Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 4   [ 70 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:53 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:53 pm
Posts: 135
Religion: Catholic
Exactly! Thanks Nicholas, since I was thinking the exact same thing. Here's his response and mine s well:

James Kelley's Response
Note: James Kelley of OrthodoxPatristics.com has responded to his initial challenge to dialogue/debate as follows. We await a fuller response:

"Dear Jay,

God is love, but a love which “seeketh not its own.” This notion of a love delivered from all necessity is in a sense incomprehensible to man, since it would have to be lived to be believed. However, all of Orthodox theology is there to guide seekers into a transfiguration into the Light which is God’s glory or love. Andrea is right, I believe, to say that hell is to be understood antinomically, as I am suggesting “love of God” is to be understood.

I am too busy readying a book for publication to read and respond to your post on nicene truth. I’m sure you’ve got some valid concerns about the Orthodox conception of salvation and damnation. I’ve already stated my understanding of the Orthodox position, and I have also outlined the theological presuppositions which explain why I belive in this manner. Just quoting Scripture or Fathers who seem to indicate that sinners will burn in hell (maybe you do more, I don’t know) does not provide me or anyone else with a set of presuppositions which would convince anyone to accept your overall theological mindset. Why should we apostatize and accept Papal claims or the filioque, much less a God who has a postiive intent to work evil? Quotations are only as good as the presuppositions which provide a context for meaning. I’ve stated what the Orthodox epistemolgy and presuppositions are, and there is little else I can do but co-labor with God in prayer and fasting.

Glory be to the One God in Trinity,
The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!"

Jay's Reply:

What needs to be said in response to this, other than to ask whether Orthodox Dogmatist, Fr. Pomanansky has a 'purified nous,' when he writes in complete agreement with me in his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, saying:

"However, these opinions are not to be confused with dogmas, in the precise meaning of the word. There are some private opinions of certain Fathers and teachers which are not recognized as being in agreement with the general catholic faith of the Church, and are not accepted as a guide to faith. (As an example of such "private opinions," one may take the mistaken opinion of St. Gregory of Nyssa that hell is not everlasting and that all — including the demons — are to be saved in the end. This opinion was rejected decisively at the Fifth Ecumenical Councilas contradicting the Church's "catholic consciousness," but St. Gregory himself is still accepted as a saint and as a Holy Father in the Orthodox Church and his other teachings are not questioned."

_________________
"Protestants are like the Jews, they are inky theologians." -John Eck

"What is not assumed is not deified." -St. Gregory of Nazianzus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:01 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 835
Location: Portland Oregon
JayDyer wrote:
Exactly! Thanks Nicholas, since I was thinking the exact same thing. Here's his response and mine s well:

James Kelley's Response
Note: James Kelley of OrthodoxPatristics.com has responded to his initial challenge to dialogue/debate as follows. We await a fuller response:

Unfortunately, I think that is the most you are going to hear. While not intentional, he has brushed aside all the quotes you provided. I'm in these types of discussions all the time where the issue has the opponent's credibility on the line, and they would rather dodge the question or not respond rather than admit they were wrong. Admitting you are wrong is a tough thing to do, but sometimes we have to admit it and pick our self back up.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:56 pm 
Offline
Eminent
Eminent
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:59 am
Posts: 16412
Religion: Католик
Well, I do have respect for Orthodox separated brothers. I do not consider them heretical.

But there are several Biblical quotations that indicate Hell is eternal. Check Mark 9:38-48 and Luke 3:7-18 where fire is mentioned as unquenchable.

Thanks

_________________
ABORTUS NECNON INFANTICIDIUM NEFANDA SUNT CRIMINA.

Abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (Gaudium et Spes, 51)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:46 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:53 pm
Posts: 135
Religion: Catholic
They are our separated brethren until they consistently oppose and attack the Catholic Faith in full knowledge and in continual bad will. Then they are heretics. That's dogmatic.

jay

_________________
"Protestants are like the Jews, they are inky theologians." -John Eck

"What is not assumed is not deified." -St. Gregory of Nazianzus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:49 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:27 am
Posts: 153
Religion: N/A
Catholic Dude wrote:
What this seems to be describing is "purgatory," yet its almost like they don't want to use the term. Purgatory is another one of those famous examples of which the EO are sure it is a Latin invention, yet they appear to be teaching the same concept. That said, IF they are teaching there is ONLY heaven and non permanent "preparatory punishments" which can be remitted, that is problematic.


I know there are great similarities between the Greek and Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholicism, so if he was describing purgatory, why not give it that name? Changing the name doesn't change the place.

_________________
Image

SAVE
Free Rice
CRS
World Food Programme
From Hunger to Hope

"To have courage for whatever comes in life - everything lies in that."

"It was as if he built a bridge, crossed over and burned it, all the while saying 'no you cannot cross.'"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:20 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 835
Location: Portland Oregon
Allenoray Mozart wrote:
I know there are great similarities between the Greek and Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholicism, so if he was describing purgatory, why not give it that name? Changing the name doesn't change the place.

I'm not entirely sure the reason why, but I guess there are a few reasons.

The biggest reason (I think) is that purgatory is a dirty word outside of Catholicism, admitting it makes one suspect of Papism. Further, at this point in history, to admit purgatory is what they were talking about would be seen as admitting Catholicism was right and Eastern Orthodoxy was wrong.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:13 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:43 am
Posts: 46
Religion: Catholic
:? So the Orthodox don't believe in an eternal hell?

God Bless,
Michael


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:27 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 835
Location: Portland Oregon
mikeledes wrote:
:? So the Orthodox don't believe in an eternal hell?

God Bless,
Michael

They do, but from what I have read and experienced they don't like to think/talk about it. They range in opinion from what an average Catholic would think, all the way to the notion that you have to be really, really, really, really bad to get sent there.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:21 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
JayDyer wrote:
Let’s return to the question of hell and God’s just damnation. Who, other than St. Gregory of Nyssa, amongst the Fathers taught the universal salvation of all men? No one but Origen. I am aware that St. Maximus distinguishes his apokatastasis from Origen’s. I read Daniel’s paper on Synergy in St. Maximus. I enjoyed it and agreed with the overall thrust: the West has neglected St. Maximus and the philosophical implications of his outworking of the two wills in Christ. But does this prove St. Maximus’ version of the apokatastasis? No. Did I find his paper convincing against predestination? No, because the whole reason he told me to read it was that I said that their (his and Perry’s) view of free will appeared to mean that redeemed men possess the ability to fall even in eternity. Well, he argues that men with free wills may be fixed in the practice of virtue and not fall again, which is all good, but he proclaims that we must also accept the Maximian view that all men will be saved (even if the damned are not deified, being only "caught up into a purely discursive knowledge of God")! But, as I will show, how contrary is this to the Scriptures and the ‘patristic consensus’! We see the irony of the Orthodox position in regard to these hardcore Romanideans: sacrifice the "patristic consensus" for their own favored theologians, such as St. Maximus. Is this intended to denigrate St. Maximus? Of course not: we hail him as a saint as well.
...
St. Clement of Rome:

2 Clement 17:7:

"But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’"
...
St. Cyprian:

To Demetrian 24:

"An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life."

Dear Jay Dyer,
Thanks for your posting about this and quote from II Clement. I am Eastern Orthodox and have heard that there are theories that while Hell is eternal, God due to His transcendance might find a way to free people condemned to it. I made a post asking about this (viewtopic.php?f=70&t=170075) that I invite you to. I am not advocating a particular position, or ascribing one to the Orthodox Church (and AFAIK, the Orthodox Church hasn't considered one to be infallible dogma).
My main questions are:
(A) Why is it said that people can't repent after their deaths? Didn't the rich man in the Parable of Lazarus repent or regret his sin of rejecting Lazarus?
(B) Although the Catholic Catechism teaches that there is a Last Judgment that can condemn to Eternal Punishment, does this exclude the possibility that God, due to his transcendance of time and his omnipotence, could find a way to free people out of Hell?


Let me get to your post as well. It was interesting to hear that St. Maximus taught a version of "apokatastasis" that differed from Origen's. I also understand your quotation from St. Clement of Rome:
Quote:
2 Clement 17:7:
"But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’"

That is, anti-Christian sinners are punished in unquenchable fire. But this passage doesn't show whether those sinners couldn't be saved out of the unquenchable fire at some point by the omnipotent God.

Rather, the quotation that I have trouble with in II Clement shows up in the following passage in Chapter 8, where it says:
Quote:
...so let us also, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil deeds we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet an opportunity of repentance. For after we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will there belong to us.


It looks to me like the passage that you cited by St. Cyprian could run somewhat counter to the one above in II Clement. St. Cyprian appears to reason that the punishment will be eternal because life after death is eternal, and Cyprian says that "weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual." So whereas II Clement denies that the "power of repenting" continues into the afterlife, Cyprian appears to say that the person will still be alive and could in fact grieve and pray, but their prayer will be ineffectual, and so their grief will lack "the fruit of repentance".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:37 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80716
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
This is an eleven-year old thread. JayDwyer hasn't posted in ten years. As for myself, I've been over this topic too many times to be excited about trying again.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:05 pm 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19323
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
This is an eleven-year old thread. JayDwyer hasn't posted in ten years. As for myself, I've been over this topic too many times to be excited about trying again.


You just don't get posts like that OP these days.

_________________
"I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:41 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80716
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
O tempora! O mores!

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:05 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
As for myself, I've been over this topic too many times to be excited about trying again.

Maybe it is a situation where the Catholic Catechism is simple and clear enough (in this case that there is no repentance in the afterlife) that people don't need clarifying on what the position is. And maybe the question of how or why there is no repentance in the afterlife does not have an easy, clear answer, because either (A) there is no post-mortem repentance but we are dealing with a situation unfamiliar to us (the afterlife) so it's hard to explain, or (B) because there theoretically could be regret and repentance in the afterlife (since the righteous regret their mistakes, and since the rich man in the parable regretted his mistakes).

If you are burned out over the question, would you like to consider Question 1 (viewtopic.php?f=70&t=170075&p=2813606#p2813606) on my thread instead, Obi-Wan?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:43 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80716
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
There is no repentance in the afterlife because God doesn't grant the necessary grace. Whether that is because He chooses not to do so or because He cannot do so without causing a logical contradiction is a matter that can be debated. (Note that it is not a slight on God's omnipotence to say that He cannot work a contradiction.)

I don't see what the importance is of the fasting vs. almsgiving vs. etc. controversy is. I think it only becomes an issue if you regard them as absolutes rather than as counsels for various people at various times--a lot like alleged contradictory passages in Proverbs, for example.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:50 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4989
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
What might the argument be that post-mortem repentance is an incoherent concept? Not asking for proof that it is, of course. Just wondering what that argument might even look like. I've not come across it before.

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:13 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Thanks for replying, Obi-Wan. I will put my response to you about Question 1 (alms vs. prayer) onto the other thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:39 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80716
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Good idea. I should have put mine there too.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:29 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Obi-Wan,
You write:
Quote:
There is no repentance in the afterlife because God doesn't grant the necessary grace. Whether that is because He chooses not to do so or because He cannot do so without causing a logical contradiction is a matter that can be debated.

Supposing that repentance or regretting one's mistakes requires God's grace, then:
(A) Regarding the righteous in heaven and purgatory who have repented, are illumined and do have grace, why wouldn't they continue to regret their mistakes and turn their hearts (ie. "repent") from the mistakes?
(B) Regarding the wicked in hell, supposing that they continue to support their past wickedness, what are we to make of the rich man who wanted to come back and warn his brothers? Doesn't it appear that he himself regretted his mistake? If the wicked "weep" in hell and endure the Final Judgment, wouldn't they realize that what they did was wrong, and wouldn't such realization lead to regret?

And by a logical contradiction preventing them from getting the grace, do you mean the potential contradiction that a person could be condemned and in hell for their unrepented mistakes, yet also be given grace in hell to repent? That is, on one hand, the person fails to repent in his lifetime, undergoes the Final Judgment and is given an Eternal Punishment, yet on the other, in general God has the ability to give people the grace and power to repent, whereas for God to choose to give them the power to repent would undermine the finality of this Judgment and the Eternality of the Punishment? I think that perhaps this is not really a full logical contradiction though. In the secular world, a convict could use up their appeals so that the judgment against them is Final, and they could get a Life sentence, and yet they could show repentance for their mistakes and be paroled, even with the Judgment not being overturned. So being given a Final Judgment and being given an Eternal Punishment are not necessarily a contradiction with in fact being delivered of suffering the eternal punishment for eternity if there is an intervening factor, such as repentance.


Last edited by rako on Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:44 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80716
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
That's not a "supposing." That's a statement of fact. Anything else is Pelagian.

a) In Purgatory, they are still turning their hearts. In Heaven, their hearts have turned and are fixed on God. Jesus doesn't simply set us free from the punishment for our sins; He sets us free from our sins, so that they no longer have a hold of us and we need no longer repent because there is nothing left to repent of.
b) I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about the state of the afterlife from the story of the rich man and Lazarus. That's not its point.

As far as a logical contradiction goes, no, that's not what I meant. It's possible that something about the condition of a soul after death could make it unable to change, just as angels cannot repent. I don't know that to be the case, and I don't even remember where I read it if I read it at all and didn't just make it up, but that's the sort of thing I had in mind.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Response to an Orthodox Critic on Hell and the Fathers
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:49 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
a) In Purgatory, they are still turning their hearts. In Heaven, their hearts have turned and are fixed on God. Jesus doesn't simply set us free from the punishment for our sins; He sets us free from our sins, so that they no longer have a hold of us and we need no longer repent because there is nothing left to repent of.
b) I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about the state of the afterlife from the story of the rich man and Lazarus. That's not its point.

Obi-Wan,

Regarding the souls in purgatory (A), if they are still turning their hearts, then it suggests that they are still repenting, which in turn suggests that repentance does happen in the afterlife, but is restricted to those in Purgatory. Also, regarding those in heaven, I understand the idea that Christ takes away a person's personal guilt for a sin, but it seems to me that a righteous person would still wish that the sinful act that they performed had not occurred. They would continue to have their desire that they didn't commit the act and continue the act of keeping their heart turned from the bad did that they committed. If a person confesses on earth and receives absolution, they still repent of their act I think, even though they no longer carry personal guilt for it, and then when they die, supposing that their soul became frozen into a fixed state as you suggested as a possibility (I heard that Catherine of Siena compared the soul in the afterlife to a fallen tree), then their soul would be fixed into that state of repentance for the absolved sin.

Regarding whether those in hell can regret their mistakes
(B), I don't think that you've really addressed the case of the Rich Man. But my aim is not to "stick" you in the thread discussions either, so here I will note that it looks like there are alot of Catholic writers saying that people in hell regret their mistakes.

A Dominican website has this Q&A that lists regret as a pain in hell:
Quote:
What are the pains of Hell? Separation from God, torture by fire, regret, and the companionship of the devils.
http://www.willingshepherds.org/Heaven% ... 20Etc.html


Catholic Straight Answers notes:
Quote:
Some Saints have had visions of hell. Blessed Sister Faustina described hell as follows: “Today I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw: The first torture that constitutes hell is the loss of God; the second is perpetual remorse of conscience..."

http://catholicstraightanswers.com/does-hell-exist/

The Straight Answers entry seems to treat remorse as synonymous with repentance, talking about people who don't repent in their lifetimes: "If a person does not repent of mortal sin, does not have any remorse, and persists in this state, then that person’s rejection of God will continue for eternity. In a sense, people put themselves in hell."

Wikipedia refers to the Catholic church's views on hell and quotes Isaac of Nineveh, who is venerated in the Chaldean Catholic Church as a saint:
Quote:
The [Catholic] church believes that hell is eternal because the sinner refuses to turn away from his mortal sin to God's forgiveness of sins.[13]... In some ancient Eastern Christian traditions,[which?] Hell and Heaven are distinguished not spatially, but by the relation of a person to God's love.

I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna, are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay, what is so bitter and vehement as the torment of love?...It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God...it torments sinners...Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret.
— St. Isaac of Syria, Ascetical Homilies 28, Page 141

Combining the the two paragraphs in Wikipedia's entry, the idea seems to be that the person regrets their sins but refuses to combine it with turning to God's forgiveness.

I suppose that at this point if I had to make sense of this issue and justify what II Clement says, in light of Cyprian's claim that repentance in hell is ineffectual, I would say that Cyprian and II Clement are talking about different kinds or usages of repentance. I would have to distinguish the times when Catholic writers say that you can repent in the afterlife from the times that they say that you can't. The Orthodox Church seems to be less dogmatic about these kinds of things though and I suppose that it would probably just be okay with theologians disagreeing with eachother. But my goal isn't to conclude that II Clement is wrong, either.

Michael Pakaluk in On Needing God tries to distinguish the regret in hell from repentance by proposing that it was only the regret that takes the form of self-blame:
Quote:
Someone with a restless heart somewhere deep down, if banished from the presence of God eternally, will be filled with an eternal aching regret: not the regret of repentance, mind you, but the regret of mere self-recrimination, the “worm which never dies.” They do not respond to God after death as, “Oh, this is the one I have been restless for,” because, if that were the case, they would not have been banished to hell. The saints say that eternal regret is hell enough: indeed it is, for even the vaguely restless at heart.

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/1 ... g-on-hell/
Pakaluk didn't really explain what he means by self-blame as different from repentance though.

Tracy Finke suggested in her book Embracing Catholicism and repeated in her book Confirmed Catholic (both quoted in the box below) that the person wishes that he hadn't made the mistake for the purely pragmatic reason that it caused him to go to hell:
Quote:
St. Thomas Aquinas said that the sinner in Hell regrets his sin, but not because of guilt, but because of its terrifying consequences. That is why a sinner in Hell resents God, but he won't repent to God. If there was a moment of contrition (sorrow for sin) in a sinner in Hell, it would instantly set him loose to fly upward into God's presence. As Saint Catherine of Siena has said, "One drop of contrition could empty Hell."
But I don't know if this explanation about the regret in hell is correct. Sister Faustina's answer seems to imply that the person does have remorse of conscience and doesn't mean it just as a pragmatic phenomenon. It seems like people in hell who are alive there for eternity could figure out that what they did was immoral.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 4   [ 70 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: