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

This paragraph is poorly worded and could lead one to believe that Met. Zizioulas does not accept the essence / energy distinction, which - based upon his own writings - is clearly false. The fact that Met. Zizioulas emphasizes a more modern type of personalism in his theology of communion should not be read as a denial of the importance of the divine energy, for the divine energy is always personal activity, and that is why theosis is an enhypostatic reality.

I am curious, Todd, where you find the energies/essence distinction in the writings of Met. John. One could read essay after essay of his and never become aware that this distinction had any functional importance in his trinitarian, soteriological, and ecclesiological thinking. I believe that Aristotle Papanikolaou is correct when he observes that "with his trinitarian ontology of personhood Zizioulas is, in effect, arguing against the use of 'energies' as the central soteriological concept" (Being With God, p. 118). What is critical for Zizioulas is the distinction between person (hypostasis) and being, not energies and being. He is simply not working within a Palamite framework; but of course he's not working within a Western scholastic framework either--which is what makes him so very interesting.

I wonder what either a Palamite or Thomist would think of Zizioulas's assertion that theosis in the Fathers means "participation not in the nature or substance of God but in His personal existence." I suspect both would be unhappy with him, though perhaps in different ways.

I would love to know what Met. John thinks about St Gregory and hesychasm, but as far as I know, he has not addressed this subject in his published writings.

Examples from two different books are found on page 91 of "On Being and Communion," and pages 27 and 29 of "On Communion and Otherness", one can also look at the transcribed notes of lectures delivered by Met. Zizioulas at the Poemantic Division of the Thessaloniki University’s School of Theology, during the academic year 1984-1985, in which he speaks about the divine energies, along with the divine essence and persons, and which have been posted on the internet with his blessing and permission.

Nevertheless, I admit that the good Metropolitan in his writings often gives warnings against divorcing the energies from the persons, and thus turning them (i.e., the divine energies) into something abstract, but that is not the same as denying the necessity of the doctrine of energies in Orthodoxy. I too believe that anyone who separates the energies from the persons, or from the divine essence for that matter, has misunderstood the nature of this real distinction.

Since the Ecumenical Patriarchate is in communion with the Holy Mountain, which is in its (the EP's) jurisdiction, and the monks there practice hesychia, I sincerely doubt that Met. John rejects the hesychast spiritual life as unorthodox. The fact that he has been silent about hesychia does not mean that he rejects it. If anything silence must be construed as agreement with a long established practice of Holy Orthodoxy.

I have no problem with this quotation, because the energies - as enhypostatic - are both essential and personal. Now, if by the quotation you have cited Met. Zizioulas means that we become the very person of the Father (or the Son, or the Spirit), then I know that not only Palamas, but all Orthodox Christians, would have a problem with such an assertion.

I am pleased to hear that but I admit that I do not really understand why no magisterial statement on a theological subject is tantamount to acceptance.

Orthodoxy does have statements on this matter which amount to "magisterial" statements for us. For example, there are the proclamations included in the Synodicon for the Sunday of Orthodoxy:

1.The light which shone at Tabor, during the Transfiguration of the Savior, is declared to be neither a creature nor the essence of God, but the uncreated and natural grace and illumination fountaining eternally and inseparably from the divine essence itself. (1st anathema)

2.There are in God two inseparable things: the essence and the natural and substantial operation flowing from the essence in line with the relationship of cause and effect. The essence is imparticipable, the operation is participable; both the one and the other are uncreated and eternal. (2nd anathema)

3.This real distinction between essence and operation does not destroy the simplicity of God, as the saints teach together with the pious mindset of the Church. (4th anathema)

4.The word θεότης (theotis) does not apply solely to the divine essence, but is said also of its operation, according to the inspired teaching of the saints and the mindset of the Church.

5.The light of Tabor is the ineffable and eternal glory of the Son of God, the kingdom of heaven promised to the saints, the splendor in which he shall appear on the last day to judge the living and the dead.(6th acclamation)

"Were they having diversity of theological expression in 19th century Russia? No, they were not. IS OUTRAGE!"

My conversation with my correspondent has continued. I received a reply to my above email on Thanksgiving. I sent him last night the following edited response:

Thank you for your email.

I am surprised you find my previous email baffling. I think my principal concern was expressed clearly. In my judgement Mr. Chopelas has presented a caricature of the Catholic teaching of Heaven and Hell. If an author is going to publicly critique the views of another person or community, he has an obligation to research those views and to present them accurately. He did not do that. The only authoritative Catholic source he mentions in his article is the Catholic Catechism, yet it clearly does not say what he thinks it says. I refer you once again to John Paul II's catechetical reflections on Heaven and Hell: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM. John Paul's views are neither idiosyncratic, revolutionary, nor novel: they reflect mainstream Catholic teaching. Nor can they be dismissed as the musings of an obscure Catholic theologian: they are the teachings of the man whom Catholics call the Supreme Pontiff. I suggest you use these teachings as your hermeneutical guide to interpreting the Catholic Catechism. Compare John Paul's discussion of Hell with, say, Archbishop Hilarion's discussion of Hell in his book The Mystery of Faith. I think you will find that they are essentially compatible.

To your central point: you apparently believe that the Catholic assertion that Hell is separation from God is not only contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church but is so serious as to be labelled heterodox. This is a serious charge and is one I have not run into before. I know that Orthodox and Catholic theologians have historically debated about the nature of particular judgment, purgatory, and the intermediate state, but until I read your article I was unaware that Orthodoxy disagrees with the Catholic description of Hell as separation from God. Several thoughts immediately come to mind.

First, you fail to understand the metaphorical nature of this language. Clearly God is not truly separate or distant from anything he has made. By the simple fact that he has created an entity and sustains it in existence, he is necessarily and intimately present to it. So whatever it means to say that "in" Hell the damned are separated from God, it cannot refer to an ontological separation. Such ontological separation could only mean the creature's dissolution into nothingness.

Nor can the metaphor of "separation from God" mean that God has ceased to love unconditionally the damned. God cannot cease to love; he is love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Every human being has been created in Christ and through Christ and for Christ. Every human being has been redeemed in Christ and through Christ and for Christ.

So what might the metaphor of "separation from God" mean in this context? If God cannot ontologically separate himself from the creature and if he cannot cease to love, I can see two possible meanings of "separation from God." There may be others, but these are the two that come to my mind.

1) Separation from God refers to the interior separation and alienation that the sinner has definitively determined for himself. This is how John Paul understands this language:

The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: "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'" (n. 1033).

"Eternal damnation," therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God's judgement ratifies this state.

Because of the sinner's rejection of God's love and mercy, he has cut himself off the bliss and joy that is communion with God. He has rendered himself incapable of enjoying God, incapable of participating in the Trinitarian life. All he can now existentially experience is God's absence. "The source of suffering in hell," writes Archbishop Hilarion, "is therefore the subjective awareness of the absence of God."

2) Separation from God might also mean that in some sense God "hides" himself from the damned. This is pure speculation on my part. Just as God hid himself from Israel at various times, so perhaps he definitively hides himself from the damned. This hiding would itself be an act of mercy. Why do I describe it as an act of mercy? Because of the reasons you have advanced in your article: namely, because God's manifest presence and glory brings immeasurable agony, pain, and suffering to those who hate him. In love and compassion God might well choose to mitigate this suffering by "hiding" himself, by protecting the damned from the dazzling splendor of his presence. God cannot eliminate the suffering of the damned, because this is a suffering that the damned will for themselves. All who exclude themselves from the source of life and light, all who eternally embrace and internalize evil, can only know the torment of darkness and malice. But perhaps God, in his mercy, might "withdraw" himself so as not to add to their torment.

Second, is it the case that Orthodox theologians never speak of Hell as separation from God? You have taken the views of St Isaac the Syrian--specifically, the claim that "those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love"--and have asserted them as representing Orthodox teaching of the past two millennia. But is it true that this is the way most Orthodox theologians in the past have spoken about Hell and the sufferings of the damned? I am skeptical. Please provide documentation. I am aware that St Isaac has become very popular in contemporary Orthodox reflection (and deservedly so), but I question whether all or even most Orthodox theologians have spoken of Hell along these lines in the past. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.

I refer you, for example, to Fr Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/__P2L.HTM). Fr Pomazansky approvingly cites St John Chrysostom, who states that the torment of the damned is caused by their deprivation of God's glory. What else is deprivation but a form of separation? My guess (and it's only a guess since so much Orthodox literature of the past thousand years has yet to be translated into English) is that many Orthodox theologians in the past have spoken of Hell as a form of deprivation of the divine glory or separation from God, and they have done so because they have found this language in the Fathers. Here is a key text from St Basil the Great:

Those who have grieved the Holy Spirit by their evil ways, or have not increased the talents they were given, will be deprived of what they received, and their share of grace will be given to others, or as one of the Gospels says, they will be completely cut to pieces, meaning that they will be separated from the Spirit forever. ... It is as I have said: the cutting to pieces is eternal separation of the soul from the Spirit. At present, before the day of judgment comes, even though the Spirit cannot dwell within those who are unworthy, He nevertheless is present in a limited way with those who have been baptized, hoping that their conversion will result in salvation. On the day of judgment, however, He will be completely cut off from the soul that has defiled his grace. That is why Scripture says that in hell no one confesses God and in death none can remember Him, since the Spirit's help is no longer present. (On the Holy Spirit 40)

Similarly St Irenaeus:

And to as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, "He that believes in Me is not condemned," John 3:18-21 that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, "He that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;" that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. "For this is the condemnation, that light has come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who does evil hates the light, and comes not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God. (Against Heresies V.27)

I know that you will attempt to reconcile these texts with your own view by explaining that the separation from God is ultimately self-chosen (and I would agree), but the critical point is that perdition in these texts is described as separation and exclusion from God.

(And what about the tortures inflicted upon the damned by the demons? Do not Orthodox writers sometimes speak about this? Surely the tortures inflicted by demons cannot be described as manifestations of God's love.)

What do the Fathers of the Church teach about Hell? Do we in fact find in their witness a clear and consistent identification of the fire of Hell with the fire of God's consuming love? The answer is no. The patristic citations you have provided in your article simply do not prove your central claim; indeed, most of them do not in fact speak explicitly address Hell at all! You have ignored huge swatches of the patristic witness. I am not surprised when a contemporary Western writer ignores the testimony of the Fathers, but I am surprised when an Orthodox writer does so. The Fathers of the undivided Church, whether Latin or Eastern, are Fathers of the Church. We might in the end, after much prayer and critical reflection, disagree with specific Fathers; but their testimony cannot be dismissed or ignored.

Specifically, you have passed over the many testimonies in which (a) the unquenchable fires of Hell are described as eternal and just punishment and (b) God is identified as the agent of this just punishment. These are disturbing texts, but they cannot be ignored.

I am not a patristic scholar nor do I read patristic Greek; but after receiving your email I decided to go through all the citations included in the three volume The Faith of the Early Fathers that speak of Hell, as well as the citations included under the topic of Hell in John R. Willis's The Teachings of the Church Fathers. Using florilegia is always hazardous: (a) they are inescapably selective and (b) the excerpted texts are ripped from their literary context and therefore are easily mis-read. Acknowledging these cautions, I did not find a single text where the fire of Hell is clearly and unmistakably identified with God or God's presence or God's love. I did not find a single text that clearly states that the damned suffer because they hate the love of God. A couple come close, perhaps; but none are as clear on this as St Isaac the Syrian is, and most appear to say just the opposite. I am not arguing against St Isaac's construal of damnation. I simply note that it represents a minority strain within the writings of the Church Fathers.

A few texts congenial to your thesis:

St Basis the Great:

"The voice of the Lord divides the flame of fire." ... I believe that the fire prepared in punishment for the devil and his angels is divided by the voice of the Lord. Thus, hence there are two capacities in fire, one of burning and the other of illuminating, the fierce and punitive property of the fire may await those who deserve to burn, while its illuminating and radiant part may be reserved for the enjoyment of those who are rejoicing. (On Psalm 28, no. 6)

This is probably the best patristic text I have come across to support your thesis. Basil does not explicitly identify the fire with God, but given that this fire both punishes and illumines, perhaps one might argue that Basil implies an identification of sorts.

St Gregory Nazianzen:

I know a cleansing fire which Christ came to hurl upon the earth; and He Himself is called Fire in words anagogically applied. ... I know also a fire that is not cleansing but avenging, that fire either of Sodom, which, mixed with a storm of brimstone, He pours down on all sinners, or that which is prepared for the devil and his angels, or that which proceeds from the face of the Lord and burns up His enemies all around. And still there is a fire more fearsome that these, that with which the sleepless worm is associated, and which is never extinguished but belongs eternally to the wicked. All these are of destructive power, unless even here someone may prefer to understand this in a more merciful way, worthy of Him who chastises. (Oration on Holy Baptism 40.36)

Note the distinction between the Christ's cleansing, purifying fire, with which he might be identified, and the avenging, retributive, inextinguishable fire that is poured out on the obstinately wicked. The latter must be considered to be a purely destructive power, unless, Gregory obliquely intimates, one believes in the apocatastasis.

St John Damascene:

We shall rise again, therefore, our souls united again to our bodies, the latter now made incorruptible and having put corruption aside; and we shall stand before the awesome tribunal of Christ. And the devil and his demons, and the man that is his, the Antichrist, and the impious and the sinners shall be consigned to everlasting fire, not material fire such as we know, but such fire as God would know. (The Source of Knowledge 3.4.27)

St John here asserts that the fire of hell is not a material fire but rather a fire known only to God (a spiritual fire?). But he does not explicitly identify this fire with God himself.

A few texts uncongenial to your thesis:

St Hippolytus of Rome:

Standing before [Christ's] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: "Just is your judgment!" And the justice of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body, but continually bursts forth frm the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them. For neither are the righteous any longer seen by them, nor are they themselves worthy of remembrance. (Against the Greeks 2)

St Cyprian of Carthage:

An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the torments can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in infinite agonies. ... The grief at pounishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weepling will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life. (To Demetrian 560)

Oh, what a day that will be, and how great when it comes, dearest brethren! when the Lord begins to survey His people and to recognize by examining with divine knowledge the merits of each individual! to cast into hell evildoers, and to condemn our persecutors to the eternal fire and punishing flame! ... When that unveiling has come and when the brightness of God shines about us, honored by the condescension of the Lord, we shall be as blessed and joyful as they will remain guilty and miserable--those deserters of God and rebels against God, who have done the will of the devil, so that it is necessary for them to be tortured along with him in the unquenchable fire. (Letter to the People of Thibar 579)

St Cyril of Jerusalem:

We shall be raised, then, all having eternal bodies, but not all with bodies alike. If a man is righteous, he shall receive a heavenly body, so that he may be able to converse worthily with the angels. But if a man is sinful, he shall receive an eternal body fitted to endure the penalties of sin, so that he may burn in the eternal fire without ever being consumed. (Catechetical Lectures 18.19)

St Jerome:

There are many who say there are no future punishments for sins nor any torments extrinsically applied, but that sin itself and the consciousness of guilt serve as punishment, while the worm in the heart does not die, and a fire is kindled in the mind, much like a fever, which does not torment the ailing person externally but punishes, even bodies by its seizures, without the application of any torments that might be brought to bear from without. These arguments and fraudulent fancies are but inane and empty words having the semblance of eloquence of speech but serving only to delude sinners; and if they give them credence they only add to the burden of eternal punishment which they will carry with them. (Commentary on Ephesians 3.5.6)

St Augustine:

Why can we not say that even incorporeal spirits are able to be afflicted in some real ways, however, remarkable, with the punishment of corporeal fire, if the spirits of men, certainly themselves incorporeal, are able now to be contained in corporeal members, and in the future will be able to be bound indissolubly to the bonds of their own bodies? ... Gehenna, the which is called also a slough of fire and brimstone, will be a corporeal fire and it will torture the bodies of the damned, either of both men and of demons, the solid bodies of men and the ethereal bodies of demons; or the bodies of men only, with their spirits, while of the demons, their spirits without bodies shall so cleave to the corporeal fires as to feel their punishment but not so as to give them life. But there will be one fire for both, as Truth itself has declared. (The City of God 21.10.1)

St Gregory the Great:

When we say that a spirit is held fast by fire, we mean that it is in torment of fire by seeing and by feeling. For it begins to suffer from the fire when it sees it; and when it sees itself attacked by the flames, it feels itself burning. That is how a corporeal thing burns an incorporeal one: an invisible burning and pain is received from a visible fire, and an incorporeal mind is tortured by the incorporeal flame of a corporeal fire. From the words of Scripture, however, we are able to gather that the soul suffers not only by seeing but also by experiencing. ... If the Devil and his angels, although they are incorporeal, are to be tortured by a corporeal fire, what wonder if souls, even before they are reunited with their bodies, can feel corporeal torments? (Dialogues 4.29)

Some think that hell is in a definite place on the earth, but others suppose that it is under the earth. It does seem to me, however, that if we call something infernal because it is situated in a lower position, then hell ought to be infernal to the earth, just as the earth is infernal to the heavens. (Dialogues 4.43)

The above are all from Orthodox saints and Fathers of the Church. Clearly not all of them support your thesis. If you wish to declare that those who disagree with your thesis are heterodox, by what authority do you do so?

A final citation--this one from St Gregory Palamas:

In the earlier passage the Lord commanded that the tares be bundled up first, then thrown into the fire. Now He first orders that the man be bound hand and foot, then that he be cast into outer darkness. In both cases, He adds that there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, so hell-fire must be the same as outer darkness. As that darkness is without any gleam of light, why is it not called "innermost" darkness rather that "outer"? God is the true, eternal light without evening, where the spirits of the just are now, and later the saints will dwell bodily. He is the Sun of righteousness. People who live impure, unjust lives are outside this Sun and its light even now, but in this life they do have the hope of repentance, and enjoy the light of the visible sun and the consolation of the rest of God's creation, while the Lord in His love for mankind forbears, patiently awaiting their conversion. However, any who do not repent here will be deprived then of God's tolerance and long-suffering, and the pleasure of His visible creation. They will find themselves much further away from God, bereft of hope, and will be handed over to eternal punishment. So they are without the true light now, but then, as we have said, they will be even further removed from it and will be delivered up to that darkness far outside the light, to unmitigated suffering and anguish. ...

Who will withstand the Lord's anger? Who will endure the accusation and shame which the Lord indicated to us in the Gospel through His words in the parable to the man wearing sin's ugly garb? Who will be able to bear that wrathful divine sentence, of the angels' violent haste to carry it out, as they snatch the condemned man from the company of the righteous, separating him as tares from wheat, bind him without mercy and thrust him, alas, into hell? Who can endure that outer darkness for ever without light, the unceasing inconsolable turmoil of extreme grief, the gnashing and grinding of teeth, the continuous unbearable pain of being burned by the unquenchable fire? What sort of fire is that which burns physical beings and bodiless spirits, causing hurt while keeping them alive for ever, and which melts the fiery element of our own bodies, according to the words of Scripture: "The elements shall melt with fervent heat"? How much worse will the agony be because there is no hope of deliverance! Nor shall we see to what level of evil we have sunk, for that fire is completely without light. (Homily 26: 10-12)

These words could well have been spoken by St Augustine or St Gregory the Great. We note that St Gregory does not hesitate here to speak of Hell as expression of God's judgment and wrath. Above I quoted Archbishop HIlarion's statement that Hell is the experience of God's absence. Perhaps this is true, but do not the Fathers also, and perhaps principally, speak of Hell as experience of divine condemnation? I observe that some Orthodox writers have sought to virtually purge the tradition of the language of wrath (I'm thinking here, e.g., of Kalomiros's "River of Fire," which, though helpful in many respects, is also flawed by its caricature of Western theology); but Fr Thomas Hopko offers a salutary correction to this trend in his recent AFR podcasts "The Wrath of God." Fr Thomas insists on taking seriously the biblical testimony to divine wrath. He refuses to reduce the divine wrath to human response. "You cannot reject the mercy," he states, "without in that same act accepting and receiving the wrath." I am reminded of the words of Mark the Monk: "No one is so good and full of pity as God, but even He does not forgive those who do not repent."

Properly relating God's infinite mercy and love with his judgment and wrath is a difficult matter. The Scriptures do not permit easy resolution. Perhaps we are presented here with mystery that we cannot systematically explain.

However construed, Hell is a terrible, awful reality. And it is terrible and awful whether Hell is understood as painful confrontation with Divine Love or as agonizing deprivation of Divine Love. It is terrible and awful whether Hell is understood as a spatial location or as nonspatial condition. It is terrible and awful whether the sufferings experienced in Hell are spiritual or physical. If perdition is eternal, if there finally comes a point where repentance is impossible and the obdurate sinner is condemned to eternal suffering--whether by God or by the sinner himself or by both simultaneously--then suffering can no longer serve any pedagogical and therapeutic function. The horror of eternal nonremedial torment is in no way minimized by our theological explanation that Hell is "the scourge of love." The question remains: How is it possible to reconcile everlasting Hell with God's infinite mercy? Yes, the damned are but suffering the consequences of their sins--they have freely brought perdition upon themselves--but would not a compassionate Deity at least put them out of their misery? Please observe that the problem still obtains even if one explains that the suffering of the damned is caused by their encounter with infinite love, which they firmly resist, reject, and hate.

Ultimately there are only two solutions to this problem of eternal suffering--retributive punishment or apocatastasis.

The majority of the Church Father adopted the first solution, asserting that the eternal torments of the damned must be understood as just punishment for their freely chosen and unrepented sin. This became the universal position of the Latin Church. It's important to understand the logic of this position: pain from which there is no relief, pain that cannot teach or heal, is something that should not be. It is contrary to the goodness of life. It is contrary to communion in love. God is not vindictive. He is both infinitely merciful and perfectly righteous. If God ordains or permits everlasting pain, then it can only be because the person who is given to suffer this pain deserves it--i.e., it is just punishment. Consider the alternative: if the damned do not deserve their sufferings, then God is neither merciful nor just.

My impression--and I welcome documented correction--is that this first solution has also been, at least until recently, the dominant position in the Eastern Church.

A minority of the Fathers (Sts. Gregory Nyssen, Maximus the Confessor, and Isaac the Syrian) adopted the second solution--the hope for universal salvation. They resolved the problem of eternal suffering by holding out the possibility of apocatastasis. But apocatastasis was a minority, and controversial, position in the undivided patristic Church, and it remains a minority, and controversial, position today, though its popularity (at least in the modality of "hope") seems to be growing. Witness the enthusiastic response to Archbishop Hilarion's address at the World Congree on Divine Mercy in 2008 [thedivinemercy.org]. In recent decades the hope of apocatastasis has been rekindled in the Catholic Church through the writings of Hans Urs von Balthasar and St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. Thus St Teresa: "All-merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable."

I hope that you find the above of some small interest. I know it's been helpful to me to put my thoughts on (electronic) paper.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr Alvin Kimel+

I received a brief reply informing me that anyone who hopes for the salvation of all men are heretics and cannot be in communion with the Orthodox Church. I'm sure that Metropolitan Kallistos will be distressed to hear the news. I have terminated the conversation.

And also Saint Maximus the Confessor: "One should pray that Apokatastasis is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine."

I'd like to bring the attention of the brethren to a lengthy comment on the Monachos forum by Fr Dcn Matthew Steenberg [monachos.net], an Orthodox patristics scholar who teaches in England. Fr Matthew offers substantive criticisms of the increasingly popular view (represented, e.g., in the Chopelas article) that "Hell is Heaven experienced differently." The patristic testimonies do not permit such easy reductionism.

Thank you for the link, Fr Kimel.

The popularity of the idea that heaven and hell are both the love of God experienced differently by the saved soul and the unrepentant soul was created in 1980 in Seattle.

It took place with a lecture by Alexander Kalomiros at a Youth Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. That lecture was "The River of Fire."

It is true that the concept does exist in the Holy Fathers but it had never received such emphasis as it did in 1980 and thereafter. I had been aware of the concept prior to the publication of "The River of Fire" and accepted it as a theologoumenon which has considerable attraction but definitely not as dogmatic teaching of the Church.

** Here is a copy of "The River of Fire" on the Web
http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm

Something apropos to the message of Fr Deacon Matthew Steenberg.

Here is an article from the (now emeritus) Professor of Theology at the University of Athens Archpriest George Metallinos. He takes a contrary view to what Fr Deacon Matthew Steenberg proposes for our consideration. Of the two men Fr George Metallinos has an established and conservative reputation in the Orthodox Church which allows one to give credence to what he teaches; Fr Matthew was ordained deacon two years ago and is a young theologian starting to make his mark on the scene. The clash of the bull elephant and the pup!

HEAVEN AND HELL: THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING
by Protopresbyter George Metallinos.

http://orthodoxy21.blogspot.com/2008/12/heaven-and-hell-orthodox-understanding.html

For the biography, church and academic, of Fr Metallinos please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Metallinos

_______________________________________________

There is, by the way, no need to be concerned that there are disagreements among Orthodox theologians on many many aspects of the afterlife. Along with us they too are trying to "peer through a glass darkly" into a realm which the Saviour has not seen fit to clarify for us. One may read all of them, note their points of agreement and disagreement, compare them to the tradition which we have received, and not allow it to disturb us in the slightest.

Thank you, Fr Ambrose, for the link to the Metallinos article. I think it is the best Orthodox presentation of the Heaven is Hell position I have yet come across. It is certainly vastly superior to the Kalomiros and Chopelas articles that seem so popular.

But my question remains: How much patristic support does this construal actually enjoy? Do the Fathers, or at least a bunch of them, actually say or imply that "Paradise and hell are the same reality"?

I am not the best person to answer your question on patristic sources on this topic since, as I mentioned, this has seemed to me to be only a rather attractive theologoumenon, but I can start to track down what the Holy Fathers have said.

This is from one of the Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian:

"As for me I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in hell are deprived of God's love. Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful. That is what the torment of hell is in my opinion: remorse. But love inebriates the souls of the sons and daughters of heaven by its delectability."

Deleted - message in wrong thread. Sorry.