Bishop Hilarion’s clarification
April 20, 2008 by Eirenikon Editor
In response to the earlier post “Bishop Hilarion: God’s Mercy is immeasurable”, His Grace, Hilarion (Alfeyev), Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna, posted the following clarification in the combox:
Friends, I came across 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.
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”.
Many thanks, Vladika, for this important clarification. We are truly honored by your participation in our humble ecumenical forum!
Blagoslovi Vladyko!
I am so happy that you have made this clarification. I am sure that the non-Orthodox were so fearful of a teaching that appears to contradict Holy Writ. Sometimes cool heads don’t always emerge quickly and so much heated and unnecessary debate and name calling appears. Again, many thanks. Kissing your right hand I am
your servant in Christ,
Hieromonk Gregory
Bulgarian Patriarchate
Gosh, Bishop Hilarion, this is an honor indeed.
Thank you so much for your very gracious clarification.
Happy Holy Week and a blessed Pascha!
Diane
Hieromonk Gregory, I am curious. Where have you seen name calling WRT this issue? Not here on this blog, I hope. :-) Our gracious host would never allow that.
On a number of blogs, Diane, to the point where vulgar language is even posted. On this blog every so often the polemics can get heated, but not vulgar, thank God. I am speaking not specifically to this topic. Generally the comments are temperate here.
I feel rather embarrassed at my comment (in which I attacked a couple of Bishop Hilarion’s statments). I am most grateful to him for this clarification. :-)
I do, however, stick by my view on the good Bishop’s statement regarding God merely ‘allowing’ Hell to exist rather than positively willing it to exist.
Would it be possible for your grace to explain that further?
Happy Holy Week and a blessed Pascha!