Orthodox teaching on heaven and hell

[fred_conty]

FrKimel, you said,
For a popular, and polemical, presentation of the Orthodox understanding, see “The River of Fire” by Alexandre Kalmiros.

Is this only one of many acceptable treaticies about hell, or or their others in the Orthodox faith? If there are others, what are they, or references to them. Or do various Orthodox “churches” have different beliefs? And if you could, approximately what period in history did these develope?

Thankx

 

[Khalid]

I know that the Toll House teaching (I believe Seraphim Rose, a staunch defender of it, wrote a book on it) is prevalent in Russian churches and almost absent from Greek ones.

 

[FrKimel]

FrKimel, you said,
For a popular, and polemical, presentation of the Orthodox understanding, see “The River of Fire” by Alexandre Kalmiros.

Is this only one of many acceptable treaticies about hell, or or their others in the Orthodox faith? If there are others, what are they, or references to them. Or do various Orthodox “churches” have different beliefs? And if you could, approximately what period in history did these develope?

I think it is fair to say that a diversity of beliefs about eternal damnation exist in the Orthodox Church, ranging from a strictly retributive interpretation to apocatastasis. The popular middle position is as I have described above (I think).

For example, see Met Kallistos Ware’s essay “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Teaching, however, that hell is not eternal is a condemned proposition, as far as I know.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think it is fair to say that a diversity of beliefs about eternal damnation exist in the Orthodox Church, ranging from a strictly retributive interpretation to apocatastasis. The popular middle position is as I have described above (I think).

For example, see Met Kallistos Ware’s essay “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?”

So which is it then? I would like to know what it believes if I am going to convert to Orthodoxy.

 

[FrKimel]

So which is it then? I would like to know what it believes if I am going to convert to Orthodoxy.

Reuben, if you need an irreformable dogmatic definition on Hell and eternal damnation before you become Orthodox, then you probably should not become Orthodox.

I presume that you are Catholic. You realize, of course, that it is permissible in your Church to believe that Hell will ultimately prove to be empty.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben, if you need an irreformable dogmatic definition on Hell and eternal damnation before you become Orthodox, then you probably should not become Orthodox.

I presume that you are Catholic. You realize, of course, that it is permissible in your Church to believe that Hell will ultimately prove to be empty.

It would be important for me to know what’s in store for me after life or rather what is my salvation and what the alternative. I would not go on a wild goose chase trying to figure out what the Church is teaching and which is to be believed. If that’s the case then I will be in for a long haul before I can be an Orthodox or be one at all. Seem to me what you’re saying, it’s either take it or leave it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It would be important for me to know what’s in store for me after life or rather what is my salvation and what the alternative. I would not go on a wild goose chase trying to figure out what the Church is teaching and which is to be believed. If that’s the case then I will be in for a long haul before I can be an Orthodox or be one at all. Seem to me what you’re saying, it’s either take it or leave it.

I will have to disagree with your statement here. The whole point of Christianity is to save us and bring us back to God. Our energies are best served trying to figure out how to accomplish that, rather than what happens if we don’t. If the thought of pain and suffering is not enough to convince you to do your best to avoid hell, then what will? Does the context matter? Does it matter if its eternal pain and suffering or something that you can get out of?

 

[Nine_Two]

Seem to me what you’re saying, it’s either take it or leave it.

While I won’t make comment on whether this is a valid interpretation of what Fr. Kimel has said (as I haven’t been following very closely), this line works well for those who wish to explore the Orthodox Church. Take it or leave it. Don’t try to reform us in your image.

 

[Reuben_J]

I will have to disagree with your statement here. The whole point of Christianity is to save us and bring us back to God. Our energies are best served trying to figure out how to accomplish that, rather than what happens if we don’t. If the thought of pain and suffering is not enough to convince you to do your best to avoid hell, then what will? Does the context matter? Does it matter if its eternal pain and suffering or something that you can get out of?

Well no offence meant but I would like to hear it from Fr. We layman can have all the options but why waste a clergy knowledge and wisdom if he’s available.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well no offence meant but I would like to hear it from Fr. We layman can have all the options but why waste a clergy knowledge and wisdom if he’s available.

I think you missed Father’s point. There is no dogmatic definition of hell in the Orthodox Church. It is one of those things, like purgatory, which we rather not define because for one thing, we do not know for sure. We know there’s torment for those who are separated from God, outside of that there is no certainty. Many saints and theologians have come up with their idea of hell over the centuries, but there is no one idea that is “infallible” or “dogmatic”.

 

[FrKimel]

It would be important for me to know what’s in store for me after life or rather what is my salvation and what the alternative. I would not go on a wild goose chase trying to figure out what the Church is teaching and which is to be believed. If that’s the case then I will be in for a long haul before I can be an Orthodox or be one at all. Seem to me what you’re saying, it’s either take it or leave it.

I cannot offer you a dogmatic definition when the Orthodox Church has not dogmatized on this question. Sorry.

 

[Reuben_J]

I cannot offer you a dogmatic definition when the Orthodox Church has not dogmatized on this question. Sorry.

Thanks anyway Fr. That is what I thought too. But it is nice to hear from you.

 

[dvdjs]

In Orthodoxy there is a leeway for pious belief without being accepted as a teaching of the Church. Unlike Roman Catholicism, there is no need to spell out each and everything people must believe in.

Not sure where on earth you get this weird idea about the RCC…

You realize, of course, that it is permissible in [the Catholic Church] Church to believe that Hell will ultimately prove to be empty.

… where there is evidently the similar leeway.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not sure where on earth you get this weird idea about the RCC…

Look around, that point did not originate from me. As you can see, the RCC thought it was important to anathemize anyone who doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation, or the Marian dogmas.

 

[dvdjs]

Look around, that point did not originate from me. As you can see, the RCC thought it was important to anathemize anyone who doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation, or the Marian dogmas.

Sorry, I took your words at face value. The two types of examples that you give hardly constitute “each and everything”. In particular, the charge is just wrong in the context of this thread.

And what are you suggesting here? That the EOs are not dogmatic on the Real Presence? On Theotokos, Mother of God, All holy, Immaculate Ever-virgin? Really?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sorry, I took your words at face value. The two types of examples that you give hardly constitute “each and everything”. In particular, the charge is just wrong in the context of this thread.

Of course, are you expecting me to literally list everything down?

And what are you suggesting here? That the EOs are not dogmatic on the Real Presence?

Transubstantiation is not mutually exclusive with the Real Presence. That is the point. We believe in the Real Presence without having to believe in the philosophical underpinnings of Transubstantiation. But as Trent teaches:

Canon II.—If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood—the species only of the bread and wine remaining—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

Can you find me an Orthodox dogma that teaches to that degree? I mean, there is a lot of theological speculation and rationalization offered by many theologians and saints. But do any of us get anathemized for not accepting those? Do we really need to explain to such a degree something we already call a Mystery?

On Theotokos, Mother of God, All holy, Immaculate Ever-virgin? Really?

Seriously? You know those are not the dogmas we are talking about. C’mon, let’s not pretend here.

 

[Indifferently]

Sorry, I took your words at face value. The two types of examples that you give hardly constitute “each and everything”. In particular, the charge is just wrong in the context of this thread.

And what are you suggesting here? That the EOs are not dogmatic on the Real Presence? On Theotokos, Mother of God, All holy, Immaculate Ever-virgin? Really?

Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are not the same thing. The former is an affirmation of a specific mechanism.

 

[FrKimel]

Returning the discussion back to the theme of this thread, I believe it is accurate to say that the Catholic Church has dogmatized more on the Last Things than the Orthodox Church has. The particular judgment and purgatory immediately come to mind.

Many Orthodox, for example, believe it is possible for a person to be saved from damnation through the prayers of the Church. They cite the Vesper prayer that is offered each year on Pentecost:

Hear us, disconsolate and wretched, who beseech Thee, and give rest unto the souls who have formerly departed, and make them to repose in a resplendent place, a place of verdure and coolness, where there are no ills nor sorrow nor sighs. And array their souls in the tabernacles of the righteous, and make them worthy of peace and repose; for it is not the dead who praise Thee, O Lord, nor do those who are in Hades venture to offer unto Thee confession, but we, the living, do bless Thee and supplicate Thee, O Lord, and offer unto Thee prayers of purification and sacrifices for their souls’ sake.

Also see the Akathist for the Departed.

According to common Orthodox teaching, hell, in all of its eternal finality, does not yet exist, because the general resurrection and final judgment have not yet occurred. Met Hierotheos Vlachos’s Life After Death presents what might be described as the consensual teaching on these matters. This book is a very good resource. Met Hierotheos would also strongly disagree with those who, like Met Kallistos and Met Hilarion, confidently hope that all will be saved.

 

[dvdjs]

Of course, are you expecting me to literally list everything down? …

It would be better perhaps to speak the truth without exaggeration, which can be considered polemical.

Transubstantiation is not mutually exclusive with the Real Presence. That is the point. We believe in the Real Presence without having to believe in the philosophical underpinnings of Transubstantiation. But as Trent teaches:

Canon II.—If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood—the species only of the bread and wine remaining—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

Can you find me an Orthodox dogma that teaches to that degree? I mean, there is a lot of theological speculation and rationalization offered by many theologians and saints. But do any of us get anathemized for not accepting those? Do we really need to explain to such a degree something we already call a Mystery?

I am not sure what issue you have with the passage from Trent. It is a statement of the Real Presence that is specific enough to rule other ideas deemed heretical. Are you suggesting that an Orthodox Christian should not be bound in this way? What makes you think that they are not? latitude would you allow? Consubstantiation?

Seriously? You know those are not the dogmas we are talking about. C’mon, let’s not pretend here

The point, I thought was clear. Among the “each and everything” that you was complained about are far, far more teachings help in common than not.