David Bentley Hart a universalist

[Isaac32]

I have mostly been a fan of DBH in the past. However, his ridiculing of the 5th Ecumenical Council as well as St. Justinian seems little Orthodox.

I think this is an unfair characterization for what Hart is doing, which is more historical criticism than ridicule. The issue isn't so much the Fifth Ecumenical Council itself, but rather what is attributed to it. For instance, many historians believe that the condemnations against Origen did not even occur during the council, but were rather carried out in a non-ecumenical, non-binding meeting between a few bishops and the emperor.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

I think this is an unfair characterization for what Hart is doing, which is more historical criticism than ridicule. The issue isn't so much the Fifth Ecumenical Council itself, but rather what is attributed to it. For instance, many historians believe that the condemnations against Origen did not even occur during the council, but were rather carried out in a non-ecumenical, non-binding meeting between a few bishops and the emperor.

Did you read the article I cited?

"The problem is not that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was unclear in its rejection of universalism -- the problem is that universalists will not be swayed by what the Fifth Ecumenical Council taught:

"Not that I would care if it did. That very imperial “ecumenical ” council is an embarrassment in Christian history, and I sometimes think it a mercy that such a hash was made of its promulgation that we literally do not know what was truly determined there. For my money, if Origen was not a saint and church father, then no one has any claim to those titles. And the contrary claims made by a brutish imbecile Emperor are of no consequence."" DBH

I think calling a Council an "embarrassment" is indeed ridiculing, don't you?

I don't mind so much that DBH questions that; I think it is a different matter that Fr. Kimel does.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Did you read the article I cited?

"The problem is not that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was unclear in its rejection of universalism -- the problem is that universalists will not be swayed by what the Fifth Ecumenical Council taught:

"Not that I would care if it did. That very imperial “ecumenical ” council is an embarrassment in Christian history, and I sometimes think it a mercy that such a hash was made of its promulgation that we literally do not know what was truly determined there. For my money, if Origen was not a saint and church father, then no one has any claim to those titles. And the contrary claims made by a brutish imbecile Emperor are of no consequence."" DBH

I think calling a Council an "embarrassment" is indeed ridiculing, don't you?

I don't mind so much that DBH questions that; I think it is a different matter that Fr. Kimel does.

Did you read the article I cited?

"The problem is not that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was unclear in its rejection of universalism -- the problem is that universalists will not be swayed by what the Fifth Ecumenical Council taught:

"Not that I would care if it did. That very imperial “ecumenical ” council is an embarrassment in Christian history, and I sometimes think it a mercy that such a hash was made of its promulgation that we literally do not know what was truly determined there. For my money, if Origen was not a saint and church father, then no one has any claim to those titles. And the contrary claims made by a brutish imbecile Emperor are of no consequence."" DBH

I think calling a Council an "embarrassment" is indeed ridiculing, don't you?

I don't mind so much that DBH questions that; I think it is a different matter that Fr. Kimel does.

Technically, there have been councils which have been called embarrassments for the actions which occurred in them. The Robbers Synod is one that comes immediately to mind with the extensive mistreatment of Christians which occurred...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hart seems to believe that we take our personal contextual and linguistic views of scripture for granted, unaware that, from a different linguistic and cultural perspective one might interpret the bible in a completely different way from what they are accustomed to. It reminds me of what a Greek priest once told me. He said that when one reads the Septuagint and Greek New Testament familiar with the ancient Greek language, scripture takes on entirely new meanings. I believe Hart plans to write a book on the matter, and he just published an article on First Things on the topic.

I am somewhat sympathetic to his view since my perspective of the Bible was completely altered when I stopped reading it as a modern American and began asking how ancient Christians and Jews would have understood the texts.

I can definitely relate to where it is that you're coming from on the issue....

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Technically, there have been councils which have been called embarrassments for the actions which occurred in them. The Robbers Synod is one that comes immediately to mind with the extensive mistreatment of Christians which occurred...

Yes, and the Synod of Jerusalem. But we are talking here about an Ecumenical Council. A convert is expected to aver the Ecumenical Councils in his Chrismation. So, if DBH now finds it an embarrassment, he evidently had a significant change of mind.

Do you also find the 5th Ecumenical Council an embarrassment?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, and the Synod of Jerusalem. But we are talking here about an Ecumenical Council. A convert is expected to aver the Ecumenical Councils in his Chrismation. So, if DBH now finds it an embarrassment, he evidently had a significant change of mind.

Do you also find the 5th Ecumenical Council an embarrassment?

Speaking of the Ecumenical Councils isn't automatically the same (from what I've been taught) as assuming that all who adhere to them automatically interpret them the right way when it comes to how others are treated. Many who accepted the Council of Ephesus were not automatically correct in going out and beating up those who did not accept it because of their zeal for the Theotokos - nor were all in Alexandria correct when they went out destroying pagan temples because of their zeal for Christianity. The council may have been accurate but the actions of others are not necessarily so....as their actions can be an embarrassment.


But on Hart's Words, he did have some interesting thoughts when it came to the Fifth Council and the "embarrassment" of what resulted with others taking it past what it was meant to signify...as he said on the following:

Apocatastasis: The Heresy that Never Was​

When first presented with the universalist hope, many Orthodox and Roman Catholics immediately invoke the authority of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), citing the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas: “Apokatastasis has been dogmatically defined by the Church as heresy—see canon 1 … case closed.” Over the past two centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were ever officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Not only does Justinian not mention the apokatastasis debate in his letter to the council bishops, but the Acts of the council neither cite the fifteen anathemas nor record any discussion of them. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council” (I:106).


Who then wrote the anathemas and when? Over the past century different hypotheses have been advanced, but historians appear to have settled on the following scenario, first proposed by Wilhelm Diekamp in 1899 and more recently advanced by Richard Price: the Emperor Justinian and his theological advisors composed the anathemas and then submitted them to the bishops for “approval” before the council formally convened on 5 May 553. We do not know how long before the council this meeting took place (hours? days? weeks? months?) nor who attended nor whether there was any actual discussion of the anathemas. One thing is clear—the Emperor wanted the anathemas cloaked with conciliar authority. A decade earlier he had denounced apokatastasis in an epistle to Patriarch Menas. Regardless of the origin of the 15 anathemas, we may confidently affirm that the Fifth Ecumenical Council did not formally publish them. The burden of historical proof now lies with those who maintain that the Council Fathers officially and authoritatively promulgated the anti-Origenist anathemas.

But let’s hypothetically assume that the Council did publish the fifteen anathemas. There would still remain the challenge of interpretation. Not all universalisms are the same. Just as there are both heretical and orthodox construals of, say, the atonement or the Incarnation, so there are heretical and orthodox construals of the universalist hope. The apokatastasis advanced by St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, differs in critical ways from the sixth-century theories against which the anathemas were directed. The latter appear to have belonged to an esoteric metaphysical system set loose from the Scriptures, as even a cursory reading reveals. The chasm between the two is enormous. Scholar Augustine Casiday suggests that we need to think of the anti-Origenist anathemas as the rejection of this system as a whole, each anathema denouncing one of its particulars (private email correspondence). Met Kallistos Ware made a similar point in 1998:

There is, however, considerable doubt whether these fifteen anathemas were in fact formally approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. They may have been endorsed by a lesser council, meeting in the early months of 553 shortly before the main council was convened, in which case they lack full ecumenical authority; yet, even so, the Fathers of the Fifth Council were well aware of these fifteen anathemas and had no intention of revoking or modifying them. Apart from that, however, the precise wording of the first anathema deserves to be carefully noted. It does not speak only about apocatastasis but links together two aspects of Origen’s theology: first, his speculations about the beginning, that is to say, about the preexistence of souls and the precosmic fall; second, his teaching about the end, about universal salvation and the ultimate reconciliation of all things. Origen’s eschatology is seen as following directly from his protology, and both are rejected together. …

Now, as we have noted, the first of the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas is directed not simply against Origen’s teaching concerning universal reconciliation, but against his total understanding of salvation history—against his theory of preexistent souls, of a precosmic fall and a final apocatastasis—seen as a single and undivided whole. Suppose, however, that we separate his eschatology from his protology; suppose that we abandon all speculations about the realm of eternal logikoi; suppose that we simply adhere to the standard Christian view whereby there is no preexistence of the soul, but each new person comes into being as an integral unity of soul and body, at or shortly after the moment of the conception of the embryo within the mother’s womb. In this way we could advance a doctrine of universal salvation—affirming this, not as a logical certainty (indeed, Origen never did that), but as a heartfelt aspiration, a visionary hope—which would avoid the circularity of Origen’s view and so would escape the condemnation of the anti-Origenist anathemas. (“Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All,” in The Inner Kingdom, pp. 199-200)​

Many scholars would now question Ware’s identification of the views of Origen with the views of the 6th-century Origenists. The renowned patristics scholar Brian E. Daly, for example, asserts that the denounced theses “represent a radicalized Evagrian Christology and cosmology, and a doctrine of apokatastasis that went far beyond the hopes of Origen or Gregory of Nyssa. They envisage not only a spherical, ethereal risen body, but the complete abolition of material reality in the world to come, and the ultimate absorption of all created spirits into an undifferentiated unity with the divine Logos, so that even the humanity and the Kingdom of Christ will come to an end” (The Hope of the Early Church, p. 190). But Ware’s key point stands: the sixth century condemnation of apokatastasis does not apply to construals similar to those of St Gregory of Nyssa or St Isaac the Syrian. Consider the first anathema: “If anyone advocates the mythical pre-existence of souls and the monstrous restoration that follows from this, let him be anathema.”

​

Note the intrinsic connection between the pre-existence of souls and the universal restoration: the latter necessarily flows from the former, as further explained in anathema fourteen, which speaks of the eschatological annihilation of hypostases and bodies and the restoration to a state of pure spirit, akin to the original state of pre-existence. But neither Gregory and Isaac advocate the pre-existence of souls. Their construals of the universalist hope are grounded solely upon God’s infinite love and the power of purgative suffering to bring enlightenment to the damned. The 15 anathemas, therefore, do not touch the biblical universalism of St Gregory of Nyssa, St Isaac the Syrian, or more recent exponents, such as Sergius Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. As J. W. Hanson writes in his classic, but dated, work Universalism: “The theory here condemned is not that of universal salvation, but the ‘fabulous pre-existence of souls, and the monstrous restitution that results from it'” (chap. 21).​

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Speaking of the Ecumenical Councils isn't automatically the same (from what I've been taught) as assuming that all who adhere to them automatically interpret them the right way when it comes to how others are treated. Many who accepted the Council of Ephesus were not automatically correct in going out and beating up those who did not accept it because of their zeal for the Theotokos - nor were all in Alexandria correct when they went out destroying pagan temples because of their zeal for Christianity. The council may have been accurate but the actions of others are not necessarily so....as their actions can be an embarrassment.


But on Hart's Words, he did have some interesting thoughts when it came to the Fifth Council and the "embarrassment" of what resulted with others taking it past what it was meant to signify...as he said on the following:

Apocatastasis: The Heresy that Never Was​

When first presented with the universalist hope, many Orthodox and Roman Catholics immediately invoke the authority of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), citing the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas: “Apokatastasis has been dogmatically defined by the Church as heresy—see canon 1 … case closed.” Over the past two centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were ever officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Not only does Justinian not mention the apokatastasis debate in his letter to the council bishops, but the Acts of the council neither cite the fifteen anathemas nor record any discussion of them. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council” (I:106).


Who then wrote the anathemas and when? Over the past century different hypotheses have been advanced, but historians appear to have settled on the following scenario, first proposed by Wilhelm Diekamp in 1899 and more recently advanced by Richard Price: the Emperor Justinian and his theological advisors composed the anathemas and then submitted them to the bishops for “approval” before the council formally convened on 5 May 553. We do not know how long before the council this meeting took place (hours? days? weeks? months?) nor who attended nor whether there was any actual discussion of the anathemas. One thing is clear—the Emperor wanted the anathemas cloaked with conciliar authority. A decade earlier he had denounced apokatastasis in an epistle to Patriarch Menas. Regardless of the origin of the 15 anathemas, we may confidently affirm that the Fifth Ecumenical Council did not formally publish them. The burden of historical proof now lies with those who maintain that the Council Fathers officially and authoritatively promulgated the anti-Origenist anathemas.

But let’s hypothetically assume that the Council did publish the fifteen anathemas. There would still remain the challenge of interpretation. Not all universalisms are the same. Just as there are both heretical and orthodox construals of, say, the atonement or the Incarnation, so there are heretical and orthodox construals of the universalist hope. The apokatastasis advanced by St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, differs in critical ways from the sixth-century theories against which the anathemas were directed. The latter appear to have belonged to an esoteric metaphysical system set loose from the Scriptures, as even a cursory reading reveals. The chasm between the two is enormous. Scholar Augustine Casiday suggests that we need to think of the anti-Origenist anathemas as the rejection of this system as a whole, each anathema denouncing one of its particulars (private email correspondence). Met Kallistos Ware made a similar point in 1998:

There is, however, considerable doubt whether these fifteen anathemas were in fact formally approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. They may have been endorsed by a lesser council, meeting in the early months of 553 shortly before the main council was convened, in which case they lack full ecumenical authority; yet, even so, the Fathers of the Fifth Council were well aware of these fifteen anathemas and had no intention of revoking or modifying them. Apart from that, however, the precise wording of the first anathema deserves to be carefully noted. It does not speak only about apocatastasis but links together two aspects of Origen’s theology: first, his speculations about the beginning, that is to say, about the preexistence of souls and the precosmic fall; second, his teaching about the end, about universal salvation and the ultimate reconciliation of all things. Origen’s eschatology is seen as following directly from his protology, and both are rejected together. …

Now, as we have noted, the first of the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas is directed not simply against Origen’s teaching concerning universal reconciliation, but against his total understanding of salvation history—against his theory of preexistent souls, of a precosmic fall and a final apocatastasis—seen as a single and undivided whole. Suppose, however, that we separate his eschatology from his protology; suppose that we abandon all speculations about the realm of eternal logikoi; suppose that we simply adhere to the standard Christian view whereby there is no preexistence of the soul, but each new person comes into being as an integral unity of soul and body, at or shortly after the moment of the conception of the embryo within the mother’s womb. In this way we could advance a doctrine of universal salvation—affirming this, not as a logical certainty (indeed, Origen never did that), but as a heartfelt aspiration, a visionary hope—which would avoid the circularity of Origen’s view and so would escape the condemnation of the anti-Origenist anathemas. (“Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All,” in The Inner Kingdom, pp. 199-200)​

Many scholars would now question Ware’s identification of the views of Origen with the views of the 6th-century Origenists. The renowned patristics scholar Brian E. Daly, for example, asserts that the denounced theses “represent a radicalized Evagrian Christology and cosmology, and a doctrine of apokatastasis that went far beyond the hopes of Origen or Gregory of Nyssa. They envisage not only a spherical, ethereal risen body, but the complete abolition of material reality in the world to come, and the ultimate absorption of all created spirits into an undifferentiated unity with the divine Logos, so that even the humanity and the Kingdom of Christ will come to an end” (The Hope of the Early Church, p. 190). But Ware’s key point stands: the sixth century condemnation of apokatastasis does not apply to construals similar to those of St Gregory of Nyssa or St Isaac the Syrian. Consider the first anathema: “If anyone advocates the mythical pre-existence of souls and the monstrous restoration that follows from this, let him be anathema.”

​

Note the intrinsic connection between the pre-existence of souls and the universal restoration: the latter necessarily flows from the former, as further explained in anathema fourteen, which speaks of the eschatological annihilation of hypostases and bodies and the restoration to a state of pure spirit, akin to the original state of pre-existence. But neither Gregory and Isaac advocate the pre-existence of souls. Their construals of the universalist hope are grounded solely upon God’s infinite love and the power of purgative suffering to bring enlightenment to the damned. The 15 anathemas, therefore, do not touch the biblical universalism of St Gregory of Nyssa, St Isaac the Syrian, or more recent exponents, such as Sergius Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. As J. W. Hanson writes in his classic, but dated, work Universalism: “The theory here condemned is not that of universal salvation, but the ‘fabulous pre-existence of souls, and the monstrous restitution that results from it'” (chap. 21).​

To that Father John Whiteford has written:

"The Synodikon of Orthodoxy states:

"To them who accept and transmit the vain Greek teachings that there is a pre-existence of souls and teach that all things were not produced and did not come into existence out of non-being, that there is an end to the torment or a restoration again of creation and of human affairs, meaning by such teachings that the Kingdom of Heaven is entirely perishable and fleeting, whereas the Kingdom of Heaven is eternal and indissoluble as Christ our God Himself taught and delivered to us, and as we have ascertained from the entire Old and New Testaments, that the torment is unending and the Kingdom everlasting, to them who by such teachings both destroy themselves and become agents of eternal condemnation to others, Anathema! Anathema! Anathema!"

So, if you are Orthodox and want to accept universalism, you have to reject things that are a normal part of the Orthodox methodology of understanding of the faith, such as the Synodikon (which DBH also ridicules). Also, since the consensus of the Fathers does not accept the universalist interpretation of Scripture (even if isolated Fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa may), the Orthodox universalist is forced to reject this methodology, as DBH also does.

So yea, you can get to universalism rejecting the 5th Ecumenical Council or reinterpreting it and rejecting the Synodikon and the consensus of the Fathers. But this seems little Orthodox. So why bother? Why not hope that all will be saved, whilst recognising that the Church has generally taught otherwise.

 

[AlaskaFan]

Yes, and the Synod of Jerusalem. But we are talking here about an Ecumenical Council. A convert is expected to aver the Ecumenical Councils in his Chrismation. So, if DBH now finds it an embarrassment, he evidently had a significant change of mind.

Do you also find the 5th Ecumenical Council an embarrassment?

Do you mean the 17th century Jerusalem Synod? If so, what was problematic about it? Thank you.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Do you mean the 17th century Jerusalem Synod? If so, what was problematic about it? Thank you.

Some Orthodox criticise it for being too Latin-influenced, speaking of seven and only seven sacraments, using "infallibility" liberally, defining the OT according to that of the Council of Trent, proscribing the reading of Scripture by all Christians, etc.

 

[Isaac32]

To that Father John Whiteford has written:
So yea, you can get to universalism rejecting the 5th Ecumenical Council or reinterpreting it and rejecting the Synodikon and the consensus of the Fathers. But this seems little Orthodox. So why bother? Why not hope that all will be saved, whilst recognising that the Church has generally taught otherwise.

Except the 5th council didn't reject universalism. Read the intro of Fr. Kimel's latest article.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Except the 5th council didn't reject universalism. Read the intro of Fr. Kimel's latest article.

Except that they did, or at least the universalism of Origen according to Fr. Whiteford:

"Here we have repeated the argument that the universalism of Origen was condemned, but not universalism per se. The problem with this argument is that if universalism was OK in general, why would it be mentioned at all in the anathema's against Origen. Why not just condemn the other objectionable parts of Origen's teachings?"

The Ninth Anathema is the following:

"If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema. – Liber Contra Origen, Anathema IX"

So it seems the case is certainly not clear as you suggest. I could see Protestants accepting universalism more easily, since they may interpret Scripture however they feel led and may discredit the Ecumenical Councils. Yet it seems fairly incongruous with Orthodox epistemology.

Still, we can hope for universal salvation all we want.

 

[ArmyMatt]

However, his ridiculing of the 5th Ecumenical Council as well as St. Justinian seems little Orthodox.

this is my issue with him. to think that DBH is any kind of authority over St. Justinian is absurd.

 

[jckstraw72]

seems to me that universalism and calvinism are the same - neither allows for free will

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

seems to me that universalism and calvinism are the same - neither allows for free will

Although in that, perhaps free will, as DBH notes, is not all that it is cracked up to be. If a mentally challenged person looks to wander off onto a busy motorway and certain injury, wouldn't the loving thing be for one to intervene, grab him and pull him back. If so, maybe a loving God should violate the will of those who don't choose Him by free will and are veering towards eternal injury.

 

[jckstraw72]

weeeeeell, but it's impossible to be in His image and likeness without free will, unless we then say God is not free.

 

[Kristos]

Although in that, perhaps free will, as DBH notes, is not all that it is cracked up to be. If a mentally challenged person looks to wander off onto a busy motorway and certain injury, wouldn't the loving thing be for one to intervene, grab him and pull him back. If so, maybe a loving God should violate the will of those who don't choose Him by free will and are veering towards eternal injury.

Interesting thought...

Or on the flipside - is it really still free will if God creates consequence so severe for one path that there is really only one logical choice? Eternal bliss on one side - eternal hell fire on the other - is this really a choice? Of course, it seems that some people still choose the later, but do they really believe that they have chosen such?

Of course DBH would probably say that freedom has nothing to do with choice - that our choices in the fallen world are practically inherent bad choices and thus only enslave us - therefore we are not really free. Freedom can only be found in being what we are (or meant to be), in that only in Christ are we free.

So have I come full circle? It would seem that the only will that free is the will that in harmony with God's will. All others are slaves to sin. Which would be all of us

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Interesting thought...

Or on the flipside - is it really still free will if God creates consequence so severe for one path that there is really only one logical choice? Eternal bliss on one side - eternal hell fire on the other - is this really a choice? Of course, it seems that some people still choose the later, but do they really believe that they have chosen such?

Of course DBH would probably say that freedom has nothing to do with choice - that our choices in the fallen world are practically inherent bad choices and thus only enslave us - therefore we are not really free. Freedom can only be found in being what we are (or meant to be), in that only in Christ are we free.

So have I come full circle? It would seem that the only will that free is the will that in harmony with God's will. All others are slaves to sin. Which would be all of us

Bravo!

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Interesting thought...

Or on the flipside - is it really still free will if God creates consequence so severe for one path that there is really only one logical choice? Eternal bliss on one side - eternal hell fire on the other - is this really a choice? Of course, it seems that some people still choose the later, but do they really believe that they have chosen such?

Of course DBH would probably say that freedom has nothing to do with choice - that our choices in the fallen world are practically inherent bad choices and thus only enslave us - therefore we are not really free. Freedom can only be found in being what we are (or meant to be), in that only in Christ are we free.

So have I come full circle? It would seem that the only will that free is the will that in harmony with God's will. All others are slaves to sin. Which would be all of us

Here is a relevant DBH quote regarding this debate:

"“Because God is not a finite object over against you as a subject, you cannot simply turn away towards “something else.” He is the ground and end of all desire and knowledge as such, the Good in itself. You cannot choose or not choose God the way you would choose or not choose a cup of coffee. You desire anything because of your original desire for God as the transcendental Good and Beautiful; you know anything because of your original intellectual appetite for God as the transcendental Truth as such. Even in desiring to flee God, you are desiring God as the “good end” you seek in godlessness. He is inescapable because all being, goodness, unity, truth, and beauty simply are God in their transcendent truth, and because a rational nature is nothing but an infinite dynamic orientation towards that transcendent end. The natural will, as Maximus says, can will only God. Don’t think of God as a candidate in a political race, whom you could simply reject and be done with; he is the original and final act of your every discrete act of desire. And, in the ages, since God is all and there is literally nothing beyond him, the natural will is always seeking its natural supernatural end. Simply said, God is not an object of desire; he is the end that makes desire.” (14 May 2015)"

One may disagree with DBH, but one has to admit that what writes is both thought provoking and beautiful, an unusual combination.

So, in spite of his universalist predilections, I am still a fan.

 

[Isaac32]

Except that they did, or at least the universalism of Origen according to Fr. Whiteford...

I know what the anathemas against Origen say, but they weren't issued during the council itself. Fr. John is wrong here. I am sure he is a great priest, but his historical scrutiny leaves something to be wanted.

 

[Isaac32]

this is my issue with him. to think that DBH is any kind of authority over St. Justinian is absurd.

Being a saint has little bearing on correctness.