Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism?

[Gorgias]

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.

Hang on a second, though: saying “hell isn’t temporary” isn’t the same thing as saying “there are definitely folks in hell right now.”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Hang on a second, though: saying “hell isn’t temporary” isn’t the same thing as saying “there are definitely folks in hell right now.”

One necesitates the pthe

 

[MarkRome]

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.

That canon is from the synod and wasn’t “ratified” at the ecumenical council in 553. The synod from local bishops does not have the force of dogma.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Hang on a second, though: saying “hell isn’t temporary” isn’t the same thing as saying “there are definitely folks in hell right now.”

One necesitates the pthe

No, it doesn’t. You’re making a presumption there.

Here’s your counter-example: “Space travel to the nearest star is not a ‘temporary’ endeavor. An astronaut who travels there will never be able to return to earth.” Now… does the assertion that this is a permanent state necessitate the conclusion that “there are earthly astronauts who have traveled to the nearest star”? Of course not!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You’re making a presumption there

Your analogy is comparing apples to oranges.

Some will go there as Jesus’ parables state, and they can’t go to heaven once they are there

 

[Gorgias]

Your analogy is comparing apples to oranges.

No, it’s offering the same type of statement, with the same (lack of) implications.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

No, it’s offering the same type of statement, with the same (lack of) implications.

There are definitely people in hell. It’s implied that of at least one person, so yes, I believe it does.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

That canon is from the synod and wasn’t “ratified” at the ecumenical council in 553. The synod from local bishops does not have the force of dogma.

The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen were ratified later in the canons of 553.

See Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Council of Constantinople
Shahan, T. (1908). Second Council of Constantinople. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen
…
9
If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

Translated by Henry Percival. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

Hang on a second, though: saying “hell isn’t temporary” isn’t the same thing as saying “there are definitely folks in hell right now.”

That is not all that was said, but also condemns the false idea of complete restoration of impious men:

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.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

Wouldn’t impious here mean those who die outside of grace? The idea is that no one in fact dies without the state of grace, so this anathema wouldn’t apply I think

 

[MarkRome]

The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen were ratified later in the canons of 553.

As I’ve said, that particular canon from the synod wasn’t included in the canons from Constantinople 2. They included SOME of the anathema’s against Origen, but not Canon 9 from the synod. You can read through the canons from the council for yourself from the link you posted. You won’t find it in there.

 

[Vico]

Wouldn’t impious here mean those who die outside of grace? The idea is that no one in fact dies without the state of grace, so this anathema wouldn’t apply I think

It applies. The idea was that one that died unjustified, after some temporary suffering in Hell (Gehenna), would attain Heaven.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen were ratified later in the canons of 553.

As I’ve said, that particular canon from the synod wasn’t included in the canons from Constantinople 2. They included SOME of the anathema’s against Origen, but not Canon 9 from the synod. You can read through the canons from the council for yourself from the link you posted. You won’t find it in there.

In 553, Pope Vigilius approved the five previous synods and also the prior synods against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius. Note that the source I quoted from includes those Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

I see. It appears the idea of universalism I have in my head is not in accordance with other ideas in the past, this has been a cause of confusion, but also it would mean it isn’t condemned since I want to be consistent with all dogmas if it is true

 

[Gorgias]

There are definitely people in hell.

The Church doesn’t say that. How, then, might you?

It’s implied that of at least one person

How so?

 

[Vico]

I see. It appears the idea of universalism I have in my head is not in accordance with other ideas in the past, this has been a cause of confusion, but also it would mean it isn’t condemned since I want to be consistent with all dogmas if it is true

What idea is in your head?

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

That God gives the grace of final justification (as outlined by Latin apparently everywhere, the method by which this is done) to all. Hell is possible in the sense that it is possible for a human to go there if they lack this grace (Jesus said: “in that which I find you I will judge you” and warned about not being ready, both a reference to the destruction of the temple, the end times, and the particular judgment and last judgment which is most important for this topic), but due to God’s graciousness no one actually goes there. I do not want to hold to a restoration of some graceless and humans who died in impiety, but literally just heaven for all, most through the way of purgatory (which is not Hell). Each are judged on their merits, except God in His graciousness has provided just enough for all to be saved, and in providing this causes us to work hard for and desire our salvation to varying degrees (the lowest degree being a deathbed repentance and entering into the state of grace right before death, the highest degree being laboring for your salvation from the instant of your conception and doing good works like the Virgin Mary. I personally would think the lowest degree is Judas and the highest Mary). All merits are God’s gifts like Latin said, so God gives just enough to cause the individual salvation of each human person. Demons due to their nature will not be saved

 

[JSRG]

MarkRome:

Vico:

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.

That canon is from the synod and wasn’t “ratified” at the ecumenical council in 553. The synod from local bishops does not have the force of dogma.

The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen were ratified later in the canons of 553.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Council of Constantinople

The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen
…
9
If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

Translated by Henry Percival. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm

First off, it’s not the Catholic Encyclopedia you’re quoting, it’s the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. I’m not sure why you cite the Catholic Encyclopedia when you even give the correct citation afterwards.

However, more importantly, the “Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen” were not part of the council. They were from a letter he sent out something like a decade beforehand. In the original printing of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers this fact is more obvious, as a footnote explains their origin (you can see it here; footnote 1 on the left page). Unfortunately, New Advent leaves out the footnotes (unless the footnote is saying it’s a scriptural reference) and thus this important fact is lost, and thus due to the different format someone can mistakenly believe it’s saying they were actually passed by the council, when they were not. It was from a totally different document.

 

[MarkRome]

Yes, on second reading I see it under the Justinian anathemas. Thanks for pointing it out. It wasn’t in the list that I read the other day.

I guess the bottom line for me is that the position von Balthasar and Bishop Barron hold is not the same as the heresy of Origen. I have read Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved and found the arguments fine but not terribly convincing for me personally. That being said, I wouldn’t condemn that position as heresy.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Demons due to their nature will not be saved.”
That is not a Catholic teaching, rather demons were created good by nature and freely chose malice.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

391 … The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

You wrote: “That God gives the grace of final justification … to all.”
That is not a Catholic teaching, rather God gives grace sufficient for salvation, but some reject it, therefore two are spoken of: merely sufficient grace and efficacious grace. (Specifically addressed at the Council of Trent.)

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (by Ludwig Ott) list these as:

• There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious (gratia vere et mere sufficiens). (De fide.)
• The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible. (De fide.)