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

[Magnanimity]

Of course, we all want all souls to end up in Heaven. So does God.

As long as we’re not talking about a mere desire, which amounts to very little, then I agree.

What we don’t know or control is what those other souls will end up wanting.

This is where you lose me a bit. Following Aristotle, human wills are ever oriented toward some good(s). And following Aquinas, humans are made for beatitude as their final end. And following scripture, we know that humans bear the image and likeness of God. Both origin and destiny are wrapped up together.

Even those saints you quote, though, are taking that attitude in the belief that Hell is a real possibility. If everyone is going to be saved no matter what we do, there is no need for such love and concern.

I’ve said this elsewhere, but it probably beats repeating in every thread on this issue—I haven’t run across many universalists who disbelieve in Hell. Maybe some contemporary Protestant ones do, but for those connected to an ancient Christian communion, Hell is actual. That reality is not rejected by universalists. The forever, punitive, inescapable vision of Hell (a la St Augustine) is what gets rejected. As well as the attitude that such a place’s existence is ‘ok.’ It isn’t ok. It is to be opposed and overcome with enormous sacrificial love—that is the essence of those quotes I have above. And those references are not anomalies among the saints either.

All of us should be completely troubled by hell and willing to do whatever it takes to, as St Catherine alludes, to make its existence eventually unnecessary for humanity.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Aquinas is clear you can commit mortal sin through ignorance and passion and not through malice.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Can you give an actual reference , properly referenced, where those saints had that view.

Per your request, quotes from some of the fiercest hearts alive in God’s love:

“This is what makes me so sad for all the souls who have fallen into disgrace. I want to help them return. Especially those who have been baptized and are already lovers of Christ. I would willingly suffer a thousand deaths if it meant I could set even one such soul free from such terrible torture.

This vision also makes me wish that we would all do everything in our power to avoid this outcome for ourselves. Let us neglect nothing. And may it be the Lord’s will to give us the grace to serve him in all ways.” (Theresa of Avila, The Book of My Life, XXXII)

“How could I ever reconcile myself, Lord, to the prospect that a single one of those whom, like me, you have created in yοur image and likeness should become lost and slip from your hands? No, in absolutely no case do I want to see a single one of my brethren meet with ruin, not a single one of those who, through their like birth, are one with me by nature and by grace. I want them all to be wrested from the grasp of the ancient enemy, so that they all become yours to the honor and greater glorification of your name.
If only your truth and your justice were to reveal themselves, then I would desire that there no longer be a hell, or at least that no soul would go there. If I could remain united with you in love while, at the same time, placing myself before the entrance to hell and blocking it off in such a way that no one could enter again, then that would be the greatest of joys for me, for all those whom I love would then be saved.” Dialogues of Catherine of Siena

Yeah, these saints totally got it. Amazing love.

Thanks for the references.

Point being from this

hell exists and no one can love more than Jesus loves, yet people go there due to unrepentant mortal sin…

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I think one of the issues is how we understand Mortal Sin.

There used to be a time when some theologians would be so particular as to determine how many ears of corn you could steal before that act crossed from venial to mortal sin. Even pre-Vatican II, there was a sort of legalism that many folks remember.

It seems this is part of what encouraged the development of the understanding of Mortal Sin as fundamental option. Now, the official magisterium rejected some interpretations of fundamental option theory (see JPII’s Veritatis Splendor). However, I can see why some went that direction.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Q: why didn’t you open this link? HERE

I believe that Romans, chapters 9-11 (as I stated is an entire and complete thought) answers all your questions regarding St Paul and Israel. Give all three chapters a read for the entire context.

I’m not reading into the text what is NOT there.

BTW you didn’t respond to this answer. Maybe you missed it. HERE

AND in extension

The following is very instructive

Lk 13:23-28

In that example Jesus uses

Did those who were rejected entrance want to enter heaven? Yes. Absolutely. Did they want what they got…condemnation (Hell)? No . Absolutely not.
So Why were they condemned? …For Their evil actions. Which is a judgement call by the judge

Who is the Judge? Jesus

John 5:22
The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son

Can ANYBODY love more that Jesus? No. And Jesus in spite of His immense love, never promised us a consequence free existence on this side of eternity. Mortal sin can be and is for many, disastrous

 

[Magnanimity]

Point being from this

hell exists and no one can love more than Jesus loves, yet people go there due to unrepentant mortal sin…

Rather, the points of those quotes by Sts Theresa and Catherine are that the existence of Hell is repugnant to love. To love another is to will and work for the good of the other, as other (Aquinas). Catherine’s heroic desire to love so much so that she would actually try to bar entry into Hell and her rejection of a complacency that would blithely tolerate anyone writhing in Hell for unending millennia are, I think, the points. Hell is to be overcome by love—no one gets left behind.
So roll up your sleeves and join Catherine now, or get ready to roll them up in heaven. If St Catherine ain’t resting in paradise, you ain’t resting in paradise. I think your options will be to join her at her side and help or be her water boy and marvel at her heroic efforts.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Point being from this

hell exists and no one can love more than Jesus loves, yet people go there due to unrepentant mortal sin…

Rather, the points of those quotes by Sts Theresa and Catherine are that the existence of Hell is repugnant to love.

And mortal sin on one’s soul is repugnant to Jesus, who is love.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

Magnanimity:

To love another is to will and work for the good of the other, as other (Aquinas). Catherine’s heroic desire to love so much so that she would actually try to bar entry into Hell and her rejection of a complacency that would blithely tolerate anyone writhing in Hell for unending millennia are, I think, the points. Hell is to be overcome by love—no one gets left behind.

And Grace is freely available to ALL. It is NOT forced on anyone. One must accept it and live by it

Magnanimity:

So roll up your sleeves and join Catherine now, or get ready to roll them up in heaven. If St Catherine ain’t resting in paradise, you ain’t resting in paradise. I think your options will be to join her at her side and help or be her water boy and marvel at her heroic efforts.

St Catherine avoided mortal sin. Hence she is a saint when she died. AND 3 miracles because of her intercession, after she died entitled her to be declared a saint. You do know that everyone who dies in a state of grace goes to heaven, and therefore is a saint…right?

 

[Magnanimity]

BTW you didn’t respond to this answer. Maybe you missed it. HERE

AND in extension

The following is very instructive

Lk 13:23-28

For my own part, one of my favorite commentaries on the scriptures is St Thomas Aquinas’ catena aurea. I believe I quoted what I’m about to quote to you in response to another poster above. I understand that you tell yourself that Christ answered the questioner’s simple question of whether few are saved. But, I find it interesting that most of the greatest minds in the church disagree with you. For example,

CYRIL; 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. But it must be observed, that it was our Savior’s custom to answer those who asked Him, not according as they might judge light, as often as they put to Him useless questions, but with regard to what might be profitable to His hearers. 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 the idle question, but turns His discourse to a more important subject.

and

GLOSS. This question seems to have reference to what had gone before. For in the parable which was given above, He had said, that the birds of the air rested on its branches, by which it might be supposed that there would be many who would obtain the rest of salvation. And because one had asked the question for all, the Lord does not answer him individually, as it follows, And he said to them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate.

more

BASIL; For as in earthly life the departure from right is exceeding broad, so he who goes out of the path which leads to the kingdom of heaven, finds himself in a vast extent of error. But the right way is narrow, the slightest turning aside being full of danger, whether to the right or to the left, as on a bridge, where he who slips on either side is thrown into the river.

Of course, St Augustine (from whom the church has inherited this bleak vision of hell that you’d defend) seems to agree with you. But most of the commentators? Nope.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

BTW you didn’t respond to this answer. Maybe you missed it. HERE

AND in extension

The following is very instructive

Lk 13:23-28

For my own part, one of my favorite commentaries on the scriptures is St Thomas Aquinas’ catena aurea. , ,

Here’s what Aquinas said

about Hell http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5097.htm.

And

“There are a select few who are saved.” & “Those who are saved are in the minority.”
From Q: 23 from Summa, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

Magnanimity:

CYRIL; 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. But it must be observed, that it was our Savior’s custom to answer those who asked Him, not according as they might judge light, as often as they put to Him useless questions, but with regard to what might be profitable to His hearers. And what advantage would it have been to His hearers to know whether there should be many or few who would be saved. [snip]

Cyril qualifies it

"Now I consider it my duty to mention why the door is narrow, through which a man goes unto life. Whosoever then would enter must of necessity first before everything else possess an upright and uncorrupted faith: and, secondly, a spotless morality, in which is no possibility of blame, according to the measure of human righteousness…"

and few measure up to that standard.

Magnanimity:

[snip for space]

Of course, St Augustine (from whom the church has inherited this bleak vision of hell that you’d defend) seems to agree with you. But most of the commentators? Nope.

This isn’t about who agrees with me. I’m nothing in this. I don’t make the rules. The following all agree with the scriptures presented. “few are saved”

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor of the Church

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Father and Doctor of the Church

-Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church

Saint Jerome, Father and Doctor of the Church

-Saint John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church

Saint Anselm, Father and Doctor of the Church

-Saint Bede the Venerable, Father and Doctor of the Church

-Saint Isidore of Seville, Father and Doctor of the Church

Saint Hilary of Poitiers, Father and Doctor of the Church

-Saint Justin the Martyr

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church

Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church

Saint Teresa of Avila, Doctor of the Church

-Saint John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church

Saint Louis Marie de Montfort

Saint John Mary Vianney

-Saint Philip Neri

-Saint Francis of Assisi

-Saint Francis Xavier Cabrini

etc etc

 

[Magnanimity]

Since, as I have noted to you several times already, there is no unified voice on hell within the entire history of the church, it is plainly useless to name-drop. The list of prominent individuals within the history of the church who believe that hell is not never ending is just as long, and could easily be supplied. But I am not interested in appeals to authority. I am interested in the justification for beliefs.

I should also point out that I do not have any opinion about what you, particularly, want to believe on this issue. I am not here to convince you of anything. You appear firm, fundamentally so, in your belief that few are saved. So what? I cannot see what difference your beliefs should make to me.
Peace be with you.

 

[steve-b]

Since, as I have noted to you several times already, there is no unified voice on hell within the entire history of the church, it is plainly useless to name-drop. The list of prominent individuals within the history of the church who believe that hell is not never ending is just as long, and could easily be supplied. But I am not interested in appeals to authority. I am interested in the justification for beliefs.

That seems like a contradiction
Magnanimty:

I should also point out that I do not have any opinion about what you, particularly, want to believe on this issue. I am not here to convince you of anything. You appear firm, fundamentally so, in your belief that few are saved. So what? I cannot see what difference your beliefs should make to me.
Peace be with you.

Wait a minute there. You challenged me, remember? when you said

" Of course, St Augustine (from whom the church has inherited this bleak vision of hell that you’d defend) seems to agree with you . But most of the commentators? Nope.

So I provided a few names 13 of them are Doctors of the Church.

I also provided quotes from the CCC, which gives what the Church officially says on the subject

 

[Magnanimity]

That seems like a contradiction

It couldn’t be. An appeal to authority seeks to know whether those who we would consider authorities in the church (saints, intellectuals, conciliar decrees) adhere to a certain position, irrespective of the reasons for holding the position.

Justification seeks to know the reasons/rationale for why anyone would hold a certain position. It’s clear that the OP is concerned with this question too.

In my own investigation, I’ve learned that the medieval church in the West is the only place we find strong consistency on Hell (not unanimity but consistency).

Wait a minute there. You challenged me, remember? when you said

Maybe I’m misremembering, but I thought you had engaged me in this thread. I don’t think I’ve run across you on CAF before, so I didn’t know whether you were really interested and seeking or whether you were a fundamentalist and settled in your beliefs. (How could I?)

when you said

" Of course, St Augustine (from whom the church has inherited this bleak vision of hell that you’d defend) seems to agree with you . But most of the commentators? Nope.

This is equivocation. As I said, I was referring only to your insistence that Christ answered the particular question “are few saved?” And I provided the commentary of saints who explicitly said that Christ didn’t answer that particular question. That’s it.

Whatever other authorities you provided was just for yourself to feel more secure in your beliefs, I suppose. :man_shrugging:t2: Idk where your list came from, and I don’t care.

Like I said, I’m curious to know the reasons why anyone at all would believe in something so outrageous as a neverending, inescapable realm of torment/suffering for a creature whom God ‘loves’ who was created in his image and destined for beatitude. It’s a bizarre belief that doesn’t hold anything near universal support in the history of the church…, so my curiosity is natural.

But like I said, if you disagree…, ok. I wish you all the best.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That seems like a contradiction

It couldn’t be. An appeal to authority seeks to know whether those who we would consider authorities in the church (saints, intellectuals, conciliar decrees) adhere to a certain position, irrespective of the reasons for holding the position.

What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

It isn’t you and it isn’t me. Paul says it is the Church. There is only one and it is the one Jesus established. It is the one all the apostles are in, and writing to and for. Acts 9:31 teaches it is the kataholos church.

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

From the Greek study bible.
ἐκκλησία = Strong's Greek: 1577. ἐκκλησία (ekklésia) -- an assembly, a (religious) congregation , ekklesia= church
καθ’ = http://bibleapps.com/greek/2596.htm , kata=according to
ὅλης = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3650.htm , holos= whole, universal
τῆς = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm , ho = the
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

The pillar and foundation of truth

Magnanimity:

As I said, I was referring only to your insistence that Christ answered the particular question “are few saved?” And I provided the commentary of saints who explicitly said that Christ didn’t answer that particular question. That’s it.

Jesus answered the question.

Magnanimity:

Whatever other authorities you provided was just for yourself to feel more secure in your beliefs, I suppose. :man_shrugging:t2: Idk where your list came from, and I don’t care.

I don’t make up my beliefs. I’m taught those beliefs by the Church. I gave the references. My name wasn’t on any of those references. None of it was my opinion.

Magnanimity:

Like I said, I’m curious to know the reasons why anyone at all would believe in something so outrageous as a neverending, inescapable realm of torment/suffering for a creature whom God ‘loves’ who was created in his image and destined for beatitude. It’s a bizarre belief that doesn’t hold anything near universal support in the history of the church…, so my curiosity is natural.

But like I said, if you disagree…, ok. I wish you all the best.

As you said regarding your position

" But I am not interested in appeals to authority. I am interested in the justification for beliefs."

how can one justify one’s beliefs without deferring to an authority?

 

[Magnanimity]

What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

It isn’t you and it isn’t me. Paul says it is the Church.

It is you, and it is me. It’s East and it’s West (unitatis redintegratio). It’s early, medieval, modern and contemporary. The church is all of these things. Here is how Vat 2’s dei verbum puts it:

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her. (DV, 8)

Believers treasure these things in their hearts, and there is a constant moving forward toward the fullness of truth.

To think that St Augustine (how many centuries ago did he live?) must have had the fullness of the truth of the matter on heaven and hell is simply not realistic and not in keeping with the development advocated by DV, 8, especially since Clement, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Scotus Eriugena, etc, etc, etc all fundamentally disagreed with him.

how can one justify one’s beliefs without deferring to an authority?

I explained what I meant by the distinction between appeals to authority and seeking justification. In the former, one finds authorities and merely states their beliefs. In the latter, one gives the reasons/rationale undergirding those beliefs.

I’m not sure what is confusing you here. Perhaps you’ve forgotten what Bl John Henry Newman taught—conscience is primary. After all, the truths of religion have to correspond to something internal within us (conscience) before we can accept those truths. If this doesn’t occur then you’re merely accepting the claims of Catholicism without good reason, and you might just as well be a Muslim, Buddhist or atheist. That is, if your following the claims of Catholicism have nothing to do with your own conscience, then your reasons for following the church are probably arbitrary. In which case, you are an accidental Catholic.

 

[thistle]

Aquinas is clear you can commit mortal sin through ignorance and passion and not through malice.

It’s what the Church teaches that matters. Aquinas was not right about everything. He did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Let me repeat this. A mortal sin cannot be committed by accident. It is ALWAYS deliberate.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I’m with you here.

What I’m saying is that, it is hard to see how someone who deliberately commits an act he knows is wrong is always equivalent to rejecting God. One way to see this is to consider the fall of the angels. The demons directly sinned from their will, because they had no passion (being immaterial) and no ignorance. Their fall was a direct assault on God’s goodness, stemming from their own pride.

But this is not the only kind of mortal sin deserving of hell, according to Catholicism. And this is what I’m struggling to understand: For acts deemed mortal sin, even if done deliberately, aren’t always done with a full all-encompassing knowledge. If they did, why would anyone ever choose to sin, knowing it would put them in eternal torment? etc.

 

[thistle]

I’m with you here.

What I’m saying is that, it is hard to see how someone who deliberately commits an act he knows is wrong is always equivalent to rejecting God. One way to see this is to consider the fall of the angels. The demons directly sinned from their will, because they had no passion (being immaterial) and no ignorance. Their fall was a direct assault on God’s goodness, stemming from their own pride.

But this is not the only kind of mortal sin deserving of hell, according to Catholicism. And this is what I’m struggling to understand: For acts deemed mortal sin, even if done deliberately, aren’t always done with a full all-encompassing knowledge. If they did, why would anyone ever choose to sin, knowing it would put them in eternal torment? etc.

Don’t focus on a particular mortal sin because it is not the type of mortal sin that sends you to Hell. Some mortal sins are worse than others but it makes no difference. If you die in a state of mortal sin it is irrelevant which type of mortal sin was on your soul at death.
It’s the act of committing a mortal sin (any type of mortal sin) that is a deliberate direct rejection of God’s love.
As for full knowledge we have seen often in these forums people trying to justify committing mortal sins by saying they knew the sin was of grave matter but they did not have 100% knowledge or understanding. That is simply an excuse for a get out of jail free card. Under that thought process almost everyone could claim they have never committed a mortal sin.
If a Catholic knows that the Church teaches an act is a sin of grave matter then the condition is satisfied.

 

[Magnanimity]

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.

So, after reading ST.2.2.162 on “pride,” I’m not much clearer on the issue. In article 4, St Thomas writes, “ I answer that, As stated above (1 and 2,3) pride denotes immoderate desire of one’s own excellence, a desire, to wit, that is not in accord with right reason.”

This lines up with what we were suspecting earlier. But how could this happen? That is the question. If not through ignorance or improper functioning of cognition, how does one immoderately desire one’s own excellence? As in, what makes this desire not align with “right reason?” How do the desire and right reason get disconnected from each other in a prideful act? What’s the cause of this phenomenon?

But I’ll also take a look at his speculation on the angels. You’re probably right that those sections can’t be overlooked.

Edit-from the Angel section in the ST:

“But he [the angel] desired resemblance with God in this respect—by desiring, as his last end of beatitude, something which he could attain by the virtue of his own nature, turning his appetite away from supernatural beatitude, which is attained by God’s grace. Or, if he desired as his last end that likeness of God which is bestowed by grace, he sought to have it by the power of his own nature; and not from Divine assistance according to God’s ordering. This harmonizes with Anselm’s opinion, who says [De casu diaboli, iv.] that “he sought that to which he would have come had he stood fast.” These two views in a manner coincide; because according to both, he sought to have final beatitude of his own power, whereas this is proper to God.” ST.1.63.3

@RealisticCatholic, what is Aquinas describing here? Pure, unconditioned self-determination? “I will determine for myself and accomplish by myself my own beatitude?”

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Random thought but accepting Universalism is also harder if you accept the Marian apparition at Fatima. You don’t have to accept this private revelation if you’re Catholic, but it seems to have been favored by even many of the Popes.

Anyway, Mary apparently said to the children that most people go to hell over sexual sins.

 

[Magnanimity]

Anyway, Mary apparently said to the children that most people go to hell over sexual sins.

That would definitely seem odd, if taken at face-value. On my reading of Dante’s inferno, the circle in which sexual-sins-damned-persons existed was toward the top. As in, this expresses a medieval idea that sexual sins are among the “least deadly” of the capital sins. Dante travels all the way down to find Satan within the final location (deadliest) of the sinful realm—pride.

St Teresa of Avila was given a vision of Hell too, although I believe she saw no actual persons there. But it was enough to give her the attitude of “we’ve got to do whatever it takes to keep people out of here!”

You don’t have to accept this private revelation if you’re Catholic, but it seems to have been favored by even many of the Popes.

I just wonder whether the world might have changed enormously in the last 100 years, and perhaps in an irreversible trajectory forward. Considering the enormous advances made for racial equality and equality of opportunity for women, it seems like the last 100 years have moved the entire race (1st world countries anyway) in a direction that just isn’t going to tolerate a claim like “loads of folks are in Hell bc of sexual sins.” Do you know what I mean?

The church is not beholden to the wider culture, but she is certainly in the culture and in some ways is reflective of it. Vat2 was so very different from prior councils. Does it even address the question of whether few are saved? I doubt it. I doubt the CCC even brings it up with any kind of answer (although I haven’t looked for that). Our current pope seems to barely tolerate the idea of Hell for humans. I just don’t know. People can accept punitive measures for bad behavior—they totally can. But your avg person on the street these days isn’t going to listen for a moment to a suggestion of a forever-Hell. That idea has no traction. Worse than that. It’s viewed as preposterous.