www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Dare we hope that all be saved?

Theology should be grounded in truth also. Inovative thinking means nothing to the Christian if it is not truth.

Catholic Theology should be an art in which we try to get at the truth in light of our Christian Tradition - all the way to the "Fathers of the Church" and even to include the "Doctors of the Church".

It appears to me, thus far, that while much of the theological ideas of today's Catholic theology is sold - as just that - Catholic theology. It is really Protestant founded theology. Unknown to the recipiants of this new "knowledge" it has it's origins in Protestant theologians of the enlightenment not *revelations* from Catholic thought.

***

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, do not have to be agreed with, one can disagree with them - on a logical level - and still be fully *catholic*. But we should not talk about them in condescending ways (interestinlgy these two seem to be the only philosophers I know of that are subject to this sort of ridicule, Plato, Aristotle, rarely if ever are spoken of with contempt) but we should be respectful of them. They both did much for the Church, and dare I say were not stupid men of their time, pluse both of them are recognized as Doctors of the Church.

The Eastern Nicholas of Cusa I understand (from my past on the catholic-pages) proposed God be thought of not as a Trinity but as a line that never ends. He may have a point, but Scripture references to three Persons of the One God. And Church tradition gives us the so called *Trinity*. I've never heard anyone ridicule Nichoals though.

***

I don't think todays Western Christian problem is rooted in Latin Catholic scholasticism so much as it is just the natural result of Protestant intellectualism progress.

Maximus notes above: "It appears to me, thus far, that while much of the theological ideas of today's Catholic theology is sold - as just that - Catholic theology. It is really Protestant founded theology. Unknown to the recipiants of this new "knowledge" it has it's origins in Protestant theologians of the enlightenment not *revelations* from Catholic thought."

This has not been my experience. Every Catholic theological school that I'm familiar with begins with the early Fathers of the Church, spends tons of time with Thomas Aquinas (and Augustine, and Bellarmine, Bonaventure, etc.) and then (and only after a solid grounding in the traditional theology) are courses presented focusing on Rahner, Schillebeekx and other more contemporary theologians. The rationale is: don't let the theo-puppies loose in the Protestant corral, lest they get all excited about ideas that are not consistent with Catholic teaching. (In fact, only books by Catholic theologians were available in the Jesuit theologate library; books by Protestants and Orthodoxes were kept in a locked closet nicknamed "Hell". When Charles Schultz's book "The Gospel According to Snoopy" was published, it was promptly put in this chamber. We used to joke about Snoopy going to hell.)

One real problem now is that barely anybody can read Latin and Greek anymore, and so how the heck can one do theology without the 'Source texts'?

Christ is Risen!!

Originally posted by Marshall:

Brethren,

I recently checked out Kallistos Ware's Inner Kingdom. It's an anthology of his essays. The last article poses the question "Dare we hope that all be saved." It is similar to the Balthasarian discussion...Ware seems to say that we can indeed hope that all men can be saved...Balthasar says similar things. He doesn't say that all men are saved. Rather he says we should hope for it.

Unless we are Calvinists, we have to.

Moreover, Bishop Ware cites a portion from the Divine Liturgy or Office (can't remember which) in which the church prays for the converstion of those in hell.

Hmmmmmm. Sounds like Purgatory to me.

We should pray for the salvation of all. And trusting that God is faithful to hear our prayers through Christ, we must then hope for our prayers' goal. Thus, we retain a hope that God regenerates everyone on their deathbed.

Yes.

I'm skeptical. What is everyone's take on this?

My uneducated take on this is that "hoping" and praying for all to go to Heaven is something we have to do unless we believe like the Calvinists that God pre-determines that some people will automatically go to hell and some to heaven. God's mercy extends to all at all times, period.

Hoping and praying for universal salvation and teaching it as a fact (that it will happen because God will make sure it happens regardless of anyone's choice) are two different things, however. If all are saved simply because "God makes sure of it", this indeed cheapens the sacrifice of Christ, as Benedictine indicated in an ealrier post. But if we are all saved because, by his grace, we all choose to cooperate with God and be saved, it does not.

We must hope that all will be saved, but, in the end, of course, who is saved and who is not is up to the free choice of each individual. Hopefully when we get to heaven, we will see that all have "chosen wisely".

Peace,

[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: Mystic ]

Ah, but if it's purgatory in the Latin sense, then they don't need conversion...they've already "made it", they just need to get purified.

The possibility of conversion in purgatory seems to me to imply that one can (in purgatory) refuse to be converted, refuse to be purified. And if that's so, then is purgatory just another chance to get it right? This seems to make purgatory into a kind of "spiritual reincarnation", a second chance at life, but on an eternal scale. Hardly the "you're already going to heaven, you just need to be cleaned up" purgatory I ever learned about.

So, does Latin theology teach that one can refuse purification in purgatory?

Originally posted by Mor Ephrem:

Ah, but if it's purgatory in the Latin sense, then they don't need conversion...they've already "made it", they just need to get purified.

Hi, Mor Ephrem. I guess I need to ask a question since this is a bit curious to me. Do the Orthodox really pray for the **conversion** of people in hell? Or did he mean to say that the Orthodox pray for the "deliverance" of people from hell? Those are two different concepts and are a very important distinction. Obviously the latter meaning is what I understood him to intend.

So, does Latin theology teach that one can refuse purification in purgatory?

No, it doesn't. If one is in purgatory, it means their fundamental choice is for God (and there's only two options in this case - for or against) and therefore their ultimate destiny is Heaven. Period.

Peace,

Greg

Dear Greg,

I don't know if the Orthodox pray for the conversion and/or deliverance of people from hell. That's because I've never come across it in our texts, and Bishop Kallistos being Greek would have access to their texts, which I don't have, being a Syrian.

I do know that we generally talk about going to Hades or Sheol in our liturgies. I myself am just learning about this, and so I'm as in the dark as you might be, so I leave it to the likes of Dr. John, Alex, or just about anyone else here to explain it to us. But I have a suspicion that when Bishop Kallistos talks about praying for those in hell, this is probably what is meant.

Dear Mystic and Mor,

(Sounds like a law firm . . . )

Christ is Risen!

First of all, did you know, Greg, that one or two Eastern Patriarchs who are saints have the title "Mystic?"

This actually had nothing to do with their mystical state, but with their membership in an administrative group of the Byzantine Imperial Court whose participants were called, "Mystics." Believe it or not . . .

As for prayers for those "in hell," again the Eastern Church sees all souls on the "other side" not in their final state, since this will occur only with the Second Coming of Christ.

Prayers for the dead that they be loosed from their sins are offered and we know they really DO loose them.

Is that "Purgatory?" Not in the strict Eastern sense that didn't have designated "places" for souls in the after-life - again such a final state would be assigned after we are made whole, as tripartite beings, with body, mind and soul, and stand at the Final Judgement of Christ.

Can God pull souls out of Hell? God is Master of all, and He certainly could do that.

The fact is we don't know how God will treat sinners and how far He blames them for actions undertaken, as Aquinas laid out, with full intent and understanding etc.

Again, as St Peter Mohyla said, even if we see someone die in the state of mortal sin, for argument's sake, we should pray to ask God not to judge him according to his sin, but to forgive him.

That should really be our motto.

But I'm still confused as to how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Dr. John?

Alex

The Baby Jesus did not receive a Timex while in the manger!! It seems clear that God sent His only-begotten Son in human form to bring us to Himself. It is also easier for us humans to respond to one of our own.

But, while the 'anthropomorphizing' of God that comes to us through our relationships with Jesus Christ, the MAN, is a valid one, there is a danger that we can superimpose on GOD the human realities that applied to Jesus, God-Made-Man; and this is clearly a danger.

In terms of salvation, we are constantly being seduced into thinking in terms of "time" - - man lives, man dies, man is in a state of Pre-Judgement before the Last Judgement, man goes to final state. Nice in theory, and very boxy-convenient. But does this timeline really subject God to its strictures? {Silly humans, time is for humans!!]

John Calvin based his theories of predestination upon this very phenomenon. People who are currently existing in time, but since time is irrelevant to God, then God "already knows" an individual's ultimate destination. The problem lies in the fact that it is not really 'pre-destination', but rather a Divine Knowledge of what choices a person 'will make' (human time frame!!!, not God's) that will lead to his/her ultimate status. Thus, it is not really 'pre-destination' but rather foreknowledge.

In my understanding, until we, in human time, reach the Final Judgement, all are in the process of coming to the Omega Point of fulfilment in God. Thus, despite the fact that a person has already fled this human life, he/she is still a member of the body of Christ, and is therefore 'salvageable' through the actions of the collective community. Thus, we legitimately pray for the dead and the salvation of their souls. Though their ability to work out their salvation on earth is over, our job as their brethren will continue, continuing to pray and sacrifice for the deceased as well as for the living.

AND, since it is clear to me that God wills the salvation of all (hey, after all He sent His only-begotten Son to redeem us!!!), then I think that it is incumbent upon us to continue to pray and sacrifice collectively for all the baptized (and, for the 'liberals': for the soul of every human being who ever existed irrespective of baptismal status).

Let's not restrict God to our concepts of time. To do so would be to restrict God according to our paltry and frail human experiences. Including time. Let's just love our neighbors (Christ said to) and pray for all of them and their ultimate salvation. And expect that God will fulfill His promise of salvation for humankind.

Christ is Risen from the Dead!! (And what a kick in the pants for the sceptics who doubt His eternal love for His creation.)

Dear Dr. John,

Well said, as usual. You should have gone into theology or something!

What I find most dynamic about the Byzantine tradition of prayer for the reposed is that we even pray FOR the saints, the Mother of God, who are already in heaven, as we can see from the prayers of the priest following the Canon in the Divine Liturgy.

It is this dynamic character of life in Christ that underscores our Church's understanding of the flow of Grace and the role of our prayers for one another, in Christ, in Whom there is only eternal Life.

(If this were a theology paper, how would you mark me?)

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

Thanks for the post, I concur with what you have so succinctly laid out. But...

Can an individual person still choose to refuse the grace of God, regardless of all the many of the faithful who pray for the salvation of his/her soul?

This it seems to me is the crux of the question. In fact, in my theology class the prof. concluded that it was impossible for someone to hold back consent with God "wearing one down" with His mercy through the eons. Ah, but there that time thing again! There are no "billions & billions" (to steal a line fron Carl Sagan) of years in eternity - just an eternal now. I asked my teacher if Rahner and other modern theologians are positing irresistible grace [a al Calvin] but not for a limited elect but for all. He was intrigued since no one had ever put it that way - but yes.

BTW concerning your comment about your experience of studying with the Jesuits. Not to offend, but from your account I would venture that it has been some years since then, right? (Gospel according to Peanuts - sounds dated) Let me tell you things are MUCH changed today. There is no list of "forbidden books" (even though I did have one priest tell me that I shouldn't be reading the Catechism, since it is ONLY for the bishops to use!). Protestant authors are widely read and even favored over Catholic ones. Yes there is still a "tip of the hat" to the classics (Augustine, Aquinas, etc.) and a grudging acknowledgement of the "so-called" (their words) "official" Church teaching, but most of the cirriculum is broadly Christian - of a liberal variety that is.

Blessed Pascha!

Benedictine

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

Dear Benedictine,

A PAX on your house!

Yes, I sometimes contemplate how Dr. John would have turned out if he hadn't been with the Jesuits . . .

Reformation theology is quite popular as an area in which to both study and do a doctorate in, as I understand from a friend who did one.

As for quoting from Protestant authors, I have even heard sermons in RC Churches where the priest quoted from "Brother Martin."

I just happened to recognize the quote and the priest later confirmed that he had, in fact, quoted from Martin Luther.

When are the liberal RC's going to go the whole route and do up a litany to "our father in the faith," do you think?

Alex

when i was at an ordination of a priest once, i heard listed in the Litany of the Saints Ceasar Chavez, Martin Luther king Jr, and Dorthy Day. Do these count?

Not unless they added Gandhiji to the Litany...he was the inspiration behind King.

Dear Friends,

And I came across a Catholic Carmelite prayer book where Anwar Sadat was invoked!

One may invoke anyone privately, to be sure.

Dorothy Day has a canonization process in Rome and Robert Lentz did an icon of her as he did of Martin Luther King AND Ghandi.

Martin Luther King is venerated in the Episcopal and other churches. There are some "vagante" Churches that have canonized him. And the RC Church has listed him among the "Martyrs of the 20th century."

Could Martin Luther King ever be canonized a saint by the Catholic Church?

The fact is that Martyrs of different Church loyalties were honoured by the Catholic Church for their martyrdom that made the Church overlook any defects of their orthodoxy.

So it would be possible, technically.

Alex

Yup, that's a roger; the Church can formally canonize anybody she wants to. (Actually, I think I remember a canonization several years back, in which some Africans were slaughtered by some right-wing tribal group who wanted all foreigners out. Included in the roster of martyrs were students - - non-Catholics - - who were also murdered. Some of them, I think, were catechumens, although not all.)

To Benedictine's question about whether souls in 'purgatory' or whereever could freely reject God: I'm not sure because it would depend on whether the 'soul' had free will at that point in its existence. I think that most theologians would prefer to say that free will ends with human death, and that post-mortem decision making is not a possiblity. I think that their point would be that the soul has already achieved a certain level of blessedness and that there would be no purpose in 'asking the soul to judge' because it would already be in the possession of God (at whatever degree of closeness). But, by our 'free will prayers', we can effect a change in the status of the soul vis-a-vis the Final Judgement.

I also like Alex's point about our also praying for the Saints; let's face it, they were humans like ourselves and were sinful and, despite their veneration as saints, still stand as imperfect beings before God. Hence, we pray for them too even as we ask them to pray and intercede for us.

Christ is Risen!!!