The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Official Anglicanism, Hell, and Hope of Universalism

“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?