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

[Ana_v]

The objection isn’t that we can pray or hope for EVERYONE’S salvation. There is nothing wrong with that.

We pray for what is possible.
We don’t pray, for example, for God to create square circles.

I don’t pray for God to make things such that I had never been born. I may complain to God about concrete problems in my life and question his motives in creating me, but I don’t pray for anti-realities.

E.g. Praying that the British had won the Revolutionary War. Praying that water not be composed of H2O.

My point: Praying for the salavation of all men is either an example of praying for an anti-reality or it is not.
If it is a fact that some men will be damned, then it is a dilusional act to pray for the salvation of all men.

The objection is believing that everyone is saved. THAT is heresy, and it has been formally and consistently declared a heresy since the Ecumenical

A particular version of Apokatastasis was condemned. Not everyone who holds a universalist view holds to the idea of the pre-existence of the soul or that all free-creatures (including the fallen angels) will be saved.

 

[Magnanimity]

@Ana_v, thanks for sharing the article! Definitely sounds interesting. Will give it a read. And glad to see you jump in.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The objection isn’t that we can pray or hope for EVERYONE’S salvation. There is nothing wrong with that.

My point: Praying for the salavation of all men is either an example of praying for an anti-reality or it is not.
If it is a fact that some men will be damned, then it is a dilusional act to pray for the salvation of all men.

So you are denying the reality of hell and that there will be humans in hell?

The objection is believing that everyone is saved. THAT is heresy, and it has been formally and consistently declared a heresy since the Ecumenical

Ana_v:

A particular version of Apokatastasis was condemned. Not everyone who holds a universalist view holds to the idea of the pre-existence of the soul or that all free-creatures (including the fallen angels) will be saved.

The definition of all will be saved is clear. And it is condemned by scripture and the Church.

Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone else.

check out this article? Are There Souls in Hell Right Now? | Catholic Answers

And since Jesus is doing all the judging John 5:22 "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son",

How then do you understand Jesus words (few are saved)

Luke 13:23-28 , few are saved

AND

Matthew 7:13-14

AND what Peter said

1 Peter 4:17-18

 

[Magnanimity]

Luke 13:23-28 , few are saved

Oh @steve-b, I already addressed this above. Did you miss it? Christ, flatly, did not answer the question of whether few are saved. Rather, he redirected his questioner. Luke 13:23 is a simple yes or no question, and Christ does not answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

To reiterate, as St Cyril of Alexandria pointed 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.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Luke 13:23-28 , few are saved

Oh @steve-b, I already addressed this above. Did you miss it? Christ, flatly, did not answer the question of whether few are saved. Rather, he redirected his questioner. Luke 13:23 is a simple yes or no question, and Christ does not answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

On the contrary, Jesus said clearly not only few are saved, but in extension, the remainder are NOT saved. Ergo, going to hell…

Magnanimity:

To reiterate, as St Cyril of Alexandria pointed 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.

The Church teaches

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."
Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."

 

[Magnanimity]

On the contrary, Jesus said clearly not only few are saved,

Where? Christ was asked a yes or no question, so please specify where he plainly said, “yes, few are saved.” This should be easy for you if he “clearly” said it.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Hey, I’m sorry that some people on here have been aggressive towards you. Obviously, it does no help simply to re-assert a position when the other person (you, me, etc.) are entertaining another position because of perceived incoherence.

Both you (I assume) and I are trying to understand. It’s not like we WANT to counter the magisterium, etc.

So at least for me, I’m open to the church’s teaching. I want to be a faithful Catholic. But with how I understand the Catholic teaching on sin elsewhere, as filtered through Aquinas for example, I’m having a hard time understanding how anyone could responsibly choose hell (at least for all eternity).

Again, the issue for me was it seems anyone who chooses hell (or who commits sin in general) does so out of disorder in the process of reasoning and choosing. Isn’t this, after all, why we say no one will sin in Heaven? We won’t be able to, because we won’t want to, and because our bodies, intellects, and wills will all be properly aligned to God.

Hence, we only sin here on Earth, and can even choose hell, because our entire being is not properly aligned to the good.

However, in trying to read Aquinas over the fall of the Angels, the fall of Adam, and the sin of Pride, it seems that for Aquinas, there is something about Pride that is not reducible to either ignorance or passion. In fact, he bluntly states that neither of these could be the reason for Adam or the angels’ sin.

Therefore, the nature of pride could be promising in understanding how one can choose hell knowingly and willingly. Still, it would have to be proposed in a way that someone retains Pride even when fully aware of what is actually good for him or her.

 

[Magnanimity]

Hey, I’m sorry that some people on here have been aggressive towards you. Obviously, it does no help simply to re-assert a position when the other person (you, me, etc.) are entertaining another position because of perceived incoherence.

Both you (I assume) and I are trying to understand. It’s not like we WANT to counter the magisterium, etc…So at least for me, I’m open to the church’s teaching. I want to be a faithful Catholic.

Yes, for sure, you and and I agree on all that you say above. In fact, I tend to err on the side of the majority opinion of great minds, really in any area of life, not just theology. That just seems to be the wisest course—the consensus gentium is likely in the right, most often anyway.

And I don’t really mind when people come hard at me. I’ve studied enough and am confident enough to handle it. But when someone shows me (in repeated replies) that that person is basically just a Catholic fundamentalist who isn’t open to exploring hard questions and really just wants to tow the CCC line and point out to others where they’re “wrong,” then I do finally give up on such a person. Because that isn’t dialogue, it’s really just an exercise in futility to continue to engage such a person. The only sad part is that it normally takes me way too long before I learn this about a person! :man_facepalming:t2:

Again, the issue for me was it seems anyone who chooses hell (or who commits sin in general) does so out of disorder in the process of reasoning and choosing

Yes, and bearing in mind that sin is, by its very nature, a “missing of the mark,” a privation of some sort. Yet the human will was ordered toward some good(s) in the act where the person missed the bullseye. Is that how you understand it?

for Aquinas, there is something about Pride that is not reducible to either ignorance or passion. In fact, he bluntly states that neither of these could be the reason for Adam or the angels’ sin.

Yes, this is interesting. I will need to take a closer look at St Thomas’ reasoning here myself. I always thought of pride as having a defect of knowledge though. As in, pride in a disordered sense refers to a person thinking too highly of herself. As in, her actual status does not warrant her elevated opinion of herself. Which would have a defect of knowledge intrinsic to the disordered pride. At least, that’s how I’ve always thought of it, but I’m always down to be corrected by St Thomas! Is it just the passages in the ST that you’re looking at?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Yes, this is interesting. I will need to take a closer look at St Thomas’ reasoning here myself. I always thought of pride as having a defect of knowledge though. As in, pride in a disordered sense refers to a person thinking too highly of herself. As in, her actual status does not warrant her elevated opinion of herself. Which would have a defect of knowledge intrinsic to the disordered pride. At least, that’s how I’ve always thought of it, but I’m always down to be corrected by St Thomas! Is it just the passages in the ST that you’re looking at?

Thomas addresses why it isn’t a matter of ignorance. However, it remains to be seen whether his reasoning is sound. He admits Pride cannot be due to ignorance. I would look at his description of the sins of angels, under angels, as well as Adam’s sin under Humility and Pride.

In another way sin comes of free-will by choosing something good in itself, but not according to proper measure or rule; so that the defect which induces sin is only on the part of the choice which is not properly regulated, but not on the part of the thing chosen; as if one were to pray, without heeding the order established by the Church. Such a sin does not presuppose ignorance, but merely absence of consideration of the things which ought to be considered. In this way the angel sinned, by seeking his own good, from his own free-will, insubordinately to the rule of the Divine will.

If you understand what he is saying here, do let me know!

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Yes, and bearing in mind that sin is, by its very nature, a “missing of the mark,” a privation of some sort. Yet the human will was ordered toward some good(s) in the act where the person missed the bullseye. Is that how you understand it?

Yes bottom line, I think the biggest issue encompassing all else is the fact that the human person was made to be happy — and can only be happy — in relationship to God, the greatest good. This is man’s end.

And since man is built to desire happiness, it seems only a fool would choose something OTHER than God as his final end! Therefore, does that person or angel really deserve eternal torment?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@Vico does Eastern Christianity of the kind you are familiar with offer any other beneficial insights into the nature of sin? My Byzantine Catholic catechism doesn’t so much divide intellect and will in talking about sin as rather talking about sin coming from “the heart.” It makes sense to talk about human beings in general as self-determining. But I wonder, what is it about our nature that makes us sin?

My little book on Syriac Christianity hints at the fact that sin is really just ignorance and darkness. Salvation is light. I can’t remember if it said Syriac Christianity professed a universal reconciliation. Do you know @Magnanimity?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

On the contrary, Jesus said clearly not only few are saved,

Where? Christ was asked a yes or no question, so please specify where he plainly said, “yes, few are saved.” This should be easy for you if he “clearly” said it.

I’m surprised it’s not easy for you as well.

from Jesus

Matthew 7:13-14

And

Lk 13:23 And some one said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, 24 “**Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us.’ He will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ 26 Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!’ 28 There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.**

 

[Magnanimity]

My little book on Syriac Christianity hints at the fact that sin is really just ignorance and darkness. Salvation is light. I can’t remember if it said Syriac Christianity professed a universal reconciliation. Do you know @Magnanimity?

I don’t know if that entire tradition of Christianity advocates for universalism. But Saint Isaac the Syrian is appealed to often by universalists.

 

[Vico]

@Vico does Eastern Christianity of the kind you are familiar with offer any other beneficial insights into the nature of sin? My Byzantine Catholic catechism doesn’t so much divide intellect and will in talking about sin as rather talking about sin coming from “the heart.” It makes sense to talk about human beings in general as self-determining. But I wonder, what is it about our nature that makes us sin?

My little book on Syriac Christianity hints at the fact that sin is really just ignorance and darkness. Salvation is light. I can’t remember if it said Syriac Christianity professed a universal reconciliation. Do you know @Magnanimity?

Well there are always independents. St. John Chrysostom wrote of hell:

For though we have all faith and all knowledge of the Scriptures, yet if we be naked and destitute of the protection derived from (holy) living, there is nothing to hinder us from being hurried into the fire of hell, and burning for ever in the unquenchable flame. For as they who have done good shall rise to life everlasting, so they who have dared the contrary shall rise to everlasting punishment, which never has an end.

St. John Chrysostom, The Gospel of John, [Homily 6] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240106.htm

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote of hell:

Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire : and so will anyone who listens to him

Letter to the Ephesians, chapter 16 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Do you think an eternal hell can at all be reconciled at all with a good God and human free will, and if so, what would those conditions be?

I have much to learn, and I want to learn more about Aquinas’ thought.

But going off my gut and what I do know, I would say hell is possible, but only if someone made such a choice fully, freely, and without ignorance.

The idea in common Catholic understanding that someone can end up in hell via mortal sin that is not direct or conscious malice against God strikes me as odd. Again, I’m willing to learn better. And perhaps the issue is my understanding of hell: Maybe we have to think of hell as “getting what you want.” Kinda like how Dante’s different areas of hell correspond to different vices.

In other words, it’s common to hear in Catholic circles that one can end up in hell while not consciously or directly rejecting God.

 

[Magnanimity]

I’m going to have to delve more deeply into St Thomas on pride, but I think I possibly see a sense of pride that would not necessitate an overly-elevated sense of oneself (more than is warranted by reality).

Perhaps pride here is more the full acceptance of all that you are (so ignorance of self doesn’t come into play) but a rejection of the status of oneself—as in, I should be more than what I am. I should be more powerful, more knowledgeable, more
beautiful, etc than God made me. Maybe…? A rejection of your ‘self’ and a desire for more?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Yes, making more sense.

My next question would be how this sense of pride plays into other sins. For Aquinas and I suppose anyone else who’s ever thought about sin, pride is the root of sin.

So insofar as sin can be connected to pride, maybe we can say it is something other than due to ignorance or passion.

 

[dochawk]

So good a comment that you had to post it twice?

I was scratching my head on that myself . . . apparently, the software was so in awe of my brilliance, that after I posted, when I returned to the topic, it still had the window below full of my observations :crazy_face:

And as this thread seems to have gone off the rails in the usual manner for questions about Eastern and/or Orthodox (preaching about RCC infallibility/catechism), I’ll take a feeble attempt to reorient by noting the observations made elsewhere that in the Ortho0dox view, universal salvation may be a pious hope, but is certainly not a teaching of the Orthodox Church.

hawk

 

[thistle]

The idea in common Catholic understanding that someone can end up in hell via mortal sin that is not direct or conscious malice against God strikes me as odd. Again, I’m willing to learn better. And perhaps the issue is my understanding of hell: Maybe we have to think of hell as “getting what you want.” Kinda like how Dante’s different areas of hell correspond to different vices.

In other words, it’s common to hear in Catholic circles that one can end up in hell while not consciously or directly rejecting God.

You obviously don’t understand.
First, a mortal sin is always deliberate. You cannot commit a mortal sin by accident.
Second, the act of committing a mortal sin is by definition a direct rejection of God’s love.

 

[Magnanimity]

Do you think an eternal hell can at all be reconciled with a good God and human free will, and if so, what would those conditions be?

Hmm, such a good question! I’ll assume that by “eternity” we’re meaning “neverending” and “inescapable.” So, let’s see, did you ever read CS Lewis’ Great Divorce? I did a while ago, maybe 15+ years ago. In it (sorry to spoil) he envisions a sort of bus-line that would go to Hell upon death (or could be taken to heaven, if so desired). Which would make Hell “escapable.” Folks also like to quote Lewis as saying that the door to Hell is locked “from the inside,” by the prisoner. Very Rev Robert Barron describes the person in hell like the individual at a party but who doesn’t want to be there at all, so she’s slunk over in a corner, moping. This is in line with the “getting what you want” aspect that you mention above.

All of this imagery, I can wrap my mind around. I really can get that. But my main problem with it is that it seems like pretty much more of the same—more of the dysfunction that fills this present reality.

But considering a place of neverending torment/suffering from which there is no exit? That’s a very hard pill to swallow.

I’m not sure of a couple of things. First, how could God be said to love those in this place? To love another is to will and work for the good of the other, as other, so how is God loving a human in such a realm as Hell? God is holding that person in existence so that she may be tormented forever, and we all understand this to be love?!

All one ever hears in reply to this question is that God is honoring the choice of the human (as if that’s the greatest good—to honor another’s choice—even if that choice leads to one’s utter ruin in Hell and the complete thwarting of the possibility of beatitude). But perhaps more to the point, I’m thoroughly Thomistic in my understanding of God. God is simple. There is no potentiality within him whatsoever, so He is not standing by to see what my decision is going to be, and then He’ll send me to Hell. And I don’t mean foreknowledge, because choosing to send me to Hell on the basis of His foreknowledge of my free act is still a contingent decision on His part, which isn’t possible. He has no potentiality to actualize. He’s also impassible. He cannot be affected (e.g., “offended”) by my decisions, for or against Him.

What I’m getting at is this. When one fully accepts this Thomistic understanding of God as the unconditioned, purely Actual, the more difficult it is to see anything as outside of his providence and governance.