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.
IIRC Molinism makes errors but that’s besides the point. Now what causes a will to cooperate though? All these things I think ultimately go back to God or else we’d have some weird regress. So there is grace then the will cooperates with another grace and this is called efficacious I think, I’m not sure though. To will good comes from God and that much is certain, so then it goes back to “why does not God cause all to will good”?
 
Gorgias said:
Can’t prove a negative.
Click to expand...
That’s a positive hope that hell is empty.

And a futile hope.

So the burden of proof is on YOU. Against the words of Christ, and the teaching of the Church from age to age.
 
Yes. Which is a lot more than a lone person no matter how much of a theologian said person is.
 
avemariagratiaplena said:
…To will good comes from God and that much is certain, so then it goes back to “why does not God cause all to will good”?
Click to expand...
The angels and humans must be confirmed in their charity before the Beatific Vision is given, after which one will never sin.

A person is the partial cause of subsequent eternal happiness, but the complete cause of subsequent reprobation. This is because the person has free will to choose charity or malice.

Jeremiah 2
1 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: …
20 Of old time thou hast broken my yoke, thou hast burst my bands, and thou saidst: I will not serve. For on every high hill, and under every green tree thou didst prostitute thyself.
Click to expand...
It is as described in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
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.
Click to expand...
Antecedent Grace 1
There is a supematural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide.)
Click to expand...
Consequent Grace 2
There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will. (De fide.)
Click to expand...
§ 14. 'The Teaching of the Church on Grace and Freedom 3
Since God gives sufficient grace to all men, in order that they may work out their salvation, and since, in fact, only a part of mankind achieves salvation, there are graces which have as a consequence the salutary effect intended by God, i.e., efficacious graces (gratiae efficaces), and graces, which do not have this effect, i.e., merely sufficient graces (gratiae mere sufficientes). There is a question as to whether the ground for this difference in efficacy lies in the grace itself or in human freedom. The Reformers and the Jansenists sought to solve this difficult question radically by denying the freedom of the will. Cf. Luther, De Servo arbitrio. The solutions found in the various Catholic systems of grace are not opposed to the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
1 Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, page 226.
2 Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, page 227.
3 Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, page 246.
 
Last edited:
Alright, I was thinking entirely of antecedent. Thank you for this. But without antecedent no one can be saved right? And there would be this kind of grace before the specific grace that would occur for them to be saved, so that would mean that God ultimately is the cause of it. Meaning anyone who isn’t saved was “left out” by God to fall on their own merits. Fr. Garrigou quoted Augustine saying something like (or some other Saint): “whoever is saved it is because of God and whoever is not is because of their own sins.” So that goes all around to: why does God save some but not all? I know St. Augustine said “don’t look into why this one is saved but not that if you don’t want to err” (Garrigou quoted this too) but it actually makes no sense whatsoever for God to not cause the salvation of all and to let His creatures rot in their own sin becoming the cause of their own damnation when He made them in the first place. How is that a good plan of salvation at all? Better to not be born as no evil in this life is equal to that of hell or coming close to it
 
Gorgias said:
So, then, you can quote a magisterial teaching which explicitly says that there are souls in hell?
Click to expand...
"Hell, then, here signifies those secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have not obtained the happiness of Heaven. In this sense the word is frequently used in Scripture. Thus the Apostle says: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those that are in Heaven, on earth, and in hell (Phil. 2:10); and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter says that Christ the Lord is again risen, having loosed the sorrows of hell. (Acts 2:24). DIFFERENT ABODES CALLED “HELL” These abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire. This place is called gehenna, the bottomless pit, and is Hell strictly so-called." (from ‘The Catechism of the Council of Trent (with Supplemental Reading: Catholic Prayers’; my emphasis).

“The Benedictine constitution states that “We, with our apostolic authority, make the following definition,” and then goes on to declare that the souls of the just, who die in God’s friendship, “soon after death and, in the case of those who need it, after purification, have been, are, and will be in heaven.” Similarly, “the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell soon after their death.” The operative word in this doctrine is usually translated “soon,” i.e., mox in Latin, and it is understood to mean “promptly.”” (from ‘The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church’, by John Hardon SJ; my emphasis).

The use of the present tense would appear to suggest that there are, indeed, souls in hell.

Ludwig Ott writes: 'The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell (De fide) (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 479). He references Benedict XII’s Dogmatic Constitution ‘Benedictus Deus’…as per John Hardon.

Make of this what you will.
 
Last edited:
avemariagratiaplena said:
…
Click to expand...
You wrote: “And there would be this kind of grace [antecedent] before the specific grace that would occur for them to be saved, so that would mean that God ultimately is the cause of it.”
A. God ultimately permits the free will choice of good or evil. The individual free choice after antecedent grace brings the coincident increase of grace.

You wrote: “How is that a good plan of salvation at all? Better to not be born as no evil in this life is equal to that of hell or coming close to it.”
A. It is better to have the possibility of the Beatific Vision which requires of necessity the free will choice of charity. A necessary consequence of which is to be able to choose no. Even those that are condemned can be shown mercy in their eternal punishments, even though the Beatific Vision is not possible.
 
Last edited:
avemariagratiaplena said:
So that goes all around to: why does God save some but not all? I know St. Augustine said “don’t look into why this one is saved but not that if you don’t want to err” (Garrigou quoted this too) but it actually makes no sense whatsoever for God to not cause the salvation of all and to let His creatures rot in their own sin becoming the cause of their own damnation when He made them in the first place. How is that a good plan of salvation at all? Better to not be born as no evil in this life is equal to that of hell or coming close to it
Click to expand...
God has chosen to create man with a free will, therefore He never creates souls in order to condemn them, but in order that they can freely choose. God wants to save as many souls as possible, but He respects man’s free will. If God saved us against our free will, He would destroy our essence of human beings. We are free to love Him or to reject Him. God knows eternally that some souls will choose evil and will go to Hell, but this is not the purpose He creates them. God creates them because He wants to save as many souls as possible and the fear of damnation in Hell may have a role in man’s choice to abandon sin, expecially when he is still much involved in sin. This is the reason why God tells us that Hell exists and that many will go to Hell (see Matthew 7:13, for example); since God never lies, He created also the souls who will go to Hell. If God had not created the souls who will go to Hell, fewer souls would have gone to heaven. In conclusion, also the souls who will go to Hell , against their own intentions, have a positive role in the salvation of the souls.
 
Vico said:
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).
Click to expand...
I have not responded to this because I am not following where you are quoting from. Canon 9 doesn’t mention spirits that haven’t come down and there are only 9 Justinian canons against Origen, not 15. The 15 anathemas from 553 against Origen were from the Bishops, not Justinian.
 
avemariagratiaplena said:
In basing our salvation on how hypothetical and real responses to grace rather than in God’s will alone.
Click to expand...
Thomism is relatively new once you think about it.

Unconditional election was also new. From the looks of it, Thomism is a step away from Calvinism.
 
MarkRome said:
40.png
Vico:
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).
Click to expand...
I have not responded to this because I am not following where you are quoting from. Canon 9 doesn’t mention spirits that haven’t come down and there are only 9 Justinian canons against Origen, not 15. The 15 anathemas from 553 against Origen were from the Bishops, not Justinian.
Click to expand...
There are three lists of canons in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14:
  1. The Capitula of the Council – 14 canons (number 11 mentions Origen)
  2. The Anathemas Against Origen – 15 canons
  3. The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen – 9 canons – listed in Denzinger under Vigilius (537) 540-555 Canons against Origen * From the Book against Origen of the Emperor Justinian, 543
    CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)
To my statement: “Can 9 from 543 corresponds to Justinian Cann. 12 and 15 in 553.” you said: “No, 12 an 15 are not the same as canon 9.”

Cannons 12 and 15 are reference 2 above. Canon 15 has the phrase you mention “while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen”.

Canon 9 is reference 3 above. Canon 1 in reference 3 below describes the pre-existent spirits that are later restored, and the restoration is in canon 9 in reference 3 above. (Apparently the thought at the time was that Origen taught this, but it seems to be untrue.)
 
Vico said:
There are three lists of canons in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14 :
  1. The Capitula of the Council – 14 canons (number 11 mentions Origen)
  2. The Anathemas Against Origen – 15 canons
  3. The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen – 9 canons – listed in Denzinger under Vigilius (537) 540-555 Canons against Origen * From the Book against Origen of the Emperor Justinian, 543
    CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)
Click to expand...
Yes, I know this. That’s why I was confused by your wording of “Justinian canon 12 & 15” Those weren’t Justinian’s.

I think your argument, if anything, argues too much. Canon 9 from 543 (“Justinian’s canon”) would then be referring to the restoration of a pre-existent soul. Universal salvation doesn’t seem to be what’s at play here. Seems they were focused on the heresy of a pre-existent soul and spirits that were at one time united to Christ.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
So the burden of proof is on YOU.
Click to expand...
No – you’re the one who claims that the Church teaches (doctrinally, I presume) that hell is populated. Please produce that doctrinal statement. Thanks!
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
avemariagratiaplena:
IIRC Molinism makes errors but that’s besides the point.
Click to expand...
Explain. A claim like that needs to be expounded.
Click to expand...
Hmm… haven’t I asked for that precise thing of you, Julius? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as it were!
Niblo said:
The use of the present tense would appear to suggest that there are, indeed, souls in hell.
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty thin argument. Let’s go back to my thought experiment: if I said “those astronauts who travel to the nearest sun are not able to return to earth.” Does my “use of the present tense” actually “suggest that there are, indeed,” astronauts orbiting Alpha Centuri? Of course not!

So… even though your quotes actually demonstrate doctrines regarding hell, they do not prove that the Church asserts that souls are presently there. We might have opinions on that topic (and I might share your opinion), but that’s a far cry from demonstrating that the Church teaches that they necessarily are there, now.
 
Gorgias said:
No – you’re the one who claims that the Church teaches (doctrinally, I presume) that hell is populated. Please produce that doctrinal statement. Thanks!
Click to expand...
You can’t even quote my statements accurately.

And you still have yet to prove hell is empty.

Read what Vico has posted.
 
MarkRome said:
…

Yes, I know this. That’s why I was confused by your wording of “Justinian canon 12 & 15” Those weren’t Justinian’s.

I think your argument, if anything, argues too much. Canon 9 from 543 (“Justinian’s canon”) would then be referring to the restoration of a pre-existent soul. Universal salvation doesn’t seem to be what’s at play here. Seems they were focused on the heresy of a pre-existent soul and spirits that were at one time united to Christ.
Click to expand...
Two Justinian Imperial Edicts related to Origenism
  • Nine Anathemas summarize the edict of Justinian in 543 against Origenism
  • Fifteen Anathemas are in the Imperial edict of 553
The following teachings from 543 edict were included in the fifteen anathemas of the 553 edict:
  1. pre-existence of souls (I) and incorporeal noes and their fall (II)
  2. their exile into the body (IV)
  3. stars as rational fallen beings (III)
  4. spherical form of resurrected bodies (X)
  5. apokatastasis which includes demons (XII and XV)
 
Vico said:
Fifteen Anathemas are in the Imperial edict of 553
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top