BONUS|Response to Catholic Confusion + Critique of Balthasar w/ Dr. Christopher Malloy
Summary
Will the Catholic Church ever change some of its fundamental teachings? How did the Church change its messaging and posture after Vatican II? Does the Church still teach that Hell is a reality and a possibility for us? How should Catholics think about universalism, annihilationism, and hopeful universalism? What do we make of the idea that Hans Urs that we may dare to hope for universal salvation? Dr. Christopher J. Malloy joins us to discuss these topics as we consider his recent book False Mercy.
Guest Bio
Dr. Christopher Malloy received his Ph.D. from The Catholic University of America. He has been teaching at the University of Dallas since 2001. Malloy approaches the theological vocation with the conviction that philosophy and theology, faith and reason, serious intellectual research and fidelity to the full deposit of Catholic faith, work harmoniously toward one end: the contemplation and love of truth. He has published two academic books: Engrafted into Christ: A critique of the Joint Declaration (i.e. on the Doctrine of Justification)Aquinas on Beatific Charity and the Problem of Love as well as a dozen scholarly articles, and recently the book False Mercy: Recent Heresies Distorting Catholic Truth, which is the subject of today’s interview. His other research interests include the natural desire for God, analogies for the Trinity, the thought of Karl Rahner, and Ecclesiology.
Resources
False Mercy: Recent Heresies Distorting Catholic Truth by Dr. Christopher J. Malloy
Engrafted into Christ: A Critique of the Joint Declaration by Dr. Christopher J. Malloy
“Hopeful Universalism” by Dr. Bryan R. Cross
Dr. Mats Wahlberg responds to DBH’s Universalism (lecture at the Angelicum)
Dare We Hope? Wordonfire.org Resource page
Dr. Christopher Malloy’s academia.edu page
Related Episodes
Ep. #112 – Natural Theology & the Resurrection of Jesus w/ Dr. Levering
BONUS|The Documents of Vatican II (+Nature/grace debates) w/ Dr. DeClue
Ep. #175 – Vatican II (part 2) + Did JP2 Kiss the Quran? w/ Fr. Blake Britton
How could it be a heresy if 1) it was the dominant tradition in the early church and within the first 500 years and 2) if the second council of Constantinople never actually condemned universalism? It’s curious for example that no teaching by Gregory of Nyssa or Isaac the Assyrian ever got condemned.
Secondly I want to warn about the rationality of rejecting God. Goodness itself can’t be rationally rejected, but, despite dogma, the defense e.g. by Wahlberg make the rejection very rational if we keep our human nature and value compassion and empathy. Secondly, not every version of Christianity and Catholicism is worth being followed. Calvinism is one example. I suggest that a strong Augustinianism is another one. Could you follow a God, John, that condemns unbaptized infants? I hope every single one’s moral compass revolts here and if we were to become convinced that this is the true Catholic position,, the only sensible conclusion were that Catholicism is false. Which brings me back, namely that the defense of this doctrine of eternal damnation, especially if, like radical Traditionalists suppose, it’s supposed to go against the majority of humans, runs contrary to the identification of God with the Good. It makes rational the rejection of this “God” and thus leads us to conclude that the Good has to be found elsewhere. And this would just be the refutation of Catholicism. The biggest problem for people like Wahlberg: This position is entirely defensible and we don’t even need deep philosophy for that.
I won’t make an argument against the free will defense of hell here, but given our epistemological situation it at best is capable of justifying the damnation of a few, very reprehensible people, and not your everyday man outside the church.