Thursday, September 27, 2012
Volume 23, number 271

The Hell There Is
Part Three
St. Matthew 25: Verses 31-40

    One thing is certain and that is we will all die someday. When? That is for God to determine in His time, but no finite man lives forever on this earth. Another thing we know for sure is that Christ will come again and when He does, He will sit upon the "Seat of Majesty" a throne like no other and there, He will pass judgment on both the just and the unjust and will separate them into two groups - the sheep, those in the state of grace on His right, and the goats, those with mortal sin on their soul to His left for they are dead to Him. No one will be immune for it shall be all nations as Our Lord affirms. This then shall be the Final Judgment. Those who have passed on will already have had their Particular Judgments and will know their fate. Yet that moment in time - when all finite time will soon cease - will be like no other. Are we prepared to be judged by the Eternal Judge? The Angelic Doctor puts it bluntly that it will not go well for those who hoofed it through life without heeding God's saving grace and ignoring what He asks: to love Him and see Him in our fellow man.

    In this third part of the work of God from the Gospel of St. Matthew I continue to employ not only the well-known Haydock Commentary, but also the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Please note, while I attribute to Aquinas what is shown below, it should be acknowledged that it comes from the part of the Summa that was completed after his death by a Dominican theologian and friend of Saint Thomas (Supplement) using Saint Thomas' commentary on the "Fourth Book of the Sentences" or "Sentences" (Quatuor libri Sententiarum)].

    Again, I remind the reader that I am using this to emphasize the undeniable reality of Hell and the possibility that each and every one of us can go there. In the texts of the Summa what is in parenthesis has been put there by Thomas himself, that which is in brackets by the editor of New Advent's online version of the Summa on Hell unless "J.G." would be added at the end which would be something I insert. The only things I would insert would be a brief definition of a word that may not be readily known. In most cases I only do this if it was a word I didn't understand or was not 100% sure I knew the exact meaning. My inserts should not be looked at as being definitive as the desired meaning of the word as intended by Aquinas could be quite different. You will note in this first installment St. Thomas' words are in black, mine in blue, Haydock Commentary in green and Christ's words from Sacred Scripture always in red.

    Again, for brevity and easy reading I sometimes gave St. Thomas Aquinas' answers to objections without giving the objections so when you see a sentence that seems to be obscure it is a response to a particular objection. I suggest checking the source itself at the following link Summa for clarification.

    Some may think that the talents they have are their own and they can do whatever they want with them and the hell with the rest of their brothers or sisters. That attitude can easily lead to the slippery slope to the abyss of eternal damnation. We are, as Christ says, our brothers' keepers, and what we do with the talents we are blessed with or have developed could very well determine how we spend eternity. As we see in verses 31 through 40 Jesus tells us that there will be a reckoning when the Son of man returns. On that day He will separate the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats. You'll note the goat has long been associated with the devil and most probably from this passage of St. Matthew 25: 32. This section encompasses the Corporal Acts of Mercy but if we do not have the spiritual in mind, it is mere humanistic sympathy without seeing and caring for the soul as well as the body. I now continue with the next nine verses, some of which St. Thomas answers objections to arguments that, in the end, do not stand the test of time nor God's plan for man who, as mentioned before, has a free will and can choose to do good or sin. It's his choice, but he must live with the results of what he has reaped.

31 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:

32 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:

33 And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say to them that shall be on His right hand: Come, ye blessed of My Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

    Verse 34. Shall the King say to them ... on His right hand. By setting forth to all the world the good works of his faithful servants, the Sovereign Judge silences the murmurs of the reprobate, who might otherwise object that they had it not in their power to do good. In the same manner, the conduct of the wise virgins was the condemnation of the foolish ones; the diligence of the faithful servant, of the sloth and drunkenness of the idle one; the zeal of the servants who multiplied the talents entrusted to them, of him that hid his talent in the ground; and the fervor of the observers of the commandments, of the negligence and remissness of those who are ever transgressing them. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lxxx.) --- These works of mercy, says St. Augustine, prevail towards life everlasting, and to the blotting out of former sins; in Psalm xlix.

35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave Me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took Me in:

    Verse 35. For I was hungry, &c. We may take notice, that the wicked at the day of judgment, are said to be condemned for having omitted to perform good works. (Witham) --- St. Augustine, in his 33d sermon, brings a beautiful reason why the kingdom of Heaven is bestowed solely upon the works of mercy, and eternal damnation for the neglect of them; viz. because, however just a man may be, still he has many failings to atone for, on account of which the kingdom of Heaven might be justly denied him: but because he has shewn mercy to his neighbors, he deserves in like manner to have mercy shewn him. But the wicked, not having shewn mercy to their neighbors, nor redeemed their sins by alms-deeds, or the like, are thus delivered up to eternal damnation. (Jansenius, concord.) --- Jesus Christ only mentions one species of good works, though others may be equally meritorious; for the means of salvation are not precisely the same for all the saints; some are saved by poverty, others by solitude, and each by that virtue which he shall have practised in the greatest degree of perfection.

36 Naked, and you clothed Me: sick, and you visited Me: I was in prison, and you came to Me.

    Verse 36. And you visited Me. How easy are the things our Savior requires at our hands! He will not say at the day of judgment: "I was in prison, and you delivered Me; I was sick, and you healed Me; but only this, you visited Me, you came to Me." (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lxxx.) --- This seems particularly addressed to Christians engaged in the cares of the world, whose salvation principally depends on the practice of works of mercy.

    St. Thomas Aquinas on whether all those who perform works of mercy will be punished eternally

    Objection 1. It would seem that all who perform works of mercy will not be punished eternally, but only those who neglect those works. For it is written (James 2:13): "Judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy"; and (Matthew 5:7): "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy."

    Objection 2. Further, (Matthew 25:35-46) we find a description of our Lord's discussion with the damned and the elect. But this discussion is only about works of mercy. Therefore eternal punishment will be awarded only to such as have omitted to practice works of mercy: and consequently the same conclusion follows as before.

    Objection 3. Further, it is written (Matthew 6:12): "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors," and further on (Matthew 6:14): "For if you will forgive men their offenses, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offenses." Therefore it would seem that the merciful, who forgive others their offenses, will themselves obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and consequently will not be punished eternally.

    Objection 4. Further, a gloss of Ambrose on 1 Timothy 4:8, "Godliness is profitable to all things," says: "The sum total of a Christian's rule of life consists in mercy and godliness. Let a man follow this, and though he should suffer from the inconstancy of the flesh, without doubt he will be scourged, but he will not perish: whereas he who can boast of no other exercise but that of the body will suffer everlasting punishment." Therefore those who persevere in works of mercy, though they be shackled with fleshly sins, will not be punished eternally: and thus the same conclusion follows as before.

    On the contrary, It is written (1 Corinthians 6:9-10): "Neither fornicators . . . nor adulterers," etc. "shall possess the kingdom of God." Yet many are such who practice works of mercy. Therefore the merciful will not all come to the eternal kingdom: and consequently some of them will be punished eternally.

        Further, it is written (James 2:10): "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all." Therefore whoever keeps the law as regards the works of mercy and omits other works, is guilty of transgressing the law, and consequently will be punished eternally.

    I answer that, As Augustine says in the book quoted above (De Civ. Dei xxi, 22), some have maintained that not all who have professed the Catholic faith will be freed from eternal punishment, but only those who persevere in works of mercy, although they be guilty of other crimes. But this cannot stand, because without charity nothing can be acceptable to God, nor does anything profit unto eternal life in the absence of charity. Now it happens that certain persons persevere in works of mercy without having charity. Wherefore nothing profits them to the meriting of eternal life, or to exemption from eternal punishment, as may be gathered from 1 Corinthians 13:3. Most evident is this in the case of those who lay hands on other people's property, for after seizing on many things, they nevertheless spend something in works of mercy. We must therefore conclude that all whosoever die in mortal sin, neither faith nor works of mercy will free them from eternal punishment, not even after any length of time whatever.

    Reply to Objection 1. Those will obtain mercy who show mercy in an ordinate manner. But those who while merciful to others are neglectful of themselves do not show mercy ordinately, rather do they strike at themselves by their evil actions. Wherefore such persons will not obtain the mercy that sets free altogether, even if they obtain that mercy which rebates somewhat their due punishment.

    Reply to Objection 2. The reason why the discussion refers only to the works of mercy is not because eternal punishment will be inflicted on none but those who omit those works, but because eternal punishment will be remitted to those who after sinning have obtained forgiveness by their works of mercy, making unto themselves "friends of the mammon of iniquity" (Luke 16:9).

    Reply to Objection 3. Our Lord said this to those who ask that their debt be forgiven, but not to those who persist in sin. Wherefore the repentant alone will obtain by their works of mercy the forgiveness that sets them free altogether.

    Reply to Objection 4. The gloss of Ambrose speaks of the inconstancy that consists in venial sin, from which a man will be freed through the works of mercy after the punishment of purgatory, which he calls a scourging. Or, if he speaks of the inconstancy of mortal sin, the sense is that those who while yet in this life fall into sins of the flesh through frailty are disposed to repentance by works of mercy. Wherefore such a one will not perish, that is to say, he will be disposed by those works not to perish, through grace bestowed on him by our Lord, Who is blessed for evermore. Amen.

    St. Thomas on whether those souls which depart with original sin alone, suffer from a bodily fire, and are punished by fire

    Objection 1. It would seem that souls which depart with none but original sin, suffer from a bodily fire and are punished by fire. For Augustine [Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum, xxvii] says: "Hold firmly and doubt not that children who depart this life without the sacrament of Baptism will be punished everlastingly." Now punishment denotes sensible pain. Therefore souls which depart this life with original sin alone, suffer from a bodily fire and are tormented with the pain of fire.

    Objection 2. Further, a greater fault deserves a greater punishment. Now original sin is greater than venial, because it contains more aversion, since it deprives its subject of grace, whereas venial sin is compatible with grace; and again because original sin is punished eternally, whereas venial sin is punished temporally. Seeing then that venial sin is deserving of the punishment of fire, much more so is original sin.

    Objection 3. Further, sins are more severely punished after this life than during lifetime, for in this life there is room for mercy. Now, sensible punishment corresponds to original sin in this life, for children who have only original sin are justly subject to many sensible punishments. Therefore sensible punishment is due to it after this life.

    Objection 4. Further, even as in actual sin there is aversion and conversion, so in original sin there is something corresponding to aversion, namely the privation of original justice, and something corresponding to conversion, namely concupiscence. Now the punishment of fire is due to actual sin by reason of the conversion. Therefore it is also due to original sin by reason of concupiscence.

    Objection 5. Further, after the resurrection the bodies of children will be either passible or impassible. If they be impassible--and no human body can be impassible except either on account of the gift of impassibility (as in the blessed) or by reason of original justice (as in the state of innocence)--it follows that the bodies of children will either have the gift of impassibility, and thus will be glorious, so that there will be no difference between baptized and non-baptized children, which is heretical, or else they will have original justice, and thus will be without original sin, and will not be punished for original sin, which is likewise heretical. If, on the other hand, they be passible, since everything passible suffers of necessity in the presence of the active, it follows that in the presence of active sensible bodies they will suffer sensible punishment.

    On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion xxiii) that the mildest punishment of all will be for those who are burdened with original sin only. But this would not be so, if they were tormented with sensible punishment, because the pain of hell fire is most grievous. Therefore they will not suffer sensible punishment.

        Further, the grief of sensible punishment corresponds to the pleasure of sin (Apocalypse 18:7): "As much as she hath glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her." But there is no pleasure in original sin, as neither is there operation, for pleasure follows operation, as stated in Ethic. x, 4. Therefore punishment by fire is not due to original sin.

        Further, Gregory Nazianzen in his fortieth sermon, which is entitled On Holy Baptism, distinguishes three classes of unbaptized persons: those namely who refuse to be baptized, those who through neglect have put off being baptized until the end of life and have been surprised by sudden death, and those who, like infants, have failed to receive it through no fault of theirs. Of the first he says that they will be punished not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism; of the second, that they will be punished, though less severely than the first, for having neglected it; and of the last he says that "a just and eternal Judge will consign them neither to heavenly glory nor to the eternal pains of hell, for although they have not been signed with Baptism, they are without wickedness and malice, and have suffered rather than caused their loss of Baptism." He also gives the reason why, although they do not reach the glory of heaven, they do not therefore suffer the eternal punishment suffered by the damned: "Because there is a mean between the two, since he who deserves not honor and glory is not for that reason worthy of punishment, and on the other hand he who is not deserving of punishment is not for that reason worthy of glory and honor."

    I answer that, Punishment should be proportionate to fault, according to the saying of Isaias (27:8), "In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it." Now the defect transmitted to us through our origin, and having the character of a sin does not result from the withdrawal or corruption of a good consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles, but from the withdrawal or corruption of something that had been superadded to nature. Nor does this sin belong to this particular man, except in so far as he has such a nature, that is deprived of this good, which in the ordinary course of things he would have had and would have been able to keep. Wherefore no further punishment is due to him, besides the privation of that end to which the gift withdrawn destined him, which gift human nature is unable of itself to obtain. Now this is the divine vision; and consequently the loss of this vision is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death: because, if any other sensible punishment were inflicted after death for original sin, a man would be punished out of proportion to his guilt, for sensible punishment is inflicted for that which is proper to the person, since a man undergoes sensible punishment in so far as he suffers in his person. Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so neither should he be punished by suffering himself, but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain. On the other hand, those who are under sentence for original sin will suffer no loss whatever in other kinds of perfection and goodness which are consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles.

    Reply to Objection 1. In the authority quoted punishment denotes, not pain of sense, but only pain of loss, which is the privation of the divine vision, even as in Scripture the word "fire" is often wont to signify any kind of punishment.

    Reply to Objection 2. Of all sins original sin is the least, because it is the least voluntary; for it is voluntary not by the will of the person, but only by the will of the origin of our nature. But actual sin, even venial, is voluntary by the will of the person in which it is; wherefore a lighter punishment is due to original than to venial sin. Nor does it matter that original sin is incompatible with grace; because privation of grace has the character, not of sin, but of punishment, except in so far as it is voluntary: for which reason that which is less voluntary is less sinful. Again it matters not that actual venial sin is deserving of temporal punishment, since this is accidental, for as much as he who falls venially has sufficient grace to attenuate the punishment. For if venial sin were in a person without grace, it would be punished eternally.

    Reply to Objection 3. There is no parity between pain of sense before and after death, since before death the pain of sense results from the power of the natural agent, whether the pain of sense be interior as fever or the like, or exterior as burning and so forth. Whereas after death nothing will act by natural power, but only according to the order of divine justice, whether the object of such action be the separate soul, on which it is clear that fire cannot act naturally, or the body after resurrection, since then all natural action will cease, through the cessation of the first movable which is the cause of all bodily movement and alteration.

    Reply to Objection 4. Sensible pain corresponds to sensible pleasure, which is in the conversion of actual sin: whereas habitual concupiscence, which is in original sin, has no pleasure. Hence, sensible pain does not correspond thereto as punishment.

    Reply to Objection 5. The bodies of children will be impassible, not through their being unable in themselves to suffer, but through the lack of an external agent to act upon them: because, after the resurrection, no body will act on another, least of all so as to induce corruption by the action of nature, but there will only be action to the effect of punishing them by order of the divine justice. Wherefore those bodies to which pain of sense is not due by divine justice will not suffer punishment. On the other hand, the bodies of the saints will be impassible, because they will lack the capability of suffering; hence impassibility in them will be a gift, but not in children.

    Aquinas on whether these same souls suffer spiritual affliction on account of the state in which they are

    Objection 1. It would seem that the souls in question suffer spiritual affliction on account of the state wherein they are, because as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxiii in Matth.), the punishment of God in that they will be deprived of seeing God will be more painful than their being burned in hell fire. Now these souls will be deprived of seeing God. Therefore they will suffer spiritual affliction thereby.

    Objection 2. Further, one cannot, without suffering, lack what one wishes to have. But these souls would wish to have the divine vision, else their will would be actually perverse. Therefore since they are deprived of it, seemingly they also suffer.

    Objection 3. Further, if it be said that they do not suffer, because they know that through no fault of theirs they are deprived thereof, on the contrary: Freedom from fault does not lessen but increases the pain of punishment: for a man does not grieve less for that he is disinherited or deprived of a limb through no fault of his. Therefore these souls likewise, albeit deprived of so great a good through no fault of theirs, suffer none the less.

    Objection 4. Further, as baptized children are in relation to the merit of Christ, so are unbaptized children to the demerit of Adam. But baptized children receive the reward of eternal life by virtue of Christ's merit. Therefore the unbaptized suffer pain through being deprived of eternal life on account of Adam's demerit.

    Objection 5. Further, separation from what we love cannot be without pain. But these children will have natural knowledge of God, and for that very reason will love Him naturally. Therefore since they are separated from Him for ever, seemingly they cannot undergo this separation without pain.

    On the contrary, If unbaptized children have interior sorrow after death, they will grieve either for their sin or for their punishment. If for their sin, since they cannot be further cleansed from that sin, their sorrow will lead them to despair. Now sorrow of this kind in the damned is the worm of conscience. Therefore these children will have the worm of conscience, and consequently theirs would not be the mildest punishment, as Augustine says it is [See 1, "On the contrary"]. If, on the other hand, they grieve for their punishment, it follows, since their punishment is justly inflicted by God, that their will opposes itself to divine justice, and thus would be actually inordinate, which is not to be granted. Therefore they will feel no sorrow.

        Further, right reason does not allow one to be disturbed on account of what one was unable to avoid; hence Seneca proves (Ep. lxxxv, and De ira ii, 6) that "a wise man is not disturbed." Now in these children there is right reason deflected by no actual sin. Therefore they will not be disturbed for that they undergo this punishment which they could nowise avoid.

    I answer that, on this question there are three opinions. Some say that these children will suffer no pain, because their reason will be so much in the dark that they will not know that they lack what they have lost. It, however, seems improbable that the soul freed from its bodily burden should ignore things which, to say the least, reason is able to explore, and many more besides. Hence others say that they have perfect knowledge of things subject to natural reason, and know God, and that they are deprived of seeing Him, and that they feel some kind of sorrow on this account but that their sorrow will be mitigated, in so far as it was not by their will that they incurred the sin for which they are condemned. Yet this again would seem improbable, because this sorrow cannot be little for the loss of so great a good, especially without the hope of recovery: wherefore their punishment would not be the mildest. Moreover the very same reason that impugns their being punished with pain of sense, as afflicting them from without, argues against their feeling sorrow within, because the pain of punishment corresponds to the pleasure of sin; wherefore, since original sin is void of pleasure, its punishment is free of all pain. Consequently others say that they will know perfectly things subject to natural knowledge, and both the fact of their being deprived of eternal life and the reason for this privation, and that nevertheless this knowledge will not cause any sorrow in them. How this may be possible we must explore.

        Accordingly, it must be observed that if one is guided by right reason one does not grieve through being deprived of what is beyond one's power to obtain, but only through lack of that which, in some way, one is capable of obtaining. Thus no wise man grieves for being unable to fly like a bird, or for that he is not a king or an emperor, since these things are not due to him; whereas he would grieve if he lacked that to which he had some kind of claim. I say, then, that every man who has the use of free-will is adapted to obtain eternal life, because he can prepare himself for grace whereby to merit eternal life [Cf. I-II, 109, 5 and 6]; so that if he fail in this, his grief will be very great, since he has lost what he was able to possess. But children were never adapted to possess eternal life, since neither was this due to them by virtue of their natural principles, for it surpasses the entire faculty of nature, nor could they perform acts of their own whereby to obtain so great a good. Hence they will nowise grieve for being deprived of the divine vision; nay, rather will they rejoice for that they will have a large share of God's goodness and their own natural perfections. Nor can it be said that they were adapted to obtain eternal life, not indeed by their own action, but by the actions of others around them, since they could be baptized by others, like other children of the same condition who have been baptized and obtained eternal life: for this is of superabundant grace that one should be rewarded without any act of one's own. Wherefore the lack of such a grace will not cause sorrow in children who die without Baptism, any more than the lack of many graces accorded to others of the same condition makes a wise man to grieve.

    Reply to Objection 1. In those who, having the use of free-will, are damned for actual sin, there was aptitude to obtain eternal life, but not in children, as stated above. Consequently there is no parity between the two.

    Reply to Objection 2. Although the will may be directed both to the possible and to the impossible as stated in Ethic. iii, 5, an ordinate and complete will is only of things which in some way are proportionate to our capability; and we grieve if we fail to obtain this will, but not if we fail in the will that is of impossibilities, and which should be called "velleity" [Cf. I-II, 13, 5, ad 1; III, 21, 4] rather than "will"; for one does not will such things absolutely, but one would if they were possible.

    Reply to Objection 3. Everyone has a claim to his own inheritance or bodily members, wherefore it is not strange that he should grieve at their loss, whether this be through his own or another's fault: hence it is clear that the argument is not based on a true comparison.

    Reply to Objection 4. The gift of Christ surpasses the sin of Adam, as stated in Romans 5:15, seqq.. Hence it does not follow that unbaptized children have as much of evil as the baptized have of good.

    Reply to Objection 5. Although unbaptized children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods, and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love.

            Only the guilt of actual sin calls for painful punishment, that is, for the affliction of the senses by fire or other bodily agency. Those who die in original sin only, are not afflicted by the pain of sense. Therefore, unbaptized children who are in the limbo of children suffer no pain.

            Nor do they suffer any spiritual affliction. For their powers of soul (their intellect and will) have never been disordered by actual sin. Therefore, the infants in the limbo of children will suffer neither pain of sense nor affliction of mind.

            These infants are not wholly separated from God; they are united to Him by their nature and its gifts. They continually rejoice in God by natural knowledge and love. (A TOUR OF THE SUMMA, by Monsignor Paul J. Glenn)

    37 Then shall the just answer Him, saying: Lord, when did we see Thee hungry, and fed Thee: thirsty, and gave Thee drink?

    38 And when did we see Thee a stranger, and took Thee in: or naked, and clothed Thee?

    39 Or when did we see Thee sick, or in prison, and came to Thee?

    40 And the King answering, shall say to them: Amen, I say to you: as long as you did it to one of these, My least brethren, you did it to Me.

      Verse 40. As long as you did it to one of these, My least brethren. Can there be a more forcible motive to charity, than the assurance of revelation that the Son of God will accept all good of offices done to the afflicted, as done to Himself. This condescension of the part of Jesus Christ, will fill the elect with sentiments of profound admiration and astonishment. --- Then with fire in His eyes, and terror in His countenance, He shall say to the wicked: Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. It was not originally created for rebellious man; for man was created subsequently to the fall and damnation of the rebel angels: and though he imitated their transgression, the sentence of everlasting burning was reversed by Jesus Christ ... By His blood man has been redeemed from eternal punishment. If many, notwithstanding, are yet condemned to never-ending flames, they are punished under the quality of the slaves of the devil: for as they have willfully followed his rebellious example, they must expect with him to participate in his torments. (Consult. i. John iii. 8.)

    In the fourth and final installment in November, I will treat verses 41 through 46 on the fate that awaits those who did not heed Christ's words nor loved their neighbor as themselves for truly no man is an island and it is how we treat others who are made in the image and likeness of God just as we also should see ourselves - for each of us are temples of the Holy Ghost and God will judge us for Jesus asks us to love one another. If we do not love God, then we will not love our neighbor nor have true compassion on him, nor want him to be with us in Heaven. That myopic selfishness can get us a ticket to hell.

John Gregory


For this current series on Hell, see


For the recent series on Purgatory, see

For the past completed series on "The Sermon on the Mount" see:

        "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are THE TRUE CHURCH"
        Saint Athanasius, "Apostle of Tradition" AD 373





John Gregory's FAITHFUL TO TRADITION
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Volume 23, number 271