Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism?

[Latin]

The point is that God infused free will into us, and this is the reason why free will is 100% into us.

THIS IS AS FOLLOWS THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON UNAIDED FREE WILL

The Council of Sens (1140) condemned the idea that free will is sufficient in itself for any good. Donez., 373.

Council of Orange (529)
In canon 20, entitled hat Without God Man Can Do No Good. . . Denz., 193; quoting St. Prosper.

In canon 22, says, “ No one has anything of his own except lying and sin. Denz., 194; quoting St. Prosper.
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;
Life everlasting promised to us, (Romans 5:21); but unaided we can do nothing to gain it (Rom.7:18-24).

.
GOD HAS GIVEN US AIDED FREE WILL AS FOLLOWS

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott;

For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary, (De fide dogma).
.
Fallen man cannot redeem himself, (De fide dogma). – It is God’s responsibility to save ALL OF US.
.
Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification, (De fide dogma). – It is God’s responsibility TO KEEP US SAVED by His grace of Final Perseverance.
.
CCC 308 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.
.
Aquinas said, "God changes the will without forcing it . But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9. 31. ST I-II:112:3. 32. Gaudium et Spes 22; "being …
.
CCC 307 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free, causes in order to complete the work of creation, … Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan. They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.
.
CCC 2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.
.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.
.
As we see above, God is the CREATOR, CAUSER/ DETERMINER of our Aided Free will, and we all freely will what God wants us to will and we all freely do what God wills and CAUSES us to do.
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).
.
St. Thomas (C. G., II, xxviii) if God’s purpose were made dependent on the foreseen free act of any creature, God would thereby sacrifice His own freedom, and would submit Himself to His creatures, thus abdicating His essential supremacy a thing which is, of course, utterly inconceivable.
.
God bless

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I believe the point of such a teaching is to get us to repent and follow Our Lord, and not to come to the conclusion that hell will necessarily be crowded.

And yet, from those warnings we don’t get an empty hell. The king in that parable invited a whole town of people who were killed. The next set of people had one who rebuffed his word and got cast out.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

Since these dogmas are certain I guess it means all are saved. I don’t know how I feel about that but what theodicy does it create? Why is there all this suffering? Not only for us but for the animals? Is it’s an Irenaean soul-making one? God did this so that we could develop virtues? What about babies who were saved (even without universalism I know they are saved even without baptism, that much is obvious) without going through the suffering?

 

[Montrose]

I understand your point, but to that I say, as Our Lord teaches us in the Gospel: The things that are impossible with men are possible with God.

There would be little point in the Church (with the full authority of God) teaching infallibly that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to Hell if there is the chance that Hell is empty. I think we need to also use common sense apart from faith.

Matt 25: 41 and 45

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

46 “And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.

Note that these verses don’t say somebody might end up in Hell. The word used is “will” so Hell cannot and will not be empty and those in Hell never get out.

Luke 13: 23,24

23 Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few people be saved?” He answered them,

24 "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.

Here again Jesus said will not be strong enough. He didn’t say might not be strong enough.

It should be crystal clear to anyone that not only is Hell not empty (I mean apart from the fallen angels) it never will be empty.

 

[Montrose]

Since these dogmas are certain I guess it means all are saved. I don’t know how I feel about that but what theodicy does it create? Why is there all this suffering? Not only for us but for the animals? Is it’s an Irenaean soul-making one? God did this so that we could develop virtues? What about babies who were saved (even without universalism I know they are saved even without baptism, that much is obvious) without going through the suffering?

We are NOT all saved. Universalism is a heresy.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

Did you read Latin’s posting? Salvation and good will to be saved and good works are all entirely from God. If anyone is damned it’s because God didn’t give them salvation and makes His desire that all be saved a lie. We know God can’t lie, and we know salvation comes from God alone in all aspects, so it seems like all are saved

 

[Montrose]

Did you read Latin’s posting? Salvation and good will to be saved and good works are all entirely from God. If anyone is damned it’s because God didn’t give them salvation and makes His desire that all be saved a lie. We know God can’t lie, and we know salvation comes from God alone in all aspects, so it seems like all are saved

It does not matter what Latin says. We are NOT all saved. Latin gives these quotes in dozens of threads. The same ones over and over. Latin is not the Church and nor does he have authority to speak for the Church.
The Church states that Universalism is a heresy. Any Catholic believing in Universalism would be committing heresy and a mortal sin.
We may hope and pray that all will be saved but it is forbidden to believe that all will be saved.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

If anyone is damned it’s because God didn’t give them salvation and makes His desire that all be saved a lie.

No, it’s because they didn’t want to be saved. God wants everyone to be saved on His terms.

 

[christofirst]

There was ample time for the Church to officially reprimand and correct Hans von Balthasar for proposing a hopeful universalism, but to my knowledge it never happened. It still hasn’t happened. Rather, several popes have expressed admiration for his genius and contribution to the Church. If we can have the hope, it follows that it must in some way be possible.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

There was ample time for the Church to officially reprimand and correct Hans von Balthasar for proposing a hopeful universalism, but to my knowledge it never happened. It still hasn’t happened.

The Church already addressed it. Von Balthazar was flogging a dead horse.

 

[Montrose]

There was ample time for the Church to officially reprimand and correct Hans von Balthasar for proposing a hopeful universalism, but to my knowledge it never happened. It still hasn’t happened. Rather, several popes have expressed admiration for his genius and contribution to the Church. If we can have the hope, it follows that it must in some way be possible.

No rational person can think Hell is or ever will be empty. What Jesus said makes this clear. I believe what God said.

 

[MarkRome]

The Church already addressed it. Von Balthazar was flogging a dead horse.

No, the Church actually didn’t. Not dogmatically.

 

[christofirst]

Yes. Many in the Church have disagreed with von Balthasar, like Ralph Martin, while others, and in particular some with actual teaching authority, like Bishop Robert Barron, have expressed agreement with his premise.

The days of the Church issuing warnings for writings which are too ambiguous or teaching in error have not passed. Think of Fr. Tony de Mello. Where are the official warnings from the Church, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, regarding von Balthasar’s book Dare We Hope? Again, to my knowledge, there are none.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

No, the Church actually didn’t. Not dogmatically

@Montrose has shown otherwise.

 

[Hodos]

Hypostatic Union, Trinity, Transubstantiation, homoousious. Not found in the Bible.

All of those doctrinal concepts were taken from and defended by scripture. The term homoousias was used to demonstrate that Jesus was not of a separate type of divinity than the Father, which confesses that there is one God, uncreated, contrary to the Arian belief that Jesus was a different or separate type of lesser divinity. This is a scriptural truth.

The hypostatic union confesses that Christ is fully divine and fully human as the author of Hebrews describes him, and yet he is not described as two people or as something separate from God or from man. Again, it is confessing what is described in scripture.

The pushback on the term homoousias was not from the teaching that it described, but because it had previously been used by modalists who did not confess the scriptural distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son. When the term was used to describe the actual scriptural reality, the vast majority of bishops agreed to its inclusion in the Nicene Creed, even if uneasily at first.

Again, as described earlier, the doctrine of the Trinity confesses several scriptural truths taught in scripture about the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to one another and in the economy of salvation.

As I said, these were created as confessions of the faith as handed down by the apostles. They were not innovations. They were means of rejecting heretical teachings that were not in accord with what we observe in scripture.

Again, this is why I say, doctrine is not developed. It is confessed.

Transubstantiation is not an innovation. It was also passed down by the apostles. T

The apostles did not teach the Aristotelian philosophical idea of accidens and substance. We would not, nor do we, use the same type of language to describe the incarnation of Christ. The entire idea of accidens and substance has far more in common with ideas about the physical and spiritual worlds as described in Docetism or Gnosticism than it does with the Christian understanding of the physical and spiritual reality of the world. This is why transubstantiation is rejected by some as an innovation, even as they believe in Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist. In other words, it attempts to explain far too much.

 

[o_mlly]

Which dogma prevent this maximum human certainty in universalism?

If one defines “universalism” as a synonym for " apocatastasis" as a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation in a special way including the devils and lost souls then the anathema issued by the Council of Constantinople applies.

If one defines “universalism” as a time will come when all mankind shares in the grace of salvation then one may hold the belief or reject it.

 

[MarkRome]

Again, this is why I say, doctrine is not developed. It is confessed.

Even the word Trinity is a development. And as I’ve said, development mean that Catholic teachings become clearer. The issue is that you reject Transubstantiation and so therefore cannot accept the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. And yes, homoousios is a philosophical term, so is Person, procession, spiration, nature, etc. The Church used Greek philosophy to explain the Trinity. That’s a fact.

This is why transubstantiation is rejected by some as an innovation, even as they believe in Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist. In other words, it attempts to explain far too much.

What Protestants believe about the real presence incorrectly explains the Eucharist. And, Protestants are all over the place on what they teach, without any authority, on what happens at the Eucharist. In fact, it was over this very point that Luther and Zwingli had a falling out and it has continued among Protestants ever since. That’s why we have the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

In the Apostle’s Creed, Jesus descends into Hell.

The doctrine of mortal sin makes clear that man can go to hell if he sins with full consent.

No. That refers to Jesus going to the “Bosom of Abraham” to open the gates of heaven for the just who were awaiting him. It’s referenced in 1 Peter 3.

The Church already addressed it. Von Balthazar was flogging a dead horse.

Von Balthazar wasn’t advocating for apocatastasis, though, was he? And therefore, neither a “dead horse” nor a rejected claim… no?

 

[Vico]

If all this is true and from my reading of the Council of Orange with St. Prosper and St. Paul I think it is, is there any solution except that God has really saved everyone? I know a prayer says “salvation is the Lord’s, salvation is the Lord’s!” like it is a gift from Him He either gives or not, if He doesn’t give we are lost and if He does we are saved. But didn’t St. Thomas say there were two wills? One that is like before and one after, so before God wanted to save all but after He did not in fact gift the gift to save all.

" In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts."
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The will of God (Prima Pars, Q. 19)

Would this satisfy it? I don’t know how to resolve

The dogma of faith is that the Holy Trinity wishes to save everyone. However, since the Holy Trinity has given free will, the sufficient grace is not irresistible.

Catholic Encyclopedia on Predestination has:

Owing to the infallible decisions laid down by the Church, every orthodox theory on predestination and reprobation must keep within the limits marked out by the following theses:
a) At least in the order of execution in time (in ordine executionis) the meritorious works of the predestined are the partial cause of their eternal happiness;
b) hell cannot even in the order of intention (in ordine intentionis) have been positively decreed to the damned, even though it is inflicted on them in time as the just punishment of their misdeeds;
c) there is absolutely no predestination to sin as a means to eternal damnation.

Pohle, J. (1911). Predestination. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

 

[Vico]

…
I thought of this which is why I put “maximum human certainty.” We can’t have infallible certainty that we are saved, like it says not with the certainty of faith/revealed truth, but we can have other types of certainty that we are saved. So I wonder can we have that same kind that all humans are?
…

We already know by divine revelation that some are damned: all humankind will not enjoy the Beatific Vision of heaven.

Ratified by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, the local Synod of Constantinople, Pope Vigilius, in 543, included the condemnation of propositions of Origen including:

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.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. …

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 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”:621

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.622

620 Cf. Council of Orange II (529)S 397; Council of Trent (1547):1567.
621 2 Pet 3:9.
622 Roman Missal , EP I (Roman Canon) 88.

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

136 Mt 12:31; cf. Mk 3:29; Lk 12:10.
137 Cf. John Paul II, DeV 46.

2744 Prayer is a vital necessity . Proof from the contrary is no less convincing: if we do not allow the Spirit to lead us, we fall back into the slavery of sin.38 How can the Holy Spirit be our life if our heart is far from him?

Nothing is equal to prayer; for what is impossible it makes possible, what is difficult, easy. . . . For it is impossible, utterly impossible, for the man who prays eagerly and invokes God ceaselessly ever to sin.39

Those who pray are certainly saved; those who do not pray are certainly damned.40

38 Cf. Gal 5:16-25.
39 St. John Chrysostom, De Anna 4,5G 54,666.
40 St. Alphonsus Liguori, Del gran Mezzo della preghiera .