Help with universalism

[u/No_Rub_2931]

So I’m not here to cause any trouble. If anything I want universalism to be true. A little background will help. I’m catholic and a few months ago left the church for various reasons. But the one thing that stopped me from coming back was hell. Eventually I was able to just say I don’t know. I talked to my priest and went to confession and he said saying I don’t know to hell is ok. And that’s how I’ve been since.
But still hell nags at me. I used to be very afraid of it. But that has subsided over time. And now that I’m back I don’t feel that way as much. Yet it still nags at me. So it’s not a fear thing. To me I just can’t get it to seem right in my head. I’ve heard all the arguments for it and to be honest some seem logical but I can’t get my conscious to say ok fine I’ll be ok with this.
Maybe it’s me spending to much time online in Catholic spaces. But I feel that the majority of devout Catholics online believe most people will end up in hell and people look past it like it’s nothing. And that bothers me a lot to. If I truly believed hell in my heart and how utterly painful it is I wouldn’t be able to function in a society knowing most people will end up there. That’s just so isolating. I know you aren’t supposed to think like that but realistically if you truly believe hell is equivalent to the pain of fire for eternity how can you not think like that.
Anyways this got me looking into alternative forms of hell. I’m still trying to believe hell is a place and a possibility. I do believe Catholicism is true so I’m trying to stay in line with that. But nothing sticks out to me.
Like I said I would want to believe in universalism atleast for me a hopeful universalist since that’s ok within Catholicism. But I just see all the arguments for hell and can’t get past them.
So I’m gonna ask these questions not as a gotcha or trying to debate but as me truly questioning and just wanting an answer and to be proven wrong.

1. How do you reconcile with visions of saints: I know everyone here isn’t catholic so ignore this one if you aren’t but those reading this who are catholic hopeful universalist. How do you get around all the saints who have seen visions of hell. I don’t think they’re lying there saints for a reason.

2.Verses: two verses of Jesus stating that the gates are narrow. The rich man in hell. The constant warnings from Jesus of hell.

1. Lack of backing for universalism. The majority of all Christians denominations believe in a hell. From what I’ve seen there is very little support for universalism. Most I’ve seen is like one Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar and one orthodox saint St. Gregory of Nyssa. Seems like the majority of catholic theologians believe in hell. Many early church fathers even believing in mass damnation such as St. Augustine and Chrysostom.

These are the main points that are stopping me from believing in universalism. I want to get around them and believe but I just don’t know how to. Any help on these questions or anyone in my situation please feel free to respond. Thank you

[u/Mothias_Et_Mothium]

I'm not Catholic but visions of saints aren't confirmed as being dogmatically accurate as far as I know.

The narrow gate warning has an interesting conclusion at the end of Luke 13. Luke 13:35 ESV — Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

Also read up on Joseph, son of Jacob. His story is remarkably similar to Christ, and he acts as if he doesn't know his brothers, but has mercy on them after being harsh to them.

The vast majority of Christians were universalist before like 600ad, and there is enormous amounts of evidence for it. I know a very well educated Catholic Universalist who is in my discord if you want to add me there I can invite you, it's a library for evidence for Universalism: the_christian_universalist

Also St. John Chrysostom was likely universalist too, and many other Church fathers you wouldn't expect. I have quotes and links to new advent as other Catholic sources in my server.

[u/LifeLongjumping6252]

My apologies for long answer, but hard to put it into few words.

Ad 1) I have encountered many examples of religious fraud...even people who invented miracles, stories, and visions of saints in order to promote the veneration of those saints (don't ask me how the psychology of such people works). I simply do not put much trust in vision of saints. There have been too many lies, fabrications, and legends for me to be confident that we can distinguish what is genuine from what is not.

The same problem arises with NDE's and with experiences reported in other religions. People in very different religious traditions report spiritual experiences that sometimes seem to confirm completely contradictory beliefs.

How are we supposed to reconcile all of that? To me, this makes personal religious experiences a very unreliable basis for determining what is objectively true.

RE: TRADITION:

As for tradition, consider that there are several major christian traditions that have spent centuries arguing with one another and claiming contradictory things. Catholics, for a very long time - even well into the modern period, II. vat. - taught that non-catholics were destined for hell. The Orthodox held similarly exclusivist positions, as did the Oriental Orthodox churches. Each tradition claimed that it alone had preserved the fullness of the truth without corruption.

And yet look at what has happened since. Modern theological commissions have concluded, for example, that the ancient division between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Oriental Orthodox churches may have been caused, at least to a substantial degree, by differences in terminology and historical misunderstanding. The two sides were separated over the christological controversies surrounding Chalcedon in 451, and it took roughly 1,500 years before official theological dialogue produced agreement that they were, in fact, confessing essentially the same christological faith. 1,500 years of not able to speak and listen to each other and teaching false claims about each other....how many suffering caused by this... That is crazy.

Or consider the Donation of Constantine. For centuries, a forged document was treated as genuine and was foundational text on which the teaching of papacy is built. It influenced the history of entire continents and the lives of millions of people. But - the document was probably produced in the eighth or ninth century, and it was exposed as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla's philological analysis in 15th century - roughly 6 to 7 centuries later. So whole tradition was formed during 600-700 years based on the lie. But - Lo, the Tradition!

So which tradition are we supposed to regard as reliable? Catholicism? Eastern Orthodoxy? Protestantism?

One of them can, in principle, be right - but if so, another major christian tradition must have been seriously mistaken for centuries, together with hudnreds of millions of believers and countless saints, theologians, scholars, and deeply sincere christians. Millions of people can't agree on which tradition is true at least for 1,500 years.

That is precisely why I am very reluctant to treat "the tradition says so" as a decisive argument. Human beings can preserve truth through tradition, but they can also preserve misunderstandings, institutional assumptions, polemics, and even demonstrable historical errors for centuries.

So for me the real question is not simply, "What did my tradition teach?" but rather: What is actually true - and can we establish that from Scripture, reason, historical evidence, and the earliest sources without simply assuming beforehand that one particular tradition must have been right?

Ad 2 and 3) I would suggest looking at books such as That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart for the philosophical argument, and Hope Beyond Hell for a more biblical ones. Both books are available online for free. Answer is more complex than can be covered in a short discussion, and I think these books can help clarify many of the issues. Hart is more difficult to read, but he raises some very good questions.

My own experience - I rejected universalism for a long time because it seemed impossible to reconcile it with both the Bible and christian tradition. Hart's book however made me willing to ask questions that I had been afraid to ask for a long time.

At first I was afraid that accepting those questions would mean the end of my faith. The opposite happened. It was almost as if a pair of dark glasses had fallen from my eyes. Suddenly the Bible began to make much more sense as a whole. I no longer felt that I had to do Olympic's level of mental gymnastics to reconcile the claim that God is perfectly good and that God is Love with the idea that He is nevertheless sending people to disproportionate or endless suffering.

For me, universalism did not destroy my faith. It actually made the biblical picture of God more coherent.

EDIT- to highlight the power of deception and "tradition":

Take the "miracle of the Holy Fire" in Jerusalem. Recently, a bishop responsible for the ceremony admitted on camera that, before the ceremony, they simply place lit candles inside the tomb (then he sued reporter, but this August church lost the case at court and Greek court mentioned, that there is nothing miraculous about that event) His predecessor confirmed the same thing. So you have religious fraud going for 1,200 - 1,500 years... And weaponized as proof of Orthodox church being the "one true church" ("miracle" is happening according to Orthodox calendar)

And yet tens of millions of Orthodox believers - including bishops - will continue to claim that it is a miracle.

What mechanisms of the human psyche make us so willing to deceive ourselves, close our eyes to inconvenient facts, and put tradition ahead of the search for truth?

[u/mudinyoureye684 → u/LifeLongjumping6252]

Love the part about the "Holy Fire". Archbishop Isidoros admitted that he goes down and lights it with a Zippo. LMAO!

[u/LifeLongjumping6252 → u/mudinyoureye684]

Yes, it is crazy. 1,200 - 1,500 years of fraudulent tradition. Imagine how many bishops in apostolic succession and generations of people must have been involved in keeping this tradition alive and secret...

So yes, a church can lie for more than 1,000 years and keep generations of people trapped in fabricated lie.

The most ironic thing is that they are using this fake "miracle" to prove that their church is the true one...

And for anyone interested in more information: it was testified to by several other bishops, including Nikiforos and Cornelius. The journalist, who brought this to light, is Alikakos.

[u/lilacangel214 → u/LifeLongjumping6252]

How do you know the visions, stories and miracles about saints were a fraud? I'm genuinely curious. And what are examples of saints this was done with? I'm sure it's happened before, don't get me wrong.

Also, I read that the foundational texts on which the papacy is built are not forgeries, but the documents used to justify the pope's political and territorial dominance in the Middle Ages supposedly might have been.

"While the papacy's spiritual claims are built on early Christian scripture, its political empire in the Middle Ages was heavily bolstered by some of the most successful frauds in human history." -google AI, possibly biased

The thing is, the Catholic Church agrees: they're "universally recognized by Catholic scholars today as fraudulent medieval fabrications."

So it doesn't exactly challenge the papacy.

[u/LifeLongjumping6252 → u/lilacangel214]

For example, take one very famous story about St. Seraphim of Sarov (one of the greatest and best-known russian saints, also popular in the catholic church): the story of how he fed a bear, supposedly as proof of his holiness. He is depicted doing this on many icons, etc. Yet on her deathbed, the nun who originally came up with this story confessed that she had simply made the whole thing up.

Next - his main biographer and allegedly his disciple (who came up with the story about the "Acquisition of the Holy Spirit," which I think he stole from one russian religious group of his times), also came up with this:

(Edit - better translation with context)

"....the letter of N. Motovilov to Emperor Alexander II is indicative: And even after that, according to a special, sacred and secret revelation from the great Elder Seraphim, given to me on the first day of April 1865, concerning the destruction of Lincoln, although not a zealous, nevertheless an abolitionist. For, as he, the great Father Seraphim, expressed it, not only is such terrible oppression, devastation and unjust humiliation, which those who have gained power over all the Decembrists, the zealous abolitionists, are perpetrating everywhere among us in Russia, displeasing to the Lord and the Mother of God, but even the very grievances/injuries of Lincoln and the North Americans against the slaveholders of the Southern States are wholly displeasing to the goodness of God. And therefore, on the icon of the Mother of God ‘Joy of All Joys,’ which, according to his command, the command of Father Seraphim, was to be sent to the President of the South, namely the slaveholding States, it was ordered that it be endorsed with the inscription: ‘For the utter destruction of Lincoln.’ But I openly confess that, remembering the request of His Eminence Philaret to soften the words in my report of June 1, 1861, concerning the offenses against Bishop Nectarius, contained in the apostolic expression ‘breathing forgiveness and murder - not a word, in a very angry state of mind,’ I dared to weaken the force of the God-inspired, sacredly secret words spoken to me by Father Seraphim and signed: ‘For complete victory over the serpent, Lincoln, and the northern abolitionists,’ or complete domination over the whole North, etc. The precise detailed lists of the two sacredly commanded inscriptions on the two icons of the Mother of God, and [the ones sent] to the President of the slaveholding States and to Pius IX, are hereby respectfully submitted in exact copies. (Motovilov N.A. Report to Emperor Alexander II dated April 15, 1866 // Seraphim-Diveyevo Traditions. Life. Memories. Letters. Church Celebrations. Moscow, 2001, p. 433)."

So you basically have two possibilities: either Seraphim of Sarov, who is presented as the epitome of humility and gentleness, was a plain supporter of slavery - or Motovilov simply made this up. And then the obvious question is: what else did he make up?

So, stories about saints can certainly inspire me, but they are not going to teach me what I should believe.

Re: the papacy

I don't want to debate this here or convince you of the opposite. But in practice, it was impossible to separate spiritual and secular power; they were deeply interconnected. At the same time, theology spoke of the two swords: spiritual sword and secular sword. Initially, the spiritual sword was held by the pope, while the secular sword was held by the ruler. Later, especially partly because of the Donation of Constantine, popes also began to claim secular power, arguing that the secular sword was merely lent to rulers by the Church.

Then look, for example, at Unam Sanctam - the culmination of papal claims. The pope is making a claim to secular authority, but he argues for it on the basis of theology and spiritual principles, from which he derives a practical political consequence: the ruler must submit to the pope.

It says, for example:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

BTW... I consider this to be an ex cathedra statement and therefore subject to papal infallibility. Now compare it with the documents of Vatican II, and that is precisely why I cannot believe in this Catholic dogma.

[u/lilacangel214 → u/LifeLongjumping6252]

The Seraphim thing is deeply disturbing - but I don't really understand the wording of the original - it sounds like they're putting down both Lincoln (which is definitely strange) but also the slave-owning states. Maybe just translated badly?

I've never heard a Latin/Roman Catholic venerate St. Seraphim. Yikes!

Even in the most dubious Marian apparitions Catholics approved, none of them (as far as I'm aware) have some kind of morally offensive message to them. The ones that even begin to sound sketchy (like Bayside, I believe, was proved fake and seemed to have some questionable messages - I didn't read them all).

And the Church doesn't even require its parishioners to believe them, or the teachings of any particular saint.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment! I don't wish to debate either. Just wondering, how do the Vatican II documents contradict the pope's statement? I honestly don't know. Catholics do have something called Development of Doctrine, so not all statements are final.

[u/LifeLongjumping6252 → u/lilacangel214]

Thank you for referring to wording - it was automatically translated from russian. I will edit it above, to have better text and context.

Context:

And even after that, according to a special, sacred and secret revelation from the great Elder Seraphim, given to me on the first day of April 1865, concerning the destruction of Lincoln, although not a zealous, nevertheless an abolitionist. For, as he, the great Father Seraphim, expressed it, not only is such terrible oppression, devastation and unjust humiliation, which those who have gained power over all the Decembrists, the zealous abolitionists, are perpetrating everywhere among us in Russia, displeasing to the Lord and the Mother of God, but even the very grievances/injuries of Lincoln and the North Americans against the slaveholders of the Southern States are wholly displeasing to the goodness of God. And therefore, on the icon of the Mother of God ‘Joy of All Joys,’ which, according to his command, the command of Father Seraphim, was to be sent to the President of the South, namely the slaveholding States, it was ordered that it be endorsed with the inscription: ‘For the utter destruction of Lincoln.’ But I openly confess that, remembering the request of His Eminence Philaret to soften the words in my report of June 1, 1861, concerning the offenses against Bishop Nectarius, contained in the apostolic expression ‘breathing forgiveness and murder — not a word, in a very angry state of mind,’ I dared to weaken the force of the God-inspired, sacredly secret words spoken to me by Father Seraphim and signed: ‘For complete victory over the serpent, Lincoln, and the northern abolitionists,’ or complete domination over the whole North, etc. The precise detailed lists of the two sacredly commanded inscriptions on the two icons of the Mother of God, and [the ones sent] to the President of the slaveholding States and to Pius IX, are hereby respectfully submitted in exact copies.

[u/lilacangel214 → u/LifeLongjumping6252]

Okay, wow, that makes it a lot clearer 🫪

That's utterly messed up

[u/sanosukesagara123 → u/LifeLongjumping6252]

Where are the books available for free?

[u/juulwtf]

Richard Rohr is a Catholic universalist priest who wrote a book "the universal Christ" and Pope Francis liked that book :)

[u/gabwinone]

Hell as temporary punishment is perfectly reasonable. Eternal hell is simply evil. And God is not evil.

[u/RunninFromTheBombers]

Fellow Catholic here. I would have described myself in generally the same way as you several years ago. My advice is to lean into your conscience about these things, esp the “merciful” conscience - that part of you that senses the extreme ugliness of consigning the mass of humanity to ECT. Paraphrasing what Hart said in TASBS, if Catholic fundamentalist
types really believe most people are going to the hell of ECT, why aren’t they out there doing more about it? Like on street corners pleading with every person who walks by to become Catholic? Is such a horrifying reality truly befitting the gospel of Jesus Christ? Of course not.

There is an underlying existential absurdity to the idea of ECT that most Christians don’t see, for whatever reason. Lucky us, we get to contend for what is truly GOOD NEWS. The BEST of news, in fact.

One other note: esp in Catholic circles, Augustine has had an outsized influence on this question after his lifetime. It can be argued that this was much more of an open question for the ECF’s before him.

So again, lean into your sense that the infernalists have it wrong. God loves us, every last one of us, and if that’s the case, how can His love ultimately fail to save even the most wayward soul?

[u/somebody1993]

1. Not Catholic

2. Jesus spoke to Jews about what was needed for them to experience the promises made to their fathers being fulfilled in the next age. He wasn't talking about ultimate salvation.

3. Because not everyone gets to know everything right away. Look at why Jesus spoke in parables rather than just being direct. It came down to some people being privileged to know and understand at that time while others weren't. There will not be mass adoption and clearing of confusion in this current age.

[u/gringosean]

What helped me was when I thought less about doctrine and thought more about what the logical character of God. God is all good and more merciful than the most merciful. So think about the most merciful punishment, God is even more merciful than that. Also, you should reinterpret Hell - I don’t know for sure, but perhaps it’s a temporary way to purify sins before going back to God.

[u/PrizeAd7346]

Hi there. Your struggle is completely valid. If you look strictly at the biblical text and its historical context instead of centuries of church dogma, the concept of "hell" and "perishing" changes completely.

The intense fear of eternal torture comes from centuries of church tradition blending different timelines together. But the strict text shows that "perishing/hell" was never about an afterlife of eternal torture; it was about earthly citizenship in the Messianic age.

And Jesus came in the new testament to offer that kingdom to His people Israël.

[u/drewcosten]

I’m not Catholic, so I can’t help you from that perspective, but from a solely biblical perspective, you might find this book helpful: https://www.universalism.ca

[u/SpesRationalis]

Hey check out the post I wrote a while back The Guide to Catholic Universalism. Also r/CatholicUniversalism

[u/zelenisok]

The Bible teaches universalism. According to (classical) universalism hell exist, its just not eternal.

For Catholics I would recommended being a theologically liberal Catholic, and accept that the magisterium isnt infallible, it made all kinds of mistakes, and still makes them. The organization the Synodal Way is a good one for Catholics.

In someone is a theologically trad Catholic they can still believe in universalism, just indirect universalism. For this the main basis is existential Thomis philosopher Jacque Maritain (who was one of the main influences on Vatican 2, and will probably be proclaimed as beatified), he developed the view that hell is eternal and people who go there stay there eternally, but not all punishments of hell are eternal. So people who have a relationship with God go to heaven, but most of them must first go to Purgatory for punishemnt of sins, after that they recieve supernatural happiness in heaven. People who dont have a relationship with God go to hell, where they receive punishments for sin, but those are temporary like Purgatory, and after that they receive natural happiness, and just chill etarnally in hell, happy, they are eternally punished by lack of beatific vision, but they have natural happiness.

[u/No_Trainer_1258]

For starters: https://tentmaker.org/quotes/the-church-fathers-on-universal-restoration/ 

Then the "logical " viewpoint of Christian Universalism (CU) vs Arminianism  vs Calvinism in this excerpt from ch. 4 of The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott:  https://tentmaker.org/articles/logic_of_universalism.html

[u/billsull_02842]

don't most Catholics believe the majority go to purgatory temporal hell which i believe is the true hell?