Acceptable Universalism

[NoelFitz]

I read recently in ‘Catholic Answers Daily’ about Universalism as understood by Hans Urs von Balthasar and Carl Bart, and wonder should it be Karl Barth.
Can an acceptable Catholic position be summed up by holding that it is reasonable to believe all people may be save, or to hope all people will be saved?

 

[Zaccheus]

As I understand it, the Church teaches that there are people in Hell.

 

[Magnanimity]

Can an acceptable Catholic position be summed up by holding that it is reasonable to believe all people may be save

Maybe, so long as it’s a belief that you tentatively hold. As Von Balthasar was good about pointing out, the scriptures make it fairly plain that we all stand “under judgment.”

There is an infinite range of options between the certainty of St Augustine on the one hand (we know that few are saved and most are condemned) and the certainly of DB Hart on the other hand (we know that no one spends eternity in Hell).

or to hope all people will be saved?

Yes. This is the position taken by so very many of the best and brightest Catholics of the last century–Cardinal De Lubac, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal-elect Von Balthasar, etc. It is most definitely an option for a Catholic today.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

holding that it is reasonable to believe all people may be save, or to hope all people will be saved?

I don’t see a real difference between the two. I mean, you aren’t referring to a naive hope, like a child’s hope. At least, I’m assuming you’re not. So what’s the difference between the two in your mind?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Maybe, so long as it’s a belief that you tentatively hold.

That doesn’t sound very hopeful. So why then hold it tentatively at all. Why not either believe that it’s possible…or if you don’t, that it’s not possible. Unless Noelfitz is a Catholic theologian about to publish his fourth book on Universalism, why not hold the belief that everyone is saved?

 

[joshringsell]

To my mind, no. All the saints I’ve come across have maintained that the saved are very few indeed.

I’m generally a fan of David Bentley Hart (an EO universalist) but his universalism is essentially anti-orthodox.

There’s an excellent book review on First Things that I read today on DBH’s new book on universalism - check it out.

 

[Magnanimity]

That doesn’t sound very hopeful. So why then hold it tentatively at all. Why not either believe that it’s possible…or if you don’t, that it’s not possible. Unless Noelfitz is a Catholic theologian about to publish his fourth book on Universalism, why not hold the belief that everyone is saved?

I was only trying to note that the OP was kind of asking two questions. The latter question was whether it was possible to hope for the salvation of all–and it emphatically is possible to hope and pray that all may be saved. The first question is whether it is acceptable for a Catholic to hold that it is reasonable to believe in universal salvation.

For my money, pretending to knowledge or certainty in these matters is goofy, whether you’re St Augustine or DB Hart. We cannot know, either way. So, my response was just to note that we stop at belief, which, by its nature, is tentative.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Okay, I see. I think.

The OP uses the phrase “may be save[d]”. So I’m assuming he’s not going to hold this belief (Universalism) as a certainty. So to him…What then is the difference between holding an uncertain belief and a hope?

And so I asked you…Why would an uncertain belief need to be held tentatively? Isn’t that redundant? But I think you already cleared that one up for me with your last post.

belief, which, by its nature, is tentative.

Really? That’s an interesting way to put it.

 

[Vico]

I read recently in ‘Catholic Answers Daily’ about Universalism as understood by Hans Urs von Balthasar and Carl Bart, and wonder should it be Karl Barth.
Can an acceptable Catholic position be summed up by holding that it is reasonable to believe all people may be save, or to hope all people will be saved?

There is no universal salvation of rational beings. The dogma of faith is that a human person cannot be certain of salvation, short of divine revelation, and also we know that the fallen angels are in hell. (Based upon the state of hell, since the general judgment has not occurred). There may be hope that a particular individual may be saved if there is not a revelation to the contrary.

Luke 13

23 And a certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them: 24 Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.

Matt 7

22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

 

[Magnanimity]

If you think I’m splitting hairs, I’ll just say fair enough. I don’t see a quarrel here. For me, I’ve run across my fair share of folks on both sides who were certain that universalism or infernalism was the truth of the matter. A fair amount of humility is often called for in matters of eschatology—so much more is unknown than known.

But believe me, I’ll argue against St Augustine’s repulsive notion of Hell until the cows come home (as I have in numerous threads).