How far can the mercy of God extend? Is there a limit? According to Jesus’ own revelations to St. Faustina, the answer is no. God’s mercy for His creation is unfathomable, without boundary, and unlimited by any constraint, human, or non-human.
In an amazing, even surprising ecumenical moment in the Catholic Church’s first World Congress on Divine Mercy, Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, bishop of Vienna and Austria as well as temporary administrator of the Diocese of Budapest and Hungary, took Divine Mercy to its logical conclusion. God is Love, all He created and sustains is always loved by Him. Even the creation that rejects Him continues in existence by His love. This unfathomable Divine Mercy can even make hell, “Gehenna,” temporary, according to Bishop Hilarion, who spoke on Day 3 of the Congress (Friday, April 5) at St. John Lateran Basilica.
After Bishop Hilarion’s presentation, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, who is presiding over the Congress in the name of Pope Benedict XVI, chatted warmly with Bishop Hilarion, shaking his hand and thanking him for his “courageous witness on the absolute mercy of God.”
Read the rest of the report here, and a longish excerpt from His Grace’s talk on Saint Isaac the Syrian may be found here. Isaac the Syrian, by the way, was an Assyrian (“Nestorian”) bishop of the late VI century. He and a pious Polish nun of the early XX century have much to teach the world about the Divine Mercy.
Thoughts on this line of thinking? I’ve been pondering it since the story broke.
Hell exists and God’s Mercy exists.
Since the Lord God is the Alpha and Omega of every eternal sequence, you should trust God to correctly deal with the eternal sequence of Hell.
Best Regards,
Frank Hatch
FrankHatchiii.com
Much of what His Grace said seems to be normal Orthodox theology. But His Grace’s comments on the possibility of repentance for those in Gehenna, and Gehenna’s non-eternal character, sound to me like a significant departure from the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church. Rather, the understanding of the Orthodox Church seems to be that there is no opportunity for repentance after death – rather, that this life is given to us for repentance. God respects the free will of human beings (and of demons), and so allows men to reject his love and compassion eternally. That doesn’t imply that God has any anger or hatred toward them, or toward the demons, but simply that their rejection of God’s love causes the Divine Compassion to be perceived by them as a burning fire rather than as warmth.
I must say, I am saddened that His Grace chose to mislead the participants in the Congress with regard to the teaching of the Orthodox Church. I would happily be corrected, however, if I am mistaken.
Having read this by someone I consider an Orthodox light, I had two reations: my heart being “strangely warmed (in good Wesleyan fashion), and a bit of confusion.
While His Grace expunded beautifully on God’s supreme and mercy, one which will take in both angel and demon in a divine embrace, I would have like to have heard a little more about free will. While yes, God’s love and mercy is so powerful as to make null and void Gehenna itself, He nonetheless respects the free wills of angels, demons, the righteous and the wicked. The principle reason the Fifth Ecumenical Council accepted the Synod of Constantinople’s (A.D. 547) anathema against the doctrine of apokatastasis was precisely because it creates a situation where divine love and mercy override our free will. God is not a rapist!
I am hoping His Grace (and Cardinal Schoenborn) did not mean that divine mercy makes our free wills null and void!
BTC is quite right. All possibility of salvation ends at death. To believe otherwise is not only heretical but illogical.
Bishop Hilarion seems a decent person and a holy bishop but I must say this is the second of his statements to cause great concern in a very short period of time. For example his statement that God does not will the existence of Hell but merely allows it to exist is clearly illogical.
God sustains all in the universe, right? Right.
Can something be sustained by an intelligent being without that being willing it to be so? No.
Ergo, God wills that Hell should continue to exist.
A mere ‘allowing’ would mean that God was not sustaining it through His divine will.
What Vladyka stated is the position of the 5th ecumenical council, which condemned the teachings of Origin, paticularly on this subject know as apocatastasis. Both he and several Orthodox fathers were of the opinion that in the end hell will be abolished in the final restoration. To state that this will happen is, in fact , condemned by the Church; to pray that this might happen is allowed and reflects a merciful heart. The final conversion of Satan and his cohorts would certainly be a truly triumphant scene. Perhaps the nature of hell is more like the Roman Catholic teaching on Purgatory. Maybe this is really the ultimate nature of Hope!
As a huge fan of Saint Faustina, I have to say that I think Bishop Hilarion is misunderstanding her. Faustina herself was shown a vision of Hell; she reports that most of the people there, during their lives, denied Hell’s existence!
Yes, God’s mercy is infinite. Faustina used terms like “fathomless,” “boundless,” “inconceivable.” Thank God for such rich, endless mercy!
However, God does not force anyone to accept this infinite Mercy. He has given us free will–itself a gift of His mercy. He wants sons and daughters, not slaves and robots, Therefore, although (as He told Faustina), “the loss of a single soul plunges [Him] into mortal sorrow,” He risks this loss by allowing us to choose for or against Him. IOW, as the Council of Orange noted, Divine Grace is extremely powerful, but it is not irresistible. It will not overrule our “No.”
This does not make God a meanie. It makes Him the lover of our souls, Who seduces but does not rape. (Sorry for blunt language.)
As Faustina said, Hell is self-chosen. “God condemns no one,” she wrote. But God does respect our choice.
As C.S. Lewis put it, in the end, there are just two kinds of people: those who say to Christ, “Thy Will be done”; and those to whom Christ says, with infinite sadness, “Thy will be done.” These latter are those who choose Hell, in the very teeth of infinite mercy. As Lewis speculates, they probably wouldn’t be happy in Heaven anyway. They have chosen what they truly want.
I do not understand this, frankly. It is a mystery. Faustina wrote that the final hour “abounds in mercy”–that Christ reveals Himself, His love, His merciful Heart, in a special way to the soul on the very brink of death. Even at the final split nano-second, we are given the chance to turn toward Him. Yet some still refuse. Why? How? I do not understand. It is a mystery.
But it is the consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition that Hell does exist, that it is eternal (“their worm dies not”), and that it is populated. (Pace von Balthasar, I think it’s a real stretch to see Christ’s very strong statements re this as mere exhortation.)
I can understand why Bishop Hilarion wishes it was not so. I wish the same thing. But I simply cannot get around the very clear testimony of Scripture and the unbroken testimony of the Church. Moreover, I’m not sure I would want God to take away my free will (which necessarily implies that I can choose against Him). I think He is right to prefer sons and daughters to slaves. This, too, is a sign of His mercy.
My two cents’ worth….
Diane
One more thing. At another forum, several folks were discussing universalism recently. One person pointed out that universalism is really a form of Calvinist predestinationism. Calvin taught that God predestined some to eternal bliss, and that this Grace was irresistible; the Elect would be saved, no matter what–even, in a sense, if they didn’t want to be, LOL. Universalists teach that *all* are perdestined to eternal bliss–IOW, they regard God’s Grace as just as irresistible and ineluctable as Calvin did.
Both Calvin and the universalists deny free will, which is an integral part of human dignity.
No wonder the UUA originated in ex-Puritan Massachusetts (my home state). LOL!
Diane
Christian
whilst I think that the good bishop’s interpretation poses enormous problems – possibly insuperable ones – for those who wish to do theology within the Catholic or the Orthodox traditions, I would beg to differ from you on one important point.
Your argument rests on the assumption that there is a “thing” called Hell and it exists, therefore God must have created it, since He created all that exists.
Now, this is to forget the traditional Augustinian/Thomist position that evil is not a “thing” which exists, but the privation of a “thing” which ought to exist, of a quality which ought to inhere in a given existing thing and whose lack deprives it of its integrity. Evil is the privation of a due good.
In the case of Hell also, it is not a “thing” which exists, but the privation of the vision of God, which is man’s eternal beatitude as God willed it to be in creating man. All the pains of Hell are the consequences of this privation. Eternal beatitude is not lacking in the souls who are deprived of eternal glory on account of anything God did, but on account of those souls having freely chosen to reject the grace of God. God, in creating them free, allowed them to choose that. But he did not create hell, because Hell is simply the lack of what God did create, i.e. the possibility of eternal union with Himself. The non-realisation of this possibility is man’s work, not God’s. God does not and cannot sustain the non-existence of something, simply because the notion is self-contradictory.
Hence, I think we Catholics can and should accept what bishop Hilarion as saying on this point, although we need to be careful about his other assertions (and I think that many if not most Orthodox will be too!)
Note that His Grace Hilarion never once states that this is the official teaching of the Orthodox Church, or even a widespread Orthodox teaching.
Bishop Hilarion’s take seems compatible with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s statement that while it’s not legitimate to teach universal salvation as an Orthodox doctrine, it’s not illegitimate to hope and pray for such a thing. Hans urs von Balthasar, as I recall, has a very similar position.
Hi, eirenikon! I agree that Bishop Hilarion’s position and Fr. von Balthasar’s are similar. But I have issues with Fr. von Balthasar’s position as well. ;-)
Our Lord spoke often and forcefully about Hell–about its reality and its eternity. The von Balthasar school of thought suggests that these Dominical statements were purely hortatory. But, as many have pointed out, that seems to be a stretch. Many of Our Lord’s very strong statements are not couched conditionally at all. Our Lord says, “their worm dies not,” not “their worm might die not if they don’t shape up.” :D
Be that as it may, it seems tht the von Balthasarian position is permissible within contemporary Catholicism (although I get the sense that Pope Benedict considers it rather borderline; he himself dares speculate merely that most are saved, not that all are).
One of the big problems I have with von Balthasar’s position, though, is the rather nasty dogmatism of some who hold it. If anyone dares suggest that it’s a pretty sure bet that Hell is populated, these people immediately get nasty and personal: “You’re so judgmental; you must want sinners to be eternally punished; you’re a big cruel meanie with a vindictive streak,” etc. etc. I’ve heard it all, believe me!
This is so lame, though. I mean, who in his/her right mind would want anyone to go to Hell? I would not wish Hell on my worst enemy. Most Christians wouldn’t, I bet. (Well, maybe some Calvinists, LOL.)
Those of us who differ with von Balthasar on this question do so not because we are big cruel vindictive meanies. Rather, we disagree because the Scriptural testimony to the reality, eternity, and populated-ness of Hell is simply too overwhelming–and it really cannot be explained away as mere exhortation. Such explaining away does violence to the language of Scripture.
I know it is hubristic of me to dare to differ with the great von Balthasar, puny nothing that I am. But then, I have the overwhelming consensus of Christian Tradition behind m, so I guess I’m safe. ;-)
One further point: I can understand the wish to believe that everyone is saved. I think all of us agree on this: Hell is a dreadful doctrine, and it is very hard to wrap our minds around it.
But IMHO there truly is no way to posit the salvation of all without ruling out free will. And to rule out free will is to deny human dignity. If we are passive robots who will all be saved whether we like it or not, so to speak, then we are not fully, truly human.
IOW, it may seem kinder to veer toward universalism, but I would very respectfully suggest that it really isn’t. There is no true kindness involved in a belief that negates our human dignity (IMHO).
Hope I haven’t offended anyone with this. It is an issue I have thought about a lot.
Diane
But he did not create hell, because Hell is simply the lack of what God did create, i.e. the possibility of eternal union with Himself.
Well put, Father Paul! ;-)
Canon 9 of the Emperor Justinian’s Edict to Patriarch Menas of Constantinople, 543 A.D., approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 553 A.D.):
Εἴ τις λέγει ἢ ἔχει, πρόσκαιρον εἶναι τὴν τῶν δαιμόνων καὶ ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων κόλασιν, καὶ τέλος κατά τινα χρόνον αὐτὴν ἔξειν, ἤγουν ἀποκατάστασιν ἔσεσθαι δαιμόνων, ἢ ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
Si quis dicit aut sentit, ad tempus esse daemonum et impiorum hominum supplicium, eiusque finem aliquando futurum, sive restitutionem et redintegrationem fore daemonum aut impiorum hominum, anathema sit.
If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that, at a certain time, it will have an end, or that there will be an apokatastasis (i.e., a return to their original state) of demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.
Friends, I came accross your blog by accident. Thank you for your interest in what I said in Rome. However, I must state that what some of you take as my position is in fact that of St Isaac of Nineveh. It is his views that I tried to present as faithfully as I could in my paper and in my earlier book “The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian”, on which this paper is based. Please read the text of my paper here: http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/144.aspx#2.
As you will see, I clearly state: “The teaching on universal salvation, which is so explicitly preached by Isaac the Syrian, has never been approved by the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, Origenist idea of the apokatastasis ton panton (restoration of all), which has certain resemblance with this teaching, was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council”.
Then I try to explain the difference between St Isaac and Origen: “However, we would not completely identify Isaac’s idea of the universal salvation with Origenist ‘restoration of all’. In Origen, universal restoration is not the end of the world, but a passing phase from one created world to another, which will come into existence after the present world has come to its end. This idea is alien to Christian tradition and unknown to Isaac. The latter is more dependent on other ancient writers, notably Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus, who also developed the idea of universal salvation, yet in a way different from Origen’s. On the other hand, it would not be fair to say that Isaac simply borrowed the ideas of his predecessors and inserted them into his own writings. Isaac’s eschatological optimism and his belief in universal salvation are ultimate outcomes of his personal theological vision, whose central idea is that of God as love. Around this idea the whole of his theological system is shaped”.
Dear Vladika Hilarion,
Bless, master!
Many thanks for your helpful comment. It is truly an honor to have your participation on this blog.
[…] 20, 2008 by eirenikon In response to the earlier post “Bishop Hilarion: God’s Mercy is immeasurable”, His Grace, Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev), the Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna, posted the following […]
The anathema** of the council regarding Origens version apocatastastis states this.
“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.”
Note that it only condems the resotration that FOLLOWS from the “fabulous prexistence of souls”. It DOESN’T condem all restorations only those specificaly connected with pre-existence. It also says nothing to the effect that those who do not believe that hell is everlasting are anathema. Obviously they wouldn’t condem the resoration beleived by Saint Gregory of Nyssa whom an eccumenical council proclaimed the “father of fathers”.
**There is actually some debate as to if this was actually a finding of the council though
Scott,
the patristic consensus, and not an individual Father, is considered unerring. Saint Gregory is overruled by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Pre-existence, re-incarnation, and re-storation are all condemned by this Coucil (unless You’ld also want to say, for instance, that only certain kinds of metempsihosis are condemned, while others are acceptable, or other such nonsense).
Lucian,
Is not the bodily resurrection “reincarnation” in its purest form?
No, because it’s the same body, not another.
Of course, it all depends on what is meant by those terms.
Lucian,
Ok, so it is not metempsychosis. But the reuse of the same (but improved) body does not prevent the resurrection from involving reincarnation. One is de-incarnated at death and “reincarnated” (incarnated again) at the resurrection. But, as Evagrius notes, this is probably a terminological rather than substantive argument.
“Hear and hear, but do not understand,
see and see, but do not perceive,”
To break the restriction of a linear time sequence, the Lost need empirical data – uncorrupted, honest data. However, the Lost have filtered all their data with a scientific-religious presumption: a finite universe with a finite number of dimensions.
The Lost do not understand, nor do they perceive their conflict with the Infinite Universe and Infinite number of dimensions…
“…nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it…”
Best Regards,
Frank Hatch
Initial Mass Displacements
[…] […]
[…] On a rather old (2008) blog site I found yet another argument regarding apokatastasis (the doctrine that God will restore all Creation to its former pre-Fall glory). It is of interest to me because one of the participants is Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria. The blog was about his discussion of St. Issac of Syria, given at the Catholic Church’s first World Congress on Divine Mercy. What makes this blog even more interesting is the presence of His Grace, Bishop Hilarion, in the comments section to clarify the discussion being held regarding apokatastasis and his comments at the World Council. For those interested, you may read the comments here. […]