Hell

[TMC]

Granted - I am aware of the Theory - however - you likewise can read St Jerome - St Augustine - St Cyril of Jerusalem - Tertullian - and St John Chrysostom to find the oppposing view. . So to your point - is it possible - sure its possible if Light of JPII and his Catechism , Urs Von Balthazar and others which has been so stated - but very unlikely. in light of Scriptural Exegesis as pointed out earlier by Melchior and others. . And Apocatastasis is the Theory forwarded by St Gregory of Nyssa and Origen rather than Universal Salvation prior to the Council in 581.

Perhaps is it unlikely, but surely it is no more unlikely than that God would send His only Son to die on our behalf? At any rate, I think that it is fair to say that the Church teaches that it is possible that all will be saved, but denies any doctrine or theory that posits that all must be or are necessarily saved. Given those limits, I think its fine for Catholics to believe that all will be saved, as long as they understand that belief as reflecting an optimistic hope or prediction, not a guaranteed result.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Perhaps is it unlikely, but surely it is no more unlikely than that God would send His only Son to die on our behalf? At any rate, I think that it is fair to say that the Church teaches that it is possible that all will be saved, but denies any doctrine or theory that posits that all must be or are necessarily saved. Given those limits, I think its fine for Catholics to believe that all will be saved, as long as they understand that belief as reflecting an optimistic hope or prediction, not a guaranteed result.

Thats an interesting way of looking at it , and thanks.

 

[TMC]

Grace & Peace!

Just a quick note of response to this. I do not think that Christian charity lends itself to a contemplation of likelihoods or probabilities regarding the salvation of a soul. Our hope is not about spiritual risk/benefit analysis. Whether or not the salvation of a particular soul is likely has no bearing on its possibility. And the possibility, which is a sign of grace, is the thing in which we rejoice and in which we place our hope, not a likelihood. I think that if one hopes that hell is empty, but then qualifies the hope by saying that an empty hell is unlikely, then hope in this context becomes merely rhetorical.

We do not need to believe that hell is either crowded or empty, but I believe charity will urge us to hope for the latter.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I agree. I think the best policy is to just do one’s best in this world (by which I mean be the best Christian you can) and let God worry about what happens next.

There is a great sermon floating around that was given by then-Father Ratzinger in the 60s. He discussed the need some Catholics have to suggest that lots of other people are in or going to Hell. He compared that attitude to the attitude of the parable of the workers hired at different times during the day. He said that those that grumble that others they perceive as less holy than themselves are surely destined for Hell are like the early-hired workers that did not want to get paid the same as the late-hired workers. They are worried that they are working hard at being Christian but won’t be “paid” more than others that are less holy. His bottom line point was that we are not Christians because we hope to earn a place in heaven, we are Christian because it is the right way to live. Being Christian and serving God and one another in this life is its own reward, and we shouldn’t assume that we are the only ones “earning” salvation - its a gift God may freely give to whomever He chooses.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

How is John Paul’s belief that all souls partake in the divine nature incompatible with Catholic Tradition? That is what the Church has always taught, consistent with Scripture and Tradition. From CCC 460:

Hi again TMC. Thanks for your reply. I’ll try to explain my understanding of the question.

Catholic Tradition accepts the fact that without the Incarnation, there would be no redemption as per the Catechism. But Jesus also spoke about regeneration as an imperative, about the necessity of being born again by water and the Spirit. The Church has always understood this to mean baptism. It is at this point that a human soul is cleansed of original sin and enters into a state of grace, partaking of the divine nature.

Pope John Paul seemed to understand the Incarnation itself to be regenerative for every human being, not from the moment of baptism, but from the very moment of conception. Indeed, I do not know how the Holy Father could have said that a soul was partaking of the divine nature while at the same time guilty of original sin. It would seem that he believed that after the Incarnation everyone is immaculately conceived!

We are dealing with “each” man,** for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself for ever** through this mystery…man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer** from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother… And in the superabundance of the uncreated gift there begins in the heart of all human beings that particular created gift whereby they “become partakers of the divine nature.”… **

1. Each man is forever united with Christ?
2. Beginning with his conception “beneath the heart of his mother”?
3. Each one of the four thousand million souls then living were partakers of the divine nature?
4. What happened to original sin? It appears that it is no longer an obstacle to partaking of the divine nature.

I guess I thought you would be intrigued by it, since you are more open to universalism than many of us. I didn’t expect that you would think that Catholic Tradition teaches that every human soul becomes a partaker of the divine nature from the moment he is conceived “beneath the heart of his mother”, or that every human being “is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever.”

I am open to development of doctrine. Just because I can’t see how this teaching of his can be reconciled with Tradition doesn’t mean much. But I have to admit, it seems impossible to me. It seems like a novelty.

I decided to take a peek at Pope John Paul’s teaching on original sin and found something significant taken from his General Audience of 1 Oct., 1986. First he cites Romans 5 which I will include for you:

Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound.

Now notice how he understands the Council of Trent:

The Council of Trent refers especially to the Pauline text of the Letter to the Romans (5:12) as the cornerstone of its teaching, seeing in it the universality of sin, but also the universality of redemption. The Council has recourse also to the practice of infant baptism, and does so because of the close connection of original sin–the universal legacy received with nature from the first parents–with the truth of the universal redemption in Jesus Christ.

—A Catechesis on the Creed, Pope John Paul II, Vol. 2, P.47, Daughters of St. Paul, 1996

I think he is considering that if the contagion of original sin is universal, so also must be the redemption. The wording of St. Paul can easily be so interpreted standing alone “…as by the offence of one unto all men to condemnation…by the justice of one unto all men unto justification of life.”

I can see how he arrives at his conclusions. But I don’t think he is taking into consideration the strong warnings about Hell in the Scripture, or the injunction which calls for being “born again”. Catholic Tradition holds that all have original sin through their first birth, and redemption through a second birth. There is universal potential in that Christ died for all, but in reconciling what could appear to a be universalist passage from St. Paul, the Church has constantly taught that one partakes of the divine nature through baptism or the desire thereof.

I hope you don’t think I am being disrespectful of Pope John Paul or yourself. I am trying to understand the universalist position and I cited the pope precisely to give weight to it. No Catholic can lightly dismiss the pope’s teaching, even if it wasn’t infallible. But if his teaching is compatible with what has come before, I am afraid I can’t find where he explains it. It seems to me like we go from St. Gregory of Nyssa and Origen to Pope John Paul II. Those three cannot overturn 2,000 years of consistent Catholic teaching which warns that we can die separated from Christ, that to paraphrase Jesus: it is better to lose the whole world than our immortal soul.

Regards,

Rory

 

[Robert_Burns]

Hi again TMC. Thanks for your reply. I’ll try to explain my understanding of the question.

Catholic Tradition accepts the fact that without the Incarnation, there would be no redemption as per the Catechism. But Jesus also spoke about regeneration as an imperative, about the necessity of being born again by water and the Spirit. The Church has always understood this to mean baptism. It is at this point that a human soul is cleansed of original sin and enters into a state of grace, partaking of the divine nature.

Pope John Paul seemed to understand the Incarnation itself to be regenerative for every human being, not from the moment of baptism, but from the very moment of conception. Indeed, I do not know how the Holy Father could have said that a soul was partaking of the divine nature while at the same time guilty of original sin. It would seem that he believed that after the Incarnation everyone is immaculately conceived!

1. Each man is forever united with Christ?
2. Beginning with his conception “beneath the heart of his mother”?
3. Each one of the four thousand million souls then living were partakers of the divine nature?
4. What happened to original sin? It appears that it is no longer an obstacle to partaking of the divine nature.

I guess I thought you would be intrigued by it, since you are more open to universalism than many of us. I didn’t expect that you would think that Catholic Tradition teaches that every human soul becomes a partaker of the divine nature from the moment he is conceived “beneath the heart of his mother”, or that every human being “is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever.”

I am open to development of doctrine. Just because I can’t see how this teaching of his can be reconciled with Tradition doesn’t mean much. But I have to admit, it seems impossible to me. It seems like a novelty.

I decided to take a peek at Pope John Paul’s teaching on original sin and found something significant taken from his General Audience of 1 Oct., 1986. First he cites Romans 5 which I will include for you:

Now notice how he understands the Council of Trent: —A Catechesis on the Creed, Pope John Paul II, Vol. 2, P.47, Daughters of St. Paul, 1996

I think he is considering that if the contagion of original sin is universal, so also must be the redemption. The wording of St. Paul can easily be so interpreted standing alone “…as by the offence of one unto all men to condemnation…by the justice of one unto all men unto justification of life.”

I can see how he arrives at his conclusions. But I don’t think he is taking into consideration the strong warnings about Hell in the Scripture, or the injunction which calls for being “born again”. Catholic Tradition holds that all have original sin through their first birth, and redemption through a second birth. There is universal potential in that Christ died for all, but in reconciling what could appear to a be universalist passage from St. Paul, the Church has constantly taught that one partakes of the divine nature through baptism or the desire thereof.

I hope you don’t think I am being disrespectful of Pope John Paul or yourself. I am trying to understand the universalist position and I cited the pope precisely to give weight to it. No Catholic can lightly dismiss the pope’s teaching, even if it wasn’t infallible. But if his teaching is compatible with what has come before, I am afraid I can’t find where he explains it. It seems to me like we go from St. Gregory of Nyssa and Origen to Pope John Paul II. Those three cannot overturn 2,000 years of consistent Catholic teaching which warns that we can die separated from Christ, that to paraphrase Jesus: it is better to lose the whole world than our immortal soul.

Regards,

Rory

Great post Rory - I agree. I too am troubled by the relatively few instances where Universalism is openly professed other than those cited. On balance - it does seem to be a rather onesided argument - but then perhaps there is much more to the story than what I have been able to come across. This is a rather facinating subject. Thanks.

 

[MMprn]

How is it reconciled when Jesus emphasizes that there will be those thrown into the fire with the "all will be saved " philosophy? It can’t be both ways.

“The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. 42 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the just shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Matthew 13, 41-43

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

How is it reconciled when Jesus emphasizes that there will be those thrown into the fire with the "all will be saved " philosophy? It can’t be both ways.

“The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. 42 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the just shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Matthew 13, 41-43

This could be a purging fire. It would still be desirable to avoid it, but the universalist would argue that these fires will eventually cleanse the sinner, a “baptism” of fire. We could have baptism of blood, water baptism, baptism of desire, and then the 4th and least desirable way of salvation, “baptism of fire”.

 

[Melchior_1]

This could be a purging fire. It would still be desirable to avoid it, but the universalist would argue that these fires will eventually cleanse the sinner, a “baptism” of fire. We could have baptism of blood, water baptism, baptism of desire, and then the 4th and least desirable way of salvation, “baptism of fire”.

I’m glad someone earlier pointed out that Oriegn, although a Father of the Church and is a man to be respected, is not a Saint. His orthodoxy was hotly contested, to the point where St. Jerome and Rufinius had a falling out in part because of it (please note that Ruf himself is also not a Saint while Jerome is JEROME).

I recall a quote somewhere which said something along the lines of “if you aim for Purgatory, the result will be Hell”.

We are all called to aim to be Saints, as hard and as unlikely as what that may seem. And a Saint certainly wouldn’t aim for Purgatory. A Saint would aim for penance and repentance.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I’m glad someone earlier pointed out that Oriegn, although a Father of the Church and is a man to be respected, is not a Saint. His orthodoxy was hotly contested, to the point where St. Jerome and Rufinius had a falling out in part because of it (please note that Ruf himself is also not a Saint while Jerome is JEROME).

I recall a quote somewhere which said something along the lines of “if you aim for Purgatory, the result will be Hell”.

We are all called to aim to be Saints, as hard and as unlikely as what that may seem. And a Saint certainly wouldn’t aim for Purgatory. A Saint would aim for penance and repentance.

Universalists, if I may speak for them, don’t see most of the five or six thousand million human beings on this planet aiming at anything. But even for those who should aim at eternal Hell, they will find it to be temporary and purgatorial.

 

[MikeDunphy]

I think that it is fair to say that the Church teaches that it is possible that all will be saved

I don’t think so. Our Lord clearly taught that not all enter the kingdom of heaven.

[bibledrb]Matthew 7:21-23[/bibledrb]

 

[zab]

In another thread - I ran into a person who for all intents and purposes didnt believe there was a single soul suffering in Hell. So my question is relatively simple. How widespread is this belief among Catholics today? That because GOD is good there is no punishment in Hell or that its possible to at some point in time , merit relief and extraction from Hell or that the sole punishment in Hell is separation from GOD?

Hell by Robert Burns

 

[Robert_Burns]

A facinating Subject isnt it

 

[At_Trent]

A facinating Subject isnt it

It could be argued it’s a hot topic

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

This is an interesting subject. I am not sure that “Apocatastasis” is the same as universal salvation.
Apocatastasis means reconstitution. Origen had argued that souls were preexistent, in the presence of God and had fallen. His argument centered around a restoration of the 1st or primal state through Christ.

The St. Gregorys’ of Nyssa and Nazianzus did not hold this view. The problem, I believe, was that flesh and soul is what makes us human, according to St. Maximus.

I believe both St Gregorys’ and St Maximus countered that Man never rests but is in continual acesis/movement towards God, since God is infinite. That the hypostatic union of man and Christ had to be more than a reconstitution, or it would be possible for man to “fall” again, according to Origen’s views, so salvation became a union that was in movement through desire towards God eternally, or as St Gregory of Nyssa quotes the scriptures, “from Glory to Glory.”

This concept of “reconstitution” is a little different than universal salvation and begins to have theological ramifications that encompass free will, the nature of Adam, and the nature of Christ Himself. It’s been awhile since I have read St Maximus though, because it makes my head hurt.

 

[Robert_Burns]

This is an interesting subject. I am not sure that “Apocatastasis” is the same as universal salvation.
Apocatastasis means reconstitution. Origen had argued that souls were preexistent, in the presence of God and had fallen. His argument centered around a restoration of the 1st or primal state through Christ.

The St. Gregorys’ of Nyssa and Nazianzus did not hold this view. The problem, I believe, was that flesh and soul is what makes us human, according to St. Maximus.

I believe both St Gregorys’ and St Maximus countered that Man never rests but is in continual acesis/movement towards God, since God is infinite. That the hypostatic union of man and Christ had to be more than a reconstitution, or it would be possible for man to “fall” again, according to Origen’s views, so salvation became a union that was in movement through desire towards God eternally, or as St Gregory of Nyssa quotes the scriptures, “from Glory to Glory.”

This concept of “reconstitution” is a little different than universal salvation and begins to have theological ramifications that encompass free will, the nature of Adam, and the nature of Christ Himself. It’s been awhile since I have read St Maximus though, because it makes my head hurt.

“I am not sure that “Apocatastasis” is the same as universal salvation.” I agree - I dont think it is either and I do think that the Proponents of Universal Salvation sometime erroneously quote Saints who were speaking of Apocatastasis and attempt to opine that it is Universal Salvation. They are indeed distinct.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I received a distress PM from a poster on this thread that someone had posted garbage. If a post is inappropriate, please click the triangle. It helps me locate it immediately. You may also flag down any moderator on duty at the time. Thanks for your help.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[josephdaniel29]

This is an interesting subject. I am not sure that “Apocatastasis” is the same as universal salvation.
Apocatastasis means reconstitution. Origen had argued that souls were preexistent, in the presence of God and had fallen. His argument centered around a restoration of the 1st or primal state through Christ.

The St. Gregorys’ of Nyssa and Nazianzus did not hold this view. The problem, I believe, was that flesh and soul is what makes us human, according to St. Maximus.

I believe both St Gregorys’ and St Maximus countered that Man never rests but is in continual acesis/movement towards God, since God is infinite. That the hypostatic union of man and Christ had to be more than a reconstitution, or it would be possible for man to “fall” again, according to Origen’s views, so salvation became a union that was in movement through desire towards God eternally, or as St Gregory of Nyssa quotes the scriptures, “from Glory to Glory.”

This concept of “reconstitution” is a little different than universal salvation and begins to have theological ramifications that encompass free will, the nature of Adam, and the nature of Christ Himself. It’s been awhile since I have read St Maximus though, because it makes my head hurt.

I think that’s an important point. Here is the first anathema against Origen.

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

Here you see the apocatastasis is tied directly to Origen’s doctrine of the pre-existence of souls. It appears that it is Origen’s system as a whole that is condemned. If you take the apocatastasis and isolate it from the rest of Origen’s system is it still heretical? The evidence is maybe not because Gregory of Nyssa is recognized as a saint and he believed in the apocatastasis as strongly Origen. The difference is St Gregory dropped Origen’s doctrine of the pre-existence of souls.

There is also quite a few Scripture verses that at least hint at universal salvation.

Romans 5:18

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Romans 11:32

For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

1 Corinthians 15:28

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

1 Timothy 2:4

God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth

Will there be universal salvation? I don’t know but I think the case is not as cut and dry as some believe.

In Christ
Joe

 

[rosary_kat]

… or that its possible to at some point in time, [to] merit relief and extraction from Hell…

Once a soul is condemned to Hell (God forbid), there is no getting out. :bighanky:

 

[Robert_Burns]

I received a distress PM from a poster on this thread that someone had posted garbage. If a post is inappropriate, please click the triangle. It helps me locate it immediately. You may also flag down any moderator on duty at the time. Thanks for your help.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

That was me , And thanks - I am fairly new here - I’ll remember for next time and thanks - You had the “Garbage” taken down in record time

 

[Robert_Burns]

I think that’s an important point. Here is the first anathema against Origen.

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

Here you see the apocatastasis is tied directly to Origen’s doctrine of the pre-existence of souls. It appears that it is Origen’s system as a whole that is condemned. If you take the apocatastasis and isolate it from the rest of Origen’s system is it still heretical? The evidence is maybe not because Gregory of Nyssa is recognized as a saint and he believed in the apocatastasis as strongly Origen. The difference is St Gregory dropped Origen’s doctrine of the pre-existence of souls.

There is also quite a few Scripture verses that at least hint at universal salvation.

Romans 5:18

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Romans 11:32

For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

1 Corinthians 15:28

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

1 Timothy 2:4

God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth

Will there be universal salvation? I don’t know but I think the case is not as cut and dry as some believe.

In Christ
Joe

Love that post - thanks for it