Is there a case for Universalism?

[SSTeacher]

I would agree that we cannot state with certainty that there will be at least one human being in hell when all’s said and done.

Edwin

Right. But given the reported apparitions at Fatima most serious Catholics will probably feel hesitant about endorsing your assertion.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

While I don’t have teh time to properly expound on my answer here the Short answer to your question is that We will. It is we who will seperate ourselves from Christ’s Love and the Love of the Father.

Peace
James

But why would we do that?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Contarini]

Right. But given the reported apparitions at Fatima most serious Catholics will probably feel hesitant about endorsing your assertion.

As I understand it, such apparitions are not considered a sound basis for doctrine in Catholicism.

Hans Urs von Balthasar was a “hopeful universalist,” and he was certainly a serious Catholic. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus followed him in this, and he (on Balthasar, not Neuhaus) is reputedly Pope Benedict’s favorite theologian. This is not a marginal view among Catholics.

Edwin

 

[gepnav]

I think universalism would be No. 1 or 3.

1. 
   *]all saved no matter what :egyptian:
   *]some saved through faith alone :bible1:
   *]some saved through works alone :hammering:
   *]some saved through selective grace alone (God decided before they existed)
   *]some saved through faith and works
   *]some saved through selective grace and faith
   *]some saved through selective grace and works
   *]some saved through selective grace, faith, and works
   *]none saved
   
   My Presbyterian background says No. 4 is correct. Many evangelicals would say No. 2. I think Catholicism would likely be No. 5 (since grace is extended to all, as I understand the principles).

 

[Contarini]

I think universalism would be No. 1 or 3.

There’s a possibility you missed out:

All saved through God’s electing grace in Christ.

That basically seems to be Barth’s position, although he doesn’t rule out the possibility that some might be damned.

My point is that you are assuming that grace must be partial. Why can’t it be universal and still just as powerful? That seems like the strongest argument for universalism to me, and yet you ignore it.

Edwin

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5447386:

Right. But given the reported apparitions at Fatima most serious Catholics will probably feel hesitant about endorsing your assertion.

Respectfully,
Mick

As I understand it, such apparitions are not considered a sound basis for doctrine in Catholicism.

Hans Urs von Balthasar was a “hopeful universalist,” and he was certainly a serious Catholic. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus followed him in this, and he (on Balthasar, not Neuhaus) is reputedly Pope Benedict’s favorite theologian. This is not a marginal view among Catholics.

Edwin

Thanks for pointing that out.

My understanding is that the apparitions at Fatima are not viewed by the Magisterium as being in the same category as “compulsory doctrine” like, say, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception but I thought the official line was that there was nothing about them that is “contrary to faith.” So I am supposing that not only are Catholics unlikely to come to the same conclusion about Fatima as one might expect to hear from a Fundamentalist but also that most Catholics are likely to believe that these apparitions were real.

When I described Catholics as “serious” I didn’t mean I thought most Catholics were well up in doctrine and/or theology but that they were serious about being obedient – the mark of a good Catholic being to do as the Catholic Church teaches. Thart’s why I concluded that most Catholics will be at least conflicted about wholeheartedly endorsing the assertion that hell is quite empty of human souls. I’m not criticizing them for that – I’m just reflecting upon their possible presuppositions and subsequent patterns of thought.

Peace,
Mick

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,
I don’t see it quite like that. Universalism certainly implies that everybody will be saved but I don’t think it follows that such a view necessarily has to be accompanied by the idea that it doesn’t matter what one believes. What leads you to connect the two ideas?

Well, that notion logically follows from your idea that embracing Universalism necessarily entails saying it doesn’t matter what one believes. But if your idea is faulty and Universalism doesn’t entail saying any such thing would you still have an objection to Universalism?

Publisher reckons there isn’t any complacency.

Respectfully,
Mick

And I value Rublisher’s reckons, as he is an adherent to universalism. Saying that, I will rethink my preconceived notion in light of new information.
Jon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If it is impossible for an objective observer to know conclusively which Christian tradition is 100% right (assuming the observer presupposes that one of them actually is 100% right) the inevitable default position has to be that the Holy Spirit uses all Christian traditions for salvation knowing that His truth will always be mixed with human errors in understanding.

So if one accepts that there is such a thing as absolute truth (cf. John 14:6) yet also accepts this idea of God making divine allowance for human error to the degree that He will not withhold salvation from somebody who is sincerely wrong in his or her understanding of God (i.e. not absolutely right in his or her beliefs and commensurate life application), doesn’t that suggest that Universalism is true and that all will eventually be saved?

Hypothetically,
Mick

All mankind is saved already, on the Cross. That is a fact, & a vocation. A Christian is a person who has received grace to know that this is his vocation; this vocation was always in God’s Plan; the Fall was a denial of it. Now, after Calvary, we do not have to stay in this salvation effdcted by Christ. We are free to walk out of it, & be lost. Either way, God’s whole purpose is fulfilled - but the unity of God’s Will is not divided by being experienced differently by the refusers, & by His obedient children; a bit as the sun is undivided, yet one person gets skin-cancer from it, & another finds health.​

Salvation is from God & His Christ - not from Churches, except by way of mediation; they are not the Source of salvation; but its God-appointed servants & means, or some of those means. But though we need the community of God’s People, He does not. He can act where no Church is, no preaching, & none of the means of grace that are ordinary/ordained for the Church. We are limited by time & space: but He is not.

So although our ignorance, sins, errors & our other short-comings are not unimportant, they are not final barriers to God’s Work; they are not decisive, except in so far as it is His Will to let them be; they are used by Him, as He sees fit.

 

[josephdaniel29]

If it is impossible for an objective observer to know conclusively which Christian tradition is 100% right (assuming the observer presupposes that one of them actually is 100% right) the inevitable default position has to be that the Holy Spirit uses all Christian traditions for salvation knowing that His truth will always be mixed with human errors in understanding.

So if one accepts that there is such a thing as absolute truth (cf. John 14:6) yet also accepts this idea of God making divine allowance for human error to the degree that He will not withhold salvation from somebody who is sincerely wrong in his or her understanding of God (i.e. not absolutely right in his or her beliefs and commensurate life application), doesn’t that suggest that Universalism is true and that all will eventually be saved?

Hypothetically,
Mick

St Gregory of Nyssa and St Issac the Syrian believed that it was possible. Neither have been condemned as heretics, in fact they are both honored as saints.

It seems to me the prudent thing to do is assume that not everyone will be saved while at the same time hoping and praying for the salvation of all.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[SSTeacher]

St Gregory of Nyssa and St Issac the Syrian believed that it was possible. Neither have been condemned as heretics, in fact they are both honored as saints.

It seems to me the prudent thing to do is assume that not everyone will be saved while at the same time hoping and praying for the salvation of all.

Yours in Christ
Joe

It seems prudent to me, too. Thank you, Joe.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
While I don’t have teh time to properly expound on my answer here the Short answer to your question is that We will. It is we who will seperate ourselves from Christ’s Love and the Love of the Father.

This gets very complex in trying to answer and I am not very good at trying to explain but I shall try.

Let’s Start with some “givens”
God has, as any Good Father, set up rules and parameters for us. He has also given us the examples of the obedience of His Son and the Saints in living and loving Him Properly and thus attaining heaven.
Jesus has taught us that the Road to perdition is Wide and many choose it while the Road to Salvation is narrow and few find it.
Christ has taught us that the Greatest commandments are built around Love
Christ has told us that all who cry out Lord Lord will not make it, but only those who do the Will of the Father. (Who wills us to Love him and eash other with everything we’ve got.)
Christ also tells us that we must be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.

Now - Given these things, which are all taught by Christ, it appears that not just any ol’ set of beliefs is going to accomplish teh goal of attaining heaven.
In addition, an even more importantly, not just any old effort on our part will be sufficient to attain the Goal.

In order to attain the Goal of the Beatific vision and eternity with God in heaven, regardless of our specific christian faith system, we cannot be complacient about it. Perfection, while not entirely attainable here on earth, must still be sought after. We must seek this through prayer and good works. We must turn our backs completely on our old sinful selves and focus fully upon God and Loving Him.
The reason we must do this is because this is the Will fo the Father, that we become perfect since there is nothing imperfect in heaven.

Now - We all know many “Church-goers”, and they will pretty much run the gamut from very devout to they just show up. We know those who work and study their faith and put it into action and those who aren’t really interested in doing anything more than what is “required”. We also know people who Sing Loud in Church Sunday Morning and curse God and neighbor on Sunday Afternoon.

As we progress on our spiritual journey our drive, or our complacency, become more and more a part of us. So much so that, at the moment of death, when judgement comes, the Choice between Heaven and Hell, we will choose that which we chose in Life.

St Catherine of Sienna in the Dialogue, explains it this way (As though God is talking):

Wherefore, know, that at the moment of death, they, having passed their life under the lordship of the Devil (not that they were forced to do so, for as I told you they cannot be forced, but they voluntarily put themselves into his hands), and, arriving at the extremity of their death under this perverse lordship, they await no other judgment than that of their own conscience, and desperately, despairingly, come to eternal damnation. Wherefore Hell, through their hate, surges up to them in the extremity of death, and before they get there, they take hold of it, by means of their lord the Devil.
As the righteous, who have lived in charity and died in love, if they have lived perfectly in virtue, illuminated with the light of faith, with perfect hope in the Blood of the Lamb, when the extremity of death comes, see the good which I have prepared for them, and embrace it with the arms of love, holding fast with pressure of love to Me, the Supreme and Eternal Good. And so they taste eternal life before they have left the mortal body, that is, before the soul be separated from the body.
Others who have passed their lives, and have arrived at the last extremity of death with an ordinary charity (not in that great perfection), embrace My mercy with the same light of faith and hope that had those perfect ones, but, in them, it is imperfect, for, because they were imperfect, they constrained My mercy, counting My mercy greater than their sins.
The wicked sinners do the contrary, for, seeing, with desperation, their destination, they embrace it with hatred, as I told you. So that neither the one nor the other waits for judgment, but, in departing this life, they receive every one their place, as I have told you, and they taste it and possess it before they depart from the body, at the extremity of death—the damned with hatred and with despair, and the perfect ones with love and the light of faith and with the hope of the Blood. And the imperfect arrive at the place of Purgatory, with mercy and the same faith.”

I cannot express it any better than it is expressed here. God tells us clearly how to make it home to heaven. But the temptations and the pulls of nature and of the things of Earth are strong and will trip up many, who will dispair at the last. Thus it is not God who condemns but the person who condemns themselves.

For even further explaniation on this I cannot recommend too highly the Book, “The Fulfillment of All Desire” by Ralph Martin. Subtitled, "A guidebook of the Journey to God based on The Wisdom of the Saints. He uses the quote above along wih many many others from 7 Doctors of the Church to illustrate the Journey.

Peace
James

 

[JMJ_coder]

I agree that faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions but I intended the thought adduced to be understood as one that might possibly be expressed by an objective observer i.e. an outsider sincerely seeking truth who looks into Christendom from the outside and, noting the chaos and the cacophony and the contradictions, experiences great uncertainty.

I should also like to point out that I drew no conclusion. I merely posed a hypothetical question.

Cordially,
Mick

In my opinion, if someone is sincere and open - then they will either:

1. live a life according to the Natural Law
2. have the Gospel preached to them and become Catholic

 

[JMJ_coder]

St Gregory of Nyssa and St Issac the Syrian believed that it was possible. Neither have been condemned as heretics, in fact they are both honored as saints.

It seems to me the prudent thing to do is assume that not everyone will be saved while at the same time hoping and praying for the salvation of all.

Yours in Christ
Joe

I don’t think there has ever been a Saint that hasn’t hoped that all men may be saved. Saint Teresa of Avila even hoped that Judas may have at the last moment repented and been saved.

The key word is hope! Universalism commits the sin of presumption by declaring the fact a certainty.

We do know that Lucifer and his angels (1/3 of all angels) fell and are eternally lost. We also have convincing words of Scripture and other sources that at least some men have and will be lost to hell. I sure we all know some who, while not condemning them to hell, we can say that though they may have repented and been saved, it doesn’t look good.

 

[SSTeacher]

In my opinion, if someone is sincere and open - then they will either:

1. live a life according to the Natural Law
2. have the Gospel preached to them and become Catholic

Interesting.

Do you think it likely that you reached your opinion as a result of gauging the motives and possible actions of others through the lens of your own subjective presuppositions?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[Contarini]

My understanding is that the apparitions at Fatima are not viewed by the Magisterium as being in the same category as “compulsory doctrine” like, say, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception but I thought the official line was that there was nothing about them that is “contrary to faith.”

But that doesn’t mean that everything they say is true–that would be the same thing as making them “compulsory.” As I understand it, it means that they do not violate the defined parameters of the Faith. Other opinions, which do contradict the apparitions, might also be within those parameters.

Catholics, correct me if I’m wrong!

So I am supposing that not only are Catholics unlikely to come to the same conclusion about Fatima as one might expect to hear from a Fundamentalist but also that most Catholics are likely to believe that these apparitions were real.

I could be wrong, but I think that it’s possible for a Catholic to accept that the children really encountered the Blessed Virgin while also believing that they interpreted their experience in the light of what they had been taught. I know that many conservative Catholics wouldn’t take this approach. But I don’t think it’s unorthodox from a Catholic perspective. It’s the only way I can reconcile the official recognition of Fatima by the Catholic Church with the fact that Catholics don’t consider the revelations to be binding doctrine.

When I described Catholics as “serious” I didn’t mean I thought most Catholics were well up in doctrine and/or theology but that they were serious about being obedient

Are you suggesting that either von Balthasar or Neuhaus were not obedient? Many Catholics think von Balthasar was kooky, but I don’t think he can be accused of a lack of submission to the authority of the Church.

Edwin

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5447774:

My understanding is that the apparitions at Fatima are not viewed by the Magisterium as being in the same category as “compulsory doctrine” like, say, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception but I thought the official line was that there was nothing about them that is “contrary to faith.”

But that doesn’t mean that everything they say is true–that would be the same thing as making them “compulsory.” As I understand it, it means that they do not violate the defined parameters of the Faith. Other opinions, which do contradict the apparitions, might also be within those parameters.

Catholics, correct me if I’m wrong!

It seems we’re in agreement, then. Catholics are formally “allowed” to believe in these apparitions because there is nothing in them “contrary to faith” but since one of the visions was that of people being tormented in hell I’m supposing that a Catholic knowing this – even if he or she is drawn to the notion of Universalism – is possibly going to feel at least a little uneasy asserting that there is nobody in hell.

SSTeacher;5447774:

So I am supposing that not only are Catholics unlikely to come to the same conclusion about Fatima as one might expect to hear from a Fundamentalist but also that most Catholics are likely to believe that these apparitions were real.

I could be wrong, but I think that it’s possible for a Catholic to accept that the children really encountered the Blessed Virgin while also believing that they interpreted their experience in the light of what they had been taught. I know that many conservative Catholics wouldn’t take this approach. But I don’t think it’s unorthodox from a Catholic perspective. It’s the only way I can reconcile the official recognition of Fatima by the Catholic Church with the fact that Catholics don’t consider the revelations to be binding doctrine.

Understood. These children reportedly saw a vision and the official Catholic line is that it’s “not untrue,” which means it drops down into a lower category for the Catholic apologist but it still has to be interpreted by Catholics for Catholics. And the rest of us look on and try to figure out where we stand once we’re clear about where they stand.

SSTeacher;5447774:

When I described Catholics as “serious” I didn’t mean I thought most Catholics were well up in doctrine and/or theology but that they were serious about being obedient

Are you suggesting that either von Balthasar or Neuhaus were not obedient? Many Catholics think von Balthasar was kooky, but I don’t think he can be accused of a lack of submission to the authority of the Church.

Edwin

No, I’m not suggesting anything remotely like that. I happily accept the assertion that all Catholics are obedient but venture to suggest that some Catholics are more knowledgeable about doctrine and theology than others and that those who are less knowledgeable are perhaps likely to find it more difficult confidently to address questions such as, “Is there a case for Universalism?”

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[Paul3144]

I’m not a universalist, but I firmly believe that when all is said and done that God will have called unto Himself far more people than those that will face the just punishment of their sins in hell.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi James,

I appreciate the time and effort put into the compilation of post #31 apropos the question posed by Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans (cf. Romans 8:35):

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

If it’s all right with you I’d like to focus on just one idea that appeared in that post. It aligns with an earlier idea you adduced in post #20.

It is we who will separate ourselves from Christ’s Love and the Love of the Father.

JRKH (Post#31); 5448743:

Thus it is not God who condemns but the person who condemns themselves.

Would you care to enlarge upon this assertion – the notion that people condemn ourselves? I’m interested in how you understand this idea.

I’m acquainted with an Eastern Orthodox clergyman whose early formation was in what I guess might safely be described as a “Calvinistic setting.” In his early teens he sat in church one Sunday and heard an Elder announce something along the lines of, “If I were one of those people that God has predestined for hell I would march cheerfully off to hell singing the Lord’s praises as I go!” Not surprisingly, that teenager was extremely frightened – he can easily bring that incident to mind over forty years later. This, of course, is the Calvinist vision of what God is like. But the Calvinists are logical if nothing else. Anybody who marches cheerfully off to hell in full knowledge of what they’re doing has to be at least a few sandwiches short of a picnic. If there are people in hell it is God who sent them there, surely? Calvinists have no trouble declaring this.

But perhaps you take the same line as Alexandre Kalomiros?

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But that doesn’t mean that everything they say is true–that would be the same thing as making them “compulsory.”

This is pretty much the position in the Church: in fact, the only person who has to believe things are a “real” apparition, is the visionary. As for messages, one can take them or leave them. Unfortunately, these rather important details don’t get much of an airing​

As I understand it, it means that they do not violate the defined parameters of the Faith. Other opinions, which do contradict the apparitions, might also be within those parameters.

Catholics, correct me if I’m wrong!

I could be wrong, but I think that it’s possible for a Catholic to accept that the children really encountered the Blessed Virgin while also believing that they interpreted their experience in the light of what they had been taught.

You aren’t wrong.​

I know that many conservative Catholics wouldn’t take this approach. But I don’t think it’s unorthodox from a Catholic perspective.

Which is their privilege. And it isn’t unorthodox. Father Poulain says all these things I’ve nicked from him, in his book “The Graces of the Interior Life”, at various points in that book. It has an approbation by Pius X - & although this does not add to its intrinsic worth, it does mean that that author’s ideas have a certain weight: in the terminology formerly in use, Poulain has the weight of an auctor probatus, an “approved author”. He’s not some idle scribbler on mystical theology, but an author who knows what he is saying about mystical theology. He is qualified to comment.​

It’s the only way I can reconcile the official recognition of Fatima by the Catholic Church with the fact that Catholics don’t consider the revelations to be binding doctrine.

And it has to be asked - given that the thing is an apparition, & thus, a thing not of the same kind as (say) a job interview: real as what kind of encounter ?​

Are you suggesting that either von Balthasar or Neuhaus were not obedient? Many Catholics think von Balthasar was kooky, but I don’t think he can be accused of a lack of submission to the authority of the Church.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,

I appreciate the time and effort put into the compilation of post #31 apropos the question posed by Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans (cf. Romans 8:35):

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

If it’s all right with you I’d like to focus on just one idea that appeared in that post. It aligns with an earlier idea you adduced in post #20.

Originally Posted by JRKH (Post #20)
It is we who will separate ourselves from Christ’s Love and the Love of the Father.

I’m not sure if I can enlarge upon this beyond what I stated in Post# 31. The Quote from The Father, as revealed to St Catherine seems to say it the best.

Perhaps just a couple of quick thoughts for consideration.
A crude and practical application:
A person comes into a store, Robs the place and kills the owner. Later this person is caught and brought to justice and found guilty. The Judge asks if he has anything to say before sentencing and the person simply curses the Judge and jury. Who condemns this man. The Judge who passes the sentence or the Man who committed the Crime and has never repented of it?

Something a bit more spiritual:
A person is born and raised in a “Church” community. He attends every Sunday but does not really participate. He even nods off during the sermons. The rest of the time he is focused on the things of the world. If he is wronged his first reaction is anger followed by revenge. He refuses to forgive, even after he has “gotten even”. He builds up a great fortune but pleads poverty to all who ask for help. Even on his deathbed he expresses no remorse and is only angry with God for making him sick.
As he dies, he reaches for that upon which he built his life. Greed and avirice, Revenge and grudges. He dies, not in the Love, but in Hate Thus will he judge himself and fall into the pit. For we Know that, if he had truly repented, even at the very end, God would have drawn him to himself.

I truly can only say that, if you wish to understand this idea better, you should get and read “The Fulfillment of All desire”
also you can read the Dialogue of St. Catherine on-line at the link I posted in post number 31

Peace
James