Universalism and Tradition?

[Rykell]

TNT:

I have yet to use the word “heresy”, or any other derogative to JPII, unless you found one; what is YOUR point?

As you admitted, you anwered the OP’s question in #13 with appropriate documentation. End of task, end of discussion.

But no, you used the opportunity to post no less than five slurs against JPII, beginning them boldly with “JPII, Universalism Clues in innuendo:” and then adding three more"clues" in post 26 to make sure we all got the message of his Universalism. It had nothing to do with the topic to discuss John Paul. You clearly had ulterior motives.

Dave and others tried to persuade you that you are understanding the terminology incorrectly and translating it into a meaning that neither John Paul nor the others you cited had any intention of transmitting. And you still remain stuck in that belief, which is not a problem except when you insist that others must believe it as well or they are 3 blind mice. Unacceptable.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Unbelievable! In your “charity” you publicly insinuate that Dave is unorthodox and prideful. Doesn’t Jesus teach us to go privately to the person? There is a P.M. system on this forum.

I insination that his instructors might be; and that if he is not careful, he too may be influenced by their errors.

Guess what, though, my man, it is YOU who do not know your faith. It is a teaching of the Church, notably in #847 of the CCC, that many do attain salvation, including Jews and pagans. You need to study up.

CCC: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation”.

Of course these may obtain eternal life, as long as before death they convert to the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation at all.

Surely you don’t interpret that Catechism contrary to a defined and many times repeated dogma of the Church, do you?

Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE): “It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino).

I’m sorry if the politically inforrect dogmas of the Church offend you. If you don’t accept that dogma of the faith, that is your choice, but it remains an infallible and thus unchangeable dogma non-the-less, and no pretended “developement” will result it in no longer retaining its meaning.

And if you do claim to accept the above quoted dogma, why would have a problem with what I wrote? I simply paraphrased it.

As for “hope?” Surely you old Baltimore Catechism lovers must appreciate the Prayer for Hope:

“O my God, relying on Thy infinite goodness and promises, I hope to attain the pardon of my sins, the help of Thy grace, and life everlasting.” Hope is a theological virtue, one of the basic three that are absolutely necessary.

I pray the act of hope every single day as part of my morning prayers. The supernatural virtue of hope is not a hope that all men will be saved (contrary to what the church has always taught); but rather that through the goodness of God “we may obtain life everlasting through the merits of Jesus Christ”.

Surely you don’t think the theological virtue of hope is a hope that all men will be saved, do you?

 

[Rykell]

Of course these may obtain eternal life, as long as before death they convert to the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation at all.

This is not the Church’s understanding or teaching, that in order to have eternal life they must convert to the Catholic Church. I’m of the belief that since you are not seeking, but attempting to teach, there is no openness to correction. Many threads have been written on this, and I see no value in repeating old discussions that have proved your assertions as false.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Because, for one, the church has always taught, and has defined infallibly, that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation; and thus that heretics, pagans, Jews etc. will all go to hell.

Now, if we “hope” that all men are saved, we thereby undermine what the Church has taught us, and turn the doctrine extra ecclesia nullo salus, “into a meaningless formula” as Pope Pius XII warned that some were doing.

There has always been some wooliness in that doctrine. Conditions for salvation are laid down, but then those individuals who fail to fulfifl them are not declared to be lost. It has always been legitimate to pray for the soul of a suicide, for instance, even though generally they have been denied Christian burial.

It is a bit of a contradiction, but the alternatives would be far worse. Either you say that there are no conditions for salvation, creating a Hell on Earth, or you specify very exactly that some souls are lost, driving them and their loved ones to despair. Wooliness is here a virtue.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This “hope”, in my opinion, is extremely dangerous.

Then I suppose St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross was a dangerous saint. St. Catherine of Sienna likewise expressed the same hope. But what do these people know about Catholicism?

Why is it wrong to merely “hope” that all men will be saved?

The Fatima prayer, “lead all souls to heaven,” must be one “dangerous” prayer.

Because, for one, the church has always taught, and has defined infallibly, that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation; and thus that heretics, pagans, Jews etc. will all go to hell.

I agree that all those who obstinately deny Christ and remain finally impenitent to the end are bound for hell. In fact, anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, who remain finally impenitent in formal (full advertence/perfect consent) mortal sin or merely original sin when they die, immediately descend to hell to endure eternal punishment.

However, if you read the quote from St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross which I provided above, she is saying that one can hope that God’s grace can convert even the most stubborn heretic, pagan, or infidel to Christ. So you are railing against a pious hope of the saints.

I’m not personally convinced of Fr. von Balthasar’s thesis the hell has no wicked humans. I agree instead with Cardinal Avery Dulles, “The New Testament does not tell us in so many words that any particular person is in hell. But several statements about Judas can hardly be interpreted otherwise.” (source). Yet, “The relative numbers of the elect and the damned are not treated in any Church documents, but have been a subject of discussion among theologians.” (ibid.)

I’m familiar enough with Catholic dogmatic theology to know that even though I may disagree with Fr. von Balthasar, he does not assert a proposition that has been condemned by the Church. “In essentials unity, in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity.” (John XXIII). It is not the condemned heresy of apokatastasis (universalism) to hold to the thesis held by St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.

Now, if we “hope” that all men are saved, we thereby undermine what the Church has taught us

I disagree. I’ll try to find the excerpt from St. Catherine of Sienna which expresses such hope.

If we “hope” that some souls do not go to hell, we implicitly hope that our Lord was deceiving us…

Catholics may freely interpret those passages as admonitive, not predictive, as Cardinal Dulles states in the above article. While you and I may not be convinced of that interpretation, it is not contrary to Divine and Catholic Faith to hold that view.

Itsjustdave, out of true charity … I read your profile and saw that you are working towards a masters is religious studies. …

I’ve switched it to an MA in Theology.

I “hope” not, but fear that you may have placed yourself under the tutelage of some less than orthodox Catholics…

Actually, when I signed up for the Master’s, I was poised to find heretical professors around every corner, as I received my bachelor’s from a Jesuit university that was sprinkled with rather modernist views in various areas. However, I was happily surprised to find that CDU (http:www.cdu.edu) submits entirely to the diocesan bishop (who is actually the Univ. president), and their course materials are very loyal to the magisterium.

I wonder of any of your teachers have taught, or spoken highly of, or at least defended, the proposition that we should “hope” that all men are saved.

Not a one. I learn more from theology discussions than from professors, as well as from reading the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and the works of saints and doctors.

Is that why you now defend this “hope” that’s contrary to 1960 years of Catholic teaching?

I defend the right to assert pious opinion (sententia pia) when engaging in speculative theology so long as it is not contrary to de fide dogma or *sententia certa (doctrine), *since it has been traditionally Catholic to do so. Nonetheless, I am not bound to agree with such opinions if I don’t find them convincing.

Nonetheless, I thank you for worrying about me. Before I began my master’s study, I resolved to take the same view in my study of theology as St. Thomas Aquinas: “if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament [of the Eucharist] or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church.”

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Pax_et_Caritas:
I am sorry to see that the old cheap and nasty insinuation that one is in the clutches of unorthodox masters/teachers/directors is still being bandied about by several posters. The charge is a pathetic red herring.

Secondly, I see no mention of the Dogmatic Constitution Ch 16 of Vatican II:

Of course these may obtain eternal life, as long as before death they convert to the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation at all.

Surely you don’t interpret that Catechism contrary to a defined and many times repeated dogma of the Church, do you?

Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE): “It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino).

I’m sorry if the politically inforrect dogmas of the Church offend you. If you don’t accept that dogma of the faith, that is your choice, but it remains an infallible and thus unchangeable dogma non-the-less, and no pretended “developement” will result it in no longer retaining its meaning.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Why is it wrong to merely “hope” that all men will be saved? Because, for one, the church has always taught, and has defined infallibly, that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation; and thus that heretics, pagans, Jews etc. will all go to hell. Now, if we “hope” that all men are saved, we thereby undermine what the Church has taught us, and turn the doctrine extra ecclesia nullo salus, “into a meaningless formula” as Pope Pius XII warned that some were doing. Furthermore, our Lord specifically states that many are called and few chosen; that many will seek to enter in and shall not be able (Mt 7); that of his apostles He lost none “except the son of perdition” (Judas); that, on the last day, those on his left will be “cast into the fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt. 25). These and many other statements of our Lord teach that, indeed, many souls will go to hell. If we “hope” that some souls do not go to hell, we implicitly hope that our Lord was deceiving us; and that He has deceived the Church for 1960 years. And if He deceived the hierarchy on this point, why not on other points.

With regard to salvation I am surprised that I see no mention of the **Dogmatic Constitution para 16 of Vatican II **- or has Vatican II not happened yet?

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, paragraph 16, the Vatican II Council Fathers wrote: "Those who have not yet received the gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.

There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Romans 9:4-5).

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

*Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4). *

*Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through dictates of their conscience—those too, may achieve eternal salvation. *

Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.

*So the Fathers of the Council do not exclude anyone acting in good faith from the possibility of salvation. *

Itsjustdave, out of true charity for you I am going to say this…I “hope” not, but fear that you may have placed yourself under the tutelage of some less than orthodox Catholics. How could it be otherwise in the days in which we live.

I am sorry to see that the old cheap and nasty insinuation that one is in the clutches of unorthodox masters/religious/lecturers/ directors is still being bandied about. The charge is a pathetic red herring, a defence mechanism of little or no merit, especially when dragged past our Dave, no?

 

[Genesis315]

Pope Pius XII: Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

 

[Genesis315]

The Church teaches that those outside the visible structure of the Church through no fault of his own can be saved and has done so before 1960:

From the Catechism of St. Pius X (1909):

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

St. Alphonsus Liguori: If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that He has a true will to save all. “The effect of the antecedent will,” says St. Thomas, “by which God wills the salvation of all men, is that order of nature the purpose of which is our salvation, and likewise those things which conduce to that end, and which are offered to all in common, whether by nature or by grace.”

And again, quoting St. Augustine:

“No one, therefore, is answerable for what he has not received.” Again, 'No one is worthy of blame for not doing that which he cannot do."

If it’s not one’s fault for not knowling the Gospel, and God gives all men the necessary grace for salvation, then the logical conclusion is that it is possible to hope for the salvation of others–especially since we do not know what their state of mind was at the moment of death.

The Great Means of Salvation and of Perfection

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

[With regard to salvation I am surprised that I see no mention of the **Dogmatic Constitution para 16 of Vatican II **

• or has Vatican II not happened yet

*"Those who have not yet received the gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.

"There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Romans 9:4-5).

"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

"Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things4).

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through dictates of their conscience—those too, may achieve eternal salvation.

“Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.”*

So the Fathers of the Council do not exclude anyone acting in good faith from the possibility of salvation.

Of course salvation is possible for them Carol, as long as before death they convert to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is not salvation.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1441: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

So, of course pagans, Jews, Muslims, heretics, etc, can be saved, as long as “before death they are joined to… the Most Holy Roman Catholic Church”.

Surely you do not interpret the quotes you provided from Vatican II contrary to the above infallible pronouncement from the Council of Florence, do you? If so, you are misinterpreting Vatican II.

I am sorry to see that the old cheap and nasty insinuation that one is in the clutches of unorthodox masters/religious/lecturers/ directors is still being bandied about. The charge is a pathetic red herring, a defence mechanism of little or no merit, especially when dragged past our Dave, no?

I didn’t insinuate that “our Dave” was in the clutches of unorthodox instructers. I simply said that I was concerned that he might be.

Now, is there any informed Catholic today who instinctively trusts religious professors at Catholic institutions of higher learning? How often do we hear (even on EWTN which does not like to talk about the problems in the Church) that all but a few of the Catholic college are, in reality, not Catholic?

How many stories have we all heard about the curruption in Catholic universities the Seminaries, with heretical instructors teaching the most outrageous things (Fr. McBrian at Notra Dame, for example). Unorthodoxy in Catholic colleges is the norm today. The exception is a Catholic institution of higher learning that is completely solid in the faith and does not have some liberals or outright heretics teaching.

So, given what all informed Catholics know, is it strange that I would be concerned for Dave placing himself under the tutilage of a less than orthodox professor, given the situation we have today?

And Dave’s reply actually confirmed my suspicion. He did not say that his teachers were unorthodox; rather, he provided a quote from St. Thomas, and then indicated that he himself had decided to accept whatever he was taught, regardless of whether or not it is what he believed to be true. In other words, (if I understood Dave’s point), he will submit to whatever he is taught.

That is an excellent (and truly Catholic) disposition to have when the instructors can be trusted; but in a day when the wolfes are running the hen house, it is dangerous. Prudence must be used; and in a day such as ours, prudence and common sense warn us to be on our guard… which I truly hope Dave (or anyone else who is attending a Catholic school of any level) is.

 

[cor]

As someone has alluded to above, Church Fathers and Saints have held to universalism, to the apokatastasis. Apokatastasis, the final restoration of all things including Satan seems to have been the majority position of Christians at one time as evidenced by these words of St Jerome in Apology Against Rufinus: Addressed to Pammachius and Marcella from Bethlehem, Book I, Chapter 27:

“I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its king, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.”

God’s final plans, his ultimate providence is a mystery as yet unveiled. I don’t think it’s a heresy to believe in the apokatastasis. If you ask your average Catholic priest, he’ll say it’s OK, I bet. (I asked a deacon and he said it was OK to believe it)

 

[DustinsDad]

As someone has alluded to above, Church Fathers and Saints have held to universalism, to the apokatastasis. Apokatastasis, the final restoration of all things including Satan seems to have been the majority position of Christians at one time as evidenced by these words of St Jerome in Apology Against Rufinus: Addressed to Pammachius and Marcella from Bethlehem, Book I, Chapter 27:

“I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its king, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.”

Uh, St. Jerome was describing heresy when he described that belief:
Apology Against Rufinus, Book I, #27
When I say, ‘But not in such a way that, as held by another heresy, all should be placed in one rank, that is, all by a reforming process become angels,’ I clearly show that the things which I put forward for discussion are heretical, and that one heresy differs from the other. Which (do you ask?) are the two heresies? The one is that which says that all reasonable creatures will by a reforming process become angels; the other, that which asserts that in the restitution of the world each thing will become what it was originally created; as for instance that devils will again become angels, and that the souls of men will become such as they were originally formed; that is, by the reforming process will become not angels but that which God originally made them, so that the just and the sinners will be on an equality.

…I don’t think it’s a heresy to believe in the apokatastasis. If you ask your average Catholic priest, he’ll say it’s OK, I bet. (I asked a deacon and he said it was OK to believe it)

As another poster here just said: “in a day when the wolfes are running the hen house, it is dangerous.” - that is, dangerous to believe anything anyone with a collar tells you.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[cor]

Uh, St. Jerome was describing heresy when he described that belief:

He initially agreed with it but changed his mind later.

But my point was that his comment indicates that the majority of Christians, of Catholics, during his time believed it. How can this be if it was a heresy? A majority of the Church Militant cannot believe in a heresy. The “sense of the faithful” teaches us that we should receive the belief of the majority as an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In Latin it’s called the Sensus Fidelium. The Sensus Fidelium can’t be wrong. We are also taught that the Church is “indefectable.” Well if a majority of the Church as St Jerome says believed in a heresy – then it sure seems like the Church defected – which is not possible according to the indefectablity of the Church … so apokastastasis must not be a heresy.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

A majority of the Church Militant cannot believe in a heresy.

I have heard it said that at one time, a majority of the Church (at least a majority of the bishops) was Arian. Is this so?

 

[cor]

I have heard it said that at one time, a majority of the Church (at least a majority of the bishops) was Arian. Is this so?

I don’t think it was a majority of the laity because I seem to remember the laity playing a heroic role in affirming orthodox Christology in that situation. Looking it up on google, my recollection seems correct:

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0345.html

“That “right and duty” Newman had perceived at work when the laity helped save the Church from the Arian heresy.”

 

[DustinsDad]

…But my point was that his comment indicates that the majority of Christians, of Catholics, during his time believed it. How can this be if it was a heresy?..

My initial common sense response would be that it can not be - you are mistaken as to the belief that the majority of Christians (catholics) during his time believed it. You would have to provide evidence thereof, especially a consensus of early Church fathers teaching such belief. What you have thus far provided is an early church father condemning such belief as heretical. Hardly proof, I’m afraid.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[TNT]

If Universalism is being pressed into the Conciliar mainstream, would it not answer 3 haunting questions for many:

1. Why is Conversion downplayed by the hierarchy?
2. Why is Proselytizing outlawed?
3. Why is Limbo under attack…err “study”?

---

Short Story:
“The Future”:
First the keystone comes down: EENS @ Boston
Then, all the rest is in suspension by …NOTHING at all.
Universalism is the natural, eventual outcome of the EENS downfall.
Indifferentism is the natural, eventual outcome of Universalism.
Apostasy is the natural, eventual outcome of Indifferentism.

Then, greatest question from God Himself:
Luke 18
8 But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

Will be answered in the Negative, as He already knew before asking.

I wish He would have also asked:
“Will He find nothing but turbans n Night shirts?”

The END.

 

[cor]

My initial common sense response would be that it can not be - you are mistaken as to the belief that the majority of Christians (catholics) during his time believed it. You would have to provide evidence thereof, especially a consensus of early Church fathers teaching such belief. What you have thus far provided is an early church father condemning such belief as heretical. Hardly proof, I’m afraid.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

In the quote he says the majority believed it. Read the quote again.

 

[DustinsDad]

In the quote he says the majority believed it. Read the quote again.

Heh, I don’t see it in Apology Against Rufinus, Book I, #27, which is thus:
I quoted Origen’s views as, "According to another heresy."

1. I wonder that you with your consummate wisdom have not understood my method of exposition. When I say, ‘But not in such a way that, as held by another heresy, all should be placed in one rank, that is, all by a reforming process become angels,’ I clearly show that the things which I put forward for discussion are heretical, and that one heresy differs from the other. Which (do you ask?) are the two heresies? The one is that which says that all reasonable creatures will by a reforming process become angels; the other, that which asserts that in the restitution of the world each thing will become what it was originally created; as for instance that devils will again become angels, and that the souls of men will become such as they were originally formed; that is, by the reforming process will become not angels but that which God originally made them, so that the just and the sinners will be on an equality. Finally, to show you that it was not my own opinion which I was developing but two heresies which I was comparing with one another, both of which I had found stated in the Greek, I completed my discussion with this ending:
   
   “These things, as I have said before, are more obscure in our tongue because they are put in a metaphorical form in Greek; and in every metaphor, when a translation is made word for word from one language into another, the budding sense of the word is choked as it were with brambles.”
   If you do not find in the Greek the very thought which I have expressed, I give you leave to treat all that I say as my own.
   ​
   Perhaps you’re thinking of another book or another quote. I’d be willing to look at in in context if you can provide it.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

If Universalism is being pressed into the Conciliar mainstream, would it not answer 3 haunting questions for many:

1. Why is Conversion downplayed by the hierarchy?
2. Why is Proselytizing outlawed?
3. Why is Limbo under attack…err “study”?

---

Short Story:
“The Future”:
First the keystone comes down: EENS @ Boston
Then, all the rest is in suspension by …NOTHING at all.
Universalism is the natural, eventual outcome of the EENS downfall.
Indifferentism is the natural, eventual outcome of Universalism.
Apostasy is the natural, eventual outcome of Indifferentism.

…

That is rather haunting…where’s my rosary???

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad