Redemption of Satan??

I think it important to defend Met Kallistos here because he is teaching something, which is found within certain writings of the Fathers. St Isaac the Syrian, St Gregory of Nyssa both teach the possibility of Satan's redemption. This is not a certainty, but a possibility, a hope even. It is not the same thing as posing a false philosophical question. It goes directly to the question of the mercy of God. Met. Kallistos is not bringing out any new thoughts on the subject. Also, his works are of the highest quality, and are very well balanced. New catechumens should not be afraid of reading them.

I think it troubling that a catechumen (forgive me) is defining who, or what, is Orthodox on this forum–or in any forum for that matter. There is much for all of us to learn, especially those who are "learners." For the individual to decide what is or is not Orthodox shows a lack of understanding of the life of the Church. I do not wish to seem harsh. I beg your forgiveness if I do. But to denounce Met Kallistos and the idea of the possibility of the redemption of Satan as "un"Orthodox itself is unOrthodox. The Fathers I mentioned above were not condemned by the Church, neither has Met Kallistos been condemned for hoping for this event. How is believing in the mercy of God is unOrthodox?

Some of us should refrain from speaking to these issues. I also must advise catechumens to refrain from "advising" Orthodox priests on what is and what is not Orthodox. In my experience, Orthodox priests generally have a better understanding of things than those who've not been trained properly.

Again, forgive me if I am harsh. May God be merciful to us all, and yes even those who don't want that mercy.

God bless,
Fr Dn Kevin

paleodoxy said:

Well, for one, no one can come out of hell after going there...and Satan is thrown into hell in Rev.20. Origen was condemned for suggesting otherwise (along with his doctrine of the pre-existence of souls).

Click to expand...

Are you talking about pre or post judgement?

Padraig said:

I think it important to defend Met Kallistos here because he is teaching something, which is found within certain writings of the Fathers. St Isaac the Syrian, St Gregory of Nyssa both teach the possibility of Satan's redemption. This is not a certainty, but a possibility, a hope even. It is not the same thing as posing a false philosophical question. It goes directly to the question of the mercy of God. Met. Kallistos is not bringing out any new thoughts on the subject. Also, his works are of the highest quality, and are very well balanced. New catechumens should not be afraid of reading them.

I think it troubling that a catechumen (forgive me) is defining who, or what, is Orthodox on this forum–or in any forum for that matter. There is much for all of us to learn, especially those who are "learners." For the individual to decide what is or is not Orthodox shows a lack of understanding of the life of the Church. I do not wish to seem harsh. I beg your forgiveness if I do. But to denounce Met Kallistos and the idea of the possibility of the redemption of Satan as "un"Orthodox itself is unOrthodox. The Fathers I mentioned above were not condemned by the Church, neither has Met Kallistos been condemned for hoping for this event. How is believing in the mercy of God is unOrthodox?

Some of us should refrain from speaking to these issues. I also must advise catechumens to refrain from "advising" Orthodox priests on what is and what is not Orthodox. In my experience, Orthodox priests generally have a better understanding of things than those who've not been trained properly.

Again, forgive me if I am harsh. May God be merciful to us all, and yes even those who don't want that mercy.

God bless,
Fr Dn Kevin

Click to expand...

This happens alot here, I am glad I am not the only one that sees it...

paleodoxy said:

Well, for one, no one can come out of hell after going there...and Satan is thrown into hell in Rev.20. Origen was condemned for suggesting otherwise (along with his doctrine of the pre-existence of souls).

Click to expand...

Well, liturgically speaking, we pray for the souls in hell every Pentecost. Does it help them? Yes. How? We don't really know. But you shouldn't be so hasty in your statements. Also, Origenism was condemned due to the doctrine of the preexistence of souls and the subsequent universalism that resulted therefrom. Origen was not condemned for suggesting the possible salvation of the devil. This is supported by the fact that Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, who both held the possibility of said salvation, were not condemned.

God bless,
Fr Dn Kevin

To be honest, years ago I heard that Ware wasn't really the right source to go to for Orthodox teachings, but it seems pretty popular here. I don't know. I know my husband was reading his book, "the Orthodox Church" back when he was a catechumen. Don't know. Anyway, I've never thought of that in regards to Satan before and don't believe it to be exactly right.

According to my priest, there is no guarantee we can pray somebody out of hell. We just truly don't know, but pray nevertheless.

There is never a guarantee that you can pray anyone out of hell, but according to many accounts it has happened...

Padraig said:

I think it important to defend Met Kallistos here because he is teaching something, which is found within certain writings of the Fathers. St Isaac the Syrian, St Gregory of Nyssa both teach the possibility of Satan's redemption. This is not a certainty, but a possibility, a hope even. It is not the same thing as posing a false philosophical question. It goes directly to the question of the mercy of God. Met. Kallistos is not bringing out any new thoughts on the subject. Also, his works are of the highest quality, and are very well balanced. New catechumens should not be afraid of reading them.

I think it troubling that a catechumen (forgive me) is defining who, or what, is Orthodox on this forum–or in any forum for that matter. There is much for all of us to learn, especially those who are "learners." For the individual to decide what is or is not Orthodox shows a lack of understanding of the life of the Church. I do not wish to seem harsh. I beg your forgiveness if I do. But to denounce Met Kallistos and the idea of the possibility of the redemption of Satan as "un"Orthodox itself is unOrthodox. The Fathers I mentioned above were not condemned by the Church, neither has Met Kallistos been condemned for hoping for this event. How is believing in the mercy of God is unOrthodox?

Some of us should refrain from speaking to these issues. I also must advise catechumens to refrain from "advising" Orthodox priests on what is and what is not Orthodox. In my experience, Orthodox priests generally have a better understanding of things than those who've not been trained properly.

Again, forgive me if I am harsh. May God be merciful to us all, and yes even those who don't want that mercy.

God bless,
Fr Dn Kevin

Click to expand...

Thank you for that. I know my priest is knowledgeable enough to know that recommending these books for the Catechumens was the right thing to do. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything! There is always more to the story than can be guessed.

Why don't people deal with the merits of the arguments instead of worrying about who is a catechumen and who isn't? It's just an excuse to dismiss the issue. I find it interesting that the cradle in our midst (buzuxi02) affirmed the same argument I got from Lossky against the possibility of demons being redeemed, but no one (I suppose) wants to deal with HIS posts. It's much easier to dismiss the issue by pretending this is only coming from an ignorant catechumen.

ma2000 said:

To the OP, there are 3 stories I know about it.

1) From the Minaeion for January (you might find it in the Prologues too), there is a story when a devil came in a human form to Saint Anthony the Great asking him to ask God if he can be saved. The answer from God was affirmative, if the devil will repent for three years.
2) There is another story (I don't know the source of this) of a nun who made a devil say he is sorry and the devil became an angel.
3) Elder Paisios was praying for the salvation of the devils.

I don't have time to translate them now, but if you want to, I can try some other time.

Click to expand...

Anecdotal stories are not trustworthy or reliable as compared to the mind of the Church. Is this typical to find Orthodox who don't know what their own councils' anathemas establish? (Cf. anathema 7 of the 5th Ecumenical Synod). This isn't the only example: there are a good number of individuals here defending the veneration of icons depicting the Father, against the clear and universal testimony of the Church.

What gives?

I'm starting to think I'm in the Twilight Zone here.

cygne said:

Thank you for that. I know my priest is knowledgeable enough to know that recommending these books for the Catechumens was the right thing to do. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything! There is always more to the story than can be guessed.

Click to expand...

Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, that's right. That's why we go straight to the horse's mouth, and quote him.

repentant said:

Are you talking about pre or post judgement?

Click to expand...

No salvation post-judgment/resurrection for non-believers.

No salvation for demons, period.

As far as pre-judgment, there seems to be a variety of opinion, and no firm or discernible dogmatic history on this.

Padraig said:

Well, liturgically speaking, we pray for the souls in hell every Pentecost. Does it help them? Yes. How? We don't really know. But you shouldn't be so hasty in your statements. Also, Origenism was condemned due to the doctrine of the preexistence of souls and the subsequent universalism that resulted therefrom. Origen was not condemned for suggesting the possible salvation of the devil. This is supported by the fact that Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, who both held the possibility of said salvation, were not condemned.

God bless,
Fr Dn Kevin

Click to expand...

Fr. Dn Kevin,

I apologize if I was unclear in any way. I do not believe that the salvation of sinners is necessarily precluded by physical death. I was referring to eternity - hell after the Judgment/Resurrection.

paleodoxy said:

Why don't people deal with the merits of the arguments instead of worrying about who is a catechumen and who isn't? It's just an excuse to dismiss the issue. I find it interesting that the cradle in our midst (buzuxi02) affirmed the same argument I got from Lossky against the possibility of demons being redeemed, but no one (I suppose) wants to deal with HIS posts. It's much easier to dismiss the issue by pretending this is only coming from an ignorant catechumen.

Click to expand...

Pale,
I thought I did address the merits of your argument. But the merits depend, in part, on your advising a priest that certain works are not "Orthodox" enough. You attacked–for lack of a better term–one of the most beloved and influential Orthodox theologians of this era on grounds that he's either teaching heresy or at the very least doesn't know what he's talking about. Met Kallistos has been a historian and theologian, and Orthodox clergyman longer than many on this forum have been alive, convert or cradle. I would submit to you the merit of your argument against him is a tad on the presumptuous side. One cannot simply read books and claim to speak for the Church, particularly in light of you (a catechumen) telling the pastor of a flock what is not Orthodox:

My priest told us that we would be using Ware's new edition of The Orthodox Church. I had to inform him (he didn't know!) that Ware doesn't see the filioque as an important issue anymore. The churches really need to carefully examine what they use before handing it out to new converts. There's no excuse for being ignorant about the content of the books you're using to educate people during the formative time of their spiritual growth in the Church. Not a good way to start.

Click to expand...

and the following:

I've been criticizing Ware for a while here on that - and a couple other matters as well. I wish Orthodox churches would STOP using this book for catechumens...it only confuses and befuddles and scares them away.

But rest assured...his view is definitely NOT an acceptable or generally supported teaching in Orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but you simply are not qualified to make these statements. You cannot speak for the Church. As I have stated in an earlier post, Met Kallistos is not theorizing on his own. He has Patristic support. Likewise, many Fathers do not hold this view. But we cannot claim from this that it is not Orthodox. It does find expression in the Fathers. The notion of the possibility of the salvation of the devil, and demons, has never been condemned by a Church Council. Met Kallistos does not teach, nor should any of us, universalism. He believes in the possibility of the redemption of Satan, as must we all if we are to profess the complete mercy of God, and the fact that Satan is essentially good. Nothing created by God can be said to be necessarily evil in essence. Therefore, anything, or anyone, that is essentially good has the possibility of salvation. Will it come to pass? I do not know. We do not know.

I hope you do not feel attacked. That is certainly not my intent. I just want you to understand there will be many things in your future life in the Church that you will come to understand a little better, and you may look at this issue differently in time. As this may be the case, it is unwise to make categorical statements like you have been.

Forgive me, dear one, I beg you,
Fr Dn Kevin

paleodoxy said:

Why don't people deal with the merits of the arguments instead of worrying about who is a catechumen and who isn't? It's just an excuse to dismiss the issue. I find it interesting that the cradle in our midst (buzuxi02) affirmed the same argument I got from Lossky against the possibility of demons being redeemed, but no one (I suppose) wants to deal with HIS posts. It's much easier to dismiss the issue by pretending this is only coming from an ignorant catechumen.

Click to expand...

It concerns more than just this issue. People who are not in the group so to speak, should not try to teach those who are, regardless if you may be wrong or right..take the word katehoumenos for what it is, one who is instructed..

paleodoxy said:

No salvation post-judgment/resurrection for non-believers.

No salvation for demons, period.

As far as pre-judgment, there seems to be a variety of opinion, and no firm or discernible dogmatic history on this.

Click to expand...

I was reffering to your comment that "people can't be prayed out of hell", I want to know what you meant, pre or post judgement.

And I don't think you are in any position to speak for God and say that demons can't or won't be redeemed...why must you put limits on what God can't or can do, and on his mercy?

It is just like the Muslims who say that God could not have came as Man and die because it was impossible for God to die...that is putting limits on God, no?

Padraig said:

Pale,
I thought I did address the merits of your argument. But the merits depend, in part, on your advising a priest that certain works are not "Orthodox" enough. You attacked–for lack of a better term–one of the most beloved and influential Orthodox theologians of this era on grounds that he's either teaching heresy or at the very least doesn't know what he's talking about. Met Kallistos has been a historian and theologian, and Orthodox clergyman longer than many on this forum have been alive, convert or cradle. I would submit to you the merit of your argument against him is a tad on the presumptuous side. One cannot simply read books and claim to speak for the Church, particularly in light of you (a catechumen) telling the pastor of a flock what is not Orthodox:

and the following:

Forgive me, but you simply are not qualified to make these statements. You cannot speak for the Church. As I have stated in an earlier post, Met Kallistos is not theorizing on his own. He has Patristic support. Likewise, many Fathers do not hold this view. But we cannot claim from this that it is not Orthodox. It does find expression in the Fathers. The notion of the possibility of the salvation of the devil, and demons, has never been condemned by a Church Council. Met Kallistos does not teach, nor should any of us, universalism. He believes in the possibility of the redemption of Satan, as must we all if we are to profess the complete mercy of God, and the fact that Satan is essentially good. Nothing created by God can be said to be necessarily evil in essence. Therefore, anything, or anyone, that is essentially good has the possibility of salvation. Will it come to pass? I do not know. We do not know.

I hope you do not feel attacked. That is certainly not my intent. I just want you to understand there will be many things in your future life in the Church that you will come to understand a little better, and you may look at this issue differently in time. As this may be the case, it is unwise to make categorical statements like you have been.

Forgive me, dear one, I beg you,
Fr Dn Kevin

Click to expand...

Can't rep ya there Deacon..

repentant said:

And I don't think you are in any position to speak for God and say that demons can't or won't be redeemed...

Click to expand...

You're right. I'm not in that position. That's why I'm listening to the anathemas of the Universal Church, inspired by the Spirit through Her dogmas.

paleodoxy said:

You're right. I'm not in that position. That's why I'm listening to the anathemas of the Universal Church, inspired by the Spirit through Her dogmas.

Click to expand...

None of which say that a demon can never be redeemed...

Padraig said:

Pale,
I thought I did address the merits of your argument. But the merits depend, in part, on your advising a priest that certain works are not "Orthodox" enough.

Click to expand...

I don't recall your interacting with the theological merits of the points made. If there is a post I have missed, I'll go back and check.

I honestly don't understand this. There is a difference between advising a priest regarding what he should or should not do, and simply asking him if he was aware that Met. Ware sees the filioque controversy as a non-issue. I posed the question to him in such a way that he would not have taken it wrongly. I was simply satisfying my own curiosity, and affirming my own suspicion that some churches are not doing enough to make themselves familiar with the doctrinal content of what they are using. My priest seemed quite surprised, actually. I think (if anything) he was more appreciative of knowing this now rather than later.

You attacked–for lack of a better term–one of the most beloved and influential Orthodox theologians of this era on grounds that he's either teaching heresy or at the very least doesn't know what he's talking about.

Click to expand...

Padraig, with all respect, this is a purely emotional appeal. There were many great and influential scholars and clerics in the history of the church who happened to also preach heresy. It's a pretty common theme throughout the history of the Church, if you look hard enough. Are you implying it is not possible for an esteemed Bishop such as Ware to be deceived?

Met Kallistos has been a historian and theologian, and Orthodox clergyman longer than many on this forum have been alive, convert or cradle.

Click to expand...

But how is any of this relevant?

One cannot simply read books and claim to speak for the Church...

Click to expand...

Where have I claimed to speak for the Church, explicitly or by implication. On the contrary, I have simply taken the Ecumenical Councils at their word on this issue. This is allowing the Church to speak to me, not the other way around.

As I have stated in an earlier post, Met Kallistos is not theorizing on his own. He has Patristic support.

Click to expand...

Patristic support can be found for all manner of heretical opinion. It is the consensus, and only the consensus of the Church which we are bound to, and where the fathers deviate from that standard, they are teaching heresy, pure and simple.

But we cannot claim from this that it is not Orthodox. It does find expression in the Fathers.

Click to expand...

Again, a lot of bizarre things can be found in the fathers. Mere patristic "expression" is not grounds for belief, but only the imprimatur of the Holy Spirit speaking universally through the Church.

The notion of the possibility of the salvation of the devil, and demons, has never been condemned by a Church Council.

Click to expand...

Have you read the anathemas of the 5th Ecumenical Synod lately?

I hope you do not feel attacked.

Click to expand...

Not in any way. Please don't take my tone as one of offense. I am not offended, nor am I generally concerned about how I am treated by others. My only concern is that the Church, in Her purity and fullness, be defended at all costs, even if it means my being unpopular.

Hey Pale, I have an idea...become EO, go to Theology School, get a PH.D. in Divinty, and then come back here and preach to Paidrag about Bishop Kallistos...