Universalism and Tradition?

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Why is Limbo under attack…err “study”?

I haven’t been studying the Church long (less than two years), so I certainly wasn’t around when this theological idea was popular. However, it is my understanding that this is only a theory, a way to reconcile God’s mercy with the need for baptism. That the Church is willing to say, “We truly don’t know what happens to the unbaptized infants” is simply the Church being truthful. During my search, I have also looked into Eastern Orthodoxy, and one thing that puzzles the Orthodox is this desperate need on the part of Catholics to dogmatize everything.

First the keystone comes down: EENS @ Boston

I must again admit to ignorance, but are you referring to the Fr. Feeney incident? If so, I trust you believe that no one outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church has any hope for salvation whatsoever? As a prospective convert trying to determine the truth of Catholicism, I am confused by such beliefs, as it was my understanding that “Feeneyism” was condemned by the Church.

I started a thread in the Apologetics forum about “Dissent and the Prospective Convert.” I understand your fear that the dissenters advocating universalism may have a large influence in the Church. I share this fear. However, I am also concerned by the dissenters who deny the authority of the Church and think they have a better grasp of Catholic teaching than does the pope. These two types of dissenters may not agree with each other, but ultimately they are working together to undermine the Church. We who desire to enter the Church have to wade our way through a great deal of false teaching and rebellion, it seems. Still, I’ll stick with the chair of Peter, not the latest fad theologies of the modernists, nor the bitter rebellion of those who deny the Church’s ability to grow in its understanding of doctrines.

 

[TNT]

I haven’t been studying the Church long (less than two years), so I certainly wasn’t around when this theological idea was popular. However, it is my understanding that this is only a theory, a way to reconcile God’s mercy with the need for baptism. That the Church is willing to say, “We truly don’t know what happens to the unbaptized infants” is simply the Church being truthful. During my search, I have also looked into Eastern Orthodoxy, and one thing that puzzles the Orthodox is this desperate need on the part of Catholics to dogmatize everything.
…

Catholics tend to dogmatize what’s under attack, that’s all.
BTW: Where were the EO’s when Luther, Calvin et all were dismantling the Church?
Here’s n idea:
Start a new thread on “Is Limbo a Tradition & de fide?”
ps
Glad ya like Chesterton…kinda the UK version of Brownson, USA.

 

[cor]

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

Hmm I got it from wikipedia; it looks like the citation is wrong. But here’s a website with the quotation as well as other quotations and citations:

“Clearly, the early believers of Christ and the church leaders taught universal salvation. St. Basil the Great, writing in the fourth century wrote, “The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.” (De Asceticis) St. Jerome wrote in the same century, “I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its king, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.” St. Augustine, while himself teaching eternal torment wrote, “There are very many (imo quam plurimi, which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments.” (Enchira, ad Laurent)”

tentmaker.org/articles/Carlton_Pearson-Doctrine_of_Inclusion.html

The Augustine citation is “c. 29” which I assume means chapter 29 – to make it easier for you to look it up yourself

 

[HenryV]

Christ is the universal savior, and He died for all. That does not mean that eveyone will eventually go to heaven, but it means that every one on this earth has and will be given sufficient grace for salvation, if we won’t be saved it’s our own fault.
This is defined in the second Council of Orange.
And the popes proclaimed this against the Jansenists.

 

[DustinsDad]

Hmm I got it from wikipedia; it looks like the citation is wrong. But here’s a website with the quotation as well as other quotations and citations:

Then this excerpt from some fella’s article is also wrong, because it states the same thing as your misquote. Now I’ve got to tell ya, I’m struggling to stay interested in this conversation since it seems so utterly absurd. But I’ll address it a bit, just Secondly, the burden of proof is on you here - it ain’t fair for me to to the proof-texting and authentication of second and thirdhand “quotes” that you conclude proves 2000 years of Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterial Teaching is wrong. Let’s take a quick at your second hand “quotes” before I check out of this thread…

…St. Basil the Great, writing in the fourth century wrote, “The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.” (De Asceticis)

Okay…first up, I ran a google of this quote and significant portions of this quote…I came up with about four or five links, all to the same or similar secondhand articles that repeat each other almost verbatim - and all from either Wikpedia or “universalism” sites. That’s a warning flag already as to it’s authenticity.

Secondly, I can’t find De Asceticis online anywhere to actually check to see if such a quote is accurate. Third, and most importantly, even if the quote is even close to being accurate, it proves absolutly nothing. Especially if you take the author’s insertion out…the Christians…as if we know who or what mass of men St. Basil is talking about. could be a group of heretics (obviously) or some particular local church that has been led astray by heretical ideas in this area. No way to tell.

…St. Jerome wrote in the same century, “I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its king, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.”

Already proven by looking at the actual text of the document (which is strikingly different than that which is proposed here - not that that matters since what is proposed here doesn’t say what you want it to say either), St. Jerome is desribing and comparing two heresies of his time…nothing more, nothing less.

…St. Augustine, while himself teaching eternal torment wrote, “There are very many (imo quam plurimi, which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments.” (Enchira, ad Laurent)"

Same as the first one…I came up with about four or five links, all to the same or similar secondhand articles that repeat each other almost verbatim - and all from either Wikpedia or “universalism” sites. Again, that’s a warning flag already as to it’s authenticity.

All this statement, even if accurate, says is that there were folks during St. Augustine’s time who fell for this particular heresy. And that, as, is obviously demonstrated by these links and aritcles, the case again today.

You might want to check this out…catholic.com/library/Hell_There_Is.asp

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[cor]

DustinsDad, I’ll quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia which I assume you’ll trust more than the universalist websites:

"A name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls.

“This doctrine was explicitly taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in more than one passage.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to detail his teaching. How can a Saint be guilty of heresy? Can you answer that one please?

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to mention Origen and Clement of Alexandria as holding to the doctrine of the apokatastasis (also spelt apocatastasis). The Catholic Encyclopedia also mentions that another Saint, Jerome, was at one time a believer in the doctrine:

“It was through Origen that the Platonist doctrine of the apokatastasis passed to St. Gregory of Nyssa, and simultaneously to St. Jerome, at least during the time that St. Jerome was an Origenist. It is certain, however, that St. Jerome understands it only of the baptized [though it goes on to mention a passage where it seems to apply also to demons]”

The Catholic Encyclopedia then mentions yet another Saint who held to the doctrine:

“We note, further, that the doctrine of the apokatastasis was held in the East, not only by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but also by St. Gregory of Nazianzus as well”

although St Gregory of Nazianzus leaves the answer ultimately to God. Other figures are mentioned as having held to the doctrine. Then finally the Catholic Encyclopedia and this is key states that the doctrine is not heretical; it is merely “heterodox”

“The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.”

Remember this is the 1913 (IIRC) Catholic Encyclopedia, pre-Vatican II. It states that it is NOT a heretical, only “heterodox.” Thus it is a permitted though frowned upon belief.

Oops I forgot to include the link:

newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

Papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1870. Although previous Popes might have been protected from error, they cannot be assumed to be officially infallible.

1441 was a long time ago, and I would be dismayed if the Church that I respect and hope to join is still in the ‘I revere no other faith which must be pagan’ mode suggested by Eugene IV. That is surely not the sense in which ecumenism is approached by the Church today, in part through the World Council of Churches (40 years, with a standing working group).

Can I be so bold as to suggest that if the Church insists thus today (and I am firmly convinced that it does not, but do not have time to go find alternative proofs other than Dogmatic Constitution) it will find itself isolated? Conservatism related to 1441 proclamations has no place in our current world, and my experience and teaching suggests that it is inappropriate today. Reading recent Vatican publications seems to support this concept.

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. … 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.

I fully agree, although I still think it is a red herring. It is only that Dave was recently terribly concerned about the orthodoxy of my instructors, and I was worried for him in return!

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

I am a would-be convert. Who can I trust in this hen-house?

 

[TNT]

Conservatism related to 1441 proclamations has no place in our current world, and my experience and teaching suggests that it is inappropriate today. Reading recent Vatican publications seems to support this concept.

WELL THEN:

Conservatism related to 100ad proclamations (aka those horrific apostolic rantings) has no place in our current world, and my experience and teaching suggests that it is inappropriate today. Reading recent Vatican publications seems to support this concept.

Re:
“Reading recent Vatican publications seems to support this concept”
TRUE
I love vegetable soup religion. And now Improved! With meat added on Fridays.
Where do I sign up?

 

[TNT]

I am a would-be convert. Who can I trust in this hen-house?

ME, n the ones I tell ya to, of course.

 

[Keikiolu]

I am a would-be convert. Who can I trust in this hen-house?

You can trust me,… but only in matters of spelling and white-space usage.

But seriously,… if you have a question, the ultimate answer is to consult the Magisterium (Catechism, et al).

Now,… what’s your question?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Pax Vobiscum,

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

Pax

What do you mean be “universalism”…?

…give me a reference I can chew on.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[TNT]

What do you mean be “universalism”…?

…give me a reference I can chew on.
…

Universalism is the teaching that all people will be saved. Some say that it is through the atonement of Jesus that all will ultimately be reconciled to God. Others just say that all will go to heaven sooner or later, whether or not they have trusted in or rejected Jesus as savior during their lifetime. This universal SALVATION will be realized in the future where God will bring all people to repentance. This repentance can happen while a person lives or after he has died or some future state. Additionally, a few universalists even maintain that Satan and all demons will likewise be reconciled to God.

Chew away…http://www.alldeaf.com/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

 

[DustinsDad]

I am a would-be convert. Who can I trust in this hen-house?

The comment was directed toward the higher levels of Catholic educational institutions - of which the great majority these days seem to be catholic in name only…so I’m not sure what to tell you in this regard…have to do some digging as to what colleges can be trusted.
SIDENOTE: I’m concerned enough about this question as my son is getting ready for high school (do we trust the local catholic high school, or is it really a catholic high school…at least in the public schools we know we’re in a battle, but in a catholic school that is teaching error or gravely watering down the truth, it can be more dangerous because such things are coming from “catholics” with some level of authority…ah, but this is all a different story. Anyone with advise can PM me
As for who to trust in a general sense in the church…which priests, etc…trust the ones who teach what the Catholic Church teaches, and what the Catholic Church has always taught. Trust the ones who love our Lord in the Eucharist, who love (and respect) the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, who are hungry to receive souls into Holy Mother Church.

You also have to put some time and effort in getting to know the faith. The current Catechism is good, as the other poster said. I have a great love, however, for the older ones (this particular edition of the Baltimore Catechism #3 is my favorite, and also excellent are This is the Faith**, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, **theRoman Catechism, etc.). I just think the older ones were more direct and to the point…straight to the meat and potatoes no-bones-about-it if you know what I mean.

Oh yeah…and trust anybody from the **Institute of Christ the King Soverign Pries**t…(sorry, I couldn’t resist )

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Keikiolu]

Universalism is the teaching that all people will be saved. Some say that it is through the atonement of Jesus that all will ultimately be reconciled to God. Others just say that all will go to heaven sooner or later, whether or not they have trusted in or rejected Jesus as savior during their lifetime. This universal SALVATION will be realized in the future where God will bring all people to repentance. This repentance can happen while a person lives or after he has died or some future state. Additionally, a few universalists even maintain that Satan and all demons will likewise be reconciled to God.

Chew away…http://www.alldeaf.com/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

Ah…

Rubish.

Why?

God is a being who honors free will above (nearly?) all things, and He wouldn’t disrespect the free choice of a person who chose “eternal damnation” knowing that it was a choice to make.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1022

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Rykell]

The scriptures speak of “unquenchable” fire, by which Christ indicates there is no return. It is really too late to learn that He was serious, after one passes.

Matthew 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.

Mark 9:42 And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire:

 

[TNT]

The scriptures speak of “unquenchable” fire, by which Christ indicates there is no return. It is really too late to learn that He was serious, after one passes.

Matthew 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.

Mark 9:42 And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire:

“unquenchable fire”
http://frontierwebdesign.com/passtheammo/images/temp/flame.gif

is fine as far as it goes.
What wer lookin fer is that one ul NEVER exit the “unquenchable fire”, not that t fire will r wont quench.
Kinda like me n the marshmellows I put on a stick in the fire. The fire’s “unquenchable fire” to the marshmellows, but I eventually yank m out…n eat m.

 

[cor]

I don’t know the Greek, but judging just from the English, “unquenchable” fire seems to me to mean that the torment is overwhelming. You cannot quench it by distracting yourself with other thoughts or something like that. It doesn’t imply that the fire is everlasting.

No one has addressed by citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia which cites numerous figures, including saints and Church Fathers who believed in the apocatastasis.

Furthermore, no one has addressed the fact that the Catholic Encyclopedia calls the belief “heterodox” which seems to imply it is only heterodox and not heretical.

 

[TNT]

I don’t know the Greek, but judging just from the English, “unquenchable” fire seems to me to mean that the torment is overwhelming. You cannot quench it by distracting yourself with other thoughts or something like that. It doesn’t imply that the fire is everlasting.

No one has addressed by citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia which cites numerous figures, including saints and Church Fathers who believed in the apocatastasis.

Furthermore, no one has addressed the fact that the Catholic Encyclopedia calls the belief “heterodox” which seems to imply it is only heterodox and not heretical.

Who wants to be “heterodox”?
"

1. 
   *] Not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma."
   Biblically speaking…look for the “second DEATH” in the scriptures.

 

[Rykell]

TNT:

What wer lookin fer is that one ul NEVER exit the “unquenchable fire”, not that t fire will r wont quench.
Kinda like me n the marshmellows I put on a stick in the fire. The fire’s “unquenchable fire” to the marshmellows, but I eventually yank m out…n eat m.

Thx. i c mi frmr mesij wuznt herd. Yer loss.