The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Hopeful Universalism - I Must Leave The Forum

I just talked to the Priest at Holy Family (The Church I attend) and found out that as a Catholic we can’t say everybody is going to heaven. We can hope everybody is. So, I’m a hopeful Universalist. Because of this I’ve decided to leave the Forum. I’m going elsewhere. Thanks for letting me come here. Peace out!!

Why are you leaving?

I didn’t think hopeful universalists were allowed here now. I thought it was for Universalists only now.

Nope, we accept all religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few who dont believe in Universal Salvation. Which I am personally okay with. Plus I dont think it would be very Christlike or Universalist to shut the kingdom out on people who dont believe and would be no better than exclusivism.

Okay, I’ll stay then. I’m addicted to this place anyhow. :smiley:

I’m a hopeful. I seem to feel more and more hope towards it as I study it, but I think I’d still label myself a hopeful. Very hopeful!

Fantastic!! I’m not alone here then!

The addiction might be a problem; the hopeful instead of certain isn’t. :slight_smile: We have Calv and Arm members (though not many); a (proto-Arm) Catholic wouldn’t be a problem. A Balthasarian Catholic certainly isn’t a problem.

I’m also a “hopeful”, Michael. There is even a Baptist pastor here, who apparently believes in ECT.

And we have someone else, who has no clue what position to take. They are not sure if Universalism, Annihilation, P-Zombie or ECT is true. I think they agree with this quote: :laughing:

And there are those who believe Trump is the perfect candidate - not just hopefuls. I found this commentary interesting on LinkedIn today (author will not be named): :laughing:

And remember when I said that if Trump was smart, he would pick Ben Carson as a VP candidate? And secure the black vote? Well, today I heard on the news, Ben is endorsing Trump. What is up ahead next? :question: :laughing:

Nope, I’m only hopeful as well. How can a priest tell you what you can and can’t believe?

Well, if I want to be Roman Catholic I can’t be a Universalist.

I think this statement is (fortunately!) incorrect. :slight_smile: Consider:

Countless millions of Roman Catholics assert as a fact that some human beings will end up in never-ending Hell. These Catholics are claiming knowledge of the eschatological future.

So why can’t you also claim knowledge of the eschatological future? Simply assert as a fact that NO human beings will end up in never-ending Hell.

The only thing that a Catholic couldn’t assert would be that God will ensure that Hell is empty by over-riding His creatures’ free will. But a universalism in which everyone freely chooses Heaven? That’s 100% compatible with Roman Catholicism.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia at Catholic Answers:

Roman Catholics do hold to heterodox beliefs.

The following early Fathers of the Church are said to have taught that all will finally be saved. (Per Tentmaker site - you can check them out yourself though.)

• Pantaenus ; Clement of Alexandria ; Origen ; Athanasius; Didymus the Blind; Macarius of Egypt; Gregory Thaumaturgus; Ambrose; Ephraim; John Chrysostum; Gregory of Nyssa ; Gregory of Nazianzus; Jerome of Bethlehem; Evagrius Ponticus ; Titus of Bastra; Asterius of Amasea; Cyril; Methodius of Tyre; Pamphilius Eusibius; Hillary of Poitiers; Victorinus; Macrina the Younger; Dionysius the Areopagite; John Cassian; Maximus the Confessor ; Proclus of Constantinople; Peter Chrysologus; Diodorus of Tarsus; Stephen bar Sudaili.

I suppose I’m in the category of “other”. By this, I mean that I don’t label myself as anything other than one who seeks the truth. On the other hand, there may already be a category for “truth-seeker”, I don’t really know. If not, then I guess I could start one. :slight_smile:

Fortunately, that little local council has no authority in the Church. Some have liked to suppose that its anathemas were incorporated into the glorious Fifth Ecumenical Council of A. D. 553, but that is extremely unlikely and without proof. In any case, those nine anathemas were aimed precisely at some heretical monks of the 6th century. Read them: afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/01/2 … nople-543/

Those monks were into some seriously…strange…doctrine: multiple incarnations, raindrops having souls and intellect, God not all-knowing or all-powerful, resurrection bodies shaped like beach balls, etc. Good grief. Those guys needed in the worst way to be slapped with anathemas.

It should be noted that their system precluded free will. That is the big problem here with regard to universalism. They believed in universalism in a deterministic way. The heresy wasn’t universalism. The heresy was determinism.

I agree with all these points, except this one: raindrops having souls and intellect I don’t know about intellect, but everyone has a little soul :exclamation: :laughing:

But maybe it is all just superstition :exclamation: :laughing:

Geoffrey,

Here’s a magisterial statement from Pope John Paul II. It was originally recorded in the L’Osservatore Romano, August 4, 1999, and it read:

The official statement of the Pope indicates the Catholic teaching is that eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but that we just do not know “which human beings” that are involved.

Pope John Paul II has the following are three quotes from him.

The new, post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church also gives us to hope that all will be saved.

I do not think that statements made by Popes in the newspaper count as authoritative Roman Catholic doctrine. Even encyclical statements are not ipso facto infallible. (If they were, the Popes would have taught contradictory infallible doctrines. Just look at the different ways in which the different Popes have considered capitalism and biological evolution, to take two examples.) The last time a Pope spoke infallibly was in 1950 when Pope Pius XII said one had to believe in Mary’s assumption into Heaven to be a Roman Catholic.

A Roman Catholic is free to believe that ever since 1950 every Pope has been a jackanapes who spouted nonsense 24/7. Look at how Dante regarded the Popes of his own time. He put them all in Hell!

(I hope I’m not coming across as unpleasant. I don’t mean that at all. I think it’s good news for Roman Catholics that they can be universalists. :slight_smile: )