What is the Catholic, Orthodox or your own Protestant denominational view on universalism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
It would be particularly good to hear from Catholics or Orthodox Christians because we don't often hear their views on this subject. If you're Protestant, like me, and you'd like to contribute, would you please only give what you believe is the established view of your denomination, if it has one, rather than your own personal viewpoint.

I'll kick off by quoting a couple of, admittedly pro-universalist, views by members of the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox church that I read recently. It would of course be good to hear any viewpoint, whether that's pro, anti or neutral.

EO representative:

"There's no issue with Universalism in Orthodoxy, it's a permitted view. At least one of the Cappadocian Fathers who are highly revered in our Church, St. Gregory of Nyssa, was an avowed Universalist, and the theologoumenon of St. Isaac the Syrian is very convincing on the subject!"

Catholic rep:

"Catholics can believe all will be saved. We believe that "hell" as a state of rejection of God's love is at least theoretically possible; but there's nothing that says we have to believe anyone will be in that state.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Spe Salvi about how most people have an underlying openness to God, and "our defilement does not stain us forever" as long as we continue to reach out toward God.

It's a teaching of the Church that mitigating circumstances can reduce personal culpability for sin; and "mortal sin" actually requires 3 elements which include full knowledge and full consent, but it's not infallibly defined what those specifically mean. So along the line's of DBH's reasoning, I would say that since it's irrational to reject God, it's possible that no one is actually, in the right mind, intending to reject God as God truly is.

As others noted, Pope Francis has encouraged Fr. Richard Rohr, whose teachings strongly imply universalism and Pope Francis has straight-up said "the Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, not just Catholics, everybody!""


Here's a list of how I'd summarise the thread so far:

Catholic Anti (but current Pope Pro)
Eastern Orthodox Neutral
Lutheran Anti
Church of England Anti
Southern Baptist Anti
Pentecostal Anti
Anglo-Catholic Anti
Non-Denom Anti so far
Coptic Orthodox Anti
Seventh Day Adventist Anti
Primitive Baptist Universalists Pro
 
Last edited:
Hmm
Hmm
Attributions aren't required for the representatives because I am not claiming any authority for them. As I made clear, they are simply "a couple of, admittedly pro-universalist, views by members of the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox church that I read recently". I found their comments interesting and a good way to get a conversation going.
Upvote 0
Hmm
Hmm
Thanks for the info about the Primitive Baptist Universalists. I've added them to the list.
Upvote 0
All4Christ
All4Christ
Mind adding attributions for the representatives you shared above? The EO one doesn’t have any information about who said it, where the person said it, etc. The quote is not representative of Orthodox official teaching, and it is important to identify who actually said it.

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,662
7,880
63
Martinez
✟906,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It would be particularly good to hear from Catholics or Orthodox Christians because we don't often hear their views on this subject. If you're Protestant, like me, and you'd like to contribute, would you please only give what you believe is the established view of your denomination, if it has one, rather than your own personal viewpoint.

I'll kick off by quoting a couple of, admittedly pro-universalist, views by members of the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox church that I read recently. It would of course be good to hear any viewpoint, whether that's pro, anti or neutral.

EO representative:

"There's no issue with Universalism in Orthodoxy, it's a permitted view. At least one of the Cappadocian Fathers who are highly revered in our Church, St. Gregory of Nyssa, was an avowed Universalist, and the theologoumenon of St. Isaac the Syrian is very convincing on the subject!"

Catholic rep:

"Catholics can believe all will be saved. We believe that "hell" as a state of rejection of God's love is at least theoretically possible; but there's nothing that says we have to believe anyone will be in that state.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Spe Salvi about how most people have an underlying openness to God, and "our defilement does not stain us forever" as long as we continue to reach out toward God.

It's a teaching of the Church that mitigating circumstances can reduce personal culpability for sin; and "mortal sin" actually requires 3 elements which include full knowledge and full consent, but it's not infallibly defined what those specifically mean. So along the line's of DBH's reasoning, I would say that since it's irrational to reject God, it's possible that no one is actually, in the right mind, intending to reject God as God truly is.

As others noted, Pope Francis has encouraged Fr. Richard Rohr, whose teachings strongly imply universalism and Pope Francis has straight-up said "the Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, not just Catholics, everybody!""
My own personal view? Possibly the number one growing stumbling block in Christendom today, leading to error. Blessings.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PsaltiChrysostom

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2018
1,047
1,003
Virginia
✟70,166.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy is unflinching in its condemnation of universalist heresy:

To them who accept and transmit . . . that there is an end to the torment or a restoration again of creation and of human affairs, meaning by such teachings that the Kingdom of the Heavens is entirely perishable and fleeting, whereas the Kingdom is eternal and indissoluble as Christ our God Himself taught and delivered to us, and as we have ascertained from the entire Old and New Scripture, that the torment is unending and the Kingdom everlasting to them who by such teachings both destroy themselves and become agents of eternal condemnation to others: Anathema! Anathema! Anathema!
Synodikon of Orthodoxy
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
My own personal view?

Thanks, but I didn't ask that. I specifically asked the opposite so I don't understand this sentence. I'd like to learn about the views of different traditions.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy is unflinching in its condemnation of universalist heresy:

Thanks. The EO theologian DB Harts says this about the status of the Synodikon. Do you have any comments?

"The Synodikon is just a compendium, and at times a congeries, and possesses only as much authority as what it is quoting at any point. In itself it is no more binding on the conscience of an Orthodox than the Baltimore Catechism or a Thomist manual is on the conscience of a Catholic.

In modern times some Orthodox have begun to claim that all local synods and councils are doctrinal authoritative and so Orthodoxy has just as many exact doctrinal formulae as Rome. Call it magisterium-envy. But in fact the ancient canonical view is that only an ecumenical council can ratify a synod as doctrinally binding. And it’s been a while, you know.

Simply said, if it isn’t one of the promulgations of the seven councils, then it’s nothing but the record of how certain clergymen at a certain time and place understood the tradition (usually over against those blasted monks). And then there is the question of what certain councils–the 5th of course–really said."
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,662
7,880
63
Martinez
✟906,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks, but I didn't ask that. I specifically asked the opposite so I don't understand this sentence. I'd like to learn about the views of different traditions.
You did say " your own" in the post heading. That being said, I can safely say many Christians have the same view I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lost Witness
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
166,616
56,253
Woods
✟4,675,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
*Permission to post in full*

Question:​

I've heard that Fr. Richard Rohr teaches some pretty sketchy stuff. Do you know anyone who has a summary of his teachings?

Answer:​

For whatever good he does, Fr. Richard Rohr, O.F.M., is not a reliable teacher of the Catholic Faith. All quotes below by Fr. Rohr are taken from his book Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer.
To Fr. Richard Rohr, Jesus Christ is an ideal guide of sorts, but he’s not truly Lord.
Jesus made clear that he came to save the world (John 3:16), and to this end he founded and commissioned his Church to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). Jesus made clear that he is uniquely the way, truth, and life (John 14:6), that his truth would set us free (John 8:31-32), that those who listened to his apostles and their successors listened to him, and that those who didn’t rejected him and his heavenly Father who sent him (Luke 10:16).

Jesus wasn’t afraid to be a demanding teacher, and many left him when they couldn’t stomach his teaching, e.g., on the Eucharist (John 6:47-71). Jesus also proclaimed that he came to bring a sword and not peace if peace meant a false irenicism in which merely human family members were chosen at the expense of faithful alliance with him, their Savior (Matt. 10:34-39).

Rohr’s Jesus is much more benign. For Rohr, Jesus merely gives “ideal eyes by which to see the realnature of reality” (emphasis added). “Real nature” is important, because Rohr does not present Catholicism as it really is. Rather, it’s a non-demanding, non-threatening, ultimately optional way of life: “The gospel is not a competing idea. It’s that by which we see all ideas in proper context. We believe as Christians that Jesus gave us the ideal eyes by which to see the real nature of reality. He does not lead with his judgments”(95, emphasis original).

Some might say Rohr is at least partially right. For example, Jesus did not lead with judgment against the woman at the well (John 4). But after introducing himself as the Messiah and showing the woman her worth, he called her to holiness, noting she had been married five times and was living with someone to whom she wasn’t married. Rohr misses this in assessing the Gospel as he overlooks the hard words Jesus has about various sins in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere: “But note that Jesus’ concept of ‘the reign of God’ is totally positive—not fear-based or against any individual, group, sin or problem” (107, emphasis original).

Even more fundamentally, Rohr falls into religious indifferentism regarding the basic mission of Christ and his Church:

I think Christianity has created a great problem in the Western world by repeatedly presenting itself, not as a way of seeing all things, but as one competing ideology among others. . . . Simone Weil, the brilliant French resistor [a woman who sadly declined to be baptized and become Catholic], said that ‘the tragedy of Christianity is that it came to see itself as replacing other religions instead of adding something to all of them.’ I could not agree more(93, emphasis added).
Click to expand...
Rohr provides insight into his spiritual outlook when he reveals that he believes in apokatastasis(also spelled apocatastasis), a heresy known more in modern times as “universalism,” which teaches that all the damned, whether men or women or fallen angels, will ultimately be restored and join God in heavenly glory for all eternity. This belief was made somewhat popular by the Church Father Origen, who was misguided on a number of doctrinal matters.

Citing unnamed early Church Fathers, Rohr describes this “universal restoration” as “the real meaning” of Christ’s resurrection, which means that God’s love is “so perfect and so victorious that in fact it would finally win out in every single person’s life” (131). He erroneously says that this view “gave rise to the mythology of purgatory” (131). He adds incorrectly that apocatastasis is not a heresy:

When I read the history of the church and its dogma, I see apokatastasis was never condemned as heretical. We may believe it if we want to. We were never told we had to believe it, but neither was it condemned (132, emphasis original).
It’s true that some people, like St. Gregory of Nyssa, espoused apocatastasis in the early Church when the Church had not pronounced definitively on the matter. But as the belief spread it was condemned by the regional Council of Constantinople in 543, and Pope Vigilius confirmed the council’s pronouncements.

Ten years later, the Second Council of Constantinople, an ecumenical or universal council, reaffirmed the condemnation of various heretics and “their sinful works,” including Origen, with no correction on the recent condemnation of apocatastasis (canon 11). If apocatastasis were indeed true, the Church’s infallible teachings on mortal sin and the eternal punishment of hell, for example, would be rendered meaningless.

It is true, as Rohr says, that the Church has never pronounced that any particular person is in hell (132). But the Church has reaffirmed the existence of hell and its eternal punishments, most recently in Pope Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God (12) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1033-37). Lest there be any doubt, the Catechismaffirms—citing St. John Damascene, who lived from 676 to 749—“There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death” (393).

In light of his espousal of apocatastasis, Rohr’s book title—Everything Belongs—makes more sense. In the end, there is no condemnation, only reconciliation and eternal communion with God: “For me, the utter powerlessness of God is that God forgives. . . . God seems to be so ready to surrender divine power” (153). Rohr’s God is all mercy, and a distorted mercy at that, and thus there is no justice.

Consequently, for Rohr there is a tension between truth and love. Jesus says that his truth will set us free (John 8:32), but Rohr says “the law does not give life; only the Spirit gives life, as Paul teaches in Romans and Galatians” (40). But Paul is speaking of the Old Covenant law, not the liberating New Covenant law of Jesus, and Rohr overlooks St. Paul’s hard pronouncements on mortal sin and damnation. “True religion is always about love. Love is the ultimate reality” (103), Rohr adds, whereas “a lot that’s called orthodoxy, loyalty and obedience is grounded in fear” (102). “The great commandment is not ‘thou shalt be right,’” he says. “The great commandment is to ‘be in love’” (88).

Love trumps truth, because God will win out in every person’s life, Rohr says, since “God will turn all our human crucifixions into resurrection” (132). Here Rohr fails to see that hell is man’s “definitive self-exclusion from communion with God” (CCC 1033, emphasis added), and that true love entails not compelling one to have communion. God will not force us to accept heaven.

In citing Acts 3:21 to defend universal restoration, Rohr fails to see that those who will not listen to the prophet—namely, Jesus—will be destroyed (Acts 3:23). This is not to pronounce eternal judgment on non-Catholics and thus exclude invincible ignorance but rather to affirm further that hell exists and that human beings can choose it. Choices do have consequences, some of them possibly eternal. In that light, the Second Vatican Council Fathers teaches in sober urgency regarding non-Catholics:

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, ‘Preach the Gospel to every creature,’ the Church fosters the missions with care and attention” (Lumen Gentium 16, emphasis added, footnotes omitted).
Click to expand...
In contrast, even though Jesus founded the Catholic Church (Matt. 16:18-19) and gave the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20), for Rohr the Church and her mission are not so important and urgent:

Institutional religion is a humanly necessarybut also immature manifestation of this ‘hidden mystery’ by which God is saving the world. . . . Institutional religion is never an end in itself, but merely a wondrous and ‘uncertain trumpet’ of the message (180, emphasis original).
I personally do not believe that Jesus came to found a separate religion as much as he came to present a universal message of vulnerability and foundational unity that is necessary for all religions, the human soul, and history itself to survive. Thus Christians can rightly call him “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42) but no longer in the competitive and imperialistic way that they have usually presented him. By very definition, vulnerability and unity do not compete or dominate. In fact, they make competition and domination impossible. The cosmic Christ is no threat to anything but separateness, illusion, domination, and any imperial ego. In that sense, Jesus, the Christ, is the ultimate threat, but first of all to Christians themselves. Only then will they have any universal and salvific message for the rest of the world” (181-82, emphases added).
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ does indeed love all and thus died for all, but the true unity he preaches requires a choice to accept or reject him and his Church, as he preached 2,000 years ago. The Christ whom Rohr preaches is not the authentic Jesus, and his related proclamation of the gospel is not the one that that the Church has proclaimed and safeguarded for 2,000 years with the power of Holy Spirit. As a result, Rohr remains an unreliable and spiritually dangerous guide for Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

A Primer on Richard Rohr

Who is Fr. Richard Rohr? Why are his writings controversial? Is he a reliable teacher of the Catholic faith? Click here for the answers.
www.catholic.com
www.catholic.com
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
166,616
56,253
Woods
✟4,675,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The idea that everyone gets to heaven is firmly entrenched in our national psyche, and has been for quite some time.

For the past few months my youngest daughter has been studying modern history. As part of the curriculum, she has had to memorize a timeline of important events. Many of these, of course, involve immense tragedies and acts of violence that resulted the death of thousands of people:

  • In 1912, the Titanic hit and iceberg and sank on her maiden voyage from England to New York City. 1,517 passengers and crew perished.
  • On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, killing 2,335 servicemen and 68 civilians.
  • On September 11, 2001, 19 terrorists hijacked four airliners and flew them into the Pentagon, the World Trade Center Towers, and a field in Pennsylvania. The death toll was 2,996.
  • In August, 2005, a category five hurricane named Katrina swept ashore in the U.S. Gulf Coast Region and submerged New Orleans. Over 1,500 people died as a result.
As I helped her go over these events, I was struck by the fact that, in each case, many or most of the people who died had a sense of false security about their situation.

The guests who partied or slept on board the Titanic as it steamed toward destruction were confident in the belief that they were sailing aboard the most impressive and safest ocean liner ever built. The American sailors who went about their business on a calm Sunday morning in the middle of the Pacific Ocean couldn’t imagine that death could rain down from those peaceful blue skies. For the men and women who went to work on September 11, 2001, it was just another day at the office. And for many who stayed behind to face Katrina, it was just another chance for a hurricane party. They believed the levees would hold, and everything would be alright.

But everything was not alright. In each case, the people were actually in grave danger. On top of that, in each case there had been warnings issued about that danger! The Titanic received several radio messages from ships ahead of them, warning of the ice fields. The U.S. government has acknowledged that it had gathered intelligence warning of attacks on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, as well as warnings about a terrorist attack by Osama Bin Laden. In New Orleans, the weakness of the levees had been the subject of repeated warnings over the years, and residents were told to evacuate ahead of the storm.

However, those warnings were ignored, either by the authorities who should have passed them on to the general public, or by the public itself. And not only were the warnings ignored, but those who proclaimed them were mocked and ridiculed, often by others in authority. In place of the warnings came messages of comfort and calm. “Everything is fine,” they said, “we are in no danger.”

Continued below.
www.catholicworldreport.com

The Dangerous Hart of Universalism


www.catholicworldreport.com
www.catholicworldreport.com
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
166,616
56,253
Woods
✟4,675,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Contrary to Hart’s assertion, it is not the presence of hell that makes Christianity a “morally obtuse and logically incoherent faith”— it is its absence.

www.catholic.com

Do All People Go to Heaven?

The prolific author and Eastern orthodox theologian ...
www.catholic.com
www.catholic.com
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Utterly and abhorrently false doctrine to the point of being a damnable heresy.

Read the question... Are you a member of a church? If so, what, if any, is the view of your church?
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,662
7,880
63
Martinez
✟906,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No I didn't. I said "your own Protestant denomination's view"



That's as maybe but, as I say, I'm only interested in this thread in the view of churches, not individuals.
I don't belong to a denomination so I guess I'll back out of the thread.
Thanks for sharing, it's an interesting post!
Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't belong to a denomination so I guess I'll back out of the thread.
Thanks for sharing, it's an interesting post!
Blessings

Yes, the purpose of the thread is to learn about the official stance, where there is one, of the different churches/traditions, not the personal views of individuals - we are spoilt, if that's the right word lol, for this on all the other universalist threads. Thanks for contributing though!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anthony2019

Pax et bonum!
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2019
5,957
10,894
Staffordshire, United Kingdom
✟777,445.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
As the Athanasian Creed is one of the official Affirmations of Faith used in our church, I would say that the official position of the CofE does not accept universalism.
"At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own works
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved."
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
As the Athanasian Creed is one of the official Affirmations of Faith used in our church, I would say that the official position of the CofE does not accept universalism.
"At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own works
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved."

That's informative, thanks. I'm C of E too so that's of particular interest to me!

Although, when I look at it I can't help thinking: "What is it actually saying?" Doesn't "they that have done evil into everlasting fire." mean that we're all going to be tossed into the melting pot? And also if "the Athanasian Creed is one of the official Affirmations of Faith used in our church", does that mean they're might be other Affirmations that might oppose this one on the subject of universalism and what do we do then?

Is anything simple and agreed upon in the world of Christianity? It seems not, apart from the Nicene creed I guess, which makes no comment on the issue of universalism other than to say "We look for the resurrection of the dead", although thinking about it that does sound pretty universalistic to me!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anthony2019

Pax et bonum!
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2019
5,957
10,894
Staffordshire, United Kingdom
✟777,445.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
That's informative, thanks. I'm C of E too so that's of particular interest to me!

Although, when I look at it I can't help thinking: "What is it actually saying?" Doesn't "they that have done evil into everlasting fire." mean that we're all going to be tossed into the melting pot? And also if "the Athanasian Creed is one of the official Affirmations of Faith used in our church", does that mean they're might be other Affirmations that might oppose this one on the subject of universalism and what do we do then?

Is anything simple in the world of Christianity? It seems not.
It's a difficult one isn't it! I think there are a quite a number of texts in the CofE that cause a problem for universalism. For instance, Article 16 of the 39 Articles brings up the concept of deadly (or mortal) sin and seems to indicate that salvation is impossible without repentance.

As for me personally, I am not sure where I stand on the subject of the afterlife. I just trust in God that He will always do what is good and right in His perfect justice and mercy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.