Universalism and Tradition?

[TNT]

TNT:

In NONE of what you’ve presented does the old Holy Father state that everyone WILL be saved. If this is what “traditionalists” view as his denial of hell or affirmation that hell IS empty, then they’re off base. I read from this that the plan or economy of salvation is universal in its offering, not universal in its final effect.

""The redemption event brings salvation to all, “for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.”
How pray tell, is Christ united with someone in Hell for all eternity??

http://www.dailycatholic.org/anim/3blindlg.gif

 

[JKirkLVNV]

http://www.dailycatholic.org/anim/3blindlg.gif

I wasn’t being a wise mouth, TNT.

 

[TNT]

I wasn’t being a wise mouth, TNT.

""The redemption event brings salvation to all, “for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.”
How pray tell, is Christ united with someone in Hell for all eternity??
When JPII starts flaoting that special favorite word : “MYSTERY” as in “I don’t have any way of defending this”, yur in fer a ride.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

""The redemption event brings salvation to all, “for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.”
How pray tell, is Christ united with someone in Hell for all eternity??

I read what you’re posting, but I truly do not see him saying that all will be saved. I can equally affirm what he said: “Salvation IS brought to all,” despite the fact that not all will grasp it. “Christ HAS united Himself forever with each one through this mystery,” though each person has the right to reject Him. If read with the mind of the Church, I don’t see the problem.

 

[Joysong]

TNT,

But then, isn’t that the universal mark of liberalism…attack the veracity of the person lest his message be seen too truthful?

Since your statements indicate a closed mind, I’m not about to debate a issue taught by the Church, and listen to arguments from you that teach against it. No it is NOT truthful, but biased and deceptive. John Paul certainly did not teach as you are trying to inject here, and as the websites I mentioned also attempt to do.

It might help you to review banned topics:

Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs (Pope John Paul) as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion.

False statements maliciously made to defame another’s reputation. (especially without proof, solely using distorted propaganda interpreted in light of one’s own bias)

 

[TNT]

Oh boy:
“Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life.”

More:
or those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. … In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. … Religions can exercise a positive influence on the destiny of those who belong to them and follow their guidance in a sincere spirit. … The Church does not exist [for] nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine sonship in Christ (cf. RM 19).** She thus exercises an implicit mediation** also with regard to those who do not know the Gospel.”even outwardly reject her] (All Salvation Comes through Christ; General Audience — May 31, 1995)

“Journeying through the centuries, reliving every day the Sacrifice of the altar, the Church, the People of God, awaits Christ’s coming in glory. This is proclaimed after the consecration by the Eucharistic assembly gathered around the altar. Time after time with renewed faith the Church repeats her desire for the final encounter with the One who comes to bring his plan of universal salvation to completion.” (Message Of His Holiness John Paul II For World Mission Sunday 2004 ; “Eucharist And Mission”)

This is actually where the “many means all” got a permanent foothold:

“St. Paul underscored this salvific value in regard to Christ’s obedience. If sin came into the world through an act of disobedience, universal salvation was obtained by the Redeemer’s obedience: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19).” (Religious Offer Their Own Wills to God; General Audience — December 7, 1994)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Oh boy:
Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life.

More:
or those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. … In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. … Religions can exercise a positive influence on the destiny of those who belong to them and follow their guidance in a sincere spirit. … The Church does not exist [for] nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine sonship in Christ (cf. RM 19). She thus exercises an implicit mediation also with regard to those who do not know the Gospel.” (All Salvation Comes through Christ; General Audience — May 31, 1995)

“Journeying through the centuries, reliving every day the Sacrifice of the altar, the Church, the People of God, awaits Christ’s coming in glory. This is proclaimed after the consecration by the Eucharistic assembly gathered around the altar. Time after time with renewed faith the Church repeats her desire for the final encounter with the One who comes to bring his plan of universal salvation to completion.” (Message Of His Holiness John Paul II For World Mission Sunday 2004 ; “Eucharist And Mission”)

This is actually where the “many means all” got a permanent foothold:

“St. Paul underscored this salvific value in regard to Christ’s obedience. If sin came into the world through an act of disobedience, universal salvation was obtained by the Redeemer’s obedience: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19).” (Religious Offer Their Own Wills to God; General Audience — December 7, 1994)

Seems to take into account invincible ignorance. No one is saved without the Church or Christ or the Gospel. Christ’s sacrifice is universal in it’s scope, but only applicable to those who accept it explicitly or those who accept it implicitly, in invincible ignorance of the truth.

 

[TNT]

TNT,

Since your statements indicate a closed mind, I’m not about to debate a issue taught by the Church, and listen to arguments from you that teach against it. No it is NOT truthful, but biased and deceptive. John Paul certainly did not teach as you are trying to inject here, and as the websites I mentioned also attempt to do.

It might help you to review banned topics:

Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs (Pope John Paul) as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion.

False statements maliciously made to defame another’s reputation. (especially without proof, solely using distorted propaganda interpreted in light of one’s own bias)

Actually, that is what YOU were doing: “statements maliciously made to defame another’s reputation”

Look at my posts…they are ALLLLLLLL JPII quotes…nothing personal about them.
The only accusation I made was AT/TOWARD the practices of liberalism in which you had engaged by calling others and by implication myself as willingly making “false innuendo”.
Oh,
http://www.esnips.com/imageable/med...87000&fu=3a71fcf3-0312-46e2-8062-05fe068a0b02

 

[Genesis315]

Those who reject the Church in good faith can be saved by their implicit acceptance of grace. We say these are united to the soul of the Church:

From the Catechism of St. Pius X:

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

From the Doctrinal Catechism (1876):

Q. Do Catholics charge all that are apparently out of their communion with the crimes of heresy and schism, and consequently exclude them from salvation
A. No; all baptized children who die before they sin mortally, and before they embrace and believe error, are members of the true Church. Again, all those sincere people belong to the soul of the Church, who, being baptized, and believing the great fundamental truths of Christianity, and who are prevented from believing it in all its details, not by carelessness, nor temporal interest, nor human respect, nor the spirit of obstinacy, nor by malice, but simply because they never doubted, and never had sufficient means of knowing the truth, which they would embrace at once, and with gladness, could they only discover it,*—*all these, we say, belong to the soul of the Church, and will be saved, if they lead good lives and do not violate God’s law.

 

[st_bernard]

Gratia et Pax Vobicum,

Is it not true that we have several Saints who each professed Universal Salvation? St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor, etc…

If such great Saints as these professed Universal Salvation it might give evidence that such is not heresy…

Gratias

 

[Jakub]

Salvation - that is the Word, the Gospel’s of the Lord are made available to all…to accept or reject.

I can’t tell you about the results of acceptance or rejection after this life…I doubt if anyone on this forum can.

Pax
james

 

[Joysong]

TNT:

Joysong:

you got the idea from notorious websites hell-bent on destroying the Church through false innuendo.

I take personal offense at such personal attacks on my motives and the motives of those you know not.

You omitted my words “I would guess” … kindly quote verbatum when you make charges of offense. And please note that I attributed the quotes to “websites.”

As for personal offense, I do take exceptional personal offense that the Holy Father’s words have been given an implication of heresy, when you neither know him, nor have spoken with him, and do not know what he truly believed in framing his writings. It is assumed, as per your quotes, that he is teaching the church error and all of the bishops and cardinals who read his words must believe it as well, or they would have corrected him publicly.

Ridiculous and offensive! And yada yada whenever someone disagrees with a traditionist, they are automatically a “liberal.” Also ridiculous.

 

[TNT]

You omitted my words “I would guess” … kindly quote verbatum when you make charges of offense. And please note that I attributed the quotes to “websites.”

As for personal offense, I do take exceptional personal offense that the Holy Father’s words have been given an implication of heresy, when you neither know him, nor have spoken with him, and do not know what he truly believed in framing his writings. It is assumed, as per your quotes, that he is teaching the church error and all of the bishops and cardinals who read his words must believe it as well, or they would have corrected him publicly.

Ridiculous and offensive! And yada yada whenever someone disagrees with a traditionist, they are automatically a “liberal.” Also ridiculous.

Ah, the naysayers have been busy, I see! Extremely anxious to dishonor and point fingers of heresy to John Paul II. Wherever you pulled these quotes from, TNT, the quotes failed to present the whole context of his teaching. I would guess you got the idea from notorious websites hell-bent on destroying the Church through false innuendo.

There it is.
So:
“the naysayers have been busy. Extremely anxious to dishonor and point fingers of heresy to John Paul II.”
This was your response to MY post.
And again:
“guess you got **the idea **from notorious websites hell-bent on destroying the Church through false innuendo.”

Plain enough?
Yes.
The word “guess” relieves nothing.

 

[Joysong]

“guess you got the idea from notorious websites hell-bent on destroying the Church through false innuendo.”

I did attribute innocence to you, that you learned it elsewhere, yet your persistence in denigrating John Paul and believing he meant something other than what he intended, kinda looks like the shoe fits huh?

So I “guess” I’m still offended, as are many who may read this public attack on his orthodoxy.

 

[Jakub]

Guess all the new fangled innovations seen/heard through out the Churches here in the US are due to notrious websites ?

Sacred Tradition is seldom seen, heard or discussed in parishes today, it’s the time of the new age of thought and practice.

Don’t lay the blame on one, it belongs to the many…

james

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…

Pope Pius XII: "“The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition (antiquarianism) is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that doe not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer.”

Rubbish. The “desire to restore everything INDISCRIMINATELY to its anceitn condition…would be wrong”

Vatican II did no such thing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pax Vobiscum,

Could someone please let me know if it is a grave matter to hold the view of Universalism?

Pax

Yes, it is a grave sin to hold the view of Universalism. Universal restoration (Gk Apocatastasis) "was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.]
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apocatastasis ]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Universalism holds that after the “forever and ever” of those cast into the “lake of fire” is over with (?), then they too will attain eternal life in heaven.

However, Catholic teaching states:

The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity (de fide) …

• The belief…concerning the restoration of all things…according to which the damned angels and men, after a long period of purification, will be re-established in grace and will return to God, was rejected at the Synod of Constantinople (543) as heretical.* [Dr. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

, p. 481, p. 120]
The following canon seems to have been confirmed by Pope Vigilus, as Cassiodorus testifies, De inst. div. litt. c. 2: “It appears that he [Origen]…has nevertheless in the present time been condemned anew by Vigilius the Pope, a most blessed man.”…

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. [Denzinger 211]

From the Lateran Council IV, 1215:

[Christ] ascended…to come at the end of time, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect…that they may recieve according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil and the former everlasting glory with Christ. [Denzinger 429]

John Paul II likewise affirmed:

***hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return *** General Audience, 28 July 1999]

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax et Caritas:

Pope Pius XII: "“The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition (antiquarianism) is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that doe not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer.” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical
Letter “Mediator Dei”)

Notice that what the Pope said “would be wrong” is exactly what has occurred in the Novus Ordo Mass, under the name of Vatican II.

Rubbish. The “desire to restore everything INDISCRIMINATELY to its anceitn condition…would be wrong”

Vatican II did no such thing.

Why did you splice the quote like that? Let’s read the entire quote and see what the Pope said “would be wrong”.

Pope Pius XII: “It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that doe not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer.”

I the said these things have taken place in the Novus Ordo Mass… and they have. Why, then, did you say what I wrote was rubbish? It was not rubbish, but the truth. All of those things have taken place in the Novus Ordo.

And why did you splice the quote to fit your position, when the entire quote says exactly what I said? You spliced the quote in an attempt to make it say something else. Why did you do that?

 

[DustinsDad]

Pax et Caritas:

…Pope Pius XII: "“The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition (antiquarianism) is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that doe not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer.” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical
Letter “Mediator Dei”)
Notice that what the Pope said “would be wrong” is exactly what has occurred in the Novus Ordo Mass, under the name of Vatican II.

Notice here that Pax et Caritas is describing several things specifically mentioned by Pope Pius XII that would be wrong:

• The altar restored to its ancient form as table
• black eliminated from the liturgical colors
• crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer

Rubbish. The “desire to restore everything INDISCRIMINATELY to its anceitn condition…would be wrong” Vatican II did no such thing.

Since all three of the examples mentioned by Pius XII are now (post VII) commonplace and the norm in the Roman Catholic Church, are you saying that such changes…

• were not called for by Vatican II?
• were not done under the name of Vatican II?
• were not done indiscriminately?
  I’m just not sure exactly what you think is “rubbish” in Pax et Caritas’ post. Seems to me he’s just making an observation of the obvious.

As for the first, not being called for by Vatican II, I would agree…not explicitly anyway (but there’s not much explicit in Vatican II), but the term “noble simplicity” can justify just about anything or any removal of customs developed over the centuries. And while not being explicitly called for by Vatican II, such changes have been either accepted (as in the case of altar-tables and removal of black from liturgical colors) or not restricted aside from lip service* (as in the case of the Risen Christ crucifixes*), by the Vatican post Vatican II. That much is a fact.

As for the second, not done under the name of Vatican II, I don’t think you could maintain that position with straight face. Any resistance to any breaks in tradition immediately get one accused of not being faithful to Vaitcan II…or the elusive spirit thereof.

As for the third, not done indiscriminately, well…it’d be hard to say that the pope said doing x, y, and z indiscriminately would be wrong, but doing them discriminately would be right. It’s a stretch to try to make such justifications…and I think you know that.

Why don’t we just admit that the situation is troubling and pray about it, rather than pretend everything is hunky-dory?

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad