Hopeful Universalism - I Must Leave The Forum

[St_Michael]

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!!

[Joe121589]

Why are you leaving?

[St_Michael]

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

[Joe121589]

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.

[St_Michael]

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

[BPW]

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!

[St_Michael]

Fantastic!! I’m not alone here then!

[JasonPratt]

The addiction might be a problem; the hopeful instead of certain isn’t. 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.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

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:

“If plan A doesn’t work, the alphabet has 25 more letters - 204 if you’re in Japan.” – Claire Cook

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):

Over the years I’ve posted on many topics and I’ve always appreciated the way in which those I’m connected to have debated them in a spirit of goodwill - even when they strongly disagree with me. Until this week there was only one exception to that. Any time I post in support of Israel I can bank on losing 10 to 15 connections within 24 hours. But I can now add a second topic to that list - criticism of Trump. Two such posts, this week, have seen a drop of 20 connections. It would appear that those who back him don’t want their fairy-tale to be spoiled by the facts…

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?

[nimblewill]

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

[St_Michael]

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

[anon47460357]

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

I think this statement is (fortunately!) incorrect. 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.

[St_Michael]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia at Catholic Answers:

In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.

Roman Catholics do hold to heterodox beliefs.

[anon12438761]

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.

[LLC]

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.

[anon47460357]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia at Catholic Answers:

In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.

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.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

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.

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

But maybe it is all just superstition

[St_Michael]

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:

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of which human beings are effectively involved in it.

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.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

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:

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of which human beings are effectively involved in it.

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.

Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. (General Audience of July 28, 1999)

Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever ‘clad in a robe dipped in blood’ (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation. (Message of John Paul II to the Abbess General of the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget)

If the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is to convince the world precisely of this ‘judgment,’ undoubtedly he does so to continue Christ’s work aimed at universal salvation. We can therefore conclude that in bearing witness to Christ, the Paraclete is an assiduous (though invisible) advocate and defender of the work of salvation, and of all those engaged in this work. He is also the guarantor of the definitive triumph over sin and over the world subjected to sin, in order to free it from sin and introduce it into the way of salvation. (General Audience of May 24, 1989)

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

1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved.’

[anon47460357]

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:

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of which human beings are effectively involved in it.

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.

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. )