It is important to distinguish between the hopeful universalism of Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar and Bishop Robert Barron and the theory of final restoration (apokatástasis)
proposed by such authors as Origen, Isaac the Syrian, and (most likely) St. Gregory of Nyssa.
Hopeful universalism and apokatástasis differ insofar as the latter presupposes
the damnation of the impious. It should be noted that apokatástasis was condemned
in the ninth canon of the Synod of Constantinople (543), which is also reaffirmed by Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553),
If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons
and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time,
that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of
impious men, let him be anathema (Denz. 211)
The proposition that we have a
reasonable hope that all men are saved has multiple theological censures
attached to it. English historian Fr. Ethelred Taunton lists twenty-four
theological censures, of which the first four seem most relevant:
The Church in condemning propositions taken from authors'
works makes use of certain clausulae which denote the degree of condemnation.
The following are the twenty-four notes affecting condemned propositions:
1. Haeretica. A proposition is condemned as heretical when
it is formally opposed to a truth revealed by God and defined by the Church, or
when its contradictory is de fide.
2. Sapiens haeresim. A proposition is said to be 'smacking
of heresy' when its contradictory is not expressly defined, yet is so commonly
held in the Church, as though it were actually de fide, that the holding of
such a proposition affords grounds for a judgment, at least probable, that in
the defender of the proposition there lurks the poison of heresy.
3. Suspecta de haeresi. A proposition said to be 'suspected
of heresy' is one which may be true in a grammatical sense, but nevertheless,
from certain circumstances of person, place, and time, seems to insinuate a
latent heresy.
4. Haeresi proximo. A proposition 'proximate to heresy' is
one that is contradictory of another which is either held by many as de fide,
or is inferred, by evident consequence, from one de fide and another that is
undoubted.
(Ethelred Taunton, “The Law of the
Church: A Cyclopedia of Canon Law for English-speaking Countries,” (London:
Kegan Paul. Trench, Trubner & Co., 1906), 232.)
1. Theological
Censure: Haeretica
Hopeful Universalism contradicts the
solemn definitions of three General Councils (Lateran IV (Denz. 429), Lyons II
(Denz. 464) and Florence (Denz. 693)) regarding the punishments of the damned
(poena damni and poena sensus). To suggest that these solemn definitions need
not apply to concrete cases turns them into meaningless formulas. Even if these
councils had not formally defined the matter, it would still constitute an
infallible teaching under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (i.e., the
unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Popes throughout the centuries).
According to Spanish theologians
Francis Sola, S.J. and Joseph Sagues, S.J., the Magisteirum has defined
implicitly as a matter of Divine and Catholic faith that “the evil are deprived
of eternal life; and explicitly, that they are handed over to some punishment
which, according to the obvious meaning of the words, is distinguished from
that privation of God and which positively is inflicted on them.” (Francis Sola
& Joseph Sagues, Sacre Theologiae Summa (Volume IVB), 1956, translated by
Kenneth Baker S.J., 368).
English Dominican biblical scholar
Hugh Pope defines Divine and Catholic Faith as,
If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and
therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith; if the authority is
Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith. If to this be added the medium by
which the Divine authority for certain statements is put before us, viz. the
Catholic Church, we have Divine-Catholic Faith. (Hugh Pope, "Faith."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909.)
Theologian Ludwig Ott further clarifies,
The highest degree of certainty appertains to the
immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority
of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching,
vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty
is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the
Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith
(definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are de fide definita
(Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 9)
Here is a list of magisterial
statements of varying degrees of authority:
(1)
Pope Innocent III, Lateran IV (12th
Ecumenical Council, 1215):
But
He descended in soul, and He arose in the flesh, and He ascended equally in
both, to come at the end of time, to judge the living and the dead, and to
render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect,
all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may
receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil,
the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting
glory with Christ. (Denz. 429)
(2)
Pope Innocent IV, Sub Catholicae
Professione (6 March 1254):
Moreover,
if anyone without repentance dies in mortal sin, without a doubt he is tortured
forever by the flames of eternal hell. But the souls of children after the
cleansing of baptism, and of adults also who depart in charity and who are
bound neither by sin nor unto any satisfaction for sin itself, at once pass
quickly to their eternal fatherland. (Denz. 457)
(3)
Pope Gregory X, The Second Council
of Lyons (14th Ecumenical Council, 1274):
The
souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however,
immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The
same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that
nevertheless on the day of judgment "all" men will be brought
together with their bodies "before the tribunal of Christ" "to
render an account" of their own deeds. (Denz. 464)
(4)
Pope John XXII, Nequaquam sine
dolore (21 November 1321):
It
(The Roman Church) teaches… that the souls… of those who die in mortal sin, or
with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished
with different penalties and in different places. (Denz. 493(a))
(5)
Pope Eugene IV, The 17th Ecumenical
Council of Florence (Laetentur Caeli of 6 July 1439):
Moreover,
the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only,
descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.
(Denz. 693)
(6)
Pope Benedict XII, Apostolic
Constitution Benedictius Deus (29 January 1336):
Moreover,
we declare that according to the common arrangement of God, the souls of those
who depart in actual mortal sin immediately after their death descend to hell
where they are tortured by infernal punishments, and that nevertheless on the
day of judgment all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render
an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ, "so that
everyone may receive the proper things of the body according as he has done
whether it be good or evil. (Denz. 531)
(7)
Pope Pius VI, Auctorum Fidei (28
August 1794):
The
doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions
(which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in
which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are
punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by
this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that
middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God
and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk:
[Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)
2. Theological
Censure: Haeretica
Hopeful Universalism contradicts the
ordinary teaching of the church regarding the doctrine of the eternal
reprobation of the impious.
Theologian Ludwig Ott assigns the
theological grade of de fide to the proposition, “God, by an Eternal Resolve of
His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to
eternal rejection.” He adds, however, that “the reality of Reprobation is not
formally defined, but it is the general teaching of the Church” (Ludwig Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 244)
3. Theological
Censure: Haeresi proximo
Hopeful Universalism contradicts the
solemn definition of the First Vatican Council regarding the absolute necessity
of explicit faith for those who have attained the age of reason.
The Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius,
states,
If anyone says that divine faith is not to be distinguished
from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that for
divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because
of the authority of God who reveals it: let him be anathema (First Vatican
Council, Dei Filius, Canon 3.2).
Again,
This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the
catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with
the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has
revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of
reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation
and can neither deceive nor be deceived (Vatican I, Dei Filius, chap. 3).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
reaffirms this teaching,
What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed
truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we
believe "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can
neither deceive nor be deceived" (Paragraph 156).
Therefore, it is infallible teaching
(de fide definita) that one must not only believe in God’s existence, but also
believe in some revealed truth based on God’s authority. It is still disputed
whether only the two truths specified in Hebrews 11:6 are required as a matter
of belief, or whether one needs explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation
also.
The only reason why I do not assign
the theological censure of Haeretica
in this particular case is because one could argue that God could grant the
gift of faith to those in their last moments of life. This seems highly
improbable, but does not constitute formal heresy.
No comments:
Post a Comment