Manage Account

Why does Hell exist if God is all-powerful and loving? Joe Heschmeyer addresses the common question about the existence of Hell in light of God&#8217;s attributes. Discover how free will plays a crucial role in this complex theological issue. Understand the concept of human choice and its eternal consequences.
Transcript:
<div>
<div>
This person simply says, if God is all powerful and all loving, hell shouldn&#8217;t exist in the first place.
</div>
<div>
That&#8217;s right. It shouldn&#8217;t. It was because of our rebellion from God that it does. The idea of God being all powerful doesn&#8217;t mean that his power deprived me of the free will that he gave me. And that is the frustrating part of free will is that God in his goodness knows it&#8217;s good for us to have free will and he&#8217;s powerful enough to give us free will. And let&#8217;s notice that takes a tremendous amount of power. We can&#8217;t create free will ourselves. The closest we have is artificial intelligence and that&#8217;s not really free will. It just is a nice illusion of free will. It&#8217;s still a heavily controlled kind of program. We are not programs. We have free will and God interacts with our free will, but he doesn&#8217;t eliminate it. And this means that we can choose to allow him to satisfy the longings of our heart or we can choose for him not to. And if we choose for him not to, there&#8217;s no other option. God is the infinite uncreated source of all goodness. If I say I don&#8217;t want that, there&#8217;s not some second infinite uncreated source of all goodness that I can turn to. And so I&#8217;m necessarily going to be tremendously unhappy having said no to the only thing that can satisfy my heart.
</div>
</div>

“A Loving God Wouldn’t Make A Hell” (response)

Episode 76: Year B &#8211; 6th Sunday of Easter
There are three details that I want to focus on in the readings for this upcoming 6th Sunday of Easter, Year B. The first two come from the first reading, which recounts the event involving. Cornelius and his Gentile friends, taken from Acts 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48. The apologetical topic that both details relate to is the Sacrament of Baptism. The third detail is found in the Gospel reading, taken from John 15:9-17. The topic that comes to the fore, like in last week’s Gospel, is the relationship that our good works have with our salvation.
The Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/041424.cfm">Click Here</a>
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further: <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>

The Necessity of Baptism for Salvation

Did Jesus use a racial slur against the woman in Mt. 15:26?

How do Catholics understand when Paul says faith apart from works of the law?

Jesus tells when we fast and pray we are to do things a certain way. Do we follow exactly what he says or do we follow how the Church tells us to? If the fasting is in quiet, how do we witness to people?

How do we reconcile 2 Cor 5:8, to “be away from the body and at home with the Lord” with the doctrine of purgatory?

Did St. Jerome change his mind on the Deuterocanon?

I want to study more formally bible studies. What do you recommend one do or which programs to follow?

&#8220;Did Jesus use a racial slur against the woman in Mt. 15:26?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the complexities of scripture interpretation. Other topics include the Catholic understanding of faith and works as discussed by Paul, and how to reconcile 2 Corinthians 5:8 with the doctrine of purgatory, showcasing a range of theological inquiries.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

Responding to Claims that Jesus used Racial Slurs

In this episode Trent sits down with Eric Sammons to discuss the importance of apologetics, how it’s often misunderstood, and how we should respond to confusion surrounding Pope Francis.

Apologetics, Ecumenism, and Pope Francis (with Eric Sammons)

The author of <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/prepare-the-way-overcoming-obstacles-to-god-the-gospel-and-the-church/">Prepare the Way: Overcoming Obstacles to God, the Gospel, and the Church</a> joins us to reflect on Coca-Cola’s “Love is love” ad campaign. Is all sexual love equal as the campaign suggests?

Is All Love Equal?

Todd Aglialoro, director of publishing here at Catholic Answers, offers ideas for some &#8220;delightful&#8221; Catholic summer reading. In this first of a two-part reading series, Todd offers non-fiction ideas, with fiction to come later.

A Catholic Summer Reading List

Imagine the following scenario: a small church, far more crowded than normal, perhaps because of some parish fundraiser or event that is to follow Mass that day. There are not enough consecrated hosts to go around, so Father is fracturing the hosts as he continues to distribute Holy Communion. In spite of his efforts, there are no more consecrated hosts left when you arrive before him. He looks at you with concern, an apology forming on his lips, and then you see the light bulb go off behind his eyes. He has an idea. He turns to the deacon who is holding the chalice and beckons him over. With visible relief, Father sees that the chalice is not empty. He offers it to you, saying, “The body of Christ.”
This is, admittedly, an unlikely situation, as priests tend to make an effort toward situational awareness! Perhaps the deacon was already returning the chalice to the altar for ablutions; there could be many variables here. I present it here as an extreme example, to help illustrate the point. Understanding how principles can be applied in extreme examples helps us to understand those principles better.
To bring us back down to earth, now let’s look at a likelier scenario: a parishioner who has a severe gluten allergy, which prevents him from being able to consume any sort of bread—or anything with all the physical attributes of bread, even if it is substantially Jesus Christ. Is such a person ineligible for receiving Holy Communion, since anything other than unleavened wheat bread would be <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/invalid-masses">invalid matter</a> for the sacrament (this is why ministers can provide low-gluten hosts but not gluten-free ones), and thus not a validly confected Eucharist?
Thank God, no. Such an individual could still receive from the chalice. But, you might ask, doesn’t the chalice contain only Christ’s blood? After all, when the minister hands me the chalice, he says, “The blood of Christ,” just as the priest says, “The body of Christ” when he gives me the host. So if I receive only from the chalice, aren’t I missing out on something?
To answer this question, we will need to have a better understanding of just what the Church teaches about the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
The Church teaches that Jesus Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the eucharistic species after the consecration—and that is Jesus in his entirety: body, blood, soul, and divinity. This is true of both species, even when only one is consumed. Of course, both the bread and wine will be present at every Mass, as these are the required matter for a valid Eucharist. But in many cases, only the priest will receive both the host and the contents of chalice, whereas the congregation receive only the host. In such a case, no one doubts whether he has received the Eucharist rather than some sort of incomplete portion.
The same is true for someone who only receives from the chalice:
<blockquote>The eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ (CCC 1377).</blockquote>
If we look carefully, we can see indications of this teaching in Scripture. For example, let’s take a look at St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, which is the only time outside the Gospels that we read an account of the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist. Paul provides some of the deepest theological reflections on the Eucharist that we have from the Church’s earliest days.
He writes, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (11:27-29).
There is one particular word I would like to draw attention to, packed with much more meaning than its two letters betoken: or. Paul says that if someone eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner, he profanes the body and blood of the Lord. That little conjunction tells us a great deal about what Paul is describing: one need not partake of the bread in order to profane the body and blood. Even if one were to be in an unworthy state and drink only of the cup, he would profane the body and blood. This tells us that the body and blood are present in the contents of the cup.
We get a further elaboration of this point in the Catechism:
<blockquote>Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites (1390).</blockquote>
The Church has explained in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal,
<blockquote>Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation (GIRM 282).</blockquote>
The point has been emphasized, as well, in response to questions regarding reception of Communion under one or the other species alone. Sometimes such concerns are due to pastoral reasons, or even medical reasons, such as alcoholism or alcohol intolerance, gluten intolerance, etc. The point emphasized here repeatedly, in all of these pastoral situations, is the fact that Christ is truly present in each species.
So what happens if you receive from just the chalice? Well, Deo gratias—you have still received Holy Communion. You have received Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

What If I Take Just the Chalice?

For a contrary opinion, read &#8220;<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/in-defense-of-trumps-tariffs">In Defense of Trump’s Tariffs</a>.&#8221;