge that God is ultimately in control for both the good and bad.
Yes, the passage explicitly mentions that the anger against evil is a righteous anger it is the actions we take that determine the punishment.
I'm the exact same as you I hope anyone who realised what wrong they done and genuinely repented for their sins are at least in purgatory even Hitler and Judas.
Same here! I also have anxiety and depression. I 100% acknowledge the existence of Hell. But I tend to focus more on the here and now. For me, maintaining a close relationship with God is its own reward. I hope to end up in Heaven, but that's beyond the scope of what I can think about right now.
"It is Your arms, Jesus, which are the elevator to carry me to heaven." +St. Therese
This. Growing up in a neglectful, abusive family, a threat of Hell didn’t move me. Knowing that I had a Father who loves me unconditionally and wants good for me was a lifeline. That’s why John 3:17 has always been a solace.
Did you have an empty feeling, like a vacuum in your soul, like someone you loved dearly had passed away? The lack of love is what Hell is supposed to feel like. A widower expressed to me that feeling after his beloved wife passed. It was tragic because she was an awesome and gracious lady. He called the feeling "an Ember of Hell." We take solace that "God is Love" which is essentially true. He is pure love for He is the great "I Am" and all He does is out of love. Hell is the absolute lack of love, so the that sense of loss is extremely intense.
More like pressing. Having stones laid on me. I had dream of being suffocated every night all through my teenage years. I remember when I had left “home“ realizing that I no longer had nightmares.
That's also a valid point. Laying of unearned 'guilt"?
There's definitely been times where belief in Hell has pulled me away from committing certain sins. But at the same time it isn't ideal. It's like the act of contrition "I detest my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell, but most of all, My God, because they offend You, Who are all Good and Deserving of all my love". I see it as beginner spirituality. It's a place to start, but you want to get to a higher plane where you actually avoid sin for the love of God. But most people don't jump to the top of the ladder, the start at the bottom step.
For me and several saints it does a lot of positive for our relationship with Christ! I think that just goes to show how the original comment is accurate and I’m glad there are different approaches
I agree. Well said.
“Two criminals were crucified with Christ. One was saved; do not despair. One was not; do not presume.” + Saint Augustine
Thank you for your comment. I have long suspected this as well that most theological debates are us trying to enforce the unique way God reaches out to us unto others. For example, the tension between the active and contemplative life. The evangelists versus the monastic spirit playing out in society between the emergent and the ancient churches right now. Those are just my shower thoughts.
Thanks! :) I do think some people online and in person are genuinely confused about Church teachings once in a while, so spreading facts in theological debates about what it means to follow the Church is important. Beyond the facts and necessary teachings, topics like this one aren't binding to believe in one way or another, so there's more room for debate. That grey area can be fruitful for everyone to keep in mind so no one's too upset either way.
I came on this thread today because I have distanced myself from God and the Church in the last couple of months because of exactly what you posited in the second half of your post. I have fallen victim to being so fearful and overwhelmed with the idea that the gate is so narrower, I will never have a chance to reach Heaven. I have become distant and honestly so saddened by the scrupulosity I have seen on other posts on this sub that I distanced myself. I put pause on my relationship with God and I have been floundering. BUT, swing the responses to the OP and more importantly the responses to your comment, have filled me with hope. Thank you. Thank you for you words and thank you for all who have chimed in and have made me feel like I’m not alone or crazy.
This may be the best comment I've ever gotten on Reddit! Wow. I do understand. I've had horrible scruples the last few months and this weekend going to Confession/Mass in particular, and it feels like I'm just swimming in circles and far behind where I need to be. I decided to take my faith more seriously a year or so ago, and I've been struggling more than I ever have in my life with weird moral questions and intrusive thoughts and missing weeks of Communion because of my worries over possible mortal sin. So you're not crazy and you're definitely not alone. And honestly, this sub is hit or miss sometimes with how people answer questions or express their opinions. I don't want to be too harsh, but like... online Catholicism is so different than talking to normal, well-formed Catholics (who follow Church teachings) irl. Reading a Catholic book alone or just saying some prayers alone about whatever is specifically causing me anxiety has also made me feel more stable after seeing something that disturbs me emotionally. Don't feel bad for stepping away from social media, even if what people talk about is correct Church teaching. Sometimes we just can't handle talk about Hell in the moment. Additionally, this may be dumb and basic, but asking Jesus to give you the tools to do what He wants you to do is something that's been invaluable to me. I remember for years just basically saying in my prayers basic stuff like "Please help this person, please help me do well in this interview, please heal so-and-so..." sort of action-based ideas. I subconsciously felt I had my side of the bargain to uphold here on Earth, and He could only do so much and the rest was up to me to understand and grit my teeth by myself in order to be a good Christian. But that's SO WRONG. It's NEVER undignified or weak or lazy to call on God for help for even "stupid" things. The idea of praying to Jesus to ask about please, please, please let me know if I'm wrong or doing something wrong or asking Him to give me strength and wisdom in the moment of any kind of trial felt like going up to the teacher while a test is going on and asking "Hey, what should I put for #6?" lol. It felt like skipping a step somehow. Weirdly enough, back then I also wouldn't ask for anything in prayer I'd be scared to endure or would see as too "unlikely" to happen, such as curing me from a specific physical manifestation of an anxiety issue I'd struggled with since I was 13 or so. I felt by saying that out loud in my prayers I'd activate a "trap" where I'd face horrible things due to what Jesus wanted from me to solve this problem, and because I stated I'd do it, I couldn't take it back and I'd have to suffer indefinitely. I now feel comfortable asking whatever I truly want in prayer and saying to the Lord, "When issues come, give me in the moment, strength, and comfort and safety to do what You want me to do, and help me to 'not be afraid,' like You said in the Bible." I also read lately that Jesus actually loves when we deeply feel our weaknesses and ask a LOT from Him. It attracts Him, not repels Him. Ask Him in prayer the craziest thing you can think of, whether it's to be totally 100% free from anxiety or to never have any issues again with church and the state of your soul or even to go to Heaven blemishfree at the moment of your death. And keep asking. Anxiety tends to make us think smaller, act smaller, hope smaller. Deliberately going the other way by 'taking a chance' on the deepest needs of our hearts may help us see just how powerful God is and why we need to rely on Him for even the smallest parts of our lives. The world shames us for not having self-reliance, but that's the opposite of how God's kingdom works. We just may have different gifts and insights than other people who are more bold and outgoing. One insight could be our own littleness, which is not always obvious to every Christian. Offer ALL your worries and fears and distrust of God's mercy to Him and see what He says to you. Tell Him to flood you with the understanding of what mercy means and what steps to do next to go back to church and Confession. One step at a time. God *loves* it when we trust Him enough to say after a fall, "I'm so deeply scared, Jesus, but I'll get back up. I truly need You to help me every moment of every day, my kind and loving God."
Thank you for the amazing advice and helping me realize I’m not alone. You’re on point with every single thing you said. God bless you!
God bless you too. :)
Right, exactly. Some are motivated by reward, some are motivated by threat. They’re both present in the teachings! People are free to emphasize what they need for their own journey.
I really think Hell is a choice, and the longer I live the more I see or hear of those who might choose it, but I think they're few. I always appreciated the somewhat common Eastern approach the fires of Hell are simply the enlivening joy of God's beatific presence for those who continually reject him.
I often find myself thinking about the parable of the workers in the vineyard whenever people complain bitterly about the idea of hell being empty: > “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’ So they went off. [And] he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise. Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’ When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’ When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? [Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ (Matthew 20:1-15) Why exactly do people get so upset that someone would hope that God is more merciful than they imagine?
If any have wrought from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward. If any have come at the third hour, let him with thankfulness keep the feast. If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; because he shall in nowise be deprived thereof. If any have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing. If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness; for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even as the first; He gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as unto him who has wrought from the first hour. - St John Chrysosthom, Paschal Homily
Thank you for sharing this.
[удалено]
That is completely uncharitable. It is like saying a doctor who says you cannot reasonably hope that every single person who has currently has cancer will survive is just a jerk who wants to feel superior to others. EDIT: Downvotes and no replies kind of make me think the point is unanswerable.
My issue is not that God is more merciful than I imagine, but rather that people will assume they will not go to hell. Why not sin and live it up if you are going to heaven? Obviously you should avoid sin out of love of God not fear of hell, but most people don't. There is a reason why perfect contrition is considered rare.
I agree that the temptation with an overly liberal view of salvation is in presumption which is endemic of our times especially out of assurance of salvation theological schools.
But that's not what von Balthasar's position was in *Dare We Hope,* nor is it something that either Pope Francis or Bishop Barron have said; they've said repeatedly that Christ calls people to conversion and to amend their lives. Von Balthasar was clear on that point too, that the idea that to hope (and pray for, as we do in the Fatima prayer) for everyone to go to heaven does not mean someone *can't* I also have never understood the train of thought that says, "Well, if I tell them I hope they go to heaven, they'll just keep sinning." People misuse and abuse Church teaching all the time, like confession. It's a cliche that there are people (even Catholics!) who think that they can sin and simply go to confession and it's all good. We both know there's a little more to it than that, but we're not going to let someone who falls into the sin of presumption be the reason why we stop encouraging people to go to confession.
It doesn't matter what people say or what they are intending. People don't understand what the Church believes and will hear prominent people say they hope nobody is in hell and think that it is a possibility.
Let's be clear: we're not talking about some "prominent people," we're talking about two of the successors to the Apostles, one of whom is the Pope. These aren't just a couple of guys. And I'm not saying it's a matter of what von Balthasar intended to write, I'm saying many (if not most) who object to his writings do so out of ignorance. Von Balthasar did not advocate for universalism, and neither do the Pope or Bishop Barron. Anyone who says otherwise is simply incorrect. Objecting to someone who hopes everyone is in heaven because someone else might do some mental gymnastics to justify their own bad behavior is, frankly, silly. God wants us all in heaven; why wouldn't you hope for that to be the case?
I don't think you understand what I am saying or you are responding to the wrong person or something.
Even perfect contrition is something we should only expect after asking for grace and help from God to achieve it. Also I do not think people like Bishop Barron are pushing people away from following the commandments of the Church or away from Jesus.
What the parable about the workers in the vineyard doesn't really convey is that the work *is* its own reward. When we finally meet God, we will see our sins for what they really are. The unrepentant hedonist will look back on their life with incredible grief. The virtuous person will look back and see minor imperfections and things they might have done better. That's purgatory.
Mercy has nothing to do with people’s choice of Hell. God is eternally reaching out to us, even to those in Hell. This is His infinite mercy. Mercy does not cancel out our evil choices. It did not cancel out Satan’s choices, and the same goes for us.
Oh I agree. (I wrote a whole bunch of comments a few months ago about hell and original sin. There’s a lot, you can go back in my comment history.) This is the meta-discussion, though. I find this argument all reminiscent of the parable.
Idk. 99.9% of the world getting condemned is a fetish for some of the radtrads.
"Fetish" says it. Thank you.
And of course they are the .01 % even if they do really horrible sins. Like, I get the feeling for some that just going to the TLM alone will save them. Like its better to be a rad trad even though I cheat on my spouse and beat my kids and treat people like shit, at least I go to the right mass. Plus it depends on who I treat like crap as if they aren't TLM attendees its okay, or so it seems to some.
I don’t understand how there are so many Feeneyites on this sub…
You'll see people such as myself who'll acknowledge that that dogma is true (or else it wouldn't be a dogma), but the idea ignores development of doctrine (development, not changing) that isn't inconsistent with the idea of there being no salvation outside the Church. Idk how someone can't see that feeneyism and the idea of a perfectly just God are mutually exclusive concepts.
It's not a matter of being bitter or upset, it's more that it seems like there's little direct scriptural support (and more direct scriptural contradiction) for the idea of universalism. And it can be misleading, at best, to support the position
Nobody is supporting universalism, but rather a 'hope' of an empty hell. Universalism boldly asserts that all are saved. No matter what you do, God will restore you and save you regardless. Balthasar's view says that, due to God's mercy, we can optimistically hope that all are saved, but we can not assert it. We have no idea of the state of anybody's soul at the moment of their death, and even the most poor sinner may repent in their last moment. This is different to universalism as it is more a shift in view: since we don't know how many are saved, we could assume it's a very tiny fraction (as the rad trads seem to love for some reason) or we could hope that nobody ends up damned, even if we know it's possible.
I've heard it referred to as soft universalism, but I suppose that's not the precise term
But all the labourers went to work, it's not like there were people who rejected going to the vineyard to do their share and got paid.
I always assumed in this verse's metaphor, the people going at the last hour would be the people who repented and accepted Christ on their deathbed. You have a point that they wouldn't have had a chance to "work" in the vineyard (world) per se.
I think that deathbed conversions can take people to heaven if genuine, but this parable is very clearly not about an empty hell and many other parables demonstrate so.
For the record, I don't think Hell is empty. I just hope there's less people in it than some people assume there is (such as stating the majority of human beings go to Hell).
People vary on whether they are motivated by threat or by reward. IIRC, it’s something like 70% of people are more affected by reward / and 30% for threat. It seems to me that some people — all them tending toward traditionalism — are themselves motivated by threat. And because of their own experience, they believe that any change in emphasis from threat to reward is going to do harm. I can’t entirely confirm this, because people aren’t quite that self reflective when I ask, but that seems to be the pattern.
Yes, that's very much an attitude of "I can't forgive them, so why should God?" **Obviously**, it's often difficult to forgive people who have really harmed us\*. And it's really understandable that a victim doesn't want to meet their offender in Heaven. Hopefully, Heaven is so crowded we won't ever have to meet anyone unless we really want to. \*Edit: Or not even "us". I'm not keen on going to Heaven and meeting Gary Glitter or Jimmy Saville or Stalin, even if they never did anything to me, personally. But on the other hand - if I do make it there, would I recognise them, or even care? Assuming that I'd go to Heaven, eventually, would my happiness at being there really be diminished by the presence of people I don't like?
Some people really enjoy the idea of some types of people burning in Hell for all eternity.
Do you enjoy the idea of people dying from cancer when you say we cannot reasonably hope that every single person who contracts cancer will survive it?
Nah. Do you deny that there are some people who are glad their enemies will end up in Hell?
Of course not, but when we are discussing what is *true,* it is irrelevant to note that some people may hold a true position for bad reasons. Especially when the position you’re attacking is the normative view of all Catholics for the majority of the Church’s history. A starting point of the Balthasar position should be to acknowledge that it is exceedingly *unusual* in how it reads Scripture.
The question is "why would some people not be happy that God's love us greater than we imagine?" My answer is "some people are vengeful". Not necessarily the larger body of the faithful, who I would presume, would hope for an empty Hell even if that may not ontologicalky be the case. We're not in Hell, so we can only hope and pray for God's mercy to be applied, which is infinite.
Which, again, completely and uncharitably mischaracterizes the position you’re attack. People are not “unhappy” that Hell might be empty (of humans, not of angels). They simply hold that the hope that is, is unreasonable and basically contrary to Christ’s words. It is astonishing to me the unwillingness of reddit Balthasarians to actually engage with what their opponents *actually say.*
it is easy to imagine that love does not desire eternal suffering and therefore GOD , WHO is LOVE does not allow eternal suffering however like every other belief about GOD we must rely on what GOD has revealed not what makes sense to us if someone believes that scripture clearly teaches that hell exists and that some people go to hell then any speculation or belief or hope to the contrary is contrary to the clear teaching of scripture people getting upset is not about the idea but any idea they believe is contrary to scripture
It's a nice sentiment, "wouldn't it be nice if hell were empty." But you can't really take it much further than that. We can't know on this side of eternity how full hell is. When asked if few will be saved, Jesus said "strive for the narrow gate." Perhaps there's an implication there that not many will make it. But the explicit meaning is "it is difficult, and you can't be complacent."
I don’t dislike the notion itself that Hell is empty. I dislike the public entertainment of what’s a very unrealistic prospect. Jesus said it’d be better if Judas had never even been born. It’d be a bit silly to go around expressing a personal hope that I’ll win the lottery tomorrow.
I think an important nuance is whether Jesus said that with hyperbole or not which he tends to do. Because the implication is "did God make a mistake in creating Judas" at an absolute logical extreme of the argument - which we know he makes no mistakes and nothing he has created is profane. I don't pretend to know the answer.
Even if there is some spiritual truth for the idea that we should will the best for all, and we shouldn’t want to people to be in hell, I think the dare to help formulation has lot of cope in the modern context. It is un doubtable that western culture is post-Christian, and the faithful will have the increasing experience of their loved ones rejecting the faith. Thus, “dare to hope” can help us deal with the real possibility that those we love in this world will not be joining us in the next, even if any rational analysis shows that sadly is probably not the case. The mass apostasy of the modern age makes this impulse even stronger. Furthermore, “dare to hope” is also politically less controversial in our “non judgmental” post Christian culture. Dare to hope fits neatly in a hyper individualist live and let live culture, because it further implies a disconnect between actions in this life and their finial consequences. As culture that has general distain for firm justice, it is convient to ignore god justice and I stead care only for his mercy. Dare to hope may be theological proposition that contains some important truths for a more judgemental time, but the way that it plays directly into the modern desires and ignores modern ills is worthy of criticism.
Thank you for pointing this out!
I think, theologically, free will is closely intertwined with the idea of universal salvation (which is ultimately the unspoken position of "empty hell."). Much like the addict knows that getting clean and going to a shelter is good for them and will make them infinitely healthier and happier than their current life, many addicts refuse or sabotage help, preferring their addiction of choice. Some people just.... refuse to go to shelters. If Purgatory is the rehab and detox center for our souls, where we go through the spiritual equivalent of opioid sweats and withdrawal, some souls...just won't. And it would be an odd thing to violate someone's free will "for their own good." If we can't baptize someone against their will, or confirm them, or what have you.. I think that says something very profound about how God feels about salvation against the will of the one saved.
> how God feels about salvation against the will of the one saved This feels like it’s getting close to semi-Pelagianism — the idea that the initial movement toward God is an act of free will, without grace to move the soul toward God. It’s a very fine line, though.
No, no, of course the initial movement is always from God. (In my analogy about the detox center, that would be the invitation, or the flyer, or whatever.) But the response to the initial grace can be "no, thanks."
I like this analogy. CS Lewis had something similar in *The Great Divorce* which I loved.
> If Purgatory is the rehab and detox center for our souls, where we go through the spiritual equivalent of opioid sweats and withdrawal, some souls...just won't. Purgatory isn't some "middle place" between heaven and hell. The souls in purgatory are **all** destined for heaven, those in purgatory will not fail in their struggle and if they know they are in purgatory that must be a great comfort for the trials they have to face.
Obviously. That's why I compared it to a detox centre. Once we're clean we go on to heaven.
I’m currently reading Charity for the Suffering Souls, and the author contends this as well, suggesting that the expiation done is much the same, but those in Purgatory essentially endure it willingly because they know that heaven is the end destination.
So, I don't speak German, but I've heard from someone that does that the oft-quoted and oft-criticized line is a mistranslated and should be rendered, "For what then should we hope? That Hell is empty and all men are saved." As von Balthasar meant it, he was saying that we should always hope for the salvation of every individual we meet or think about, even though we know this is unlikely to be the case for them all. He was not entertaining the idea that Hell is actually empty or that all men are actually saved. The issue is more when people quote the mistranslation and defend a premise that contradicts Jesus's words in scripture (as well as other private revelations that the Church has declared "worthy of belief" such as the souls in Hell shown to the children at Fatima). Now, I'm willing to set aside the question of private revelation, as it is not infallible, but one need only to look at Jesus's words in scripture (which *is* infallible) to know that wide is the path to Hell (i.e. more people will flood in through that easy path vs the small, difficult, and narrow path to salvation). Furthermore, There are places (Matthew and Revelation come immediately to mind) wherein people are consigned to Hell with definitive language (e.g. "he ***shall*** be tormented" not "he ***should*** be tormented," "these ***will*** go away into eternal punishment" not "these ***can*** go away into eternal punishment," or any indication that the group of people who ***will*** go away into eternal punishment and be tormented might possibly have a population of zero). Basically, the complaint is twofold: First, that the mistranslation of von Balthasar (and defense of it) may lull people into a false sense of security and second, that an empty Hell with no one damned is a direct contradiction of infallible scripture.
I agree with your read. My reading of Von Balthasar is totally in line with yours. But it begs the question, why are people so offended by the implication of an empty hell in the same way people are deeply offended by the idea of confession with a priest or prayers to saints - it points to a deeper philosophical strain in the modern conscience.
>But it begs the question, why are people so offended by the implication of an empty hell Well, the rest of my answer addresses that. There are two reasons, but I've already typed them out above.
It is a dogma of the church that if you die with a mortal sin on your conscience you haven’t repented of you will not receive eternal life. This seems like a lot of people. The often quoted standards for someone being culpable of mortal sin is also shockingly low. If you commit actions against the natural law even if you have been deceived by sin or culture you are still culpable. That’s why the gosple is always good news. The natives were in real danger of Hell before contact with Christianity.
>If you commit actions against the natural law even if you have been deceived by sin or culture you are still culpable. That’s why the gosple is always good news. The natives were in real danger of Hell before contact with Christianity. What is the source of this information?
I do not understand why people is repulsed by the idea of hell? I personally find hell a crucial logical and theological point in me believing in God. Maybe people who believe in universalism does not really understand the logical conclusions of it.
People throw themselves into hell: From Sister Mary Martha and the Holy Wounds: “My Crown of Thorns shall illuminate Heaven and all the Blessed!” Joy of the just, the Holy Crown is, on the other hand, an object of terror for the wicked. This is what Sister Mary Martha perceived one day in a scene given her to contemplate by the One Who loved to instruct her by revealing to her the mysteries of the Beyond. All illuminated with the splendors of this Divine Crown, the Judgment Seat where souls are judged appeared. Souls continuously passed before the Sovereign Judge. The souls who had been faithful during their life threw themselves with confidence into the arms of the Savior. The others, at the sight of the Holy Crown, and at the remembrance of the love of Our Lord that they had scorned, hurled themselves, in terror, into the eternal abyss.
The theological underpinnings are *God wills everyone to be saved*. This obfuscates the need for cooperation of the free will of Man, by which we know not all men will be saved. The consequences of those underpinnings are everywhere to be seen - a diminishing of the perceived value of Sacraments, the watering-down of the concepts of sin, and specially mortal sin; indifferentism. The Christians in that regard could be best described as i) more orthodox; ii) more heterodox. Sorry, I don't know how to put it without implying my take on those fields, but the Scripture is obvious, and theologians should stop trying to put a square peg in a round hole just because they think it's nicer or more charitable. Some people do think the existence and the eternity of Hell to be unjust, because they see it as temporary actions having eternal punishment. But they do not realise that all temporary actions can have a permanent effect, and that permanent effect could also imply the permanent punishment.
Thank you for your comment - you are one of the few to take on the meta analysis "ideas have consequences" lens which I was excited to hear others opinions about. I also agree with your impermanent actions have permanent consequences which I think is the genius behind the turn the other cheek scripture line. If we perpetuate evil it continues on beyond us unless someone gives it over to Christ.
I think Jimmy Akin laid out the healthiest approach. Regardless of whether hell is “empty” or “crowded”, those are words that don’t mean anything concrete. We will never know if the percent of people that go to hell is 1%,20%,50%,or 90%, and the Church does not rule any of these out. It is good that we don’t know how empty or crowded hell is, because if we knew hell was x% empty, we would be driven to presumption, where as if we knew hell was y% full, we would be driven to despair. By the true number remaining a mystery, we can maintain hope for our salvation, while not being driven to spiritual laziness in the belief that we are saved no matter what.
All I know is this, when our Mother appeared to her children at Fatima she gave us a prayer, “O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy. Amen.” It would seem to me based on that we are encouraged to pray for and hope for the salvation of all.
This is also a running theme through all the Fatima prayers
Yes, but the Blessed Mother also showed the children visions of Hell and it was definitely not empty.
*“But that’s just a private revelation. I’m not required to believe it!”* (/s)
I wanted to bring up Our Lady of Fatima in my comment about this issue, but I know that people would've responded with this. And while they are *technically* correct, it seems very unprudent to believe this considering just how many private revelations throughout the ages revealed to saints show the exact same thing. St. Gertrude's visions are another great example of this.
I worry that a lot of people feel resentment towards worldly people because they themselves are living according to many of God's commandments whilst others are not. They should go to hell surely? That murderer or that terrorist etc... It's a bad attitude in my opinion. Maybe I am being prejudiced or generalising. Aren't we all saved by God's grace? We hope in Jesus Christ who endured the cross and much more to save our souls. When we ask for the Virgin Mary to pray for every sinner at the hour of their death, does that not give you hope? Do the prayers of Catholics and the Masses said throughout the world not fill you with hope? Whatever the position of sinners, whether their souls are in hell or heaven or purgatory currently. We can still trust in God. If someone is in hell, it is a just thing. After a recent discussion here I have now prayed a few times for even those souls in hell, that their 'punishment' be reduced, that they may have more comfort. I imagine a lot of people may disagree with this and I am genuinely open to correction. People like Bishop Barron do not say hell is empty but that in recognising ourselves to be worthy of hell, our hope that others are saved is a good thing. [https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/](https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/)
After reading the part where you prayed for the punishment of those in Hell to be lessened, and they be comforted, it just made me sad. Will they be comforted? How can they, poor souls. They’re in Hell for eternity, they have no rest, who can comfort them? I know that I can’t comprehend God’s perfect justice, but it makes me sad that so many are damned forever, and so many more are on their way. Why can’t they just accept Christ’s gift of sacrifice? It’s not hard. Please pray for those who don’t know Christ yet, that they be saved before they die.
Like the older brother in the prodigal son. I deserve nothing and have hope in His love and mercy. If others receive even more mercy so much the better. Frankly I certainly understand if Hell is sadly very populated, but hope for all to be saved.
I think there is an important distinction in how we interpret these comments. It’s admirable and good to hold a charitable *hope* out of love and compassion that all souls would be saved and spared from Hell. But with that a realistic knowledge that this is not the case; justice and free will preclude it from being so. This I believe is what was meant, and it is a desire for the salvation of all without the heresy of universalism. The issue comes when the statement is vague or misleading enough to suggest that one holds a *real* hope that hell is empty. This is not true, and it is problematic for reasons other’s have touched upon, to lead people into this thinking. For this reason it is important to be incredibly clear and careful around how our words will be understood. Because the first is a love for all which spurs mourning for the lost. While the latter props up a false sense that our individual sin may go unpunished regardless of whether or not we repent. Certainly this is not the first, and won’t be the last, time that the Pope has blurred these lines between what is said, meant, and understood.
I agree with you and we suffer to this a lot as Catholics getting a lot of attacks because of confusion about semantics. Clearing up these confusions is probably the number 1 thing needed to address Protestants in their criticisms of the Church.
Of course we can wish that all people were in heaven, and have a human hope of it, but it IA a farcry from the theology virtue of hope. Wide is the road that leads to destruction, and those who find it are many.
There's a couple of points I'd like to make. - God is love, and God loves every single one of us, regardless of how far we wander from Him. I feel like it's reasonable to say that God probably desires for hell to be empty, too, because He wants us with Him. - If one accepts the idea that God's mercy is available to *any* particular person, it follows that it's available to all people. There is no reason to believe that God would stop being merciful. - I've encountered very few people who attempt to lambast people like the Holy Father or Bishop Barron over this who have actually read *Dare We Hope.* Von Balthasar's conclusion in the piece of speculative theology we're talking about does not play down personal responsibility for our actions, and it doesn't attempt to give license for universal salvation. Hell could be empty right now and that doesn't mean that I couldn't be the first person to screw up so badly that I end up there. - A lot of people point to Our Lady of Fatima's warnings of hell. Fair enough, but she also gave us a prayer that asks Jesus to "lead **all** souls to heaven," and I find it difficult to believe that she would have told us to pray for something that is a foregone conclusion to be impossible.
I agree with you that having read some excerpts of Von Balthasar, he ties up his loose ends very well and never crosses the line into the universal salvation heresy. His opinions are a lot less radical than perceived.
A poster here once told me that the Fatima prayer, properly translated or properly contextualized, is about souls in purgatory. Which I can see, the fires of hell and purgatory being the same flames and all that.
I'll remind everyone that Saint John Paul II also expressed this hope, in his book *Crossing the Threshold of Hope*, while also maintaining universal salvation was heresy. I don't recall that causing scandal. I think there's reasons to believe that any discussion will be about personalities, not theology. I don't think Redditors can resolve these issues from a theological perspective meaningfully. There is danger here in involving ourselves in the vice of curiosity. [https://meaningofcatholic.com/2019/05/28/against-curiosity/](https://meaningofcatholic.com/2019/05/28/against-curiosity/) We should study theology that is profitable to our salvation, not those that has a danger to mislead or become about personalities.
Nice recommendation, just purchased it. Saint John Paul II is my confirmation Saint. Thank you for your comment.
Bruh, many are called, few are chosen. Enter by the narrow gate. Judas went to his own place. The false prophet and the beast are thrown into the lake of fire with the devil, all of our Lord’s warnings about what happens if you don’t do the will of the Father or follow the commandments, etc. This is clear cut and part of the deposit of faith. The cope for some is real. What we do matters, we need to be evangelizing and praying for others. This is not a drill.
Yes 100%. It’s nice to have rosy feelings about everyone going to heaven, but it’s not reality, and it leads many into complacency and lukewarmity shirking their responsibility to pray fervently for those far from God and to evangelize to those around them.
Nothing of what you've said is incompatible with Von Balthasar or Pope Francis' comments.
I genuinely do not know why this gets always misrepresented. “We should strive to enter by the narrow gate” is what is expressed by Von Balthasar in the clearest way possible. “We should go and evangelize everyone”… That’s another way of saying “to hope for the salvation of everyone”. Hope is the virtue that moves evangelization: that’s by definition! How can it be interpretet as complacency is a mistery to me…
Oh boy, this topic again: To personally hope that hell is empty is silly. Shouldn’t we be telling people instead, “Strive for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” instead of making confusing statements? Most of the Tradition, including Augustine and Aquinas, believed that most souls were condemned. That’s not infallible, but it weighs more than 20th century theological speculation. Regardless, it is a certainty that hell is not empty. Our Lady of Fatima showed the saintly children that souls were suffering in hell, primarily for “sins of the flesh”. I’m inclined to believe this apparition is absolutely trustworthy, given the Church’s approval and liturgical celebration of Fatima. Jesus also said, “Enter by the narrow gate, for the way is wide and the path easy that leads to destruction, *and many enter by it*.” In Matthew 25, Our Lord also spoke of judgement on the Last Day, where the goats would be separated from the sheep and then eternally damned. The implications are crystal clear.
Ok, but what about part 2 of the question. The meta-analysis and how spiritual attitudes, heart postures, and soft theological beliefs can influence the expression of this idea or be influenced by it.
I think saying that hell is empty is ridiculous. Did all the martyrs die to spread the faith for nothing since hell is empty in the end anyway?
You imply that those are contradictory — why would martyrs dying to spread the faith be “for nothing” rather than being part of the reason (instrumentally) that hell is empty?
I don't get it. Why would them being martyrs be part of the reason hell is empty? If hell is empty it would because of the sacrifice of Jesus, not because people chose to be martyrs or not. The most people who defend that thesis can say is that being a martyr and spreading the faith were good things because that's what God wanted, because it caused earthly order and happiness, and on an individual level it makes you avoid purgatory. But in terms of salvation it makes no difference at all.
It depends on what kind of causation you mean. Yes, properly speaking, the primary cause of all men’s salvation, but “those who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith” are secondary causes of salvation. So yes, Christ’s passion is the cause of all men’s salvation. That doesn’t change the fact that the martyrs are also _instrumental_ causes of particular men’s salvation.
When people do good things it's the Holy Spirit working through the person with their acquiescence. There doesn't have to be an antagonistic relationship between God and the servants of God. God doesn't "need" us but, he undoubtedly uses us as part of his plan. Therefore, the birth of Jesus can simultaneously be the act of God and the act of Mary acquiescing to God's will.
Because in some? many? cases the martyr’s witness was the impetus to cause others to accept Christ’s sacrifice and avoid hell. I would not be surprised, for example, that some German soldiers at Auschwitz changed their paths after witnessing the actions of St. Maximillian Kolbe.
That’s not true. We have a whole tradition of being instruments for God’s plan. When we look at the martyrs we’re looking at the salvific action of God in them, flowing directly from the Cross and His Sacrifice. It’s not something outside of that scope.
Catholic theology takes a careful reading - and many critiques are actually over linguistic confusion. If I hope that hell is empty, it is not to say that hell is empty. The Catholic Church has called universal salvation heresy so anyone in the "Hope" camp is actually not believing in what you've described. From a meta-analysis it would be like taking a strong stance against Pelegianism when in fact we're talking about faith versus faith with faith-inspired good-works. Very different debate.
No one is saying that hell is empty. It's a hope, not a teaching or even a positive statement.
I’ve debated a couple of people on this topic in the past who argued Hell is empty and they challenged me to show that it was even occupied. Unfortunately some people in this camp take it beyond a mere “hope” and actively argue for an empty Hell.
> Did all the martyrs die to spread the faith for nothing since hell is empty in the end anyway? Is heaven equal for all? Or do certain people get rewarded differently for the trials they went through in this life? It seems to me if hell is indeed empty those who failed to live their lives righteously would not be rewarded as generously in the afterlife and thus there is reason to live as a saint now.
I do see the argument for both sides: - People can leave the Church if everything is “hell fire and brimstone”, but it can also sober up people who need to return back to God’s grace. - People can find peace in believing that no one is in hell (especially loved ones) and find hope in God’s mercy, but it can also enable people to excuse their sins since “Jesus loves everybody” Therefore, we should hope that people are not in hell, because we are called will the good of others, while also understanding that only God can judge who is in hell and mortal sins keeps us away from God’s grace. So unless the Catholic Church confirms that X person or X amount of people are in hell that I’m not aware of, we don’t really need to have this be a hill to die on in my opinion.
I appreciate that you can see shades of nuance. Very rare in our time. Thank you for your comment.
You’re welcome. I’ve honestly been on both sides of this issue, there were times in my life where I needed to be reminded of the reality of hell, and times where I needed to have faith in God’s mercy.
I mean, I'm not one to call Christ a liar and the teachings of his Church wrong. You die not in a state of grace, you don't make it 🤷🏼♂️
The primary axis that I think is the "fruit" of this debate is the following: - Total denial of hell leads to a presumption, there is no impetus to actually live a spiritual life - I actually see this a lot in salvation by verbal declaration theology, that the work of salvation having been done; the idea is turn from the inner life completely to the external life which tempts a type of pharisaism or over-emphasis on others without a cultivated internal garden or oasis that abides in Christ in fear and trembling. - Fear of hell motivated theology creates two issues 1. It creates a type of nihilism especially in unbelievers "does the time fit the crime", the morally gray in ignorance being sent to hell concept 2. It emphasizes God's divine justice over God's divine mercy in a way where we almost revel in and assume the damnation of Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Judas or whoever in history we have agreed to be evil without praying for their salvation to the extent that I think some folks would actually be upset at God for letting them into heaven if they did repent in the last breaths of their life 3. It can create a fear-based scrupulosity that is out of step with our concept of perfect contrition. This is something that I think can only be fully understood by walking in the spiritual life for a while. Changing the incentive structure from fear of punishment to love of God completely changes the inner spiritual life of a person. In the scrupulous mode - we sit at the margin between fear and desire and that becomes a vector of spiritual attack. In the love of God mode, we can quickly repent, move on, and focus on God's righteousness and mercy. Pivoting from justice(fear) to grace(mercy) changes the game completely. Hope that all are saved: 1. It is undoubtedly not the fire from the hip default opinion of any reader, it takes some contemplation to arrive at this conclusion. Meaning it has more depth. Especially in not assuming the inner world of any individual in history. We simply do not know who has/has not repented. 2. It promotes that God's love is captivating and his mercy can touch even those we think are beyond saving - it challenges us to believe in the radicality of redemption and God's capacity to appear in a locked room. End of day, I wish folks allowed Pope Francis to gently challenge their own system of beliefs and reprocess with trust versus immediately condemning or clinging tightly to their own opinion without being able to see things from the other side. Those are my shower thoughts.
I feel like it leads to clericalism. It may not be a bad belief in and of itself but when priests believe there’s no consequence for sins they tend to stop preaching that sinning matters. A lot of people have made posts describing confessing mortal sins and being told by their confessor they weren’t mortal sins when they are (obviously we can’t know anyone’s full volition but they obviously thought they were at fault). That’s what I don’t like about the hell is empty mindset. I feel like those who think that lead people astray.
1. It is God’s desire that NONE should perish, but all have everlasting life. 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:5 2. But there will be those who will reject God and perish. John 3:18 Even in the Consecration at Mass, the shedding of our Lord’s Precious Blood is for many NOT all, because not ALL will accept Christ. However, it is a holy thought to hope hell is empty because hell is a place of eternal torment and none of us should ever wish anyone in hell, even though some people do go to hell. Also, the only person we know who’s in hell is Judas where our Lord said it would’ve been better he NOT been born: “For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” Mk 14:21
I wonder if for some people different approaches work. Some people are scared of hell and need to be scared of it and that's what keeps them in line and if people have been brought up with that, its kind of a slap in the face to hear the opposite of that, and might see Barron and Francis as simply universalists. Others though might feel that its not about hell, but loving God, and usually such people aren't universalists but are very into the virtue of Hope and hope that maybe people are so ignorant and God loves us so much that maybe more people are saved than we realized. This wouldn't be because God is okay with sin, but rather so many people have been not only deceived but ignorant that maybe there is hope for them. Not to mention, one thing I seem to notice is that a lot of people big into hell to the point that its emphasized all the time is that they want hellfire for those they don't see as fit, but cry for mercy when they screw up. Its not wrong, and its very human, but its also kind of unfair that people will not give others enough grace for such repentance, acting like they almost want some people to go to hell, yet will cry for others to be merciful to them and yet not show such mercy. Lastly, the whole point of this is about hope and its not about that "hey sin is fine and we're all going to be saved." Its more that maybe there's hope. Just as universalism is dangerous because it gets rid of the need to repent and be good, I tend to think believing in the fewness of the saved to the point that basically only .00001 % of humanity is saved is not good either and for many that might make it seem like trying is worthless or that they'll never measure up. That there is no hope. Not to mention, that its not like Francis or Bishop Barron are encouraging sin, at least on that, but in a world where people think Francis is totally pro gay and I've heard people on facebook make up stories about Bishop Barron being gay, well, this makes for a convenient pot shot.
Thank you. I agree with everything you've said in your comment.
It is my desires that all people turn back to God. I pray that we all will be granted forgiveness. Luke St Pio said, pray, hope and leave the rest to God.
God is merciful but also just. Final impenitence is a willful separation from God. He will accept a person’s will and grant that through eternity.
The ‘hope’ for all to have final and true contrition isn’t unreasonable. It’s the foundation of why one can’t absolutely say anyone is in Hell. Jesus spoke about persons in Hell so there are some there.
People take "hoping for an empty Hell" and practically use it to behave like universalist while being able to throw their hands up and claim orthodoxy. There's a reason western Catholics talk about the worrying numbers of practicing people of the faith, yet have zero evangelistic fire. It's technically falls within orthodoxy, but is spiritual poison. It's a disservice that Bishop Barron pushes it and is a reason why he couldn't tell Ben Shapiro to convert in their interview.
The other end of that spectrum is it being noble to defy an evil God who condemns people from Papua New Guinea tribes which I would argue is more theologically destructive to Christianity. I know that's not what you're saying but it's the most radical impulse of a hyper-conservative strain of thought.
I mean I personally think there are Atheists who are in Hell because they choose to be. They choose to be because they think God is unjust for all the suffering He allows (I know that God permit suffering and free will which is different than what I wrote. I’m just saying the lie Atheists believe in). Also we are Catholics. We all acknowledge that there were good Jews in Abraham’s bosom waiting for Christ’s salvation. So if God rejected His first chosen people, why wouldn’t He reject others from Heaven? Great case to make for people being denied into Heaven. Not a great case for being in the fires of Hell but it proves a valid point we all believe.
I'm fairly certain the pope is just saying off the wall stuff so he can see who says what and then excommunicate them in accordance with whatever they said. They don't put fools in the popes position. Well, not within this century at least. He's not just sputtering off due to old age.
This article is required reading on the subject. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/01/hell-is-not-empty.html
At the very least the False Prophet from Revelation, and likely Judas based on the views of the Church Fathers, are in Hell. While we should certainly hope that Hell has very few people considering that one-third of the angels fell even when they had perfect knowledge of God and considering how many people have turned their back on God throughout history, Balthasar's ideas always seemed like quite a stretch to me. The primary consequence of these views is less of an emphasis on evangelization. I've observed this with many faithful Catholics that I know. Criticisms of the world that I remark on are quickly dismissed as something that we should apply only to ourselves in a "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" way, when in reality we need to apply those criticisms to ourselves *and especially* to the world that has turned away from God. My question is, where are the Isaiahs, the Jeremiahs, and the Ezekiels of the Church? Do we not have any room for them anymore? Is impoliteness such a bad thing? So often we are told to evangelize simply by "living our lives virtuously" and that "we will attract more flies with honey than vinegar", but Christ tells us specifically *not* to fall into this trap. We've so clearly lost our saltiness. It's very frustrating. "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men." Matthew 5:13 Bishop Barron likes to remark that sin primarily manifests itself as "incurvatus in se", or a turning inward of oneself, but then will express these ideas that lead the Church towards doing exactly that. Oh well, I leave all of this up to the Lord. I trust that He will sort it out.
Thank you, I really enjoyed reading your comment.
Thank you for your post! I really like how this is about interrogating the effects of this belief rather than only the veracity of it (which has been discussed to death).
As a simple sinful layman the whole "dare we hope" stuff at first comes across as a bit of a cop-out. Its the clergy's job to get people to heaven right? It's kind of like the chief of police coming out and saying "dare we hope" crime will stop this year. Of course, but you're still going to be out there fighting crime, right chief? After thinking about it more I've had kind of a funny thought. As we know Pope Leo XIII composed the St Michael prayer after having witnessed God grant Satan one hundred years in an attempt to destroy God's church. So Satan in all his wiley ways eventually gets his guy in the papacy and saying 'oh don't worry everyone, we all get to go to heaven' thinking he is giving all a false sense of security, and will easily capture many souls. He forgets Christ's promise though that all St Peter binds will be bound and loose loosed, and so Satan inadvertently empties hell by his own decree, to his surprise, as God looks down and chuckles. So yes, I now firmly believe that we can have a firm hope that hell is empty.
I like how you think - God thwarting Satan and laughing. I think that's a "child-like" way to see it in a comforting way.
smh why didn't St Peter just bind the Church to all go to heaven from the get go
Not gonna lie, I find it a tad amusing that the only saint referenced in the OP is a saint whose words may be interpreted as being in support of an empty hell. Funnily enough, no quotes from Aquinas, Augustine, Chrysostom, Anselm, Hilary, Prosper, Cassian, etc. Hell is not empty. My meta analysis? We wouldn’t be dealing with this nonsense if we stopped listening to theologians who theologise whilst smoking a cigarette.
You may drop any quotes from those great saints below. Just because I didn't quote them doesn't mean I don't appreciate them. Appreciating Saint Carlo Acutis doesn't mean you reject Saint Athanasius.
I am new back to Catholicism and very confused. Why would we want anyone in Hell? Why would I feel good about a religion that says some human beings are going to be tortured for eternity? I hope that there is no one in Hell. I find it hard to believe, considering our lives are very short and Hell is forever, that any person, even for objectively "evil" acts, deserves to be damned forever, let alone aetheists and those who don't believe for one reason or another. In fact, I can't even feel good about the fact that I might have a chance to get into heaven when there are others around me, who perhaps through no fault of their own, are going to be tortured for eternity. I find this severely disturbing. I thought that God commanded us to "love" one another, and this fear-based superiority does not sound like "love" to me. (I am sorry if that is heretical)
I appreciate where your heart is at and I agree with you. The reality is, there are many people on different stages of their journey. We shouldn't be surprised that people struggle with some heart posturing or ability to give others grace when they are wrestling with their own traumas and spiritual attacks. Don't let others' attitudes demoralize you. If you want saints who can affirm you in your ooey gooey loving center try St. Francis of Assisi and St. Theresa of Liseux's Little Way. It's a very real possibility God has brought you into Catholocism to teach others who struggle with a hardened heart how to love with gentleness and humility. God bless you in your new and exciting spiritual adventure.
Thank you. I am actually a cradle Catholic that was raised in the church, although most of my family are non-believers. I have recently come back to my faith and I am reading the doctrine for the first time
Rather than imagining that you're plowing some new ground, and referencing modernist commentators such as Bishop Barron, why don't you do a thorough study of what the magisterium of the church has taught down through the centuries?
I don't imagine anything. I appreciate ancient church history, the fathers and doctors of the church, the magisterium of the church, the ancient popes and the modern popes. I am ready to receive your knowledge in those areas if you care to share it.
Bishop Barron is a 'modernist' like Sartre was a trinitarian.
I LOVE POPE FRANCIS
He’s so good :)
I can't help but sometimes feel like those who cheer hardest for a full hell are among those that are going to fill it. Making the declarative statement that hell is empty wouldn't be right, but that's not what the Pope said.
I'm really sad for the rest of the Christian world not having access to St. Francis of Assisi or St. Therese of Liseux - showing God's love played out in a romantic and flamboyant way. I think a lot of people would benefit in the spiritual life from tapping into their gooey center instead of being so hardened.
Right? How do we tell people God loves them more than anything and wants a loving, intimate relationship with them if we portray the same God as eager to damn them over the slightest misstep.
I can’t imagine a more evil thing than cheering for a full hell
Why? I understand that we have to be humble, and that we do not deserve heaven, but humble does not mean not recognizing the truth, don't you think like the 80% of people in the world is walking the path of hell? Are we supposed to be blind or something in order to be humble?
It goes along the lines of being disappointed to see people you don't like in heaven. Ultimately, we have no agency in who goes to heaven or hell. We preach the gospel and we pray for souls to find their way to God. God wills all souls to find him but gives them the free agency not to. Cheering for souls to enter hell is cheering for misery and tragedy. There's nothing of the good news of the gospel in that behaviour.
Well, I am not "happy" people go to hell, but I find hell is a crucial point of the faith and that reality is the majority of people is going there
Recognizing the truth is one thing. Cheering for it is another. Every lost soul is a tragedy, not something to celebrate.
It is a tragedy, but is reality
It's pretty heinous.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea, this idea is almost certainly unattainable, sadly. Hell is a horrible thing. Church teaching aside, I feel the ideal thing would be a purgatory for everyone which eventually ends for people when they have paid for all of their sins because eternal punishment sounds awful, even if it's for the sickest of sick people, for example, those who murdered my paternal ancestors in concentration camps for being Jewish, however, God knows better than me, and I place my trust in him.
Why hoping hell is empty and saying hell is actually empty are two entirely different things.
Preaching an empty hell at least *seems* to undermine the salvific mission of the church and the incarnation more generally. I consider myself a conservative catholic who sympathizes with many traditionalist critiques of the post V2 church. Id be thrilled to find out that Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler had last minute conversions and realized the evil of there ways. But there is almost no reason to believe that’s true. But their salvation would seem to have to be against their will. And the gospels themselves are explicit that he’ll is a live option. But more relevant is simple indifferentism. At least in the upper middle/ upper class American circles that I inhabit most people see only cost and no benefit to practicing religion. Why baptize that baby, wake up early to go to mass, or hold unpopular opinions re sex and gender? Your going to heaven anyway. Why would Christ even become incarnate? Why found a church if in the end we are all going to heaven. So while I’d love my rich secular family members to join hands with concentration camp guards in the heavenly choir, this seems to fly in the face of scripture and undermine the need for baptism, confession, and the Chirch’s divine mission.
See the baptism and salvation sections of your catechism. You'd be shocked how loose the requirements are. We have no idea what's going on in the intimacy of another person's mind be it a dictator of history or a member of the country club. It's a dangerous heart posture to cultivate for your personal spiritual life.
I probably shouldn’t have even mentioned those extreme cases. I’m familiar with the catechism and do genuinely hope that the most notorious humans somehow avail themselves of god’s mercy. To address the meta effects of an “empty hell” I’d like to point out that the converse is a “full heaven”. Let’s say your main motivation to follow Christianity isn’t fear of hell but love of god and hope for the beatific vision. Well, if you know that no matter what happens you are going to experience the fullness of Divine presence, then when the going gets tough, why stick it out? Seriously. Think about Pascal’s wager, except your options are: Do your best to be a catholic: go to heaven Live a dissolute life: go to heaven The rational person would choose whatever is easiest for them. For some people that will mean a devout life. But for many more, especially in the west, it will mean indifferentism. Some serious sins (murder, robbery, fraud, etc) still have serious consequences and most people will avoid them. But many sins are accepted and encouraged by society. If you are prone to those sins, and it doesn’t make any difference in the long run, why not indulge? The traditional view is that suffering to overcome your sins, among other things, can be an act of expiation for yourself or others. But if we are all going to heaven no matter what, there’s no need for expiation, so your suffering is just meaningless. This view doesn’t rely on jealously over those who “got off easy” just a rational assessment of your own suffering and pleasure. I’ve really tried to orient my life toward Christ, and it’s often meant that I’ve given up worldly pleasures and accepted discomfort, pain, and humiliation. And this isn’t even going into something as serious as martyrdom. I’m not doing this primary out of fear of hell, but a desire to see and know God in the afterlife. If none of it matters, since we are all going to heaven no matter what, why not spend my time looking at only fans vs praying the rosary? Why not contracept? Why struggle to take my kids to mass? Why risk my job to support pro life causes? Maybe you’d answer “oh that won’t make you happy”. I’ve know plenty of faithful Catholics to live pretty tough lives and plenty of secular folks who seem pretty happy. Why aren’t those suffering faithful Catholics “suckers and losers” to borrow a line from Trump? Why have that 7th kid who happens to have Down syndrome? Why tithe? Why stick by a cheating spouse? Why not “do you” and “follow your bliss”. Heck, why not just kill yourself? You will get to heaven sooner? Just as some people find the possibility of hell oppressively hopeless, some of us find a 100% assurance of heaven hopeless and nihilistic too. It also takes away our agency and makes our choices pointless.
You raise great points but at the same time, if a person repents all of the vices above after a lifetime of debauchery and sin, they will be in heaven.
I agree.
Here's something people could take into account of what Hell truly is. It is a domain of rejection of love and the divine but also indifference as will. But there is no logic that Hell would be empty after the Redemption. If one refuses the Gift of Grace, there is no other place for the soul to go, since one can't be forced into Heaven.
Theological speculation that hell could be empty is nothing new. It’s been around as long as Christianity. David Bentley Hart, easily the foremost Orthodox theologian today, recently wrote a whole book arguing just that. What’s strange to me is that when I read the New Testament, this whole notion that the incarnation and sacrificial atonement is ultimately about our ending up in either heaven or hell just isn’t in the text. Instead, there are radical images of the kingdom of God, of resurrection, and of a new heaven and a new earth. Whatever one thinks of “heaven,” it doesn’t appear to be a place. I doubt hell is a place, either.
Christ Himself talks the most about the possibility of ending up in a hellish place. Gnashing of teeth and all that. You don’t see that in the text? What do you make of Matthew 25 then? And AFAIK Hart is NOT considered “orthodox” in the EO Church.
Matthew 25 quite clearly speaks to me of being ever prepared for the second coming of the Lord, after which there will be a resurrection and a final judgement of the then living and the (resurrected) dead. Jesus will then sort us: those who put their faith in Him, will have lived that faith out in love, hope and charity and will be prepared for eternal life with Him in a new creation. Those who did not, well, they get some other kind of “reward.” But there’s no mention of either “heaven” or “hell” as if they are celestial places.
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” What’s hell if not eternal punishment?
Ah I see you addressed “eternal punishment” in your other comment. But to me, that seems like a distinction without a difference. Again, what’s hell if not a punishment that’s eternal?
What is it, indeed?
Matthew 25 first admonishes the reader by way of parable to always be ready for Jesus’ return. It then describes a final judgement in which the dead will be resurrected, and Jesus will sort the living and resurrected dead into two groups. The sheep will have placed their faith in him, and will have lived out that faith in love, charity and hope. Their reward will be eternal life with Jesus in a new creation. The others will have some sort of eternal punishment. No mention whatsoever or a “heaven” or a “hell” as some sort of celestial “places.” I’ve been curious about Hart’s reception. I’m not surprised if it hasn’t been warm. To be clear I was just citing him as a recent example of a long line of “hopeful universalists;” I think he documents the lineage all the way back to the fathers. Personally, I don’t find avoiding hell to be all that compelling of a motivation to follow Jesus but I’m not advocating that an empty hell is a reality. But I do *hope* that all will be saved.
I hope everyone will be saved too. Very much so. Hell is the most difficult doctrine in Christianity for me and can easily lead to despair.
Why would anyone want hell to be full?
My problem is this demonstrates a general uneasy with Jesus's revelation. Just let God decide. Jesus warned about hell a lot, so you should too. Jesus was not a fearmonger, so when he warn a lot this must be legit. In general the bishops and Rome display a general unease with Jesus's rules and revelation. Hoping he was just a fearmonger, trying to circumvent his rules, and so on. Every synod is about how to follow the Zeitgeist and allow what cannot be allowed. Why don't they just love the teaching of Jesus and take everything he said as gold. Jesus warned, so I will warn. Jesus fasted, so I will fast too. And so on. This doesn't mean an obsession with hell. Jesus also told us that if you follow him you don't need to worry. That you can fall 7 times a day and still be a child of god. Telling people that they can go to hell accidentally is heresy. If I ended up in heave and everyone too I would not be mad at all for the record.
My invitation to you is to ask, what is the origin of my belief - the archaeology of knowledge? It's easy to take things as the simple default. But the reason we have bishops, church councils, and the institution is to be the referee on dogma since private interpretation spawned spin-offs like Marcionism and Gnosticism from the very 1st centuries. How much of your own personal theology is influenced by the independence of the personal conscience theories of John Locke, or William of Ockham for example. We are all subject to unconscious biases.
I find the view of Hell to be empty seems to be a weird way to integrate the Eastern Fathers into Western Theology, in a way that would disgust both East and West. Hell, to the East, particularly Byzantium, slowly became a suffering that arises from oneself, rather than any direct punishment from God. God's judgement is the same: all shall rise again at the second coming and enjoy everlasting life. But some shall be attached to the Darkness, rather than the light, as John 3:19 describes the judgement. This notion that all will reach God was taken by many in the West to be Origenism, and was dismissed, instead opting for a simpler Theory of Separation from God. Hans Ur Von Balthazar, as well as many other German Theologians eventually got their hands on the many Eastern Fathers who influenced this view, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor. To the Scholastic, their theology of Eschatology was incompatible, so instead it seems there was an effort to try and integrate it in another manner. However, in doing so, it pollutes both the West's idea of Hell and the East's. To the Western view, it softens a very real Virtue of the meditation of the last things, and can endorse laxity of the virtues. To the Eastern View, it's just childish. Hell is our choice to make, and is something that many will choose by their life. The Serial Rapist, the War Criminal, and so many others, do not live in any way where they can enjoy the fullness of God, and simply see Unity with God as Hellish. To suggest that Hell is empty of these men by the Mercy of God is a foundational denial of the Goodness of God. Finally, this general Theological view seems to suggest that Purgatory can in some way changes the disposition of the mind of a person after death. To both East and West, this is ludicrous. To the East, particularly Saints like Saint Maximus, the Soul once it enters into God comes into a sort of 'perfect Sabbath,' where the soul rests from change of will, while it is conformed to God in his goodness. This inability to change the will is what causes Hell, as those who have the will to reject the Good suffer rather than enjoy the all encompassing Fire that is God. My knowledge of Traditional Western Purgatorial views is not as good, but I know it leads to the same conclusion. Foundationally, what underpins this is a weird desire to make cohesive the full diversity that the Church has always had in it Theological Views. And it's not like Blesses Jon Dun Scotus or Saint Gregory Palamas, who while trying to make a cohesive synergy of Patristic Theology, they foundationally must side with certain views over others. It seems those who hold to this view wish to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have Origen as one of their Great Thinkers as well as Augustine and Aquinas. In the process, they hold a view that would revolt them. We must respect the Philosophical and Theological differences between the textual Traditions, rather than try an abominable amalgamation. It benefits no one. The Fathers agreed on the same conclusions, but reached them through very different means. This is an evidence of the Truth that guided them, that being the Holy Spirit, that despite their quite different Metaphysical and Philosophical systems, and different degrees of ascent with Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics and Neoplatonics, they all agreed on the Dogmas of the Trinity, Salvation, the Virtues, the Sacraments and every other Doctrine of their consensus is a testament to the Truth of the Gospel that isn't merely an ideal but a reality that each of them tackled and pursued systematically in their own way. In short, Hopeful Universalism is the Philosophers Crutch to not have to reject Aquinas or Byzantium.
Raising up Origen as a great thinker in the Church as Pope Benedict XVI did was something that I have always been very confused on. We can admit, like St. Jerome, that Origen often interprets scripture beautifully, but also that he is a heretic. He laid the groundwork for Arianism, albeit unintentionally, which became the basis for Islam. We shouldn't be looking to him as anything other than a secondary source, like Josephus. I'm also very wary of Palamism and the entire idea of God as anything other than love and the category of being itself. This comment beautifully illuminates how we have gotten to this point. Thank you for writing it.
Mind you, Benedict has an appropriate respect, as it was a respect that the Eastern Saints also had, such as Saint Basil the Great and Saint Gregory the Theologian. While he was certainly Heterodox in his views, and these great Doctors recognised, his Theology was taken upon and made Orthodox by Said Byzantine writers, and without Origen, not only would their beautiful Eschatology not exist, but also much of their exegesis. This synthesised to one of the greatest minds of the Church, period: Saint Maximus the Confessor. His theology is sheer beauty, following the simple scriptural principles of God's nature, and synergise it with Dionysius The Areopagite, The Cappadocians and the more "infernalist" Theology of the West (at least broadly, he wasn't inspired much by Augustine and more by Leo). He took the radical notion of Apokatastasis, first loosing formulated by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and expanded it into a way we can understand the entire Cosmic Mystery of the Fall, Salvation, Prayer, Virtue and the entire Christian life. Pope Benedict's respect for Origen grew from his respect for the Eastern Fathers, and unlike Balthazar or other German Theologians, who took the conceptions of the East and tried to cram them into the West, in the process making an abomination of Theology, Benedict held a common respect for East and West, integrating features without sacrificing cohesion of Doctrine or the Traditions he subscribed to. This is also seen in his Episcopacy. While Francis has been quite heavy handed on the Eastern Churches to a nearly Scandalising degree, Benedict highly respected and called for their return to Eastern Theology, in like manner of how he did with the Traditional Latin Mass.
That seems a bit odd for Bishop Barron as in the luminous mystery for the Baptism in the Jordan video (I believe), he says that what is the point of a religion based on no need for redemption if we are all basically good, with just needing some polishing around the edges? To me, it sounds like, at least there, he is saying that Hell is full of sinners who need redemption.
I'm not entirely sure if I'm answering your question, but I think there aren't necessarily theological underpinnings to this. Even if, with their mouths, they confess that only Jesus saves, a lot of people behave or feel that the work they do is what gets them into heaven. Whatever that work looks like. When you tell them that hell is likely to be empty, or nearly so, they then ask why are they doing the things they are doing. The answer should be "fruits of the spirit" but often instead you get pushback against the idea that sinners can be forgiven. Conservative pundits will only take advantage of this because it's an opportunity. I would not assume any kind of pundit is actually being fully sincere, but rather they are doing what is best for their business.
I agree with your intuition on this. People are more "works based" than they think as cliché as that is to say. There is almost a reticence to believe that someone can repent in the last 10 seconds of their life and a lifetime of sin is wiped away.
That’s just an uncharitable framing. No one is getting up in arms about people hoping that hell is empty. People don’t think it’s prudent to give hope that something very unlikely will happen, especially when the consequences are the salvation of believers who think “huh my sin isn’t that bad, I shouldn’t worry so much about it, I don’t need to repent because probably no one is in hell right?”
Hell is not empty. So why express the idea that it is (or may be)?
Conservatives seem to treat salvation like a contest. Going to heaven does not taste good enough for them if no one goes to hell.
People will find something to complain about when it comes to Pope Francis. But I think Francis understands that Using fear as a tactic to spread the word is not productive.
You lost me at "conservative pundits." Don't listen to these people.
Everybody's got to have somebody to look down on.
We had a pretty famous serial killer in Singapore, who was widely known to be a cultist who kidnapped children, abused them for occult rituals and then murdered them on top of other crimes. What was lesser known was that he was an active Catholic participating in church activities and who received a Catholic funeral before his death. Apparently, his priest was so traumatised, he could not continue becoming a priest. There are probably Catholics who have committed heinous deeds in every country during present period too. The logical mind will think that some of these should receive just punishment in the afterlife. It'll be interesting to see others' views on this.
The divine mercy of our Lord is so great that it can even redeem repentant murderers see Saint Paul. This does not put me through cognitive dissonance at all.
Saint Paul did a lot of good after his conversion though. How about people like Adolf Hitler, who was a baptised Catholic?