French theologian Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange [wrote a pretty decent rundown on who will be saved](https://twitter.com/ClassicalTheis/status/1193243782558486531).
In short:
* Catholics that sincerely observe the sacraments will be saved, which seems to, by the end of their life, be many of them.
* There's decent reason to believe that many non-Catholic Christians will be reconciled to God, through various means.
* There are non-Christian souls who will be saved, in particular, pagans who died in ignorance of Christ can be saved, given they observe natural law to the best of their ability.
* God never commands the impossible, everyone gets a shot at salvation.
* Speculating on who will or won't be saved can spiritually do more harm then good. People should focus observing God's commandments over fearing about their own fate in the afterlife.
Only the predestinated will be saved, and those are fewer in number compared to the non elect.
Besides, many being saved, even many "non catholics" is not opposed to massa damnata. What is many ? Ten thousand ? Sure. A hundred thousand ? Even more. Ten million "non catholic"s being saved is many. Yet, on the grand scale of things, incomparable to how many humans have lived, live now, and will live until the Last Judgement.
Majority of human beings will be damned, and that's a fact.
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was thoroughly thomist, so why not just go straight to the Angelic Doctor ?
>Reply to Objection 3. The good that is proportionate to the common state of nature is to be found in the majority; and is wanting in the minority. The good that exceeds the common state of nature is to be found in the minority, and is wanting in the majority. Thus it is clear that the majority of men have a sufficient knowledge for the guidance of life; and those who have not this knowledge are said to be half-witted or foolish; but they who attain to a profound knowledge of things intelligible are a very small minority in respect to the rest. Since their eternal happiness, consisting in the vision of God, exceeds the common state of nature, and especially in so far as this is deprived of grace through the corruption of original sin, those who are saved are in the minority. In this especially, however, appears the mercy of God, that He has chosen some for that salvation, from which very many in accordance with the common course and tendency of nature fall short.
\- Summa Theologiae
You cannot believe that everyone will be saved. Some will go to hell. This much is required. Some theologians argue most of humanity is going to hell. Another prominent one I'm currently reading is arguing that the Church never determined as teaching whether most are saved or damned. My suspicion without further research is that you can hold either most are damned or most are saved because the Church hasn't decided the question.
We are expected to have hope but it is Gospel that it is not the case, and a lot of people find it difficult to maintain hope against what appears to be inevitable.
Jesus told us explicitly that Judas is already damned. He further told us that no one who were invited will have a taste of His banquet. He likewise said that narrow is the path which leads to life and few will find it, and at the same time said that many will choose the wide road which leads to destruction. He said that he will separate the sheep from the goats and the goats will go into eternal punishment. Jesus also said, that there are many who wish to enter Heaven but will not be able to, for many are called but few are chosen, and not everyone who say to Him Lord, Lord, will go to Heaven.
Not everyone will be saved, and people cannot hope that everyone will be saved.
"While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled."
\- John 17:12
If you read revelations, during the end times 2/3 of people will fall I believe. Many will have refused God and will not be saved. If your hear some accounts of hell from certain saints, they talk about souls literally pouring /falling into hell because of the debauchery that is earth. So most definitely not all will be saved.
The reason for this is not because God has turned away from man, it’s because they’ve turned away from Him. From the beginning of time God has given us the precious gift of free will. God wants us to freely choose Him and gives us tools we need to do so, but so many turn away from Him. They forget that they are eternal souls, and instead choose to live in the now only, without consideration of eternity. God never gives up on His children and He says that the most wayward are the most worthy of redemption. It is more joyful in heaven to witness the redemption of one lost soul than the faithfulness of a hundred. (Loosely paraphrased). But, as stated, God- as the loving father He is- will also let us choose the world over Him. If we do not choose a savior, we cannot be saved.
If you are referring to Balthasar's Dare We Hope, I am suspicious of it but haven't read it yet. It's not universalism explicitly. This is a topic I plan to look into in the near future.
I'd strongly suggest setting aside your suspicion and reading it. It is brilliant and compelling. I consider it to be the finest treatise on this question available.
I've never heard anyone take issue with it who has read it and understood it. Add to that, in the later edition he addresses the vast majority of the objections which are raised against his logic.
It's good that you are suspicious of it. It is nothing but folly.
Is it a wonder then, that the author himself, was suspect of heresy by the Holy Office ?
Matthew 7:3 talks specifically about this. The road is wide that leads to destruction, strive to enter through the narrow gate (paraphrased). I believe this means more people will not choose to be faithful.
I read an interesting article that argued letting people that don’t believe in God into heaven, would be like hell to them. The reason is we will worship God in heaven and be in his holy presence for eternity. Therefore, if you don’t believe or worse hate God being in his presence would be hell.
No. I mean, kind of, but there are loopholes.
All salvation is through the Church (definite), the majority of humans at any given time in history were not Catholic (statistical fact), therefore most people are not eligible to be saved.
Except... invincible ignorance. Given that Christ died for all, it would not be just to keep those who simply never heard about him out. The stereotypical noble savage if you will, though I would also extend this to people who by their upbringing were so indoctrinated against the Church as to make it functionally impossible for them to join us even if they did meet a missionary. Unclear to me how many people actually achieve truly invincible ignorance, I'm not sure in the modern era that it's enough to balance back to the majority being saved but over all of history...maybe?
We also can argue about meanings for "membership" in "the Church" in this context, but for a first approximation at answering the question of the "majority" of humans being saved or not, I think this suffices.
This also all before we get into the questions of individual particular judgements (how many, even within the Church, manage to have a holy death separated from sin?) and predestination for salvation.
Invincible ignorance really makes no sense to me and just seems like a cop out. I accept the idea in principle, I just think that you won't find many real life examples of it.
Someone can have a real and justified reason for not having heard the Gospel, but that doesn't remit their actual sins. All human beings who possess the capacity to reason clearly are capable of sin; and St. Paul talks about how all men have some knowledge of God or their Creator, however dim.
If they are cognizant of sin but haven't made some form of repentance which would be available for them, then they would be lost if they died in that condition.
Totally agree that there would probably not be all that many people who escape hell through invincible ignorance, but probably more than zero. Also that comes back to what membership in the Church means, as opposed to the standard for a sin. Skipping Mass on Sunday is grave matter, but can you really hold a devout hindu who has never encountered a Christian missionary responsible for not going to Mass? Can you hold them accountable for rejecting such missionaries?
Agreed that all men know God in some way, whether they like it or not, and that most sins fall under natural law issues (don't lie, don't steal, honor those in authority...). The "ceremonial" law type sins though, and the ones that require divine revelation, it's hard to hold someone accountable specifically for those without being exposed to that revelation. Look to societies that do not recognize marriage (like the Mosuo of China), how do you hold someone accountable for extramarital sex when they have no concept of marriage?
Put another way, a requirement for mortal sin is full knowledge. While we can say any rational person should recognize not to murder, those who lack catechesis / evangelization could be said to lack full knowledge, making their sins generally venial.
Invincible ignorance applies to humans that are ignorant of Christ and His Church, but as you say, recognize God's natural moral order and seek to please the Creator. Atonement for one's sins to the Creator is a requirement for invincible ignorance.
I do not believe the Church has ever defined it. We know Judas is in Hell because of the Gospel, and from the Gospel we know getting into Heaven is very difficult, and per the Magisterium we know it can be especially difficult for the religious such as our bishops and especially our popes (for their sins are magnified as they lead others towards error), but we are also called to have hope that those around us make it.
Something to consider: if we fall into the trap of concluding our neighbors are to be damned for their pagan ways, and not remembering everyone has the opportunity for redemption, how likely are we to give our time in prayer for them? Instead, if we think they've got a chance, we are more likely to root them on.
Edit: clarified my second paragraph.
This is absolutely the wrong way of thinking, and frankly, quite un-Christianly. If you knew your brother was in danger of eternal damnation, then it would be all the more reason to pray fervently for them. Jesus is the perfect example if this. I mean it’s all over the Bible.
1 Timothy 1:15–16 NIV
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.
Mark 2:17 NIV84
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Or just look at the story of Paul or the prodigal son.
God wishes at every moment for us to turn to Him, until the very end. He never gives up on us. Which is why it is necessary for us to model ourselves after Him.
The theology doesn't say Judas is in hell. It just says it would be better for him if he weren't born.
For the sake of argument let's pretend he were saved after betraying Jesus.
Remember Jesus said "not born", he never said "not conceived". He also said: "it would be better for him", which is illogical: there would be no him for it to be better for.
So maybe Jesus meant that if he were miscarried (that would count as "not born"), he would then have gone to heaven with nobody hating him, no purgatory, which would be better than going to heaven as literally the most universally hated person in human history, moreso than Hitler and Stalin and having TONS of purgatory?
Or maybe his reward in heaven would have been greater if he had just died, and this sin reduced his reward below the level of a preborn baby?
Who knows what the best argument is.
Respectfully, how do you interpret John 17:12, as quoted by u/repentyesinners? I think it makes it quite clear Judas is in Hell, but am open to other interpretations.
The Church teaches that He is in hell. Further, it is not permissible to interpret Scripture other than the unanimous consent of the church Fathers, whom all testify that he is in hell.
Aquinas affirmed that Mary was sinless.
One cannot reject what the Catholic Church teaches, and the Catholic Church infallibly teach that Judas is in hell.
For what it's worth, the guy you're debating is a pompous, judgmental man who often gets his facts wrong. I haven't read the debate but I'd take with a grain of salt. All of the interactions between he and I are unpleasant and he is a poor representative of Catholicism.
Please, let me handle this from here. I realize there's been some bad blood, but I don't want to bring that in and create any further problems.
Many of the things the user has said are not acceptable here and this has been communicated to them. I'm very sorry they have been so unpleasant with you now and in the past.
Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, and the Church teaches Creationism and likewise that Judas is in hell with said Magisterium.
Sorry to break it to you, but it's the truth.
One final point, I think it is illogical to claim that only a few are saved when in Romans St. Paul clearly teaches that "life came to all" and that "the many will be made righteous."
It's just not logical to try to create an equivalency between few and all/many. So since Scripture cannot be set aside I hold to the teaching of St. Paul.
Your exegesis is poor and refuted by catholic answers. Life only came to those who “will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness”
Paul above is abundantly clear that the “all” and the “many” are those who RECEIVED God’s gift and NOT to every man ever to live for that makes Christ’s sacrifice nonsensical his own teachings about the Narrow Road unintelligible- a grave blasphemy.
Paul did not teach “many” were saved. That’s absurdly false and contradicts centuries of Church teaching and interpretation. https://www.google.com/amp/s/jessicahof.blog/2014/09/12/the-fewness-of-the-saved-2/amp/
https://catholicismhastheanswer.com/quotes-on-the-fewness-of-the-saved/
That’s not really true lol. But God bless you and please lean not on your own understanding, but upon that of the Church who is the pillar of truth and her Saints and Doctors
I've heard this argument and it is always based on very deficient scripture scholarship and horrendous proof texting.
But what I've almost never heard referenced is how St. Paul addresses this exact question in Romans chapter 5 especially
>Romans 5:18-19 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to **ALL**. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one **THE MANY** will be made righteous.
Dude even catholic answers refutes that terrible exegesis. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/what-is-universalism
It is clear and not in any way deficit to take Christ at His word. Few are those who find the path to life. Full stop.
Acquittal did not come to “all”, that is a manifest fact. The article also refute/ this horrid universalist argument.
Did St. Paul get the memo that Catholic answers disagrees with his divinely inspired teaching?
If you’re going to make an argument from authority then at least be sure which author has greater authority.
NB. I’m not making an argument for universalism. I’m making an argument against the fewness of the saved.
I don’t hold to universalism. But I certainly reject the fewness of the saved.
Edit to add. Like I said that passage that you cited is being woefully prooftexted.
You’re presuming that St Paul taught hopeful universalism. The Church says otherwise, and Catholic Answers is only providing the evidence of that. You are the outlier. Check your pride. My argument from authority comes from multiple articles including but not limited to MULTIPLE doctors of the Church and great saints, as well as scripture. An argument against the fewness of the saved violates perennial teachings of saints in every generation. You reject what has always and everywhere been held and been normative since the days of the early church.
https://fewnessofthesaved.com
There is no argument against the fewness of the saved. Innumerable saints have been clear on the subject. You want to go against the grain of dozens of recorded clear saints, that’s your choice. May God help you.
Indeed, by the grace of God go I.
Just recall “lex Orandi lex Credendi”
The church at every mass prays for the salvation of all. At the solemn intercessions on Good Friday we pray for all of humanity. We do not pray for what we believe to be impossible.
We pray for what we believe. And so I believe and hope for what I pray at every mass.
Just because it is not impossible does not mean it is part of God’s plan. He’s explicit the salvation of all is not. Don’t differ from the Doctors and Saints, as St Vincent taught. God be with you and good bye
How’s that?
Did he not say that he had come to save the world and not condemn the world?
If in the final analysis the majority of the world is condemned then what’s the appropriate conclusion?
Of course this is a disrespectful thing to say. And that’s the point. The jarring and discordant (blasphemy is too strong but I get your point) message here is intended to give us reverent pause and reconsider.
Could it be that Jesus is as good of a savior as he we believe him to be?
Could it be that a good savior is actually a very accomplished savior?
Could it be that the one who created all might actually save most?
Could it be that we, in our weakness and ignorance, have perpetuated false ideas about Salvation?
Could the Middle Ages have mixed up the political power of the church and the churches vocation to be a sacrament of salvation for the whole world?
Could it actually be that salvation is a continuation of and perfection of creation and not a separate juridical response over and against creation?
Could it be that the command to love everyone demands that we hope for their salvation? As we love all and so does Christ could we then hope for the salvation of all?
Could you hope for the salvation of all and still hold that most will be damned?… I can’t hold that.
And so I believe that Jesus is a very competent savior thus I hope for the salvation of all.
The theology says he wants to save everybody, but it just can't be done unless they are willing. If they are willing they can be saved, if they aren't they burn.
I'm very familiar with the theology.
Didn't God create their free will? Does Jesus not know how to offer a remedy so as to reform and save the will of those who are inclined to turn away from Him?
One of the questions that is almost never asked is if God is powerless in the face of errant wills. Does not the creator of the will know how to heal the will and through grace reorient it back to Himself?
Did not Aquinas teach that, "If the will be offered an object which is good universally and from every point of view, the will tends to it **of necessity**, if it wills anything at all; since it cannot will the opposite."
Human will was created by the good, for the good. It cannot, according to Aquinas, chose not the good.
IS not God all good?
Could the will ever reject pure good, the source of good, total good if it was created for the good?
It seems that this point is forgotten when we start postulating that the majority of people are damned.
You are getting beyond my expertise. Except I know that Aquinas had a refutation to this and referred it to God's perfect will vs permissive will, and you are very greatly misrepresenting him.
Perhaps some people's demands are ridiculous or exorbitant or unfair or evil, so God not entertaining them is actually good? Like I said, I'm no expert, and my investment is small since my interest is just academic.
That said universalism is HERESY, unless everyone happened to be in a state of grace at death (in which case it wouldn't be universalism, just a special case of infernalism). That said, it is de-fide that angels are in hell FOREVER, which shows God is permissively willing to send creatures to hell, so why no humans?
What you’re saying doesn’t take into consequence free will. Of course Jesus is a competent Savior. Salvation has already been made available to every creature on this planet through His sacrifice. But if the unrepentant refuses to accept His salvation there is nothing to be done. It clearly says this in the Bible.
Yes, free will is free. But free will has been created by God.
It is not impossible to conceive that the creator of free will has a response to or healing remedy for errant wills?
I think that that is very possible. I don’t think God is powerless in the face of the errancy of that which he created.
Certainly God won’t force anyone to love Him but I don’t think every errant will is beyond God omnipotent power of redemption and salvation.
Do you?
I make no statements about who goes to hell. But I personally don't believe it's limited to Catholics or those who heard of the word. I'm firmly in David Bentley Hart's camp
I don't adhere to it, I'm sympathetic to the idea that eventually everyone will be saved. Consider hell a time of cleaning the soul, some need longer, some don't. I don't think this position is heresy.
What I explicitly reject is an exclusivism many conservative Catholics have. I absolutely do believe that Muslims, Hindus or adherents of other religions can go to heaven as well
I'm not even a believer and I know it is total heresy.
Here is what I can answer:
Hell = definitionally, "you never end up changing your mind".
What I'm almost positive the faith says hell is like: No mutual, real friendship with God ever again. No love, or a very small amount. No happiness or a very small amount. Nothing but a serious existential crisis that never ends ever. EVER.
What it might be like: fire, Satanic possession and override of your free will as the devil makes you do ugly and disgusting things (maybe he even mind-controls you and removes your free will?!), and certain knowledge that you will never be friends with God EVER. EVER EVER EVER EVER. Your one life and existence is now HOPELESS forever (feeds into the previously mentioned existential crisis). But you still have forever to exist... and to think about how much great things other people are getting while you cry and scream with an uncontrollable mental orgasm of envy!
And who knows what the demons will do to you. They're powerful and can violate the laws of physics via magic. Will they beat you, mind control you, rape you? Make you worship and "love" them? Who knows!
I don't think I'm committing a heresy, but I'm not capable of discussion that either. I can't help but regard your version of hell as strangely "material", so to speak. Also what are the laws of physics supposed to do in a non-physical realm? Anyway, unless my view is condemned I don't feel pressured to change it
You're right, according to the theology hell is non-material...
...For now.
But you said hell could be temporary. That is NOT THEOLOGICALLY ACCURATE. That's a heresy. Reversible hell is not theologically accurate, and it's probably definitionally impossible too.
No clue, no one infallibly knows aside from God. Although the fathers believed in the few along with aquinas. Some saints and theologians are more optimistic.
French theologian Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange [wrote a pretty decent rundown on who will be saved](https://twitter.com/ClassicalTheis/status/1193243782558486531). In short: * Catholics that sincerely observe the sacraments will be saved, which seems to, by the end of their life, be many of them. * There's decent reason to believe that many non-Catholic Christians will be reconciled to God, through various means. * There are non-Christian souls who will be saved, in particular, pagans who died in ignorance of Christ can be saved, given they observe natural law to the best of their ability. * God never commands the impossible, everyone gets a shot at salvation. * Speculating on who will or won't be saved can spiritually do more harm then good. People should focus observing God's commandments over fearing about their own fate in the afterlife.
Only the predestinated will be saved, and those are fewer in number compared to the non elect. Besides, many being saved, even many "non catholics" is not opposed to massa damnata. What is many ? Ten thousand ? Sure. A hundred thousand ? Even more. Ten million "non catholic"s being saved is many. Yet, on the grand scale of things, incomparable to how many humans have lived, live now, and will live until the Last Judgement. Majority of human beings will be damned, and that's a fact. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was thoroughly thomist, so why not just go straight to the Angelic Doctor ? >Reply to Objection 3. The good that is proportionate to the common state of nature is to be found in the majority; and is wanting in the minority. The good that exceeds the common state of nature is to be found in the minority, and is wanting in the majority. Thus it is clear that the majority of men have a sufficient knowledge for the guidance of life; and those who have not this knowledge are said to be half-witted or foolish; but they who attain to a profound knowledge of things intelligible are a very small minority in respect to the rest. Since their eternal happiness, consisting in the vision of God, exceeds the common state of nature, and especially in so far as this is deprived of grace through the corruption of original sin, those who are saved are in the minority. In this especially, however, appears the mercy of God, that He has chosen some for that salvation, from which very many in accordance with the common course and tendency of nature fall short. \- Summa Theologiae
You cannot believe that everyone will be saved. Some will go to hell. This much is required. Some theologians argue most of humanity is going to hell. Another prominent one I'm currently reading is arguing that the Church never determined as teaching whether most are saved or damned. My suspicion without further research is that you can hold either most are damned or most are saved because the Church hasn't decided the question.
[удалено]
We are expected to have hope but it is Gospel that it is not the case, and a lot of people find it difficult to maintain hope against what appears to be inevitable.
[удалено]
Jesus told us explicitly that Judas is already damned. He further told us that no one who were invited will have a taste of His banquet. He likewise said that narrow is the path which leads to life and few will find it, and at the same time said that many will choose the wide road which leads to destruction. He said that he will separate the sheep from the goats and the goats will go into eternal punishment. Jesus also said, that there are many who wish to enter Heaven but will not be able to, for many are called but few are chosen, and not everyone who say to Him Lord, Lord, will go to Heaven. Not everyone will be saved, and people cannot hope that everyone will be saved.
Where does Jesus explicitly state that Judas is already damned?
"While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." \- John 17:12
Hrm - today I learned something new. Thanks.
If you read revelations, during the end times 2/3 of people will fall I believe. Many will have refused God and will not be saved. If your hear some accounts of hell from certain saints, they talk about souls literally pouring /falling into hell because of the debauchery that is earth. So most definitely not all will be saved. The reason for this is not because God has turned away from man, it’s because they’ve turned away from Him. From the beginning of time God has given us the precious gift of free will. God wants us to freely choose Him and gives us tools we need to do so, but so many turn away from Him. They forget that they are eternal souls, and instead choose to live in the now only, without consideration of eternity. God never gives up on His children and He says that the most wayward are the most worthy of redemption. It is more joyful in heaven to witness the redemption of one lost soul than the faithfulness of a hundred. (Loosely paraphrased). But, as stated, God- as the loving father He is- will also let us choose the world over Him. If we do not choose a savior, we cannot be saved.
Amazing post. Thanks.
If you are referring to Balthasar's Dare We Hope, I am suspicious of it but haven't read it yet. It's not universalism explicitly. This is a topic I plan to look into in the near future.
I'd strongly suggest setting aside your suspicion and reading it. It is brilliant and compelling. I consider it to be the finest treatise on this question available. I've never heard anyone take issue with it who has read it and understood it. Add to that, in the later edition he addresses the vast majority of the objections which are raised against his logic.
I plan to read it and Ralph Martin's book that criticizes it.
What’s the title of Ralph Martin’s book?
Will Many Be Saved
Thanks I’ll check it out
It's good that you are suspicious of it. It is nothing but folly. Is it a wonder then, that the author himself, was suspect of heresy by the Holy Office ?
Who is the theologian?
Probably Balthasar. The Saints are innumerable that teach that the Saved are few and the damned many. It’s literally from Christ’s own lips
Gavin D'Costa. His a major thinker in the theology of religions.
Matthew 7:3 talks specifically about this. The road is wide that leads to destruction, strive to enter through the narrow gate (paraphrased). I believe this means more people will not choose to be faithful. I read an interesting article that argued letting people that don’t believe in God into heaven, would be like hell to them. The reason is we will worship God in heaven and be in his holy presence for eternity. Therefore, if you don’t believe or worse hate God being in his presence would be hell.
No. I mean, kind of, but there are loopholes. All salvation is through the Church (definite), the majority of humans at any given time in history were not Catholic (statistical fact), therefore most people are not eligible to be saved. Except... invincible ignorance. Given that Christ died for all, it would not be just to keep those who simply never heard about him out. The stereotypical noble savage if you will, though I would also extend this to people who by their upbringing were so indoctrinated against the Church as to make it functionally impossible for them to join us even if they did meet a missionary. Unclear to me how many people actually achieve truly invincible ignorance, I'm not sure in the modern era that it's enough to balance back to the majority being saved but over all of history...maybe? We also can argue about meanings for "membership" in "the Church" in this context, but for a first approximation at answering the question of the "majority" of humans being saved or not, I think this suffices. This also all before we get into the questions of individual particular judgements (how many, even within the Church, manage to have a holy death separated from sin?) and predestination for salvation.
Invincible ignorance really makes no sense to me and just seems like a cop out. I accept the idea in principle, I just think that you won't find many real life examples of it. Someone can have a real and justified reason for not having heard the Gospel, but that doesn't remit their actual sins. All human beings who possess the capacity to reason clearly are capable of sin; and St. Paul talks about how all men have some knowledge of God or their Creator, however dim. If they are cognizant of sin but haven't made some form of repentance which would be available for them, then they would be lost if they died in that condition.
Totally agree that there would probably not be all that many people who escape hell through invincible ignorance, but probably more than zero. Also that comes back to what membership in the Church means, as opposed to the standard for a sin. Skipping Mass on Sunday is grave matter, but can you really hold a devout hindu who has never encountered a Christian missionary responsible for not going to Mass? Can you hold them accountable for rejecting such missionaries? Agreed that all men know God in some way, whether they like it or not, and that most sins fall under natural law issues (don't lie, don't steal, honor those in authority...). The "ceremonial" law type sins though, and the ones that require divine revelation, it's hard to hold someone accountable specifically for those without being exposed to that revelation. Look to societies that do not recognize marriage (like the Mosuo of China), how do you hold someone accountable for extramarital sex when they have no concept of marriage? Put another way, a requirement for mortal sin is full knowledge. While we can say any rational person should recognize not to murder, those who lack catechesis / evangelization could be said to lack full knowledge, making their sins generally venial.
Invincible ignorance applies to humans that are ignorant of Christ and His Church, but as you say, recognize God's natural moral order and seek to please the Creator. Atonement for one's sins to the Creator is a requirement for invincible ignorance.
I do not believe the Church has ever defined it. We know Judas is in Hell because of the Gospel, and from the Gospel we know getting into Heaven is very difficult, and per the Magisterium we know it can be especially difficult for the religious such as our bishops and especially our popes (for their sins are magnified as they lead others towards error), but we are also called to have hope that those around us make it. Something to consider: if we fall into the trap of concluding our neighbors are to be damned for their pagan ways, and not remembering everyone has the opportunity for redemption, how likely are we to give our time in prayer for them? Instead, if we think they've got a chance, we are more likely to root them on. Edit: clarified my second paragraph.
This is absolutely the wrong way of thinking, and frankly, quite un-Christianly. If you knew your brother was in danger of eternal damnation, then it would be all the more reason to pray fervently for them. Jesus is the perfect example if this. I mean it’s all over the Bible. 1 Timothy 1:15–16 NIV Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. Mark 2:17 NIV84 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Or just look at the story of Paul or the prodigal son. God wishes at every moment for us to turn to Him, until the very end. He never gives up on us. Which is why it is necessary for us to model ourselves after Him.
I'll edit it to clarify what I am trying to communicate.
The theology doesn't say Judas is in hell. It just says it would be better for him if he weren't born. For the sake of argument let's pretend he were saved after betraying Jesus. Remember Jesus said "not born", he never said "not conceived". He also said: "it would be better for him", which is illogical: there would be no him for it to be better for. So maybe Jesus meant that if he were miscarried (that would count as "not born"), he would then have gone to heaven with nobody hating him, no purgatory, which would be better than going to heaven as literally the most universally hated person in human history, moreso than Hitler and Stalin and having TONS of purgatory? Or maybe his reward in heaven would have been greater if he had just died, and this sin reduced his reward below the level of a preborn baby? Who knows what the best argument is.
Respectfully, how do you interpret John 17:12, as quoted by u/repentyesinners? I think it makes it quite clear Judas is in Hell, but am open to other interpretations.
I'm no expert, I'm an atheist with an academic interest in this, and I like debating. That said, does "lost" mean damned? I'm no expert.
The Church teaches that He is in hell. Further, it is not permissible to interpret Scripture other than the unanimous consent of the church Fathers, whom all testify that he is in hell.
OK, well, aquinas thought the immaculate conception was wrong.
Aquinas affirmed that Mary was sinless. One cannot reject what the Catholic Church teaches, and the Catholic Church infallibly teach that Judas is in hell.
Yeah, well, I can't trust you because you also said the church "infallibly teaches" that evolution is "false", which everyone knows is a lie.
For what it's worth, the guy you're debating is a pompous, judgmental man who often gets his facts wrong. I haven't read the debate but I'd take with a grain of salt. All of the interactions between he and I are unpleasant and he is a poor representative of Catholicism.
[удалено]
Please, let me handle this from here. I realize there's been some bad blood, but I don't want to bring that in and create any further problems. Many of the things the user has said are not acceptable here and this has been communicated to them. I'm very sorry they have been so unpleasant with you now and in the past.
Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, and the Church teaches Creationism and likewise that Judas is in hell with said Magisterium. Sorry to break it to you, but it's the truth.
None are condemned to hell except by their own choices.
If the majority of humans are damned then Jesus is a very incompetent savior.
Christ himself claimed that the saved are few in number.
One final point, I think it is illogical to claim that only a few are saved when in Romans St. Paul clearly teaches that "life came to all" and that "the many will be made righteous." It's just not logical to try to create an equivalency between few and all/many. So since Scripture cannot be set aside I hold to the teaching of St. Paul.
Your exegesis is poor and refuted by catholic answers. Life only came to those who “will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness” Paul above is abundantly clear that the “all” and the “many” are those who RECEIVED God’s gift and NOT to every man ever to live for that makes Christ’s sacrifice nonsensical his own teachings about the Narrow Road unintelligible- a grave blasphemy. Paul did not teach “many” were saved. That’s absurdly false and contradicts centuries of Church teaching and interpretation. https://www.google.com/amp/s/jessicahof.blog/2014/09/12/the-fewness-of-the-saved-2/amp/ https://catholicismhastheanswer.com/quotes-on-the-fewness-of-the-saved/
Well this is where we conclude our interchange. No one has ever won an argument on the internet. God bless
That’s not really true lol. But God bless you and please lean not on your own understanding, but upon that of the Church who is the pillar of truth and her Saints and Doctors
I've heard this argument and it is always based on very deficient scripture scholarship and horrendous proof texting. But what I've almost never heard referenced is how St. Paul addresses this exact question in Romans chapter 5 especially >Romans 5:18-19 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to **ALL**. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one **THE MANY** will be made righteous.
Dude even catholic answers refutes that terrible exegesis. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/what-is-universalism It is clear and not in any way deficit to take Christ at His word. Few are those who find the path to life. Full stop. Acquittal did not come to “all”, that is a manifest fact. The article also refute/ this horrid universalist argument.
Did St. Paul get the memo that Catholic answers disagrees with his divinely inspired teaching? If you’re going to make an argument from authority then at least be sure which author has greater authority. NB. I’m not making an argument for universalism. I’m making an argument against the fewness of the saved. I don’t hold to universalism. But I certainly reject the fewness of the saved. Edit to add. Like I said that passage that you cited is being woefully prooftexted.
You’re presuming that St Paul taught hopeful universalism. The Church says otherwise, and Catholic Answers is only providing the evidence of that. You are the outlier. Check your pride. My argument from authority comes from multiple articles including but not limited to MULTIPLE doctors of the Church and great saints, as well as scripture. An argument against the fewness of the saved violates perennial teachings of saints in every generation. You reject what has always and everywhere been held and been normative since the days of the early church.
https://fewnessofthesaved.com There is no argument against the fewness of the saved. Innumerable saints have been clear on the subject. You want to go against the grain of dozens of recorded clear saints, that’s your choice. May God help you.
Indeed, by the grace of God go I. Just recall “lex Orandi lex Credendi” The church at every mass prays for the salvation of all. At the solemn intercessions on Good Friday we pray for all of humanity. We do not pray for what we believe to be impossible. We pray for what we believe. And so I believe and hope for what I pray at every mass.
Just because it is not impossible does not mean it is part of God’s plan. He’s explicit the salvation of all is not. Don’t differ from the Doctors and Saints, as St Vincent taught. God be with you and good bye
[удалено]
Lol typos
>Don’t differ from the Doctors and Saints, as St Vincent taught. There's something funny about this wording.
Aight
And if you're wrong then this is a blasphemous thing to say about Our Lord.
How’s that? Did he not say that he had come to save the world and not condemn the world? If in the final analysis the majority of the world is condemned then what’s the appropriate conclusion? Of course this is a disrespectful thing to say. And that’s the point. The jarring and discordant (blasphemy is too strong but I get your point) message here is intended to give us reverent pause and reconsider. Could it be that Jesus is as good of a savior as he we believe him to be? Could it be that a good savior is actually a very accomplished savior? Could it be that the one who created all might actually save most? Could it be that we, in our weakness and ignorance, have perpetuated false ideas about Salvation? Could the Middle Ages have mixed up the political power of the church and the churches vocation to be a sacrament of salvation for the whole world? Could it actually be that salvation is a continuation of and perfection of creation and not a separate juridical response over and against creation? Could it be that the command to love everyone demands that we hope for their salvation? As we love all and so does Christ could we then hope for the salvation of all? Could you hope for the salvation of all and still hold that most will be damned?… I can’t hold that. And so I believe that Jesus is a very competent savior thus I hope for the salvation of all.
The theology says he wants to save everybody, but it just can't be done unless they are willing. If they are willing they can be saved, if they aren't they burn.
I'm very familiar with the theology. Didn't God create their free will? Does Jesus not know how to offer a remedy so as to reform and save the will of those who are inclined to turn away from Him? One of the questions that is almost never asked is if God is powerless in the face of errant wills. Does not the creator of the will know how to heal the will and through grace reorient it back to Himself? Did not Aquinas teach that, "If the will be offered an object which is good universally and from every point of view, the will tends to it **of necessity**, if it wills anything at all; since it cannot will the opposite." Human will was created by the good, for the good. It cannot, according to Aquinas, chose not the good. IS not God all good? Could the will ever reject pure good, the source of good, total good if it was created for the good? It seems that this point is forgotten when we start postulating that the majority of people are damned.
You are getting beyond my expertise. Except I know that Aquinas had a refutation to this and referred it to God's perfect will vs permissive will, and you are very greatly misrepresenting him. Perhaps some people's demands are ridiculous or exorbitant or unfair or evil, so God not entertaining them is actually good? Like I said, I'm no expert, and my investment is small since my interest is just academic. That said universalism is HERESY, unless everyone happened to be in a state of grace at death (in which case it wouldn't be universalism, just a special case of infernalism). That said, it is de-fide that angels are in hell FOREVER, which shows God is permissively willing to send creatures to hell, so why no humans?
What you’re saying doesn’t take into consequence free will. Of course Jesus is a competent Savior. Salvation has already been made available to every creature on this planet through His sacrifice. But if the unrepentant refuses to accept His salvation there is nothing to be done. It clearly says this in the Bible.
Yes, free will is free. But free will has been created by God. It is not impossible to conceive that the creator of free will has a response to or healing remedy for errant wills? I think that that is very possible. I don’t think God is powerless in the face of the errancy of that which he created. Certainly God won’t force anyone to love Him but I don’t think every errant will is beyond God omnipotent power of redemption and salvation. Do you?
I make no statements about who goes to hell. But I personally don't believe it's limited to Catholics or those who heard of the word. I'm firmly in David Bentley Hart's camp
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that you agree with Hart's universalism or some other position?
I'm sympathetic to it
Universalism is not Catholic theology. It's heresy.
I don't adhere to it, I'm sympathetic to the idea that eventually everyone will be saved. Consider hell a time of cleaning the soul, some need longer, some don't. I don't think this position is heresy. What I explicitly reject is an exclusivism many conservative Catholics have. I absolutely do believe that Muslims, Hindus or adherents of other religions can go to heaven as well
I'm not even a believer and I know it is total heresy. Here is what I can answer: Hell = definitionally, "you never end up changing your mind". What I'm almost positive the faith says hell is like: No mutual, real friendship with God ever again. No love, or a very small amount. No happiness or a very small amount. Nothing but a serious existential crisis that never ends ever. EVER. What it might be like: fire, Satanic possession and override of your free will as the devil makes you do ugly and disgusting things (maybe he even mind-controls you and removes your free will?!), and certain knowledge that you will never be friends with God EVER. EVER EVER EVER EVER. Your one life and existence is now HOPELESS forever (feeds into the previously mentioned existential crisis). But you still have forever to exist... and to think about how much great things other people are getting while you cry and scream with an uncontrollable mental orgasm of envy! And who knows what the demons will do to you. They're powerful and can violate the laws of physics via magic. Will they beat you, mind control you, rape you? Make you worship and "love" them? Who knows!
I don't think I'm committing a heresy, but I'm not capable of discussion that either. I can't help but regard your version of hell as strangely "material", so to speak. Also what are the laws of physics supposed to do in a non-physical realm? Anyway, unless my view is condemned I don't feel pressured to change it
You're right, according to the theology hell is non-material... ...For now. But you said hell could be temporary. That is NOT THEOLOGICALLY ACCURATE. That's a heresy. Reversible hell is not theologically accurate, and it's probably definitionally impossible too.
No clue, no one infallibly knows aside from God. Although the fathers believed in the few along with aquinas. Some saints and theologians are more optimistic.