www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Heaven and Hell in the Afterlife -- Eastern & Western views

Just came across this interesting article on the webpage of a Greek Orthodox parish:

Heaven and Hell in the Afterlife [prescottorthodox.org]

The article begins:


The rest can be read at the above URL.

While I think there are many good points in the article, I also wonder if perhaps the Western position (particularly, the Catholic position) is not completely presented. Personally, I think the position articulated in this article could also be made to be compatible with Catholic theology as well. What do others think?

Well I don't know where it is missing. As someone very fluent in Latin theology I can assure you it's not only in the Bible but in patristic thought as well. Remember these lines?

"Where the worm dieth not and the flame never extinguishes"
"Cast into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels"

That's just for starters. Yes, it's in the Bible and Christ mentions Hell more than Heaven, and specifically mentions tortures from the rich man to Lazarus who is suffering to those who are punished.

That's just for starters. Yes, it's in the Bible and Christ mentions Hell more than Heaven, and specifically mentions tortures from the rich man to Lazarus who is suffering to those who are punished.

An interesting subject, I tend to agree with the presented Orthodox view that God is everywhere present. However confusedcatholic presents a good case with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those for there pass to us. Lk 16:26

So can one surmise that those in the abyss are aware of God's presence, but the judgment is an eternal separation?

I don't see the distinction of Orthodox and Catholic thought on this subject to be a serious difference. These things will be revealed to us in good time. Tis interesting to speculate though.

Fr Deacon Paul

Whenever I read the about the angry God of the Latin Church who loves to damn human creatures to an eternity of torment, I brace myself for yet another polemical caricature. I'm afraid that Peter Chopelas does not disappoint. It is distressing that this caricature was allowed to stand by the scholars who apparently read this piece before its publication.

Chopelas tells us that Western Christians believe that Hell is a locatable "place" where the damned eternally dwell, separated from the presence of God. I have never read a history of theological reflection upon Heaven and Hell, so I can neither confirm nor disconfirm this But one thing about this presentation cannot be true: if Hell is a "place" in which the damned live, it can never be a place where God is absent, precisely because nothing can exist except by God's will and continuous activity and presence. So what ever it means to say that Hell is "eternal separation from God" it cannot mean that God is absent. If God were absent, the damned would simply cease to exist.

I believe it is accurate to say that in classical Western presentations, Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory have been considered in some sense as "places." Why? Because Western theologians have, rightly or wrongly, assumed that bodies, even resurrection bodies, are locatable and therefore need "space" to be. Is this patently and obviously wrong? Obviously it need not mean space within our spatio-temporal universe. We need not think of these matters crudely. But it's difficult to see how Christians can avoid altogether spatial and temporal language in speaking of the mystery of our eschatological destiny. Surely we can speak of believers rising into Heaven or descending into Hell without being accused of an ignorant literalism.

I can think of one advantage of speaking, even metaphorically, of Heaven and Hell as separate "places." It reminds us that the miseries of the damned will not touch and spoil the bliss of the redeemed.

Choplelas cites the Catholic Catechism [scborromeo.org] as his primary piece of evidence for the Western construal of Heaven and Hell. Bad tactical decision! During the past fifty years, Catholic theologians have reflected deeply on matters eschatological and have purged the tradition of elements that can only be described as crude and simplistic. The Catechism reflects these developments.

Did Chopelas actually read any of the Catechism? He quotes from it, but did he actually read it? As far as I can tell, at no point does the Catechism declare that Hell is a locatable place. We do read that "immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell," but there is no reason not to read this language figuratively.

So what does the Catechism teach about Hell? Here is the money quote: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell.'" Note that the act of separation is effected by the sinner. Note also that this separation is described as a "state."

The presentation of the Last Things in the Catechism is brief. If one wants further unpacking, it is helpful to turn to Pope John Paul II's catechetical addresses [ewtn.com]. Read Chopelas and then read the Pope.

The rich man and Lazarus passage has often been used to present the Orthodox position; it is clear from reading that passage that the rich man and Lazarus are in the same "place".

Actually, I opened this thread half expecting to find references to Hilarion Alfeyev's recent alleged comparison of Orthodox Hell to Catholic purgatory; because God's grace enters Orthodox Hell, the potential for Salvation exists in Hell (movement to heaven). This to me is a far more important distinction that whether heaven and hell are the same spatial "place".

******
Otsheylnik,
Can you clarify this contradiction for me? Is this saying there is possible salvation for those in Hell? But isn't this a contradiction of the Lazarus parable where "no one can cross"?

Or is the statement that "Orthodox Hell" is the equivalent of "Catholic Purgatory'? If so, what about the "gnashing of teeth?" Perhaps a link to Hilarion Alfeyev's comments would clarify things. Is he a respected authority or his a "new" opinion?

Thanks in advance for the clarification,
Fr Deacon Paul

I haven't read Archbishop Hilarion specifically on this question (though I have read Archbishop Kallistos's essay "Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?" I believe that both Hilarion and Kallistos appeal to St Isaac the Syrian of support.

Needless to say, this is a controversial issue within Eastern Christianity. Just this past week I heard a priest of the Bulgarian patriarchate insist that the Fathers teach that there is no repentance beyond death.

It would be interesting to compare Archbishop HIlarion and Hans Urs von Balthasar on this question.

It was Gregory of Nyssa who proposed the Apokatastasis of creation at the end times, and that even the devil might be saved. Apokatastasis has not been condemned, but neither is it affirmed by the Church. As St. Maximos the Confessor wrote, "One should pray constantly for Apokatastasis to be true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine".

FWIW, Wikipedia gives the following:

That's a great quote! Can you provide the source?

The Synod condemned the apokatastasis of Origen, but Gregory of Nyssa was more subtle in his thought. Among other things, while Origen considered that apokatastasis pantoun was a logical and philosophical necessity, Gregory insisted on the necessity of metanoia, purification and forgiveness as essential prerequisites for salvation. Origen impinged upon free will (both God's and man's) but Gregory of Nyssa respected and preserved both. A good summary can be found here. [theandros.com]

It should be noted that Apokatastasis, though out of favor, can still be found in the works of Maximos the Confessor. Quoting from the article above, which cites Maximos' Questiones et Dubia 19,

Thanks, Father, for the observation. I felt it was rather polemical.

Actually StewartK, there is considerable disagreement about whether the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned even the apokatastasis of Origen. Documents relating to that matter are purported to come from an extra-conciliar synod rather than the Council itself, firstly. Secondly the insertion of the name of Origen in them has been questioned. Thirdly, it is not clear that the Origenism they condemn is actually the belief system of Origen; many modern scholars argue it was actually that of Evagrius Pontus/ Ponticus.

That said, here are some links to comments of Hilarion Alfeyev as requested:

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/144.aspx

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx

I thought Evagrius got a lot of his "Origenism" by way of Pseudo-Diyonisius. But it really doesn't matter, since "Origenism" of various sorts still has strong influence over Orthodox monastic spirituality.

I have enjoyed an email correspondence with an individual who believes that my comments about the Chopelas article were unfair. Here is my edited response, which I thought might be of interest to the forum brethren.

You suggest that my criticisms of Peter Chopelas's article--specifically, his presentation of the Western understanding of Hell-- have been unfair; but I'm afraid I must stand by them. This topic os Hell has been hotly debated in both the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches over the past two hundred years. It simply is inaccurate to speak of THE Western view of Hell. There are and have been several Western views.

I suppose one might point to the old Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Hell as a statement of a view that was "standard" at the time the article was written; but it certainly could not be described as standard Catholic teaching today. I refer you, e.g., to the catechetical addresses of Pope John Paul II [ewtn.com]. John Paul's teaching here can hardly be described as innovative or novel. For a popular presentation of these matters that precede John Paul's addresses by several years, see Peter Kreeft's book *Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Heaven, but Never Dreamed of Asking*. Also see his article on Hell in his *Fundamentals of the Faith*, which was published in the mid-80s: Hell [peterkreeft.com].

And if one turns to Protestant theologians, one finds even greater diversity. The most popular and influential book on Hell in the 20th century was C. S. Lewis's *The Great Divorce*. Have you read it? If you haven't, you must do so. You will find that your criticisms do not touch Lewis's presentation at all.

You state that the two central points of your article, presumably in contrast to THE Western view, are (1) God does not create Hell and (2) God does not punish; rather our sins cause both. Presumably you must think that a 21st century Catholic would object to both points. Now perhaps some might. There have been and are a diversity of views within the Catholic Church on this subject; but both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI would not disagree with you. Read the John Paul's addresses cited above, as well as his encyclical Dives in Misericordia [vatican.va]. Then read Benedict's encyclical Spe Salvi [vatican.va], as well as his discussion of these matters in his book *Eschatology*. When you read this material, you will discover that mainstream Catholic teaching simply is not recognizable in Mr. Chopelas's presentation. He has, in fact, presented a caricature.

The question of eternal divine punishment is a difficult question. I do not doubt at all that in Western preaching the justice of God has sometimes been emphasized at the expense of the mercy of God. And perhaps this may seem to be the case with regard to the punishments of Hell. But it is also important to interpret this language within its proper theological context. God does not arbitrarily consign people to eternal peridition: it is a fate that people freely choose by their definitive rejection of God's infinite love, mercy, and forgiveness. The Catholic Catechism is absolutely clear about this:

"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: 'He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.' Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell.' ... God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want 'any to perish, but all to come to repentance.'"

If God loves us infinitely and unconditionally, how then are we to understand the eternal punishment of Hell? Fr Karl Rahner, perhaps the most influential Catholic theologian of the 20th century, explains:

"It is possible, and indeed necessary today, to explain the eternity of hell (with Thomas Aquinas) as the consequence of the inward obduracy of man, and not either as cause of it or as an independent element. This inner obduracy, the rejection of the grace which inspires a salutary act, springs from the essence of freedom and is not in contradiction to freedom. Freedom is the will and the possibility of positing the definitive. It is not the possibility of constant revision of decisions. And 'eternity' is not the continued duration of time after the history of freedom, but the definitive achievement of history. Hence hell is 'eternal' and thus a manifestation of the justice of God. Hell is not to be thought of as a most drastic but merely additional punitive measure of God's vengeance, punishing those who would improve but for the infliction of this punishment. The just God is 'active' in the punishment of hell only insofar as he does not release man from the reality of the definitive state which man himself has achieved on his own behalf, contradictory though this state be to the world as God's creation. Hence the notion of vindictive punishment, such as inflicted by political society on those who infringe social order, is not at all suitable to explain the doctrine of hell" (*Concise Sacramentum Mundi*, p. 604).

Does God create Hell? Only in the sense that God creates rational creatures with free will. God does not impose; he does not coerce. If an individual insists on definitively and finally rejecting God's gift of love and grace, God allows this rejection to stand, for all eternity, with all of its painful consequences. This is Hell.

Is there anything in the above to which the Orthodox might object? Sure, we can argue about details. We can also argue, for example, whether St Isaac the Syrian's views in fact represent THE Eastern position or perhaps just an Eastern position. Compare St Isaac, for example, with the St John Chrysostom's views on divine punishment as articulated in homily 31 of his Homilies on the Letter to the Romans.

For the record, let me state that I find St Isaac's presentation on divine mercy very attractive. See my brief blog article on the injustice of grace: http://pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/the-injustice-of-grace/.

Faithfully yours,
Fr Kimel