May Catholics Endorse Universalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter avemariagratiaplena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OneSheep said:
The “condemnation” refers to not being in relationship with God. When we are not in relationship, we are in a state of alienation, or sin. When in a state of sin, we “love the darkness”,we try to gain fulfillment by being caught up in the appetites.
Click to expand...
And those are among who God damns.

They make the choice and God punished them for it.

the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

John 3:35‭-‬36 RSV-CI

So to say God doesn’t punish anyone is far from the truth.

And for the upteenth time, Jesus requires repentance for forgiveness.

Then his Lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’And in anger his Lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
Matthew 18:32‭-‬35 RSV-CI
 
Last edited:
So, just to summarize, as I was saying there is a part of ourselves that is self-protective (and protective of our loved ones, to some degree) that condemns others, and ourselves, for misdeeds and hurtful acts. It is very, very, natural to equate this part of ourselves with God, and it appears that you have done so. I go so far to say that it is the “default” image of God, and I had this image of God as a young man. Notice that Jesus accepts that people carry an image of a wrathful God, He does not contest it full-on. Instead, He invites us to something deeper.

The problem with the wrathful image is that it carries with it an insecurity. Internally one perceives, and makes the honest assessment, that the God who condemns others is sure to find fault in oneself also. This leads to an internal anxiety, a worry, and very often manifests in scrupulosity. The scrupulosity is the constant effort to remain on “God’s good side” in fear that God will condemn them for some reason or another.

The means toward transcending this image is to do exactly as Jesus says, to forgive everyone, every single person against whom one holds the least amount of contempt, to love everyone.

Upon doing this, unconditionally forgiving others, one knows, or begins to know, the loving forgiveness of the Father.
 
Last edited:
OneSheep said:
There is always something that they could have known that would have swayed their choice to sin.
Click to expand...
This is contrary to the concept of deliberate choice of evil: malice.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . …

1860 … Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
Click to expand...
 
Vico said:
40.png
OneSheep:
There is always something that they could have known that would have swayed their choice to sin.
Click to expand...
This is contrary to the concept of deliberate choice of evil : malice.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
Sorry, Vico, the CCC did not contest what I said.
 
OneSheep said:
…
Click to expand...
You wrote: “There is always something that they could have known that would have swayed their choice to sin.”

Sin is a result of will. The person has sufficient grace but chooses not to cooperate with it, which is not based upon lack of knowledge with regard to mortal sin.
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
Sin is a result of will. The person has sufficient grace but chooses not to cooperate with it, which is not based upon lack of knowledge with regard to mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Okay, let’s test this supposed knowledge the person has. Why does he choose not to cooperate with it? What is he thinking?

We have been through this before Vico. You posited a person who had absolutely full knowledge of all the consequences, and valued God above all else. Your person had all of his priorities in perfect order, was fully aware of all his priorities, yet chose against all of his priorities, a completely irrational action.

Such a choice begs the definition of “knowing what you are doing”. Is a person who makes completely irrational choices fully connected to his own will? No, all sin is irrational, and when the irrational is what is chosen, this is indicative of a state of mental incongruity, not a state of knowledge. Indeed, the state of regret experienced after the poor choice is a more “full” knowledge, not the state of non-regret.
 
OneSheep said:
…
Click to expand...
You asked: “Why does he choose not to cooperate with it?”
A. Saint Thomas Aquinas answered it, so maybe you can understand that better:

With regard to angels (S.T. I, Q63, A2 SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The malice of the angels with regard to sin (Prima Pars, Q. 63)):
Consequently the first sin of the angel can be none other than pride.
Click to expand...
With regard to Adam and Eve (S.T. II, II, Q163 A4 SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The first man's sin (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 163))
As regards the genus itself of the sin, the sin of each is considered to be equal, for each sinned by pride.
Click to expand...
Malice in general.
(S.T. I, II Q78 A1 SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: That cause of sin which is malice (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 78))
Now evil is merely the privation of some good; and so a man wishes knowingly a spiritual evil, which is evil simply, whereby he is deprived of a spiritual good, in order to possess a temporal good: wherefore he is said to sin through certain malice or on purpose, because he chooses evil knowingly.
Click to expand...
Note that sin can be from ignorance, passion, or malice.

You wrote: “You posited a person who had absolutely full knowledge of all the consequences, and valued God above all else.”
A. No, that was not what I posted. Full knowledge does not mean “all of the consequences” and in fact the sinner prefers the self above God.

Modern Catholic Dictionary (excerpt)
PRIDE An inordinate esteem of oneself. It is inordinate because it is contrary to the truth. It is essentially an act or disposition of the will desiring to be considered better than a person really is
…
When pride is carried to the extent that a person is unwilling to acknowledge dependence on God and refuses to submit his or her will to God or lawful authority, it is a grave sin. The gravity arises from the fact that a person shows contempt for God or of those who take his place. Otherwise, pride is said to be imperfect and venially wrong. …
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OneSheep said:
It is very, very, natural to equate this part of ourselves with God, and it appears that you have done so.
Click to expand...
So Judgement day is a figment of my imagination then.
OneSheep said:
The scrupulosity is the constant effort to remain on “God’s good side” in fear that God will condemn them for some reason or another.
Click to expand...
A “scrupulosity” that Jesus affirms.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 10:28 RSV-CI

Even Jesus tells us to fear God.
OneSheep said:
do exactly as Jesus says, to forgive everyone
Click to expand...
Inasmuch as God forgives us. And God forgives us, WHEN WE ASK HIM.
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
Consequently the first sin of the angel can be none other than pride.
Click to expand...
When a person puts their own value or status above God, they do not know what they are doing. They believe an untruth.
Vico said:
You wrote: “You posited a person who had absolutely full knowledge of all the consequences, and valued God above all else.”
A. No, that was not what I posted. Full knowledge does not mean “all of the consequences” and in fact the sinner prefers the self above God.
Click to expand...
When a sinner prefers self above God, they do not know what they are doing. All that has to do with the self is a gift from God, so the preference is based on lack of awareness.

Did you notice that I used the word “posited” not “posted”? I am referring to a previous discussion.
Vico said:
PRIDE An inordinate esteem of oneself. It is inordinate because it is contrary to the truth. It is essentially an act or disposition of the will desiring to be considered better than a person really is
Click to expand...
Exactly, it is inordinate and contrary to the truth. When a person makes choices based on untruth, this is not a state of knowing, it is a state of ignorance.
Vico said:
The gravity arises from the fact that a person shows contempt for God or of those who take his place.
Click to expand...
When a person shows contempt for God, or actually has contempt for God, they do not know what they are doing. Their thinking is irrational and inordinate.

Vico, at some point you are going to realize that what I am saying is an observation of human nature, not an opposition to Church teaching. What you are talking about is theoretical possibility, not what actually takes place in the mind of the human. Sin is irrational, and when an irrational act is chosen, it is chosen not in a state of knowing. Jesus recognized this from the cross. The only reason I uphold the theoretical, as the definition of mortal sin implies, is that I am not omniscient. I cannot find any possible way that a person could choose sin when knowing everything relevant (“full knowledge”), but I don’t have access to all the possibilities. If you can think of a case, feel free to bring it forth, but please don’t use the example of the irrational person you used before.
 
OneSheep said:
…
What you are talking about is theoretical possibility, not what actually takes place in the mind of the human. Sin is irrational, and when an irrational act is chosen, it is chosen not in a state of knowing…
Click to expand...
You can define your own terms, but they may not be in keeping with the teaching of the Church.

The Catechism is clear that sin is committed against reason, yet there one can be personally responsible for it:
1847 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience;

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. …

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing imperfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
A “scrupulosity” that Jesus affirms.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 10:28 RSV-CI

Even Jesus tells us to fear God.
Click to expand...
Matthew 6

Do Not Worry

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
Click to expand...
Yet, the fire-and-brimstone image of God has man fearing and worrying about punishment. Jesus invites us to see that God is our “Abba”, who loves and cares for us more than we can imagine. I refer back to what I said earlier, paraphrasing the Linns. “If anything in scripture or doctrine makes it sound like God loves you less than the person who loves you most, something is amiss.”
 
Vico said:
You can define your own terms, but they may not be in keeping with the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Okay, then show me the terms that have to do with a state of “knowing”. In the mean time:
Vico said:
1847 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience
Click to expand...
Yes, and when chosen, it is because people do not know what they are doing, as Jesus observed from the cross.
Vico said:
1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.
Click to expand...
Exactly, sin wounds, and is contrary to reason. When a person is acting in reason, they know what they are doing. When a person is acting against reason, they are irrational.
Vico said:
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. …
Click to expand...
Correct, and in order to know “opposition to God’s law”, they would have to know everything relevant to that. If they do not, they do not know what they are doing. If they know everything relevant, yet are not blind, and have their priorities in order, and still choose to sin then they are completely irrational, not in a state of “knowing”.

The more a person knows, and I am defining that in the fullest way, knowing the infinite value of the human and in complete gratitude to God, the less likely they are to sin. There is always something missing in the choice to sin, in my experience an scope. Again, if you can come up with a counterexample, feel free to do so.
Vico said:
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing imperfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
Click to expand...
When a person chooses evil, they are choosing from a limited knowledge, not from full knowledge. Blindness is a way that our knowledge can be limited. The people who hung Jesus were blinded by their desire for justice.
 
OneSheep said:
Jesus invites us to see that God is our “Abba”, who loves and cares for us more than we can imagine
Click to expand...
And is the same God who says He will punish up to the fourth generation of those who hate Him.

I notice how you like to shy away from passages like these:

For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Hebrews 10:26‭-‬31 RSV-CI

You would have Love be permissive. Love damns as well as saves.
 
Last edited:
I get it, Julius, you have an image of a wrathful God. I’m not going to try to talk you out of it.
Julius_Caesar said:
You can’t make that argument for everything.
Click to expand...
I am saying that it applies to when people choose to sin. Do you have a counterexample to propose?
Julius_Caesar said:
In contradiction to the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
This does not contradict teachings. I have answered all of Vico’s attempts to make that case.
 
OneSheep said:
Do you have a counterexample to propose?
Click to expand...
Those who said that Jesus cast out devil’s by the power of devils.

Those who commit apostasy.

Ananias and Sapphira.

Anyone who commits a mortal sin
 
Last edited:
OneSheep said:
God’s forgiveness does not mean he approves of sin
Click to expand...
You saying that God forgives unconditionally does. He forgives only with repentance.
OneSheep said:
Okay, what was going through their minds when they decided to hold money back from Peter?
Click to expand...
They thought it was a good idea to test God. They acted in league with Satan. Their sin wasn’t in holding money back. They lied to the Church.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top