Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism?

[MarkRome]

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.

I’ve bolded the important part. Similar, but not the same. #9 wasn’t included.

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, in company with their sinful works,

The others had their errors anathematized at previous councils. Origen’s heresies are the 15 that are presented at Constantinople 2, which doesn’t include #9.

 

[MarkRome]

And from the prior local synod:

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma

Imperial anathemas and local bishop’s issues are not universal in scope. 543 doesn’t have the force of dogma in the entire Church.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

I’ve bolded the important part. Similar, but not the same. #9 wasn’t included.

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, in company with their sinful works,

The others had their errors anathematized at previous councils. Origen’s heresies are the 15 that are presented at Constantinople 2, which doesn’t include #9.

The Council of Constantinople II in 553 did condemn the doctrine which had been described in 543 in canon 9, which was that

• … there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men

Can 9 from 543 corresponds to Justinian Cann. 12 and 15 in 553.

The Anathemas Against Origen

12 - If anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the Devil and evil spirits are united with the Word of God in all respects, as the Νοῦς which is by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and which humbled itself as they say; and [if anyone shall say] that the Kingdom of Christ shall have an end: let him be anathema.
15 - If anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (νοῶν) shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

And from the prior local synod:

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma

Imperial anathemas and local bishop’s issues are not universal in scope. 543 doesn’t have the force of dogma in the entire Church.

See my post 144: Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism? - #144 by Vico

 

[MarkRome]

The Council of Constantinople II in 553 did condemn the doctrine which had been described in 543 in canon 9, which was that

• … there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men

Can 9 from 543 corresponds to Justinian Cann. 12 and 15 in 553.

The Anathemas Against Origen

12 - If anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the Devil and evil spirits are united with the Word of God in all respects, as the Νοῦς which is by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and which humbled itself as they say; and [if anyone shall say] that the Kingdom of Christ shall have an end: let him be anathema.
15 - If anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (νοῶν) shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema.

No, 12 an 15 are not the same as canon 9. Canon 15 is specifically talking about spirits only so we will skip that. Canon 12 is talking about the belief that souls pre-existed creation in a form of intellect which were in perfect union with the Creator Logos and that there will be a restoration of these souls to that state.
These canons do not condemn universal salvation.

 

[Gorgias]

Son of perdition and better not to be born say as much.

Ahh, but they don’t say it, now, do they? You’re taking what is written and inferring it. Apples and oranges…

That doesn’t mean the Church teaches an empty hell.

Now we’re back to ‘universalism’ without you having demonstrated your assertion.

Are you planning on substantiating your “Council of Orange” claim, or shall we leave that one in the “challenged and abandoned” category?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The Council of Constantinople II in 553 did condemn the doctrine which had been described in 543 in canon 9, which was that

• … there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men

Can 9 from 543 corresponds to Justinian Cann. 12 and 15 in 553.

The Anathemas Against Origen

12 - If anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the Devil and evil spirits are united with the Word of God in all respects, as the Νοῦς which is by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and which humbled itself as they say; and [if anyone shall say] that the Kingdom of Christ shall have an end: let him be anathema.
15 - If anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (νοῶν) shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema.

No, 12 an 15 are not the same as canon 9. Canon 15 is specifically talking about spirits only so we will skip that. Canon 12 is talking about the belief that souls pre-existed creation in a form of intellect which were in perfect union with the Creator Logos and that there will be a restoration of these souls to that state.
These canons do not condemn universal salvation.

Yes they are the same. Note that Canon 9 mentions “while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen” so that the universal salvation condemned was that of pre-existent beings of Justinian Canon 1 that would be restored (apokatastasis) to the pre-existent state (Justinian Canon 15), and the same for demons (Justinian Canon 12).

However there are various versions of universal salvation from ancient times, at least these:

• there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men (with regard to the pre-existent)
• it is merely possible there will be a complete restoration of the demons and impious men
• it is merely possible that there will be a complete restoration of the demons and impious men, except for Lucifer.

The variations I have read of come from these persons:
Origen
Gregory of Nyssa
Isaac of Nineveh
Clement of Alexandria
Jerome who was an Origenist at one time

So some argue that the doctrine of apokatastasis was condemned only when embedded within that of the transmigration of souls, and when stated as certain. However it was argued also that Origen did not teach transmigration of souls nor that restoration was certain.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Are you planning on substantiating your “Council of Orange” claim, or shall we leave that one in the “challenged and abandoned” category?

The decree predicates that.

Given that it speaks of impious being unable to leave hell, It definitely necessities people being in hell.

So I’d advise those who hold to this “hope” to dedicate more effort hoping for their own salvation.

 

[Gorgias]

Given that it speaks of impious being unable to leave hell, It definitely necessities people being in hell.

No. It only implies that if there are souls in hell, then they cannot leave.

You’re invalidly extrapolating.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You’re invalidly extrapolating.

Nope. It’s valid.

 

[Gorgias]

Nope. It’s valid.

So, if I asked you “have you stopped beating your wife?”, would that mean that I’ve validly established that you beat her? Same story here.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

So, if I asked you “have you stopped beating your wife?”, would that mean that I’ve validly established that you beat her?

One is based on speculation.

The teaching of the Church is not.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Gorgias]

One is based on speculation.

The teaching of the Church is not.

Yep, I agree. Your speculation on a proper interpretation of the teaching of the Church isn’t valid.



Have a nice evening, Julius!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Have a nice evening, Julius!

You like saying that when you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Your speculation on a proper interpretation of the teaching of the Church isn’t valid.

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

 

[Gorgias]

You like saying that when you don’t have a leg to stand on.

No. Actually, I say that when I’m intentionally attempting to avoid being uncharitable.

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

Which, as you affirmed, you don’t. Rather, you affirmed that it doesn’t say it, but it just “say as much” without saying what you claim it does.

Again… have a lovely evening.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Which, as you affirmed, you don’t.

Wrong again.

Your problem is that you twist teachings to make it less jarring.

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.

So, no, you have no leg to stand on.

 

[Gorgias]

Not saying who’s in hell is a heck of a lot of difference than saying hell is empty.

So, then, you can quote a magisterial teaching which explicitly says that there are souls in hell? Not something that you think implies it, but something explicit. I’m waiting…

 

[Vico]

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?

The grace given is enough for salvation, but is called something different depending upon the will to cooperate of the person: merely sufficient for one not cooperating, and efficacious for one cooperating. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott explains:

The freedom of the will under the influence of grace is the necessary presupposition for the meritoriousness of good works. The testimony of human self-consciousness also supports Catholic teaching.
…
By merely sufficient grace is understood a grace which, in consideration of the concrete circumstances, makes a salutary act possible (vere et relative sufficiens) but which, on account of the resistance of the will, remains inefficacious (mere vel pure sufficiens).

And from the Council of Trent

If anyone says that man’s free will, moved and awakened by God, does in no manner co-operate when it assents to God, Who excites and calls it, thereby disposing and preparing itself to receive the grace of justification; and (if anyone says) that it cannot dissent if it wishes, but that, like some inanimate thing, it does nothing whatever, and only remains passive, let him be anathema.

Catholic Encyclopedia on Predestination

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

There have been many attempts with theories to understand it, which is difficult. Saint Francis de Sales recommended the earlier Scholastic idea, and that of most Molinists, which may be expressed in a hypothetical decree (also from Catholic Encyclopedia on Predestination):

This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. — It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

So, then, you can quote a magisterial teaching which explicitly says that there are souls in hell? Not something that you think implies it

Can you quote a Magisterial teaching that no one is in hell?

I’m waiting.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

Are you basing your idea that there are souls in hell on the same things Vico is? The present tense at the Councils, etc?