Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter avemariagratiaplena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JSRG said:
…
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.
…
Click to expand...
Two sources actually, and I will add the Catholic Encyclopedia citation below to the original post.
Shahan, T. (1908). Second Council of Constantinople. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
 
Last edited:
MarkRome said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hans Urs von Balthasar wasn’t a universalist defined as one who claims for certain that all men will be saved.
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
Hans Urs von Balthasar wasn’t a universalist defined as one who claims for certain all men will be saved.
Click to expand...
By extension, if there was a dogma which absolutely precluded the mere possibility that all men could be saved, then he couldn’t even say there is a possibility.
 
MarkRome said:
40.png
Vico:
Hans Urs von Balthasar wasn’t a universalist defined as one who claims for certain all men will be saved.
Click to expand...
By extension, if there was a dogma which absolutely precluded the mere possibility that all men could be saved, then he couldn’t even say there is a possibility.
Click to expand...
There is a dogma that states that some are in hell (Fourth Lateran Council). See earlier in this thread. Note also that hope does not require possibility for hope is “a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.” (Oxford Dictionary)
40.png
Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism? Philosophy
If one cannot be certain of the state of grace, then one cannot be certain of salvation. [Denzinger 802] Council of Trent, Session VI, Chap. 9. Against the Vain Confidence of Heretics Although it is necessary to believe that sins are neither forgiven, nor ever have been forgiven, except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ’s sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the forgiveness of his sins and r…
Click to expand...
40.png
Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism? Philosophy
It was dogmatically stated that some are in hell now, and also there, are the fallen angels. Tim Staples wrote: “the Church’s Magisterium has, in fact, taught that there are souls in hell now, and that there will be for all eternity. “Which human beings” we do not know without special divine revelation.” https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-there-souls-in-hell-right-now Jesus was unequivocal: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal lif…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
There is a dogma that states that some are in hell (Fourth Lateran Council). See earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the statement from the Fourth Lateran Council as alluding to people in hell now (or in the 1100s). It is talking about the final judgment. We know that we will not receive our bodies again until the resurrection and final judgment, so when they rise with their bodies, they will now be wearing them. That says nothing about some already being in hell.
 
Last edited:
MarkRome said:
40.png
Vico:
There is a dogma that states that some are in hell (Fourth Lateran Council). See earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the statement from the Fourth Lateran Council as alluding to people in hell now (or in the 1100s). It is talking about the final judgment. We know that we will not receive our bodies again until the resurrection and final judgment, so when they rise with their bodies, they will now be wearing them. That says nothing about some already being in hell.
Click to expand...
The Particular Judgment (sent. fidei proxima) is from The Union Councils of Lyons (1272) and of Florence (1431 - 1449) were after The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), so it is not unexpected to be phrased in terms of the Parousia.

No, it addresses those that were alive at the time of the council, which can be seen from the words used. Tim Staples said: “The present tense indicates that some folks then living—now wearing their bodies—would go to hell. Thus, the Church is here teaching there are souls “in” hell.”

The concilliar statement is:
All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, (Latin text reads quae nunc gestant—which they are now bearing or wearing)
Click to expand...
 
Vico said:
“The present tense indicates that some folks then living—now wearing their bodies—would go to hell. Thus, the Church is here teaching there are souls “in” hell.”
Click to expand...
Even then is still speaking of something in the future at the judgment. The bodies they now wear they will wear when resurrected. I love Tim Staples but I do think he is stretching this to say something it is not.
 
MarkRome said:
40.png
Vico:
“The present tense indicates that some folks then living—now wearing their bodies—would go to hell. Thus, the Church is here teaching there are souls “in” hell.”
Click to expand...
Even then is still speaking of something in the future at the judgment. The bodies they now wear they will wear when resurrected. I love Tim Staples but I do think he is stretching this to say something it is not.
Click to expand...
Yes, it refers to people at that time, in the body of that time, resurrected in the future to hell (or heaven) and as we know now, also pertains to the point of death at the particular judgment, so there are people in those two states now.

Also, it is not the only point that shows it.
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
Son of perdition and saying that it better for that person if he wasn’t born isn’t very hopeful.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Yet, it falls short of saying “he’s definitely in hell”, which is the thesis you’ve been working under.

What’s that quote from Orange, again, then?
jredden92 said:
I’m surprised they’ve never come out and declared Hitler was in Hell.
Click to expand...
That’s the whole point. They can’t declare any particular person is in hell, since that’s up to God’s judgment and not human discernment.

That’s why those who claim that there must be folks in hell are saying something different than what the Church teaches.
🤷‍♂️
 
Gorgias said:
That’s why those who claim that there must be folks in hell are saying something different than what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
No. The Church doesn’t say WHO’S in hell. That doesn’t mean the Church teaches an empty hell.

You and I may very well find ourselves there if we fail to repent.
 
Vico said:
40.png
JSRG:
…
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.
…
Click to expand...
Two sources actually, and I will add the Catholic Encyclopedia citation below to the original post.
Shahan, T. (1908). Second Council of Constantinople. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It appears JSRG is correct. The 9 anathemas from Justinian against Origen from the synod are not part of the council’s anathemas. Only the 15 anathemas are part of the council and that doesn’t include #9 from the synod.
Click to expand...
 
MarkRome said:
…
It appears JSRG is correct. The 9 anathemas from Justinian against Origen from the synod are not part of the council’s anathemas. Only the 15 anathemas are part of the council and that doesn’t include #9 from the synod.
Click to expand...
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Eight sessions were held, the result of which was the final condemnation of the Three Chapters by the 165 bishops present at the last session (2 June, 553), in fourteen anathematisms similar to the thirteen previously issued by Justinian.
Click to expand...
Shahan, T. (1908). Second Council of Constantinople. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma
Council of Constantinople II, 553:
Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters *
[In part identical with “Homologia” of the Emperor, in the year 551]
213-222 Can. 1 …
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.
224-226 Can. 12 …
227 Can. 14 …
228 When then these things have been so confessed, which we have received from Holy Scripture, and from the teaching of the Holy Fathers, and from what was defined with regard to one and the same faith by the aforesaid four holy synods, and from that condemnation formulated by us against the heretics and their impiety, and besides, that against those who have defended or are defending the aforementioned three chapters, and who have persisted or do persist in their own error; if anyone should attempt to transmit [doctrines] opposed to those piously molded by us, or to teach or to write [them] if indeed he be a bishop, or belongs to the clergy, such a one, because he acts in a manner foreign to the sacred and ecclesiastical constitutions, shall be stripped of the office of bishop or cleric, but if he be a monk or a layman, he shall be anathematized.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MarkRome said:
…
Click to expand...
Part II

And from the prior local synod:

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma
VIGILIUS (537) 540-555
Canons against Origen *
[From the Book against Origen of the Emperor Justinian, 543]
203 Can. 1. If anyone says or holds that the souls of men pre-existed, as if they were formerly minds and holy powers, but having received a surfeit of beholding the Divinity, and having turned towards the worse, and on this account having shuddered (apopsycheisas) at the love of God, in consequence being called souls (psychae) and being sent down into bodies for the sake of punishment, let him be anathema.
204 Can. 2. If anyone says and holds that the soul of the Lord pre-existed, and was united to God the Word before His incarnation and birth from the Virgin, let him be anathema.
205 Can. 3. If anyone says or holds that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin, and that after this God, the Word, and the soul, since it had pre-existed, were united to it, let him be anathema.
206 Can. 4. If anyone says or holds that the Word of God was made like all the heavenly orders, having become a Cherubim for the Cherubim, a Seraphim for the Seraphim, and evidently having been made like all the powers above, let him be anathema.
207 Can. 5. If anyone says or maintains that in resurrection the bodies of men are raised up from sleep spherical, and does not agree that we are raised up from sleep upright, let him be anathema.
208 Can. 6. If anyone says that the sky, and the sun, and the moon and the stars, and the waters above the heavens are certain living and material * powers, let him be anathema.
209 Can. 7. If anyone says or holds that the Lord Christ in the future age will be crucified in behalf of the demons, just as (He was) for the sake of men, let him be anathema.
210 Can. 8. If anyone says or holds that the power of God is limited, and that He has accomplished as much as He has comprehended, let him be anathema.
211 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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Looking up about efficacious grace, it seems that it isn’t irresistible because no one would resist it. But we know from other things salvation is from God however it is done. So is the entire acceptability of this teaching or if it is forbidden entirely based on whether or not Councils and dogmatic statements about the final Resurrection and Last Judgment, the present tense, is to be taken as saying that some people are in hell or not? Or do we have something more?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top