www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Do You Believe In A Literal Hell ?

In the majority of Catholic parishes today, I'd say that the topic of a literal Hell where the unsaved go after they die is one that is almost never discussed. I cannot speak for the Orthodox, but among nominal Catholics their is now this very widespread belief that nothing in the Bible is to be taken literally, and if you insist on a literal interpretation they roll their eyes and accuse you of wanting to be like the evangelicals, forgetting that we believed in literal interpretations before the evangelical sects even existed.

You can lay all of this at the feet of the Raymond Brown-type Scripture Scholars, who, unfortunately dominate "Catholic" Scripture Scholarship, and who worship the "historical-critical" methodology of exegesis. Contrary to the Catholic approach to interpreting Scripture, which insists on utilizing the "analogy of Faith" (i.e. we lean on Scripture itself, Holy Tradition (those things taught to the Apostles by Our Lord which were not written down in the Bible, but may have been recorded later by the Fathers), and the Magisterium to derive the true sense of Scripture), the "historical critical" approach is one of Sola Scriptura, coupled with a "scientific" skepticism (read that as Rationalism). There is an arrogance whereby anything from Holy Tradition & the Magisterium is tossed because "we have advanced tools today which the Fathers did not possess". There is a hostility to anything in Scripture which upholds the Supernatural, and it is usually dismissed as expendable. There is an outright rejection of the Catholic Teaching on Scriptural Inerrancy (see Leo XIII-Providentissimus Deus). Raymond Brown says that there are historical errors in Scripture (his "academic arch-enemy", Fr. William Most, does an excellent job reconciling inerrancy with what appear to be problematic historical issues in Scripture). Did it ever occur to these people that the Fathers were more reliable, only because they were closer in time to the original source? Another interesting thing is that in the Protestant world, where all of this drivel originated, scholars are seeing the bankruptcy of this methodology, and are moving away from it. But, unfortunately, many who allege to be Catholic are still into this unfortunate mindset. One notable and praiseworthy exception is Scott Hahn. Others include the late, aforementioned Fr. William Most, and Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, a priest of the RC Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Don't forget the great Dom Bernard Orchard OSB, the great defender of the place of Matthew as the oldest among the Gospels.

There's one I haven't heard of. I will have to look him up. I do remember that, around 1994, Catholic World Report carried a story on a Spanish Jesuit with the unlikely name of O'Callaghan, who, in excavatory work, had come across a parchment believed to be a small portion of an early manuscript of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and they were dating it to be very early, thus putting a large crimp in the notion of "Markan priority", one of the "pillars" leaned upon by the modernist crowd, along with that ever-elusive "Q" source.

Dn. Robert

Yes.

Fr David Straut

So do I.

Dn. Robert Behrens

Here's the thing:

When it comes to the Bible, and hell, the other 'senses' of Scripture depend on the literal sense being, well, literal.

Let me explain.

The Literal/historical sense of Scripture is what the author wrote, and meant by what he wrote. This includes metaphor AS metaphor (when Jesus says "I am the door" we do not believe He means that he is a piece of wood with a handle).

The other senses of Scripture, typological, tropological, eschatological DEPEND on the literal sense BECAUSE it is not the words, but the actions/reality that the other senses depend on.

Those who do not believe there was a first Adam have a hard time explaining what it means that Christ is the second Adam!

Unfortunately, even Scripture scholars (so called) today have no understanding of this crucial, patristic idea, and simply cast it aside as inconvenient.

Just like hell.

Dear Father,

You are absolutely correct. I mentioned above the notion of inerrancy. One of the positions taken by the aforementioned Fr. William Most concerning alleged "historical errors" in Scripture is that, in order to resolve this issue, we have to look at the issue of "literary genre". If the human author did not intend to write a "hard" historical account, as we know it in our culture today, then we have no basis for accusing that human author (or the Holy Spirit, for that matter), of historical error. The "literary genre" of the book in question might have been more of a "history/fiction" one, as we might call it today. Fr. Most also cites the Old Testament book (I forget which) where it is said thet "the sun stood still". The neo-modernist exegetes would say this was "scientific error". Fr. Most would say you can't accuse the human author of error, because he wrote down what he perceived with his senses. All of this "historical/critical" stuff is a disease of the West, and it flows from both the Reformation and the "Enlightenment". It needs to go away.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

P.S. Not too long ago, I saw one or two Raymond Brown books being listed for sale by Light & Life in Minneapolis. I think a warning is in order. I don't think the man had any Faith.

Indeed. Although, I wonder why they just don't read Eusebius' "History of the Church." It is clearly shown that Matthew's was the first Gospel.

-- John

Yes I do. It is called alienation from God.
Now if it is locutonal is another matter.
Stephanos I

If there is no Hell what did Christ die to save us from?

God has given us freedom. He has given us the freedom to reject
Him. Since Heaven is God, if we finally reject Him we cannot be saved and will be in Hell. God forces Himself on no one. He wills
all men to be saved, but saves no one against his will.

I do not insist on fire and brimstone.My idea of Hell (and I
claim no originality for this) is to be left for all eternity alone, out in the cold, with what you have chosen to worship: yourself.

Are there those who think they have rejected God, but have in
fact rejected some false image of God? There are probably
many such. They may be more closely
conformed to Christ than some of us professed believers.
Let us not dare to judge.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

Edmac

Or, as Dr. Willaim Marra used to say' "if there's no Hell, that means Christ must have come as a tourist".
Some years back, those who grew up in or near NYC may remember a local radio personality named Barry Farber. He was Jewish, but grew up in Kentucky. He told a story about a small town in the deep South where there was a raging theological debate. As you entered the town, you would encounter a small white church. It's bulletin board proclaimed: "there ain't no Hell". But then, as you turned the corner, there was another church with it's bulletin board proclaiming "the hell there ain't"!

One must put a few questions here:

a) what, precisely and in detail, is meant by "a literal Hell"?

b) does the subject-question mean "literal as described in various biblical passages", or "literal as described in various patristic passages" or "literal as described in someone's alleged visions" . . . and so on. In the case of various biblical passages, one might do well to attend carefully to the context of each passage - and the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the patristic passages. As to the alleged visions, one should always remember the principle that private revelations are not binding on the Church.

What did Christ die to save us from? So much that I shall refrain from even attempting to answer completely, but one might start with sin and death.

Spiritual writers whom I trust remind me of two principles: curiosity about Hell is not recommended, and the only thing we need to know about Hell is how to avoid it.

Am I trying to explain Hell away? Certainly not. Hell is absurd, but absurdity does not mean that it cannot possibly exist - far from it. We must remember that the Church teaches that Our Lord Jesus Christ descended into Hell.

Fr. Serge

English makes for confusion - we have one word for the concept: hell.

The Hebrews and the earliest Greek converts had at least three separate terms, each derived from a particular understanding of a post-mortem "bad place".

Hebrews, and their language, are very concrete - in contrast to Greeks which have developed (overdeveloped?) a panoply of conceptual terms. (Philosophy and metaphysics are Greek inventions.)

If God is 'Spirit', and is not bound by the concepts of place and time, then God's "in-dwelling" is universal: omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal. These terms make Greeks happy. (Just read the prayers - Basil particularly.) Hebrews don't like this. They prefer to use metaphor - giving examples from physically observable phenomena and then superimpose the phenomenological term upon a 'spiritual' reality. The Hebrew terms for "hell" include 'sheol', usually interpreted as a 'place of darkness and shadows' and also: 'gehenna'. Gehenna is actually a place - outside of Jerusalem - which was a trash dump/landfill and where there were ongoing fires to destroy the trash. Thus: "the fires of Gehenna" referred to ongoing flames.

The Greeks had an ancient term: "Hades", which like 'sheol', meant a place of darkness and shadows - sort of like the New York Subway tunnels, without the noise and rats.

These 'concretizing' terms became the norm for understanding being in a situation 'alienated from God' and God's 'refreshment, light, and peace' as we pray in the funeral liturgies.

But these are only metaphors for the reality of the soul's divorce from its rightful place - with God. Our spirits/souls were created by God, dwell in us on earth, and then return to the Father, the Creator.

If God, the Creator, is not bound by the physical laws that we poor humans are subject to, then there is really no need for there to be a "physical" place for the souls of the just to reside, nor a physical place for suffering.

Icon writers get stuck: they have to present the teaching of the soul both being present in human beings and then going to an eternal station. They represented this in various ways - the soul of the Mother-of-God is oftentimes represented as a tiny-Mary being borne by Her Son above the image of the 'fallen asleep' Theotokos. The images of demons (spiritual creatures!) are shown with physical characteristics that are chosen to inspire fear, everything from dark/black skin, scales, sores, horns, etc. Elsewise, how does one convey the concept of 'evil' as a spiritual reality in a two-dimensional form without resorting to physical (anthropomorphic = 'human characteristics') as the image? Current horror movies do a good job; but the best ones induce 'terror' in viewers by developing a set of circumstances that climax in a 'denoument' (as the French say!). Hitchcock was a master at inducing fear and sometimes even terror by developing themes that upon ultimate realization, scare the daylights out of you. (Not like these skanky computer-graphics-generated monsters that are supposed to be terrifying!)

The angels, the 'bodiless powers', are similar. How does one represent spiritual forces of 'good'? The Greek term: 'angellos' literally means 'messenger', and they were understood to be carriers of God's messages to people. The earliest icons represented them as faces, with wings around them (look at the 'ripidia' on the altar). Wings make a great representation of easy movement over any terrain, and birds can travel great distances quickly. The later Western representations of angels include long white-gowned creatures with back-attached wings. Convenient, but really misleading.

The real problem comes from massive misinterpretation of the Revelation of St. John. It's all spiritual and mystical poetry (in Greek!!) based upon the cultural elements prevalent in the New Testament writers' world. When the Bible got put-together, there was heated argument about including this book. The West wanted it; the Greek speaking church said "No" - too easily misinterpretable. A compromise was reached and Revelation along with Hebrews were both included. (Interestingly enough, if I'm not mistaked, Revelation is never read in liturgical worship of the Eastern churches.)

The West has the 4 horsemen, the golden streets, pearly gates, etc.; not in the East.

So, I'd encourage folks to remember the linguistic and cultural elements that have been the foundation of some of our contemporary theological concepts, and not get snookered by Medieval interpretations, done by artists and not by theologians.

First off, begin by learning Greek. Then, move on to Hebrew. Then take courses in World Art. There will be a quiz!!

Dr John

[I apologize for the extended dissertation, but this was a big element in my M.Div. course of studies and my thesis. Jesuits, you can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em.]

I think hell or heaven is how we choose to respond to God, especially in how we treat each other but also in what we choose to hold in our hearts.

I am reminded of a Buddhist story about this.

A knight asked a monk, "What is heaven and what is hell?"

The monk began to insult the knight, insulting both his family and his bonds of loyalty to his government and his military. Finally, the knight grew so angry that he drew his sword to smite the monk.

And the monk said, "And that is hell."

The knight was dumbfounded. He stopped, sheathed his sword, and bowed low to show his thanks and respect to the monk for the truth that had been given him.

And the monk said, "And that is heaven."

-- John