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

Alas, people do not always agree. I stand by what I said about the original article.

Father Deacon*,

On what basis do you say that the Roman Church has problems with theosis and hesychasm? And would you say then that Orthodoxy does believe in the potential for universalism?

(For definition's sake, when I hear those words I think basically of St. Gregory Palamas' Hagioritic tome. I don't mean this as a outraged challenge or anything like that, I'm just curious)

Thank you,

Markos

* your profile leads me to believe you're a Deacon in ROCOR. Apologies if that's not the case! By the way, thanks for the links to Archbishop Hilarion's writings. I've read and really like the book they came from.

We understand that you disagree with Fr. Kimel in this regard. The question is, can you refute his statements?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Why do I need to "refute his statements"? They are an expression of his opinion, an opinion that I do not share. Such is life.

That said, is hell presently thought of in multiform ways in the West, yes; but is the older understanding of hell in the West like that described by the author of the original article, yes. The fact that the Western position is in flux today - moving to who knows what end - is just a statement of fact. Will it move to a more Eastern Orthodox position? I hope so, and Fr. Kimel's essay makes me think that it is heading in that direction, but I cannot read the future, so I have no way of knowing what will be the end result of present Western theological speculation.

That said, I found the original article enlightening, and I have not changed my opinion about it - even after reading Fr. Kimel's well written essay. Do I agree with everything in the original article? No. Do I disagree with everything Fr. Kimel has said? No.

Be that as it may, from my perspective hell itself is a form of salvation, i.e., it is salvation from falling into non-being (See St. Athanasios, On the Incarnation of the Word, nos. 3-10; and St. John Chrysostom, Ninth Homily on First Corinthians, no. 5). So, as I see it, hell is simply the divine presence as it is subjectively perceived by those who failed to liken themselves unto God by living virtuously.

Theosis (and the closely linked hesychasm) only "work" if the distinction between God's essence and God's energies is fully maintained. In the past the Roman Catholic Church was wont to condemn this Eastern distinction as heretical. It was seen as destroying the Divine Simplicity.

An example of this negative Catholic attitude to theosis and hesychasm may be seen in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on hesychasm. It is written by Fr Adrian Fortescue, considered to be an expert on Eastern Orthodox questions in his day.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm

Thank you, Father. Are there any official Roman/papal condemnations of "Palamite" theology?

I believe, for the Melkites, St. Gregory's feast day was removed from the second Sunday in lent in the mid-1800s (i.e. over 100 years after they formally returned to commmunion with Rome), along with things like the Old Calendar, in order to be "more Catholic" and that it's celebrated now (and that Rome has given explicit approval to such).

I ask because this is a big issue for me. As far as I'm concerned, condemning the ideas of the "Hagioritic tome" and taking the line of Barlaam gives one an extremely watered down form of Christianity which borders on atheism.

Markos

Fr. Kimel,

I must admit I am astonished. I have always read Church teaching to basically say that, as you mention, we can and should pray for the salvation of each individual.

We cannot assume that any one person, aside from the Saints, is in Heaven. We also can't assume that a person, even, say, Hitler, is in Hell.

But as I said before, the idea that it is a possibility that no one is in Hell, or that Hell is not eternal, I thought was contrary to Catholic belief?

Alexis

Alexis, I think it is certainly accurate to state that popular Catholic teaching has been that the large majority of humanity would ultimately find themselves in Hell. See, e.g., Avery Cardinal Dulles's article "The Population of Hell [firstthings.com]."

However, John Paul II apparently believed that the Magisterium had never committed itself to the proposition that Hell is or will be populated. If it had, how then would it be possible for the Church to pray for the salvation of all, when it knows that some or many are already beyond possible salvation? In the words of the Pope: "Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it."

I direct you to Balthasar's book, cited above. I would say that the Church is committed to the possibility of Hell and its eternity, yet filled with the love of God she prays for the salvation of every human being.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this. Hiermonk Ambrose is quite right, it is the essence-energies debate that is the issue.

I am just a layman.

Not really. It's just a red herring.

Why would Catholic theologians have wanted to introduce such a red herring? We would seem to have enough real matters to divide us without making the Divine essence-Divine energies one more division.

I would be interested to see any theological work from the Catholic point of view which shows the Catholic Church has now accepted the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Essence-Energies distinction.

You problem, Father, is you assume that the polemics of some four hundred years ago still have some relevance to Roman Catholic theology today. The Latin Church today has no problem with Palamism, recognizing it as one of several different modes of theological expression. Palamas is, of course, universally recognized as a saint of the Catholic Church, and his feast day is celebrated in Churches of the Byzantine rite on the Second Sunday in Lent, just as in the Orthodox Churches.

Palamism is a red herring because certain Orthodox polemicists write as though they have not won the battle already, or --and this is more likely the case--as though anything short of the wholesale adoption of Palamism by the Latin Church must somehow be a precondition for restoration of communion. It tends to reconfirm my belief that there are many Orthodox who cannot accept the legitimacy of any mode of theological expression that is not explicitly Byzantine.

I ask because I do not think we can assume that the Catholic objections to the Orthodox distinction between Essence and Energy have been revoked.

It is not, as you think, a question of 400 year old polemics. We see from the Catholic Encyclopedia article that these Catholic objections are still alive and active in our own times. If they have been revoked - when? by whom?

I would dearly love to see some sort of Vatican statement, after the time of the Encyclopedia article, that the theological teachings of the East in this matter, so foundational for theosis and hesychasm, have been acepted by the Vatican as Catholic theology.

Nothing would give me greater joy than to have you present such a statement - but, alas, to date I have not seen one.

There are no magisterial judgments against Palamism to be revoked; hence there is no need for the Magisterium to speak to the question. A Catholic Encyclopedia article simply reflects theological opinion at the time it was written. It carries no doctrinal weight. Whatever reservations and criticisms individual theologians may advance against Palamism, the fact remains, as Stuart notes, that Gregory Palamas is acknowledged as a saint in the Catholic Church.

The more interesting question is whether the essence/energies distinction is fundamentally necessary to speak of theosis. I suggest that the answer is no. I offer the following reasons:

First, many (most? all?) of the Church Fathers were able to speak of our participation in the life of the Holy Trinity without reference to the essence/energies distinction. Sts. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine of Hippo are three notable examples that immediately come to mind.

Second, Orthodoxy appears to have "forgotten" the distinction for several hundred years (presumably during its "Latin" captivity), yet surely it did not stop believing in and summoning believers to theosis: it simply found other language by which to do so.

Third, Met. John Zizioulas is an excellent of a contemporary Orthodox theologian who is able to advance a strong understanding of participation in the Holy Trinity without invoking the Palamite distinction.

Fourth, the Palamite distinction, as formulated by Palamas, lacks consensual support in the Church Fathers and is arguably a late doctrinal development (see Norman Russell, “Theosis and Gregory Palamas: Continuity or Doctrinal Change?” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 50:4 [2006]).

Finally, the Catholic Church itself firmly believes in the divinization of believers by adoption and grace. This is clearly affirmed in the Catholic Catechism. Orthodox theologians may find Western formulations of theosis inadequate or flawed--and they may well be true--but the fact remains that the Catholic Church does confess and has always confessed participation of the baptized in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Then there's the beautiful prayer from the Roman liturgy said when water is mixed with wine at the Offertory.

Deus, qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti, et mirabilius reformasti: da nobis per hujus aquae et vini mysterium, ejus divinitatis esse consortes, qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps, Jesus Christus...

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.