Can Hell Be Empty?

I stumbled across a response to an article I wrote back on January 19, 2014, The Matter of Hell. A person who normally opposes my articles (goes by the nickname of TurretinFan, I have no idea of his true identity) actually came out in support of what I said! Now, of course, he still found a way to spin that into an attack on me and/or the Catholic Church - which is why I write this response today. It's nearly 5 years later, but that is mostly because I was not aware of "TurretinFan's" posting. A simple comment stating he responded, preferably with a link, would have been nice and would have likely drawn a more prompt response from me. That being said, let us get into what he said and my responses....

Scott Windsor has a post, "The Matter of Hell," in which he sides with unordained Michael Voris against ordained priest Robert Barron. By contrast, Mark Shea has a post, "Michael Voris Again Smears an Innocent Catholic," in which he sides with Barron against Voris.

Well, let's take TurretinFan's statements in order. First he makes a point of the "unordained" Michael Voris, and that I sided with him in opposing (then) Fr. Barron (he is now a bishop), as if lay people must remain silent with regard to ordained priests. I truly hope that is not TurretinFan's position because often it is precisely the un-ordained who draw back in the ordained. We even have a responsibility to stand up for the traditions we have been taught if we believe any Catholic, ordained or otherwise, is publicly stating something contrary to consistent Catholic teaching. 

TurretinFan also mentions an article by Mark Shea, calling out Michael Voris. I must say, until reading TurretinFan's response to me, I was not aware of Mark Shea's article. Shea wrote, 

Michael Voris sets about the task of ginning up a mob against none other than Fr. Robert Barron as a heretic for his views on hell... 

Well, let us be clear here - Michael Voris - in the short video he posted about Fr. Barron's statements on Hell - NEVER stated Fr. Barron was a heretic. Yes, he clearly stated Fr. Barron was wrong - but not once did he state Fr. Barron was a heretic.

Shea argues that Barron is saying almost exactly what Pope Benedict XVI said on the topic, whereas Windsor argues that Barron's position comes close to falling under the condemnation of the Second Council of Constantinople. Per Windsor, Barron's view is "scandalous at best and perhaps even heretical" whereas Shea thinks "Barron is guilty of no heresy, has said nothing “wrong” and is perfectly within the pale of orthodox speculation."

Interesting how TurretinFan is pitting all these Catholics against each other, as if Catholics can never disagree with each other - even though throughout history we often do and until something is defined as dogma, prior to such a definition, we could even be opposed to the doctrine and still remain a faithful Catholic.

Shea goes on to say: 

You will note that what he has to say is basically identical to what Pope Benedict has to say in Spe Salvi. It is, as it is with Benedict, a speculation, not a forecast or a doctrine. Voris, to his credit cannot bring himself to declare Benedict “wrong” but does not hesitate to bring up Barron on heresy charges for his audience. The problem is, Barron is guilty of no heresy, has said nothing “wrong” and is perfectly within the pale of orthodox speculation.

Let us note, Voris didn't mention Pope Benedict at all, much less make any implication that he was "wrong." Shea submits that Bp. (then Fr.) Barron "is guilty of no heresy..." but as my original article points out, the 2nd Council of Constantinople, the 5th Ecumenical Council, states in the Anathemas Against Origen:

I -  If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it:  let him be anathema.

and

XIV - If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the gnosis and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence:  let him be anathema.

The "monstrous restoration" and the statement that "all reasonable beings will one day be united..." are both statements nearly identical to what Bp. (then Fr.) Barron asserted - and are flatly condemned with the penalty of anathema from the 5th Ecumenical Council. So to assert there is "no heresy" and "nothing wrong" - is wrong. My initial article, as well as this one, does not go so far as to condemn Bp. Barron as a heretic - but I did, and still do, call for him to publicly retract those statements on Hell - and I would add he should remove that video from YouTube.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs (CCC 1035).

Catholic Answers posts a whole article on The Hell There Is!  Their article also references many of the Early Church Fathers, demonstrating the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the ages.

At issue is Barron's apparent view (which he says agrees with Balthazar's view) we should believe that Hell is at least possible (as a metaphor for loneliness from divine love, not actually a place) but that we can reasonably hope that Hell is empty based on God's universal salvific desire. Barron concedes to the big tent nature of Roman Catholicism, pointing out that folks like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would disagree with him. Shea likewise balances his comment by pointing out: Now those, such as Ralph Martin who speculate that few will be saved are also (obviously) also within the pale of orthodoxy and share their opinion with not a few Fathers and theologians. But at the end of the day, that’s all you have: two schools of opinion–both of which are allowed by the Church.

When the consistent Church teaching from the Early Church Fathers, to the Fifth Ecumenical Council to the current Catechism of the Catholic Church all affirm the existence of Hell and even anathamatize those who "speculate" on an "empty Hell" or some form of universal salvation, it is extremely difficult for anyone to claim it is "within the pale of orthodoxy" to even hope for an empty hell. It is just wrong, and to claim the "two schools of opinion" are "allowed by the Church" is false.

But it's not just Windsor and Voris vs. Shea and Barron. We could add that we have previously pointed out contemporary cardinals holding that hell may be empty (Cardinal George Pell and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor). So, what's the big deal? Well, on the one hand - the Scriptures are clear that there will be men in hell. For example: Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen. 1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: Matthew 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And we could on and on.  Although the great Origen erred in hoping for the eventual restoration of all creation, such a view is not consistent with Scripture's teachings both that hell is real and that the punishment of hell is eternal punishment. So, on the one hand, Windsor is right that people like Barron and a couple of Windsor's cardinals are wrong.

TurrentinFan acknowledges, "Windsor is right..." and that others IN the Church are "wrong." 

On the other hand, such a problem is not resolvable on Roman Catholic grounds for basically the reasons that Shea and Barron enunciate: there has been no "official teaching" that anathematizes one or the other position, and consequently both contradictory positions are acceptable, even though both cannot be right.

Well, as I have pointed out - there really ARE teachings which put the statements of Bp. (then Fr.) Barron at odds with orthodox Catholic teaching.  Yes, some have claimed there is no definitive teaching from the Church - but clearly, there IS.

Worse yet for Windsor and Voris, the evidence is that the current hierarchy supports and teaches the erroneous view.  I have not confirmed whether Shea is accurate in characterizing the teachings of Benedict XVI, but it clearly extends at least up to the cardinals.

The encyclical from Pope Benedict, Spe Salvi, which has been alluded to as evidence of Benedict denying Hell barely mentions Hell - and never denies it. There was a bit of a controversy earlier in 2018 when Pope Francis gave an interview to an atheist "friend" of his - but that turned out to be a bit of a farce. Scalfari has a reputation of putting words into the mouth of Pope Francis and in his story recapping the interview he did not use quotes and it certainly appears this was another incident of him inserting his own words for the Pope's.  See my article Pope Francis on Hell from April 1, 2018. Again, I will not be surprised if you can trot out others IN the Church who believe as then Fr. Barron presented in the YouTube Vlog - but that doesn't change the Church's consistent teaching on this matter.

The most remarkably thing is that Windsor and Voris continue to trust in this church (which teaches and promotes errors that they themselves are able to identify) rather than trusting in God alone and His Word. They may be able to convince themselves that these same hierarchs would never commit their erroneous doctrines to an allegedly infallible document, but such thinking seems wishful indeed in view of the highly compromised documents of Vatican II, not to mention the victory of the ultramontanists in Vatican I.

The fact that some men IN the Church have embraced errors doesn't mean we should abandon THE Church which Jesus Christ Himself promised to build. During the time of St. Athanasius MOST of the hierarchy in the Church, including the pope for a while, embraced the heresy of Arianism, leaving St. Athanasius virtually alone in opposing the heresy (which got him exiled from the Church for a time too!). Eventually, however, the pope and the Church returned to orthodoxy and St. Athanasius was returned to the fold. So this sort of argument from TurretinFan does not really carry any weight. Trusting in His Word alone (sola scriptura, which is no where taught in Scripture) has led to literally thousands of "Bible-believing" sects which disagree with each other on many points - and many condemn other "Bible-believing" sects for not believing as THEY do on given topics (baptismal regeneration, to name one). The point is, just because some IN the Church may be venturing into scandal and even heretical territory - that doesn't make the Church wrong.

Reminder - click on one or more of the "Share" or "Like" buttons below.

Catholic In Good Standing?

On a discussion board elsewhere a person I was debating with claims he is a Catholic in good standing with the Church.  I found that rather curious, as this person obstinately denies SEVERAL dogmatically defined (infallible) teachings of the Catholic Church.  My response back to him was that he's either flying under the radar of his local bishop - or - he's too weak or liberal to take action.  The fact is if one who is validly baptized "obstinately denies" even ONE de fide teaching of the Catholic Faith, then he is a heretic. 

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith  
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM (Code of Canon Law)

 Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; 
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM (Code of Canon Law)

So, one does not need to be exposed to their local bishop.  If one who has been baptized has demonstrated to be in obstinate denial or doubt then they incur an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.  So there can be little doubt, actually NO doubt for this person to whom I refer.  Below is a partial list of the teachings he obstinately denies:

• The inerrancy of Scripture
• The Immaculate Conception
• The Nativity Narratives
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The Divinity of Christ
• That Jesus started a Church
• Papal Infallibility
• Infallibility of Ecumenical Councils
• The Blessed Trinity (as Three Divine Persons in One God)
• The Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

These are not all the teachings this person denies, but for a baptized Catholic to obstinately deny even ONE of these teachings equates to heresy and an heretic is automatically excommunicated, no official action need to be taken by their local bishop (but he could act, if he so chooses).  

My recommendation to this person, who still claims to be a Catholic in good standing:  My friend, you are not in good standing with the Catholic Church!  You need to go to your confessor and confess these sins (each heresy IS a mortal sin!) and sincerely repent of having committed these offenses and sincerely resolve not to commit these sins again.  Be humble and submit yourself to the due and proper authority which Jesus Christ left His Flock.  It is ONLY through His bishops and/or one whom they have authorized (such as priests within their jurisdiction) who have the ability/authority to forgive your sins.  It is my prayer that you come back to full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

AMDG,
Scott<<< 

How Could He?!

Well, he can because, um - he's POPE!  Contrary to some reports, Pope Francis did not break "Canon Law" in performing the foot washing ceremony on Holy Thursday (Maundy Thursday).  It is true that this action was contrary to the tradition of the Church, but this was not a Sacrament.  The non-sacramental ritual is traditionally performed on twelve men selected from the congregation because the first time this was done there were twelve men, and only The Twelve, the Apostles.   Does this mean this ceremony can only involve men?  Well, that conclusion is more of an assumption than a given.  

The community in which Jesus washed feet was in the community of His Apostles.  The community in which Pope Francis washed feet was in a juvenile detention center which houses both male and female.  To separate the females in this community could have carried a message of segregation which Pope Francis did not wish to convey.

Many radical Traditionalists (RadTrads) are all up in arms about this, stating it is indicative of the Pope having an agenda to ordain women to the priesthood.  Some may even be accusing the Pope of heresy, but there is no heresy in breaking with this tradition.  Essentially, those who argue negatively about Pope Francis' action are on a slippery slope if they conclude heresy over this non-sacramental ceremony.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he didn’t want to wade into a canonical dispute over the matter. However, he noted that in a “grand solemn celebration” of the rite, only men are included because Christ washed the feet of his 12 apostles, all of whom were male.“Here, the rite was for a small, unique community made up also of women,” Lombardi wrote in an email. “Excluding the girls would have been inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all, in a group that certainly didn’t include experts on liturgical rules.”  Salt Lake Tribune 

This was not the first time Francis had washed female feet. As Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio and archbishop of Buenos Aires, he often included women in the gesture. However as pope, his move was quietly groundbreaking. In their later years John Paul II and Benedict XVI had restricted the rite to 12 Catholic priests.   The Guardian 

The Vatican's chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the pope's decision was "absolutely licit" for a rite that is not a church sacrament. Francis also took into account "the real situation, the community where one celebrates," Lombardi added.  Cleveland.com

This is moving. Jesus, washing the feet of his disciples. Peter didn’t understood it at all, he refused. But Jesus explained it for him. Jesus — God — did this! He himself explains to his disciples: “Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord — and you are right, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you” (Jn 13:12-15).It is the Lord’s example: he is the most important, and he washes feet, because with us what is highest must be at the service of others. This is a symbol, it is a sign, right? Washing feet means: “I am at your service”. And with us too, don’t we have to wash each other’s feet day after day? But what does this mean? That all of us must help one another. Sometimes I am angry with someone or other ... but... let it go, let it go, and if he or she asks you a favour, do it.    L'Osservatore Romano

As I have been telling others - let us not rush to judgment of this pope.  Is it a break with tradition?  Yes.  Was this a matter of heresy?  No.  

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3458073.0.html

Material v Formal Heresy

Continued from: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2011/06/results-of-sola-scriptura.html (and I make a new posting for 2 reasons, 1) the response is getting a bit long and 2) John’s focus has NOT been on what the main point of the earlier posting was about.

John wrote:

Thank you for your response. I do believe I understand the distinction between material and formal heresy. The matter of heresy is holding to a false belief, while the form of heresy is denial of an authority. You can have the matter of heresy (be a modalist) without the form (only because no one has properly explained the Trinity). In that light, from a Roman perspective I would think I would be a formal heretic.

Well, I don’t believe you’ve quite got the concept here.  Matter v. form is a bit different from material v. formal.  The matter and form are things usually applied to a Sacrament... the matter being that which is used for the Sacrament - the form being the words used.  A material heretic is one who may espouse an heretical position unknowingly - while a formal heretic knows what he professes is contrary to the church (and that would be to the church he claims adherence to, e.g., a Catholic knowingly denying defined dogma - in some fundamentalist communities the acceptance of Infant Baptism or Baptism without full immersion would be considered heretical see: http://jesus-messiah.com/html/forney-trinity-baptism.html).

I like the following explanation of matter v. form and a comparison to material v. formal - the terms ARE similar, but not the same:

Every material object exists by virtue of the union of two elements - the stuff it is made of (matter) and the shape the stuff is made in (form). Thus a wine-glass is made out of glass - its matter; but that alone is not sufficient to make it a vessel suitable for drinking wine from; it also needs its form - the shape of a wine-glass.

Scholastic philosophy has taken the distinction of the two constituent elements of natural objects, and applied it, by extension or analogy, to other entities. Its best known theological application is to sin. Each sin is said to consist of its matter (the physical act) and its form (the disordered act of the will). And this application is very useful because it facilitates recognition of the cases in which the matter of the sin is not accompanied by its form. Thus a man who shoots his neighbour has performed the physical act proper to the sin of murder. But if he had blamelessly mistaken his neighbour for a wild animal, his intention was not disorderly. The matter of the sin was present, but not its form. We have come to say that such a man has sinned materially, but not formally. But what that really means is that he is not guilty of sin at all, for in the absence of the formal element, no entity can exist. A material sin is not really, or fully, a sin, any more than a pane of glass is a drinking vessel until it is molded to the shape of one.

In short, while you COULD be a material heretic (the pane of glass) you could not be a FORMAL heretic (the drinking vessal) without be "molded to the shape" of a FORMAL CATHOLIC prior to your FORMAL denial of Catholicism.  That being said, I do believe you're on iffy ground since you're obviously not wholly ignorant of Catholic teaching.  Whether or not your ignorance of particulars could be judged as invincible ignorance would be solely God's judgment of you, not mine.
(Minor edits made on 6/20/2011 to the above explanation and comment.)

From the CE:

The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".

By the way, as I think I mentioned, I looked at a ton of stuff, not just the current catechism. However, the current catcehism is the one on the Vatican's webpage, so I figured it would be most authoritative and most suited to this purpose.

Again, NO catechism is “official” Catholic teaching.  EVERY catechism is the contemporary explanation OF Church teaching.  A catechism may CITE official Catholic teaching, so it may CONTAIN what you’re looking for, but as a whole - it should be considered a TOOL to learn about Catholic teaching - but look to the footnotes of what is being explained if you want to get to the bottom of “official” statements.

If I had known I could quote from sedevacantist sources, BTW, I would have done so with relish.

Irrelevant to the point at hand.  Even sedevacantists get many things right, but I should have been more careful to cite from a site more in communion with the Catholic Church.  Mea culpa.

For instance, the site you quoted from (and which kept coming up in my searches) has this to say on whether ignorance excuses:

"In other words, Protestants, Nestorians, etc., must be presumed responsible for their external acts in violation of the law of the Church, until and unless the contrary is proven. Consequently, when they formally joined their sect, or publicly lived in accordance with its tenets and its practices, they are presumed to have incurred this juridical infamy, along with the general excommunication for heresy." (The Delict of Heresy, p. 54.)

First off - the primary audience here would be one who LEFT the Catholic Faith and “joined” the heretical sect.  

Anyway, yes, my entire focus is on that last line, because the last line is the part that is dishonest.

Then, as I said - you missed the point of all that led up to that last line (which is one of the reasons I've started this new posting).

Of course there are different denominations. We all already knew that. I don't consider a plurality of denominations to be necessarily a bad thing, so long as they are united by common love. The diversity of opinion amongst Protestants really is not any broader than among Roman Catholics, in my humble experience.

As I pointed out earlier in this response, some fundamentalists consider other Christians to be heretical due to the fact that they either baptize infants or don’t baptize by full immersion.  Yes, many Protestants peacefully co-exist, but many do not.  As for “Roman Catholics” - those who would reject the Bishop of Rome are not “Roman Catholics.”

While disagreement on particulars may damage charity, it doesn't have to damage charity, especially for something so plainly trivial as whether your branch of the Ordinary Baptist Church of God reformed in 1879 or 1917. I doubt I'd even be able to recognize the difference in creeds between those two sub-denominations. Heck, I didn't even know there were that many flavors of Baptist, and where I live Baptist churches are as common as gas stations.

I don’t know about those two particular sects of Baptist - but I do know there are quite a variety of Baptists - and some utterly reject others who call themselves “Baptist.”  Since I was not formerly a Baptist, and cathmom5 was - I’ll let her speak for some of those distinctions.

The main point of contention that I have found in Baptist circles is over how God works in choosing us and us choosing him - which I am told is an issue also with no final determination from RC authorities on the exact mechanics.

Again, I’ll let cathmom5 point out some more distinctions between Baptists (some of which have already been pointed out) where they would fight and even condemn each other.

I'm not sure how you define "schism", or if the catechism's definition has any meaningful application to Protestantism. Some Christians meet in buildings with different signs and that operate under different organizational structures - that doesn't make me consider them "outsiders".

A schism is a separation where a parallel church has been set up with an authority which differs from the one schismed from.  ALL of Protestantism holds to a different authority than Catholicism.  ALL of Protestantism represents differing parallel churches (some perpendicular!) to the One, True Church which Jesus Christ founded and explicitly expressed His desire and that of the Father that we be ONE just as He and the Father are One.  All Protestantism is in heretical schism, but that does not make all Protestants formal heretics. 

Anyway, thank you again for (y)our response and for being very patient with me.

In Christ,

JL

And I thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to you.  I pray that God guides you on your journey to all truth.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<