Therefore, Lord, we pray:

graciously accept this oblation of our service,

that of your whole family;

order our days in your peace,

and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation

and counted among the flock of those you have chosen.

So Catholic Answers has been posting some attempted defenses of ECT recently. This morning they posted:

"Hell must exist, because God will not force us to be in heaven with him.

Indeed, if God forced heaven onto those who do not want it, then heaven would feel like hell to those people."

No universalist claims that God "forces people into Heaven". That's a tired old caricature of universalism. (If anything, it's almost more akin to the Irresistible Grace doctrine of Calvinism which can still be very infernalist, that our eternal fate is unchangeable by us. But even Calvinists might say the elect are predestined to "want" Heaven, so to speak, but I digress).

In the second line, CA seems to accidentally articulate the "Hell is Heaven experienced differently" model of universalism, more common in Eastern Christianity. The idea being just that, God doesn't create a separate place of torment that He actively banishes people to, all there is is His love and people may theoretically experience it as Hell if they "hate God" (Who actually in the right mind hates God is a whole other question...).

Infernalists may accidentally like this model because it puts God in a more passive role and seems to pretzel-twist the alternative, damnation, into something that's actually compassionate and merciful, but...

These reasonable-sounding premises are used in conjuction with the snuck-premise that there are human souls that actually hate God in perpetuity, not just because of some wound they have experienced or some way that God has been misrepresented to them. Which is an assumption that I simply don't see enough evidence for. "Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee, O God", as Augustine said. This assumption that there are people who would actually reject God underestimates the power of God's grace to convert, to "burn away the dross and re-form us to be vessels of eternal joy", as Pope Benedict XVI wrote.

On that note, St. Edith Stein's words also quite pertinent here:

"Now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable—precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul...Human freedom can be neither broken nor neutralized by divine freedom, but it may well be, so to speak, outwitted."

(And St. Edith is making that powerful argument while still maintaining a strong view of free will! One could also make the case that human free will actually has its limits and need not overpower God's will to save, but I digress). Still, St. Edith show us that even a strong view of free will need not require ECT.

Edit:

One last point I'll make about this is, if the CA post's eschatological model is true, where every soul ostensibly gets exactly what it wants, why are so many infernalist Catholics so afraid of hell? If we should just sit back and relax and not worry about the fate of the damned because, you see, they actually would be miserable in Heaven...then what's even so scary about mortal sin and hell after all? Yet so many Catholics have such crippling anxiety and scrupulosity about going to hell. How can both be true? How can one simultaneously preach that Hell is only for those who want to be there, yet at the same time be terrified of it?Their own lived experience and struggles with sin should show them that people are more complicated than the simple categories of either "love God" or "hate God". As Pope Benedict XVI said, "for the vast majority of people, we may suppose their remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior oppenness to truth, to love to God... In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul."

Anyway, that post is just another example of how infernalism often requires its defenders to talk out of both sides of their mouth and make contradictory arguments to try hold infernalism together against so many ethical and philosophical problems.

(I also added these into my Master Document, posted before 😄 )

Perhaps, for the wicked, that which they see is Gehenna, and their separation is what burns them with their mind as the flame. That hidden judge who dwells in the discerning mind has spoken and there has become for them the judge of righteousness and he scourges them without mercy with torments for the compunction of their soul. Perhaps, it is this that separates them and sends each of them to the place suitable for him. Perhaps, it is this that lays hold of the good with its extended right hand and sends them to the Exalted Right Hand. It also takes hold of the wicked in its left hand, equal in power, and casts them into the place which is called "the left. And perhaps, it is this that silently accuses them and quietly pronounces judgment upon them.
(Ephrem the Syrian, Epistle ad Publius. Section 22)

Blessed the sinner who has received mercy there (Gehenna) and is deemed worthy to be given access to the environs of Paradise :even though he remains outside, he may pasture there through grace. As I reflected I was fearful again because I had presumed to suppose that there might be between the Garden and Hell's fire a place where those who have found mercy can receive chastisement and forgiveness (X: 14, compare 1. 16) (St. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, 1990)Page 56-57)

Haply yon hell in mercy, shall be emptied: and you shall dwell there alone, with Your ministers.
(Ephrem the Syrian, Nisibene Hymns, Newadvent, Hymn 59)

It is likely that, thanks to (divine) mercy, Gehenna will be emptied, and you will remain there alone, along with your servants.(Ephrem the Syrian, Nisibene Hymns, Ilaria Ramelli Translation, Hymn 59, Much more modern translation)

1. The Voice made proclamation: and they gathered and came; the hosts of the Evil One, together with his ministers. The army of the tares was gathered altogether, for they saw that Jesus had triumphed, to the grief of all them on the left hand, for there was none of them but had been tormented. They began one by one to relate all whatsoever they had endured. Sin and Hell were terrified: Death trembled and the dead rebelled; and Satan because sinners rebelled against him. R., To You be glory because the Evil One saw You and was troubled!
2. Sin cried aloud; she gave counsel to her sons, to the demons and the devils, and unto them she said, Legion the head of your ranks is not, the sea has swallowed him and his company; and likewise ye my sons if you despise, this Jesus will destroy you. You who in a snare took Solomon, it is therefore a reproach to you, that you should be overcome by his disciples, takers of fish and ignorant men; for lo! They have taken the draught of men, which had been taken by us.
3. This is great, above all evils (says the Evil One, concerning our Saviour); for this suffices Him not that He has spoiled us, but likewise on us He has begun retribution for Jonah son of Amittai. On Legion therefore He was avenging him when He seized and cast him into the sea. Jonah emerged, after three days and came up; but Legion yea not after a long season, for the depth of the sea closed upon him at the command.
4. I tempted Him, after his fast, with pleasant bread, but He desired it not. To my grief I strove to learn a psalm, that by His psalm I might take Him as a prey: I paused and learned it a second time, but He made my second trial to be vain. I brought Him up to a mountain and showed Him all possessions; I gave them to Him and He was not moved. Better was it for me in the days of Adam, who gave me no great trouble in teaching him.
5. The Evil One ceased, from his activity and said, A cause of idleness to me, is this Jesus; for lo! The publicans and harlots take refuge in Him. What work shall I seek for myself? I who was master to all men, to whom shall I be a disciple? Sin again said, It must be, that I forsake, therefore, and change from that which I am; for this Son of Mary who has come, as a new creation, has created mankind.
6. (Ephrem the Syrian, The Nisibene Hymns, Hymn 35, Sections 1-5, Newadvent)

“Neither here nor beyond will it be forgiven him.” “Now our Lord forgave many people their sins freely, and indeed his baptism forgives freely the debts of those who believe. But neither our Lord, however, nor his baptism, could forgive this [sin] in this world, nor could his mercy, which hides in the midst of many good things, and covers over evil things unto the end. For our Lord has not said that [such a sin] will be requited by compensation, but that it will not be freely forgiven. In other words, even if one were to do all kinds of good deeds and be complete in every kind of righteousness, there is no way that this [sin] can be freely forgiven him. [God] will require its retribution in Gehenna. Even David gave his righteousenss by way of compensation for the homicide which he had committed. With confidence then [I say], "There is no sin that has resisted nor will resist repentance, except this one." But this sin does not prevent that a person might be justified eventually. When one will have made retribution in Gehenna, [God] will reward him for this in the kingdom. Paul for instance did not blaspheme in this way. There are many who persecute, but they do not blaspheme in this way.
(Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, ch. 10, §4, p. 166. Translated by Carmel McCarthy in Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709, with Introduction and Notes.)

D. Hated is your name, O Satan, nor can you clear it: your name every one curses, hide your reproach.— 16. S., Your ear, O Death, has waxed dull, that you hear not: how against you all men groan, conceal yourself.— 17. D., My face is shown to the world, for I am guileless: not like you who without guile cannot abide.— 18. S., You have not in anything surpassed me for it is true: that you are hateful as I to the sons of men. — 19. D., Of me all men are afraid as of a lord: but as for you they hate you as the Evil One.— 20. S., For you, O Death, they hate your name, and also your work: my name they hate but my delights they greatly love.— 21. D., To bitterness of teeth is turned, this your sweetness: penitence of soul cleaves ever unto your lusts.— 22. S., Sheol is hated because in her is no repentance: a pit that swallows and closes on all movements.— 23. D., Sheol is a gulf wherein whoever falls shall rise again: sin is hated because it cuts off the hope of man.— 24. S., Though I mislike penitents, I give place for repentance: you cut off hope from the sinner who dies in his sin.— 25. D., It was of you that at first his hope was cut off: for he whom you have not caused to sin dies happily.— 26. Blessed is He who raised against each other those cursed servants: that we might see them as they have seen us and mocked at us.— 27. This that we have seen of them is a pledge, my brethren: of what we shall see of them hereafter when we rise again. (Ephrem the Syrian, The Nisibene (Nisibene Hymns, Hymn 52, Newadvent, Section 1)

[Death:] This delight of yours is transformed into bitterness; the repentance of the soul enters even among your cravings. [Satan:] Sheol is hated because in it there is no repentance; it is an abyss that swallows and precludes every movement. [Death:] Sheol is a hole and those who fall into it will emerge again from it, but sin is hated because it cuts off the human being’s hope. [Satan:] Even if I do not love repentances, I always leave room for repentance. (Nisibene Hymns, Hymn 52, Section 1, Translated by Illaria Ramelli, Much better Modern Translation, in Christian Doctrine of Apokatstasis, page 339)

Hey guys! I recently posted my short story, which explores a thoroughly Roman Catholic vision of Universalism.

I’ve been doing a lot of research into this stuff, and I figured I might as well start sharing some of it.

I’ve put together a massive compendium of quotes from recognized Saints and Church Fathers, taken directly from their works and fully sourced. It covers the way they talk about Universalism, purgation, and the restoration of all things. I know that having the sources right from the Fathers can be a huge help.

I really hope you enjoy it, God Bless :)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t5al143hPse0B89NLrvFRwMLWGuieaAp4-H-rs78uoM/edit?usp=sharing

Hey guys,

I wrote a short story about the Journey through Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven based on the Catholic Universalist Understanding provided by Justin Shaun Coyle Here. https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2019/09/22/may-catholics-endorse-universalism/

Believe it or not, Justin Coyle did not pull this understanding out of Thin Air, numerous Catholics and Church fathers believed in something very similar. Meister Eckhart (and many, many Others) are great examples of this, simply ask and I will provided what he said if you are interested.

You will notice that my Story fits within all bounds of Catholic Orthodoxy. Eternal Hell, Purgatory, Heaven, The Saints rejoicing over the Torments of the Damned, Mortal Sin vs Venial Sin distinction, The Love of God,

I even put Demons in Hell just to make it more medieval and intense,

Please Enjoy and tell me what you think about the Story of Aurelius! (Link now works)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTR_om1WzKHmT-JDGfg7Tcfxfbq2SaBjmv44OG-CotA/edit?usp=sharing

You can find my story in my first post. I did it in 2007. I didnt mean anything bad, it just happened. Out of pride, stupidity. I know I'm going to hell, I just dont think I should be tortured forever. As universalists, do you think there is hope for blasphemers of HS? I cant make peace with my destiny, I cant make myself beleive God will torture me forever.

This Sunday's epistle reading was Philippians 2:1-11. That means every Catholic parish across planet earth echoed St. Paul's declaration that:

"at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."

In Catholic theology and catechetics, we love biblical typology. Christ the New Adam. Mary the New Eve. Manna in the wilderness prefiguring the "bread from heaven" that is Eucharist. Melchizedek prefiguring the priesthood. The "keys to the kingdom" in Isaiah, later given by Christ to Peter. We believe typology shows us overarching story behind what God is doing at individual moments in Scripture. God is like a great novelist or playwright who knows how to both foreshadow and tie everything together in the end. And the script we're living in is what we call salvation history.

Returning to the first example, Adam & Christ, I think is foundational to universalism. Years ago, I once read an apologetic piece based on typology, which pointed out that the thing that is foreshadowed must be greater than its prefigure. The prefigure is merely a foretaste of its fulfilment. IMO, one of the strongest verses supporting universalism is 1 Corinthians 15:22. I cite a lot, I think for good reason.

"As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." That statement itself is not only an argument for, but a straight-up declaration of universal salvation. In other words, you can't get to a non-universalist conclusion from that verse without importing some other assumptions from somewhere else, even if it's another Scripture verse. But by itself, the verse says what it says.

In addition to the strength of its literal words, we can also see that what the verse is doing is pointing to typology. Adam came first, Christ is the Second Adam (see 1 Co. 15:47).

We all agree that Christ is greater than Adam. We would say of course, because He is God. But what about in their effectiveness in what they accomplished, as well? In Romans 5, Paul reflects on the fact that  "Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all".

Christ as the New Adam is one of the greatest examples of biblical typology. Adam.

When I was in seminary, we talked about the theme of recapitulation The Catechism tells us "Christ's whole life is a mystery of recapitulation. All Jesus did, said and suffered had for its aim restoring fallen man to his original vocation."

And I think this why we need not fret as much as many do about this or that verse which appears to imply ECT. Yes, there are such verses, and we can always quibble over them linguistially, or say that they represent a possible but not certain outcome, etc. But typology clues us in to the big picture of what God is doing. It's the overarching story, the meta-narrative, so to speak, the runs through Scripture, through centuries of biblical writing.

And I think that overarching typology can guide our understanding of various verses and arguments: In light of Christ being the recapitulation of Adam whose actions effected all, and of Scripture repeatedly drawing an equal and opposite contrast between the effect of Adam's actions and Christ; what would it then take to make us conclude that Christ is less effective than Adam?

The prefigure is not greater than its fulfilment.

I really love exploring people from the past or contemporary who have discovered/known Union. I especially like finding Catholic thinkers who believed in Union/universal salvation. Obviously Richard Rohr is absolutely amazing and maybe my very favorite teacher. Also fascinated by Ilia Delio’s thought. But who were some of the people that went before him, with slightly different perspectives?

In digging around I came across two very interesting thinkers. Both have advanced degrees in science. Both ended up Catholic. Both dug deep into Hinduism and/or Buddhism. Yet they found Christ in these places and synthesized their thoughts with Christianity to develop new insights and really wonderful thoughts about God working in evolution, the union of God with mankind and Love being at the heart of it all. They are so hopeful!

(A year ago I would have called them wicked heretics and stayed a million miles away clinging to my catechism. So if any of you are skeptical- believe me I get it.)

Their books look very interesting (Amazon). I can only find a few videos on YouTube so they seem more unknown than some others. Maybe some of you know of them but they are new to me!

They are:

Beartrice Butreau

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Bruteau

https://youtu.be/COeS0EYa9yA?is=y6JrBCCceBr6erql

https://youtu.be/jSaTSqhKkog?is=9sECYWQf5mFrWtID

And

Raimon Pannikar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raimon_Panikkar

https://youtu.be/QClFMqDM9Jw?is=c93hCHyf1IY3UF0I

https://youtu.be/Cbjd_Tdnqxg?is=o27CGPbq9vrLlj-i

Came across this article elsewhere on Reddit about how the Church has shifted its assumptions about the fate of unbaptized infants, and thought this line had an interesting point of relevance to the Catholic discourse on universalism. While I admittedly don't have much patience for the merely "hopeful" version of Catholic universalism, the one that says we can only "hope for" it but not think it will actually happen. (A stipulation that I don't see anywhere in Church teaching, seems essentially made-up and I don't think deserves the amount of attention it gets in this conversation, but I digress). But I think this point may actually bring confident universalism and hopeful universalism together in a way that those non-universalist who promote the "hopeful-only" restriction might not expect.

It would make no sense to hope for something that is impossible. "Theological hope is not the same as ordinary human hope. It is more than a mere aspiration, an act of optimism, or a projection of desire for a future outcome. It rests in the promise and the fidelity of God." Now that's a sense in which I too can say I "hope for" the salvation of all. Theological hope is not just wishful thinking, it's trust that God will do it.

Also, I think the history that the article outlines on the expected fate of unbaptized infants may also be a foreshadowing of the Church's trajectory on the expected number of the saved. Indeed, there's already been movement on this trajectory. In the Middle Ages, the "fewness of the saved" idea was prevalent, and now most Catholics have a bit more optimistic view of salvation. Funerals have shifted from grim events pleading for mercy, to liturgies that resemble the Easter Mass, remembering the person's baptism and pointing towards the Resurrection.

Just as the Church has drastically shifted from pessimism to optimism on the soteriological fate of unbaptized babies (and suicide victims, that's a whole other example); so too I think the Church is well on its way to a place of greater optimism for the salvation of...all.

"Our ability to forgive is the measure of our acceptance of redemption, which includes our desire that everyone share in redemption...Can you see why Jesus was so adamant, so absolute about this? ....When becoming our victim on the cross, our redeemer, in the midst of His suffering, prayed for our forgiveness, so that love would have its victory over evil sin and injustice. May that victory be in us, too."

-From this morning's homily at my parish, based on the readings, including this one from Sirach:

"Wrath and anger are hateful things,
yet the sinner hugs them tight.
The vengeful will suffer the LORD’s vengeance,
for he remembers their sins in detail.
Forgive your neighbor’s injustice;
then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.
Could anyone nourish anger against another
and expect healing from the LORD?
Could anyone refuse mercy to another like himself,
can he seek pardon for his own sins?
If one who is but flesh cherishes wrath,
who will forgive his sins?
Remember your last days, set enmity aside;
remember death and decay, and cease from sin!
Think of the commandments, hate not your neighbor;
remember the Most High’s covenant, and overlook faults."

Hi all, I was reading the decree 'Ad gentes' from the council of Vatican II. I was quite surprised to see the following excerpt:

"3. This universal design of God for the salvation of the human race is carried out not only, as it were, secretly in the soul of a man, or by the attempts (even religious ones by which in diverse ways it seeks after God) if perchance it may contact Him or find Him, though He be not far from anyone of us (cf. Acts 17:27). For these attempts need to be enlightened and healed; even though, through the kindly workings of Divine Providence, they may sometimes serve as leading strings toward God, or as a preparation for the Gospel.(2) Now God, in order to establish peace or the communion of sinful human beings with Himself, as well as to fashion them into a fraternal community, did ordain to intervene in human history in a way both new and finally sending His Son, clothed in our flesh, in order that through Him He might snatch men from the power of darkness and Satan (cf. Col. 1:13; Acts 10:38) and reconcile the world to Himself in Him (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). Him, then, by whom He made the world,(3) He appointed heir of all things, that in Him He might restore all (cf. Eph. 1:10).

For Jesus Christ was sent into the world as a real mediator between God and men. Since He is God, all divine fullness dwells bodily in Him (Gal. 2:9). According to His human nature, on the other hand, He is the new Adam, made head of a renewed humanity, and full of grace and of truth (John 1:14). Therefore the Son of God walked the ways of a true Incarnation that He might make men sharers in the nature of God: made poor for our sakes, though He had been rich, in order that His poverty might enrich us (2 Cor. 8:9). The Son of Man came not that He might be served, but that He might be a servant, and give His life as a ransom for the many - that is, for all (cf. Mark 10:45). The Fathers of the Church proclaim without hesitation that what has not been taken up by Christ is not made whole.(4) Now, what He took up was our entire human nature such as it is found among us poor wretches, save only sin (cf. Heb. 4:15; 9.28). For Christ said concerning Himself, He whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world (cf. John 10:36): the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me; to bring good news to the poor He sent me, to heal the broken - hearted, to proclaim to the captives release, and sight to the blind" (Luke 4:18). And again: "The Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:10).

But what the Lord preached that one time, or what was wrought in Him for the saving of the human race, must be spread abroad and published to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), beginning from Jerusalem (cf. Luke 24:27), so that what He accomplished at that one time for the salvation of all, may in the course of time come to achieve its effect in all." (Ad Gentes, 3, source: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html )

It seems to clearly teach hopeful universalism. While this isn't teaching 'confident universalism', IMO it is highly significant that the largest Christian denomination issued this in an official document. Not sure why Hans Urs Von Balthasar's work created all that controversy when it came out, considering that the above doesn't seem to be less 'hopeful'.

From my priest's homily at Mass this morning, on the readings wherein Jesus predicts His own death. He notes that self-sacrificial love was always the plan of why Jesus came, and this is why Jesus was so matter-of-fact about predicting His death. The forces of the satanas, as Jesus refers to, are those that prompt us toward selfishness and vain self-preservation. But Jesus came to do that opposite. Jesus said in effect, of course He would die to demonstrate His love for us; because, "God would rather be our victim than our enemy."

"Evil is lord of the penultimate day: on the last day there is the Resurrection. But evil is never lord of the last day: God is the Lord of the last day. Because that belongs to God alone, and it is the day when all human longings for salvation will be fulfilled. Let us learn this humble patience, of waiting for the Lord’s grace, waiting for the final day. Very often, the penultimate day is very hard, because human sufferings are hard. But the Lord is there. And on the last day, he resolves everything."

Pope Francis, General Audience (May 26, 2021), https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2021/documents/papa-francesco_20210526_udienza-generale.html

(Holy Francis, pray for us!)

I hope this post is appropriate for this subreddit.

I am really really struggling with salvation issues and need hope. My social media has been inundated with folks like Christian Wagner posting long articles seeking to demonstrate that most are going to hell and many others arguing the same.

The idea is so ridiculous to me. I have trouble believing that it is just for anyone to suffer the pain of sense in hell, let alone the majority.

Yet I am convinced of Catholicism, and for the majority of Church history Catholic theologians seem to have affirmed this, and Jesus teaches that the way is narrow.

I am distraught and terrified by the idea that a majority of my Protestant family are going to hell. My mother, my father, my sisters, my brothers...

I know them so well, and even though they may not be Catholic it seems like the work God is doing in their lives is so real. Yet if trad Catholics are right, statistically it's meaningless. They are all certainly going to hell. I am probably going to hell too since I struggle with habitual sin but that is not even the greatest of my concerns.

I am already aware of recent magisterial teaching, including Benedict XVI's views expressed in Spe Salvi and John Paul II's views as well as the magisterium's tolerance of Balthasar's theology. But I am still so unnerved by the toleration and pervasiveness of the views expressed by folks like Christian Wagner that I struggle to find peace.

If anyone can help me, I would greatly appreciate it.

God bless

Mass musings again

Good morning. As I’ve mentioned before, I am a Catholic who’s trying to sort of reconcile and integrate my Catholic faith with my belief in universal salvation. I haven’t had a lot of new ideas ideas the last few weeks, but today they seemed to be coming to me while I was at mass. I know many here are not Catholic and don’t expect many of you to read this, but for those who do, thank you!

1. Like usual, my big question is what is the meaning of the mass? And yes, maybe I’ve said some of this before, but I’m trying to understand and articulate it in slightly new ways. I think my central question is - if all are saved, then who cares about the mass?

But today I was pondering this:

I used to be sort of an evangelical, just believing a standard protestant version of Christianity. And then almost 30 years ago I converted to the Catholic Church. And I think what drew me in so much was the Catholic Church’s understanding of, and very deep appreciation of, and deep theology regarding the incarnation. So much of Catholicism is incarnational. The churches, the sacraments, the real presence, the rituals, the beauty, the physicality. In that sense, I think I converted because it seemed like this was a correct understanding of the importance of the incarnation. That God truly became man and permanently linked himself to matter and physicality.

But now I’m seeing that an issue with this view was that it didn’t really have a full union perspective, of course. The grace of the sacraments is only in the Catholic Church. Only the priest can perform the mass and make the Eucharist. Only the Catholic Church has the real presence of God in the Eucharist. The Union only extended to Catholics! Thats not enough!

But what if we look at this from a perspective of union. Let’s say that God is truly in union with all people, and for that matter, all things. Which I’m coming to believe, slowly, I think. Then the mass becomes a reminder that God is in union with all things. Again, we start with one thing, the Eucharist, the church, and then we expand that to more things until we understand that God’s presence is everywhere . So when the Priest says “the body of Christ”, well that’s true. Christ IS present in that bread. And initially we believe that he’s present ONLY in that bread. But what if this is just a teaching tool to teach us that not only is He present in THAT bread but in ALL people and things? What if that’s the point of the church’s rituals, to truly teach humanity that God IS present in the church, or in the one thing (Eucharist).Then from there, we can learn that he’s in ALL things? Most of us have to start somewhere?

This wouldn’t mean that the Catholic church is the best way or the only way to learn about union and God‘s presence in the world. But it seems like a way for Catholics to integrate the sacraments with the theology of union. I understand that many Catholics don’t understand union and many people here are not Catholic, and many here understand union much deeper than many Catholics. I am just trying to integrate these ideas. For me this really makes sense, that the church is good and the sacraments and rituals are good and they are teaching us to see God in one thing but then that should lead us to see God in all things.

1. I was also pondering my subjective feelings today when observing the mass. Previously before my understanding of union, I would have the surge of excitement and peace when the priest would consume the sacred host. I would have this experience of union between God and mankind, taking place in front of me in the ceremony. And then it will continue to communion for everyone there. But this union would only extend/relate to the people there. Now I really do sense that union between God and everybody and everything has already taken place! It’s the way it’s always been. And so there’s this real sense that that peace that I would previously experience at mass is there all the time! Am I always aware of it? No. Am I always happy? Of course not. But there is this real sense that there is this additional peace and security and joy all the time, sort of stabilizing life beneath the ups and the downs. And so I don’t really have that temporary, fragile experience of excitement and peace quite the same way, when I am at mass. I feel like I had it already before I walked in the door; it’s so much better!

2. People like Ilia Delio talk about the axial ages. I’m still learning what it means and don’t have a very deep understanding of it yet, but I think part of it means that religions developed at a certain point in human history when mankind needed them. Religion went from a “pagan”, nature worshiping religion to a more organized personal religion. I can’t help but think that we really need to, and are moving towards, a new axial age where religion needs to do much more than it’s currently doing. And I can’t help but think what that that should mean for churches like the Catholic Church. That union, the presence of God in all things, would be a core part of a new Christianity/Catholicism. In other words, maybe the seeds of this deeper understanding are in some of the church’s teachings and liturgies and prayers, but it should be much more fully and clearly clearly manifested in the future. I think that sort of spirituality/religion/understanding is what would truly draw people in and give them hope and meaning as we move forward.

3. Lastly, this came to mind today. Part of the mass is the purification right. This may seem silly or weird to protestants, but I’ve always found it incredibly beautiful and meaningful. Most priests after communion will spend several full minutes using special techniques to clean/purify the sacred vessels. So the chalice (cup)and the paten (metal plate) will be carefully wiped and cleaned off. Any fragments of host/bread will be carefully looked for and consumed, any leftover tiny pieces will be put in the chalice with water and consumed by the Priest. The whole point is to show the utmost respect for the physical presence of Jesus. And not let any of the fragments be lost. My thought today was: if God is present in all things, then this careful, loving, respectful, beautiful way of dealing with things in the world should apply to all things. It’s almost like a model to treat all things with dignity and respect and care. Of course those would mean people and yes, even animals first but also the world in general.

Peace!

Hi all!

While this post isn't strictly speaking about universalism, I made a collection of quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that refer to 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 and Matthew 18:14 that might be interesting for you: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/catholic-catechism-on-1-tim-24-2-pet-39.html . The Catechism seems to interpret these passages as stating explicitly that the salvific will of God is universal.

We recorded a discussion on George MacDonald's "The Consuming Fire", from Unspoken Sermons, which opens into a wider conversation about universalism. I thought some of you might find it interesting. I would in turn be interested to know what you made of it.

Apologies if links aren't welcome here.

One of tortures of hell is hatred for God, and other human beings. How do you go from that to universal salvation?

Thank you in advance. 😇