Apokatastasis

[kenrapoza]

Hi All,

I greatly appreciate the responses I received to my question regarding Archbishop Lazar and additional resources for the Western Christian trying to understand the Eastern church on its own terms. I was wondering about the idea of apokatastasis. Is ultimate, universal reconciliation considered to be within the mainstream of Orthodox tradition? It seems as though a discussion of this concept quickly gets diverted by people emphasizing the condemnation of Origen. But, as far as I can tell, the main issues with his teachings were the preexistence of souls and the dogmatic affirmation of universalism, as opposed to a possible or hopeful universalism. Although I could certainly be wrong. I am no expert on the fathers!

I do ask this question with the understanding that the very idea of "Hell" tends to be conceived of somewhat differently in the Eastern church than in most of the West. Whereas the West has a tendency to think of Hell as a separate compartment where evil is quarantined and punished, my understanding of the Eastern church is that you tend to view Hell as an existential reality following death. Those suffering Hell are not quarantined in some other location or dimension, but they are unable to enjoy the presence of God because they are at enmity with His holiness and His glory. In this way, the Eastern view of "Heaven and Hell" (for lack of better terms at the moment) sounds to me to be more like a continuum rather than a black and white dichotomy. Have I correctly described EO theology at this point?

Thanks again!

Ken

 

[ArmyMatt]

sounds good to me, although hell is separate from heaven because you are not gonna have sinners writhing in agony beside saints. so there is some kind of spatial separation in a sense. but what makes heaven or hell is the same thing, God's presence. what is the difference is the nature of what is in that presence. St Maximos the Confessor puts it like how the same sun will both harden clay and melt wax.

as far as universalism goes, I think that the heresy is the idea that God's will somehow thwarts man's and God will force everyone in heaven and they will like it. which is different then the idea that all can come to God at the Last Judgment because God's love is free as is man's will. it is not a mainstream idea, but there are some who hold onto that idea like Met Kallistos Ware I believe. even Elder Paisios would pray that the devil would repent. it is certainly, at the very least, something we should all pray for and rejoice in if it happens.

I think the best answer is that when it goes down we will all find out.

 

[buzuxi]

Apokatastasis has gotten a new lease on life because of interpretations of the writings of St Isaac the Syrian coupled by our guilt. It's easier to tolerate our sins If we think there not that bad and a product of the modern age.

St Gregory the Great, St Mark of Ephesus and the 5th Ecumenical council condemned universal restoration.

 

[truthseeker32]

Apokatastasis has gotten a new lease on life because of interpretations of the writings of St Isaac the Syrian coupled by our guilt. It's easier to tolerate our sins If we think there not that bad and a product of the modern age.

St Gregory the Great, St Mark of Ephesus and the 5th Ecumenical council condemned universal restoration.

This is a very biased, shallow, overgeneralized, and unfair perspective. Universalists aren't just a bunch of guilt-ridden sinners who want to pretend they aren't doing anything wrong. I know many universalists, or hopeful universalists, who have arrived at their position through serious contemplation, prayer, and study.

 

[Philothei]

This is a very biased, shallow, overgeneralized, and unfair perspective. Universalists aren't just a bunch of guilt-ridden sinners who want to pretend they aren't doing anything wrong. I know many universalists, or hopeful universalists, who have arrived at their position through serious contemplation, prayer, and study.

Please do not debate in our congregation forum! We have a subforum for this called Justin the Martyr Thanks!

 

[Philothei]

Hi All,

I greatly appreciate the responses I received to my question regarding Archbishop Lazar and additional resources for the Western Christian trying to understand the Eastern church on its own terms. I was wondering about the idea of apokatastasis. Is ultimate, universal reconciliation considered to be within the mainstream of Orthodox tradition? It seems as though a discussion of this concept quickly gets diverted by people emphasizing the condemnation of Origen. But, as far as I can tell, the main issues with his teachings were the preexistence of souls and the dogmatic affirmation of universalism, as opposed to a possible or hopeful universalism. Although I could certainly be wrong. I am no expert on the fathers!

I do ask this question with the understanding that the very idea of "Hell" tends to be conceived of somewhat differently in the Eastern church than in most of the West. Whereas the West has a tendency to think of Hell as a separate compartment where evil is quarantined and punished, my understanding of the Eastern church is that you tend to view Hell as an existential reality following death. Those suffering Hell are not quarantined in some other location or dimension, but they are unable to enjoy the presence of God because they are at enmity with His holiness and His glory. In this way, the Eastern view of "Heaven and Hell" (for lack of better terms at the moment) sounds to me to be more like a continuum rather than a black and white dichotomy. Have I correctly described EO theology at this point?

Thanks again!

Ken

Hi Ken,

You are right about Origen he seems to get all the attention when it comes to Universalism.
The EO position is indeed one of separation and I am not sure exactly what you mean about the 'western" sense of hell and heaven...But in the EO Heaven is a place of repose and refreshment when all the saints will go. Hell is a place of isolation from God and others who will go to Heaven. The existential reality of hell is the unbearable sense of NOT belonging or total nihilism and non-existance. We cannot fathom such reality but ... that is what the fathers like Basil and others "describe" for us. The image of eternal fire, still we have no way of knowing if it is actual or a paradigm, still it prevails in the sense that the 'torture' the soul feels is beyond description. I think the soul goes through its own deprivation of life that is God that it is indeed in great torment. Spiritual giants such the Elders of Mt AThos tell us that the difficulties we go through today in our lives and we think they are bad and vicious is nothing comparing to the experience we will encounter in hell.... The soul be united to God though in Heaven has the opposite experience... full bliss and happiness awaits it. So yeah the two are completely separated; yet we do not know if we could see our loved ones from other side of Heaven....like in the story about Zacheus and the rich man...

 

[InnerPhyre]

Origen's universalism was condemned because he insisted that we all lose our personhood upon returning to God at the great restoration. St. Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist whose teachings were not condemned by the Church because he did not go the same route that Origen did.

Since none of us have died and been judged, it's not something that the Church has been willing to dogmatize. There is simply too much mystery surrounding our death and salvation to say one way or the other. What we do know is that we remain free after we die and we retain our personhood. St. Gregory seems to think that man will not resist God's love forever, and after millenia of experiencing God as the consuming fire, will eventually relent and give up their selfishness and pride.

There's no reason to condemn people who are universalists, provided they don't make the mistakes that Origen made. I don't know a single Orthodox universalist who doesn't believe that hell is real and terrible and that those who experience God in that way will be in for a very bad time.

 

[truthseeker32]

Please do not debate in our congregation forum! We have a subforum for this called Justin the Martyr Thanks!

My intent wasn't to debate; it was to correct, as I see it as very important to convey information as truly and fairly as possible. As for it being "our congregation forum" I consider it mine as well. I attend Orthodox liturgy and am working towards baptism. I just didn't think it right to change my profile icon until I am officially Orthodox.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I attend Orthodox liturgy and am working towards baptism. I just didn't think it right to change my profile icon until I am officially Orthodox.

not to derail, but THAT is some durn good news!

 

[truthseeker32]

not to derail, but THAT is some durn good news!

Agreed, Matt A lot of interesting things have happened lately; one of those points in life where the divine hand seems more visible. Anyways, back on topic!

 

[Cappadocious]

The belief condemned in the addendum anathemas attached to the 5th Ecumenical Council is a belief in the henotic merger of all hypostases into one monad hypostasis. They don't speak of "universalism" as we understand it today, so folks would do well to debate that issue without reference to the addendum anathemas.

 

[buzuxi]

Regardless, universalism is not a teaching of the Orthodox Church. Even St. Gregory of Nyssa rejected egalitarianism in heaven, basing the rewards of heaven on the virtues the individual wrought in this life. This is why he couldn't reach a satisfactory conclusion on his treaty on the death of infants. They performed no virtues thus no prize can be given them yet they can suffer no loss as they have no sin.

 

[RosaryChaplet9]

Its Theologumena - which are ideas and speculations about a certain topic.

 

[truthseeker32]

Regardless, universalism is not a teaching of the Orthodox Church. Even St. Gregory of Nyssa rejected egalitarianism in heaven, basing the rewards of heaven on the virtues the individual wrought in this life. This is why he couldn't reach a satisfactory conclusion on his treaty on the death of infants. They performed no virtues thus no prize can be given them yet they can suffer no loss as they have no sin.

Isn't the point of the Gospel that none of us merit the glory of heaven, but God in his infinite Love wants to give it to us anyways?

 

[buzuxi]

Not exactly, according to st Gregory. The vices would be purged in hellfire with only the virtues remaining. The greater the virtues wrought in this life the grander the prize. Infants have nothing to be purged of but they also brought forth no virtues to be rewarded for. Otherwise it would be best we all died in infancy if babies are rewarded with the same reward as one who struggled through a long life that did bear virtuous fruits

 

[truthseeker32]

I just like to think that if a being is in a condition of moral neutrality an all merciful, all loving God would opt to bring them into His glory, especially since it was in his power to allow infants to live.

 

[seekingfreedom]

Not exactly, according to st Gregory. The vices would be purged in hellfire with only the virtues remaining. The greater the virtues wrought in this life the grander the prize. Infants have nothing to be purged of but they also brought forth no virtues to be rewarded for. Otherwise it would be best we all died in infancy if babies are rewarded with the same reward as one who struggled through a long life that did bear virtuous fruits

I'm so confused. This sounds like purgatory. What am I not getting.

 

[Kristos]

I'm so confused. This sounds like purgatory. What am I not getting.

A papal indulgence?

 

[buzuxi]

I'm so confused. This sounds like purgatory. What am I not getting.

St Gregory of Nyssa was used by the Latins at the council of Florence for support of purgatory. The greeks ceded that of all the eastern Fathers produced by the Latins in support of purgatory that only St Gregory speaks of this purgatorial fire. The greeks dismissed it as his personal opinion; meaning that the use of St Gregory as support for universal restoration within the Orthodox Church has already been discussed and rejected, just his personal opinion.

One of the quotes St Gregory of Nyssa describing apokatastasis and used in Florence for purgatory is the following:

What are we to think about him? How are we to feel about such deaths? Will a soul such as that behold its Judge? Will it stand with the rest before the tribunal? Will it undergo its trial for deeds done in life? Will it receive the just recompense by being purged, according to the Gospel utterances, in fire, or refreshed with the dew of blessing? But I do not see how we can imagine that, in the case of such a soul. The word “retribution” implies that something must have been previously given; but he who has not lived at all has been deprived of the material from which to give anything. There being, then, no retribution, there is neither good nor evil left to expect. “Retribution” purports to be the paying back of one of these two qualities; but that which is to be found neither in the category of good nor that of bad is in no category at all...( On infants early death; Gregory of Nyssa)

Theres more but you get the idea.

 

[buzuxi]

I just like to think that if a being is in a condition of moral neutrality an all merciful, all loving God would opt to bring them into His glory, especially since it was in his power to allow infants to live.

Yes this does tend to be a commonly held belief. In fact it was believed during the life of St Gregory of Nyssa but he actually rejected it for a number of reasons. Not that they wouldn't be in His Glory, but more for what does it mean to be in 'His Glory' for those in such neutrality:

...but that which is to be found neither in the category of good nor that of bad is in no category at all; for this antithesis between good and bad is an opposition that admits no middle; and neither will come to him who has not made a beginning with either of them. What therefore falls under neither of these heads may be said not even to have existed. But if some one says that such a life does not only exist, but exists as one of the good ones, and that God gives, though He does not repay, what is good to such, we may ask what sort of reason he advances for this partiality; how is justice apparent in such a view; how will he prove his idea in concordance with the utterances in the Gospels? There (the Master) says, the acquisition of the Kingdom comes to those who are deemed worthy of it, as a matter of exchange. “When ye have done such and such things, then it is right that ye get the Kingdom as a reward.” But in this case there is no act of doing or of willing beforehand, and so what occasion is there for saying that these will receive from God any expected recompense? If one unreservedly accepts a statement such as that, to the effect that any so passing into life will necessarily be classed amongst the good, it will dawn upon him then that not partaking in life at all will be a happier state than living,

Indeed, what your basically saying was believed by many within the Church as seen by those underlined statements to whom the saint was addressing, but St. Gregory who believed in some sort of universal restoration wasn't really thrilled with that view. It seems the view that infants are rewarded to be held more by those that reject restoration; (those affirming that God gives though does not repay with retribution). You would have to read his entire writing to see the conclusions he drew.