'The Population of Hell' by Cardinal Avery Dulles

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

The Population of Hell by Cardinal Avery Dulles

I'm beginning to really like 'First Things'.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003

Answers

If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

-- (mon@te.christo.), September 22, 2003.

Don't be silly--Dulles knows, and cites, all of the Church Fathers and Scipture in that (4-page[?]) pamphlet plus much more.

Perhaps traditionalists should be called half-traditionalists; since they're only interested in the half of it.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.


The topic was inspired by our conversation earlier, yes. I thought that Dulles' article, which covers a very broad selection of sources of Catholic tradition from every age, would garner a little credibility.

mon@te.christo's post basically goes, "Oh yeah? Well ." And the link cites only a half of the sorts of Church Fathers and Doctors that Dulles is talking about.

You don't address an article you disagree with by linking an article that could have been used by the author as a source. :)

If Dulles has said something wrong, I want to talk about it. If you're a traditionalist, please resist the urge to pray your litany of "people who agree with you" here. Address the article, for love of God.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.


I would also add that, if anyone actually READS Dulles' article, it is largely in accord with "montechristo"'s yellow pamphlet.

It only says, despite the extreme unliklihood that all would be saved, we nevertheless pray for all.

But it also has much other wisdom in it. It is not an anti- Traditinalist tract; even if you disagree with some of his points, you will come away with many other things you find true, good, and edifying.

But for the Love of God, read the article. Jiminey Christmas.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.


Just looking at it again, note that the entire first half of the article broadly proclaims that the dominant mind of most Catholic scholars in the entire history of the Church is that most people in the world are lost.

This should make traditionalists very happy. Wait--no it shouldn't. Well, you get the idea.

Dulles then proceeds to summarize--NOT ARGUE FOR--attempts in the 20th century to understand the issue differently. Even then, nobody mentioned in Dulles' article even touches universalism.

He takes an in-depth look at Balthasar, Pope John Paul II, Pope Pius IX, etc.

In other words, the article is a very good look at what people today are actually saying and writing. That's important, because one of the most common accusations between orthodox Catholics and traditionalists is that one misquotes or misunderstands the other.

Know what you criticize before you criticize--if you're a traditionalist, Dulles' article may be the best news you've seen.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.



Thank you for your disclosure, Emerald.

Now, there's something very interesting I think was overlooked.

You quoted Pius IX in the last thread,

"Condemned Error: that 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863"

However, Dulles quotes him,

"We should at least have good hopes for the eternal salvation of those who are in no way in the true Church of Christ."

Materially, those phrases mean the same thing. However, do you agree that they might have been a source of the previous confusion? If anyone here had read Dulles' quoted version, they would have said, "Oh--but there are some who are in a mysterious way in the true Church of Christ--an ancient part of our Faith, supported most strongly by Justin Martyr and Augustine.

This is why I said "Stop the train" before. I think Dulles' article helps us "Stop the train" for a second. Don't you agree?

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.


"From whence it came that Venissima was welding together with the passing things of this world."

Maybe you're referring to the Incarnation?

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.


First question: is the Church not herself incarnational?

Second matter:

I think I have an idea of what you mean. However, all that is not ordinary is extraordinary, and everyone can agree that a Baptism by blood or desire are extraordinary.

But let's take a look. Explicit faith, reception of the sacraments, and obedience to the Church. The Justin Martyr quote about the Greeks "being Christians even though they were thought to be atheists" would definitely imply that the central requirement for salvation is the reception of the sacraments, namely Baptism, and other Father can be cited to the effect that this can happen implicitly. How? Blood (martyrs), desire (catechumens), implicit desire (those who had not heard of Christ BUT lived lives according to his will).

See, now this is the crux of it. The core controversial element of this discussion lies in this: "Vatican II declares that all people, even those who have never heard of Christ, receive enough grace to make their salvation possible."

Emerald, you quoted St. Leonard of Port Maurice in my other thread. However, we never looked closer what he wrote:

"Here is one now: "Tell me, who are you?" "I am a poor idolater, born in an unknown land; I never heard of heaven or hell, nor of what I am suffering now." "Poor wretch! Go away, you are not the one I am looking for." Another one is coming; there he is. "Who are you?" "I am a schismatic from the ends of Tartary; I always lived in an uncivilized state, barely knowing that there is a God." "You are not the one I want; return to hell." Here is another. "And who are you?" "I am a poor heretic from the North. I was born under the Pole and never saw either the light of the sun or the light of faith." "It is not you that I am looking for either, return to Hell."

All of this points to the following: those ... still lack many precious means that are available in the Church and therefore “cannot be sure of their salvation.”

This is what Terry (more or less) stated in the other thread.

Thus, Orthodox Catholics and traditionalists can agree: the sacraments are necessary (but in themselves insufficient) for salvation, and those who through no fault of their own do not make an explicit confession of Faith may nevertheless receive a Batptism by the Grace of God as brought about by their implicit desire for the True Faith--something which remains mysterious and unknown to us; we can't take it for granted.

However, sins of barbarism would nevertheless be condemning. As Justin Martyr wrote, those who did not live according to reason, (the LOGOS, the Son) would be condemned.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.


Getting deeper into the subject at hand before, let's look at Dulles again,

"The fact that something is highly improbable need not prevent us from hoping and praying that it will happen. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved’ (1 Timothy 2:4)” (CCC §1821)."

What is improbable? That all would be (or have been) Baptized (explicitly or otherwise) and further merit the sufficient grace given to them to have the reward of the Beatific vision. 'Improbable' is the euphemism of the century. Nevertheless, Dulles has that Timothy quote, "This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth." We share this will with the Lord, we know that it is not completely impossible, and so we have that certain kind of hope we call hope against hope.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.


Emerald,

I never had any illusions that traditionalists didn't know themselves to be sinners. But many of them seem to think that Catholics loyal to the Holy See (who affirm Trent and Vatican II together) don't also know this; or at least don't know it as much as they do. Reminds me of the story of two knights back from the Crusades,

"Oh Holy Father, forgive me, for I am surely the greatest sinner in the land."

"Oh no, dear God, surely it is I who am the greatest sinner in the land."

"Lord in Heaven, he is mistaken, for truly I have done far worse things in need of your mercy..."

...and so on. :P

And besides, I don't understand the traditionalist reluctance to be eager to ask God that "all men be saved," since it is what the Lord himself wants, despite the obvious observation, "narrow is the way, and few who choose it."

“See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ’s Blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that has been given for them alone are proud.” St. Augustine, [Enarr. in Ps. 95, 5]

Emerald, do you deny that many traditionalists--even if excluding you- -fall into that trap?

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.



And for the record, I will modify my Ghandi 'premise'--

Ghandi lived a life that we can all see was good; there is nothing in the world that is good which does not come from the Lord. However, it is true that Ghandi knew something about Christianity--even gave praise to Jesus--and yet denied himself entry into the One Church. Perhaps he did not know Christ the same way we do; perhaps the gospel preached to him was flawed; or perhaps after all he did indeed choose Hell. None of us know.

Pope Pious IX says rightly that I, as a Catholic, cannot hope that Ghandi was saved while not at all in the Church. This, I do not hope.

However, I do have great hope and prayers that Ghandi was in some way in the Church, for he lived according to reason, and was told to be of saintly character. I wager nothing; God's will be done.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.


Pre-emptive strike:

Yes, Ghandi is gone from this world--where our perception is concerned, his fate has been decided. But to God time is nothing; I cannot ask God to 'change' the past because for God the past does not exist as distinct from the present or the future. So there is no contradiction in praying for the salvation of souls for those who have died, just as we pray for the souls in purgatory.

Hmm... come to think of it, that's definitely open to discussion.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 22, 2003.


I don't understand the traditionalist reluctance to be eager to ask God that "all men be saved," since it is what the Lord himself wants, despite the obvious observation, "narrow is the way, and few who choose it."

There is no "Traditionalist reluctance" to desire that all men be saved, since that is the revealed desire of Almighty God. The differences with non-Traditionalists lie in the means of salvation. It is the desire of the Catholic that a pagan, for instance, save his soul. He was created by God and for God, after all, in His own image. For the Traditionalist, though, in light of Church teaching, it is not possible for him to save his soul unless, before his death, he embraces the Catholic faith and is baptized.

The Modernist holds that he can save his soul by being a good pagan. Traditionalists don't want to assert that the path is narrow and non-Traditionalists should be swept off it. On the contrary, we pray and desire that the Church expand her borders, convert and Baptize non-believers, and continue the Apostolic mandate that came from Our Lord Himself. We want as many people as possible on the narrow path. That doesn't mean that the path is not narrow, and steep, and treacherous.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 23, 2003.


Jake, you wrote, "On the contrary, we pray and desire that the Church expand her borders, convert and Baptize non-believers, and continue the Apostolic mandate that came from Our Lord Himself. We want as many people as possible on the narrow path. That doesn't mean that the path is not narrow, and steep, and treacherous."

In this, we are completely of one accord.

You also wrote, "For the Traditionalist, though, in light of Church teaching, it is not possible for him to save his soul unless, before his death, he embraces the Catholic faith and is baptized."

However, in another thread, Emerald had written the following:

"1. They get the goods without the actual Sacrament if they are just, or...

2. In a way we have no ability to comprehend, if they are just they actually get the actual Sacrament in a manner beyond our sight, beyond our understanding.

The first won't fly.

The second will."

Jake, are you in accord with Emerald in this?

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 23, 2003.


For ny two cents worth, I opt for number 2. That can cover God's mercy and justice, and can be in accord with that pesky thrice defined doctrine.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 23, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ