HELP! - Gaudium et Spes - Neo Universalism?

[highcalling]

The following sounds very much like neo-universalism to me. Please help:

from the constitution Gaudium et Spes (1:45, 2:57).

· While helping the world and receiving many benefits from it, the Church has a single intention: that God’s kingdom may come, and that the salvation of the whole human race may come to pass. For every benefit which the People of God during its earthly pilgrimage can offer to the human family stems from the fact that the Church is ‘the universal sacrament of salvation’ simultaneously manifesting and actualising the mystery of God’s love.

For God’s Word, by whom all things were made, was Himself made flesh so that as perfect man He might save all men and sum up all things in Himself. The Lord is the goal of human history, the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization, the center of the human race, the joy of every heart and the answer to all its yearnings. He it is Whom the Father raised from the dead, lifted on high and stationed at His right hand, making Him judge of the living and the dead. Enlivened and united in His Spirit, we journey toward the consummation of human history, one which fully accords with the counsel of God’s love: ‘To reestablish all things in Christ, both those in the heavens and those on the earth’ (Eph. 1:10).

… Moreover, by the impulse of grace, he is disposed to acknowledge the Word of God, Who before He became flesh in order to save all and to sum up all in Himself was already ‘in the world’ as ‘the true light which enlightens every man’ (John 1:9-10).”

HELP!!!

 

[Bookcat]

As Sacred Scripture tells us God desires the salvation of all…

the Church’s intention as it says is to save all…this of course is why Jesus came…

but this does not mean all will be saved.

If my intention and reason of telling others about the value of human life is so all may be prolife…this does not mean that all will in fact do so…

as for the other part…

as Paul says in Ephesians (RSV) :For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

This is what the document is referring to in the later part of your underlining …

this does not mean that everyone will therefore be saved in the end…

Each line of Scripture must be understood within the analogy of Faith…within the whole of Revelation.

 

[Monica4316]

not at all!! don’t worry! it’s just saying that God wants everyone to be saved, and that the mission of the Church is to lead everyone to Christ. (which it is!).

try to read it with an emphasis on the bolded words:
the Church has a single** intention:** that God’s kingdom may come, and that the salvation of the whole human race may come to pass.

as for the other quotes,

For God’s Word, by whom all things were made, was Himself made flesh so that as perfect man He might save all men and sum up all things in Himself.

Moreover, by the impulse of grace, he is disposed to acknowledge the Word of God, Who before He became flesh in order to save all and to sum up all in Himself was already ‘in the world’ as ‘the true light which enlightens every man’

It is saying that it’s God’s will to save everyone. But we know that because of free will, there are people who go to hell. Remember the Church does teach about the reality of hell… consult the Catechism on this

God bless

 

[highcalling]

But why doesn’t it say “save many” or “save all who die in the state of grace” or something specific? There are those who would be glad either to:

A. Show this as evidence of Catholic contradiction and cause scandal by their false assertions…

or

B. Claim that Catholic theology can “evolve” and use this as their cue to espouse radical pluralism and neo-universalism.

I guess I want to know also if Vatican II is an infallible dogmatic council…or how that all works.

To be quite honest, the ultra-traditionalists who seem to despise the council and accuse it of bringing evil are VERY hard for me to trust for that very reason. I’d like a Catholic Answers view on this as well.

Thanks all!

 

[RPRPsych]

But why doesn’t it say “save many” or “save all who die in the state of grace” or something specific? There are those who would be glad either to:

A. Show this as evidence of Catholic contradiction and cause scandal by their false assertions…

or

B. Claim that Catholic theology can “evolve” and use this as their cue to espouse radical pluralism and neo-universalism.

I guess I want to know also if Vatican II is an infallible dogmatic council…or how that all works.

To be quite honest, the ultra-traditionalists who seem to despise the council and accuse it of bringing evil are VERY hard for me to trust for that very reason. I’d like a Catholic Answers view on this as well.

Thanks all!

Very good point. Though I’m no expert, after reflecting a while on the issue, this is what I thought of:

1. God - and by extension His Church - desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of His Truth (1 Timothy 2:4). He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone (Ezekiel 18: 32), but wishes that they repent and live, and His Salvation is offered freely to all nations (Isaiah 56). His Church will be a house of prayer for all peoples (Isaiah 56: 7)
2. Even when people reject God - as some of His Covenant people did even following the Resurrection of Christ - it is our duty as Christians to pray that they are saved (Romans 10:1) and to hope that their stumbling is not final (Romans 11:11)
3. When asked how many would be saved, Our Lord replied “Do your best to enter by the narrow door” (Luke 13: 23-24) - he did not provide any specific number. Similarly, the Revelation to St. John speaks of “a great crowd that no one could count, from every nation, race, people and tongue” standing before the Lamb (Revelation 7:9-10).
4. God’s Salvation can be looked at from several levels. On one hand, it is a cosmic renewal of “all things” (Revelation 21 - “I make ALL things new”, Philippians 2: 10-11 - “EVERY knee shall bow”), but on the other hand, there will definitely be some excluded, by His just decree, from His kingdom (1 Tim 4: 10 - “the Saviour of ALL, especially of THOSE WHO BELIEVE”; Rev. 21:27 - “Nothing unclean will enter it…”). The use of such language is a testimony to the Power of God, rather than a statement of universalism, which is taught nowhere in the Old or New Testaments.
5. Finally, Gaudium et Spes is not complete in itself, but is only one of the documents of Vatican II, and is just a small fraction of the Church’s authoritative teaching on Salvation. Just as 1 Tim 2:4 and Ezekiel 18: 32 must be read in context, this document should be placed in its proper context - in which it clearly does not teach universalism (the closest it comes to is the theological concept of “unlimited atonement” - Christ’s Sacrifice is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but effective only for some.) To use a simpler example, when we pray “Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us”, this does not exclude the possibility that some will still die in their sins.

As for the infallibility of the documents of Vatican II - I’m no expert, so I’ll leave it to those more qualified than I am. I personally feel that the fact that some have “twisted them to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16) does not invalidate them. (An analogy - Calvinists derive their erroneous doctrine from Romans, and Hyper-Calvinists from a literalist reading of Romans 9 - but this reflects poorly on their error, and not on St. Paul’s beautiful Epistle.) They need to be read in context, and in indissoluble unity with the rest of the Church’s teachings, if any profit is to be drawn from them.

 

[Bookcat]

But why doesn’t it say “save many” or “save all who die in the state of grace” or something specific? !

Poetic for one thing…and to point to the desire of God to save all…etc…

 

[highcalling]

But no one has answered this:

Is Vatican II is an infallible dogmatic council?

Prove it.

(I’m not SSPX, Feeneyite, Sedevacantist, or a stereotypical person. I am an Eastern Catholic sincerely wanting to know)

 

[Crumpy]

But no one has answered this:

Is Vatican II is an infallible dogmatic council?

Prove it.

(I’m not SSPX, Feeneyite, Sedevacantist, or a stereotypical person. I am an Eastern Catholic sincerely wanting to know)

I’ve read all your posts. Why are you so EDGY? What are YOU trying to prove? Who do YOU trust? What standard of proof do you require, to validate 2500 bishops meeting in Rome with the Pope for several years? and, at that, to later put out a Catechism? Why isn’t that enough, in any practical sense?

 

[NHInsider]

But no one has answered this:

Is Vatican II is an infallible dogmatic council?

Prove it.

(I’m not SSPX, Feeneyite, Sedevacantist, or a stereotypical person. I am an Eastern Catholic sincerely wanting to know)

Some of the documents (Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) are dogmatic and some (including Gaudium et Spes) are not. Says so - or doesn’t - in the titles, if that’s proof enough.

But - you asked not “which texts are dogmatic” but “is VII an infallible dogmatic council?” and the answer to that is - there is no such thing.

Even the ecumenical councils that everyone agrees upon - Nicea, Ephesus, etc - generated lots of material, not all of which is dogmatically binding. Just as not everything a Pope says is infallible dogma, neither is everything a Council says.

To your original point, however, there is a huge difference between saying that it is not God’s will than anyone should perish and that it is the mission of the Church to proclaim salvation to all the world - both of which are flatly stated in Scripture, and to say that everyone WILL in fact be granted salvation, which is what Universalism teaches. To suggest that God’s offer of salvation only extends to some people (and that the others are therefore created for damnation) is in itself heretical (“Predestinarianism”).

 

[diggerdomer]

But no one has answered this:

Is Vatican II is an infallible dogmatic council?

Prove it.

(I’m not SSPX, Feeneyite, Sedevacantist, or a stereotypical person. I am an Eastern Catholic sincerely wanting to know)

It would be impossible to prove ANY council as a whole was infallible and dogmatic. Name a Council, and we can find a canon or teaching that has been superseded or revised. What exactly are you getting at by this broad question?

What’s your real concern here? The fact that the Church teaches God desires all humans to be saved?

 

[highcalling]

Some of the documents (Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) are dogmatic and some (including Gaudium et Spes) are not. Says so - or doesn’t - in the titles, if that’s proof enough.

But - you asked not “which texts are dogmatic” but “is VII an infallible dogmatic council?” and the answer to that is - there is no such thing.

Even the ecumenical councils that everyone agrees upon - Nicea, Ephesus, etc - generated lots of material, not all of which is dogmatically binding. Just as not everything a Pope says is infallible dogma, neither is everything a Council says.

To your original point, however, there is a huge difference between saying that it is not God’s will than anyone should perish and that it is the mission of the Church to proclaim salvation to all the world - both of which are flatly stated in Scripture, and to say that everyone WILL in fact be granted salvation, which is what Universalism teaches. To suggest that God’s offer of salvation only extends to some people (and that the others are therefore created for damnation) is in itself heretical (“Predestinarianism”).

Thank you. This is very helpful. And of course I agree that predestinarianism is heretical.

So this document is not infallible? Whew. I think that is all I really needed to know. Any other discussion on this point might be fruitless if the wording of this document is not a binding wording that I must believe is meant to be taken at face value. This seemed to me to say that all men will be saved according to God’s purpose. Which we all know is patently false.

Thanks again.

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you. This is very helpful. And of course I agree that predestinarianism is heretical.

So this document is not infallible? Whew. I think that is all I really needed to know. Any other discussion on this point might be fruitless if the wording of this document is not a binding wording that I must believe is meant to be taken at face value. This seemed to me to say that all men will be saved according to God’s purpose. Which we all know is patently false.

Thanks again.

Of course even if something is not “infallible” it is the teaching of the Church…(not saying you do not accept this…you were just looking for distinctions I imagine)…and any document must be understood …with in the right context…for example not taking one line on its own…but within the whole of the Catholic Faith…within the Analogy of Faith.

…which is the also how we even understand the inerrant and inspired written Word of God…(The Magisterium of course is not Above the Word of God…it is its servant …the Bible though must be understood rightly…within the analogy of Faith etc…see the CCC)

Do not leave this question with the idea that GS says things it does not say …