Balthasar, Hell, And Heresy: An Exchange

[thessalonian]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1149995' date='Dec 26 2006, 05:03 PM']
Could one of the objectors to universal hope explain something to me? There's something about the objection that doesn't make sense to me. I'm working under the assumption that if someone might have been saved, then Christian charity obliges us to hope they are saved. A second assumption is that if Judas Iscariot has a shot, even after the "better for him" line in the Gospel, then so does everyone else.

My trouble is that if I ask you "do you hope that Judas was saved?" you will presumably answer yes. And if I then ask "do you hope that Pol Pot was saved?" the answer is yes. And "do you hope that I will be saved?" the answer, I dearly hope, will again be yes. We could proceed thus through every human being who ever lived, and wouldn't you answer "yes" every single time?

So, aren't you hoping that every person is saved? This seems so logically obvious to me that I figure I must be missing something or making a bad assumption.

Also, do you pray the Fatima prayer in the rosary, "lead all souls to heaven...?"
[/quote]

The difference is that in fact the summation of the hopes of individuals getting to heaven is not the same as Von Balthasar's hope that none are in hell. He uses this thinking to come to a hope that hell is empty. That's seriously close to universalism. It is also contradictory to scripture to even suggest that such a hope will be relealized. We can certainly hope that all of our family members and relatives and all went to heaven, but to apply that in a universal manner is errant because we know that some will not reach heaven.

[beatty07]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1150036' date='Dec 26 2006, 06:14 PM']
The difference is that in fact the summation of the hopes of individuals getting to heaven is not the same as Von Balthasar's hope that none are in hell. [/quote]

That's just what I'm failing to see. If we had that conversation I outlined, you WOULD answer "yes" every single time, wouldn't you? What in the world does "all" mean if it doesn't mean "every instance of a particular group?"

Some quotes from "Dare We Hope?" that I just ran across that are relevant:

on the existential balance between hope and fear, pg. 44 of the Ignatius paperback: "It also should not, therefore - as in system-building theses such as those put forward by Karl Barth - be interpreted as meaning that Jesus, as God's chosen One, is rejected in place of all sinners, "so that, besides him, no one may be lost." This comment is, to be sure, surrounded by others whose tone is less absolute, and the term apokatastasis, or "universal reconciliation," is carefully avoided, even rejected. Still, one ought to stay well away from so systematic a statement and limit oneself to that Christian hope which does not mask a concealed knowing but rests essentially content with the Church's prayer, as called for in 1 Tim 2:4, that God wills that all men be saved."

In light of 1Tim2:4, doesn't hoping all men are saved amount to hoping that God's will is done? How can that be forbidden?

I don't mean to take a big stand here, but I do think the debate is very interesting and I'm interested in whether there is a response to these points.

"Dare We Hope?" also points out some of the Church's prayers:

"Father, you sent your angel to Cornelius, to show him the way to salvation. Help us to work generously for the salvation of the world so that your Church may bring us and all mankind into Your presence. Grant this through Christ our Lord." --- Tuesday, midafternoon prayer

"Father, you are the source of life that your Son, Jesus Christ, secured for us in his death and his resurrection. Recieve us and all men into the sacrifice of redemption and sanctify us in the blood of your Son, who lives with you and has dominion in all eternity." --- Offertory Prayer 8

"Lord, accept the offering of your Church; and may what each individual offers up to the honor of your Name lead to the salvation of all. For this we pray to you through Christ our Lord." ---weekday Mass I, Tuesday, offertory prayer

"Hidden God...we thank you for your patience...Make us receptive to you. Let the whole of forlorn mankind find its way to you. For this we pray through Jesus Christ..." Collect 22

It's interesting that as we go round and round this topic, the Church continues to pray for the salvation of all.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Perhaps von B's "dare we hope.." stuff is better understood as ultimately pertaining to the christian existential situation rather than formal soteriology.

[beatty07]

That's just what he says in the book!

I finished it today (gosh I love Christmas break) and I recommend it for anyone who's particularly interested. It takes a tone of agnostic humility throughout, not arguing for a doctrinal assertion but simply for the possibility of hoping for something. And he always insists on remembering the possibility of hell precisely for ME. He does a nice historical survey from the NT through the Fathers and scholastics until recent writers. The finding: we trust in God, but in the end God is God and that's final. If some of those for whom Christ died, our own brothers and sisters, suffer eternal punishment, then this can NOT mean that God is less merciful or whatever. Still, in the absence of any revelation that any particular person is doomed to hell, we hope that somehow everybody makes it.

His position may well be formally rejected someday, but as of now it has not. Thus, anyone who objects to it is on the same footing as his target: a private theologian doing his best to understand with a few pounds of grey matter and (one hopes) a lot of prayer.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Christmas rocks!!

[thessalonian]

I have not read the book and may very well soon as it fits in with a project I am looking at doing. One can certainly hope all go to heaven I suppose. But we must admit the possibility that individually everyone has the possibility of hellfire and some will in fact go there. Hope as if the one who you are pryaing for is going to heaven. Pray as if theyl are going to hell I have heard.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Just so that everyone knows, there was another round of exchanges in the latest issue of [i]First Things[/i] between Pitstick and Oakes.

While I empathize more with Oakes, and ultimately think that his position is correct (I dont think Von Balthasar was heretical and I do think he was an ecclesial theologian) I must say that Pitstick's actual argumentation was better. Oakes would have been much better off to stay away from the Holy Father's private theology and actually argue the point that von Balthasars account of the descent is not contrary to tradition. He should have used examples from tradition that are compatable with the Balthasarian theology, and then [i]bolstered[/i] them with the opinions of Schonborn, John Paul II, and Ratzinger.

oh well, thats my 2 cents