« Jesus and Baha'ullah | Main | The Illogic of Sin »

March 29, 2006

Thoughts Skirting Universalism

First, it should be perfectly clear that Holy Mother Church in no uncertain terms condemned a certain brand of Universalism. (Mr. Sullivan disagrees with me on this, and I acknowledge that, but respectfully disagree with his interpretation of the anathemas.) The type condemned is that which say that at the end of time God will be reconciled even with the fallen Angels and all shall be restored to his good graces. There is a Greek word for this that I have to look up every time I refer to it and the thought has been attributed to Origen, although perhaps incorrectly.

The Church, wisely, is silent on the question of the disposition of any given soul, and although theologians speculate, the Church remains silent on the question of whether or not all people will be saved. There is certainly a good deal of scriptural evidence that can be argued either way on this point.

However, one reason that I am Catholic is that this door remains ajar. Admittedly, it takes a person of strong constitution to deny that there are people who are capable of saying no to God out of sheer cussedness. I believe this is possible, but I do not believe that it is common. Moreover, I do not hold with those who say that a great many shall be condemned. I know that the visionaries of Fatima seemed to see this, but Fatima, being private revelation is not binding on anyone except, perhaps, the visionaries themselves.

The Catholic Church is agnostic on the question of who is saved and who is not, even while remaining adamant that Hell exists and contains at least the fallen angels, and that unfortunate part of humanity that rejects God's mercy and salvation.

Here are some points that I often reflect on. I have no answers, because I can argue back and forth using scripture, theology, logic, common sense, intuition and any number of other even less effective means. Is God's arm too short, or His grace too weak to save those He wills to save? And who does He will to save--only the remnant, the smallest portion of humanity? If the latter, what sort of God is He, who claims to be love, and yet out of hand condemns the majority of His creation to an eternity of punishment? What is the meaning of love, if we can say in one breath God is love, and in the next, but the majority of humanity is damned? What must a person do to be saved if God is so busy keeping track of all of our sins to send us on the express freight to Hell? And what does this say of the image of God as father?

I will suggest answers to none of these, because there is a perfectly legitimate series of counter questions that could be asked: If God is simple and purely Holy, how can He abide what is unholy? How does perfect justice allow the unrepentant sinner to come to the same end as those who lived lives of forbearance and service to others? The list goes on, but I don't ponder that list nearly as much, and there are better people to ask and answer those questions. I point them out merely to indicate that the question is not so cut and dried as I would like it to be.

Posted by Steven Riddle at March 29, 2006 9:11 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.stblogs.org/scgi-bin/mv/mt-tb.cgi/18356

Comments

apokatastasis.

Posted by: Bill Cork at March 29, 2006 9:52 PM

What is the meaning of love, if we can say in one breath God is love, and in the next, but the majority of humanity is damned?

What about four? If we say in the next breath that exactly four humans are damned? Would the meaning of love be different in that case, than if the majority of humanity is damned? Is love proportionalistic? Does it mean "the greatest good for the greatest number"?

Posted by: Tom at March 29, 2006 11:10 PM

Hell is doctrinally unfathomable to me (if I had a son and he was running away from home & I knew I'd never see him again, I'd physically stop him from running away) but then God's ways are far above my ways and I'm constantly trumped by the fact that Jesus taught us of to be very wary of Hell.

I assume it's going to be an unsolvable issue and perhaps that's as it should be: there are going to be unsolvable issues that I have to simply trust and let go of having to know the answer.

Posted by: TSO at March 29, 2006 11:48 PM

I should've just said "unfathomable" rather than "doctrinally unfathomable" (whatever that means). I accept Hell's existence because the Church teaches it.

Posted by: TSO at March 29, 2006 11:51 PM

Dear Tom,

As a matter of fact, the proportion makes a difference, not in God's love but in the comprehensibility of the prospect. If you were to say to me that there were precisely four who somehow eluded God's grasp, who were stubborn enough to say no until the very end, I would have no very great problem with that.

If you were to say to me that 80% of humanity managed to say no to God's grace--or as the number has been suggested up until recently 98% (all of humanity that was not part of a given confession through all of time), I would say that love, under those conditions is no better than a postmodernist construct.

Love is not proportional, but it is conceivable that 4 people, or even more could stand fast against God's love until the end. I could believe that, and while it raises certain questions about God's sovereign will, it does not confound love.

But to lose a majority of those you claim to love bespeaks either a failing love or an impotent will. Or perhaps there is a third alternative I'm not admitting. But I find it hard to envision a third reality that still allows for the damnation of a majority of humankind.

That doesn't mean I am correct merely that I am persuaded that for the vast majority of humankind, the invitation to love is ultimately irresistable. I hope it to be true, and I even believe it to be true. If T.H. White's proportions are correct, it very probably is true.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at March 30, 2006 12:11 AM

Dear TSO,

Of course, you are correct. Tom and I could go round and round and round about numbers and argue like Lot with God and still come no closer to the reality that we will only know provided we have the grace to experience the beatific vision. But I do struggle to reconcile a God who gives us Jesus Christ with one who would cast off as much of humanity as some of the faithful would have us believe. It is precisely this critique of God that Heinlein makes in his book Job ( a feeble attempt at justifying his atheism or agnosticism or whatever was his philosophy of the moment.)

Nevertheless, Jesus does warn us to fear the possibility of Hell, and with good reason. While it is difficult for the normal person to resist the lure of God's love, it is certainly possible, and it becomes more possible as we become fuller of ourselves and less attentive to God.

No, I would like to be a universalist, but I just can't quite convince myself that there are not some who would gladly say with Satan, "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." They will have been deceived, of course, but still, I believe that there are some human wills strong enough to take that step and resist grace to the last.

Fortunately, as you say, the veil is drawn over the actual fact, and so I do not need to trouble myself over whether the possibility I suggest is frequently, or infrequently, or never the reality.
As you so wisely point out, sometimes not knowing is a perfectly acceptable state of being, in fact, an exalted state of being.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at March 30, 2006 12:19 AM

As a matter of fact, the proportion makes a difference, not in God's love but in the comprehensibility of the prospect.

Okay, it makes a difference to you and your ease of comprehension. But if it's just a question of what you would have no very great problem with, we aren't really talking about the meaning of love, are we?

Is love such a thing that one can fail to be loved by someone one loves? If not, then wahoo! If so, then the proportion of those damned tells us a great deal more about the perversity of humanity than about the meaning of love.

But to lose a majority of those you claim to love bespeaks either a failing love or an impotent will.

Well, let's be careful. The Bible doesn't refer to damnation in terms of God "losing" people. The sheep who becomes lost, is found. Those who are damned? "I tell you, I do not know you."

The very way we express the question can reveal problems in how we think of it, and I think to express damnation as a failure on God's part is to start with things too muddled to expect them to get any clearer.

More generally, the questions you're asking here seem to come from the perspective that God's love can be measured by how we respond to Him. Isn't it the other way around?

Posted by: Tom at March 30, 2006 3:59 PM

Incidentally, I have no opinion about the actual proportion of the saved. It may be close enough to the truth to excuse the joke that the only two outcomes that would really surprise me today are if everyone is saved and if I am not.

Posted by: Tom at March 30, 2006 4:03 PM

Dear Tom,

Two points.

(1) Nowhere did I speak of "my comprehension" but rather "comprensibility" a quality that is divorced from my own ability to comprehend. I might not comprehend, but the object may be comprehensible. My contention was clearly that lack of proportionality says something about whether or not love itself is comprehensible not whether or not I could understand it. When 99% of my audience understands me perfectly and 1% does not, I could lay the blame for the failure at the feet of those who do not understand me. When 80% of my audience fails to understand me, clearly I am at fault. The question of proportionality is directly related to the question of who is at fault.

(2) Please explain to me how your cautious rewording makes any better the conditions described. It would not seem to matter what words or actions I use to reject the majority of my offspring--either condition would suggest either a defect in love or a defect in strength. Frankly, if it really were an either/or, I'd prefer the latter. I don't think it is, but I also don't think this makes the argument for or against univeralism any stronger.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at March 30, 2006 7:11 PM

My prior, Fr Richard Conrad OP explains 'hell' from a thorough Thomist perspective and he writes in his book, 'The Catholic Faith - a Dominican's Vision':

"Those who love God are on their way to life with Him. Those who are in a state of mortal sin are on their way to hell, to what can be called 'eternal punishment'. Hell is a possible fate because God may allow us to condemn ourselves to the eternal loss of Himself. We cannot deny the possibility of hell, because we cannot demand that God draw everyone securely to Himself; life with God is not a due, but a gift He delights to give. And we know that we can reject God; most if not all of us are aware of times when we have seriously broken His law. So we must say that God could leave someone in a state of rejection of Him, while we must firmly hope that in His love He will draw us to Himself securely. At death, our souls pass beyond the possibilities of change that are inherent in this world of time; so any one who dies rejecting God remains without the vision of God forever, wrapped up in his false goals and burning with frustration. If we embroider that bleak picture with images of lakes of burning sulpher, it is only to remind us how foolish it is to reject God, the only fully satisfying Joy, in favour of some limited or fancied good."

Posted by: Br Lawrence Lew, OP at March 31, 2006 6:07 AM

Please excuse me for intruding on this discussion -- but Tom said, "the questions you're asking here seem to come from the perspective that God's love can be measured by how we respond to him. Isn't it the other way around?" Doesn't this verse (Isaiah 43:25)affirm Tom's question: "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." And then, there are those that He doesn't know, and thus, unable to blotteth out transgressions.

P.S.: I would BOLD the words "for mine own sake" if I knew how to do it.

Posted by: psalm 41 at March 31, 2006 12:35 PM

Dear Steven,
In my heart I want you to be right -- from reading the Bible -- Jesus talks about hell more than anyone else in the NT -- I don't think you are right. But I continue to pray multiple times daily, "Jesus, forgive us of our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of your mercy."

God bless you and yours.

Posted by: psalm 41 at March 31, 2006 1:52 PM

Dear Psalm 41

I prepared a long e-mail in response to this comment, but did not send it. If you would like, I shall do so.

But the gist of it would be that there are several ways to read the same scriptures and come to different conclusions. I choose to side with the Early Eastern fathers whose opinion resembles that which I have articulated. I know that there are other ways to read and believe.

We will amicably stand on opposite sides of this divide.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at March 31, 2006 2:28 PM

Steven:

My contention was clearly that lack of proportionality says something about whether or not love itself is comprehensible not whether or not I could understand it.

Oh. Okay. Then I disagree with your contention.

It would not seem to matter what words or actions I use to reject the majority of my offspring....

You again illustrate my point by putting the matter entirely backward.

Damnation is not God rejecting us, it's us rejecting Him.

Posted by: Tom at March 31, 2006 6:06 PM

Dear Tom,

And you miss my point

You again illustrate my point by putting the matter entirely backward.

Damnation is not God rejecting us, it's us rejecting Him.

I never said otherwise. What I did say was that it was rather a poor or impotent Almighty Father that would have a majority of His offspring reject Him. Not much of a sovereign will if you can't rein in the troops. Not really much omnipotence if all you can reclaim is 2% of your flock.

That is the point I am making. It is hard to conceive of an Almight God with an ultimately loving intent unable to save 98% of those He would save. Doesn't speak well for omnipotence or for love.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at March 31, 2006 7:01 PM

Steven:

You leave me with no choice but to take this to a blog post.

If I wind up diagramming it, let it be on your head.

Posted by: Tom at March 31, 2006 10:22 PM

Dear Tom,

It occurred to me that I was explaining this from the reverse side. When I get access back to my blog (I'm locked out now) I'll try turning it around and trying to give a reason for the hope that is within me that may make better sense.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at April 1, 2006 6:57 PM

I have to say that I am more and more convinced of a tightly packed Hell.

When TSO says "if I had a son and he was running away from home & I knew I'd never see him again, I'd physically stop him from running away"

But God's love is different than that. It is because He loves us that He has given us Hell if we so choose it (I stand with Dante on this one: on the gates of Hell part of the inscription reads "God's love made me."). We are destined to be more than simply marionettes. Sure, God does not want us to run away. And sure He could prevent it without raising much more than a finger.

However, we were created to be something more than marionettes. We make choices that are eternal, and God respects that and allows us to get exactly what we desire. His Grace restores our humanity: our ability to choose Him or to choose Hell.

If we were all to be reconciled at the end, we would be no better off than the dumb beasts and wouldn't be worth saving, which we know is not true at all.

Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at April 3, 2006 2:44 PM

Dear Erik,

You make this strong statement:

If we were all to be reconciled at the end, we would be no better off than the dumb beasts and wouldn't be worth saving, which we know is not true at all.

And then, like those aggravating writers of mathematical textbooks, you end with, "the proof is left to the student."

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. If we are all reconciled then we have all come to terms with God's sovereignty, which is an admission on our part. And why wouldn't we be worthy of saving under those conditions. I don't understand the logic of your objection. Popularity does not make a thing bad in itself. If everyone finally managed somehow to listen to God, how does that demean humanity.

It is this kind of rhetorical flourish that always dismays me in these conversations. I'm not certain that I could hear it at this point, but if I am to be moved I must at least hear the evidentiary support for the statements. If I am to come to the truth, I must do so on more than inference and rhetoric. So, if you're willing, I would like to hear the reasoning behind why humanity would be less worthy of salvation if all of humanity were eventually reconciled with God.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at April 3, 2006 2:55 PM

It is not in the popularity that would somehow cheapen it, but in the fact that it would no longer be truly freely chosen. We have the right to choose to consent or reject, as we are rational beings. For that right to mean anything, it must come with some sort of rational end associated with each choice.

I can sit down with my daughter's stuffed animals and make them all bow down to me, call me whatever I want them to call me (using whatever voices I choose to give them), etc. Obviously this sort of thing would not be any evidence of my love for them, rather it would be proof of my own insane desire. This would make me needy, and yet we know that God does not need anything.

Obviously a little stretching is involved in looking at inanimate objects here, but if we look to the human person as having no choice but to bow and call God wonderful and great, etc., we have reduced him to little more than the aforementioned Teddy Bears, and, even worse, we have turned God into something needy.

Life has meaning. Our choice of whether or not to embrace or reject God is important and has eternal consequences. God's love for us is constant. He does not depend on us. So, if we reject the love that is there, the love, which is eternal, coming from an eternal and constant source, is manifested in some other way. That can either be some sort of coerced reconciliation, or that Eternal Love can manifest itself in a little spot in Hell, reserved for our particular mode of rejecting Him.

Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at April 3, 2006 4:33 PM

First, it should be perfectly clear that Holy Mother Church in no uncertain terms condemned a certain brand of Universalism.

OK, let's see the proof of this (quote council and cannon). Was it an ecumenical council or just a synod? Did the condemnation really mean what you think it means ?

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at April 3, 2006 4:34 PM

Dear Erik,

But you posit beyond what I suggest here. I would suggest that any salvation must be by choice, but that God is so insistent in his offering of opportunities that it takes a very hardened person indeed not to take up the offer.

I would agree with you if the suggestion were that everyone despite their choices is universally saved and brought into Heaven. It makes a mockery of heaven and of belief. However, if the sinner repents, even if it is only at point of death and in the direst of circumstances, God can rescue that sinner who, regardless of the circumstances has taken the offer. That person may have a great deal of time in purgatory (or may not, depending upon the divine judgment and mercy). But that person would be saved.

So we are agreed, a salvation that simply ignores our choices is makes a mockery of both salvation and of free-will. But universalism does not suggest that anyone has salvation forced upon them. At least as I perceive it, the individual MUST make the choice.

God is so compassionate, loving, kind, and merciful, so attentive and constantly calling and edging us toward His grace that I think it an extraordinary person who could pull against that tide and refuse His graces. However, I do not preclude that it might happen, I just pray that is does not, that all God's children may return to Him by their own free wills and by His grace.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at April 3, 2006 4:56 PM

Dear Chris,

I know that you and I disagree on the matter of the council in question; however, I have found no other reputable source that supports your contention, so I'll stick with what I believe to be defined Church teachings for now. I believe you discussed this on your blog some time back, and I respect your opinion on the matter; however, we will just continue to disagree because I do believe the anathemas of the Council to be binding, you find some question as to their magisterial authority.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at April 3, 2006 5:03 PM

Steven,

Can you quote the council and canon, because I'd like to have another look at them myself.

Thanks and God Bless
Chris

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at April 3, 2006 6:34 PM

I think it an extraordinary person who could pull against that tide and refuse His graces. However, I do not preclude that it might happen, I just pray that is does not, that all God's children may return to Him by their own free wills and by His grace.

Steven, this is where, I think we are diverging. I tend to see the flow as the opposite, with the almost overwhelming current being the one that goes down. God offers us His hand almost every moment, but most will ignore it, be so absorbed in the color of their swimming costume that they don't notice the need for it, or even to take the hand, climb on the shore, and then jump right back in the soup.

Now, in spite of my basic pessimism, dare we hope that all men might be saved? I think we better, and we had better pray that it happens, but as far as speculating on human nature and the census of Heaven and Hell, I imagine that Hell must be pretty crowded, and the extraordinary person ends up saved.

Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at April 3, 2006 7:34 PM

Dear Chris,

Here is an excerpt from an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent Site:

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.

Please let's don't rehash the details of council and the degree of the statement. We've done this many times and each time wind up on opposite sides of the camp. I know that many people of good will question the authority of the anathemas so articulated; however, I do not, delivered as they were at an ecumenical council.

What I will posit is that it condemns only a very narrow definition of the Apokatastasis; there appears to be a similar doctrine held by St. Gregory of Nyssa which was not explicitly condemned in this fashion. But I am not scholar enough to tell the two of them apart, and frankly, I don't much care. I will not brand others heretics based on this issue and will choose to disagree cordially.

shalom,

Steven

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at April 3, 2006 8:41 PM

Two comments:

1. Though I WISH it were true it just seems like wishful thinking. And wishful thinking that goes against the obvious meaning of the Scriptures (I'm not saying they can't be made to read another way, just that that's not the OBVIOUS reading.) I mean, Jesus said, Watch out or you'll go to Hell. Better that that guy were never born. The place of Gehenna and the one where the Worm Dies Not. We're clearly meant to BELIEVE and ACT as though Hell is real. And real means people go there. If you take the words and TRADITION of the Church seriously, you believe people go to Hell. A serious possibility that may never get real...that just leads us to think that it's not a serious possibility. And we're clearly NOT meant to think that. The net result of being scared to think Hell is something that people get into is the Practical End of Hell. And THAT's likely to lead to damnation, or Jesus wouldn't have warned us of that. Even if it's true, you'd better not believe it.

2. I THINK it's heresy. Not DEFINED heresy, but back in the days of the early Fathers you appeal to, people weren't frightened off calling a spade a spade just because it wasn't yet a DEFINED spade. Ol' Athanasius and Cyril from Alexandria verbally tarred-and-feathered heretics before they were defined as such. So, I say: I THINK, begging your pardon and that of other figures I love, like Balthasar and perhaps even Wojtyla and Ratzinger--I THINK it's a heresy... So, I think it's bad news and folks should watch out before tapping their feet to that siren song. You can believe what you want, but I don't feel as if I can really entertain it, in the end, because I think I'd be a heretic if I did.

Posted by: Jeff at April 3, 2006 10:32 PM

Steven,

The Council of Constantinople in 543 was not an ecumenical council. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not say it was an ecumenical council. See See Apocatastasis.

The Second Council of Constantinople 553 was an ecumenical council.

The one in 543 was just a Synod of bishops.

See here for a list of all the Ecumenical Councils and all their decrees.

See here for the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople.

The first ecumenical council at Constantinople was in 381. See here.

Hope this helps.

God Bless

Posted by: Chris Sullivan at April 3, 2006 11:23 PM

Dear Jeff,

I must say that your naming the thing a heresy is an example of what you accuse me of--wishful thinking. It has not been so named in two millenia, nor is there any evidence that it is likely to (in fact, quite the contrary, see below). That in itself should be food for thought, because as you pointed out those fathers of the early Church were far more likely to name something for what it was.

Also, you might try looking in your catechism, you might be profoundly shocked by what you find there.

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."

If Holy Mother Church did not think the hope was valid, then the prayer would be worse than futile, it would be a lie in itself. The Church herself in perfect holiness prays for this end, it must therefore be an end that it is valid to hope for.

Go as your conscience leads you, but please refrain from using the word "heresy" in conjunction with a hope which, through her prayers, the Holy Catholic Church has declared licit.

Mind you, it is a hope--not a declaration that the thing itself is true, but that we may pray in hope that it may come to pass. Not only may we do so, but we are encouraged to do so in the various prayers of the Liturgy of the Hours and (perhaps) Holy Mass (I would honestly have to study this more to make the statement without qualification).

So you may think it is a heresy, but if so, your mind is at variance with the mind of the Church in the matter. Nevertheless, I do not read the Catechism as saying that we are required to hope for the salvation of all, and so I suppose, you are off the hook for having to consider the idea at all. Nevertheless, those of us who do consider it do so on very good authority. Believe it or not, I try very hard to think with the mind of the Church. I'm not always successful, but I do try.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at April 4, 2006 12:07 AM

I am not so much afraid of the end of the practical doctrine of hell as I am of those who would make of it a test of orthodoxy and who would use it to make a dividing line that the Church herself has not drawn.

That is definitely where the problem comes in. I doubt that Fr. Feeney would have been in any trouble at all if he had simply speculated his ultra-rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesia... It was painting it as doctrinal that got him in hot water (and stubbornly refusing correction from the bishop).

As to Ol' Athanasius and Cyril from Alexandria verbally tarred-and-feathered heretics before they were defined as such.

I can think of many cases where Saints tarred and feathered other saints in incredibly strong language. I am wary of using this as evidence of the Church's final pronouncement of any issue.

Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at April 4, 2006 12:25 AM

Hi All,

Erik, being a Californian, intercepted my reply in one of several acerbic incarnations before I landed on the finished response. His quotation above is from a reply that I refashioned or deleted or did something to--so it was really here--it isn't just an overdoes of seared foie gras. :-D

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at April 4, 2006 12:31 AM

"Go as your conscience leads you, but please refrain from using the word "heresy" in conjunction with a hope which, through her prayers, the Holy Catholic Church has declared licit."

I think the force of this prayer is that we may pray for all men living and dead whose fate is not yet decided. Even when Our Lady showed a vision of Hell filled with numberless souls to the young Seers, she told them to pray that God would "lead all souls to heaven." To take these words as evidence of some kind of universalism is a perversion of language.

I do not agree, I CANNOT agree that it is perforce some kind of sin against charity to suppose that there are heresies not yet defined and to say so. I know this attitude is common today, but I think it is deeply mistaken.

I see the dangers of people shouting "heresy" at each other with nothing more than private opinion to go on, but there is a danger, too, in seeing the Faith in juridical--rather than substantial--terms. Was St. Cyril WRONG in calling Nestorius a heretic before he was defined to be one? Surely not. Neither were those people who called Luther a heretic before Trent on numberless grounds. Trent came ABOUT because people already KNEW that Luther was a heretic on many counts.

I think--I stress that I THINK--that what you are saying is heresy. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I also stress that I direct that first and foremost as a question to MYSELF: COULD I be persuaded of this and still be a Catholic? I think I could not, because I think it's of the essence of the Faith that Hell is a real place for men and that they do go there. One must ask these questions of onesself and not simply ASSUME that because something is not defined it is therefore open for question in any but the most positivistic and juridical sense.

So, I can stress my fallibility and hesitancy on this issue and point out that it is not in origin a personal attack or a judgment of others. But while I cannot judge the subjective state of YOUR soul and wouldn't want to (you seem like a wonderful guy trying hard to be a good Catholic), I also cannot just agree that this is only my opinion BECAUSE it hasn't been defined. Things are defined BECAUSE they are of the Faith, they don't become part of the Faith because they are defined.

I don't at ALL mind if you disagree and try to refute me. But I simply can't accept your request to refrain from putting the question about heresy and giving a preliminary answer as somehow dispostive on the basis of charity and humility. No, there is SUBSTANCE to the Faith and we must defend what we understand that substance to be. We are subject always to the CORRECTION of the Church on this matter. But the idea that heresy is CREATED by definition of the Church is simply a mistake and one that prevents Catholics from defending--perhaps in this case from understanding--the Truth.

Posted by: Jeff at April 4, 2006 2:22 PM

Dear Jeff,

I won't debate the issue with you. You claim that those who HOPE that all will be saved deny the express meaning of scripture and I say that you deny the explicit meaning of what the catechism teaches.

Please do not post again. Write to me privately if you wish to continue the discussion. I will feel impelled to delete the next post you offer with the word heresy in it. This is firebrand speech and a method of intimidation that I will neither countenance and support. I am sorry that you could not see fit to comply with my previous request. Courtesy would indicate that should you wish to continue the discussion you would take it off-line. This is the final request you will receive.

shalom,

Steven

Posted by: Steven Riddle at April 4, 2006 2:35 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Please enter the security code you see here