Is the floor of Hell paved with the skulls of bishops?

Gloria Romanorum ^ | February 3, 2024 | Florentius

[Antoninus]

The well-used quote: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops," may be found in a variety of forms. Perhaps the most colorful version of it is: "The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path."

This saying has been attributed to one of several Fathers of the ancient Church and to Protestant revolutionaries from more recent times. Most often, it is claimed to be taken from the writings of St. Athanasius or St. John Chrysostom. After a thorough search, I have come to the conclusion that this saying is of more modern provenance, likely originating from a Protestant polemic which made very liberal use of a homily from St. John Chrysostom.

So to respond to the question posed in the title of this post: Is the literal floor of Hell paved with the literal skulls of bishops? The answer is: No, probably not as such.

That said, I looked up the homily of St. John Chrysostom to which this quote is often attributed, and what I found there is, perhaps, even more daunting than the rhetorically evocative version that most folks are familiar with. The work in question is St. John's Third Homily on the Acts of the Apostles. The passage in question is the following which I am pasting here for future reference:

"I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish: and the reason is, that it is an affair that requires a great mind. Many are the exigencies which throw a man out of his natural temper; and he had need have a thousand eyes on all sides. Do you not see what a number of qualifications the Bishop must have? To be apt to teach, patient, holding fast the faithful word in doctrine [see 1 Timothy 3:2-9; Titus 1:7-9]. What trouble and pains does this require!

And then, others do wrong, and he bears all the blame. To pass over every thing else: if one soul depart unbaptized, does not this subvert all his own prospect of salvation? The loss of one soul carries with it a penalty which no language can represent. For if the salvation of that soul was of such value, that the Son of God became man, and suffered so much, think how sore a punishment must the losing of it bring! And if in this present life he who is cause of another's destruction is worthy of death, much more in the next world. Do not tell me, that the presbyter is in fault, or the deacon. The guilt of all these comes perforce upon the head of those who ordained them.

Let me mention another instance. It chances, that a bishop has inherited from his predecessor a set of persons of indifferent character. What measures is it proper to take in respect of bygone transgressions (for here are two precipices) so as not to let the offender go unpunished, and not to cause scandal to the rest? Must one's first step be to cut him off? There is no actual present ground for that. But is it right to let him go unmarked? Yes, say you; for the fault rests with the bishop who ordained him. Well then? Must one refuse to ordain him again, and to raise him to a higher degree of the ministry? That would be to publish it to all men, that he is a person of indifferent character, and so again one would cause scandal in a different way. But is one to promote him to a higher degree? That is much worse.

If then there were only the responsibility of the office itself for people to run after in the episcopate, none would be so quick to accept it. But as things go, we run after this, just as we do after the dignities of the world. That we may have glory with men, we lose ourselves with God. What profit in such honor? How self-evident its nothingness is! When you covet the episcopal rank, put in the other scale, the account to be rendered after this life. Weigh against it, the happiness of a life free from toil, take into account the different measure of the punishment. I mean, that even if you have sinned, but in your own person merely, you will have no such great punishment, nothing like it: but if you have sinned as bishop, you are lost."

Read the entire Third Homily of St. John Chrysostom on Acts of the Apostles here.

What more is there to say, really? Except this -- may our bishops understand the gravity of what they do when they preach that which is contrary to traditional Church doctrine and morality.

[ealgeone]

>>Looking at a woman lustfully in this context means desiring to have sexual relations with a woman other than one’s wife. The very desire, if it is more than just a passing thought, is already the sin of adultery in the heart, and it would be a mortal sin.<<

So according to your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture, is the passing thought a sin or not? Exactly how much time must elapse before it becomes a sin? Does that sin, once committed, immediately put the sinner in danger of perdition?

To be clear....the above quote is not mine, but from a Roman Catholic site.

To your question.....you thought the thought. In the passage in the Bible no time frame is given.

Thoughts are instantaneous. A millisecond is sufficient to condemn based on the passage in Matthew.

Jesus was trying to show the people that it wasn't just the physical act of adultery that is the sin.....it's also the thought of it.

The people had been told it was the physical act which was the sin. "27“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;"

But He goes on the further explain the commandment.

"but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

He says the person has committed adultery by the mere act of lusting after the woman.

As I said before, it can be a millisecond of lust yet that is sufficient to condemn the person as committing adultery.

What this illustrates is no matter how good a person may think they are...in this case that may think, I've never actually had sex without someone outside of marriage and they're fine...but IF they've thought it, and I don't know a person on the planet who hasn't....then they're just as guilty as the person who did the actual physical act.

Ephesians 2:1.... 1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,

I think most of us know when we've committed a sin....but what we don't know is when we've committed the trespass. This, in my opinion, is where our thought life condemns us. We're not even aware of the trespass.

All this to say it shows no matter how much, or how hard we may try....our "good works" are insufficient to save us.

It's why we need a Savior, that is Christ. He is the only One Who can forgive all of our sin debt.

[Antoninus]

All this to say it shows no matter how much, or how hard we may try....our "good works" are insufficient to save us.

No one disagrees with that. The problem then becomes one of apathy toward sin. Which is why many Protestants feel that they can think about sexual sin, participate in sexual sin, and it's all fine and dandy because, "I'm already saved." I've encountered that attitude frequently.

I would also argue that the lack of ability to partake in sacramental Confession causes problems for Protestants. This is not only because it robs the Protestant Christian of the regular need to examine one's conscience, but also because the act of confessing and the certainty that sins are forgiven by God once confessed is wonderfully cleansing. Even a non-Christian former Lutheran like Carl Jung noticed the positive effect that Confession had for Catholics.

[Antoninus]

To be clear....the above quote is not mine, but from a Roman Catholic site.

So hang on a sec. Do you believe the "passing thought" that enters one's mind, immediately becomes a sin worthy of damnation? Be clear.

[ealgeone]

The issue is the writer is trying to justify the thought by assigning a human time metric. But, we cannot define “passing through”. Is a millisecond passing through or is it 5 seconds? 30? A minute?

See the problem?

. So yes, even a passing thought is considered sin. The individual may not act on it but they don’t have to which is the point of the passage.

[ealgeone]

I’ve encountered the same with RCs as well. Pew results tend to show RCs more apathetic to the issue however.

As far as confession Christians can go straight to God and confess sins, the big ones and little ones as they are all sin in His eyes, and know He’s forgiven us per 1 John. He already knows!

But this is not to retain salvation as it is in Roman Catholicism.

[Antoninus]

So yes, even a passing thought is considered sin. The individual may not act on it but they don’t have to which is the point of the passage.

Is it possible for passing thoughts to enter our minds as temptations due to the intervention of satan or other demonic spirits? If so, are those thoughts sinful?

[ealgeone]

Interesting question. Temptations would not be sinful as we are all tempted. Usually these come from outside our thoughts. As an example, if a gal came to you and said, hey, let’s go have sex. That’s a temptation. We cannot avoid temptations.

BUT, if you went home and contemplated having sex with her it shifts to a sin as you’re now the one thinking about it.

[Antoninus]

As an example, if a gal came to you and said, hey, let’s go have sex.

OK, now let's shift to this scenario which I think is much more common. You're on FR and someone posts a photo of a really attractive, scantily-clad woman. You look at said photo for 4.5 seconds. Have you committed a sin?

[dfwgator]

It was a sin for you to wanna feel up Ellen. It was a sin for you to plan to feel up Ellen. It was a sin for you to figure out a place to feel up Ellen. It was a sin to take Ellen to the place to feel her up. It was a sin to try to feel her up and it was a sin to feel her up. There were six sins in one feel, man!

-George Carlin

[Antoninus]

I’ve encountered the same with RCs as well. Pew results tend to show RCs more apathetic to the issue however.

Pew polls do not tend to differentiate between Catholics who actually attend Mass regularly (actual Catholics) and those who don't -- who are technically in a state of mortal sin and outside the Church. So they're fairly useless.

They also don't differentiate between traditional Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics. If they did, you would find that the traditional Catholics are almost 100% NOT apathetic. If anything, their error tends more towards scrupulosity.

[ealgeone]

You’re again trying to put a time frame on how long you can lust before it becomes a sin.

[ealgeone]

You may not even be aware of what you’re subconscious is thinking…hence why we’re dead in our sins and trespasses.

[ealgeone]

Now you’ve added a work to salvation with mandatory attendance to Mass. How many do you have to attend? Daily? Hourly? Weekly? Monthly?

[ealgeone]

To which must be added the Holy Days of Obligation.

[Antoninus]

You’re again trying to put a time frame on how long you can lust before it becomes a sin.

So what's the answer to the question? If the photo shows up on your scroll and you see it even for a split second, have you sinned?

[Antoninus]

Now you’ve added a work to salvation with mandatory attendance to Mass.

In John 3:5, Our Lord says: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Is baptism not a "work" required for salvation?

[Leep]

One ell of hell is reserved for the Clinton and Biden family.

[ealgeone]

No. It’s not a work.

[Antoninus]

No. It’s not a work.

Really.

So attending Mass, which is done specifically because of the injunction of Our Lord to "do this in remembrance of me" is a work. But baptism, which is done specifically because Our Lord said "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" is not a work.

You can perhaps understand how that makes little sense.

[ealgeone]

28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”

29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

John 6:28-29 NASB 95

The consistent message of the NT....believe in Him.