Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism?

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “As far as apokatastasis is concerned, it is even more clear to me now that it isn’t talking about universal salvation but a restoration to a pre-embodied soul united with the Logos which was also condemned.”
A. I dont’ know how you define universal salvation, but I am glad that you understand what I was saying that the apokatastasis was that of the pre-existing.

You wrote: “Justinian may well have included them in an edict after the council, but he didn’t decide them. The 15 anathemas were from the bishops at the council. Church dogma isn’t decided by imperial edict.”

A. The edict in 543 or 544 occurred after the condemnation made at the Synod of Constantinople (543) by the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople and the condemnation was ratified in 553 by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Note that the Edicts of Justinian are believed to have been added onto the documents of the Council of Constantinople II, which only issued canon 11 regarding Origen. Yet what was actually condemned in the edicts was that of Origenist monks of Palestine, and Origen did not have the same idea. We do not see any lists attached to the Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters which includes only the following related to Origen, also Denzinger only lists the nine local Synod anathemas, which is consistent with including just Church teachings in Denzinger:

Denzinger, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
223 Can. 11. If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, in company with their sinful works, and all other heretics, who have been condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and by the four holy synods above-mentioned, and those of the above-mentioned heretics who have thought or think likewise, and have remained in their impiety until the end, let such a one be anathema.

 

[MarkRome]

A. I dont’ know how you define universal salvation , but I am glad that you understand what I was saying that the apokatastasis was that of the pre-existing.

So, we are back at the beginning. There is no Church dogma condemning universalism.

A. The edict in 543 or 544 occurred after the condemnation made at the Synod of Constantinople (543) by the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople and the condemnation was ratified in 553 by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

If by ratified you mean that they took 9 canons from the synod, made some changes, added some things, then adopted the 15 new canons, then yes. If by ratified you are saying that they adopted the 9 canons from the synod as they were written, then no, they did not.

 

[Vico]

…
So, we are back at the beginning. There is no Church dogma condemning universalism.
…
If by ratified you mean …

As posted before, this line of discussion is related to my statement:

“Can 9 from 543 corresponds to Justinian Cann. 12 and 15 in 553.” to which you said: “No, 12 an 15 are not the same as canon 9.”

No, I do not mean either version of ratified that you ask about.

The fifteen canons are from the Justinian edict 553 and not given in Denzinger.

See Christ in Christian Tradition

3. The chronology
Because the condemnation of the Origenists clearly belongs to the Council of 553, but cannot be placed after the opening of it on 5 May 553, an interim solution has to be sought.358 It consists in the fact that Emperor Justinian instructed the bishops359 to deal with the question of the Origenists, which, contrary to his expectation, had not been settled by his decree of 543. These bishops had already arrived months before the opening of the Council which was intended to be devoted to the question of the Three Chapters. This ‘synodal act’ took place on the level of a synodus endemousa and was not considered by teh Emperor himself as a session of an ecumenical council.360 Nevertheless the commission with regard to the Origenists was clear:

Read through the submitted ekthesis carefully and condemn and anathematize at the end each of its individual chapters, together with the ungodly Origen also all who think and feel the same (pp. 124, 25-27; 125, 25-27)

358Cf. F. Diekamp, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten, 129-38
359Ibid., 133: ‘In August [552] and in the following months participants arribed in Constinople; the opening of the synod, however, was delayed for a long time, becaus the Pope [Vigilius] refused to participate in a gathering in which the Oriental bishops formed the overwhelming majority.’
360F. Diekamp, ibid, 135 emphasizes that the letter to the bishops concerning the Origenists does not even once containthe term ‘synod’, although it is addressed to a gather of bishops, (Greek); 125, 24-25: sanctissimi patres, ut in unum collecti.

Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 2: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604) Part Two, Aloys Grillmeier SJ with Theresia Hainthaler, p. 403-404
[ISBN 0-264-67261-5]

So, those conciliar canons was that for the Three Chapters with an item for Origen (can. 11) , these are those given in Denzinger.

 

[Gorgias]

And haven’t you spurned the answers, Gorgias?

Still waiting for the quote from the Council of Orange that you claim asserts what you claim. Have I missed seeing it?

Gorgias:

No – you’re the one who claims that the Church teaches (doctrinally, I presume) that hell is populated.

You can’t even quote my statements accurately.

Not saying who’s in hell is a heck of a lot of difference than saying hell is empty. Which we know it’s not.

Except when we know that there are people in hell from said Church teaching.

It definitely necessities people being in hell.

Umm… yeah, you never said that hell is populated. Right.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Umm… yeah, you never said that hell is populated. Right.

Um, the council never presupposed that right?

 

[ThomasMT]

There is no such dogma. As you note, the Church teaches that Catholics may hope for all to be saved. Catholics may also believe that all will be saved. There is no Church dogma that says that some people must be in Hell.

One can hope all one wants. Assurance, however, can only be found here…

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
-St. John 14:6

And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. [16]He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
-St. Mark 15-16

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
-St. John 3-5

Catholics may also believe that all will be saved.

That is false, and about as modernistic as it gets.

 

[Gorgias]

Um, the council never presupposed that right?

If they did, then they never wrote that presupposition in their documents.

TMC:

Catholics may also believe that all will be saved.

That is false, and about as modernistic as it gets.

No, you’re mistaken there. There’s a particular nuance that’s necessary to note, in order to understand what’s in play here (otherwise, the statement ends up something like “the Church teaches that you may believe that all may be saved, and the Church teaches that you may not believe that all will be saved”).

Here’s the distinction: what’s heretical is the belief that God will simply * poof * everyone straight into heaven – good, bad, ugly, saints, sinners, contrite, unrepentant – everyone, just because God will wave his hand and say “meh; everyone gets in.” What’s not heretical is that we may hope that God judges all persons, and each person – on his own merits, and subject to God’s justice and mercy – attains to heaven.

There’s a subtle, yet critical, difference there.

 

[ThomasMT]

I’m not sure where I expressed disagreement with your point. The quote that you cited seems to express presumption, not hope. I addressed it accordingly.

 

[Rubee]

The church has not declared any group of people in hell. She has declared what kinds of sins can send one to hell. At the same time, the church has not condemned the hope that all will be saved and has explicitly refused to say anyone, Judas included, is there and in addition, condemned the judgment of souls.

 

[Rubee]

I have a question for the participants of this thread: If universalism were true, what would it mean for you? Some people think it will lead to the deterioration of faith because “What’s the point”? But that isn’t true of the faiths that teach some version of it. For me, it would mean I pray with greater hope and happiness for everyone and am able to love even a psychopathic serial killer at a distance, seeing them as a brother who will one day get it and be transformed. Isn’t that great? I’m now interested in digging around about this to see if its a heresy or not (I assumed until these discussions it was explicitly condemned but I’m no longer sure), but for me, it makes things much better, not worse, and the sense of “good news” that much greater. Perhaps the good news is that even though Hell is a real possibility, so much is the grace that without violating free will, all souls will indeed are saved in the end.

 

[MNathaniel]

I have a question for the participants of this thread: If universalism were true, what would it mean for you?

I mean, I’d definitely never bother going to Confession again. I’d just privately confess my sins in my head like most Protestants (if at all; I can see myself gradually drifting back away from believing in sin).

And that’d only be step one of my journey away from Catholicism.

Let’s see, what else… oh, I’d stop having the ‘hard conversations’ with family and friends. What a relief, to know that I don’t have to have those conversations in this life, because God will make up for it in the split second while they’re dying anyway – and He won’t even hold me accountable during the split second when I’m dying! Or at least, He’ll give me whatever graces I need later, to make up for me not taking advantage of the graces He gives me today. One tiny split second of ‘accountability’ simultaneous with receiving the grace to totally change my character, and bang, straight to heaven I go. (Or hey, purgatory for however long is fine, if hell is off the table. No matter how long purgatory is, it’ll be less than a split second compared to the remainder of immortal existence in heaven and resurrected life.)

Yeah, probably the biggest thing that jumps to mind is that it’d totally change my social relationships. I could start telling people only the easy answers they want to hear, or being silent instead of telling the truth at difficult moments. Basically I could care less for others in my actions, I guess, if I knew my actions didn’t matter anyway because God would make up for it all later (for me and for others). I could still do the loving actions that feel good (like giving food to the poor and taking care of the physically sick), but be off the hook for those loving actions that feel bad (like having hard conversations with family members and friends who plan to euthanize themselves, or who want my affirmation for their polyamorous relationships, same-sex ‘marriage’, etc). Basically I’d be able to rest in effective apathy about others’ spiritual well-being and my own, on the comfortable notion that, y’know, we’ll all ‘get there’ in the end, and if we’re not ‘there’ right now it’s only because God hasn’t given us the necessary graces yet – but we don’t have to worry, because He will. Especially invisibly. During that split second while the brain dies.

I wouldn’t be worried about abortion anymore! Oh that’s a nice one. Yeah, because killing children doesn’t really matter if you confidently believe they’re going straight to heaven. Wow, Roe v. Wade’s done a lot for the kids, considered through the ideology of universalism. All the heaven, none of the earthly suffering!

Shall I go on?

 

[Niblo]

What…not even your love for God, and His for you?

 

[MarkRome]

The Church hasn’t declared anyone in hell, including Judas.

The Church hasn’t declared anyone in hell.

Yes, hell is a real possibility.

I am not God, therefore I cannot know for certain anyone’s state at their death.

The Church hasn’t declared anyone in hell, including Judas.

While hell is real and it is possible to go there, the Church implores the mercy of God:

CCC 1037
God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:
Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

 

[Montrose]

It is NOT Church doctrine that Judas is in Hell.

 

[MarkRome]

Please ask your priest or bishop if the Church has declared that Judas is in hell. Or just search Catholic Answers. The Church has not declared anyone to be in hell, including Judas.

 

[MarkRome]

Does this say hell? No it doesn’t. Purgatory is also punishment.
The Church hasn’t declared anyone to be in hell, including Judas.

 

[Montrose]

Let me repeat it. The Church has NOT declared Judas is in Hell and neither has it nor will it declare any particular individual to be in Hell.

 

[Montrose]

YOU are wrong. Referring to a prayer is not official Church teaching. Show us in the CCC the teaching that declares Judas is in Hell. The CCC is where the Church teachings are.

 

[Montrose]

That does NOT teach that Judas is in Hell.

If you want a commentary how about Pope John Paul II?

Pope John Paul II, in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, provides:

Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement…” (pg. 185)

 

[Montrose]

You couldn’t care less that Pope John Paul II states the Church has never pronounced that any particular individual is in Hell??
What arrogance.