Catholic Church pro UR???

[WhiteWings]

I must somehow misunderstand the article on a Catholic site defending UR.
The previous (and current) pope are pro UR?????

http://www.romancatholicism.org/universal-salvation.htm

Pope John Paul II often gave us to hope that all will be saved and taught the doctrine of universal salvation.

Hans Urs von Balthasar argued in favour of the doctrine; he has been called Pope John Paul's favourite theologian and he founded a theological journal with Ratzinger now Pope Benedict.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi WW...  :cloud9:

I must somehow misunderstand the article on a Catholic site defending UR.
The previous (and current) pope are pro UR?????

http://www.romancatholicism.org/universal-salvation.htm

Pope John Paul II often gave us to hope that all will be saved and taught the doctrine of universal salvation.

Hans Urs von Balthasar argued in favour of the doctrine; he has been called Pope John Paul's favourite theologian and he founded a theological journal with Ratzinger now Pope Benedict.

Don't know the degree of authenticity of the proposal offered by the link you noted...

I have a friend on another board, who is a staunch CATHOLIC, and quite a Bible Student, as well... and asked her about this, ...she said this is an inaccurate report, and not the stance which the RCC takes concerning Salvation...

She also added that this was NOT Pope John Paul II's position, ...here is her reply to me:

I am Catholic 

No, I have not read or heard anything about a reconsideration of UR by the Catholic church. Here is what the official teaching is: The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

In your link, I didn't think Pope John Paul II's beliefs were shown accurately and a little research confirmed that:

In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often "preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell" (p. 183).

Concerning the reality of hell, the pope says, "In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory . . . according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which abolished hell. . . . [T]he words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46). [But] who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard" (pp. 185–6).

Thus the issue that some will go to hell is decided, but the issue of who in particular will go to hell is undecided.

I do know Origen had a belief similar to universal salvation, and I believe that some of his thoughts actually lead to the church teachings on purgatory, although I'm not 100% certain.

I looked around that site you linked me to and it is extremely anti-Catholic  so I guess I'd keep that in mind. Another link there denies the holocaust happened

In any case, I do appreciate the way you & Jay have caused me to study the topic so much on my own. I no longer agree with the official teaching of my church - as you know I believe in complete destruction of those who are not saved. So even if my church did change to teach US, I would still be in disagreement with it :{:content:}nbsp; The more I read and study, the more I'm convicted of it.

Thank you for thinking of me - it's been a while since I've read over at tentmaker.

In His Love,
Lori

...willieH  :HeartThrob:

[Nathan]

Whew, don't know if she'd be all that comfortable embracing her belief and returning to here.  Not that we'd attack her for her beliefs as much as there isn't a whole lot of relief in conversation here pertaining to accepting eternal torment or annihilation, either one.

[Universalist Catholic]

It seems like the Church changes its teachings all the time.  Like a while ago, the Churches official stance was that you had to be Roman Catholic to recieve Salvation.  Today, they teach the possibility of salvation to non-Christians and Protestants too.  But they deny that they ever taught that Salvation is only for Catholics. 

[WhiteWings]

Here the cardinal/bishop suggested we call God allah because that's nice to muslims.... :sigh:

[Nathan]

It seems like the Church changes its teachings all the time.  Like a while ago, the Churches official stance was that you had to be Roman Catholic to recieve Salvation.  Today, they teach the possibility of salvation to non-Christians and Protestants too.  But they deny that they ever taught that Salvation is only for Catholics. 

Personally, this is the most common problem I have with churches in general anyway.  A denomination makes it almost impossible to expereince change in doctrinal understanding without it becoming a political debate on whether it's right or wrong.  I think change is not only necessary, but it's vital to the growth of any person who expects to get past the infancy stages of relationship with the Father. 

But instead, I beleive the church is what's actually keeping people in their infancy.  As we mature, our boundaries are to expand rather than contract.  If we are to form a denomination, we should allow our understandings to have the ability to change as we mature in our own relationships with the Father.

[thinktank]

I think so too, the church should have a degree of flexibility as God reveals more to us through time. Tradditions are kept in churches which are not biblical but are kept there, because of fear of change. I don't know if tradditions are evil as such, because I think we all enjoy traddition in all kinds/aspects of life, but I think the danger is when the traddition, blinds us/keeps us from God.

[Nathan]

Amen to that.  Just last week, I went in the sanctuary and felt it was God's desire I put the pulpit back to it's original place.  Several years ago, I took it down from the platform because I felt too many churches have pastors who set themselves above their congregations and whether they know it or not, they preach "down" at them. 

I've never seen myself as someone who should be elevated over another.  I'm on the same plain in the sense that revelation is not just something that can only come from the person behind the pulpit.  We're "all" kings and priests.  Rather than one man doing all the talking to the rest of the people and everybody just nods and goes home . . .the gatherings shouldn't be much different than if you went into your friends house for a visit.  Everybody visits.

So anyway, this past week, I felt God speaking to me to put it back.  Even in the freedom of breaking away from tradition, I found that you can make a tradition out of being different from tradition.  I wrestled with the idea of putting it back.  I didn't know why I was supposed to, just that I was.  So I did. 

And then, as we were having our time together, I was explaining why it was moved, it came out of my mouth that the reason why it was moved back is not because the person is above any other, but because the message coming forth is an ascended message.  And that's when it made sense to me why I needed to not ask why, but to just be obedient to the direction of what the voice was doing in me.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I heard that Nathan......back when I was still attending regularly, He took me thru the same principle with wearing a dress and no make-up to church (even though He had already shown me in the Word what He meant by those scriptures they twist).

For two weeks, AFTER He showed me I was not bound by that letter, I had to go in a dress (I prefer slacksuits most of the time) with no make-up on.

The make-up was not a big deal to me, I rarely wear it anywhere, and so little you can barely tell, but it ruffled my feathers a bit to have to put on pantyhose to wear a dress, LOL.... :laughing7:

I had just had my kids during that time period, was carrying way too much weight to deal with pantyhose......and frankly......felt like a water buffalo in drag, which I told Him.  :mshock:

(Hey, He's my dad and we talk about everything)

He pointed out to me by doing that object lesson with me, that as many as are led by the SPIRIT, they are the sons of God. He led me one way for awhile, then led me the opposite just to see if I'd be obedient. He did the same thing to the Israelites.....ok, well not EXACTLY the same thing, but you get the idea.  :winkgrin: :grin: Blessings....

[WhiteWings]

I think so too, the church should have a degree of flexibility as God reveals more to us through time.

And who's gonna check what was revealed by HS and what was not? There are a zillion denominations for a reason. I don't expect to see any flexibility. And certainly not worthwhile flexibility.

[thinktank]

So what are you doing here then join the baptists!

[jabcat]

So what are you doing here then join the baptists!

WW's been a valued member of this board for a long time, and will hopefully continue to be.

[thinktank]

5k plus posts, that must be a record

[WhiteWings]

So what are you doing here then join the baptists!

They are sinking

BTW. Great edit James  :winkgrin:

[Cardinal]

So what are you doing here then join the baptists!

WW's been a valued member of this board for a long time, and will hopefully continue to be.

:cloud9: AMEN

[LS]

Just for the record, here is what pope John Paul II wrote about hell.

Here is a news story reporting on part of a sermon pope Benedict gave on hell.

[Universalist Catholic]

Thanks for this Moneybags. Seldom do we here about hell at the pulpit but we should listen to the Holy Father in this regard. For it is just too easy to disregard the existence of hell.

A comment someone left

Because its utter nonsense.  But there are people who would have a heart attack at the idea that such a place doesnt exist.  All the same excuses "You cant have heaven without hell", A better question would be how can it be heaven if ther is a hell in the first place?  Plus plenty of people whos excuse is "a sin against an infinite being merits infinite punishment".  If you ask me, all that sounds like someone who has got bad anger issues, and cannot get over his own problems.  So the best he can do is soothe his anger by burning them forever?  Is it just me, or is that just ridiculus.  Plus if this were the case, why are we able to seek forgiveness on earth?

But on a lighter note, I remember one Catholic priests who said he believed in hell, but he did not believe anyone was there because if God could just pull them aside and showed them how their sins hurt people, they would want to repent.  That statement is a bit heretical according to the church, considering the official belief is that once a person dies, its too late to repent. 

[WhiteWings]

LS,
If I asked you to summarize the pope's speech in 1 or 2 sentences. What would you write.

imo his speech can be read in various ways. I edge to a summary like: Most will be in heaven but an eternal non-tortueus hell is a possibilty for some.

[LS]

LS,
If I asked you to summarize the pope's speech in 1 or 2 sentences. What would you write.

imo his speech can be read in various ways. I edge to a summary like: Most will be in heaven but an eternal non-tortueus hell is a possibilty for some.

I will re-read both of the links and post how I would summarize it later today when I have more time.

In the meantime, I guess I'm curious how you would define "non-torturous hell?"  To me, complete & eternal separation from God would indeed be tortorous ...

I once saw someone pose the question: If hell contained all of the wonderful things on earth - the beauty, the people you love, no illness nor disaster - but God was completely absent ... would you be happy there?

[WhiteWings]

In the meantime, I guess I'm curious how you would define "non-torturous hell?"

Good question that I can't really answer. It's reading between the lines and over impression. Not a solid foundation for a statement...

It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life "hell".

First of all no lava pit torture. Sounds like eternal life as on earth?
I've read an NDE book; true or not one chapter may apply to your question.
The vistor went to hell. The people in hell where just chatting. They even had parties. But no matter how friendly the where to eachother there was a huge distrust.
Just like discussing a big business deal. Always smiling, but always fearing/thinking the other is going to take advantage of you.
The person met someone there that died a few years ago. According to that person that very deeply rooted distrust is hell.
Maybe the pope means something like that? As said I'm unable to figure out what exactly he means. I think that's on purpose because he has to please all Catholics. So all views need to be adressed in the same speech... :2c:

[LS]

First of all no lava pit torture. Sounds like eternal life as on earth?

I think it's more that we designed our own suffering - many of the Catholic books express this explicitly, that the wicked are inflicted & punished with the very things they chose in this life.

I think that's on purpose because he has to please all Catholics. So all views need to be adressed in the same speech... :2c:

Why would you assume that?

[Molly]

No, I have not read or heard anything about a reconsideration of UR by the Catholic church. Here is what the official teaching is: The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

Where in the Bible does it say that one man on earth [Pope, catholic priest] can determine who goes to Hell?  I suppose they would use that statement about binding?

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So without the catholic priest performing his rituals over you and selling you his tickets to heaven, you go to Hell?  I guess they had a problem with Catholics who didn't receive the last rites, so they needed purgatory for Catholics who died in a state of sin.  All this gives the priest the right to forgive sin.  So according to this, our fate is not in the hands of Jesus, it is in the hands of men.

To me, complete & eternal separation from God would indeed be tortorous ...

This was the fate given to Cain when he was sent out of the presence of God after murdering his brother.  But, as we've seen, God put a mark on Cain before he sent him away--that mark, the Tav--the Cross.

[WhiteWings]

I think that's on purpose because he has to please all Catholics. So all views need to be adressed in the same speech... :2c:

Why would you assume that?

Because not all Catholics believe exactly the same thing. Teachings also vary a little from place to place. So because the pope speaks to all Catholics he has to consider that not all Catholics believe exactly the same thing.

I've read a comic book for children about Rich man and Lazarus. The rich man was in a place with flames and extreme thirst. Rich man loved his money. Counted and polished his coins daily while talking to it. In hell the coins bit him if he tried to touch them :-). That was a Catholic book.

[LS]

Where in the Bible does it say that one man on earth [Pope, catholic priest] can determine who goes to Hell?  I suppose they would use that statement about binding?

They don't claim to determine who goes to hell ... like all of you who believe in UR, they are simply teaching what they believe scripture states.

I'm really not here to debate Catholic teachings & practices - I simply saw in this thread a question and I felt I might shed some light on that.

peace   :grouppray:

[LS]

Because not all Catholics believe exactly the same thing. Teachings also vary a little from place to place. So because the pope speaks to all Catholics he has to consider that not all Catholics believe exactly the same thing.

Do all UR proponents believe exactly the same things?  :JCThink: :OhNo:

You are right of course - being made up of humans, teachings, ideas and customs do vary.  However, "official" Catholic doctrine does not vary - they are the same for all of the church and if you want to know the official church teaching, the catechism of the Catholic church is where you will find it. 

I don't think the pope is concerned about tailoring his teaching to different beliefs though.