Isaac of Syria and Universalism

[Virginia804]

I do believe in hell, just not sure what it is, actually, or if it is eternal. For those there, I’m sure it may as well be.

Let me explain…The Harrowing of Hell is a common Orthodox concept and some in Catholicism know it as well, but it corresponds (sort of) to Holy Saturday.

There’s various rather inconsistent stories of what happened then, but according to scripture, Christ descended to the dead (is that hell?) to preach to those imprisoned.

Hell, sheol, gehenna, have had some changes in sense over time.

Isaac of Syria also admonished that all take hell seriously, but also posits that God does nothing that is not for the betterment of the person, so in the long run, hell is a chastisement from which people are delivered.

All sorts of saints have had all sorts of visions of hell, and I don’t know if each of us could bear to see how we’d feel there. So taking it seriously is a different question than is it forever.

So let me pose this question: If there were no heaven or hell, if this life and the knowledge of Christ in this life is all one could say yes or no to, would you still cling to Christ? I hope the answer is yes, because if it is no, then it means it is not Christ that is loved, but heaven or avoiding hell.

It must be a very great sadness to God to see people end up there, but if they die defending things like rape or murder, I don’t see them going to heaven. But what can we say - there have been (very wise) posts that point out the tension we have to maintain taking all the scriptures into account. Those positions that talk only of eternal damnation do not seem to be taking into account those other scriptures that DO talk of the eventual reconciliation of all.

Anyone read Von Baltazar’s Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter? What do you think of his discussion of Christ descending into the depths of God-forsakenness as influenced by von Speyr?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Anyone read Von Baltazar’s Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter? What do you think of his discussion of Christ descending into the depths of God-forsakenness as influenced by von Speyr?

It would seem to me to indicate, if true, then the sacrifice of the Cross wasn’t enough, but the further sacrifice of hell was warranted. If the sacrifice of the Cross was enough, and it is according to the scriptures, then Christ descended to collect the just in limbo and purgatory because hell is reserved for the damned, from whence no one returns.

 

[jimmy]

It would seem to me to indicate, if true, then the sacrifice of the Cross wasn’t enough, but the further sacrifice of hell was warranted. If the sacrifice of the Cross was enough, and it is according to the scriptures, then Christ descended to collect the just in limbo and purgatory because hell is reserved for the damned, from whence no one returns.

I don’t see how your conclusion follows. I haven’t read von Balthasar’s book on Easter but from what is written it sounds fine.

St. Faustina’s vision is no more authoritative than St. Isaac’s words. St. Isaac, since he was in communion with the divine energies had a great vision of God and His plan of salvation, just like the other great saints.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I don’t see how your conclusion follows. I haven’t read von Balthasar’s book on Easter but from what is written it sounds fine.

Then a review of what we are talking about would be in order:

Balthasar argues, however, that this doctrine does not do justice to the depths to which Christ went for man’s redemption or, consequently, to his love. Rather, Christ must have suffered after death the full force of what would have awaited sinful mankind without a redeemer: complete rejection by the Father without hope of mercy or reconciliation. By descending into this utter abandonment, Christ bore the punishment humanity deserved, thereby manifesting the extreme extent of God’s love. Balthasar agrees that Christ’s descent should be called glorious, but in the sense that Christ’s crucifixion, rather than his resurrection, is said to be his glory. Balthasar thus retains the form of the profession of faith but with a content other than the traditional one of his ecclesial community. Like the Catholic Church, Balthasar professes Christ descended into hell, but he means something radically different.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7424

St. Faustina’s vision is no more authoritative than St. Isaac’s words. St. Isaac, since he was in communion with the divine energies had a great vision of God and His plan of salvation, just like the other great saints.

Since her diary is approved and what Jesus Himself spoke about is part of the liturgical calendar in the Church of the west, then it isn’t just another pious belief, it has the stamp of approval that keeps faith from devolving into a series of personal beliefs that separate us Christians as seen in the Protestant world, among others.

 

[Eucharisted]

I’ve read some of Isaac of Syria and he seems to convey as much hope overall as does Julian of Norwich. I am very impressed with his understanding that God does not act in vengence, but only to heal, and that applies to every being in the long run.

Have you all read Isaac and is there a difference regarding whether every being is eventually reconciled to God in the long run between the Eastern Church (as in Orthodox Russian or Greek), the Eastern Rite in Catholicism, and the Western Rite?

The writings of the saints must be read in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Salvation is open to everyone, but not everyone wants salvation. Those who don’t want it get what they want: damnation. God is so merciful that He gives us exactly what we want, even if it isn’t what He wants. God is also so merciful that He gives the damned and the demons punishments which are very light, for He loves His creatures so much that He is afraid to strike them. Certainly loss of God is the worst punishment imaginable, but God lessens the punishment by giving the damned spirits the company of one another, and recognizition of why they are in Hell, and even the individual punishments for their sins are less than what they deserve.

 

[jimmy]

Then a review of what we are talking about would be in order:catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7424

Since her diary is approved and what Jesus Himself spoke about is part of the liturgical calendar in the Church of the west, then it isn’t just another pious belief, it has the stamp of approval that keeps faith from devolving into a series of personal beliefs that separate us Christians as seen in the Protestant world, among others.

I think St. Isaac is in some of the eastern calendars as well so he has a stamp of approval as well. Just because her diary is approved doesn’t make it authoritative. It is similar to the fact that no vision has any authority except in a subjective sense.

 

[antgaria]

I think St. Isaac is in some of the eastern calendars as well so he has a stamp of approval as well. Just because her diary is approved doesn’t make it authoritative. It is similar to the fact that no vision has any authority except in a subjective sense.

As I already mentioned, he is in the CCC as St. Isaac. And from the East, here is the Troparion for St Ephraim and St Isaac:

Let the multitudes of monastics and cenobites honour our divinely-shining pillars and protectors and intercessors, divine Ephraim and Isaac who are truly of Christ. And let us glorify them with hymns while crying: Glory to Him Who has sanctified you; glory to Him Who has made you wonderful; glory to Him Who has glorified you both in heaven and on earth.

Personally, I don’t think any saint trumps another saints writings. I say that because, so long as they are in line with the teaching of the Church, they will supplement and complement each other. But they must always be read in the light of the Church. Saints are usually people whose writings have been read thus and have been found enlightening.

In the same kind of way, a theologian of the Church is always one who submits to the teaching of the Church and works within that scope. Once he strays from Her {the Church’s} faith, he ceases to become a theologian and becomes an inventor, a maker of fallacies preoccupied with his own notions rather than Truth.

 

[Daedelus76]

I was listening to Fr. Thomas Hapko… and at least the way he spelled it out, the Orthodox do not believe in an eternal hell (his words, not necessarily the words of all Orthodox). In the end it will be a personal choice if you find the eventual state of affairs “heaven” or “hell”. I believe this is a “grey area” moreso in Orthodoxy, since this specificly was a commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John; there are alot of interpretations.

 

[Virginia804]

Anything where we understand how God is more and more the all-compassionate seems to me a good thing.
Justice is not vengence. That is a human weakness. The will of God is for the divinization of all.

Why do some persist in a perspective where all are not reconciled? This seems to me to be a strange concept of freedom; does God honor the will of one who wants to throw himself off the bridge?

Jesus did heal many without their permission (such as Lazarus). Did he violate their free will in doing so?

 

[Ghosty]

Anything where we understand how God is more and more the all-compassionate seems to me a good thing.
Justice is not vengence. That is a human weakness. The will of God is for the divinization of all.

Why do some persist in a perspective where all are not reconciled? This seems to me to be a strange concept of freedom; does God honor the will of one who wants to throw himself off the bridge?

Jesus did heal many without their permission (such as Lazarus). Did he violate their free will in doing so?

We persist because God Himself spoke of those who will not be reconciled. We don’t want to simply wave that fact off out of human sentimentality. We’re not denigrating God, we’re simply going with what He Himself said on the matter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I was listening to Fr. Thomas Hapko… and at least the way he spelled it out, the Orthodox do not believe in an eternal hell (his words, not necessarily the words of all Orthodox). In the end it will be a personal choice if you find the eventual state of affairs “heaven” or “hell”. I believe this is a “grey area” moreso in Orthodoxy, since this specificly was a commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John; there are alot of interpretations.

Eastern Orthodoxy repudiates universalism because it was rejected by an Ecumenical Council - it was one of the matters for which Origen was condemned.

Blessings

 

[Shin]

Could someone post the exact quotes of Isaac of Syria dealing with this issue?

I am used to people misinterpreting source material in their commentary, and would like to see the real thing.

Of course before something is defined by a Council sometimes a few saints make errors of interpretation. After something is defined by a Council – you don’t find a saint making the error.

When there is unity among the saints, when you have a group agreeing – then you are in the most solid hands. You’re in the most solid hands you could hope for in regards to truth normally with one saint alone, with only rare exceptions that are normally misunderstandings wrongly given too much weight by people looking for loopholes and what they wish the truth to be.

 

[Daedelus76]

Eastern Orthodoxy repudiates universalism because it was rejected by an Ecumenical Council - it was one of the matters for which Origen was condemned.

Blessings

I’ll have to research that. I’m not sure I’d say Fr. Hapko was remotely “universalist”, though it was different from what I’ve heard Catholics/Western Christians (Protestants) saying about the last things / eschaton.

BTW, when you say you are a Copt in communion with Rome, what does that mean? I have some friends that are Copts online, one of them is an Orthodox convert, and they didn’t mention “in communion with Rome”. They definitely are careful to point out their theology is not Roman Catholic, they do accentuate the differences.

 

[antgaria]

Dear Shin,

The paragraphs I have are quoted by S. Brock from the Intro to “The Wisdom of St. Isaac of Nineveh” available here:

… even in the matter of the afflictions and sentence of Gehenna there is some hidden mystery, whereby the wise Maker has taken as a starting point for its future outcome the wickedness of our actions and our willfulness, using this as a way of bringing to perfection His dispensation… which lies hidden from both angels and human beings, and is hidden too from those who are being chastised, whether they be demons or human beings, hidden, that is, for as long as the ordained period of time holds sway.

and:

That we should say or think that the matter of Gehenna is not in reality full of love and mingled with compassion would be an opinion full of blasphemy and insult to our Lord God. By saying that He will hand us over to burning for the sake of sufferings, torment and all sorts of ills, we are attributing to the divine Nature an enmity towards the very rational beings which He created through grace; the same is true if we say that He acts or thinks with spite and with a vengeful purpose, as though He was avenging Himself. Among all His actions there is none that is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion…

The second quote is in line with Orthodox {Catholic and Eastern} teachings. All acts of God are done in love. But where as those who chose the source of life and light, revel in the Fire of His love, those who have rejected Him are scorched by it. Sort of the same way as when one of us was angry and filled with hatred of a friend, everything that friend did to us in good faith was a source of anger and despicable to us if we maintained our hardened heart, similarly with those who reject Him. He does not delight in our torture and torments, neither in this life nor the next. Both are there because we have been given ultimately the right to chose… He didn’t want a recursive simple script anyone could have written in bash worshiping and praising Him.

The first quote is a bit more out of line with Church teachings, but not completely so. No where does he define His perfect dispensation to be fulfilled after the “ordained” time. Regardless, St. Isaac here is not seeing this by anything we could say is a spiritual or noetic eye, but postulating an ultimate mystery hidden even in this. I think it is merely in continuity with the texts in which it is found, emphasizing God’s love in his dispensation towards us. He is not preaching it universalism from the top of the roofs, and is talking of something hidden from angels and humans.

Again, the concept of God loving all is not something new, but has always coexisted with the fact that there is a hell, and our Lord Jesus Christ warned us about it! I remember in a lecture series by someone {a Catholic apologist, I forgot if it was Scott Hahn??? or who} on hell, there was made mention of a more recent Catholic saint {I forget her name also, but may have been St. Therese???} who said something to the effect of “an ounce of contrition would empty all of hell.” Those souls in hell are unable to have that repentance and turning back to rely on and love God.

Christ talked of God’s love and warned us of hell. The Church talks the same way. That is the teaching that was handed down to it, the teaching that it has kept through the ages. I was listening to Fr. Corapi the one day, and he said a wonderfully little line when he was about to preach to a congregation… the importance of preaching about hell… he said something like “we’re going to start with hell, so we don’t end in it.”

 

[Ghosty]

I’ll have to research that. I’m not sure I’d say Fr. Hapko was remotely “universalist”, though it was different from what I’ve heard Catholics/Western Christians (Protestants) saying about the last things / eschaton.

Fr. Hopko was most likely refering to the notion that the burning Fire of God’s Love is suffering to the Damned, but joy for the Elect. It’s an approach you’ll find among some Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, but not the most popular one.

In the end it’s functionally identical to any other Apostolic approach to the matter of Heaven and Hell, since the two remain distinct and eternal. It’s just another angle of teaching the same thing; after all, God IS everywhere by His presence and power, and this includes constantly giving existence and being to those in Hell.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Daedelus,

BTW, when you say you are a Copt in communion with Rome, what does that mean? I have some friends that are Copts online, one of them is an Orthodox convert, and they didn’t mention “in communion with Rome”. They definitely are careful to point out their theology is not Roman Catholic, they do accentuate the differences.

Thanks for asking. Basically, I hold to my Coptic, Oriental Traditions (capital “T”). I did not have to give up anything of my Coptic and Oriental identity in my journey across the Tiber. All I had to give up were my prior MISconceptions about Catholicism. So I am fully Coptic and Oriental in heart and mind - while being in the Catholic Communion (i.e. in communion with Rome),

Someone had once concisely described my position in this way: The difference between Coptic Orthodox and my identity as a Coptic Catholic is simply that my Church commemorates different bishops in our Liturgy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

St. Isaac was a Catholicos of the Church of the East for a short while and then retired to a monastery.

How strong a separation was there at the time between Rome and the Church of the East? Geographically he would have been Nestorian, but both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches acknowledge his sanctity. Maybe he was just unaware of any schism…?

Like the 13th-century Catholicos Mar Yabh-Allaha who received the pallium from the Pope after being sent on a diplomatic mission by Kublai Khan - without having to repudiate the Nestorian heresy. Both the Catholicos and the Pope had forgotten that each other existed. I’m guessing that St. Isaac was likewise unaware that he was a “Nestorian” and therefore out of communion with the universal Church - like most Eastern Christians (Chalcedonian or otherwise) who happen to be born in schism. And given his geographic separation from either Rome or Constantinople, it wouldn’t be any surprise if a theological error was made by him or by whoever taught him the Faith in the little Arabian village where he was born (in Yemen, wasn’t it?). Plenty of other saints have taught doctrines that the Church has recognized as erroneous - St. Thomas Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception, for example, and St. Gregory of Nyssa on the nature of procreation.

Thus, even if St. Isaac did hold a universalism - which isn’t clear to me from either text Antgaria quoted for us - because this has been condemned as false, we also must reject it. However, St. Isaac - who, consistent with some tendencies in the East, is using the word “Gehenna” or “Hell” to mean a state of punishment after death, without distinguishing between Hell, the Limbo of the Fathers (what the Latins also call “hell” in the Apostle’s Creed), and Purgatory) - seems to me to be emphasizing that God is acting through His perfect charity even through the fires of Hell. This is Blessed Juliana’s point, and the teaching of the Church. Balthazar’s thesis was a little bit more shaky, but it was only intended as a thesis or a suggestion.

 

[jimmy]

How strong a separation was there at the time between Rome and the Church of the East? Geographically he would have been Nestorian, but both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches acknowledge his sanctity. Maybe he was just unaware of any schism…?

I think he actually wrote treatises on the issue. He was firmly Nestorian.

The reason why the EO respect his sactity is because they came into contact with his spiritual homilies and used them for many centuries. They did not realize he was Nestorian.