Pope Francis: ‘I like to think of hell as empty’

[Stella]

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... l-as-empty

Pope Francis appeared on Italy’s most popular prime-time talk show on Sunday night where the pontiff shared how he hopes that hell is “empty.”

...When asked by the interviewer, Fabio Fazio, how he “imagines hell,” Pope Francis gave a short response.

“What I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is,” Pope Francis said.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Catholic teaching “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.”

The catechism also says: “In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved.’”

Theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book “Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?” have put forward the possibility that one could “hope” that hell might be empty because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross, making the distinction between universal salvation as a hope and universal salvation as a doctrine, which he rejects.

American Catholic evangelist Ralph Martin wrote in his 2012 book “Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization” that “what motivated the Apostles and the whole history of Christian missions was knowing from divine revelation that the human race is lost, eternally lost, without Christ, and even though it is possible for people to be saved under certain stringent conditions without explicit faith and baptism, ‘very often,’ this is not actually the case.”

Pope Francis has previously spoken about the existence of hell in public speeches during the past 10 years of his pontificate. In March 2014 he said in an address that members of the Mafia should change their lives “while there is still time, so that you do not end up in hell. That is what awaits you if you continue on this path.”

Knowing the magnitude of God's mercy, it's not impossible to think that He might not abandon anyone to eternal damnation. Nor is it impossible to believe that any person being made aware of an eternity without God, wouldn't open their hearts even a little to mercy. In my lifetime, it's evident that there's a difference between 'fear of God' and 'scared to death of hell'. A mistake which has inhibited some people faith growth.

[Doom]

You're not exactly helping your quest to evangelize us with the Gospel of Pope Francis by posting this. Yes, he is a legitimate Pope, and yes I will accede to anything he might say if he made an ex-cathedra statement, but no I don't have to agree that everything he says is wise and I certainly don't have to agree with these moronic comments he makes in interviews, which are not an expression of his authority as Pope.

And there is a book about this that I suggest you read

https://www.amazon.com/Papacy-Filial-Re ... 178&sr=8-1

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

With due respect to Doom, and noting that I don't agree with the Holy Father on this part (and since he just expressed it as an opinion, I am under no obligation to do so):

He's not the only Catholic who hopes Hell is empty. Noted American bishop Robert Barron holds to that view, although I haven't heard him talk about it much recently. Richard John Neuhaus, a noted American "neo-con" was intrigued by the possibility as well.

The idea gained prominence in Catholic circles through the work of Hans von Balthasar, whose work both St. JP II and B XVI generally liked--I don't think either of them commented on this point in particular. Von Balthasar got it in part from the Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth, and in part from the alleged revelations of Adrienne von Speyr, whose spiritual director he was supposed to be.

I frankly think he was negligent in this; it is the job of a spiritual director whose directee thinks she's having revelations to help sort through them rather than credulously believe them all and base your theology on them, which is what he did. The paper linked here gives good reasons (IMHO, obviously) to be extremely leery of placing any credence in her thought: https://www.renewalministries.net/files ... 73_301.pdf

HvB has had a particular draw on Jesuits (he was one before AvS told him that St. Ignatius told him to leave), and that's probably where Pope Francis picked it up.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/202 ... bout-hell/

[Doom]

He's not the only Catholic who hopes Hell is empty. N

I didn't say he was, I said it is a moronic opinion, "moronic" is a strong term, but I think it is a fair description because it makes no sense.

It comes form Hans Ur Von Balthazar.

[peregrinator]

I've found that most people who "hope" hell is empty are actually universalists; if you tell them "I don't hope hell is empty" their first response is usually something like "well who would you condemn to hell?" or "why do you wish for people to be condemned and lost forever?"

[Doom]

I've found that most people who "hope" hell is empty are actually universalists; if you tell them "I don't hope hell is empty" their first response is usually something like "well who would you condemn to hell?" or "why do you wish for people to be condemned and lost forever?"

I like to reply by sarcastically saying “I hope Lincoln doesn't get shot”

[gherkin]

I think at any rate it's safe to say that thinking of hell as empty involves a clear heresy, since the demons are eternally there. Even if there were no human persons in hell, there are clearly persons there. And once it's recognized that dogma requires God's mercy is fully compatible with the eternal damnation of the demons, it seems to me that any rational grounds for resisting the damnation of human beings rather falls apart. Of course, on a theology that tends to be anthropocentric, like modernist Catholicism, there's little to no thought given to the spiritual realities, so the fate of the demons wouldn't come to mind for a modernist.

[Vadim]

I think at any rate it's safe to say that thinking of hell as empty involves a clear heresy, since the demons are eternally there.

So the Pope is saying a heresy, but not as an ex cathedra statement, but as his private opinion. Is he guilty of being "negligent"? Why am I asking this -- because "negligence" is a sin for which, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition (Vol. 7, p. 81), Pope Honorius I was condemned (I actually disagree with it, but let's suppose that it's true):

"In a similar letter to the bishops of Spain, [Pope] Leo [II] charged Honorius with negligence <...> A third papal letter, to the Visigoth King Ervigius, states that Honorius allowed the unsullied standard of apostolic tradition inherited from his predecessors to be soiled <...> It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius."

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I agree with ... with ...

Anyhow, I think most "dare we hope" folks have not given much thought to the fate of Satan and the other demons; many full-fledged Universalists would have them redeemed as well.

But I'm still not sure that "dare we hope" is a heresy with respect to humans. I think it's wrong, but I'm not sure it contravenes a defined doctrine of the Faith.

[Doom]

Heresy is defined as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of a defined doctrine of the faith", the reason you cannot call Hans Urs Von Balthazar a "heretic" is that he conscientiously AVOIDS denying anything, or asserting anything, or indeed, saying anything coherent at all. He doesn't say hell IS empty, he doesn't even say hell MIGHT be empty, he says that we can HOPE it is empty. What it might mean to hope for a counterfactual (as I mentioned above, hoping Lincoln doesn't get shot) he never explains, and as I said it appears to be an incoherent concept.

The book which I have read, and since we are soon to enter into Lent, a penitential season maybe you should read it as well, consider it your Lenten penance. And if you do, please point me to a place in the book where he says anything at all, positive or negative, affirmation or denial, about ANYTHING. I am not aware of such a passage. The entire book is a long, rambling discourse in search of a point to make.

In the old days, such as during the Reformation or the Arian controversy, it was easy to identify heresy because heretics were willing to come right out and say "Jesus ain't God" or "The Eucharist is only a symbol or not a sacrifice" or "the Pope is the antichrist".

These days, identifying heretics is very difficult because no one speaks, everyone hides behind a wall of ambiguous text, and everyone knows how to meander around a topic introducing controversial ideas without explicitly affirming or denying ANYTHING. It's all a big muddle, trying to nail down a clear idea in most theology texts is like the proverbial nailing jello to the wall. Theologians are so good at waffling and avoiding a clear statement, that you're never really sure what they hold.

And Hans Ur Von Balthazar was a master of this. Good luck identifying a single dogma he explicitly denies or a known heresy he explicitly affirms. To find heresy you have to read between the lines and scrupulously avoid reading the lines themselves.

That is what Pius X discovered more than a century and that is why he said Modernism is the worst crisis in Church history.

[peregrinator]

I think at any rate it's safe to say that thinking of hell as empty involves a clear heresy, since the demons are eternally there.

So the Pope is saying a heresy, but not as an ex cathedra statement, but as his private opinion. Is he guilty of being "negligent"? Why am I asking this -- because "negligence" is a sin for which, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition (Vol. 7, p. 81), Pope Honorius I was condemned (I actually disagree with it, but let's suppose that it's true):

"In a similar letter to the bishops of Spain, [Pope] Leo [II] charged Honorius with negligence <...> A third papal letter, to the Visigoth King Ervigius, states that Honorius allowed the unsullied standard of apostolic tradition inherited from his predecessors to be soiled <...> It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius."

I would not rule out a future ecumenical Council condemning Francis - for that matter I wouldn't rule out a future Cadaver Synod!

[gherkin]

So the Pope is saying a heresy, but not as an ex cathedra statement, but as his private opinion.

I don't have any idea what Francis was talking about (as is, I suspect, true of him as well), so I certainly do not mean to say he said or implied anything heretical. Maybe he meant to say that the demons are not damned (that would be heresy), or that there are no demons (that would be heresy); or maybe (more likely) he just wasn't thinking of demons at all when he spoke. It's charitable to assume that latter. But as I have no intention of reading anything that Francis rambles on about, I won't be finding out for myself.

ETA: It is, of course, utterly ridiculous that the only way to interpret the pope as not preaching heresy is to assume that he's being totally careless in what he says, and that he has clearly not thought it through. But, really, at this point, that's not an assumption, it's a well-recognized fact.

[Stella]

You're not exactly helping your quest to evangelize us with the Gospel of Pope Francis by posting this. Yes, he is a legitimate Pope, and yes I will accede to anything he might say if he made an ex-cathedra statement, but no I don't have to agree that everything he says is wise and I certainly don't have to agree with these moronic comments he makes in interviews, which are not an expression of his authority as Pope.

There's only been two ex cathedra statements since that term was defined. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. That leaves a lot of room for a lot of different beliefs.

[Stella]

With due respect to Doom, and noting that I don't agree with the Holy Father on this part (and since he just expressed it as an opinion, I am under no obligation to do so):

He's not the only Catholic who hopes Hell is empty. Noted American bishop Robert Barron holds to that view, although I haven't heard him talk about it much recently. Richard John Neuhaus, a noted American "neo-con" was intrigued by the possibility as well.

The idea gained prominence in Catholic circles through the work of Hans von Balthasar, whose work both St. JP II and B XVI generally liked--I don't think either of them commented on this point in particular. Von Balthasar got it in part from the Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth, and in part from the alleged revelations of Adrienne von Speyr, whose spiritual director he was supposed to be.

I frankly think he was negligent in this; it is the job of a spiritual director whose directee thinks she's having revelations to help sort through them rather than credulously believe them all and base your theology on them, which is what he did. The paper linked here gives good reasons (IMHO, obviously) to be extremely leery of placing any credence in her thought: https://www.renewalministries.net/files ... 73_301.pdf

HvB has had a particular draw on Jesuits (he was one before AvS told him that St. Ignatius told him to leave), and that's probably where Pope Francis picked it up.

The hopeful speculation is even older. Clement of Alexandria used the term apocatastasis to cautiously explore the salvation of all.

Origen also wrote on the subject that all might be saved.

Gregory of Nyssa stated "when death approaches to life, and darkness to light, and the corruptible to the incorruptible, the inferior is done away with and reduced to non-existence, and the thing purged is benefited, just as the dross is purged from gold by fire. In the same way in the long circuits of time, when the evil of nature which is now mingled and implanted in them has been taken away, whensoever the restoration to their old condition of the things that now lie in wickedness takes place, there will be a unanimous thanksgiving from the whole creation, both of those who have been punished in the purification and of those who have not at all needed purification."

Really though, the main gist for all of them was not to be a doctrinal statement of universal salvation, but to emphasise more strongly the extent of Gods mercy and beatitude for all His creatures. Human nature has this base urge to condemn others even to hell in order to support their own assurance of salvation or by the same token fall into hopelessness at the state of their unworthiness. Hence the need for an emphasis on the magnitude of Gods mercy and the grace of hope in that mercy.

[Stella]

I've found that most people who "hope" hell is empty are actually universalists; if you tell them "I don't hope hell is empty" their first response is usually something like "well who would you condemn to hell?" or "why do you wish for people to be condemned and lost forever?"

What would be the reason for replying "I don't hope hell is empty"? It doesn't sound like something Christ would like to hear.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I'm well aware of apocatastas. The term has shifted in meaning over time, and we want to be careful reading it back into Clement of Alexandria and even Origen (whose intellectual history is extremely checkered). It's worth noting that neither one is regarded as a saint in the Catholic Church.

[peregrinator]

What would be the reason for replying "I don't hope hell is empty"? It doesn't sound like something Christ would like to hear.

Logically it's impossible to hope for something one knows to be untrue.

"I think You deceived us about people going to hell" is also not something I think Our Lord wants to hear.

[Stella]

Heresy is defined as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of a defined doctrine of the faith", the reason you cannot call Hans Urs Von Balthazar a "heretic" is that he conscientiously AVOIDS denying anything, or asserting anything, or indeed, saying anything coherent at all. He doesn't say hell IS empty, he doesn't even say hell MIGHT be empty, he says that we can HOPE it is empty. What it might mean to hope for a counterfactual (as I mentioned above, hoping Lincoln doesn't get shot) he never explains, and as I said it appears to be an incoherent concept.

The book which I have read, and since we are soon to enter into Lent, a penitential season maybe you should read it as well, consider it your Lenten penance. And if you do, please point me to a place in the book where he says anything at all, positive or negative, affirmation or denial, about ANYTHING. I am not aware of such a passage. The entire book is a long, rambling discourse in search of a point to make.

In the old days, such as during the Reformation or the Arian controversy, it was easy to identify heresy because heretics were willing to come right out and say "Jesus ain't God" or "The Eucharist is only a symbol or not a sacrifice" or "the Pope is the antichrist".

These days, identifying heretics is very difficult because no one speaks, everyone hides behind a wall of ambiguous text, and everyone knows how to meander around a topic introducing controversial ideas without explicitly affirming or denying ANYTHING. It's all a big muddle, trying to nail down a clear idea in most theology texts is like the proverbial nailing jello to the wall. Theologians are so good at waffling and avoiding a clear statement, that you're never really sure what they hold.

And Hans Ur Von Balthazar was a master of this. Good luck identifying a single dogma he explicitly denies or a known heresy he explicitly affirms. To find heresy you have to read between the lines and scrupulously avoid reading the lines themselves.

That is what Pius X discovered more than a century and that is why he said Modernism is the worst crisis in Church history.

'In the old days' there are also countless examples of people condemned, excommunicated and even tragically executed for being heretics and turns out they weren't. Joan of Arc was excommunicated when she was executed for example. Rushes to judgment like those sorts of condemnations aren't the fix all they were once thought to be. So in fact, there's no danger in theorising on a topic and sharing that with the Christian world. When a theory is offered as a theory it should be received in that way. It's edifying to entertain that sort of contribution rather than go straight to condemning them outright. How do you grow in faith without allowing ourselves to be challenged. John Henry Newman said “To live is to change. To be perfect is to have changed often.”

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It was widely accepted, even at the time, by everyone but the English, that Joan's trial was a miscarriage of justice. It did not follow Church law; it was a politically motivated attack. Pointing to her example doesn't do much good.

Can you give some more examples of the countless number?