Can an Eastern Orthodox believe in universal redemption, or that no one goes to hell?

[Magnanimity]

How do you understand Jesus words (few are saved)

Luke 13:23-28 , few are saved

AND

Matthew 7:13-14

Wow, if that’s really what you gather from the passages, I hope you might read some commentaries on them. As St Cyril of Alexandria points out, “Now our Lord does not seem to satisfy him who asked whether there are few that be saved, when he declares the way by which man may become righteous.… And what advantage would it have been to his hearers to know whether there should be many or few who would be saved? But it was more necessary to know the way by which man may come to salvation. Purposely then he says nothing in answer to that idle question, but turns his discourse to a more important subject.” Catena Aurea, St Thomas Aquinas, trans by John Henry Newman, et al. Vol 3, pp. 492-93.

It is important to keep in mind that the greatest saints and intellectuals of the church throughout the ages have come down on opposite sides of the issue regarding hell. And yet they all read the same scriptures. There have been very many times throughout history where the Bible alone was not sufficient to settle a dispute. Arians themselves quoted the Bible just as regularly and as much as Saint Athanasius.

Let’s not forget, Jesus does all the judging.

There doesn’t seem to be much danger of folks on CAF forgetting that. I only hope that folks won’t forget that the Father creates all, loves all and wills the good of all.

 

[Mary888]

In EO the decisions of the Synods can never be contradicted.not even by another Synod. Apocatastasis is condemned as a heresy and hence even if we wish or believe otherwise we must struggle to remain in agreement with Church Fathers and the Synods.

 

[Magnanimity]

Then could you provide here passages from medieval sources supporting universalism?

Medieval sources are somewhat scant, according to my research. But some of the bigger names that are pointed out in the literature would be Maximus the Confessor, John Scotus Eriugena, Mechtilde of Hackeborn, Julian of Norwich, Angela of Foligno, Mechtilde of Magdeburg.

I’ll give you one passage here, which I quoted in a separate thread. If you’re genuinely curious, I’m sure you can do the research on your own.

St Maximus the Confessor, when writing of the apokatastasis of Gregory of Nyssa, states that,

“the third meaning [of apokatastasis] is used by Gregory especially in reference to the qualities of the soul that had been corrupted by sin and then are restored to their original state. Just as all nature will regain, at the expected time, its completeness in the flesh, so also will the powers of the soul, by necessity, shed all imprints of evil clinging to them; and this after aeons have elapsed, after a long time of being driven about without rest. And so in the end they reach God, who is without limitations. Thus they are restored to their original state through their knowledge, but do not participate in gifts. It also will appear that the Creator cannot be blamed for any sinfulness.” Maximus, Questiones et dubia 13, PG 90:796AC

 

[Magnanimity]

save you the trouble

You would have been saving me from trouble by going ahead and assuming that I’ve read the relevant CCC passages…

the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).

I’ve seen that one too—it’s a favorite of Vico’s. I think he’s quoted it to me no less than 100 times…

Rather than trying to catch me with a gotcha-quote, perhaps you would care to learn something on this issue? If not, then there is no reason to continue talking to each other about this, Gorgias. You’ve given me every reason to think that your mind is completely settled and not open on this issue of Hell. And I’ve told you, in a separate thread on Hell, that whatever Gorgias, particularly, thinks about this issue makes no difference to me. If you’re perfectly content with your views, then by all means, believe what you wish to believe. It makes no difference to me either way.

Peace be with you.

 

[Magnanimity]

Apocatastasis is condemned as a heresy

With all due respect, the issue appears to be not nearly that simple for EO’s.

 

[Gorgias]

You would have been saving me from trouble by going ahead and assuming that I’ve read the relevant CCC passages…

I didn’t assume you had, since you were making claims that are contrary to them.

You’ve given me every reason to think that your mind is completely settled and not open on this issue of Hell.

It’s not my mind that matters; it’s the mind of the Church. And, the Church has spoken definitively on this matter. It proclaims it clearly in the catechism. Not sure how you’re claiming otherwise, unless what you’re claiming is that the Church is wrong…?

I’ve told you, in a separate thread on Hell, that whatever Gorgias, particularly, thinks about this issue makes no difference to me.

And it shouldn’t. On the other hand, what the Church thinks, really should make a difference to you!

 

[twf]

Note that I’m not necessarily advocating for universalism (and in fact I do accept that hell is real, though I hope and pray that most will be saved)… but those points you summarized from Jimmy Akin don’t really address the issue.

Even if all or most will ultimately be saved, sin is still a serious issue, the sacraments are still vital, and evangelization is still a mandate. We should avoid sin out of love for God First and foremost. Even if we believe that all or most will be saved, no one believes that all are equal in holiness or that heavenly rewards are equal. Scripture and tradition are clear that both the pains of hell and the glories of heaven are a spectrum. Even if a pagan sinner is ultimately saved, his share of glory in heaven will presumably be much less than that of a devout, holy Catholic.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But how does the desire become disordered? That is the question. For Aquinas, the intellect has to present something as good in order for the will to act. So, it seems the intellect has to be incorrect in judgment for the will to in fact sin.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Yes @Magnanimity I would enjoy seeing how some of these fathers dealt with the relevant scriptural passages.

To me, it seems Jesus indicates that people in fact go to everlasting fire in Matthew 7 & 25:

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

How do you understand Jesus words (few are saved)

Luke 13:23-28 , few are saved

AND

Matthew 7:13-14

Wow, if that’s really what you gather from the passages, I hope you might read some commentaries on them. As St Cyril of Alexandria points out, “Now our Lord does not seem to satisfy him who asked whether there are few that be saved, when he declares the way by which man may become righteous.… And what advantage would it have been to his hearers to know whether there should be many or few who would be saved? But it was more necessary to know the way by which man may come to salvation. Purposely then he says nothing in answer to that idle question, but turns his discourse to a more important subject.” Catena Aurea, St Thomas Aquinas, trans by John Henry Newman, et al. Vol 3, pp. 492-93.

That commentary doesn’t answer the question I asked, and many who asked and observed , that Jesus teaching would contradict that commentary

Magnanimity:

It is important to keep in mind that the greatest saints and intellectuals of the church throughout the ages have come down on opposite sides of the issue regarding hell. And yet they all read the same scriptures. There have been very many times throughout history where the Bible alone was not sufficient to settle a dispute. Arians themselves quoted the Bible just as regularly and as much as Saint Athanasius.

Thus the Church settles the issue

Let’s not forget, Jesus does all the judging.

Magnanimity:

There doesn’t seem to be much danger of folks on CAF forgetting that. I only hope that folks won’t forget that the Father creates all, loves all and wills the good of all.

AND

Jesus judges all and that is from the Father.

 

[steve-b]

Note that I’m not necessarily advocating for universalism (and in fact I do accept that hell is real, though I hope and pray that most will be saved)… but those points you summarized from Jimmy Akin don’t really address the issue.

Even if all or most will ultimately be saved, sin is still a serious issue, the sacraments are still vital, and evangelization is still a mandate. We should avoid sin out of love for God First and foremost. Even if we believe that all or most will be saved, no one believes that all are equal in holiness or that heavenly rewards are equal. Scripture and tradition are clear that both the pains of hell and the glories of heaven are a spectrum. Even if a pagan sinner is ultimately saved, his share of glory in heaven will presumably be much less than that of a devout, holy Catholic.

Jimmy Akin hit the main issues

So what is it specifically, that you are disagreeing with?

 

[Usagi]

I would differentiate between actual universalism (everyone must and will be saved, there is not even a real possibility of eternal Hell, “all will be restored”) and that more moderate position I understand von Balthasar to have taken, which while never the majority opinion is not, as far as I know, outright condemned. That being: we don’t believe in predestination to Hell, so every individual soul has a real choice, and God and His grace are on the side of wanting to win over as many people as possible — so there is at least a theoretical possibility that God achieves maximal victory conditions and no human actually ends up in Hell (though the possibility and the attendant warnings are indeed very real — if you warn people away from a negative consequence and it works, that doesn’t retroactively make the consequence meaningless or unreal).

 

[Magnanimity]

I would differentiate between actual universalism (everyone must and will be saved, there is not even a real possibility of eternal Hell, “all will be restored”) and that more moderate position I understand von Balthasar to have taken

Yeah, I hear ya. In my first reply above I called it a “careful and guarded” universalism. But if you don’t want to call that “dare to hope” a universalism, I won’t quibble. It certainly isn’t apokatastasis panton. Balthasar only wonders about humanity in that book.

 

[Magnanimity]

To me, it seems Jesus indicates that people in fact go to everlasting fire in Matthew 7 & 25:

Yeah, these are good questions. I’m not sure I’m fully satisfied with the answer here, but DB Hart recently translated the NT. You can see here how he translated the Greek. The article isn’t particularly friendly to Hart, so it’s an interesting read. I don’t know enough about Greek to know whether it’s legit—“aeonian punishment.” :man_shrugging:t2: But there may be something to that translation. For Saint Thomas Aquinas, he says God alone is eternal. At one point in the Summa he says “God is eternity.” So there is something wrong about using that word to apply to hell. That doesn’t mean that hell cannot be neverending.

However I’ve always found something strange about people who use Matthew 25 as support for a neverending hell. When you take a close look at the parable, there should be certain key things that jump out at the reader. For example, there are only the two groups, the sheep and the goats. And those in each group had not done partially any of the things that Christ required. That is, there is no third group who has helped the poor (say) but who failed to assist in prison ministries. Or, there is no one who helped out in hospitals and assisted the sick and even visited prison ministry, but who failed to care for the hungry and thirsty . Do you see what I’m getting at? There’s only the two groups, and everyone in each group entirely failed to assist in the categories of the needy, or they completely succeeded in assisting the categories that Christ mentions. Is it really possible to think that everyone on planet earth fits neatly into those two categories? I think the obvious answer is no.

Second, The entire structure of the parable seems set up for Christ to make a point that assisting those who are vulnerable and marginalized is obligatory. It is not an option. And he will use extreme language to make the point. But the point that is central to the parable, that is the thing he is most trying to drive home is that his people must help the needy and the marginalized.

Also, for those who look at this parable eschatologically, is it not a little odd that Christ has given us advanced notice of the way that we get guaranteed entrance into life? That is, we have to simply help the exact groups that he mentions and help all of them, and voila—guaranteed admission into heaven. Doesn’t this interpretation strike you as a little bizzarre?

 

[Gorgias]

But if you don’t want to call that “dare to hope” a universalism, I won’t quibble.

I think I would distinguish between “everyone must and will be saved” (as @Usagi puts it) and “this individual is saved… and that individual is saved… and that one… and that one… and that one…” for each person who has ever lived. The former is ‘universalism’, whereas the latter is the hope for salvation of each person. The Church doesn’t condemn the latter opinion.

And those in each group had not done partially any of the things that Christ required.

I think it’s an odd interpretation of that passage to assume that each person is being claimed to have done all things.

There’s only the two groups, and everyone in each group entirely failed to assist in the categories of the needy, or they completely succeeded in assisting the categories that Christ mentions.

That seems an interpretation that’s unrealistic. Of course, if that’s how you take that passage, then I can see how you’re confused. Nevertheless, that’s not how the Church has historically approached that passage.

Is it really possible to think that everyone on planet earth fits neatly into those two categories? I think the obvious answer is no.

Correct. Therefore, the obvious reaction is “you’re misinterpreting that passage of Scripture.”

Also, for those who look at this parable eschatologically, is it not a little odd that Christ has given us advanced notice of the way that we get guaranteed entrance into life?

Only if you see it as exclusively prescriptive.

Doesn’t this interpretation strike you as a little bizzarre?

It does. Work on your interpretation, then…

 

[Usagi]

Also, for those who look at this parable eschatologically, is it not a little odd that Christ has given us advanced notice of the way that we get guaranteed entrance into life? That is, we have to simply help the exact groups that he mentions and help all of them, and voila—guaranteed admission into heaven. Doesn’t this interpretation strike you as a little bizzarre?

I mean, it’s not a “gotcha.” He wants us to know what His commandments are. Though He has made it clear elsewhere that mechanical adherence to a set of rules is not the point, if that is your concern.

 

[Magnanimity]

I don’t really have any concerns about this parable. I’m not confused. It’s as plain as day that Christ was communicating that his faithful must care for the marginalized in society.

Those who wish to interpret this as an end-times eschatological prophecy have quirky questions to answer for, not me.

 

[Magnanimity]

I think it’s an odd interpretation of that passage to assume that each person is being claimed to have done all things.

Please inform us of the hermeneutic you used to arrive at your non-odd interpretation of this parable. The sheep plainly cared for all six categories of the needy in this parable, and the goats did not. Cut and dry, that is it. Unless, you’d like to share your hermeneutical insight that gets us “beyond” the plain words of the text. Don’t keep us in suspense. By all means, share! And make sure you do so with a hermeneutic that allows for this to be an end-times prophecy at the same time.

That seems an interpretation that’s unrealistic. Of course, if that’s how you take that passage, then I can see how you’re confused. Nevertheless, that’s not how the Church has historically approached that passage.

Again, enlighten us! Eternal-hell defenders love to use this parable as support for their beliefs, so by all means, share the interpretive framework that we all need to use to understand this parable. I’m all ears.

 

[dochawk]

The question, I suspect, might be instead, “can a Catholic who is having difficulty with the notion of eternal punishment faithfully leave the Church he believes to possess the fullness of the truth for another church which does not?”…

Magnanimity:

Amazingly obnoxious, uncharitable, and condescending, even here!

 

[dochawk]

The question, I suspect, might be instead, “can a Catholic who is having difficulty with the notion of eternal punishment faithfully leave the Church he believes to possess the fullness of the truth for another church which does not?”…

Obnoxious, uncharitable, condescending . . .