Is it Orthodox belief that all are saved??

[Brian_Ingram]

Vatican, Apr. 7, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s basilica on Sunday, April 6, to close the First World Apostolic Congress of Divine Mercy.
About 9,000 people had participated in the week-long event, which had opened on April 2, the feast of Divine Mercy and the 3rd anniversary of the death of Pope John Paul II, who had established that feast in 2000. The congress was intended as the first step in a worldwide plan to encourage the Divine Mercy devotion, with congresses hoped for in each continent next year, each country in 2010, and each diocesan in 2011. The conference was marked by a respectful theological disagreement between the Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Cardinal Schönborn. The Orthodox prelate, in his presentation, argued that God’s mercy is so great that He does not condemn sinners to everlasting punishment. The Orthodox understanding of hell, Bishop Hilarion said, corresponds roughly to the Catholic notion of purgatory. Cardinal Schönborn politely disagreed, noting that the idea expressed by Bishop Hilarion “is not a doctrine of the Church.” While hell is a reality, he said, it is God’s will for all men to be saved, and all Christians should pray “that no one will be lost.”

 

[Nicholas82]

Is it Orthdox belief that all are saved??

No, it is not.

 

[jimmy]

I think there is a little more freedom within the Eastern Orthodox Church than there is in the west. Some might say that hell is like purgatory as Bishop Hilarion said but others might have a view that is more similar to the western view.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

God condemns none to everlasting punishment. This does not mean that Hell does not exist, nor does it mean that Hell is not permanent, nor does it mean that Hell is not painful.

Also, it is not heretical for Catholic or Orthodox to hope for the Salvation of all; no one save the Devil is declared as in Hell by either Church.

 

[Genesis315]

orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

That article really distorts Latin theology and presents a caricature of it. It admits that the Scriptures use the same imagery as many Latins, but for a good purpose, but then accuses the Latins of not using it for the same purpose, but rather an evil one–when they are used for the same purpose in the same way.

Second, he claims that the Church didn’t condemn Augustine because he wrote in Latin and therefore the Greeks couldn’t read him and condemn him. On the other hand, in the early Church the Greeks had enough trouble staying away from heresies promulgated in Greek and the West had no trouble fighting these “Greek” heresies–but everyone was impotent to Augustine’s errors because his books were long and in Latin? That’s just patronizing and condescending to the great theologians and bishops of East and West at the time–especially since the separated East itself accepted Augustine’s view in their own pan-Councils which they later repudiated them during an especially strong wave of “anti-Latinism.”

 

[ChadS]

I understand the part about God not condemning anybody to everlasting punishment. That’s too similar to a Protestant derived idea of “double-predestination.” The idea is that people through their own actions and unbelief condemn themselves to eternal damnation, not through God’s choice.

The thing that gets me though is the article says that Bishop Hilarion said the Orthodox idea of hell is similar to the Catholic understanding of purgatory. Catholic theology states that all who died in a state of grace yet imperfectly purified go to purgatory have their sins cleansed from their souls. Does this mean that Hilarion or other Orthodox adhere to a universalist notion of salvation? I find this highly unlikely.

ChadS

 

[ForeverAdam]

The conference was marked by a respectful theological disagreement between the Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Cardinal Schönborn. The Orthodox prelate, in his presentation, argued that God’s mercy is so great that He does not condemn sinners to everlasting punishment. The Orthodox understanding of hell, Bishop Hilarion said, corresponds roughly to the Catholic notion of purgatory. Cardinal Schönborn politely disagreed, noting that the idea expressed by Bishop Hilarion “is not a doctrine of the Church.” While hell is a reality, he said, it is God’s will for all men to be saved, and all Christians should pray “that no one will be lost.”

Please post more information, especially the disputed words of His Grace, Bishop Hilarion, if you can locate them. Thanks.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

That article really distorts Latin theology and presents a caricature of it. It admits that the Scriptures use the same imagery as many Latins, but for a good purpose, but then accuses the Latins of not using it for the same purpose, but rather an evil one–when they are used for the same purpose in the same way.

Second, he claims that the Church didn’t condemn Augustine because he wrote in Latin and therefore the Greeks couldn’t read him and condemn him. On the other hand, in the early Church the Greeks had enough trouble staying away from heresies promulgated in Greek and the West had no trouble fighting these “Greek” heresies–but everyone was impotent to Augustine’s errors because his books were long and in Latin? That’s just patronizing and condescending to the great theologians and bishops of East and West at the time–especially since the separated East itself accepted Augustine’s view in their own pan-Councils which they later repudiated them during an especially strong wave of “anti-Latinism.”

And you think that any of this was the reason I posted that article?

Please read above your biases and respond in context. The article dealt, FOREMOST, with the nature of Heaven and Hell, and a reconciliation of God’s goodness with evil and with eternal punishment.

The conclusion of the article, I felt, was very good - God does not condemn one, but rather one chooses, to go to hell. This clarifies the Bishop’s statment, distorted both by lack of context and translation. What he meant by purgatory might be explained by a lack of understanding on his part, or a mistranslation.

 

[Nicholas82]

And you think that any of this was the reason I posted that article?

Please read above your biases and respond in context. The article dealt, FOREMOST, with the nature of Heaven and Hell, and a reconciliation of God’s goodness with evil and with eternal punishment.

The conclusion of the article, I felt, was very good - God does not condemn one, but rather one chooses, to go to hell. This clarifies the Bishop’s statment, distorted both by lack of context and translation. What he meant by purgatory might be explained by a lack of understanding on his part, or a mistranslation.

The portion relating purgatory to hell could also be concerning the state of souls after death, but before the final judgement. It is said that after death the soul experiences either a foretaste of heaven or hell, according to how one lived one’s life.

As St. John the Wonderworker said in a homily on life after death:

“Some souls find themselves(after death) in a condition of foretasting eternal joy and blessedness, and others in fear of the eternal torments which will come in full after the Last Judgment. Until then changes are possible in the condition of souls, especially through offering for them the Bloodless Sacrifice (commemoration at the Liturgy), and likewise by other prayers.”

Thus the Orthodox would say it is possible to actually pray a soul from hell. In the Church prayers are ever offered for the repose of the dead, and on the day of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, in the kneeling prayers at vespers, there is even a special petition “for those in hell.”

If however, the Bishop is arguing for Apokatastasis, his belief is already condemned. In 543, the Synod of Constantinople condemned Apocatastasis as being Anathema, and the Anathema was formally submitted to the Fifth Ecumenical Synod of Constantinople (553).