Does Pope Benedict XVI endorse apokatastasis?
02/06/2007 Filed in: In The News
The Vatican’s International Theological Commission
recently published a document on unbaptised children
that may signal an important evolution in the Catholic
Church’s position regarding a number of crucial
debates. The core message of the report may have been
much publicised, but what few have noticed is that it
is, I believe, the tip of a very large and important
iceberg. Even more noticeably, the report was approved
by Pope Benedict XVI.
The most publicised aspect of the Pope’s decision is that limbo has been shut down. The reason the limbo was proposed in the first place was not because of revelation—nowhere in the bible is such a thing described. What was revealed was that God wants everyone to be saved, as Paul wrote to Timothy, and that Jesus said to go and baptise everyone. Augustine inferred that if everyone needed to be baptised in order to be saved, there must be something intrinsically wrong with humans, an original sin. Baptism was the seed of faith in Christ, which is the only way to the Father. But what, then, of children who die before they get a chance to be baptised. Are they going to hell? Indeed, Augustine’s position regarding original sin clashed with Pelagius’ view that infants were born innocent. Limbo was a solution—a theological theory—that aimed to answer that very important question. The solution was proposed that those children didn’t quite go to Hell, but stayed on the threshold of it. And “threshold” in Latin is “limbus”.
Especially since the 13th century, “Limbo” evolved to mean more than simply a hybrid zone between Hell and Heaven, into a place in its own right, a place of natural happiness; but not Heaven. And that has been a cause of distress for Catholic parents who have lost children before they were baptised ever since.
So, what does the Pope’s decision to move beyond the limbo hypothesis mean? This poses a much more interesting and deep question about whether the Pope actually thinks that everyone will eventually go to heaven. Sounds somewhat familiar, doesn’t it?
“When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood,” the commission said.
More specifically, the theological tradition of the past, specifically the Augustinian tradition, seems to have a “restricted conception of the universality of God’s saving will.”[1]
Interestingly, amongst the modern theologians cited in support of the abandonment of the concept of limbo, the report cites the Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, himself.
When asked[2] specifically on Australian national radio if the last few Popes, including Pope Benedict XVI, were universalists (i.e. In favor of the concept of apokatastasis), Paul McPartlan, one of the authors of the International Theological Commission’s report, said:
“Well what I would say, just to wind the history back just a wee bit further, to the Second Vatican Council, [is that] at the time of the Second Vatican Council when opinions were being canvassed in many quarters as to what the Council should declare, what it should discuss, what it should reflect upon, there were many people who wanted to [officially] take what had been that theological opinion from the Middle Ages that there was a place called Limbo, and that unbaptised infants definitely went there. They wanted the Council to declare this definitively so that it became the clear doctrine of the church. And in the discussion that preceded the Council, it’s very interesting to see that this was proposed and that those who were preparing the drafts for the Council said actually ‘Well no, the Council isn’t going to reflect on this’; it was sifted out, if you like, at that stage. First of all because they said there’s simply no fixed consensus in the minds of the faithful about this. And secondly they said ‘It’s not actually the faith of our people, the “Sensus Fidelium”. In the hearts of believers we sense that there must be a possibility that such infants are saved because God is merciful.’ And of course Pope John Paul who was a young bishop at the Council, one of the great themes of his pontificate is the theme of divine mercy and of course he actually died on the vigil of the Feast of Divine Mercy just a couple of years ago by a strange mystery of providence. And I think there’s a sense that 30, 40 years after the Council now, perhaps we’re at a providential time for returning to reflection on this very serious pastoral issue, with a greater sense of divine mercy, with a greater sense of hope, there’s been a great development in the theology of hope in recent times; a great sense also that we simply do not know all the mysterious ways of God, and the Council was very clear that there are things that happen in a way that’s known only to God and we cannot presume to say exactly how they happen, but God’s ways are mysterious.”
So the short answer is “possibly”. The Pope does endorse at least the hope of the final return of all in Heaven, because of God’s infinite mercy. Perhaps, we may indeed be “at a providential time for returning to reflection on this very pastoral issue”!
Hope seems to be the word for the Church’s current stance. “The theological commission listed several signs that support the idea of hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants: the warfare and turmoil of the international scene and the church's awareness of its mission as a bearer of hope; greater emphasis on God's love and mercy in a world of suffering people; renewed concern for the welfare of infants in societies that are scandalized by the suffering of children; and increased dialogue with people of other faiths, which encourages the church to have greater appreciation for the "manifold and mysterious ways of God.”[3] So here we have it.
Now, let us remember that Origen’s views and those of his followers were pronounced anathema in 553 (i.e. before the separation of Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches) for several reasons[4], the first of which being the pre-existance of souls, and the doctrine of reintegration:
“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.”[5]
So, if in the words of the Fifth Ecumenical council, which is also the Second Council of Constantinople, restoration or reintegration follows necessarily from the pre-existence of souls, can we argue the reverse? Consequently, does the Vatican now imply the pre-existence of souls? I have hope that we indeed are “at a providential time for returning to reflection on this very pastoral issue”!
[1] http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1905809.htm
[3] http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm
[4] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html
[5] NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)
The most publicised aspect of the Pope’s decision is that limbo has been shut down. The reason the limbo was proposed in the first place was not because of revelation—nowhere in the bible is such a thing described. What was revealed was that God wants everyone to be saved, as Paul wrote to Timothy, and that Jesus said to go and baptise everyone. Augustine inferred that if everyone needed to be baptised in order to be saved, there must be something intrinsically wrong with humans, an original sin. Baptism was the seed of faith in Christ, which is the only way to the Father. But what, then, of children who die before they get a chance to be baptised. Are they going to hell? Indeed, Augustine’s position regarding original sin clashed with Pelagius’ view that infants were born innocent. Limbo was a solution—a theological theory—that aimed to answer that very important question. The solution was proposed that those children didn’t quite go to Hell, but stayed on the threshold of it. And “threshold” in Latin is “limbus”.
Especially since the 13th century, “Limbo” evolved to mean more than simply a hybrid zone between Hell and Heaven, into a place in its own right, a place of natural happiness; but not Heaven. And that has been a cause of distress for Catholic parents who have lost children before they were baptised ever since.
So, what does the Pope’s decision to move beyond the limbo hypothesis mean? This poses a much more interesting and deep question about whether the Pope actually thinks that everyone will eventually go to heaven. Sounds somewhat familiar, doesn’t it?
“When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood,” the commission said.
More specifically, the theological tradition of the past, specifically the Augustinian tradition, seems to have a “restricted conception of the universality of God’s saving will.”[1]
Interestingly, amongst the modern theologians cited in support of the abandonment of the concept of limbo, the report cites the Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, himself.
When asked[2] specifically on Australian national radio if the last few Popes, including Pope Benedict XVI, were universalists (i.e. In favor of the concept of apokatastasis), Paul McPartlan, one of the authors of the International Theological Commission’s report, said:
“Well what I would say, just to wind the history back just a wee bit further, to the Second Vatican Council, [is that] at the time of the Second Vatican Council when opinions were being canvassed in many quarters as to what the Council should declare, what it should discuss, what it should reflect upon, there were many people who wanted to [officially] take what had been that theological opinion from the Middle Ages that there was a place called Limbo, and that unbaptised infants definitely went there. They wanted the Council to declare this definitively so that it became the clear doctrine of the church. And in the discussion that preceded the Council, it’s very interesting to see that this was proposed and that those who were preparing the drafts for the Council said actually ‘Well no, the Council isn’t going to reflect on this’; it was sifted out, if you like, at that stage. First of all because they said there’s simply no fixed consensus in the minds of the faithful about this. And secondly they said ‘It’s not actually the faith of our people, the “Sensus Fidelium”. In the hearts of believers we sense that there must be a possibility that such infants are saved because God is merciful.’ And of course Pope John Paul who was a young bishop at the Council, one of the great themes of his pontificate is the theme of divine mercy and of course he actually died on the vigil of the Feast of Divine Mercy just a couple of years ago by a strange mystery of providence. And I think there’s a sense that 30, 40 years after the Council now, perhaps we’re at a providential time for returning to reflection on this very serious pastoral issue, with a greater sense of divine mercy, with a greater sense of hope, there’s been a great development in the theology of hope in recent times; a great sense also that we simply do not know all the mysterious ways of God, and the Council was very clear that there are things that happen in a way that’s known only to God and we cannot presume to say exactly how they happen, but God’s ways are mysterious.”
So the short answer is “possibly”. The Pope does endorse at least the hope of the final return of all in Heaven, because of God’s infinite mercy. Perhaps, we may indeed be “at a providential time for returning to reflection on this very pastoral issue”!
Hope seems to be the word for the Church’s current stance. “The theological commission listed several signs that support the idea of hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants: the warfare and turmoil of the international scene and the church's awareness of its mission as a bearer of hope; greater emphasis on God's love and mercy in a world of suffering people; renewed concern for the welfare of infants in societies that are scandalized by the suffering of children; and increased dialogue with people of other faiths, which encourages the church to have greater appreciation for the "manifold and mysterious ways of God.”[3] So here we have it.
Now, let us remember that Origen’s views and those of his followers were pronounced anathema in 553 (i.e. before the separation of Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches) for several reasons[4], the first of which being the pre-existance of souls, and the doctrine of reintegration:
“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.”[5]
So, if in the words of the Fifth Ecumenical council, which is also the Second Council of Constantinople, restoration or reintegration follows necessarily from the pre-existence of souls, can we argue the reverse? Consequently, does the Vatican now imply the pre-existence of souls? I have hope that we indeed are “at a providential time for returning to reflection on this very pastoral issue”!
[1] http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1905809.htm
[3] http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm
[4] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html
[5] NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)