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

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

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

Magnanimity:

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:

steve-b:

I’d just say

If Paul meant a single person was the pillar and foundation of truth, he would have said that to Timothy, personally but he didn’t. Paul said 1 Timothy 3:15 .

Magnanimity:

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.

Just taking one name from your list

Read the anathemas against Origin HERE

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

Magnanimity:

I’m not sure what is confusing you here. Perhaps you’ve forgotten what Bl John Henry Newman taught—conscience is primary.

He didn’t teach universalism

Re: conscience

Keep in mind

While conscience holds it’s great importance,

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

Re: Church authority,

All my posts linked to Church authority

AND

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

Our conscience properly used, shouldn’t be apart from the Church.

Because

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

I.E. apart from following the Church, one’s conscience can remain ill informed, and can fall into error

 

[RealisticCatholic]

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.

It’s not worst of sins, but it’s one of the most dangerous, since it’s really addictive.

This has led me to the problem: Do we mold our way into hell through habits, or are our habits themselves what excuse culpabilty?

I’ve heard it both ways from Catholics circles. Aquinas seems to say habit is the kind of thing that molds our will. So sexual addiction, for example, could lead one to prefer sex over God — and end up in hell.

But at the same time, Catechism lists psychological habits as diminishing sin. Sooo… IDK which is right.

 

[thistle]

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.

Dante was a fiction writer and did not speak for the Church.

 

[Magnanimity]

This has led me to the problem: Do we mold our way into hell through habits, or are our habits themselves what excuse culpabilty?

I’ve heard it both ways from Catholics circles.

I believe that humans are vastly complex creatures. So many aspects of who anyone is (identity) are thrust upon the person. Your parents, siblings, priest, professors, friends, race, IQ, gender, psychological profile (eg, INFP) etc, etc—all of these things are imposed on us. Then too, as Aristotle noted, we have the possibility of forming habits for virtue or for vice. And when a habit is formed, it goes toward establishing one’s character.

And we’ve barely begun to scratch the surface of the forces coming at us from all directions, constantly. There are spiritual forces, as St Paul says. There are cultural forces—the news cycle, unrelenting advertising and marketing and on and on it all goes.

This vast complexity counting toward the making up of each of us is, I think, what makes me drawn to the anthropology/eschatology of the East. The Eastern Fathers that I’ve read did not view humanity as a random collection of this, that and the other human (individualism). They tended to appreciate the collective aspect of humanity. Humanity is a group, taken wholly together—all constantly influenced by and influencing each other. Their lives, minds and hearts are intermingled and entangled together. It’s not a collection of separable individuals, each distinct from the others. St Paul himself seems to write in this collective manner quite often—“for as in Adam, all die. Even so in Christ, all shall be made alive.”

 

[Magnanimity]

Read the anathemas against Origin HERE

I run into this mythological history frequently on CAF. It’s repeated so often that it’s just uncritically accepted at this point. I’ve repudiated it in numerous places. Here is one such place.. Contemporary scholarship does not place the anathemas of the emperor Justinian as a part of the decrees of Const II.

While conscience holds it’s great importance…Our conscience properly used, shouldn’t be apart from the Church…apart from following the Church, one’s conscience can remain ill informed, and can fall into error

So here is what I said about conscience.

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,

Ok, so conscience in the sense that I used it above roughly reflects one’s internal sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice, love and hatred, etc. We all have this internal sense within us. Any truth-claim made by a religion has to more or less correspond to this internal sense (conscience). If it doesn’t, then you’re merely accepting the truth-claim of the religion on some other basis (eg, it’s the religion of your parents, of your countrymen, you think the buildings are pretty, whatever). There are lots of reasons why someone would align herself with a particular religion.

But the only way for a religion to be truly held by an individual in a rational way is to have brought the claims of the religion to bear against one’s internal sense of justice, love, right behavior, etc. If this action is never done, then, as I said, one’s reasons for adhering to a religion are accidental and arbitrary. In which case, no one is dealing with truth—it’s merely one vision of God vs another.

IMO, the reason why so very many saints have been appalled at the idea of a forever-and-inescapable-Hell (but nevertheless accepted it “on faith”) is that the existence of such a realm does not in any way correspond to one’s conscience. Such a hell as that envisioned by St Augustine is repugnant to a properly-functioning conscience. That Hell simply doesn’t past muster (the smell test, the BS meter).

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Read the anathemas against Origin HERE

I run into this mythological history frequently on CAF. It’s repeated so often that it’s just uncritically accepted at this point. I’ve repudiated it in numerous places. Here is one such place.. Contemporary scholarship does not place the anathemas of the emperor Justinian as a part of the decrees of Const II.

An ecumenical Church council is NOT mythological… except in the minds of those who rejects Church authority anyway. And consequences for that are in place.
BTW, those names you included, that lived and died before Origen, obviously didn’t believe in universalism or they would have been included in the anathemas of the 2 Council of Constantinople, OR if they DID believe in universalism, and that’s a big if then they would be included in the anathema anyway if you read the actual wording of the canons I posted from the council…As far as those living AFTER the canon, they would also be included in that anathema…IF

While conscience holds it’s great importance…Our conscience properly used, shouldn’t be apart from the Church…apart from following the Church, one’s conscience can remain ill informed, and can fall into error

Magnanimity:

So here is what I said about conscience.

[snip]

And I said Newman didn’t teach or believe in Universalism which is what you’re believing in. So why quote Newman?

Magnanimity:

Ok, so conscience in the sense that I used it above roughly reflects one’s internal sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice, love and hatred, etc. We all have this internal sense within us. Any truth-claim made by a religion has to more or less correspond to this internal sense (conscience). If it doesn’t, then you’re merely accepting the truth-claim of the religion on some other basis (eg, it’s the religion of your parents, of your countrymen, you think the buildings are pretty, whatever). There are lots of reasons why someone would align herself with a particular religion.

But the only way for a religion to be truly held by an individual in a rational way is to …[sn ip]

IMO, the reason why so very many saints have been appalled at the idea of a forever-and-inescapable-Hell (but nevertheless accepted it “on faith”) is that the existence of such a realm does not in any way correspond to one’s conscience. Such a hell as that envisioned by St Augustine is repugnant to a properly-functioning conscience. That Hell simply doesn’t past muster (the smell test, the BS meter).

BTW, Rationalism is error… And Saint or otherwise, No one can over turn Jesus teaching. At the end of time, like it or not, Jesus says there will be a permanent separation. Thus the last 4 things

Death, Judgement, Heaven, or Hell.

 

[Magnanimity]

You and I are talking past each other @steve-b. I don’t see much common ground, and (perhaps more importantly) I don’t see that you’re trying to learn anything.

Peace be with you.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I wonder if this is something everyone on here could agree with:

If anyone goes to Hell, it is because of their free consent and knowledge, to the extent at Hell is not merely “getting what you deserve” but also getting what you want.

It remains open whether or not it makes sense for people to have "free consent and FULL knowledge to make such a choice. I think this is largely the basis for the controversy.

What do you say, @Magnanimity?

Fr Robert Spitzer has a good way of talking about hell in his books. He talks about hell as a state that someone chooses over a lifetime by forming their character, by “forming a second nature.”

 

[Magnanimity]

If anyone goes to Hell, it is because of their free consent and knowledge, to the extent at Hell is not merely “getting what you deserve” but also getting what you want.

It remains open whether or not it makes sense for people to have "free consent and FULL knowledge to make such a choice

I can agree with this, yes. I am still inclined toward the more Eastern view of this whole issue though—that humanity, taken as a whole, is what Christ came to save. The possibility that anyone might be in Hell tormented some of the greatest saints in the church. In their depths, these saints were absolutely intolerant of the possibility.

So I think there may be no rest until Hell is empty of humans. Love never stops working for and willing the good of the other, as other. No one gets left behind. Everyone will fulfill their destiny in some measure or another. However, room must be made for acknowledging that the consequences for severe and knowing wickedness in this life may follow a person into eternity. For example, Mother Theresa will know God in a way that Stalin will not.

 

[anon99031074]

I’ve been following this discussion, and while it’s not my business as a practitioner of Buddha-Dharma to tell Catholics what to believe, I find it interesting. According to Eusebius (if I remember correctly) universalism was the majority view in the Catholic Church for the first few centuries of Christian history, at least among the laity. There is also some scriptural support for the idea, which universalist Christians quote, such as “every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess…”, meaning that eventually everyone will submit to God, willingly (if unwillingly, how are the wicked forced to make the confession, since they are already going to hell anyway?)

However, where is the support in Catholic scripture and tradition for the view that people choose hell? That they actually prefer to stay there? That the doors of hell are closed from the inside? It seems to me to be the least supportable position of all. It contradicts both the Bible and tradition, in my opinion (who am admittedly far from an expert on the issue). It also seems contrary to reason:

Take a Catholic unmarried couple. Both are students. Both are devout Catholics who go to mass every sunday. They live apart because they study at different universities. Every sunday they go to communion in their local parish churches. One summer vacation you see them together at mass. They are holding hands. None of them take communion. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what has happened. They have commited a so called “mortal sin”. Some in this thread have argued that they “per definition” have rejected God. It seems to me that they have not willingly rejected God. Clearly they DO want God and heaven. What else are they doing in Church every sunday? They just want sex in addition to God and heaven… If they were to die before getting to confession in time, they would be obstinate and stay in horrific suffering in hell, just to not be with God? It makes very little sense to me. In fact, choosing horrific suffering is not something anyone actually does.

Now I will go back to lurking

 

[Vico]

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.

Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 162 Pride > Article 5. Whether pride is a mortal sin?

Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (Article 2) pride is a general sin, not by its essence but by a kind of influence, in so far as all sins may have their origin in pride. Hence it does not follow that all sins are mortal, but only such as arise from perfect pride, which we have stated to be a mortal sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3162.htm

 

[Vico]

…

Regarding full knowledge, that means sufficient awareness. Catholic Encyclopedia has:

From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.

O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

St. Pope John Paul II wrote in Reconciliatio et paenitentia (1984):

… there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...xh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html

And in Veritatis splendor (1993):

The statement of the Council of Trent does not only consider the “grave matter” of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is “full awareness and deliberate consent”. In any event, both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it. Even so, “care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of ‘fundamental option’ — as is commonly said today — against God”, seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and neighbour or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. “For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity. Consequently, the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts. Clearly, situations can occur which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which influence the sinner’s subjective imputability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to create a theological category, which is precisely what the ‘fundamental option’ is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin”.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

 

[RealisticCatholic]

We don’t have to define ourselves perfectly before leaving this world. It is doubtful that any human being could do this. Nevertheless, we do need to make a committed decision toward one set of goals or the other (because we cannot hold both sets of goals at the same time, for they are contradictory). Thus, our lives are characterized by choosing to move in the direction of either self or others, autonomy or love, and worship of self or worship of God. Even if our intention is to choose love, others, and God, we could choose courses of action which run contrary to this intention. Nevertheless, we are not locked into these bad choices, for the Lord of unconditional love allows us to repent and return to him –even an endless number of times.35Whenwe do repent, the Lord not only forgives us, but gives us grace to reorient our lives toward love. Eventually a “mindset” begins to form –a leaning toward love rather thanautonomy, towards others rather thanself, and toward divine worship rather thanself-worship. In this way,our complex network of decisions, actions, acts of repentance, struggles to stay on the right road, and the little improvements we make define us as beings of love, worship, and community.

Alternatively, we might make decisions that lead us into darkness --in favor of self, autonomy, and self-idolatry –decisions which show no regard for others, and which choose dominion, and narcissistic satisfaction above empathy and compassion for others. We don’t care if we plunge others into suffering, darkness, emptiness, or hopelessness, so long as we get what we want. We can even experience the oppositeof an act of repentance and become hardened in our resolve to intensify others’ misery. For example, we might have a “weak”moment in our journey toward complete self-obsession and self-idolatry, and show some empathy or compassion for another person, and then have second thoughts –and even regrets. We might think to ourselves –“I could have taken far more advantage of him–I won’t be compassionate again.” As we make these decisions, another kind of “mindset” develops, and we gradually define ourselves in terms of “unlove” and “anti-love.” Eventually we get to the point of preferring“unlove” and “anti-love,” whichcould leadto a choiceof an eternity of self-absorption, autonomy, dominion, self-obsession, and self-idolatry above an eternity of love, others, and God

If their decisions and actions consistently manifest (without repentance) a desire for autonomy, self-absorption, narcissism, and contempt for and abuse of others as well as a continual rejection (without repentance) of God, the blessed, and love, they come very close to a definitive preference or choice to be “excused” from heaven and to go to a place where unlove and anti-love reign supreme –where they can have what they truly want.

…It seems that some people might think that this pain is “worth it” in order to procure the “benefits” of hell –more enmity, narcissism, contempt, abuse, and hatred. It is as if convinced sadists will embrace masochism in order to obtain greater levels of sadistic pleasure.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Is human freedom capable of this? Jesus suggests that it is. However, this attitude of “anti-love” cannot exist in the kingdom of heaven. It completely contradicts the love of the kingdom, and therefore, it requires a completely separate place in which people with that attitude can continue to stoke and endure the flames of psychological pain in order to obtain sadistic pleasure and self-idolatry.

Could a person change his mind after experiencing the pain of hell, and plead to God to rescue him? > The question is really a moot point because when the all-loving God allows a person to choose definitively state of self-exclusion from him and the blessed, he does so with complete certitude that the person’s decision is definitive (eternal). This belief is grounded in God’s omniscience, which enables him to know every nuance and potential of every human being. Therefore God would be certain that a person would notchange his mind, but rather would perpetuallyprefer the “rejection of love” to communion with him and the blessed. He would be certain that a person’s choice was to eternally endure the pain of separation from Him and love to procure the “privileges”of hell –the supremacy of self and unmitigated contempt for others.

What if a person does not definitivelychoose self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed? Or, asked the other way around, “What if a person only imperfectlychooses communion with God and the blessed?” This condition indicates that the person in question is in some respect open to communion with God and the blessed, but in other respects, is impeded from desiring it completely (and entering into this communion perfectly in the kingdom of heaven). The Catholic Church provides for this condition of imperfect freedom to love (obscured by egotistical desires) in its doctrine onPurgatory which holds that there is a state of purification of desire, choice, and action after death. In this state, God allows individuals through His grace to purge remnant desires for egocentricity, dominion, and self-idolatry. These individuals will not remain in purgatory forever (nor will they regress to hell), but eventually will be ushered into heaven when their purification is complete.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

All of the above come from different selections of Fr. Robert Spitzer. They can be found in his book but also online here.

@Magnanimity while I know you (and I) are still struggling with the idea of anyone actually choosing hell, I do think Fr Spitzer is on the right track with how he is choosing to describe hell — how someone may in fact willingly choose hell, even if he knows it would cause him or her misery. Note also his comments at the end about definitively* rejecting God. If we do not think someone could do so, then they wouldn’t be in hell (maybe purgatory for some purification first).

 

[steve-b]

Could a person change his mind after experiencing the pain of hell, and plead to God to rescue him
The question is really a moot point because when the all-loving God allows a person to choose definitively state of self-exclusion from him and the blessed, he does so with complete certitude that the person’s decision is definitive (eternal).

When death is said to come like a thief., One might not have any time to consider anything and in a nano second find them self in eternity in front of Jesus the judge.

When Jesus in the following example, is describing separation of individuals after they’ve died, that is between those who will be welcomed to heaven vs those who are rejected, did those who are rejected choose to be rejected? No. In fact they didn’t understand why they WERE rejected at all. AND they even objected to being rejected. They clearly chose heaven.

Jesus in the story, tells them why they were rejected… HERE . We see that In this case their choice was to enter heaven, But they were refused entrance because of their actions…

“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, (describes Hell) when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.”

So…Hell was a shock to them. They appear to be choosing heaven NOT HELL. But Hell is where they were judged to be going.

Moral of the story, stay away from mortal sin

RealisticCatholic:

What if a person does not definitively choose self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed?

Like the above link describes?

RealisticCatholic:

Or, asked the other way around, “What if a person only imperfectly chooses communion with God and the blessed?” This condition indicates that the person in question is in some respect open to communion with God and the blessed, but in other respects, is impeded from desiring it completely (and entering into this communion perfectly in the kingdom of heaven). The Catholic Church provides for this condition of imperfect freedom to love (obscured by egotistical desires) in its doctrine on Purgatory which holds that there is a state of purification of desire, choice, and action after death. In this state, God allows individuals through His grace to purge remnant desires for egocentricity, dominion, and self-idolatry. These individuals will not remain in purgatory forever (nor will they regress to hell), but eventually will be ushered into heaven when their purification is complete.

For clarity,
One who dies in mortal sin won’t go to purgatory.

AND

In the link I provided above, that doesn’t describe purgatory for those denied. It describes one who died in mortal sin. It doesn’t describe one who is saved and will ultimately go to heaven via purgatory. On the contrary, It describes one who is not saved and going to hell

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I tend to trust Fr Robert Spitzer. He is orthodox and highly intelligent. Maybe keep in mind the greater context, because I don’t think he’d be one to go against church teaching.

 

[steve-b]

I tend to trust Fr Robert Spitzer. He is orthodox and highly intelligent. Maybe keep in mind the greater context, because I don’t think he’d be one to go against church teaching.

what part of what was said conflicts with Fr Spitzer or the greater context?

Q:

He mentions “gravely” once Re:" the prodigal son

But I wonder why he doesn’t mention mortal sin in greater context? That is central Church teaching. http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=mortal+sin&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

AND

mortal sin Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1035

 

[Magnanimity]

@Magnanimity while I know you (and I) are still struggling with the idea of anyone actually choosing hell, I do think Fr Spitzer is on the right track with how he is choosing to describe hell — how someone may in fact willingly choose hell, even if he knows it would cause him or her misery.

Thanks for sharing. I read all the above by Fr Spitzer. Unless one’s mind is broken (psychopath), even the selfish narcissist has to live according to a social contract—has to curb desires here and there if for no other reason than the threat of the force of law for truly doing whatever she wanted whenever she wanted is always looming. Societies themselves force us uncomfortably into “being moral” at least in broad respects.

And the narcissist is still orienting her will toward some good(s), even when there are substantial privations within those acts. Happiness is still her goal. Infernalists (Balthasar’s word, but I love it) offer Hell as a “giving a person what she wants” solution to her disordered sense of self/others. But is allowing her to ruin herself love, I wonder? I can’t even count the numbers of times I’ve not allowed my children to “do what they want” when I have been aware that the action would probably not count toward their greater good or their happiness. I’ve told them no precisely bc I love them. Their liberty is repeatedly sacrificed to serve their own good.

I wonder if the idea that love is giving a person what she wants is a Modernist notion, undergirded by a voluntarism that we see emerging in the late medieval period (and which completely takes hold in the Modern Age). Voluntarism would make the will preeminent and subsume one’s essence beneath it.