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

St Isaac is the clearest exponent of the heaven/hell identity that I have come across in my very limited research. I haven't found anyone else yet who explicitly and unambiguously asserts this identity.

I find the construal to be an attractive view, if one can say that any view of Hell is attractive. I am reluctant to assert it as doctrine, given the apparent diversity of views within the patristic corpus.

I'm not sure if Metallinos's construal really says anything different in the end than, say, John Paul II [ewtn.com], who prefers to speak of Hell as eternal self-exclusion from the communion of the Trinity. Exponents of the identity theory seem to believe that their view is more consistent with the love and mercy of God, as if it makes hell a bit more palatable. After all, the damned have freely chosen to hate and reject God. They have freely and responsibly rendered themselves incapable of experiencing the light of Christ as joy and happiness. But does this let God off the hook?

1) God freely created man and gave him the gift of free-will.
2) God freely chose to raise Jesus from the dead and with him all of humanity.
3) God knows that his eschatological self-communication will bring eternal torment and agony to all those who definitively reject him.
4) Yet God permits the damned to suffer eternally, even though he could, if he so choose, annihilate them altogether and thus put an end to their torment. Most human beings mercifully euthanize their pets rather than to allow them to suffer interminably.

It seems to me that no matter how one parses Hell, it is always hell, awful and terrible.

Not too long ago I stumbled on this blog, written by an Orthodox which talk about the very substance of our discussion here.
Perhaps for your interest and can enrich our discussion here:
Vladimir Moss: Is Hell Just? [razilazenje.blogspot.com]

You will find more interesting topics in the archive.

Again, I discourage anyone from taking the teachings of Mr Vladimir Moss as Orthodox. Mr Moss has not been Orthodox for a very long time, but rather belongs to a Greek schismatic sect.

Alexandr

I thought Moss was a member of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church. I know it is non-canonical and schismatic; but is it also heretical?

Alexander, how long have you been Orthodox?

I joined the Moscow Patriarchate in 1974, and was baptized in the Russian Church Abroad in 1976? Have you been Orthodox longer?

Vladimir Moss

Agreed, Fr. Kimel.

English is a fascinating language. That statement can have two quite different meanings.

1. He has become Orthodox only recently.

2. He was once Orthodoxy but ceased to be Orthodox a long time ago.

To my mind, it is meaning No.2 which is intended here?

Gentlepersons,

This thread has been notable for the reasoned discussion and civility of debate, particularly pleasing as it includes contributions from a relatively diverse group of individuals - spanning much of the membership spectrum - not a lot of serious threads get to this length and are still able to claim that.

Were a Protestant member to post opinions on heaven and hell in the afterlife which were in agreement with those of either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, it's unlikely that discussion would sidetrack into analysis of the Protestant's personal faith, spirituality, or ecclesial affiliation. The point has been made that Vladimir may not represent the views of the mainstream or canonical Orthodox community - an opinion with which he may or may not agree, but he also made no such claim.

Time to move on. It is acceptable to dialogue, discuss or debate why and/or how Vladimir's views differ from the common perception or belief, but that can and needs to be done on the nature or expression of those - without personalizing the discussion.

I trust in everyone's ability to do so and cooperation in taking that higher road.

As an example,

Instead of ...


a more appropriate and meaningful contribution to discussion would be ...


Many years,

Neil

To put the shoe on the other foot, would you consider it out of bounds to discredit an erstwhile Catholic authority on the basis of his membership in the SSPX or a sedevacantist sect?

On the matter of a Protestant, I most certainly would raise the issue of his beliefs if he was a member of a denomination whose fundamental beliefs were non-Nicene, even if on a particular issue he seemed to be in general agreement with the Catholic and Orthodox consensus, because one can be right for eminently wrong reasons, which is quite as bad as being wrong for the wrong reasons (but maybe not as bad as being wrong for the right reasons).

As it was my posting the appears to have derailed this thread, allow me to expound a bit. Dr Moss is well known in Orthodox circles. He has, for a long time, been a font of Orthodox materials in the English language. Just the other day I read an edifying account of the life of the Hieromartyr +Seraphim of Vyatka from the pen of Dr. Moss. Such works are greatly appreciated. However there is a great difference between lives of the saints and dogmatic teaching. Not to imply that all or even any of what Dr Moss provides to the English speaking world is heretical. However, the fact remains that quite a few years ago, Dr Moss left the Orthodox Church and joined a splinter group that has placed itself outside of the Church. Whether RTOC, GOC, etc is of no consequence. It lies outside the boundaries of canonical Orthodoxy. Now I would be lying if I denied any sympathy for these groups and what they stand for. Very often, I find my heart closer to them than to some of the antics pulled by some within the bounds of canonical Orthodoxy. But the fact remains that rather than working from within canonicity to repair the damage done by innovators, they have abandoned canonicity and have placed themselves in isolation, when their help would have been most welcome by those left behind. As the source of what episcopal authority behind Dr Moss now lies outside of the Church, I cannot, in good faith recommend Dr Moss's work to those without the theological training to differentiate truth from error. First rule of thumb: question the source.

As to Stuarts question, no I would not consider +Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục or any other who is outside of the Roman Church to be a spokesman for Roman Catholicism.

Alexandr

My question was not so much directed at Alexandr as at Neil.

Stuart,

My point was - and remains - discuss, debate, applaud, or criticize the points made by Vladimir - on the basis of how they align with those of mainstream Orthodoxy - not on the basis of the omophor under which he worships. I daresay that, if his points were supportive of those posted by another, the canonicity of his ecclesial affiliation would not likely be at issue.

That is as clear as I can make it - and I think it's very clear. It's not open to further discussion and unless the thread's participants can proceed on that basis, the thread will close.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Fr. Kimel,

Coming from the Oriental Tradition, I have always thought that St. Palamas' Essence/Energy distinction was a doctrinal development peculiar to the Byzantine Tradition. Here is my own take on the matter:

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=5662414&postcount=19

Humbly,
Marduk