May Catholics Endorse Universalism?

[Rubee]

It is not formulated this way in Church teaching. She has much to say on the dignity of the human person, though.

My point is: I was being VERY moral in my reasoning, even though I was wrong. The principle I was applying was that if people were not doing harm, it was unjust to hinder/interfere with them. As long as I did not see that act as “harm” I would have kept to that view. It’s only that THROUGH STUDYING CATHOLICISM, I understood the full meaning/varieties of “harm” so I changed my view.

But my understanding changed with more light. It wasn’t automatic. It wasn’t enough for me that “most people didn’t like it.” I was very weary of how mobs of people do all sorts of bad things (like going along with genocide/slavery etc), so that alone would never in a million years be enough to satisfy me why what did not seem harmful in its face was wrong because it was in a sacred text or “people told you so.”

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

It is not formulated this way in Church teaching. She has much to say on the dignity of the human person, though.

My point is: I was being VERY moral in my reasoning, even though I was wrong. The principle I was applying was that if people were not doing harm, it was unjust to hinder/interfere with them. As long as I did not see that act as “harm” I would have kept to that view. It’s only that THROUGH STUDYING CATHOLICISM, I understood the full meaning/varieties of “harm” so I changed my view. But my understanding changed with more light. It wasn’t automatic.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[1954] Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

[1960] The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[Rubee]

I completely agree with that and have no objection to it! This matches my own experience as well. And even in psychology, I’ve learned how easy it is to fall into a narrow/tunnel view and have come sincerely to think everyone but the saints is at least partly insane.

 

[Rubee]

. Your examples would be something like an atheist would come up with.

Even atheists have moral principles, and as I said, I was a religiously indifferent teen. If you don’t disagree with the principle, this is honestly petty. (Hey, you did not use the exact arrangement of words the church uses though I have no problem with the substance of what you are saying.)

And by the way, I was staunchly pro-life while being very much supportive of the gay rights arguments. It wasn’t about “going with the flow.” It was how I sincerely saw the world. “Killing” and “Just being happy in a harmless way.” In addition, your own quotes show the church teaches we do need grace and revelation to understand natural law.

 

[OneSheep]

Really? Because I don’t see unconditionally forgiveness in those quotes.

Luke 23:34 New International Version
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

The people were torturing him and calling for his death, yet He forgave them. He understood that they did not know what they were doing.

I have done that, and I’m not a person who likes to repeat myself.

You have yet to state the source of your claim that we know anything about adulteress’ cohort, that it was only the soldiers that Jesus forgave, and that there is no difference between forgiveness and experienced forgiveness.

So you have citations for the claims made above?

Really? Because I don’t see unconditionally forgiveness in those quotes.

There are no conditions in Luke 23:34, Mark 11:25, and Matthew 6:12, for example.

Until the time of the Reformation…

Is there a part of that entry that you would like me to address? (and has to do with the topic?)

This is not in the CCC, but this thread is not about mortal sin. I would be happy to discuss mortal sin by message, as we are going off-topic. It’s a long discussion.

Have you seen this?:

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Luke 23:34 New International Version
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

You assume them refers to all parties.

And again, Jesus made a petition. He didn’t forgive anyone.

You have yet to state the source of your claim that we know anything about adulteress’ cohort,

The Law of Moses. But if you wanna look up commentaries, you’re a big man.

that it was only the soldiers that Jesus forgave

The actual context of Luke 23.

There are no conditions in Luke 23:34, Mark 10:25, and Matthew 6:12, for example

Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscene.

Said conditions are there in Matthew 18, Luke 17, Acts 3.

 

[Anesti33]

There are no conditions in Luke 23:34, Mark 10:25, and Matthew 6:12, for example.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

(a) ‘They point out that the sentence of Christ in Luke 13:5, is final: “Except you do penance”, etc., and from the Fathers they cite passages such as the following from Cyprian, De Lapsis 32: “Do penance in full, give proof of the sorrow that comes from a grieving and lamenting soul . . . they who do away with repentance for sin, close the door to satisfaction.” Scholastic doctors laid down the satisfaction’ principle, “No one can begin a new life who does not repent him of the old” (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, Pt. II, art. 1, Q. ii, also ex professo, ibid., Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii), and when asked the reason why, they point out the absolute incongruity of turning to God and clinging to sin, which is hostile to God’s law.
The Council of Trent, mindful of the tradition of the ages, defined (Sess. XIV. ch. iv de Contritione) that “contrition has always been necessary for obtaining forgiveness of sin”.

(b) The positive command of God is also clear in the premises. The Baptist sounded the note of preparation for the coming of the Messias: “Make straight his paths”; and, as a consequence “they went out to him and were baptized confessing their sins”. The first preaching of Jesus is described in the words: “Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”; and the Apostles, in their first sermons to the people, warn them to “do penance and be baptized for the remission of their sins” (Acts 2:38). The Fathers followed up with like exhortation (Clement in P.G., I, 341; Hermas iii P.G., II, 894; Tertullian in P.L., II).

 

[Anesti33]

Mark 10:25

You gonna stick with that one?

 

[OneSheep]

And again, Jesus made a petition. He didn’t forgive anyone.

And as I explained earlier his petition was granted in the asking. He willed to forgive. His words apply to parties who did not know what they were doing, and for which forgiveness was called for which were anyone who supported the crucifixion, at the very least. People who did not support the crucifixion were in a greater state of “knowing”, they saw more in terms of human dignity.

What is your support for your claim that he did not forgive anyone?

The Law of Moses. But if you wanna look up commentaries

Nothing in the law of Moses claims some detail about the adulteress’ cohort. So again, you have no source.

The actual context of Luke 23

First you said that Jesus forgave no one, now it is only the soldiers. Why the soldiers and not the rest of the crowd? None of them knew what they were doing. Only those who had changed their mind about crucifying Him, at that moment, had an inkling of knowing.

Said conditions are there in Matthew 18, Luke 17, Acts 3.

Those are whole chapters. Do you have verses to make your point?

You gonna stick with that one?

Corrected. Mark 11:25

Was there something in that Catholic Encyclopedia article that you would like me to address?

 

[Anesti33]

Was there something in that Catholic Encyclopedia article that you would like me to address?

I am curious why a poster identifying as Catholic on a Catholic forum is holding out as Catholic teaching, a tenet of Martin Luther explicitly condemned by Trent.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

First you said that Jesus forgave no one, now it is only the soldiers.

If there’s any forgiving, which there’s not, Jesus is referring to people who actually knew the situation.

and not the rest of the crowd?

The priests who saw the miracles?

The stragglers who said Hosanna on Palm Sunday?

They didn’t know what they were doing?

Those are whole chapters. Do you have verses to make your point?

It’s in chunks. Do yourself a favor and read the whole passage.
.

Nothing in the law of Moses claims some detail about the adulteress’ cohort.

Except the part that both parties have to be stoned. So the Pharisees were not following the Law of Moses.

 

[OneSheep]

I am curious why a poster identifying as Catholic on a Catholic forum is holding out as Catholic teaching, a tenet of Martin Luther explicitly condemned by Trent.

You are thinking that I am saying something Luther said? Please specify. I’ll be able to answer sometime tomorrow. Thanks!

 

[Anesti33]

It appears that you are splitting hairs to say that the onus is on the person to repent and have contrition in order to “experience” forgiveness from God. That God forgives everything and everybody, and that forgiveness is hanging around somewhere just waiting to be “received” by the person who repents. This proposition is offensive to pious ears.

You have also muddied the waters by saying that to experience forgiveness, the sinner must forgive others. This is a little weird, but it follows from the Lord’s Prayer that we must be forgiving and charitable to others, but the primary operation of the forgiveness of sins is that we experience contrition for what we have done.

I can become angry with my sister, and say cruel words to her, and go to confession and be absolved (forgiven) for those cruel words, while I still hold a grudge against her for past wrongs. I will not be unforgiven unless the grudge is deliberate and grave.

It also appears that you are saying, to come around to the topic of this thread, that it is entirely possible that everyone, who has ever lived, who lives now, and ever will live in the future, who sins is forgiven, and will enter Heaven, thereby escaping Hell and enjoying the Beatific Vision. I am not sure if you understand that repentance and Confession is necessary before the point of death. You also seem to deny Biblical evidence that many people already didn’t make it.

I am not sure if I can identify how you think repentance and contrition plays a part in this universal forgiveness. Are you expecting contrition to occur after death, when the dearly departed realizes God already forgave him? Do you think that contrition the size of a mustard seed is sufficient, and how does the necessity of a State of Grace and sacramental Confession play into this? I really can’t tell.

Finally, we have cited numerous sources, there are quotes from Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils, Catechism, etc. You have not cited any sources, and so anything you say is essentially discountable without direct support. I invite you to scour the works of the Magisterium to find support other than your one, unnamed, anonymous “Scripture Scholar” friend’s hearsay.

 

[Montrose]

To One Sheep.

What is the purpose of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

This is not a response to your Luther question. I clicked the wrong thing in error. My question stands though.

 

[OneSheep]

It appears that you are splitting hairs to say that the onus is on the person to repent and have contrition in order to “experience” forgiveness from God. That God forgives everything and everybody, and that forgiveness is hanging around somewhere just waiting to be “received” by the person who repents.

Yes, a free gift!

This proposition is offensive to pious ears.

You find the image of an unconditionally loving and forgiving God offensive.

the primary operation of the forgiveness of sins is that we experience contrition for what we have done.

This is very important, yes.

I will not be unforgiven unless the grudge is deliberate and grave.

If a person holds a grudge, it will be nearly impossible for them to experience forgiveness from God. I don’t know if it is even theoretically possible.

possible that everyone, who has ever lived, who lives now, and ever will live in the future, who sins is forgiven, and will enter Heaven, thereby escaping Hell and enjoying the Beatific Vision. You also seem to deny Biblical evidence…

Did you see Bishop Barron’s video?

I am not sure if I can identify how you think repentance and contrition plays a part in this universal forgiveness.

When people realize the gravity of their sins, they repent. People who sin do not realize the gravity of their sin, as did those who hung Jesus. They did not realize the gravity of crucifying the other two that day either.

Are you expecting contrition to occur after death…?

With God, all things are possible, a merciful possible.

anything you say is essentially discountable without direct support.

Yes, I agree. What specifically would you like me to directly support, now that you have seen Bishop Barron’s video? I would like to say, though, if the image of a conditionally loving and forgiving God is what keeps you from sin, it might be better to stay with the image you have rather than go deeper. I also highly recommend the Linn’s Good Goats: Healing Our Image of God

What is the purpose of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

The sacrament, like all sacraments, is a sign. It is to show the sinner that they have been forgiven. There are many other purposes, but that is the main one.

 

[Montrose]

The sacrament, like all sacraments, is a sign. It is to show the sinner that they have been forgiven. There are many other purposes, but that is the main one.

It is to confess, repent and then be forgiven and receive absolution. Someone in mortal sin is not forgiven if they do not do that.

 

[OneSheep]

If there’s any forgiving, which there’s not

Again, you have no support for your claim that Jesus did not forgive. Perhaps you should find some commentary or ask a priest.

The priests who saw the miracles?

The stragglers who said Hosanna on Palm Sunday?

They didn’t know what they were doing?

Not if they saw Jesus as disposable, of no value in the moment. They would have been blind, blinded by their judgment and anger. Do you see that we are all capable of such blindness?

So the Pharisees were not following the Law of Moses.

Again, you don’t know the circumstances. The cohort may have already been stoned. These details are not the point of the story. The point of the story is that we are all sinners, and that His mercy is primary.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole passage.

Frankly, your own reading of scripture is so bizarre that there is simply no way that I can guess what you are trying to prove with those chapters. What have you read that frames the story of the adulteress as a misapplication of law? This is very, very unusual.

 

[Anesti33]

Here’s what I think. You seem to have forgiveness conflated with grace. Perhaps sanctifying grace, but perhaps also actual and preventing graces as well. You see, grace is a free gift, as you say. God always gives us all the graces we need for our situation and state in life. So He will not withhold what we need, as you say. But also, grace can be deferred. If a person receives a sacrament sacrilegiously, for example is in mortal sin on her wedding day, then she does not receive sanctifying grace from that sacrament. She does not ‘experience’ the grace yet, as you say. She must repent and confess her mortal sins to a priest (or an act of perfect contrition can work, under the usual conditions.) Then once she is in a state of grace, she experiences that grace as it flows into her just as strong as it would’ve been on the day she said “I do.”

So that’s how grace works, and it’s easy to see where you could be confused about the two. But here’s the thing (as Bishop Barron would say).

If I don’t experience forgiveness, I am not forgiven, and there is no forgiveness to be had. It is just ridiculous to think of God issuing forgiveness and then having it hang in the air while the sinner dodges it (think Neo in the Matrix).

Let’s take another angle too. Consider the Sacrament of Penance as an image of the economy of salvation. Can the priest withhold absolution? Indeed he can! There are crimes and reserved sins that might defer his forgiveness until he can contact a bishop. But what is the number one, bar-none, sine qua non reason a priest might defer absolution? Think about it. What you bind on Earth shall be bound on Earth.

 

[Anesti33]

If God’s forgiveness were unconditional, wouldn’t he impart it to us whether we wanted it or not? God, being almighty and all-powerful, could design His forgiveness such that it could not be foiled by a mere human will. Instead, He appears to have built in a condition to experiencing that forgiveness. If His forgiveness is useless until we choose to repent and experience it, then it’s not so unconditional after all, is it now.

 

[OneSheep]

If I don’t experience forgiveness, I am not forgiven, and there is no forgiveness to be had.

From the cross Jesus forgave the unrepentant. We are called to forgive everyone we hold something against. Are you thinking that God hangs onto grudges?

There are also two sides to this equation, both theology and anthropology. The more a person knows (and I mean an all-inclusive knowing of what is relevant) the less likely they will choose to sin.

Think of it this way: When is a person more cognizant of the gravity of their sin, before he has committed the sin, or afterward when he regrets it? There were certainly many of the crowd who hung Jesus who later regretted having been part of favoring torture and execution. This condition of regret is the more full knowing of what they were doing, correct?

What you bind on Earth shall be bound on Earth.

The Church has never bound anyone to be in a state of mortal sin at death. If nothing else, it is a violation of charity and CCC2478.

The pathway I took to seeing that God forgives everyone involved understanding why people sin, and forgiving everyone toward whom I had ever felt the least big of negativity. People sin because they do not know what they are doing. If you would like to see a discussion of this, you could glance at some of this:

Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin? Spirituality

Jesus said: Luke 23:34New International Version (NIV) 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” It can be seen that Jesus not only forgave those who wanted Him dead, but forgave from His heart by using the gift of Understanding. He saw that they did not know what they were doing. Can this be applied universally? It seems to be so. I can’t think of a case where people actually know what they are doing when they sin, when using an all-inclusive definit…