The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Catholic Church and Universalism

No, I haven’t. But here are some Catholic (and non-Catholic) discussions on the topic.

POPE FRANCIS AND UNIVERSALISM

Here’s a great book. That gave me a handle, on Hell as exile:

The Skeletons in God’s Closet: The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment, the Hope of Holy War

It’s compatible with Catholic theology. Where some theologians say, folks will continually contemplate their shame.

Or, as the Pope Francis article mentions:

“The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1035, promulgated by Saint Pope John Paul II)

But Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, has a different perspective on hell:

I see both views as compatible. Where hell is an exile from God. But also heaven and hell, is equally being in the presence of God.

Perhaps a solution is consider an Eastern Catholic or Byzantine church under Rome.

Let me quote from an answer or two, given in the first forum …for the Catholic perspective, on hopeful universalism:

A Summary and Some Resources

The doctrine of universal salvation (also known as Apokatastasis or Apocatastasis) has usually been considered through the centuries to be heterodox but has become orthodox. It was maintained by the Second Vatican Council and by Pope John Paul II and it is promoted in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the post-Vatican II liturgy.

It was supported by Pope John Paul II 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)

As for the statement that the author claims that the teaching is found in the catachism, here’s the rationale:

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.’

Although in reading those myself, I don’t know that they teach that universalism is true but rather that they have hope that it is. But, clearly, if the have hope that it’s true, it’s not opposition to the teaching. And much searching has failed to turn up recent statement denouncing universalism.

shareimprove this answer

answered Oct 10 '12 at 13:04



David Stratton

39.9k9112219

add a comment

up vote2down vote

Ave Maria!

A distinction needs to be made regarding Our Lord Jesus Christ’s ‘universal salvation’ (if this is the correct wording) and Universalism. Saint John Paul II made a number of comments about salvation (shown below) - and it is true Our Lord has given His life so that he may save each and every soul. But each and every soul is required to participation in this salvation, without which the soul will be damned.

All Catholic teaching must be read in continuity with the teaching of the Catholic Church throughout time. A paragraph, a sentence standing alone without a true Catholic mind can be skewed.

Saint John Paul II

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)

The above says, we do not know who is in hell. I doesn’t say, no one is in hell.

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)

Our Lord through his sacrifice has an invincible guarantee of salvation for all. But this must be seen through the teaching of the Church, we know that Our Lord taught that the Son of Man (Himself) separates the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) - Christ Died for all of humanity, but we must participate in that salvation.

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 Holy Spirit continues the work aimed at universal salvation. There isn’t any assertion of universal salvation regardless of a soul’s actions.

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).

Praying that no one should be lost and God desiring that all men are saved, doesn’t mean that all are saved. Of course the Catholic Church desires the salvation of man, that is why Jesus Christ himself founded it.

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.’

The above specifically states that we can hope in the glory of heaven, for those who love Him and do His Will. This particular quote demonstrates that we must participate in obtaining our salvation.

It must be clarified that even though there are not recent condemnation for a particular proposition, error or opinion, this doesn’t indicate that the Catholic Church now accepts it. In fact there are numerous proposition, error or opinion with regards to faith which haven’t been recently condemned. What does this mean? It means they remain condemned - the Catholic Church teaches for all time and thus something condemned yesterday is condemned today.

God Bless

shareimprove this answer

answered Aug 20 '15 at 13:11



Dan Clovis

211

  • 2

Welcome to Christianity.SE! And thanks for offering an answer. Your answer starts out very much on point with the quote from John Paul II. Then it seems to veer off a bit, the quotes and text aiming more to establish that salvation is available to everyone, which is not quite what the question is about. For some tips on writing good answers here, please see: What makes a good supported answer?. The Site Tour gives a quick overview of this site. – Lee Woofenden Aug 20 '15 at 13:19

add a comment

up vote0down vote

Yes, the Catholic Church condemns doctrinal universalism.

Hell is not empty, and this is Scriptural, for example Luke 16:19 ff.:

19 There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day.

20 And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores,

21 Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell .

23 And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom:

24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

25 And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

26 And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither .

27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren,

28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments.

29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.

31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.

v. 22 makes it clear that hell contains at least this rich man (so hell is not empty).

v. 26 makes it clear that once you are in hell, you are there for all eternity (so this rich man is still there, and thus hell is still not empty).

See the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church in Catena Aurea on St. Luke’s Gospel ch. 16, lectio 5.

Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, writes in his A Modern Catholic Dictionary (1980) on p. 553:
UNIVERSALISM, DOCTRINAL . The theory that hell is essentially a kind of purgatory in which sins are expiated, so that eventually everyone will be saved. Also called apokatastasis, it was condemned by the Church in A.D. 543, against the Origenists, who claimed that “the punishment of devils and wicked men is temporary and will eventually cease, that is to say, that devils or the ungodly will be completely restored to their original state” (Denzinger 411 ["211 Can. 9 Si quis dicit aut sentit, ad tempus esse daemonum et impiorum hominum supplicium, eiusque finem aliquando futurum, sive restitutionem et redintegrationem esse (fore) daemonum aut impiorum hominum, an. s. "]).

Also, Pius II condemned , in the letter Cum sicut of Nov. 14, 1459, " That all Christians are to be saved. " [" Et omnes Christianos salvandos esse. "]

shareimprove this answer

edited Jun 18 '14 at 21:20

answered Jun 17 '14 at 5:36



Geremia

17.2k21951

  • 2

This question is specifically asking “If so, when where and why was it [universalism] condemned?” Can you provide any references for how Catholics have used this passage to condemn universalism? – curiousdanniiJun 17 '14 at 7:47

add a comment

up vote-1down vote

The Catholic Church condemns universalism.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity"

Saint Leonard of Port Maurice [A.D. 1676-1751], on the fewness of the saved: “After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he [Suarez] wrote, ‘The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians [Catholics], there are more damned souls than predestined souls.’ Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone. Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, “Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom.” Saint Anselm declares, “There are few who are saved.” Saint Augustine states even more clearly, “Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned.” The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: “Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence.”

The Vatican II counter-church does not condemn it.

Oh wow, thanks for all this! I’ll be digesting this over next couple of days. I am familiar with some, but looking forward to processing it all further. You’ve been so incredibly helpful, and I thank you.

I believe in “hell” to the extent that sinners will be righteously judged for sins committed in this life, and even believe that repentance post mortem will not necessarily change the nature of God’s judgment for each individual person. My biggest sticking point is the nature of the judgment, and don’t believe eternity to be “forever” or “everlasting”. I believe that God’s unchanging nature and the Scripture’s consistent vision of universal worship of God, would not allow for punishment without mercy or end. I believe God will be ALL IN ALL, no exceptions. And that God Himself would not settle for anything less.

As I read through the Catechism, I’m trying to figure out if I can squeeze this understanding of “hell” between the lines somehow… which I’ve been able to thus far, but I’ve just finished paragraph 1022, describing damnation as “immediate and EVERLASTING”. Ouch.

A Catholic friend told me not too long ago, that when the teaching of the church is hard to understand or even believe, we can in some sense “receive” it, with a humble attitude and a desire to search it out further. That said, I also do not agree that hell is self-exclusive (paragraph 1033), because I see no Biblical precedence for this, but I am willing to “receive” this teaching from the church I think. Still so much I’m processing…

Now on to digest all this good information. Thanks for taking the time!!

No problem. This is an example, of what the Roman Catholic Church calls - having a dialogue. And I’m happy to share what I know - in the Christian faith. And also in meditation, ancient healing modalities and spiritual healing.

Even if I convert to Orthodoxy (which is over 90% certain)…I will always look upon the RC church…as a church having valid sacraments, holy orders, saints, and monasteries. And will find inspiration in Tibetan Yoga, Zen, Raja yoga and Native American spirituality.

Even if we view hell as exile…and heaven and hell, as equally being in the presence of God…the door always remains (hopefully) open - to repent, purify and reenter the Kingdom of God. You might find this article on Hopeful Apocatastasis helpful.

Hi HSMom!
I just started an account to engage with your questions and concerns. I’ve thought a lot about universalism and I reached a stunning conclusion: everybody is wrong! :scream: (of course, that means I’m the only one who’s right…) Joking aside, I’ve come to this one iron clad dilemma: there’s only one source of eternal life, and that is the life of God. The life of God is the Love that flows between the Father and the Son: the Holy Spirit. Life and Love in God are the same thing (and should be for us too). It’s not capricious then that, if God wanted to share His Life, He was bound to create beings capable of being loved and loving in return. In other words, only beings endowed with free will can share in God’s Life… Oh, man, it’s too long! I’ll write a blog about it and send you the link, if you’re still interested. But, the bottom line is: we were made to share the Love-Life of God, so free will remains, and will always remain indispensable. A God that overwhelms the soul without the soul consenting to being overwhelmed will preclude free will, thus precluding the very possibility of Love (and therefore, Life). On the other hand, there’s no possible life (particularly eternal life) separated from the Only Source of Life. Therefore, Hell is a place of Death. There’s abundant scriptural basis for the affirmation that the only eternal possibilities are Life (with God), or Death. There’s almost incontrovertible scriptural evidence for the affirmation that Resurrection is NOT universal (otherwise why would Christ promise to resurrect those who believe in Him and eat His Body and Blood), and I’m thoroughly persuaded that the soul, though created to enjoy eternal life, will perish if it rejects the Love God offers to ALL. That’s why He died on the cross! He desperately needed that we believe and accept His Love! (Not for His sake, of course!, but for ours) He Himself said it: “There’s no greater love than He who gives His Life”, which sounds pretty much like saying: “there’s nothing more I can do to make you understand how much I love you, so you’ll believe in my love, love me in return, and thus live forever, because the last thing I want is for you to die forever!”

This is an old thread and I hadn’t previously noticed these statements by HF.

HF, take a look at the teachings of Hany Mikhail of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and you will see just how very different the theology of the Orthodox Church is, from that of both the Roman Catholic Church and that of Protestantism.

Hi, Paidion. I have been in the Protestant world, most of my life. Particularly with the Lutherans, Anglicans and Quakers. And occasionally, with non-denominational churches. So I have a pretty good idea, how Protestants see things.

I also had lifelong friendships, with both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (via my Greek Orthodox friend Dora). Via two years in the Peace Corps, teaching at a Catholic mission school. And I’m currently an Eastern Orthodox prospect (via an American branch of Orthodoxy) and a RC - RCIA attendee. And the chief Orthodox priest, was a former Roman Catholic priest. And the deacon is a convert to Orthodox from Roman Catholicism.

So I believe I have a good, overall understanding…of how Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism - sees theology and the church. Having said that, I believe that Eastern Orthodoxy - is the closest, to the historical church. But I respect all my Roman Catholic and Protestant friends - both here and elsewhere.

I also have a pretty good idea, how the Native Americans, Islam, the Bahia faith, Hinduism, Buddhism and Mormons - see things.

Since you are a Greek language scholar, Paidion…you would appreciate the non-denominational site - Got Question’s take - on the great schism. Notice how more flexible Greek is/ was than Latin.

Given these factors, it is not surprising that very few Western theologians spoke Greek, and instead wrote and spoke primarily in Latin. They did not have access to, nor could they read, the writings of the Eastern theologians. Because of this, most Western theology was based on a few key Latin theologians, whereas the East had numerous Greek theologians and did not have to focus on any particular theologian’s teaching.

The flexibility of the Greek language (it had approximately ten times the vocabulary of Latin) allowed for more expressive and deeper writings. The decline of literacy in the West led to the clergy being the primary teaching authority. This is contrasted with the East where general education and more universities created a literate populace, and thus more lay theologians who played an active role in the church.

They go on to say this:

The growing list of differences between East and West simply exacerbated the tensions. One of the most striking differences was that as new people were evangelized in the West, they had to use Latin as their liturgical and ecclesiastical language, while looking to Rome for leadership. On the other hand, missionaries from the East translated the Bible into the language of the people. When the new churches in the East became mature, they became self-governing and administratively independent from their mother church. In the West, Rome began to require all clergy to be celibate; whereas, in the East they retained married clergy.

But I’ll watch the video (s).