Below we reproduce a brief extract from the work of Father Cándido Pozo entitled “Teología del más allá” (Theology of the Hereafter), which bears the due ecclesiastical licenses and in which he explains in detail the Catholic doctrine of hell, on the basis of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. In his lifetime Father Cándido Pozo held licentiates in Philosophy and in Theology and obtained the doctorate in this latter discipline from the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome. He was the author of numerous books, studies and articles on Theology, with a specialty in Mariology, Fundamental Theology and Eschatology. He spoke several languages. He was ordinary professor at the Faculty of Theology of Granada and at the metropolitan seminary of Toledo, as well as in Rome at the Gregorian and at the Teresianum and at the Faculty of Theology of Burgos. He attended several Assemblies of the Synod of Bishops as a theological expert. He presided over the Mariological Society of Spain from 1995 to 2001.

THE RETRIBUTION OF THE WICKED

Having studied, from Jn 5:29, the resurrection of life or, more exactly, the life for which the just will rise, it is obvious to study the other concept opposed to it in the cited verse: the resurrection of condemnation[1]; here too the precise object of our study is the concept of condemnation, that is, the state for which the wicked will rise. The theme is fully developed in the New Testament. But it is worth studying beforehand its preparation in the Old Testament, distinguishing, as we did for the theme of the resurrection in chapter 3, the ideological preparation and the literary preparation.

The ideological preparation of the theme of hell in the Old Testament

a) The retribution of the wicked as a problem.

A first point of departure, which we find in the Old Testament, is the immensely human problem, keenly felt many times by men of good will, of the earthly success of the unjust. It is the piercing question, frequently formulated in Scripture by the lips of upright men, but tempted to discouragement: why in this life does the just man often suffer, while the wicked man triumphs? The problem gradually finds a slow ascending range of solutions.

Psalm 37(36) closes on an earthly horizon. It is written by a good old man who appeals to his experience: “I have been young, and now am old; and I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread” (v.25)[2]. It is true that for a moment he saw the wicked triumph; but that prosperity lasted little and soon the tables were turned: “I have seen the wicked highly exalted, and lifted up like the cedars of Libanus. And I passed by, and lo, he was not: and I sought him and his place was not found” (vv.35s). The solution may seem naive: even here on earth the just man ends up triumphing, though the wicked may momentarily prevail; our personal experience would frequently dare to deny its validity. Let us not forget, however, that the solution expressed by the aged psalmist is the more valid the simpler the society in which one lives; in a patriarchal social organization, sufficiently simple, it is difficult that, in the long run, the wicked man triumph without his malice being openly discovered and his thereby falling from his privileged situation.

But Jewish society soon grew complicated. Perhaps Psalm 39(38) is a first testimony of unease at the insufficiency of the solution of Psalm 37. The psalmist sees, with indignation, the wicked triumph[3]; in that indignation of his he fears to utter words that would be a sin: “I said: I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue. I have set a guard to my mouth, when the sinner stood against me” (v.2). The psalmist’s anguish increases as he sees his own death approaching without having seen the tables turned: the wicked falling into tribulation, and the just rising to success. In that anguish, the psalmist limits himself to asking for a respite, a prolongation of his life, that will allow him to see the longed-for change: “O forgive me, that I may be refreshed, before I go hence, and be no more” (v.14). In any case, the change continues to be awaited here on earth; the psalm brings no new elements of solution, limiting itself to a purely personal petition that would allow the psalmist to see, with his own eyes, the earthly retribution.

With these premises, which correspond to widely diffused convictions, one understands the acuteness the problem assumes in the book of Job when it is posed in his concrete personal case, described moreover with notes of enormous gravity and dramatism. To understand the book’s contribution to the history of the problem it is necessary to become aware of the existence of three distinct parts in the book: the first part would extend from ch.1 (or, if one prefers, from ch.3, considering then the first two chapters as introductory) to ch.31; the second, from ch.32 to ch.37; and the third, from ch.38 to ch.42.

In the first part the dialogues of Job with his three friends are related: “Eliphaz the Themanite, and Baldad the Suhite, and Sophar the Naamathite” (cf. Job 2:11). The friends insistently repeat one thesis: you suffer; therefore you have sinned[4]; it is the thesis of the parallelism between sin and earthly misfortune, which constitutes the basis of the solution of Psalm 37. Job, for his part, rejects the thesis of his friends: I have not sinned[5]. Job does not find in his conscience sins that could be the explanation and cause of his present state. He does not admit, therefore, the indicated parallelism between earthly misfortune and sin.

In the second part of the book, a new character, Elihu, takes the floor in four successive discourses (chs.32s; ch.34; ch.35; chs.36s)[6]. In reality, Elihu contributes (above all, in his fourth discourse) a new element of utmost importance: the appeal to the mystery of divine providence; we cannot demand reasons of God, because He is too great for us to be able to comprehend Him[7].

The importance of the third part is supreme, for when God speaks, He makes Elihu’s solution His own: man cannot judge God, who is infinitely above him[8]. This would be the final solution of the book of Job: the one presented by Elihu and which Yahweh makes His own; a solution that consists in an appeal to mystery. Thereby a very important new element is contributed, but a complete solution is not reached.

And the curious thing is that, throughout the book of Job, that solution had been glimpsed. In ch.19:25ss, Job himself had appealed to the hereafter as an element of solution of the problem[9]. The matter has something disconcerting about it, in that the element that could have led to the true solution is not further retained throughout the book. We believe that this phenomenon would be, from the psychological point of view, wholly inexplicable, unless one supposes that Job conceived his hope of seeing an otherworldly solution as a being drawn very transiently out of the situation of “sheol”; had he conceived it as a permanent state, no explanation whatever could be given for the fact that this solution has not had greater prominence in the subsequent development of the ideas of the book.

b) Evolution of the concept of “sheol”.

More directly, the idea of hell is prepared by the evolution in the way of conceiving “sheol”. The most primitive conception conceives “sheol” as an undifferentiated place, an authentic common “abode of the dead”[10]. In prophetic preaching a distinction of degrees begins to be made in “sheol”: the wicked man (one thinks above all, but not exclusively, of the persecutors of Israel) goes to the deepest part of “sheol” (Ez 32:22s and Is 14:15 would be classic passages)[11], which leads one to suppose a less deep stratum, though within “sheol”, for the just[12].

The definitive degree of evolution is constituted by the mystical psalms (Psalms 16, 49 and 73): the just man hopes to be freed by God from “sheol”, and that God will take him with Himself. It is clear that if the just man goes with God to a communion and intimacy of life with Him, only the wicked remain in “sheol”. “Sheol” thus becomes, from a common “abode of the dead”, hell[13]. The book of Wisdom continues in this perspective: the lot of the wicked, denominated “death” in this book and described as painful (cf. Wis 4:19), is the remaining in “sheol”[14], whereas the just have eternal life in communion with God[15]. “Sheol”, evidently, has ceased to have the primitive neutral sense, and begins to have the pejorative sense of the otherworldly retribution of the wicked.

Dan 12:2 only implies the new element of having united retribution, not only that of the just, but also that of the unjust, with its prophecy of resurrection: some will rise “to everlasting life, and others to reproach, to everlasting ignominy”.

The literary preparation of the theme of hell in the Old Testament

The prophecy of Isaiah closes with a grandiose picture of the messianic restoration of Israel, and more concretely of Jerusalem. All the peoples will come to contemplate the glory of Yahweh[16] and to offer their offering in Jerusalem[17]. The pilgrims, on their way out of Jerusalem, will encounter the terrible spectacle of the corpses of those who were rebels against Yahweh: “And they shall go out, and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched: and they shall be a loathsome sight to all flesh” (Is 66:24). In this vision of Isaiah it is not strictly a question of hell. What the pilgrims see burning are lifeless corpses. But the description is made with the elements that Jesus will later use to describe the eschatological punishment, that is, hell.

Moreover, the text contributes still more along the line of the literary preparation of hell. Although Isaiah does not precisely localize the site in the vicinity of Jerusalem (he merely places it at the going-out of the pilgrims from Jerusalem) where this scene unfolds, it seems that it can be located with all skill as the valley of Hinnom[18]. In that valley worship had been rendered to Baal Melek (Moloch in the LXX). Ahaz would have been the first to make his sons pass there through the fire in honor of the false god (2 Kgs 16:3; 2 Chr 28:3)[19]. The name of the valley (valley of Hinnom) was but an allusion to the name of the former Jebusite owner. But Hinnom meant, it seems, “groaning”, so that Ge-Hinnom (valley of Hinnom) soon took on the symbolic resonance of “valley of groaning”. To this resonance the prophetic preaching of Jeremiah could very well allude, surely parallel to the already cited passage of Is 66:24: “And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Ennom, to burn their sons, and their daughters in the fire: which I commanded not, nor thought on in my heart. Therefore behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Topheth, nor the valley of the son of Ennom, but the valley of slaughter: and they shall bury in Topheth, because there is no place” (Jer 7:31s); “because they have forsaken me, and have profaned this place: and have sacrificed therein to strange gods, whom neither they nor their fathers knew, nor the kings of Juda: and they have filled this place with the blood of innocents. And they have built the high places of Baalim, to burn their children with fire for a holocaust to Baal: which I did not command, nor speak of, neither did it once come into my mind. Therefore behold the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Topheth, nor the valley of the son of Ennom, but the valley of slaughter. And I will defeat the counsel of Juda and of Jerusalem in this place: and I will destroy them with the sword in the sight of their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and I will give their carcasses to be meat for the fowls of the air, and for the beasts of the earth” (Jer 19:4-7).

For all these reasons, Is 66:24 is not only a description made with the traits that Jesus will apply to hell in His preaching, but in its localization of Ge-Hinnom it has been the occasion of the most current New Testament denomination of hell[20]: the “gehenna”[21]. The preaching of John the Baptist as a transition between the Old and the New Testament. John the Baptist is the last of the prophets. His preaching, which shook all Palestine a little before the beginning of the public life of Jesus, contains the announcement of an eschatological punishment: “For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire” (Mt 3:10)[22]. John announces as imminent the coming of the Messiah, who “hath his fan in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor, and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (v.12)[23].

The expression “unquenchable fire” alludes, without doubt, to Is 66:24. The sense of eschatological punishment becomes more precise. Nevertheless, John has the characteristic prophetic superposition of two planes that the New Testament will separate: the messianic times and the eschatological times. For this reason, John conceives, in his preaching, the eschatological punishment as united to the already imminent coming of the Messiah[24].

The doctrine of the New Testament on hell

In the New Testament, the seriousness of the announcement of the eschatological punishment is in no way going to be attenuated; it will be clearly insisted upon. The fundamental novelty will be the distinction of two comings of the Lord and the union of the announcement of the eschatological punishment with the second[25]. We can synthesize the great themes of the New Testament on hell in the following fundamental ideas[26].

1. In the New Testament it is affirmed with all clarity that the destiny of the just and the destiny of the wicked in the eschatological state are different.

“So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just” (Mt 13:49). Let it be kept in mind that this affirmation is found in the explanation, given by Jesus Himself, of the parable of the net. The explanation of a parable (of a metaphor) cannot itself also be metaphorical!

“And he shall send his angels with a trumpet, and a great voice: and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds of them” (Mt 24:31). “Then two shall be in the field: one shall be taken, and one shall be left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill: one shall be taken, and one shall be left” (vv.40s). “And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left” (Mt 25:31ss).

2. The destiny of the wicked implies definitive exclusion from the state that the New Testament denominates, in the full sense, “eternal life”[27].

“Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed” (Mt 25:41). The destiny of the wicked, therefore, is a “departing from Christ”, whereas the destiny of the just, already in the mystical psalms, was described as familiarity and intimacy with God (“he will receive me”) or, according to the formulas of Saint Paul, as “being with Christ”.

“And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity” (Mt 7:23).

While the faithful servant enters into the joy of his Lord (cf. Mt 25:21), that is, enters into the banquet of joy, the useless servant is cast “into the exterior darkness” (v.30). In the same way, the foolish virgins find the door closed; and when they knock and cry: “Lord, Lord, open to us”, they are answered: “Amen I say to you, I know you not” (cf. Mt 25:10ss). The rejection for those who did not accept the invitation is absolute:

“But I say unto you, that none of those men that were invited, shall taste of my supper” (Lk 14:24)[28].

The same absolute sense is had by Jn 3:36: “He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him“.

The idea of absolute exclusion of the wicked with respect to the kingdom of God is very frequent in Saint Paul: “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God?” (1 Cor 6:9; in the second part of the verse and in the following verse [v.10], an enumeration of vices is made, to repeat that those who do such things “shall not possess the kingdom of God“). In like manner, in Gal 5:19ss a long list of vices is made, which likewise concludes: “Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God” (v.21). In the same sense Eph 5:5 is expressed: “For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God“. In the texts we have just adduced, the formulas of exclusion are wholly absolute (“none of those men… shall taste of my supper“, “shall not see life“, “shall not possess“, “hath no inheritance“). The sense is so absolute that it renders inadmissible any idea of “apokatastasis”, that is, the supposition that the exclusion will have an end; there would thus come a moment in which all would be saved. If such a moment had to come, formulas such as “shall not possess” would simply not be true; rather one would have to say that a moment will come in which “they will possess”.

3. The New Testament also speaks of a sensible pain, expressed with the word “fire”; that pain is also conceived as eternal.

In speaking of “the literary preparation of the theme of hell in the Old Testament”, we studied the text of Is 66:24: the corpses of the rebels against Yahweh burn, in an unquenchable fire, in the valley of Hinnom (in Ge-Hinnom). We already noted then that the prophetic vision of Isaiah does not refer to an eschatological punishment. Nevertheless, its formulas are going to be used by Jesus Himself (and afterwards by the apostles) to describe with them the eschatological punishment: more concretely, the aspect of sensible pain of hell.

Even the less precise texts, but which use the word “gehenna” to express the eschatological punishment, contain, by that very fact, an allusion to Is 66:24. Thus, for example, Mt 5:29s: “And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body go into hell“.

“Gehenna” has the sense of condemnation. Jesus says: “You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?” (Mt 23:33).

Other passages further specify the sense of the word “gehenna”, and in clear continuity with Is 66:24 they do so with the determination of the word “fire”: “and whosoever shall say [to his brother], Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Mt 5:22).

Practically synonymous with the expression “gehenna of fire” is the formula “furnace of fire”, which is found, for example, in the explanation, given by Jesus Himself, of the parable of the cockle: “The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 13:42). The same formulas reappear in the explanation, also given by Jesus, of the parable of the net: “So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 13:50). Without entering now into all the theological problematic implied in the way of understanding the reality that the New Testament, in speaking of hell, denominates “fire”, the fact that the word is found in passages that are explanations of parables must make us cautious in the face of a merely metaphorical explanation; it is not easy to suppose that a metaphor (a parable) has been explained with another metaphor. In any case, in clear contrast with Is 66:24, the “gehenna” of the New Testament affects the whole existential reality of man. Whereas in Isaiah we are offered the vision of some burning corpses, in the New Testament the subject of the condemnation of the “gehenna” is the whole man with his body and his soul: “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10:28)[29].

The passage that most closely follows the literary form of Is 66:24 is Mk 9:43-48: “And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire (…). And if thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter lame into life (…) than having two feet to be cast into hell (…). And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee with one eye to enter into the kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire (…), where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished“[30]. On two occasions (v.43 and v.48) it is affirmed that the fire is not extinguished; in like manner it is said of the worm (a word which, without doubt, also expresses punishment) that it does not die.

We thus find the unquenchable fire, which in the narrative of the final judgment, in Mt 25:41, is set as the term to which, in their being sent away, the condemned are destined: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire”.

4. The expressions of eternity.

We have already indicated how the absolute formulas of exclusion suppose a being eternally excluded. We now wish to study reflectively the formulas in which eternity is spoken of, applying that concept to the pains or sufferings. Fundamentally, the formulas are two.

In Apoc 14:11 it is written: “And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever”. That the expression “for ever and ever” (per saecula saeculorum) means eternity in the strict sense, there can be no least doubt. Originally the word αἰών meant eternity; usage attenuated its original sense, reducing it to that of a long duration; to restore to it its first sense recourse was had to the procedure of using the word in the plural: for the ages[31]. At other times, to return to the strong sense of the word, the New Testament uses the construction—which is a Hebraism—of duplicating the word linking it with the genitive form: for the age of the age. The curious thing about the passage of the Apocalypse we are studying is that it uses simultaneously the two procedures of accentuating the sense of eternity of the word αἰών and thus restoring to it its primitive strict sense: it is used with duplicated construction in the genitive, and the duplicated word is both times in the plural. There is no stronger way of underlining the sense of eternity of this word.

There exists moreover a series of texts in which the adjective αἰώνιος is applied to the pains of hell with the strict signification of eternity. Thus, e.g., we find the adjective in the condemnatory sentence that the judge pronounces at the final judgment: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire” (Mt 25:41); if one takes into account that very shortly afterwards the adjective reappears in a parallelistic construction, its strict sense becomes indubitable: “And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting” (v.46); just as the adjective has a strict sense in the second member of the verse, it must also have it in the first. Saint Paul, for his part, speaks of “the revelation of the Lord Jesus when he shall come from heaven with the angels of his power, in a flame of fire, yielding vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus; who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess 1:7ss).

The patristic doctrine on hell

We gather, above all, from the patristic doctrine the affirmations on the eternity of hell; in them there will also appear how the Fathers conceive the infernal pains.

1. The Apostolic Fathers repeat the formulas of the New Testament as formulas that are found in the peaceful possession of the Christian faith.

Thus, for example, Saint Ignatius of Antioch:

“Be not deceived, my brethren: they that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If, then, those who did these things according to the flesh are dead, how much more if anyone corrupt, by evil doctrine, the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified? Such a one, being defiled, shall go into the unquenchable fire; and in like manner he that hearkeneth to him“[32].

In the “Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp” it is said:

“And attending to the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised the torments of the world, freeing themselves, by the duration of one hour, from eternal punishment. The fire of the cruel executioners seemed cold to them. For they had before their eyes the escaping of that fire which is eternal and will never be extinguished”[33].

The second epistle of Clement:

“And the unbelievers shall see his glory and his strength, and they shall marvel seeing the dominion of the world in Jesus, saying: Woe to us, because thou wast, and we knew it not, nor believed, nor obeyed the presbyters who preached to us of our salvation; and their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be extinguished, and they shall be a spectacle to all flesh. He calls that day the day of judgment, when they shall see those of us who acted impiously and failed the commandments of Jesus Christ. But the just, who did good and endured torments and hated the pleasures of the soul, when they shall see how those who erred and denied Jesus by words and works are punished with terrible torments and unquenchable fire, will give glory to their God”[34].

2. The Apologist Fathers remain faithful in the preaching of this truth, although they are fully conscious that they set forth a truth that is hard for men; thus, Saint Justin almost excuses himself:

“We are, in the highest degree, helpers of all men and auxiliaries for peace, we who teach these things: that in no way can it happen that from God the malicious one, or the avaricious, or the insidious, or the one endowed with virtue, be hidden, and that each one goes either to eternal punishment or to eternal salvation according to the merits of his actions. For if these things were known by all men, no one would choose vice for a brief time, knowing that he would go to the eternal condemnation of fire; but he would restrain himself entirely and adorn himself with virtue, whether to attain the goods that are promised by God, or to flee the torments”[35].

3. Of the other Fathers of the second century, Saint Irenaeus strongly underlines the opposition (which already appeared in some of the texts we have just cited) between the eternal pains and the temporal ones, in such a way that he shows very clearly the strict sense he attributes to the word “eternal”:

“The punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His coming, and turn back, has been extended [in the New Testament]; becoming not only temporal, but eternal. For to all those to whom the Lord shall say: Depart from me, you cursed, into the perpetual fire, these shall be condemned for ever”[36] .

The same opposition is made, speaking of the martyrs, in the Epistle to Diognetus[37]:

“Then you will see, while you are on earth, that God reigns in the heavens; then you will begin to speak of the mysteries of God; then you will love and admire those who are punished because they will not deny God; then you will condemn the imposture and error of the world, when you have learned to live truly in heaven, when you despise that which is here considered death, when you fear the true death, which is reserved for those who will be condemned to the eternal fire, which will be a torment unto the end for those who are delivered to it. Then you will admire those who suffer temporal fire for justice, and you will call them blessed, when you have known that fire”[38].

Also worthy of note are the various formulas of Tertullian: “continuous fire”[39], “eternal fire”[40], “perpetual fire”[41], “eternal fire of gehenna for eternal punishment”[42].

4. In the third century the Origenist crisis takes place[43]. Origen conceives the pains of hell as pedagogical[44], and interprets the New Testament expressions that speak of eternity as mere threats[45]; it would be the manner in which we ought to speak to the people, who otherwise would not abstain from sinning[46]; but the true Christian sage (the “gnostic”) knows that these pains, although they be terrible and must last for a long time, are directed to healing and must have an end[47].

5. Of the influence that these ideas of Origen exercised on some Fathers we will occupy ourselves presently[48]. In any case, the immense majority of the contemporaries of Origen faithfully maintain the traditional faith. Saint Cyprian explicitly rejects the idea of a conversion in hell:

“The ever-burning gehenna will burn those who are delivered to it, and a devouring punishment with living flames; nor will there be any possibility that the torments may ever have rest or end. The souls with their bodies will be preserved for infinite torments of pain. […] There will then be pain of punishment without the fruit of penitence, empty weeping and ineffectual petition. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment who would not believe in eternal life”[49].

6. After the position of Origen had been condemned in the Synod of the year 543, there is unanimous consent both among the Western Fathers and among the Eastern ones (with the sole exception of Saint Maximus the Confessor)[50]; but already before the Synod, the opposition to the Origenist ideas had been enormous; of that opposition it suffices to adduce Saint Augustine, who strongly rejects the theory of the “threat”, arguing that the words of the Lord about eternal life ought not to be taken in a strict sense if those that speak of eternal torment are not taken strictly[51]; also on other occasions and passages of his works, Saint Augustine explicitly impugns the error of Origen of having denied the eternity of hell[52].

Errors concerning hell

The various errors concerning hell can be catalogued according to three fundamental directions.

1. Conditionalism: eternal survival would depend on a condition, that is, on the state of justice of the man at his death. The wicked, on the contrary, would be annihilated either simply (and then there is a total negation of the existence of hell) or by means of a temporal hell.

a) Along this line the Gnostics placed themselves, according to whom there will be given at the end, by means of fire, the annihilation of the “hylic” men and of those “psychic” men who have not wished to be saved by Christ (in gnosticism this conception is mixed with the idea of the final destruction of matter, from which the wicked have not freed themselves).

b) There is influence of this mentality in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies[53]. In a similar way the apologist Arnobius (4th c.) is affected by conditionalism; he thought that human souls are mortal by their nature; they would receive immortality by grace of Christ, which would be granted only to the just[54]; for this reason, after the first death, which is the separation of soul and body, there would follow the second death for the wicked, which would be a true annihilation; such annihilation would be produced by fire after a very prolonged time of torment.

c) In the 19th century conditionalism was defended by some liberal Protestant theologians[55].

d) In our days conditionalism is found in some Adventist sects and in the Jehovah’s Witnesses: according to the “Advent Christian Church”, the wicked will rise at the end of the millenarian kingdom to receive the sentence of annihilation (not of condemnation); on the contrary, according to the “Life and Advent Union”, the wicked would be annihilated for all eternity already at the moment of their death[56]. According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses there will be a millennium in which all will rise to be subjected to a last and definitive test; almost all will pass it positively; the small group of the hardened and unconvertible will be delivered to natural annihilation (annihilation is considered natural, because immortality is, according to them, pure grace, even as regards the soul)[57]. In reality, in the doctrine of these sects, hell simply does not exist; they deny, therefore, not only the eternity of hell, but hell itself.

2. Universalism: it is the tendency to affirm that all will be saved, because hell is either temporal and has a purificatory sense, or simply does not exist[58]; the technical term with which this doctrine is designated is that of “apokatastasis”.

a) A few Fathers, through the influence of Origen (whose system, however, ought not to be qualified as “universalism”, but as “aterminism”), affirmed the “apokatastasis”: thus Didymus of Alexandria[59] and Saint Gregory of Nyssa[60] conceive hell as a purificatory punishment, by which all will be led to salvation; Saint Jerome, who for a certain time defended this opinion, afterwards attacked it very strongly[61].

b) The Albigensians were universalists not because they conceived hell as purificatory, but because they denied the existence of hell itself, since, according to them, the purification of souls will be continued through successive incarnations, as long as they are necessary, until the purification and salvation of all is achieved.

c) In the times of the Reformation, the “apokatastasis” is defended by some Anabaptists[62]. In the 19th century it is maintained by not a few of the great liberal Protestant theologians (Schleiermacher contributed much to the diffusion of the idea)[63]. In our days it has been defended by W. Michaelis, while K. Barth opines that its possibility cannot be excluded[64].

3. Aterminism: it is the system of Origen, and it must be so denominated inasmuch as it conceives the “apokatastasis” not as a term, but as a new beginning. It denies the eternity of hell, and conceives it as purification and passage to salvation (the passage is realized by a personal conversion of the condemned); but it differs from universalism, because, according to Origen, after the “apokatastasis” there are new separations from God and, with them, the beginning of a new cycle. The cycle of separation, purification and “apokatastasis” would repeat itself eternally.

The doctrine of the ecclesiastical Magisterium on hell

The Magisterium of the Church proclaims and insists on the points we have already indicated in setting forth “The doctrine of the New Testament on hell”. Concretely, the Magisterium defines the existence of a state[65] which corresponds in the hereafter to those who die in the state of mortal sin and enmity with God, having lost sanctifying grace by a personal act[66]; with respect to that state, the Magisterium speaks of two distinct elements of punishment in hell: the privation of the vision of God, which is conceived as painful[67], and another element which it designates with the New Testament expression “fire”; the first, in theological language, is called the pain of loss (poena damni), and the second, the pain of sense (poena sensus); both elements (and with them hell itself) are eternal.

1. The Symbol “Quicumque” affirms the existence and the eternity of hell in professing the eternity of the pain of sense: “and they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; but they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith: unless a man believe it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved” (DENZ. 40 [76]).

2. The idea of “apokatastasis”, together with other errors of Origen, was condemned in the Synod “endemousa” (held at Constantinople in the year 543 and approved by Pope Vigilius)[68]: “If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporal, and that it will have an end after some time, or that there is [will be] a restitution and reintegration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema” (DENZ. 211 [411]). Let it be noted that the formula contains a direct affirmation of the eternity of hell.

3. The principal definition of the eternity of hell took place in the Fourth Council of the Lateran, presided over by Innocent III. In its Profession of faith it is said: “All of whom will rise with their own bodies, which they now have, that they may receive according to their works, whether these have been good or evil, the ones perpetual punishment with the devil, the others everlasting glory with Christ” (DENZ. 429 [801]). The final particle “ut” (“that they may receive…”) defines the end to which the resurrection is ordered, but, as such, it does not make the clause that depends on it be affirmed only indirectly (“in obliquo”, according to the technical terminology). The nature of the punishment (“perpetual punishment”) is not further explained.

4. Both in the Second Council of Lyons (DENZ. 464 [858]) and in the Council of Florence (DENZ. 693 [1306]) the formula is used: “But the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or with original sin alone, straightway descend into hell, to be punished, however, with unequal punishments“[69]. The formula seems to have to be understood according to the explanation [of Innocent III]: “the punishment of original sin is the lack of the vision of God, whereas the punishment of actual sin is the torment of perpetual gehenna” (DENZ. 410 [780]). If it is understood thus, the plural “punishments” would allude, in the case of hell in the strict sense, to another punishment, in addition to the pain of loss, that is, to the pain of sense.

5. In the constitution Benedictus Deus, of Benedict XII, it is defined “that, according to the common ordinance of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, immediately after their death descend into hell, where they are tormented with infernal punishments” (DENZ. 531 [1002]). Taking into account that in this same constitution the beatific vision was defined a little before as proper and characteristic of the just (cf. DENZ. 530 [1000]), it is certain that in the formula “with infernal punishments” the lack of the vision of God is included; but the formula being in the plural, it must include some other distinct reality (pain of sense).

6. In the Second Vatican Council, in the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, ch.7 n.48, the necessity of a constant vigilance is taught, so that “we may not, like the wicked and slothful servants (cf. Mt 25:26), be commanded to depart into the eternal fire (cf. Mt 25:41), into the exterior darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt 22:13 and 25:30)“. The intention for which these words were introduced into the text was to affirm “the eternal punishment of hell”. A little afterwards, in the same number, the words of the Gospel of Saint John 5:29 are cited; these words, in which “the resurrection of life” and “the resurrection of judgment” are spoken of, are conceived as a complement to the other words referring to hell that we have just copied.

7. In the Profession of faith of Paul VI it is said, speaking of Christ: “He ascended into heaven, whence He will come again to judge the living and the dead, each one according to his merits: those who responded to the love and piety of God will go to eternal life, but those who rejected them to the end will be destined to the fire that will never cease“[70]. It is affirmed, therefore, the eternity of hell through the affirmation of the eternity of the pain of sense.

In summary:

a) The existence and the eternity of hell are defined (Fourth Council of the Lateran).

b) It is also of faith the existence and eternity of the pain of sense (Symbol “Quicumque”).

c) It is of faith that the condemned suffer the pain of loss (constitution Benedictus Deus, in which the vision of God appears as an essential constitutive element of the state of the blessed); taking into account that hell is eternal (Fourth Council of the Lateran) and that the vision of God would suppress hell, it must be said that it is implicitly defined that the pain of loss is also eternal.

d) Although there does not exist an explicit definition about it, it must be affirmed, by the manner of speaking of the documents and by the ordinary Magisterium itself, which has expressed itself thus for so many centuries, that it is of faith that the pain of loss and the pain of sense are really distinct, that is, that the pain of sense cannot be reduced to the mere psychological affliction that would proceed from the privation of the vision of God[71].

 

NOTES

  1.  Literally, Jn 5:29 speaks of “resurrection of judgment”; on the sense that the word κρίσις has here. ↩
  2.  “In lebenslanger Erfahrung hat der Dichter seine Auffassung von der Vergeltung bestätigt gefunden 35f”. NÖTSCHER, Die Psalmen (Würzburg 1947) p.74. ↩
  3.  “Le psalmiste confesse son tourment devant le bonheur des impies”. R. TOURNAY: in La Sainte Bible of L’ECOLE BIBLIQUE DE JÉRUSALEM (Paris 1956) p.690. ↩
  4.  “Mais tous trois, ils défendent la thèse traditionnelle des rétributions terrestres: si Job souffre, c’est qu’il a péché, il peut paraître juste à ses propres yeux mais il ne l’est pas aux yeux de Dieu”. C. LARCHER: in La Sainte Bible of L’ECOLE BIBLIQUE DE JÉRUSALEM p.599. ↩
  5.  In the movement of a certain instability, very explicable in his state of mind, the summit of Job’s reasonings is represented by his profession of innocence in ch.31 (precisely the end of the first part of the book). ↩
  6.  For our purpose it is indifferent whether the second part of the book is later than a first redaction, so that it was interpolated at a second time, or whether it was really redacted following the first; for the discussion of the problem, cf. H. JUNKER, Das Buch Job (Würzburg 1951) p.75s. ↩
  7.  “Denn der Mensch darf Gott sein Handeln nicht vorschreiben wollen, sondern muss vielmehr dessen unbegreifliches Tun preisen, wie es nun Elihu im Folgenden tut”. JUNKER, o.c., p.84s, apropos of the last discourse of Elihu. ↩
  8.  “Plutôt il [God] refuse de répondre [to Job], car l’homme n’a pas le droit de mettre en jugement Dieu, qui est infiniment sage et tout-puissant”. LARCHER, in La Sainte Bible of L’ECOLE BIBLIQUE DE JÉRUSALEM p.599. ↩
  9.  In this passage, whether it be a question of resurrection in it or not (on the background of this problem see ch.3 note 40), an appeal is certainly made to the hereafter (we have explained the passage in the paragraph “The resurrection in the Old Testament”, of ch.3); the reasons we set forth below in the text seem to us to give much probability to the exegesis that, following Larcher, we preferred in ch.3: Job would speak of a transitory (only transitory) drawing out of “sheol” (see in ch.3 note 41). ↩
  10.  For this reason the idea of “sheol” was not used as an element of solution. ↩
  11.  Cf. CRIADO, La creencia popular del Antiguo Testamento en el más allá, el se’ól: XV SEMANA BÍBLICA ESPAÑOLA, p.46s, who also cites Prov 7:27 and 9:18, where it is not a question of persecutors. ↩
  12.  It is curious that in one of the mystical psalms, the 49th, before setting forth in v.16 the hope characteristic of the mystical psalms (God will free me from “sheol” and will take me with Himself), in the immediately preceding verse a situation of inferiority of the wicked and superiority of the just is supposed within “sheol”: “The wicked are destined to sheol like a flock; death will shepherd them, and the just will have dominion over them” (v.15). ↩
  13.  P. Volz sees in Psalm 49 (he will afterwards say that the same happens with Psalms 73 and 16) not only the “Anfang des Unsterblichkeits- und Seligkeitsglaubens”, but also the “Anfang des Höllenglaubens”. Psalm 49: Zeitschr AlttWiss (Neue Folge) 14 (1937) 250. Very shortly before, in his classic work on the eschatology of the Jews in the times of the New Testament, he had explained the sense of the evolution in the concept of “sheol”: “Mit der beschriebenen Entwicklung hängt zusammen, dass der Begriff Unterwelt, Totenreich (Hades, Scheol) zum Begriff Hölle wird. Wenn die Frommen auch im Zwischenzustand in himmlische Oerter kommen und in die Unterwelt bloss noch Gottlose versetzt werden, so ist ganz naturgemäss, dass die Unterwelt als Hölle verstanden wird”. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 2nd ed. (Tübingen 1934) p.271. ↩
  14.  Cf. HOFFMANN, Die Toten in Christus p.86. ↩
  15.  For the whole question, see ch.2, paragraph “La escatología del libro de la Sabiduría”. ↩
  16.  “And I come that I may gather them together with all nations and tongues: and they shall come and shall see my glory” (Is 66:18). ↩
  17.  “And they shall bring all your brethren out of all nations for a gift to the Lord, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and on mules, and in coaches, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as if the children of Israel should bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord” (Is 66:20). ↩
  18.  “Bien qu’Isaïe ne localise pas d’une façon précise ce spectacle d’horreur, il est probable qu’il a pensé à cette vallée de Gehinnom—d’où est venu notre terme géhenne—que Jérémie (VII, 32,33) indique comme l’endroit où les Israélites idolâtres resteront en pâture aux bêtes et aux oiseaux”. L. DENNEFELD, Les grands Prophètes: in L. PIROT, La Sainte Bible t.7 (Paris 1946) p.234. Likewise SPICQ, La révélation de l’enfer dans la Sainte Écriture: in L’enfer (Paris 1950) p.107. ↩
  19.  Of the two passages we cite in the text, the first speaks of “his son” in the singular, while the second, of “his sons” in the plural. ↩
  20.  By its very original (earthly) signification, “gehenna” would allude to hell as a reality posterior to the resurrection (in relation to man as a resuscitated corporeal being), while for hell in the intermediate eschatology the denomination of “hades” would be used (as in Lk 16:23); cf. the words of J. Jeremias which we have transcribed in ch.2 note 106. ↩
  21.  Curious is the philological observation of Spicq: “On sait que le français gêne est une contraction de Géhenne; s’il est devenu synonyme d’incommodité, privation, il désignait à l’origine la question que l’on appliquait aux accusés pour arracher leurs aveux; puis par extension, les tortures elles-mêmes, de très vives souffrances, enfin la contrainte et l’embarras…”. SPICQ, a.c.: L’enfer p.121s note 2. ↩
  22.  Parallel is Lk 3:9: “For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire“. ↩
  23.  Parallel is Lk 3:17: “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire“. ↩
  24.  On the superposition of prophetic planes we have spoken, apropos of the formula “in that time” in Dan 12:1, in ch.3, paragraph “La resurrección personal en el Antiguo Testamento”. Probably the sending of two disciples to Jesus, on the part of John the Baptist, with the question: “Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another?” (Mt 11:3; cf. Lk 7:20), responds to a real crisis of his, upon becoming aware that Jesus does not correspond to the scheme of a terribly remunerating Messiah, which he (with superposition of planes) had foreseen. “Sans douter absolument de Jésus, Jean-Baptiste s’étonne de le voir réaliser un type du Messie si différent de celui qu’il attendait, cf. [Mt] 3,10-12”. P. BENOIT: in La Sainte Bible of L’ECOLE BIBLIQUE DE JÉRUSALEM p.1303. ↩
  25.  We already noted it in ch.3, paragraph “La resurrección en el Nuevo Testamento. Observaciones generales”; here, however, we must make the reservation of texts, such as Lk 16:19-31, which affirm the existence of an authentic hell already in the intermediate eschatology; see ch.2, paragraph “El Nuevo Testamento y la escatología intermedia”. ↩
  26.  Between the more analytic way of setting forth successively the affirmations on hell contained in each one of the writings of the New Testament, and that of making a synthetic presentation of ideas, we have preferred the second as being the one that most easily allows an overall view. ↩
  27.  That the definitive exclusion from the celestial joy is not realized by annihilation of the excluded is evident because in the New Testament it is clearly affirmed that the condemned suffer moreover eternal torment and pain; see the successive numbers of this paragraph. ↩
  28.  The eschatological sense of this text is clear already from the way in which the parable is introduced: “And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just. When one of them that sat at table with him had heard these things, he said to him: Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God” (Lk 14:14ss); the parable begins in the following verse (in v.16), as a response of Jesus to the exclamation of verse 15. ↩
  29.  We have explained this passage in ch.2, paragraph “El Nuevo Testamento y la escatología intermedia”. While the first part of the verse affirms, according to the study of Dautzenberg, a survival of the soul in the case and even after the body is killed, the second part of the verse considers hell as “gehenna”, and with respect to man resuscitated, in all his reality of body and soul. As regards hell as “hades” with respect to souls after death and before the resurrection, see the words of J. Jeremias which we have transcribed in ch.2 note 106. ↩
  30.  With the ellipsis points we merely indicate the suppression of words that are in the Vulgate, but not in the Greek text. ↩
  31.  “Dieser pluralische Gebrauch bedeutet nur eine Steigerung des schon im Singular αἰών enthaltenen, aber allmählich verblassten Begriffs der Ewigkeit”. H. SASSE: in KITTEL, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 1,199. ↩
  32.  Ad Ephesios 16,1s: FUNK, 1,226. ↩
  33.  Martyrium S. Polycarpi 2,3: FUNK, 1,316. It is of the utmost importance in this document to note the opposition between the earthly torments “of one hour” and the eternal punishment. ↩
  34.  II Epistola ad Corinthios 17,5ss: FUNK, 1,206. On the origin of this letter, which cannot be by Clement of Rome, cf. ALTANER, Patrologie 5th ed. (Freiburg 1958) p.82s. ↩
  35.  Apologia 1,12: PG 6,341. ↩
  36.  Adversus haereses 4,28,2: PG 7,1062. ↩
  37.  We have not adduced the Epistle to Diognetus among the Apostolic Fathers because it is considerably later than they; cf. ALTANER, o.c., p.108. ↩
  38.  Epistola ad Diognetum 10,7s: FUNK, 1,408-410. ↩
  39.  “in poena aeque iugis ignis”. Apologeticus 48: PL 1,527. ↩
  40.  “testimonium ignis aeterni”. Apologeticus 48: PL 1,528. “Quid illum thesaurum ignis aeterni aestimamus”. De poenitentia 12: PL 1,1247. ↩
  41.  “ad profanos adiudicandos igni perpetuo”. De praescriptione haereticorum 13: PL 2,845. ↩
  42.  “recordetur ignem gehennae aeternum praedicari in poenam aeternam”. De resurrectione 35: PL 2,845. ↩
  43.  We have set forth the Origenist system in ch.4, paragraph “Errores históricos sobre la visión de Dios”, number 2. In the present chapter we will refer to it again in the paragraph “Errores sobre el infierno”, number 3. See also in ch.6, paragraph “Errores sobre el final del estado de peregrinación”, number 1, letter b. ↩
  44.  “How much more must it be understood that this physician of ours, God, willing to undo the vices of our souls, which they had gathered from the diversity of sins and crimes, uses penal cures of this kind, and even also applies the punishment of fire to those who have lost the health of the soul? […] Whence it is also understood that the fury of the vengeance of God avails for the purification of souls. For that punishment too, which is said to be applied by fire, is understood to be employed as a help”. De principiis 2,10,6: PG 11,238s. On how Origen understands the fire of hell, see the paragraph “Ulteriores reflexiones teológicas sobre la doctrina del infierno”, number 3. ↩
  45.  “Thus Scripture, giving things suitable for the common run of readers, wisely wraps sad things in obscurity, in order to inflict terror on those who cannot otherwise be drawn back from the abundant license of sinning. Which obscurity, however, is not such that he who has considered it diligently would not easily understand for what end wicked men are to be tormented with troubles and labors”. Contra Celsum 5,15: PG 11,1204. ↩
  46.  “But the things that could be said on this, it is neither fitting to explain to all, nor does the present time require that it be done. Moreover, in no way would it be prudent to put in writing the explanation of these things, it sufficing for the majority to know that those who sin are to be punished. To advance further would not be useful, since there are some whom the fear of eternal punishment scarcely restrains, that they may not deliver themselves wholly to wickedness and to the evils that derive from it“. Contra Celsum 6,26: PG 11,1332. ↩
  47.  See the second part of the text we have transcribed in note 56. Cf. also Contra Celsum. 3,79: PG 11,1024. ↩
  48.  In the paragraph “Errores sobre el infierno”, number 2, letter a. ↩
  49.  Ad Demetrianum 24: ML 4,561s. ↩
  50.  Cf. ALTANER, o.c., p.486. ↩
  51.  De Civitate Dei 21,23: PL 41,735s. ↩
  52.  “Qua in re misericordior profecto fuit Origenes, qui et ipsum diabolum atque angelos eius post graviora pro meritis et diuturniora supplicia ex illis cruciatibus eruendos atque sociandos sanctis Angelis credidit. Sed illum et propter hoc, et propter alia nonnulla […] non immerito reprobavit Ecclesia“. De Civitate Dei 21,17: PL 41,731. “Sed sunt huius Origenis alia dogmata, quae catholica Ecclesia omnino non recipit, in quibus nec ipsum falso arguit, nec potest ab eius defensoribus falli: maxime de purgatione et liberatione, ac rursus post longum tempus ad eadem mala revolutione rationalis universae creaturae. Quis enim catholicus christianus vel doctus vel indoctus non vehementer exhorreat eam quam dicit purgationem malorum, id est, etiam eos qui hanc vitam in flagitiis et facinoribus et sacrilegiis atque impietatibus quamlibet maximis finierunt, ipsum etiam postremo diabolum atque angelos eius, quamvis post longissima tempora, purgatos atque liberatos regno Dei lucique restitui…?” De Haeresibus 43: PL 42,33s. ↩
  53.  “Those who do not conduct themselves by penitence will receive an end by the punishment of fire, even though in all other things they be most holy; but, as I have said, being greatly vexed by the eternal fire, they will be extinguished after a certain time. They can no longer be everlasting after having behaved impiously with respect to the eternal and only God“. Homily 3,6: PG 2,116. On the doctrine of these Homilies, cf. ATZBERGER, o.c., p.185-191. The present form of the Homilies is, it seems, of the fourth century; but the Ebionite writing, which would constitute the basis of them, must be of the second half of the second century; cf. ALTANER, o.c., p.84. ↩
  54.  Cf. ALTANER, o.c., p.163. ↩
  55.  Some names can be seen cited by M. RICHARD, Enfer: DictTheolCath 5,8ss; J. LOOSEN, Apokatastasis: LexTheolKirch 1,710. In the times of the Reformation the Socinians had taught a similar conditionalism; cf. L. CRISTIANI, Socinianisme: DictTheolCath 14,2332. ↩
  56.  Cf. K. ALGERMISSEN, Konfessionskunde 7th ed. (Paderborn 1957) p.850. ↩
  57.  Cf. ALGERMISSEN, o.c., p.856s. ↩
  58.  On the tendency to affirm that hell exists, but that no one is in fact condemned; that is, the tendency to consider hell as a hypothesis, but not as an existential reality, see below “Ulteriores reflexiones teológicas sobre la doctrina del infierno”, number 1. ↩
  59.  Cf. G. BARDY, Les Pères de l’Église en face des problèmes posés par l’enfer: L’enfer p.231s. ↩
  60.  Cf. BARDY, a.c.: L’enfer p.232s. ↩
  61.  Cf. BARDY, a.c.: L’enfer p.234s. On the position that Ambrosiaster held, cf. ibid., p.233s. ↩
  62.  Cf. J. LOOSEN, Apokatastasis: LexTheolKirch 1,710. ↩
  63.  Ibid. According to Loosen, Ritschl doubted the question. RICHARD (Enfer: DictTheolCath 5,88), however, attributes to him great importance in the diffusion of the idea. ↩
  64.  Cf. K. ADAM, Zum Problem der Apokatastasis: TheolQuart 131 (1951) 129-138. The Protestant authors we have cited must not make us forget that the Reformers preserved the idea of hell in all its seriousness (let us leave aside now the question of the materiality of the fire of hell, denied by Calvin). Against the indulgence manifested by K. Barth toward the idea of “apokatastasis”, E. Brunner reacted strongly (cf. K. ADAM, a.c., p.130); see also what WINKLHOFER writes (Das Kommen seines Reiches p.315) about P. Althaus, who totally rejects the “apokatastasis”, and also about the book edited by F. SCHAUER, Was ist es um die Hölle? (Stuttgart 1956), in which are gathered the documents of an interesting controversy that took place in Norway: the professor O. Hallesby, in a conference held over the radio, had spoken of hell as of a state of eternal punishment and of most grievous torments; he was attacked by the Protestant bishop K. Schjelderup, who, although he defended the eternity, interpreted the fire and the torments as pedagogical threats; Hallesby replied insisting on the dogmatic sense of his exposition (it was not a question of a merely “edifying” preaching); there was a lively controversy in which the Norwegian Protestant bishops took part; almost all of them take a position in favor of professor Hallesby, whose doctrine they consider conformable with the doctrine of the Confession of Augsburg and with the ancient Symbols of the Christian faith. ↩
  65.  We take hell not as a place, but as a state. At least after the resurrection, hell will have to be a place; the resuscitated men will have a body and, therefore, will be in some site. As is obvious, we leave aside the question of whether spirits may be in no place at all. ↩
  66.  The state of those who die with original sin alone is described in the documents of the ecclesiastical Magisterium as a true condemnation: cf. DENZ. 1024 (224); 464 (858); 493a (926); 693 (1306); the punishment corresponding to that condemnation is explained by Innocent III: DENZ. 410 (780). In speaking of hell in this chapter, we do not refer to this type of condemnation, but to that which is induced by a grave personal sin. The documents we cite in this note suppose that if someone dies with original sin alone he is condemned in the sense indicated (limbo). We do not now discuss the value of the various hypotheses according to which limbo is suppressed, supposing, in one way or another, that no one dies with original sin alone. See what we have written in ch.3 note 149. ↩
  67.  The privation of the vision of God, as such, is of the ontological order, but evidently it has repercussion in the psychological order inasmuch as it produces in the condemned, conscious of the good of which he sees himself deprived, affliction, and supreme affliction, inasmuch as he knows that the good of which he sees himself deprived is the supreme Good. Let it be noted that limbo is today conceived as loss of the vision of God, but without the psychological repercussion, which is the maximum punishment of hell; moreover, with the natural happiness that would have been had in the state of pure nature (the historical evolution in the way of conceiving limbo and its punishment is briefly described by P. GUMPEL, Limbus: LexTheolKirch 6,1057). In the present way of conceiving limbo it is necessary to suppose something that prevents the painful psychological repercussion of the privation of the vision of God (to suppose, e.g., that the children in limbo are not conscious of the fact of the elevation to the supernatural order, and that thus they would find themselves psychologically as men would have found themselves in the state of pure nature). We make these observations only that the sense of the pain of loss in hell may be better understood (opposing it to mere privation, without the pain that follows from it); it is not, evidently, our intention to discuss here the theological value of the very conception of limbo. ↩
  68.  “Isti canones approbati sunt postea ab omnibus Episcopis Orientalibus et a Romano Pontifice Vigilio: quae approbatio eis singularem valorem tribuit, cum practice exprimat fidem totius Ecclesiae in illo momento“. ALFARO, p.48. ↩
  69.  We translate the formula of the Council of Florence; the differences with the formula of the Second Council of Lyons are merely grammatical. Cf. also the epistle Nequaquam sine dolore, of John XXII (DENZ. 493a [926]), where, however, allusion is moreover made to the diversity of sites. ↩
  70.  “L’Osservatore Romano” (1-2 July 1968) p.1 col.3. ↩
  71.  Even looking merely at the doctrine of the New Testament and from an exegetical point of view, it is not seen how the two punishments can be reduced to one, taking into account that they are treated in Scripture as distinct and separate themes. Attending to the Magisterium it is impossible to attempt to deny the real distinction of the punishments. In this sense, Rondet, after speaking of the pain of loss, not only as privation of the vision of God, but as a punishment that also includes the torment that derives from the privation, when he begins to treat of the pain of sense, conceiving it as distinct from the pain of loss, writes with all reason: “L’existence de la peine du sens est aussi certaine que celle de la peine du dam”. Les peines de l’enfer: NouvRevTheol 67 (1940) 404. ↩