FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? (/showthread.php?tid=25620)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13


Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - Bonifacius - 05-12-2009

(05-11-2009, 12:27 PM)didishroom Wrote: If the children had not yet reached the age of reason they would not have been punished at all.

I'm going to quibble.  We must not exaggerate the happiness of Limbo.  Being deprived of the Beatific Vision is still a punishment, a punishment of loss for original sin. 


Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - catholicschoolmom - 05-12-2009

I know I will sound like a dogmatic neophyte, and I probably don't belong joining in this discussion, however, it brought to mind something I have wondered all along about being Catholic...  I was taught much of what has been posted as far as one must be baptized to wash away original sin, and be in a state of grace to avoid eternal punishment, but it always bothered me about people who may never have known about God.  What if they lived in some remote jungle, like those tribes you see in National Geographic.  As a kid, I would think of people who lived in Africa hundreds of years ago who would have had no possible contact with any kind of missionary priests or sisters at the time.  They didn't know about Jesus or God or the Blessed Mother or anything like that.  How could God, who loves HIs children so much, punish them for their ignorance?  Please don't label me a heretic or anything, but I just can't understand the rationalization of the church leaders in forming these opinions/rules. 


Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - ggreg - 05-13-2009

(02-12-2009, 08:50 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Are we free to declare any particular individual soul to be definitively damned?

I always thought that was what the prohibition against judging and condemning was all about.

I think it's best not to speculate--God assigned the particular judgment to Himself and not us for a reason.

I think we could be pretty safe with Hitler (shot himself) and Judas (better that he had not been born).  Jesus would not have said this about a soul in Heaven.

We can't produce video evidence, but if either of those two are saved then who is damned?

If one truly believes in Hell and that people go there for great evils, then Hitler, Judas and probably Josef Stalin must be stoking the coals.  If any of them are saved then it is a good thing that God doesn't let us know, because frankly, I would not be able to avoid sin in the future or take the commandments of such a God seriously.  I realise that the workings of God's Mercy and Justice are complex, but they must follow some sort of rational behaviour.

I think speculation is a natural function of belief in something.  To believe that there is an ETERNAL reward or an ETERNAL punishment and not speculated about whether various famous saints and sinners went there seems to me to be very strange.  It would be like knowing that an atomic bomb was going to explode tomorrow and only worrying about today.

When our holy grandmother dies clutching her Rosary we speculate that she will have a short purgatory and go to Heaven, so why would we not speculate that evil men who die without confessing their sins are damned?  Are we allowed to speculate on "nice" outcomes but not on "nasty" ones?


Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - ggreg - 05-13-2009

(05-12-2009, 10:06 PM)catholicschoolmom Wrote: I know I will sound like a dogmatic neophyte, and I probably don't belong joining in this discussion, however, it brought to mind something I have wondered all along about being Catholic...  I was taught much of what has been posted as far as one must be baptized to wash away original sin, and be in a state of grace to avoid eternal punishment, but it always bothered me about people who may never have known about God.  What if they lived in some remote jungle, like those tribes you see in National Geographic.  As a kid, I would think of people who lived in Africa hundreds of years ago who would have had no possible contact with any kind of missionary priests or sisters at the time.  They didn't know about Jesus or God or the Blessed Mother or anything like that.  How could God, who loves HIs children so much, punish them for their ignorance?  Please don't label me a heretic or anything, but I just can't understand the rationalization of the church leaders in forming these opinions/rules. 

This will open a can of worms if discussed but I don't believe for 1 cotton-picking minute that any missionary ever arrived in a primitive village and told those people he was trying to convert that there Uncle Umbobo, Grandpa Mumata or Aunty JiJi was likely to be burning in Hell.  The pagans would have never converted if the missionaries had told them that.  One can therefore conclude.

1.  The missionaries lied about what the Church taught (since the pagans would SURELY have asked).
2.  The Church never taught that the unbaptised go to hell.  There were always get-out-of-jail-free clauses.

I find it even more odd, that given all the hair-splitting detail that the Church pronounces on less important matters of morals, faith and theology, with certitude enough to throw anathemas around, that we basically don't know the salvic mechanisms for what is after all the very reason-d'etre of our existance and the end game of all the mass going, sacrament partaking, chanting, loving, willful effort and rosary saying.

I'd venture to suggest that more people have lived on earth without a working knowledge of Christ and the Gospels than without.  Therefore unless God is a monster there must be some sort of salvic mechanism they can partake of with a reasonable chance of success.


Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - didishroom - 05-13-2009

Dear catholicschoolmom: Here's an article that deals with this subject. It is not that long but it does help with these troubling doctrines. Hope it helps.

by Br. Thomas Mary Sennott, M.I.C.M.  April 25th, 2005
Catholicism.org

This article appeared in abridged form in a small Catholic archaeological journal Ancient Man, Information Exchange , Volume 7, 1989, Tekakwitha Institute, Woodbridge, Virginia.

The salvation of the American Indians before Pentecost, the birthday of the Catholic Church, has never been considered a problem by theologians. Before the time of Christ pagans far removed from the special revelation given to the Jews could be saved by believing that God is, and that He is a remunerator (Hebrews 11:6), and by keeping the law of God, the ten commandments, engraven in their hearts (Romans 2:14,15). “But without faith it is impossible to please God. He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).

St. Thomas in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews says:

    After the sin of our first parents no one could be saved from the guilt of original sin except by faith in the Mediator. But the character of that faith differed according to divers periods and states of life. We who have received such immense benefits are more bound to believe than those who lived previous to Christ’s coming. And of them some believed more explicitly than others, the leaders for example, and such as had received a special revelation. Those again who lived under the law had a more explicit belief than those who lived before it, for they had certain Sacraments prefigurative of Christ. For the heathen, on the contrary, who were saved, it sufficed to believe that God was their rewarder, which is only given through Christ. In this sense they implicitly believe in a Mediator. 2

St. Thomas also says that not only the Jews but even some of the Gentiles, especially the leaders, were given an explicit revelation of the coming of Christ the Redeemer:

    Many of the Gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 29:25): “I know that my Redeemer liveth.” 3 The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine relates (Contra Faust. 13:15). Moreover we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene, a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: “Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in him I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again. 4

But after Pentecost, says St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica , all men in order to be saved were bound to explicit faith in Christ and in the Blessed Trinity: “After grace had been revealed both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation.” 5 And again: “…once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” 6

But after the discovery of the New World, where apparently vast numbers of souls had lived and died before the coming of Columbus and the missionaries, some theologians, especially the Franciscan, Andreas De Vega (d. 1560), proposed that these souls since they lived in invincible ignorance of the true faith, could have been saved without an explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. 7

But St. Thomas also taught that invincible ignorance, while it undoubtedly excuses from sin, in this case the sin of infidelity, cannot save:

    If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is a result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief. 8

St. John De Brebeuf (d. 1649), the great apostle of the Algonquins and the Hurons, was very pessimistic about the salvation of the Indians for whom he laid down his life. “There are some indications that they formerly had some more than natural knowledge of the true God, as may be seen in the details of their fables. But not willing to revere God in their manners and actions, they have lost the thought of Him and have become worse than beasts in His sight and in the respect they have for Him.” 9

But what of an Indian of good will who would be willing to believe, and do all that St. John De Brebeuf taught him, but who lived between Pentecost and the coming of the missionaries? God in His Divine Providence is not limited to ordinary means, the missionaries, to furnish people of good will with the means of salvation, but can also resort to extraordinary means. Again St. Thomas:

    Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly…even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20). 10

St Thomas’ contemporary, the Franciscan Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), writing of the same problem, says: “If he does what is within his power, the Lord will enlighten him with a secret inspiration, by means of an angel or of a man.” 11

But the opinion of Andreas De Vega was not shared by the majority of the theologians of the time. The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco Suarez (d. 1617), held fast to the teaching of St. Thomas and Alexander of Hales: “Whoever has not set up obstacles against it will receive the light or the call…, either externally by means of men…or by interior illumination by means of angels.” 12

Not only was the opinion of De Vega not accepted by the majority of the theologians of his day, it was rejected by the Magisterium as well. In 1679 Pope Innocent XI condemned the following proposition which implied that one could be saved without supernatural faith or revelation: “A faith amply indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification” (Denz. 2123). As St. Paul taught, if salvation were possible by the Mosaic Law, or by the natural law as well, then “Christ died in vain” (Galatians 2:21).

And in 1703 during the reign of Pope Clement XI when the missionary effort to the Amerindians was at its height, the Holy Office responded to an inquiry from the Bishop of Quebec:

Question. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle: “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder” (Heb. 11:16), from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ. Response. A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized” (Denz. 2380).

To an additional inquiry the Holy Office responded, that even an adult Indian at the point of death, must make an act of faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation before he could be baptized. (Denz. 2381)

The most remarkable instance of Divine Providence’s use of extraordinary means in our particular case, is the amazing, thoroughly documented, story of the Venerable Mary of Agreda (d. 1665). This humble nun while praying in her convent in Spain was miraculously transported to America and preached to various tribes, some a thousand miles apart, from Texas to the Pacific before the arrival of the missionaries. 13

But unknown to Andreas De Vega and his contemporaries, recent archaeological evidence has indicated that the ordinary means were also furnished to the Amerindians during the period between Pentecost and the arrival of Columbus. In a series of remarkable books, America B.C. (1977), Saga America (1980), and Bronze Age America (1982), the epigrapher, Barry Fell, has presented the archaeological evidence for this claim. He writes:

Christian relics are widespread in America as the illustrations to this chapter explain. But we also find records of Christian flight to the New World among the inscriptions on the rocks of North Africa. A notable one is the very long text (pages 170-172) engraved by a monk who had actually returned to Morroco from America, leaving his comrades behind in the wilderness; they had fled to escape the attentions of the Vandals in the fifth century of our era. Other texts from Nova Scotia, Connecticut, and places on the west coast of Canada and the United States tell us that small colonies of Christians had come here at various times…The epigraphic evidence of ancient Christians in North America is unimpeachable. 14

Of the many petroglyphs (rock carvings) that Barry Fell has deciphered, my favorite is one called the “Horse Creek Petroglyph” which was discovered in West Virginia. It is written in Old Irish in an ancient script call Ogam, and apparently dates from the sixth to the eighth centuries A.D.

A happy season is Christmas, a time of joy and goodwill to all people. A virgin was with child; God ordained her to conceive and be fruitful. Ah, behold a miracle! She gave birth to a son in a cave. The name of the cave was the Cave of Bethlehem. His foster father gave Him the name Jesus, the Christ, Alpha and Omega. Festive season of prayer. 15




Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - PeterII - 05-13-2009

(05-13-2009, 07:09 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(05-12-2009, 10:06 PM)catholicschoolmom Wrote: I know I will sound like a dogmatic neophyte, and I probably don't belong joining in this discussion, however, it brought to mind something I have wondered all along about being Catholic...  I was taught much of what has been posted as far as one must be baptized to wash away original sin, and be in a state of grace to avoid eternal punishment, but it always bothered me about people who may never have known about God.  What if they lived in some remote jungle, like those tribes you see in National Geographic.  As a kid, I would think of people who lived in Africa hundreds of years ago who would have had no possible contact with any kind of missionary priests or sisters at the time.  They didn't know about Jesus or God or the Blessed Mother or anything like that.  How could God, who loves HIs children so much, punish them for their ignorance?  Please don't label me a heretic or anything, but I just can't understand the rationalization of the church leaders in forming these opinions/rules. 

This will open a can of worms if discussed but I don't believe for 1 cotton-picking minute that any missionary ever arrived in a primitive village and told those people he was trying to convert that there Uncle Umbobo, Grandpa Mumata or Aunty JiJi was likely to be burning in Hell.  The pagans would have never converted if the missionaries had told them that.  One can therefore conclude.

1.  The missionaries lied about what the Church taught (since the pagans would SURELY have asked).
2.  The Church never taught that the unbaptised go to hell.  There were always get-out-of-jail-free clauses.

I find it even more odd, that given all the hair-splitting detail that the Church pronounces on less important matters of morals, faith and theology, with certitude enough to throw anathemas around, that we basically don't know the salvic mechanisms for what is after all the very reason-d'etre of our existance and the end game of all the mass going, sacrament partaking, chanting, loving, willful effort and rosary saying.

I'd venture to suggest that more people have lived on earth without a working knowledge of Christ and the Gospels than without.  Therefore unless God is a monster there must be some sort of salvic mechanism they can partake of with a reasonable chance of success.

That's always been the Church's teaching.  It's only a "controversy" because Feeneyites are tolerated on Traditional Catholic forums.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Quote:The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God’s commands. Many are kept from the Church by Ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.



Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - veritatem_dilexisti - 05-13-2009

Sorry, ggreg, but your speculation is erroneous; St Francis Xavier, whom the Church considers the most successful missionary since St Paul, clearly told the Japanese whom he was evangelising that their ancestors had been damned.


Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - PeterII - 05-13-2009

(05-13-2009, 01:09 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: Sorry, ggreg, but your speculation is erroneous; St Francis Xavier, whom the Church considers the most successful missionary since St Paul, clearly told the Japanese whom he was evangelising that their ancestors had been damned.

That's taken out of context.  St. Francis made that statement assuming that the Japanese had violated the "Divine Law" which we also call natural law, perfectly expressed in the 10 Commandments. 


Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - Bonifacius - 05-13-2009

"That's always been the Church's teaching.  It's only a "controversy" because Feeneyites are tolerated on Traditional Catholic forums."

We're also "tolerated" by the Church, as there are several orders in perfectly good standing with the Church (including a Benedictine Abbey!) that profess Fr. Feeney's beliefs. 


Re: Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell? - didishroom - 05-13-2009

Watch out! He's got an "encyclopedia" on his side. Infallible pronouncements from the Magisterium be damned!