www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Theology

Hi Everyone!

I'm interesting in understanding how much Eastern Orthodox theology is complementary or otherwise compatible with Eastern Catholic theology. I have two specific questions:

1. Are Eastern Catholics allowed to believe in the possibility of universal salvation? In other words, are they allowed to hope that everyone may get saved, albeit not with certainty?

2. Are EC also allowed to believe in the EO perspective of the nature of hell; that is, that both the righteous and the unrighteous receive the presence and love of God, only the unrighteous experiences God's love as a "consuming fire," which to them means "hell?"

If so, then do those privileges also extend to Western Catholics?

Thanks!

1. I suppose, so long as it as it's clear universal salvation isn't actually a teaching of the church. A metropolitan, whose name escapes me at this moment, of GOC of America believed belief in the possibility of universal salvation to be a heresy. Take that with a grain of salt I guess.

2. I'm pretty sure that's fine. Saint Isaac is considered a saint of the western church as well, so I see no reason why that would be an problem.

...that said, st. Isaac is said to have believed in universal salvation...the plot thickens

Apocatastatis is an heresy, to be sure.

To believe that would be to take away our moral freedom to reject God's Grace.

But it is entirely permissible to hope and pray that everyone would be saved.

The Kyivan Orthodox Metropolitan, St Peter Mohyla, taught that if we see someone commit a terrible sin before he or she dies, we are to pray, nonetheless, to God for their salvation and implore God not to punish them with eternal fire etc.

As for Western Catholics, I thought all of them believe that everyone is going to heaven . . .

Alex

They often say that the present reality is hell.

Thanks, all!

Ambrosian, if St. Isaac dogmatically taught universal salvation, then why wasn't he condemned a heretic as Origen was? (I hope that we all understand the distinction between dogmatically teaching universalism, and hoping for the possibility of universal salvation.)

Dear icamhif,

In actual fact, the view that St. Isaac taught universal salvation comes from current people who review the so-called discovery of certain writings on gehenna in 1983.

It has never been proven that he wrote any of that so we shouldn't impugn the reputation of a Saint like Isaac whose writings that we do know about earned for him veneration well beyond the borers of the Assyrian Church of the East from whence he originated. Let's just consider that modern nonsense that the ancient Churches of the East knew nothing about with respect to St Isaac. He never got involved in controversy during his life-time, not even with respect to the Nestorian matter. There was nothing in his writings OR in his sayings/oral teaching that alluded to anything concerning universal salvation.

Origenism is really the greater culprit here rather than Origen himself.

Origen was a tremendously versatile and prolific Christian teacher and writer who was misunderstood by his contemporaries during his life-time. Several heretical movements or theories later took his name well after his death - and these were condemned.

Origen taught so many saints of the Church who later defended their teacher so vigorously against all possible aspersions.

He did get into real trouble with Alexandria over self-mutilation . . .

Pope Benedict XVI wrote a brilliant letter/sermon on Origen that, in effect, opposes the negative arguments against him and proposes him and his methods as great examples etc. But I don't have the actual text of that in front of me.

But just on the strength of Pope Benedict's writing and analysis, I would say that the Catholic Church no longer considers Origen a "heretic" - Origenist theories and systems that had nothing really to do with him notwithstanding.

Origen died in union with the Catholic Church and he affirmed that he consented in advance to any judgements of the Church with respect to his opinions (and scholars are allowed to have opinions!).

He does not deserve to be classed with heretics whose obstinacy was opposed to the Church.

Certainly, there was a local cultus in his honour as he was enshrined behind an altar in a Church at Alexandria, but I don't know where any of that went.

We are indebted to Pope Benedict XVI for his scholarly stand on Origen in recent times . . .

Alex

Thanks for the informative answer, Alex!

Alex,

You might find it interesting that the rehabilitation of Origen predates Pope Benedict; eight lessons penned by him are found in the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours (promulgated in 1970).

Yes indeed sir!

The Syriac Catholic Daily Office produced by a monastic community in India also includes some readings from the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita - don't know what they're rehabilitating there!

A shame about Tertullian though - considered a Latin Father, he can't be canonized because of his move into schism.

But in terms of apologetics - there really is none his equal.

Cheers, Alex

Which St. Isaac are we referring to?

Bob

Saint Isaac of Syrian

Mea culpa. I recant!

Dear Ambrosian,

Nothing to be culpable about sir!

Alex

A great blog which often addresses issues surrounding universal salvation, by Fr. Alvin Kimel: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/

I think it is poorly proven that universal salvation/ apocatastasis was condemned or rejected by the Church. The "Origenist" doctrine that was condemned was wrapped up in a number of strange ideas derived from Platonism about pre-existence of souls, spherical bodies, etc.

I, too, am very interested in this topic. My understanding for latin roman catholics, is we are allowed to hope that hell is empty, and that everyone, at the end of their lives, accepts God - and we pray for this. But we dont "know"....