May Catholics Endorse Universalism?

[Latin]

avemariagratiaplena:

The individual hope I get, but why not all corporately? It amounts to the exact same thing.

It does not.

In the former case, each individual is judged on his or her merits. (That’s exactly what the Church teaches.)

In the latter case, all humans are given a ‘free pass’ and are saved. (That’s precisely what the Church rejects.)

The number of souls in heaven ends up being the same number, but it’s not “the exact same thing”).

I like your explanation.

I believe your explanation of the former case, no such thing as a “free pass” because God causes all of us (the entire human race), to work very hard on to complete the work of his creation.
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).
.
CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.
.
God acts through secondary causes, yet all alike postulate Divine concurrence and receive their powers of operation from Him, efficacious in that all things minister to God’s final purpose, a purpose which cannot be frustrated (Contra Gent., III, xciv);
.
CCC 307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings. They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.

.
ORUR JUDGMENT WILLBE INTERESTING BECAUSE ALL OUR MERITS ARE GOD’S GIFTS

The Father William Most Collection
St. Augustine on Grace and Predestination

I.(1) On human interaction with grace: Every good work, even good will, is the work of God.
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: “It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good … . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act , providing most effective powers to the will.”
.
Ibid. 6. 15: “If then your merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His gifts.”
.
Ep. 154, 5. 16: “What then is the merit of man before grace by which merit he should receive grace? Since only grace makes every good merit of ours, and when God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing else but His own gifts.”
.
St. Augustine is called, rightly, the Doctor of Grace, for his great work. Augustine showed very well our total dependence on God.
.
God bless

 

[AAichael]

Merit causes Grace to abound because it is transcending uprightness supplanting a lesser state of unsurity that is betwixt divisively but true to Graces fulfillment. Something between born and reborn, growing and grown.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

In so many words you have said nothing at all.

 

[MarkRome]

Pope Vigilius, Canons against Origen. Book against Origen of the Emperor Justinian, 543 A.D.:

Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.

Again, not to rehash the other thread, but 543 was a local synod and therefore isn’t Church dogma.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Pope Vigilius, Canons against Origen. Book against Origen of the Emperor Justinian, 543 A.D.:

Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.

Again, not to rehash the other thread, but 543 was a local synod and therefore isn’t Church dogma.

A Select Library Of The Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers Of The Christian Church.
Second Series Edited By Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. And Henry Wace, D.D. Volume XIV has:

But even if these anathemas were adopted at the Home Synod [543] before the meeting of the Fifth Ecumenical [553], it is clear that by including his name [Origen] among those of the heretics in the XIth Canon, it practically ratified and made its own the action of that Synod.

https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xii.viii.html

 

[TK421]

Inductively, a person may - and is morally obligated under pain of sin against charity - to hope for each given person to be saved and is morally obligated to hope that a person will not be eternally lost.

But it’s not deductive. We don’t have the authority to say universally that everybody will be saved, only that everybody can be saved. Origen first presented the idea in the 3rd century that everybody and the devil will be saved and this was rejected.

 

[MarkRome]

But even if these anathemas were adopted at the Home Synod [543] before the meeting of the Fifth Ecumenical [553], it is clear that by including his name [Origen] among those of the heretics in the XIth Canon, it practically ratified and made its own the action of that Synod.

“Practically ratified” does not mean ratified. Even though they declared Origen a heretic, not everything he taught was heresy. The ecumenical council spelled out what was Origen’s heresies and it didn’t include Canon 9 from the synod. While synods have weight and should be considered, they do not have the weight of dogma.

But, we probably agree that universalism as a certainty is not acceptable for Catholics to believe. That is nowhere supported in Scripture or Tradition.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

But even if these anathemas were adopted at the Home Synod [543] before the meeting of the Fifth Ecumenical [553], it is clear that by including his name [Origen] among those of the heretics in the XIth Canon, it practically ratified and made its own the action of that Synod.

“Practically ratified” does not mean ratified. Even though they declared Origen a heretic, not everything he taught was heresy. The ecumenical council spelled out what was Origen’s heresies and it didn’t include Canon 9 from the synod. While synods have weight and should be considered, they do not have the weight of dogma.

But, we probably agree that universalism as a certainty is not acceptable for Catholics to believe. That is nowhere supported in Scripture or Tradition.

You said that you did not want to rehash the other thread, so I have no more comments.

 

[Rubee]

Wow, I’ve read some of that article. It’s super long! But I have to say as someone with SERIOUS struggles with the concept of hell as eternal torment but who does not want to discard the Magisterium, it gave me hope! Soo much hope!

The only reason I don’t believe in this 100% (universal salvation) is to avoid heresy. So I believe in something like “Most people will end up in purgatory for a long time, and perhaps no one or very few will wind up with truly eternal/unending torment.”

This article suggests something very different, though. That what ends up in hell is the “man of sin” or “shadow” or “false self” while what is saved through fire is the “good” in/of the person (who they really are, however “tiny”) of the person tried by fire that he did/was/accomplished, and that hell exists to strip it irrevocably from the hypostasis/person which then is thereby eternally separated from sin; and that it’s in that sense that Hell is eternal.

I’m not sure what I think of this; have to think about it and make sure it’s not violating binding dogmas of any kind. I will admit, though, that if such an interpretation/understanding can be legitimately held, I’m rolling with it.

I struggle a great deal with the idea that an all-loving God, out of his absolute freedom, wilfully and completely unnecessarily creates creatures doomed to suffer forever in torment. I ask: wouldn’t he choose not to create them, then, given he knows their ultimate end? None of our existence is by any measure “necessary” so you’d think never existing would be the “hell” a loving God would choose for a creature he knew would wind up there. We are all the products of God’s perfect, unhindered freedom and power and loving will: None of us HAS to exist. We exist because our existence delights God, i.e. to do good to us. To be honest, I’ve long thought that the Eastern idea of endless reincarnations till one “got it right” is a far more merciful concept than eternal, irrevocable damnation.

However, if this TRULY cannot be legitimately held, I will stick to my current “hoping that while hell exists, very few people go there, for very few would knowingly choose to reject goodness itself and be separated from it eternally” perspective.

 

[Rubee]

Do you mind pointing me to the thread of which you two speak so I can read up on this myself and decide what I think? It’s only a synod and not an ecumenical council that anathematised Origen for this belief?

 

[MNathaniel]

I struggle a great deal with the idea that an all-loving God, out of his absolute freedom, wilfully and completely unnecessarily creates creatures doomed to suffer forever in torment. I ask: wouldn’t he choose not to create them, then, given he knows their ultimate end?

What do you think about the devil and demons?

Angelic creatures who have already made their choices?

They’re people too. And already definitely damned.

Why wouldn’t God have chosen ‘not’ to create them instead, by the above reasoning?

That’s a rhetorical question, mostly, since the mind of God is so much greater than we can comprehend. My point is just that we actually do know there are people (angelic people) already consigned to everlasting hell (and not simply non-existence) and that this doesn’t contradict a perfectly good God. Why would human people be different in this regard?

 

[Rubee]

That’s a rhetorical question, mostly, since the mind of God is so much greater than we can comprehend. My point is just that we actually do know there are people (angelic people) already consigned to everlasting hell (and not simply non-existence) and that this doesn’t contradict a perfectly good God. Why would human people be different in this regard?

I do not pretend to know everything and will defer to the church in the end. But my soul struggles to square the God who was driven to madness with love, in a sense, to the point of becoming a human baby and suffering a humiliating and cruel death, with one who chooses to create, without any necessity souls doomed to suffer eternal torment in separation from him. My soul tells me that a selfish sinner like myself cannot possibly have greater compassion for them than such a God. My soul tells me that this God of a crazy Love, given he has THE POWER to do something about this, probably already has, well beyond my imagining. If this is heresy, I will struggle but accept it, but if its not heresy, I cannot see any possibility that he would not choose to spare the creature such a fate in ways I do not know.

 

[OneSheep]

I thought I read on a CAF essay that under present canon law, all previous anathemas are no longer valid?

Wow, could you send a link to that essay?

AlNg:

I thought I read on a CAF essay that under present canon law, all previous anathemas are no longer valid?

Dogmas of faith are not merely anathemas.

Note: question was left unanswered. Vico, your fondness of quoting anathemas is, if nothing else, extremely outdated.

Do you believe it is possible for someone to go to Hell?

Very good question. How could it possibly happen, other than in theory?

But, we probably agree that universalism as a certainty is not acceptable for Catholics to believe.

Von Balthasar does not technically support presumption, but supports hope for universal salvation. We can certainly hope for such, and it is charitable and forgiving to do so.

I struggle a great deal with the idea that an all-loving God, out of his absolute freedom, wilfully and completely unnecessarily creates creatures doomed to suffer forever in torment

Once I discovered that I, through the grace of God, could forgive everyone I held anything against, then I could no longer fathom a Father who could do anything less. So hell becomes a theoretical choice, but a choice that is appears impossible (to an observer) once one has a theology of unconditional forgiveness and an anthropology of underlying innocence.

Universal salvation can be hoped for, and should be hoped for. At the same time, such a stance should never be a reason to stop evangelizing. Indeed, that would be counterproductive.

The individual hope I get, but why not all corporately? It amounts to the exact same thing. If we can hope for it, then the hope has to be based in something real, so we should be able to have some non-infallible certainty of it happening.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Vico]

…

AlNg:

I thought I read on a CAF essay that under present canon law, all previous anathemas are no longer valid?

…
Note: question was left unanswered. Vico, your fondness of quoting anathemas is, if nothing else, extremely outdated.
…

Vatican I has anathemas. No, canon law only aborogated the 1917 canon law, not dogmatic canons. There is a difference between church law and moral and theological canons.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Once I discovered that I, through the grace of God, could forgive everyone I held anything against, then I could no longer fathom a Father who could do anything less

God’s forgiveness is dependent on the sinners repentance.

Which we know many will deem themselves u
unworthy of receiving.

 

[OneSheep]

God’s forgiveness is dependent on the sinners repentance.

That would limit God’s mercy. Think of it this way: God knows our choices before He even creates us, but He lovingly creates us anyway. Does God choose to create a person he plans to never forgive because the person will never repent? Does God hold eternal grudges, yet asks people to forgive everyone?

It leads to an image of a “sinister” God, as described by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict)

 

[Julius_Caesar]

That would limit God’s mercy.

And who’s fault is it? God’s or ours.

If a sinner repents he will live. If a rigethous person does evil, he will die.

Isn’t it our ways that lack mercy and not God’s?

 

[MNathaniel]

That would limit God’s mercy. Think of it this way: God knows our choices before He even creates us, but He lovingly creates us anyway. Does God choose to create a person he plans to never forgive because the person will never repent? Does God hold eternal grudges, yet asks people to forgive everyone?

Just checking in: so you expect Satan to one day repent and go back to being Lucifer?

 

[TK421]

@(name removed by moderator)

The warning of something in itself has great value even if it isn’t realized. i.e. Scenario A: Mom tells her toddler not to touch the stove. The toddler approaches near the stove, feels the heat coming from it, and listens to his mom. The warning was genuine, meaningful, and beneficial.

In fact, the warning of hell is only meaningful for people that make a point to avoid it. What about somebody who doesn’t care? In that instance it is casting pearls before swine. It’s precisely when the warning is ignored that it loses its value for a person, not the other way around.

 

[Rubee]

Maybe that warning is a big part of why no one is going there