Zaida asked a question about the teachings of some of the Doctors of the Church on our old discussion forum and received some insightful answers from the Coming Home Network community. We’ve curated the topic for you here. Feel free to continue discussion in the comment box below.
Zaida:
I’ve been reading the Doctors of the Church. I’m curious about the “status” of their teaching. I note, for example, that a few of the original Doctors “speculated” on universal restoration, whereas most condemn the idea. One doctor (Saint Albert?) wrote about levels of Hell and Limbo (I’ve never seen that except in Dante!). Some of the Doctors (Augustine the most famous) said the vast majority of humans are destined for Hell. Then you have Catherine of Siena, who said to God, “I refuse to leave your presence until you have Mercy on the whole world”. And Francis de Sales, who said we must never despair of anyone’s salvation, because we don’t know what God has done in their heart. So, how do we reconcile that there are Doctors of the Church who may have believed in universal restoration, along with those who believed in masses being damned, along with those who claimed there are levels of Hell, Limbo and Purgatory, and then those who beg God for mercy on all? And they are all considered people we can go to for reliable Church teaching.
David W. Emery:
A few of the original Doctors “speculated” on universal restoration, whereas most condemn the idea.
True. But we must emphasize that word, “speculated.” They did not teach universal salvation, but simply looked into it. One of the few early Fathers of the Church who did believe in universal salvation was Origen. But you will notice that he is not listed as a Saint, nor a Doctor. This heresy is one of the reasons.
One Doctor (Saint Albert?) wrote about levels of Hell and Limbo (I’ve never seen that except in Dante!).
Again true. And there is nothing heretical about this idea. In fact, it is derived from later pre-Christian Jewish belief, in which they distinguish up to seven levels of Sheol (= Hades, the realm of the dead). The top level (salvation, Heaven) is the Bosom of Abraham, which Jesus speaks of in Luke 16:22. The lowest level is Gehenna, which corresponds to our Hell (where the Rich Man is consigned in the same parable). Intermediate levels would roughly correspond to gradations of Heaven, Purgatory or Hell. This is really just an imaginary conception of the afterlife, which among the Jews was sketchy at best. It is like our own conception of the progression from imperfection to perfection in Purgatory as existing within time even though we know theologically that Purgatory does not exist in time.
Some of the Doctors (Augustine the most famous) said the vast majority of humans are destined for Hell. And Francis de Sales, who said we must never despair of anyone’s salvation, because we don’t know what God has done in their heart.
These are simply manifestations of personal optimism and pessimism. They are not saying that this or that particular person is in heaven or hell, and this restraint is all the Church requires. Therefore, there is no heresy involved in either case.
They are all considered people we can go to for reliable Church teaching.
Up to a point, this is true. The Doctors are at best theologians, and no one but God is omniscient.
We need to remember that the human mind is limited, and the Church’s requirement is not that a Doctor or Saint be error-free, but that he be orthodox within the limits of his knowledge, which is conditioned by a number of factors. Even someone like St. Thomas Aquinas made a few small mistakes, as when he opined that, at least according to the theological thinking of his day, Mary could not be immaculately conceived. But this was before the dogma was pronounced, and even before the possibility of the immaculate conception was figured out theologically, so his position was not even an issue. As you can see, it boils down to “what you do with what you have.”
Zaida:
Thanks David for that very helpful answer. This has been consuming a lot of my attention. I’ve never really considered what it means to be a Doctor of the Church, and I’m discovering a lot of wonderful material.
The very early Church Doctors — Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen, Athanasius, Peter Chrysologus — some seem to have maybe “more than speculated” final restoration? They were all distinguished from Origin, but some either were related or influenced by Gregory of Nyssa, and Macrina (who have never been condemned). Of course, from what I see, all have conflicting quotes/writings: one quote saying all is restored to God and goodness, the next quote not quite saying that.
I see your point about optimism and pessimism (Augustine vs de Sales). I also see mixed views in the same people. Teresa of Avilla seemed very pessimistic (most priests are in Hell), while at the same time she prayed for the soul of John the Baptist.
I note conflict in “The little Flower” (St. Therese), begging for mercy on everyone and then offering to stay in Hell if it means “one person will love you in Hell, God. Saint Alphonsus Rodriguez, in his autobiography (like every 10th page – lol!) offers himself to the pains of Hell if God will save everyone else. (These people were so self sacrificing it’s hard to comprehend) But clearly, if they prayed it… it’s a possibility?
The other issue on my mind is all these Saints who “saw” Hell — I believe people like Teresa of Avila and Faustina — but the Church teaches the primary pain is the absence of God. Not what Teresa and Faustina saw!
I am so convinced in the Mercy of God – and through His very nature – it doesn’t seem to me He’d create a world like Augustine’s massa damnata. All I can come to is that we need to pray for every soul and leave it in God’s hands and trust He can’t do “wrong”. “My” Father William Most is optimistic in the sense of God understanding our “will” is very often distorted by illness/habit/teaching from childhood/trauma etc and therefore only God can judge what’s a “mortal” sin. But clearly people like Augustine and Teresa of Avilla etc felt they knew enough about human nature to judge the bulk of us to be in mortal sin!?! It bothers me, because of their status.
Thanks for listening/reading this!
Z
PS: I had no idea Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception! I guess it’s as you say, only God is omniscient!
PPS: Oh and just to add to my reading on the Doctors… I was very surprised (pleasantly) to see some thoughts from Aquinas regarding “implicit faith” and the possibility of salvation if those who haven’t explicitly heard of Jesus. What’s interesting to me is this whole “development of doctrine” (as opposed to changing of doctrine) that is evident in Catholic history.
David W. Emery:
Of course, from what I see, all have conflicting quotes/writings, one quote saying all is restored to God and goodness, the next quote not quite saying that.
Once the universe has run its course and the final judgment has taken place, there is a sense in which everything is glorified, and God becomes all in all. This does not mean that those souls and spirits who are in hell will be reconciled and made righteous. It does mean that they are outwardly forced to accept God’s rule, even as they inwardly rebel against it. They can have no further effect on those in heaven, or even on the “new heavens and new earth” of Revelation 21. In this way, peace reigns everywhere except in the hearts of those in hell.
I note conflict in “The little Flower” – begging for mercy on everyone, and then offering to stay in Hell if it means “one person will love you in Hell God”.
Many saints have made this offer. It started with the Apostle Paul (Romans 9:3). It is a desire to offer oneself for the salvation of the world, just as Christ himself did. Ultimately, it is a desire to be completely Christ-like. And just as the Father raised his Son to glory, so also He will do for his saints.
I am so convinced in the Mercy of God – and through His very nature – it doesn’t seem to me He’d create a world like Augustine’s massa damnata. All I can come to is that we need to pray for every soul and leave it in God’s hands and trust He can’t do “wrong”. “My” Father William Most is optimistic in the sense of God understanding our “will” is very often distorted by illness/habit/teaching from childhood/trauma etc and therefore only God can judge what’s a “mortal” sin. But clearly people like Augustine and Teresa of Avilla etc felt they knew enough about human nature to judge the bulk of us to be in mortal sin!?! It bothers me, because of their status.
The different opinions are really two sides of the same coin. Considering a person’s sins objectively, Augustine is right: we all deserve to be condemned. Even our personal repentance is not sufficient in itself to bring forgiveness. However, considering our sins subjectively, there can be mitigations and excuses. Furthermore, again objectively, we have the forgiveness provided through Christ’s sacrifice. It all balances out, and we do have a real opportunity to achieve salvation.
I had no idea Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception!
He did not “deny” it. The dogma had not yet been defined or even worked out theologically. Aquinas’ judgment was that, considering the then-current state of the theological debate, he would have to say that the Immaculate Conception could not be proved. In that, he was correct. It was only after St. Thomas Aquinas died that John Duns Scotus came up with an acceptable solution. Then, to work out all the theological implications, the actual definition of the dogma had to wait until 1854.
I was very surprised (pleasantly) to see some thoughts from Aquinas regarding “implicit faith”…. and the possibility of salvation if those who haven’t explicitly heard of Jesus.
This thought was not original with St. Thomas, but goes all the way back to St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century.
Zaida:
Hi David and thanks as always for your thoughtful response! I see what you mean about Acquinas “Not rejecting” the immaculate conception. And that the doctrine had not been fully developed.
I’m continuing to read bits and pieces from the Doctors and as you know, I have a special love for de Sales. I can see in his work some of the same struggles, musings, maybe contradictions (that’s probably not the right word) in his own thoughts.
I was interested to see him argue in one place that most in the Church would be saved, and when challenged on the “many called, few chosen” scripture, he said “the many lost” will come from non-Christian parts of the world. That made me sad! I don’t think he believed in “general revelation”.
Yet in another writing he talked about the many sinners IN the Church.
Then in two other places, he adamantly states to not judge another’s soul, even if, by all appearances, it looks like they made a “”bad death”, as we don’t know how God worked with them in their final breaths. He seems to apply this to the Calvinists, but I see no evidence he applied it to those (for example) of Hindu belief in India. He also seemed to have a notion of people suffering in Hell how they “sinned” on earth (overloaded with the same sin).
David, I just read something by Mike Aquilina that mirrors what you said, that the Doctors and the Saints and the early Church Fathers were humans, and we should never confuse ourselves by thinking they are infallible. They are reliable guides, but not perfect. It’s all very interesting to me. I just wish de Sales had applied that beautiful charity and possibility of salvation to all the heathens!
