I fully agree with you. People are trying to make something out of nothing. I listened to his tape and he is right. We do not know who is in hell - not even Judas. Remember, Judas might have repented at the moment before his death.
So everyone, including Satan will end up in Heaven?
Really? The united Church had no firm teaching on the reality of Hell?
You’re still barking up the wrong tree, I think. No one is saying, dogmatically, “Hell is empty”. We’re simply asking whether it’s possible that, in His mercy, God might be able to choose to allow all to attain to heaven. If the answer to that question is “yes,” then we’re done here: the possibility that all might be saved, through God’s mercy, is all that’s being asked. That question, I think – whether God might be that merciful – must be answered ‘yes’. Will God do so? That’s a completely different question, and it’s not what’s being asked here.
Yes, but if God saves those who don’t explicitly accept Christ, then there will be more in heaven than the “few” who find the narrow door.
If we’re grading on a strict scale, you’re absolutely correct: after all, if 70-100 is ‘passing’ and 0-69 is ‘failing’, and we say that ‘few’ get 70 or better, then absolutely, this means that many fail. However, God’s mercy isn’t an absolute scale – after all, if we were judged on the basis of whether we succeed at avoiding sin, then we all ‘fail’. Rather, God’s mercy is like grading on a curve. Saying that few find the narrow gate – that is, saying that few get even a 70% – doesn’t at all imply that ‘few pass the test.’ Rather, it simply says that (at least) many get graded on the kind of curve that turns a failing grade into a passing grade. Does it necessarily mean that all pass? No … but that’s not what’s at stake here! What’s at stake is the question of whether God’s ‘curve’ might allow all to pass, in His mercy. That answer must be “yes, it’s possible” (even if it’s not probable).
You’ve identified a real problem with the question of the possibility that all might be saved – is it possible to think that Judas might have been saved?
Perhaps. Yet, that’s not the question being debated here.
Agreed. Yet, again… not. the. question. we’re. debating. here.
Wonderful. And completely irrelevant to our discussion. This isn’t a discussion of how you hash out “salvation math,” but whether it’s possible that God’s “salvation math” is different than yours.
There we go! Now, finally, you’re addressing the right question! Might we hope that God saves all? YES!
Reasonable? I dunno. Hope? Yes.
No… that’s precisely not what this hope is based upon! We’re not saying that everyone should sin and hope that God just shrugs and ignores it – that is, we’re not saying that it’s a hope based on “no matter what”. Rather, it’s a hope that all will give up their sinful ways – even if at the last moment of their lives – so that they might attain to heaven.Cool! I might as well give up on this Catholic thing and go cheat on my wife and do some drugs! After all, I have a reasonable hope that I’ll be saved no matter what, so why give up sinning?
Got it. So Tom sleeps with the fishes!
If we judge them to be in Hell to condemn them, then it is fruitless. When we consider the question philosophically though, it is not really the person we are considering, but the actions of that person. Take the above example of Judas. Is it not helpful to consider the possibility of mercy in such a person? If we understand that even the worst of us can repent then we better understand the mercy of God. Yet we cannot consider this if we do not recognize the result of not repenting. We must look at which actions may be so grievous to God as to require hell. I guess we could always use aliases, like we say than Tom was called a son of perdition and betrayed God to die, but that would not be substantially different.
Note the above sentence does not address the question. Sola Scriptura does not work no Scripture exists. I think you have put forth a straw man. No one has ever stated that Hell is empty. It is only the possibility that Hell might be empty that is allowable. Now we can go verse by verse and I could explain why nothing in the Bible is an absolute contradiction to this, or you could do this yourself just by thinking on those verses. I really do not want to play Devil’s Advocate because I too believe that there will still be many that go to Hell, though I would never say that I think most go to Hell. I rather thing Purgatory will have a very busy tourist season. On the other hand, I also believe many more will* not* have Purgatory than most Catholics believe.
No one here is arguing for the certainty or necessity of an empty hell. However, you’re arguing against it, almost as if you were having a one-person debate.
Agreed; God doesn’t force our hand. That’s not the proposition that ‘a hope for an empty hell’ embraces.
This doesn’t follow logically. After all, the very fact that there’s a choice involved, means that there’s the possibility that all might choose one particular option. (Not the likelihood, mind you; just the possibility. No one’s arguing for the likelihood of an empty hell… just the possibility of it.
That is certainly not the case.
Oh, it’s telling in ways you haven’t even considered.
What would that prove? Are you claiming that this question is merely one of popular opinion?
What would that prove? It’s a completely different question than the one we’re considering!
That’s illogical.
Of course! – nobody is denying that. Yes, we are well aware of the passage you quoted, but that is not the essence of her entire Diary, just as it is not the full gospel message in scripture, only a small part of it…
However, Soon-to-be Saint Pope John Paul II believed it so readily that he honored Our Lord’s directive to St. Faustina and established a Feast of Divine Mercy, which is celebrated the Sunday after Easter, as Our Lord asked … throughout the universal Church! Our Lord directed Faustina to write of His Divine Mercy — specifically to save as many as possible prior to the day of judgment.
This was answered on EWTN just last week - maybe you were the person who inquired? The angels, as spirit beings, had infinite intelligence and super-abundant gifts not given to us mortal beings who suffer from the weaknesses of concupiscence after the fall. These angels’ pride in wanting to be their own Gods is what occasioned their perdition. Your attempt to equate the two scenarios is completely erroneous.
Your whole assumption is based on the idea that posters have claimed hell will be empty. Since NOBODY has said that whatsoever, your whole argument is utterly without merit. Turning the coin, nobody is listening to YOU on account of it, despite your lengthy treatises., which do not “differ from Protestantism” and their exclusive use of *sola scriptura taken out of context. *Right back atcha!
No. It could mean that what St Catherine saw was a vision of what the torments of hell would be. It could mean that what Sr Lucy saw was a vision of what the effects of damnation are. Both are private revelation, which means that they’re not doctrinal, but rather, are given for the edification of the faithful who find them to be useful in their faith life.
I don’t think so. It can still be the case that they’re reporting what they were given to see.
You know what’s really hilarious? This whole tempest-in-a-teapot thread, in which Fr Barron is being accused of having espoused universalism… has proceeded from one of his videos in which he’s advocating for the existence of hell and the ability of people to reject God… :hypno:
