Pope Francis
"The Good Lord will save all of us, but don't say that too loud."
Source: https://wherepeteris.com/universalism-and-hell/
Pope St. Paul VI
Since reconciliation means the restoration of peace both between God and man and between men themselves, it is the first fruit of redemption. Like redemption, it is universal in scope and efficacy. It reaches out to the whole of creation 'until the time of universal restoration' (Acts 3, 21), when all created things are again unified in Christ, Who is the firstborn of the risen dead (cf. Col 1, 18).
Source: https://wherepeteris.com/pope-st-paul-vis-exhortation-on-reconciliation-in-the-church/
Hans Urs von Balthasar (Roman Catholic Theologian)
I do not wish to contradict anyone who, as a Christian, cannot be happy without denying the universality of hope to us so that he can be certain of his full hell: that is, after all, the view of a large number of important theologians, especially among the followers of Augustine. But, in return, I would like to request that one be permitted to hope that God's redemptive work for his creation might succeed. Certainty cannot be attained, but hope can be justified.
Source: Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?: With a Short Discourse on Hell (Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 187 in most printings.
And again
"The question of a possible conversion of the demons is not possed by revelation. It remains a purely speculative question. Dogma leaves it open. In this matter, then, we are free to hope, just as we are free to hope for the salvation of all men."
Source: Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell (Ignatius Press, 1988), pg. 221-222.
Ilaria Ramelli (Angelicum/Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. Professor of Theology and Bishop Kevin Britt Chair in Dogmatics--Christolgy, Graduate School of Theology)
The so-called ‘condemnation of Origen’ by ‘the Church’ in the sixth century probably never occurred proper. To begin with, Origen was never condemned by an ecumenical council. The council that is usually cited as that which ‘condemned Origen’ is the fifth ecumenical council, the Second Council of Constantinople, held in 553. First of all, its ecumenicity is in fact doubtful, since it was wanted by Justinian and not by Vigilius, the bishop of Rome, who was summoned to Constantinople by Justinian and was even brought there by force; he was kept in Constantinople for eight years, from 547 to 555, and was forced to subscribe to the council’s decisions, which he initially refused to do...The anathemas, fifteen in number, were already prepared before the opening of the council, and were pronounced ‘outside the sessions’ of the council, as H. Crouzel remarks. One of these previously formulated anathemas — the first — was against Origen, and another — the fourteenth — was against the apokatastasis doctrine: ‘If anyone supports the monstrous doctrine of apokatastasis [τὴν τερατώδη ἀποκατάστασιν], be it anathema.’ Now, ‘monstrous’ qualifies a very specific kind of apokatastasis, not the doctrine as such. This ‘monstrous’ apokatastasis is that connected with the preexistence of souls and their fall into bodies, and the denial of the resurrection of the body, which was the kind of apokatastasis that was attributed to Origen by his enemies and was condemned in 543 by Justinian’s edict and by a local synod at Constantinople. It is not the apokatastasis as it was held by Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, or Maximus the Confessor. Vigilius’s documents, which were finally emanated by a council that was not wanted by him, most remarkably do not even contain Origen’s name. Origen was never formally condemned by any Christian ecumenical council...If, as it seems, Origen himself is never named in the authentic acts of the council, then Origen was never formally ‘condemned’ by the church. What is more, the Greek text of the acts of this council was lost, and the Latin translation that has come down to us is incomplete and interpolated. Even by the time of the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 there were suspicions that those fifteen anathemas were not original to the Second Council of Constantinople. Indeed, Norman Tanner excludes the anathemas from his edition of the Acts of the Councils. All this strongly suggests that Origen was not condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council...Therefore, if Origen was not condemned, a fortiori the doctrine of apokatastasis as such was not condemned either — especially not in the form in which it was held by Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and many other Fathers who were never condemned and are venerated as saints. The condemnation concerned a caricature of apokatastasis that entailed the preeixistence of souls, the denial of the resurrection of the body, and other theses that are indeed 'monstrous' and that were not held by Gregory, Maximus, or other supporters of apokatastasis.
Source: Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena, Vigiliae Christianae Supplements 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 735-738.
And
“The theoretical issues that underpin Patristic theories of apokatastasis are still valid for contemporary theoretical theology."
Source: Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Apokatastasis: Philosophico-Theological Perspectives in Patristics and Some Reflections for Theology Today,” University of Notre Dame, 2023.