The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Official Anglicanism, Hell, and Hope of Universalism

Also, item 847 affirms some version of inclusivism. That’s very different from universalism (as inclusivists are often quite quick to point out!)

Now, it’s probably worth pointing out that item 847, taken by itself (and I’d have to check the current Catechism to see whether it’s qualified), actually goes smack against what was taught by Popes ex cathedra concerning salvation outside communion of the RCC before death–namely, it ain’t gonna happen, ever, including (especially!) after death. I mentioned a couple of those items in my list upthread; there are others I could list.

Item 1058, by terms of the prayer actually prayed (“Lord let me never be parted from you”), is about persistence of the saints; not about praying that no one ever anywhere should be lost. For the RCCs that would be to pray against revelation of scripture and papal teaching. Which would be to put oneself outside communion with the RCC. (And dying in such a state would be, let’s say, bad. :wink: )

The RCC does kind of whiffle back and forth on persistence of God to save the elect–Calvin didn’t get his ideas from nowhere, nor just straight from scripture (that’s why he kept appealing to Augustine, and why Calvs often prefer to be called Augustinians). But as I think I noted in passing when quoting dogmatic source material earlier, the RCC generally affirms that even a nominal Roman Catholic, and maybe one who has actually received charismatic sacramentalism (not merely used the sacraments), could be permanently lost by their own choice of permanent apostasy. The concept there is that if even an RC refuses purgatory (much less any other salvation), then they won’t receive it, and it won’t be offered again after death. (But I think there’s debate over whether such people were ever truly in the Catholic Church or not, similar to Calv debates with Arms. I don’t know whether officially accepted popes have made declarations on both sides ex cathedra, but I suspect they have.)

Item 1058 is part of a summary of Article 12 of Chapter 3 of Section Two of Part One of the most recent (2008) Catechism.

It is immediately preceded by Items 1057 and 1056:

1056 Following the example of Christ, the Church warns
the faithful of the “sad and lamentable reality of
eternal death” (GCD 69), also called “hell.”

1057 Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal
separation from God in whom alone man can have the life
and happiness for which he was created and for which
he longs.

Topic Four of Article 12 is the key catechism statement on hell (items 1033 through 1037):

I can quote other Catechism statements, too. For example

I’m pretty sure I could quote some more. :frowning:

(I have the Cat, and its official companion commentary, on disc. I haven’t quoted from the commentary yet, since that’s only a learned commentary and not Magisterium teaching led by the Pope ex cathedra.)

Among Roman Catholics, there is a wide range of disagreement over what papal pronouncements are “infallible.”

There’s even disagreement as to whether reception by all the faithful is one of the criteria that has to be met.

Vatican I seems to rule out reception, but Vatican II seems to throw it back in the mix.

(one view is that papal prouncements don’t require formal ratification by bishops or laity, but if they’re never actually received and believed by the faithful, it’s evidence that they were never actually spoken “ex-cathedra.”)

Before he was Pope Benedict the 16th, Cardnal Ratzinger once said that any papal pronouncement that lacked sufficient support in scripture, creed, and the consenses of the Church, would lack the requirements necessary for it to be considered ex-cathedra (even if the Pope thought he was speaking infallibly.)

To make matters more confussing, Hans Kung said that Papal infallibility is neither true or false, it’s meaningless.

His teaching priveledge at Catholic universities was revoked, but he wasn’t excommunicated (and last I heard, he was still receiving communion in the Roman Catholic Church, and on speaking terms with the Pope.)

As Vatican I (the council that first declared papal infallibility a dogma of the Roman Catholic Faith) said that anyone who denied papal infallibility had cut himself off from the Church entirely, this could be taken as evidence that the teaching of Papal infallibility itself has never been fully “received” by the faithful.

(It’s also interesting the Cardnal Ratzinger once suggested that the Eastern Orthodox were right in according the see of Rome only a primacy of honor, and said that this was it’s position in the early Church.)

That’s a good point.

But there isn’t a wide range of disagreement whether a strong majority of the RC bishops and laity agree with papal declarations concerning the hopelessness of hell per se. So whether reception is appealed to or not as a technical issue, unless the RCC makes a place for faithful minority dissent from both constant papal teaching on the topic (across a wide range of papal releases including at least one papal bull) and strong majority acceptance, universalism can only be held to hopefully while being in technical schism (at best) from communion with the visible Church Catholic (as understood by the Roman Catholic Church).

The main reason leeway is allowed for people like NyssGreg and Balt, is because they are so incredibly highly regarded as champions of orthodoxy and supporters of the unity of the Church in other regards. Their rationales from principle reason and scriptural exegesis may (or may not) inspire respect for their disagreement (and in Greg’s case, the fact that he wrote on the topic before the first official papal decree on record about this topic), but at the end of the day they’re still attempting to trump papal teaching and majority faith consensus both within the history of the RCC.

I don’t say this lightly. What the RCC has done with the papal office is one of the main reasons keeping me (and many others, the EOx included) out of communion with Rome, despite my respect for the institution. But their authoritative stance since the 6th century on universalism, or even post-mortem salvation, means I can’t be in formal communion with them either. Not so long as I believe they’re going ultimately against both principle logic and scriptural testimony (taken altogether) to hold non-universalistic positions. (I strongly suspect they end up inadvertently contravening trinitarian theism, too, particularly for sake of holding to hopelessness.)

I would love to find that Balt had successfully argued otherwise. (I really need to read that book anyway, sometime, in my list of things to do! Mental note to do so before Christmas this year…) But listening to the debate back and forth among RCs, I just don’t get the impression he did so. (If anything, he himself seems to have schismed either the two natures of Christ, or the Persons of the Father and Son, in trying to defend his notion of Christ’s descent into hell!) And I’m not very happy with the idea that I have some kind of right to force the RCs (or the EOx for that matter) to accept me into their communion despite some pretty clear dissent on my part.

imo that is such a shame… Scripture holds out hope in it, many early men of God considered saints by the Catholic Church professed it, and yet the Catholic Church today can not consider it, because of the words of men, and how She interprets those words.

and it’s odd that their own catechism should hold out salvation as a possibility for those outside of the Church, while the Church itself technically teaches just the opposite. shouldn’t the catechism accurately reflect the official position of the RCC? why the discrepency?

for those interested, there’s a pretty interesting thread on Monachos (an Eastern Orthodox discussion forum) on the EOC’s teachings on universal salvation :

Universalism and the Orthodox Church

the Eastern Orthodox seem to be a lot less dogmatic, and more hopeful on the issue. though one can’t, as you’ve stated Jason, emphatically believe that all will be saved and be on par with Orthdox doctrine, one may safely hope that all may be saved. perhaps this is thanks to the Orthodox being more ok with mystery than the Catholic West.

If they still take an authoritative stance against universalism and post-mortem salvation, it’s strange that this prayer should be said at every mass.

Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. Have mercy on us all. (Eucharistic Prayer II)

It’s hard to understand “our brothers and sisters, AND ALL THE DEPARTED” in anything but a universalist sense.

Majority agreement might be something less than reception by all the faithful.

Also, there are other issues involved.

Roman Catholics do not regard the Pope as infallible when he’s teaching something new.

Only when he’s “defining” something that’s already part of “the deposit of faith.”

If UR is taught in scripture, was taught by great saints like Gregory of Nyssa, and was the majority opinion for the first five hundred years of the Church, eternal torment could not be part of “the deposit of faith.”

Here’s that quote from Pope Benedict the 16th (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger):

Criticism of Papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, to the extent that they lack support in scripture and the creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church. When neither the consensus of the whole church is had, nor clear evidence from the sources is available, an ultimately binding decission is not possible. Were one formally to take place, the conditions for such an act would be lacking, and hence the question concerning it’s legitimacy would have to be raised. (Das neuve Volk Gotts . Entwurfe zur Ekklesiologie, Dusseldorf:
Patmos-Verlag, 1969, p. 144.)

As far as the councils that Rome went right on having after the split between east and west, I believe Pope Paul the 6th once refered to them as “local synods of the Western Church,” which would mean that they’re not truly eccumenical (and lack the dogmatic authority of the seven Eccumenical Councils.)

Me too, but I can see how it can be interpreted so narrowly as to become (as Hans Kung said) meaningless.

And given historical facts like Popes being declared heretics by Eccumenical council (and other Popes), all Catholics recognize that a broad interpretation of papal infallibility (such as “everything the Pope says is infallible”) is impossible.

My problem with papal infallibility is not that I believe it presents some obstacle to a universalist understanding of scripture, but that I find it difficult to see any baby in the bath water here.

Maintaining such a highly qualified and restricted doctrine of infallibility seems not only meaningless, but misleading (and false) to me.

Also, since many Roman Catholic Theologians would agree that the split in 1054 A.D. was the result of a misunderstanding, and that there were heretical teachings (deserving of protest, though not taught as dogma) in the western Church at the time of Martin Luther, I fail to see how the office of Pope has done anything to preserve the unity of the body of Christ (which is what I believe most Roman Catholics would say was it’s purpose.)

P.S. As far as the EOC is concerned, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev has a web site promoting UR, and represented the EO at a meeting in Rome (where he informed Roman Catholics that the Eastern Orthodox concept of hell was similar to their concept of purgatory.)

Regarding Roman Catholicism and Universalism:

A Universalist Pope could reason thus:

Previous papal pronouncements regarding Hell are all 100% correct, and they do not exclude Universalism. The previous pronouncements assumed that some men die unbaptized and/or with unconfessed mortal sins. And of course such persons would enter Hell. And these pronouncements said that any in Hell would never get out. That, too, is 100% correct. Thus we have the following truths of the Faith:

  1. All those dying unbaptized go to Hell.
  2. All those dying with unconfessed mortal sin go to Hell.
  3. All those in Hell never get out.

Do we know how many persons are in the first two categories listed above? No. Therefore, the number of each could be zero. For example:

At the moment before death Christ appears to each man, and each man consents to baptism and confesses all his sins. He then dies, and thus escapes Hell. Does Catholic dogma deny that possibility? No. Perhaps a man could say, “Where do you find this in the Bible or in Holy Tradition?” Well, plenty of good Catholics asked the same question regarding Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but that was defined as binding dogma in 1854.

Geoffrey ~

that’s an interesting position. i’m reminded a bit of Near Death Experiences, where people describe dying and meeting a beautiful, white, engulfing light, and some describe the figure of a man within the light. i don’t believe that anyone facing Christ and free to understand, without the barrier of sin, who He is would chose to reject Him. if they did, they would essentially chose hell, and chose all that goes with it.

does the Catholic Church hold out any hope of or possibility for post-mortem salvation?

According to the Catechism and Dogmatic Sources (as reffed above), no it does not. Hope or possibility for post-mortem salvation is explicitly and strongly excluded.

This is why some RCs go along with the route Geoffrey mentioned, which I take to be Balthasar’s position, namely that all sinners may be granted an at-death (but not post-death) visitation from Christ and so an opportunity to confess all sin, thus theoretically all sinners may possibly take this opportunity.

However, they would still necessarily draw the line at the demons (who are still sinning persons)–which again the Catechism and the Dogmatic Sources definitely and dogmatically assert (as I recall). At least one of the popes specifically anathema’d the idea that rebel non-human spirits will be saved by Christ.

And frankly, the tenor of the other statements on the topic is that some humans will definitely be put into hell. We just aren’t told which ones (aside from the Beast and the False Prophet in RevJohn, although I don’t recall offhand whether the RCC has a dogmatic position on these being real people and not some kind of mythical concept representations.) But their explicit denial of post-mortem salvation, plus their explicit affirmation of a post-mortem resurrection of the wicked and the good with the wicked going into the lake of fire, adds up to hopelessness for at least some human souls. They just don’t try to (dogmatically or even just doctrinally) say which ones.

The upshot is that an RC theologian might technically allow that Judas could have been saved by Christ at the point of death, although the theologian would have to be agnostic about whether that really happened; and might technically allow there’s good reason to believe all people are offered free salvation from Christ at the point of death (though RC dogma doesn’t affirm this outright–but doesn’t exclude it yet either); but he’d have to say some people certainly won’t be saved by Christ, first and foremost Satan and his minions, and apparently also some human sinners, too, although he technically cannot be in a position to say with any certainty who.

I don’t know yet how Balthasar gets around the apparent clarity of affirmation that some people will certainly be hopelessly condemned. I suspect he does so by appealing to the concept that all prophecies contain conditionals even if unspoken at the time of the prophecy (much as our own James Goetz does in his new book, which I’ve been enjoying editing off and on for the past several weeks btw! :mrgreen: ) But I don’t know yet.

That’s exactly it, Jason: Von Balthasar relies on prophecies being conditional. He interprets Christ’s relevant parables (such as the sheep and goats in Matthew 25) in precisely that way [putting it in my own words, here]:

“Hey! You human beings had better watch out! You each live under the very real possibility of Hell. So you’d better be baptized! And you’d better not die in mortal sin! IF you don’t listen to me, you’ll end up in Hell and never get out!”

As for the Beast and the Antichrist, the Roman Catholic Church does not insist upon their being historical persons.

At this point in Catholicism’s history, a person could believe that all men will be saved, but he would have to recognize that one can be a good Catholic and hold the contrary view. It is of course theoretically possible that in the future universalism will be dogmatically defined as Catholic truth. The converse is also of course theoretically possible.

The question of Satan and his demons is a thornier one. I suppose that a Catholic universalist could argue that Satan and the demons are not actual persons, but epiphenomena that arise from human sin and death. In this case, Satan and the demons are not creations of God but rather “creations” of sin and death. Thus, when sin and death cease to exist, Satan and the demons will ipso facto cease to exist. On this view, of course it would be heretical (and, frankly, bizarre) to assert the salvation of Satan and the demons. That would be no different than asserting the salvation of sin and of death. (“God is going to save Sin and Death, so they can go to Heaven!” :confused: )

“According to the Catholic members of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue, ‘there are only two papal pronouncements which are generally acknowledged as having engaged papal infallibility: the dogma of the immaculate conception (1854) and that of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin (1950). Several other types of papal pronouncements have, however, been thought by some to be infallible. With an eye to the teaching of twentieth century theological mannuals, several prominent examples may here be metioned: the solemn canonizations of saints, the condemnation of certain doctrines, papal teaching concerning certain moral matters, and the decision concerning Anglican ordinations.’ They then offer their reasons for rejecting all the latter as genuine examples of infallible papal teaching.” (Emphasis mine.)

Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting the Documents of the Magisterium, by Father Francis A. Sullivan. 1996 (Paulist Press: Mahwah N.J., page 83.)

From the same book.

"Second Council of Lyons (1274)

In a letter commemorating the seventh centenary of this council, Pope Paul VI referred to it as ‘the sixth of the general synods held in the west.’ While the Pope did not explain his reason for this terminology, it would seem to denote a recognition of the difference between the ecumenical councils of the first millennium, and the 'general synods held in the west."

(Page 69.)

As to post mortem salvation, Wacław Hryniewicz is a Roman Catholic Theologian who clearly believes in both post mortem salvation and UR.

culture.polishsite.us/mariusz/STB.pdf

Well I finally have his book now, and will be reading it next (after I finish Keener’s commentary on GosJohn, which I’m not far from doing; he’s going through the end of the crucifixion now). But while I understand and appreciate (to some extent) James’ arguments concerning tacit conditionality in all prophecy, even where appearances may seem otherwise, I don’t know that Balthasar can appeal to this within RC dogma. The dogmatic statements are quite emphatic that such condemnation will be occurring; not that such condemnations only may be occurring.

I’d have to double-check the Catechism, but I recall that’s true, too.

The RCC on this point, however, is dogmatically specific: Satan is a fallen angel who was created good by God, who fell due to willful perversion of himself. Ditto for the other demons.

The classic dogmatic language is exemplified by the 12th Ecumenical Council (i.e. the 4th Lateran Council, in 1215): “For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked.”

I could quote several other things of this sort, but the point is that RC dogmatics always and everywhere positively treat Satan and the demons as personal entities, just like RC dogmatics always and everywhere treat loyal angels as personal entities.

I found this interesting (and notice what Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev says about fallen angels, and what Cardinal Schonborn said when he was asked if he had any problem in accepting this teaching.)

thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3132

Here’s an Amazon link to a book by a Jesuit Archbishop titled ‘Jesus Christ Salvation of All’. I haven’t read it but saw it mentioned in passing at a site reviewing universalistic books.

amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Salv … 496&sr=1-2

I went to check it out but it doesn’t show any content on Amazon :unamused:

Although I found this!

youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=sar0RBHlgUs&gl=US

And the first few pages here:
conviviumpress.com/beta/en/b … view/id/21

James, I don’t think Bauckham is being as cheerful about Hell as you describe, saying for example in the paragraph just before the one you quoted:

“If this is the destiny for which God has made us, hell cannot be a kind of parallel, alternative destiny. Hell is the result of refusing the one destiny for which we were made and the only way in which human life can find eternal fulfilment. It is a real and terrible possibility that human beings can refuse the destiny for which they were made. This belongs to the utter seriousness with which God takes the freedom he has given us.”

and then later:

The New Testament uses a variety of different pictures to describe hell: fire is one of them, destruction another, exclusion from the presence of God another. Burning in fire for eternity is the picture which got fixed in much traditional teaching about hell as though it were a literal description. The New Testament does not require us to think of hell in this way. Hell is not an eternal chamber of horrors across the way from heaven. Hell is the fate of those who reject God’s love. God’s love cannot compel them to find their fulfilment in God, but there is no other way they can find fulfilment. They exclude themselves from the Source of all being and life.

:open_mouth: :open_mouth: :open_mouth:

Dude. THAT’S THE INQUISITION!!! Their whole purpose is to address doctrinal orthodoxy and heresy.

If the chief officer of (what used to be called) the Inquisition can hold universalism and get away with it (and that office is also closely connected with the position Benedict held as Ratzinger before becoming Pope), I may have to seriously reconsider joining the RCCs…

My mind is kind of blown. http://www.wargamer.com/forums/upfiles/smiley/blowup6ba.gif

I have a hard time believing he’s going any further than Balthasar, though (who didn’t strictly hold universalism, only the hope for it)…

The quotes from Cardinal Schoenborn, I would be inclined to dismiss as him not having paid enough attention to what was being said, and/or ecumenical charity. Still, super-crispy-interesting. :smiley: I have long suspected (and hoped) that universalism would be a huge factor in ecumenically reconciling the RCCs and the EOx.

The fact that they’re letting Hryniewicz go as far as he goes, is even more interesting.

(I do want to take a moment to add that while I agree with Isaac the Syrian on most every point, he shows a clearly pauce and truncated idea of justice, leading him to simply oppose mercy and justice. But this could be corrected without doing harm to the rest of what was quoted from him.)

Michael’s report on papal infallibility as (variously) understood in modern times, is extremely interesting and helpful as well. Like him, I have problems seeing any meaningful content in their application of the term–exemplified by the concept (which I hadn’t heard of before, btw) that (per Catholic members of the L/C dialogue) there are only two papal pronouncements generally regarded as infallible. Both of which happen to post-date the pronouncement of papal infallibility. And neither of which include the pronouncement of papal infallibility! So was that dogmatic assertion itself not considered infallible?!?

I’ll need to look up more official statements on this topic from the Dogmatic Sources and the most recent General Catechism.

I thought all Lutheran bodies accepted the Augusberg Confession, and it rejected Universalism.

What have they said regarding UR lately?