Universalism and the Orthodox Church

[Volker Jordan]

Dear members of the forum!

Some words by way of introduction: Coming from a Protestant background, I am not Orthodox yet, but very interested in and learning about the ancient faith of the one and undivided Church of the first millennium. As a rule, I try to attend a Russian Orthodox parish with a beautiful wooden church in Lower Saxony, Germany.
I would be very interested in learning more about the Orthodox Church's attitude towards universalism, i.e., the salvation of all men.

Some prominent Orthodox Church Fathers and teachers like St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac the Syrian, St. John of Sinai, Sergij Bulgakov, Bishop Kallistos Ware, Bishop Hilarion Alfejev, St. Siluan the Athonite and not a few others seem to either (have) embrace(d) universalism or at least (have) cherish(ed) a strong hope of universal salvation, whereas others strongly deny it.

Compare also: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html

(I do not stand behind that website!)

Is this topic an issue in the Orthodox theological discussion at present? And is there any defined attitude of the Church?

As far as I am aware, when Origen's teaching was condemned, it was more directed against his neo-platonic tendencies.

I am very thankful for any comments!

friendofnarnia

[Alain Turbide]

The difference, from what I understand, is that Origen came up with the conclusion that all men WILL be saved by consequence of his philosophy (which I don't feel like getting into) while others (most notably St. Gregory of Nyssa) stated that all men MAY be saved.

So saying that universal salvation in necessary is a heresy, but to say that universal salvation is a possibility is not a heresy.

In the end God only knows, but the church has not made any definitive statements (other than condemning Origen's ideas).

[John Charmley]

Dear Alain and Dear Volker,

Welcome here.

My understanding is the same as Alain's. You will find some good discussion on this issue if you look up the thread on Origen under 'indivduals' on this site.


In Christ,


John

[Gregorios]

Dear members of the forum!

Some words by way of introduction: Coming from a Protestant background, I am not Orthodox yet, but very interested in and learning about the ancient faith of the one and undivided Church of the first millennium. As a rule, I try to attend a Russian Orthodox parish with a beautiful wooden church in Lower Saxony, Germany.

Welcome Narnian fiend!
Now I've been to Germany countless times ( being a native dutchman) but am at a loss where lower saxony may be found. What's a major city close to you? (just curious)


I would be very interested in learning more about the Orthodox Church's attitude towards universalism, i.e., the salvation of all men.

Concernign the eschaton we have few dogmatic principles. The most important are contained in Scripture and the Nicene Creed. The possibility that all may be saved is accepted if not without (sometimes) fierce criticism.


Some prominent Orthodox Church Fathers and teachers like St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac the Syrian, St. John of Sinai, Sergij Bulgakov, Bishop Kallistos Ware, Bishop Hilarion Alfejev, St. Siluan the Athonite and not a few others seem to either (have) embrace(d) universalism or at least (have) cherish(ed) a strong hope of universal salvation, whereas others strongly deny it.

That would be the status of this theological opinion in the Orthodox Church.


Compare also: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html

(I do not stand behind that website!)

Neither would Orthodox Christians who believe that all will (not must for that would be heresy) be saved. At least I can't imagine any.


Is this topic an issue in the Orthodox theological discussion at present? And is there any defined attitude of the Church?

The most balanced pov on this can be found in Bp Kallistos Ware "The Inner Kingdom" (SVS Press, Crestwood, New York: 2004), 193-215. His Grace is an eminent patristics scholar and presents both sides of the argument fairly, concisely, and fully within his teaching authority as a Bishop of the Orthodox Church.


As far as I am aware, when Origen's teaching was condemned, it was more directed against his neo-platonic tendencies.

It is doubtful whether there is any significant Platonism in Origen be it Neo or Middle. See Mark Julian Ewards "Origen Against Pato" (Ashgate Publishing Limited, Oxford: 2002) and also his "Christ or Plato?" in Lewis Ayres & Gareth Jones ed. "Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community" (Routledge, London-New York: 1998), 11-25. Origen seems to have been very conscious of Platonic thought and he pitted himself against it by rooting himself in Scripture and the Rule of Faith of the Orthodox Church in his time. The Origen that we often think we know is subject to serious misunderstanding. Most of us have gotten to know him though the eyes of his enemies and detractors, Crouzel and Edwards allow us to see Origen in a very different light.

Also the condemnations against Origen are not as well-grounded as is often assumed see Henri Crouzel "Origen" (T&T Clark, Edinburgh: 1989), 169-179) as well as Bp Kallistos article in his "The Inner Kingdom" p. 199-201 especially footnote 9 on p. 199.


I am very thankful for any comments!

friendofnarnia

You're welcome.

Gregorios

[Scott Pierson]

Speaking of Fr Bulgakov , I've never really understood exactly what he was trying to get at in regards to the eschaton in "Bride of the Lamb". Specifically what he was saying about heaven and hell and the separation of good and evil within the same person .

[Alain Turbide]

Here is a good article on the subject: http://www.theandros.com/restoration.html

[Scott Pierson]

Some prominent Orthodox Church Fathers and teachers like St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac the Syrian, St. John of Sinai, Sergij Bulgakov, Bishop Kallistos Ware, Bishop Hilarion Alfejev, St. Siluan the Athonite and not a few others seem to either (have) embrace(d) universalism or at least (have) cherish(ed) a strong hope of universal salvation, whereas others strongly deny it.I was just reading a great book (thanks to the suggestion of John Charmley) "The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian" by Hilarion Alfeyev. I was somewhat surprised to find out that the Church of the East (the Nestorian Church) taught / teaches universal salvation. Both Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus believed in universal salvation and they are held in very high regard by the Church of the East so that may be part of the reason.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

I find that very interesting.

Are you able to pull out any references from +Hilarion's book to sources which show this? I'd like to try and find them in the original sources, and I am just reading a source book on Theodoret which I will return to know to see what he says about Universalism.

I am intrigued as to what drove Theodore and Diodore's Universalism, if +Hilarion is correct.

Peter

[Gregorios]

Hi Scott

I find that very interesting.

Are you able to pull out any references from +Hilarion's book to sources which show this? I'd like to try and find them in the original sources, and I am just reading a source book on Theodoret which I will return to know to see what he says about Universalism.

I am intrigued as to what drove Theodore and Diodore's Universalism, if +Hilarion is correct.

Peter

Hi Peter,

It's been a while!

Anyway, you might also be interrested to look up a book called "The Book of the Bee" I forget who authored it tho. It's a post-schism book by a father of the Assyrian Church of the East. It unhesitatantly espouses universalism. It was originally written in Syriac. I saw a copy in the University Libray in Leiden (Netherlands) a while ago in translation.

Gregorios

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

As you probably know, Gorgias Press do an edition of The Book of the Bee at $78 - which at the current rate of exchange isn't too dire for those of us in the UK.

The link is http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/p-55706-akhlat-solomon-of-the-book-of-the-bee.aspx


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Gregorios, could to see you here.

Thanks for the heads up John, but I see that the text is online here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bb/index.htm

so I'll scan through it over lunch.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

I was just reading a good Gorgias Press book "The Letters of John of Dalyatha" its definitely worth reading. John of Dalyatha belonged to the Church of the East, but I haven't noticed any references to universal salvation in it so far and I'm 3/4 done.

I'll look for those references from the St Isaac book later today and post them.

[Theophrastus]

Hi Gregorios, could to see you here.

Thanks for the heads up John, but I see that the text is online here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bb/index.htm

so I'll scan through it over lunch.

Peter


Here's a quote from the book. Is Zaradosht a form of "Zarathustra"?


CHAPTER XXXVII1.

THE PROPHECY OF ZÂRÂDÔSHT CONCERNING OUR LORD.

THIS Zârâdôsht is Baruch the scribe. When he was sitting by the fountain of water called Glôshâ of Hôrîn, where the royal bath had been erected, he said to his disciples, the king Gûshnâsâph2 and Sâsân and Mahîmad, 'Hear, my beloved children, for I will reveal to you a mystery concerning the great King who is about to rise upon the world. At the end of time, and at the final dissolution, a child shall be conceived in the womb of a virgin, and shall be formed in her members, without any man approaching her. And he shall be like a tree with beautiful foliage and laden with fruit, standing in a parched land; and the inhabitants of that land shall be gathered together3 to uproot it from the earth, but shall not be able. Then they will take him and crucify him upon a tree, and heaven and earth shall sit in mourning for his sake; and all the families of the nations shall be in grief for him. He will begin to go down to the depths of the earth, and from the depth he will be exalted to the height; then he will come with the armies of light, and be borne aloft upon white clouds; for he is a child conceived by the Word which establishes natures.' Gûshnâsâph says to him, 'Whence has this one, of whom thou sayest these things, his power? Is he greater than thou, or art thou greater than he?' Zârâdôsht says to him, 'He shall descend from my family; I am he, and he is I; he is in me, and I am in him. When the beginning p. 82of his coming appears, mighty signs will be seen in heaven, and his light shall surpass that of the sun. But ye, sons of the seed of life, who have come forth from the treasuries of life and light and spirit, and have been sown in the land of fire and water, for you it is meet to watch and take heed to these things which I have spoken to you, that ye await his coming; for you will be the first to perceive the coming of that great king, whom the prisoners await to be set free. Now, my sons, guard this secret which I have revealed to you, and let it be kept in the treasure-houses of your souls. And when that star rises of which I have spoken, let ambassadors bearing offerings be sent by you, and let them offer worship to him. Watch, and take heed, and despise him not, that he destroy you not with the sword; for he is the king of kings, and all kings receive their crowns from him. He and I are one.' These are the things which were spoken by this second Balaam, and God, according to His custom, compelled him to interpret these things; or he sprang from a people who were acquainted with the prophecies1 concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, and declared them aforetime.

[Peter Farrington]

I have to admit that the names and places in the excerpt you posted all sound like Dwarven characters from Lord of the Rings!

I am having a look to see about Baruch the scribe and why and where he is called ZÂRÂDÔSHT.

I would have thought this was not Zarathustra? He was Zoroaster and lived about 1400-1000 BC, whereas Baruch the Scribe was sort of 580 BC.

I wonder if ZÂRÂDÔSHT was Baruch's captive name? As other of the captives had different names to their given Hebrew ones?

In that case it may be the same name, which would not be surprising, but it would not seem to be the same person. I will read around a bit more. Zoroastrianism is not something I have needed to gain any knowledge of and I am sure someone more informed will post more intelligently in due course.

Peter

[Mina Soliman]

I was talking to my father one day and told him about the Zoroastrian beliefs, and he told me in Arabic, they call them the "Zorodisht." Perhaps "ZÂRÂDÔSHT" means Zoroastrian in Syriac or Aramaic as well?

God bless.

Mina

[Andrew]

I have to admit that the names and places in the excerpt you posted all sound like Dwarven characters from Lord of the Rings!

I am having a look to see about Baruch the scribe and why and where he is called ZÂRÂDÔSHT.

I would have thought this was not Zarathustra? He was Zoroaster and lived about 1400-1000 BC, whereas Baruch the Scribe was sort of 580 BC.

I wonder if ZÂRÂDÔSHT was Baruch's captive name? As other of the captives had different names to their given Hebrew ones?

In that case it may be the same name, which would not be surprising, but it would not seem to be the same person. I will read around a bit more. Zoroastrianism is not something I have needed to gain any knowledge of and I am sure someone more informed will post more intelligently in due course.

Peter

Maybe at that time the name Zoroaster was like the name Mohammed or Ali is now in that region.

[Scott Pierson]

Are you able to pull out any references from +Hilarion's book to sources which show this? I'd like to try and find them in the original sources, and I am just reading a source book on Theodoret which I will return to know to see what he says about Universalism.

Here is a web page that discusses the universalism of Theodore and the Church of the East.

http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd16.html

[Owen Jones]

Christ is the Savior of all mankind, but especially of believers. God is theanthropos. The lover of mankind. Not just believers. Interpret as you will.

[Botolph]

Universalism is not the accepted doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Neither, to the best of my knowledge does it say that redemption after death or for non-Christians is impossible - merely that there is no biblical, patristic or other evidence for it.

It does not, for instance, espouse the Roman doctrine of purgatory.
My own hope, based on belief in a loving God and a Son who died to offer life to all men, is that faced with the Light of God's presence after death, man can be purified and forgiven. I stress that this is not Church teaching but there is no evidence that it is not so.

One of the most optimistic sayings is from a revelation to Mother Julian of Norwich from our Saviour

"“all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well."
Christ descended into Hades, trod the devil underfoot, and brought forth the dead - this happens out of time and applies to men of all time; surely only the most depraved and evil would choose to remain.

There remains the second (final) judgement. Is this a rubber stamping of the first - in eternity is there passage of time as we know it? If not are they not the same; is "sleeping" in Christ merely a nanosecond nap?".


I contend that whatever we experience in the next life, be we good or evil, is going to be like nothing we can comprehend.

We can be confident, though, that our Saviour died for all men, and wishes all to be saved.

If Hitler and Saddam are in heaven, even I might stand a chance.

Thoughts from a simple layman.

God Bless you all,
Botolph

[Antonios]

Well said, Botolph. In the end, we must accept the limits of our human understanding, bow down to the mystery and wisdom of God, and hopefully, by realizing how little we know about Divine Love, we could open our hearts to those whom we see everyday.

[Andreas Moran]

I don't see how Hitler could be in heaven since he committed suicide. It is said, however, that Stalin made his confession four times before he died. This comes from the daughter of the priest who had the unenviable task of hearing him confess ('I see, Comrade General Secretary - er, how million was that?'). Would we be offended to find Stalin in heaven?

[Nina]

Hi Andreas,

I am not sure if your last question was a rhetorical one but in case it is not, then I would say that we should not be offended to find in Heaven even Judas who betrayed our sweet Christ (don't we all somehow betray and crucify Him by committing sins?) I have read that Christ would have forgiven Judas if he came to Him in repentance (as He forgives all who come to Him in repentance). However Judas did not choose that path. We actually should lament that Judas (and all who are in hell) condemned himself (themselves) to hell.

Also Paradise has space for all. And it is God's decision to receive any prodigal sons/daughters back Home (Paradise), since we all came from there and we all were given the chance to return to Paradise not because of our merits and virtues, but because of God's love, mercy and by His Holy Blood that was shed for us.

This past September I lost my mother Madalena - May Christ grant her rest in His Kingdom! She battled ovarian cancer for 3 and 1/2 years and passed away exactly one month after her 53rd birthday. Her last fifteen days were indescribably torturous for her. During those days I started accepting the fact that my mother was getting ready to depart to be with God, so while at her bedside, I started reading spiritual books about death. I knew some things before, but from what I read I started feeling pain for the departed who are not with God in Paradise, because they do not have another personal chance to improve their situation (hence the prayers and good deeds for the departed advised by our church). If we have a possibility we should light a candle and say a prayer especially for people who are in Hell - not that we are like St.Macarios the Great, prayers of whom were heard by God and some relief was granted to those in hell when he prayed - but one can never know the impact of one's prayer.

According to tradition, when our sweet Panaghia visited hell and saw the horrors and tortures that souls there had to endure, She implored Christ, that He may grant all souls in hell some period of rest. This resting time according to tradition starts from the Holy Day of Resurrection and continues until the Pentecost (also we do not kneel in our services during this period).

Since we are discussing this subject and since services of the Saturday of the Souls are starting soon why not start a thread for the departed we know? We can post the names of the departed and each of us can pray for them and maybe give the list to their priest and ask for prayers (an Orthodox Christian priest can mention in a service only names of those who were Orthodox Christian before departing).

[Peter Farrington]

I am not really able to support an inter-faith ecumenism at all, apart from issues of social concern that are shared and obviously seeking to understand other folk, as is right and proper.

So I am not a liberal modernist of any sort....

But I was in the shop over the street which is run by an Indian couple. I was buying a comb and the shop owner handed me a large packet of them and asked me to get one out because he didn't want to lose his place in his prayers - and then he held up a string of prayer beads.

I took the opportunity to pull out my prayer rope which is always in my pocket and I told him how I prayed - Lord Jesus Christ....

I asked him how he prayed and he said he asked Lord Krishna to give him peace and then to give peace to all people.

Now I am wondering. What does this mean? Is he entirely deluded and addressing his prayers to a demon (my normal reaction), or is he deluded, but God sees his intent and receives his prayer even though it is misdirected? Or does God understand that though he is deceived he would wish his prayers to be addressed to the true God?

I don't know? He is not the nicest of men, but he said 'I am praying for you'.

Does God see his heart? Does God see his intent (which I do not)?

I am sure that Hinduism is a deception, but I wonder if there are those born into Hinduism whom God grants a 'natural' grace and who respond within the only context they know?

What do others think? I must admit that it has been too easy for me, with no contact with those of other faiths, to treat them entirely stereotypically. I have no trouble criticising systems of doctrine and I think that all other religions are defective and even deadly, but just as I would not criticise a Baptist though I might criticise some Baptist theology, so I wonder if I should be a little more charitable towards (some?) Hindus while still criticising Hinduism?

Of course I need to bear a better witness before this shop keeper and pray for him as he said he prayed for me, only more so. But are his prayers entirely devoid of grace or do they represent a response to some grace of God?

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

The love of God is limited by nothing. The constructs of human perception, the definitions of religions, simply cannot contain or restrain the love of a God who 'gave himself up for the life of the world'. And if God's grace is tied up in his love, then the same is true of this grace. It is simply not within human, earthly capability to constrain or limit God's grace; to tie it to a specific place; to bind it to a confession -- however right or true. God is not limited by the confession of those who rightly believe in him, and the heart of God is not closed to the remnants of his creation by the righteousness of those who adhere to his truth.

God loves all. To refer to the discussion of another thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3439), I agree with those who say that God does not love all equally, for love is not a static reality that can be quantified in this way. Love is a dyanmic, personal engagement, and so always unique and unrepeatable. God is wholly and fully loving to all, without exception -- but wholly uniquely in each and every case.

God loves all; this is a universal reality. But the Christian's ascetical praxis is not a universal paradigm; or better, does not believe in the equal validity of every type of ascetical living (i.e. religion). One enacts, in belief and life, what one has been taught by God. If God wanted something else done, he would have indicated as such. The fact that God loves all does not equate, in an Orthodox understanding, to a confession that 'all things are right and good, since God loves everyone'. Some things are better, some things are worse. So long as by our attempts to understand what is better, what is worse, we do not try to limit God's love or grace, the Church teaches clearly that such identification is proper, for ultimately there is 'one true light, one true faith: the worship of the undivided Trinity', to paraphrase the Liturgy. This is part of the reason the confession of 'one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' continues as a central part of each liturgical celebration. It is precisely because God's love is united to his truth, that the Church can claim that while God's love is universal, religious universalism is not permissible.

One of the most difficult aspects of Christian life is learning how to believe in one truth, one asceticism, one Church, without repeating the circumscription of God's love and grace that plagued Jesus in his followers already in Galilee.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

What a good post Matthew. I am deeply encouraged by it and find that all you say resonates tremendously with feelings and thoughts I have had over many years.

I fear in myself to be narrower than God's love while also believing that Christ is THE way, truth and life.

Peter

[John Charmley]

It is precisely because God's love is united to his truth, that the Church can claim that while God's love is universal, religious universalism is not permissible.

One of the most difficult aspects of Christian life is learning how to believe in one truth, one asceticism, one Church, without repeating the circumscription of God's love and grace that plagued Jesus in his followers already in Galilee.

INXC, Matthew

Dear Matthew,

We are all in your debt for this wise posting. We have to accept that God is ineffable, and His ways mysterious to us, save where, through the Son and the Holy Spirit we have been, and are, guided towards Him.

Those multitudes who have not received that guidance are loved by Him who made them. Any failures are our own, in that we have not done those things which we ought to have done.

Your words go deep - and I thank you for sharing these thoughts with us.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Nina,

Thank you for your moving post which prompted also Matthew's. I repeat what I was told - let us not tell God whom He may have for His friends. I was told that, as to non-Christians, they will be judged according to their conscience.

As to praying for people in hell, I must advise caution. Some years ago, I knew a young woman in Bosnia whose sister committed suicide during the war there. I was moved to pray for her sister. Father Zacharias (of Essex)warned me this was dangerous for any but the most experienced and told me not to do it. He didn't say why, and I didn't ask.

As to a thread for the departed, I wonder what our moderator thinks?

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Owen Jones]

Perhaps Matthew or others could help me with an ongoing problem I am having communicating with a scholar who is a protestant on a philosophical website. The problem of communication seems to center around the Incarnation. It seems to me that in Protestantism there is a kind of over-arching particularity and personalism within which the Incarnation is understood. Whereas in Orthodoxy, (and I believe philosophically) our understanding of the Incarnation carries with it a theology that says that the Incarnation is accessible to any human being who is spiritually open to creation, that Christ is visible in all created things if only we were more spiritually attuned. Perhaps I am stating it too clumsily, but it seems to me that the desert fathers in particular state that we come to God by meditating on the things He has made. That Christ is present in all things. Whereas my protestant friend argues that the Incarnation is so radical and so foreign to human concepts, that it can only be approached in a pre-rational state of mind, through a kind of Kierkegaardian leap of faith. He interprets anything smacking of a theological understanding of the Incarnation as false on the face of it. That is, I would argue that without theology there is no Incarnation, and he seems to be arguing that the Incarnation is totally non-theological -- it is only a personal/historical event. Anything smacking of a kind of supra-historical mysticism he rejects out of hand.

Help with sources? Comments?

[Nina]

Yes Andreas, Fr.Zacharias (I do not know him, but please kiss his hand on my behalf) is right. Who am I to pray for those souls? I should cleanse my own sins first through prayer. And that can take a lifetime. I felt pain though... when I read about hell and how souls suffered there. Maybe that was amplified because I was by the bedside of my mom who was suffering so much from cancer on earth. It made me wonder how much more the suffering in hell can be. Thank you Andreas for bringing this to my attention and for the advise, since I never questioned it!
Oh... I just thought of something. When we pray for the souls of departed people then (not memorial services since those have the divine authority of the priest, but personal prayers) how can we know if they are in Heaven or hell? Should I stop praying personally and light candles for my great grandparents etc? Please Andreas, or anyone who might know something about this, let me know (my spiritual father is in Africa for missions at the moment).
Thank you!

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Nina,

Good question! I'll try to ask Fr Z. or someone this weekend, though getting to talk with anyone at Essex isn't easy. If my wife talks to someone at the Lavra, I'll ask her to ask.

Andreas.

[Nina]

Thank you so much! Sorry you have to ask this for me! And for all the trouble you are going through for me may I send you a digital picture from the place where the relics of St. Andrea are (your patron saint I guess)? Not the one from Patra, Greece. I think that you and your wife will enjoy it. :)

[Father David Moser]

Perhaps the instruction of the Elder Ioasaph (Joseph) of Optina on prayer for the non-Orthodox departed can help. I will transcribe only some very brief excerpts from a long essay printed as a part of the book The Elder Joseph of Optina translated from the Russian by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, Massacusetts, 1984 pp 277-295


However in speaking of the strictness of our Orthodox Church concerning the commemoration of Christains who believe incorrectly, we do not mean to say that our Holy Church commands us, her children, not to pray for them in any way at all. She only prohibits us to pray in a self willed fashion, that is praying as we wish and in whatever manner might come into our heads. Our Mother the Orthodox Church teaches us that everything we do, even prayer itself should be done "properly and according to order" (1Cor 14:40) ... We pray exactly as our Lord Jesus Christ taught His Apostles to pray in the prayer He taught them, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven!" This all embracing petition gathers within itself all our needs and the needs of all our brothers, even though they be non-Orthodox. In it we entreat the All-good Lord even for the souls of the departed non-Orthodox Christians, that He may accomplsih with them that which is pleasing to His holy will. For the Lord knows immeasurably better than we to whom to show mercy and what mercy to show. And thus, Orthodox Christian, whoever you may be, layman or priest of God, if during some church service there comes upon you the zeal to pray for some Carl or Edward (recall that at this time St King Edward was unknown in Russia, Fr David) who is close to you, then during the Lord's Prayer, sigh to the Lord on his behalf and say, "May Thy holy will be done in him, O Lord!" and limit yourself to this prayer. ... this prayer of yours made in such a way will be more profitable to your soul than all your self-willed commemoration in church.

...

... we may ... allow that it is possible for Orthodox Christians to pray for non-Orthodox Christians both living and dead, in their private prayers at home. But together with this we call to mind again and again that we ought not to pray in a self-willed manner, not as we wish and as it comes into our head (lest instead of the good pleasure of God, we draw ujpon ourselves His wrath), but according to the direction of person experienced in the spiritual life.
...
The private prayer here set for, for use at home or in one's cell, and taught to his disciple by the Elder Leonid, who was experienced in the spiritual life, is able to serve for an Orthodox Christian as an example or model of prayer for some non-Orthodox person who is close to him. One can pray in the following manner for example, "Have mercy, O Lord, if it is possible, on the soul of the servant (N.) departed to eternal life in separation from Thy Holy Orthodox Church! Unsearchable are Thy judgments. Account not this my prayer as sin. But may Thy holy will be done!"

We do not know, and it has not been revealed to anyone, how much profit such a prayer brings the soul of the deceased non-Orthodox Crhistian. But experience has shown that it tempers the burning sorrow of the heart felt by the one praying for the soul of the person close to him, even though he died outside of Orthodoxy.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Fr Davi,

Thank you for that - it was very useful.

Dear Nina - thank you - that would be lovely.

Andreas.

[Nina]

Fr. David,
Your Blessings.

Thank you so much! This really helps me and I would look for the book "The Elder Joseph of Optina". I appreciate very much all you did Father!

[Andreas Moran]

As it happens, my wife spoke an hour ago with one of the more senior Fathers at the Holy Trinity St Sergius Lavra. She asked about this point. He said, we cannot pray for those who committed suicide. As to other departed, particularly relatives, then , whether they were Orthodox or not, we have a duty (his word) to pray for them. We cannot know what was in the mind of these departed the moment they died, so we err on the side of love. Only if we know they were raging atheists may we not.

I like that phrase: 'err on the side of love'!

[John Charmley]

I am struck by a comment of Origen's (Contra Celsus 7.42) when dealing with the argument that the pagan philosophers had also had a glimpse of the true God:

If God really had been found by Plato or one of the Greeks, they would not have venerated something else and called it God and worshipped it, abandoning the True God or associating things with him that are incompatible with God's majesty

There is an implication here that knowledge of the True God is expressed through worship, and a mere intellectual knowledge which does not result in a change in worship, is not really a knowledge of God.

As always with Origen, I hesitate over how to read some of this, and would be interested in the views of others.



In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I am struck by a comment of Origen's (Contra Celsus 7.42) when dealing with the argument that the pagan philosophers had also had a glimpse of the true God:


There is an implication here that knowledge of the True God is expressed through worship, and a mere intellectual knowledge which does not result in a change in worship, is not really a knowledge of God.

As always with Origen, I hesitate over how to read some of this, and would be interested in the views of others.



In Christ,

John


Likely something wider than worship is meant by Origen. Bit it's true that from his time and even to that of the Holy Apostles knowledge of God was seen as arising from something far beyond what was known by the philosophers.

I do not think they would have seen this however in quite the intellectual vs faith categories that we at times do today. Rather for the Early Church the preeminent fact was Christ's Incarnation. Through the Incarnation man is enabled to have direct and personal knowledge of God. But of course this must take place within the Church as the living Body of the Incarnate Christ. In this sense knowledge is seen ecclesiologically.

In more recent times the question of the relationship between intellectual knowledge and life within the Church has come to the fore. In a way this is natural since the idea of self-sufficient intellectual human knowledge has played such a role in shaping our culture in the past few centuries.

In connection with this Church writers such as Met Hierotheos Vlachos especially emphasize the unique kind of knowledge (not only of God- the nature of knowledge itself begins to change) found within the Church. Met Hierotheos has written a whole book on St Gregory Palamas coming at the hesychast disputes mostly from this angle.

Church Frs such as St Maximus the Confessor also describe the Church as that reality in Christ within which we aquire a kind of resurrected knowledge of God and the entire cosmos. For St Maximos, resurrected being & knowledge are part and parcel of the same redeemed life in Christ. While knowledge would never be something grasped at for itself, it is the natural fruit of the life in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theophrastus]

Perhaps Matthew or others could help me with an ongoing problem I am having communicating with a scholar who is a protestant on a philosophical website. The problem of communication seems to center around the Incarnation. It seems to me that in Protestantism there is a kind of over-arching particularity and personalism within which the Incarnation is understood. Whereas in Orthodoxy, (and I believe philosophically) our understanding of the Incarnation carries with it a theology that says that the Incarnation is accessible to any human being who is spiritually open to creation, that Christ is visible in all created things if only we were more spiritually attuned. Perhaps I am stating it too clumsily, but it seems to me that the desert fathers in particular state that we come to God by meditating on the things He has made. That Christ is present in all things. Whereas my protestant friend argues that the Incarnation is so radical and so foreign to human concepts, that it can only be approached in a pre-rational state of mind, through a kind of Kierkegaardian leap of faith. He interprets anything smacking of a theological understanding of the Incarnation as false on the face of it. That is, I would argue that without theology there is no Incarnation, and he seems to be arguing that the Incarnation is totally non-theological -- it is only a personal/historical event. Anything smacking of a kind of supra-historical mysticism he rejects out of hand.

Help with sources? Comments?

Many Protestants reject the Catholic idea of 'invincible ignorance' and claim that one must consciously accept Christ before death, in order to enter into heaven. This position would be consistent with your Protestant interlocutor's argument that Christ is only found within the physical person of Jesus Christ, rather than also in the depths of Creation.

[Antonios]

Perhaps Matthew or others could help me with an ongoing problem I am having communicating with a scholar who is a protestant on a philosophical website. The problem of communication seems to center around the Incarnation. It seems to me that in Protestantism there is a kind of over-arching particularity and personalism within which the Incarnation is understood. Whereas in Orthodoxy, (and I believe philosophically) our understanding of the Incarnation carries with it a theology that says that the Incarnation is accessible to any human being who is spiritually open to creation, that Christ is visible in all created things if only we were more spiritually attuned. Perhaps I am stating it too clumsily, but it seems to me that the desert fathers in particular state that we come to God by meditating on the things He has made. That Christ is present in all things. Whereas my protestant friend argues that the Incarnation is so radical and so foreign to human concepts, that it can only be approached in a pre-rational state of mind, through a kind of Kierkegaardian leap of faith. He interprets anything smacking of a theological understanding of the Incarnation as false on the face of it. That is, I would argue that without theology there is no Incarnation, and he seems to be arguing that the Incarnation is totally non-theological -- it is only a personal/historical event. Anything smacking of a kind of supra-historical mysticism he rejects out of hand.

Help with sources? Comments?

Hi Owen,

While this doesn't exactly provide answers to the debate you are in with the Protestant scholar, I found some passages which may address your statement that " the Incarnation is accessible to any human being who is spiritually open to creation, that Christ is visible in all created things if only we were more spiritually attuned".

In the Philokalia, three saints in particular write about the relationship between the Logos of God and the inner essence of created beings, namely Evagrios, St. Maximos the Confessor, and Nikitas Stithatos.




volume 1
Evagrius (On prayer)
53. We practice the virtues in order to achieve contemplation of the inner essneces of created things, and from this we pass to contemplation of the Logos who gives them their being; and He manifests Himself when we are in the state of prayer.




volume 2
St. Maximos (Two Hundred Texts on Theology and the Incarnate Dispensation of the Son of God)

(1st century)
66. The mystery of the incarnation of the Logos is the key to all the arcane symbolism and typology in the Scriptures, and in addition gives us knowledge of created things, both visible and invisible. He who apprehends the mystery of the cross and the burial apprehends the inward essences of created things; while he who is initiated into the inexpressible power of the resurrection apprehends the purpose for which God first established everything.

(2nd century)
10. The Logos of God is like a grain of mustard seed: before cultivation it looks extremely small, but when cultivated in the right way it grows so large that the highest principles of both sensible and intelligible creation come like birds to revive themselves in it. For the principles or inner essences of all things are embraced by the Logos, but the Logos is not embraced by any thing. Hence the Lord has said that he who has faith as a grain of mustard seed can move mountains by a word or command, that is, he can destroy the devil's dominion over us and remove it from its foundation.

(1st century on Various Texts)
78. The qualities of the virtues and the inner principles of created beings are both images of divine blessings, and in them God contiunally becomes man. As His body He has the qualities of the virtues, and as His souls the inner principles of spiritual knowledge. In this way He deifies those found worthy, giving them the true stamp of virtue and bestowing on them the essence of infallible knowledge.

94. Every contemplative intellect that has 'the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God', and that has cut off in itself the activity of the visisble world, has attained virtue. When it has excised from itself the image of sensible appearances it finds the truth existing in the inner essences of created beings, which is the foundation of natural contemplation. And when it has transcended the being of created things, it will receive the illumination of the divine and unoriginate Unity who is the foundation of the mystery of true theology.



volume 4
St. Gregory of Sinai
134. If your speech is full of wisdom and you meditate on understanding in your heart, you will disclose in created things the presence of the divine Logos, the substantive Wisdom of God the Father; for in created things you will perceive the outward expression of the archetypes that characterize them, and thus through your active living intelligence you will speak wisdom that derives from the divine Wisdom. And because your heart will be illuminated by the power of the transfiguring understanding on which you meditate in your spirit, you will be able through this understanding to instruct and illuminate those who listen with faith.



Nikitas Stithatos (On Spiritual Knowledge)
43. The illuminative stage pertains to those who as a result of their struggles have attained the first level of dispassion. It is characterized by the spiritual knowledge of created beings, the contemplation of the inner essences and communion in the Holy Spirit. It involves the intellect's purification by divine fire, the noetic opening of the eyes of the heart, and the birth of the Logos acoompanied by sublime intellections of spiritual knowledge. Its final goal is the elucidation of the nature of created things by the Logos of Wisdom, insight into divine and human affairs, and the revelation of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. He who has reached this point through the inner activity of the intellect rides, like another Elijah, in a chariot of fire drawn by the quaternity of the virtues; and while still living he is raised to the noetic realm and traverses the heavens, since he has risen above the lowliness of the body.

47. God is Wisdom, and by deifying through the spiritual knowledge of created beings those who live in the Logos and in Wisdom He unites them with Himself through light and makes them gods by adoption. Since God has created all things out of nothing through Wisdom, He directs and administers all that is in the world through Wisdom, and likewise in Wisdom brings about the salvation of all who turn towards Him and draw near to Him. Similarly, whoever as a result of his purity has been enabled to participate in the highest Wisdom always as an image of God acts in Wisdom, and in Wisdom carries out the divine will. Withdrawing himself from what is external and multiple, each day he rasies his intelligence anagogically through the knowledge of unutterable things to a life that is truly angelic. Having unified his own life as far as possible, he unites himself with the angelic powers that move in a unified way around God, and under their good guidance is elevated to the first Prinicipal and Cause.

[Nina]

As it happens, my wife spoke an hour ago with one of the more senior Fathers at the Holy Trinity St Sergius Lavra. She asked about this point. He said, we cannot pray for those who committed suicide. As to other departed, particularly relatives, then , whether they were Orthodox or not, we have a duty (his word) to pray for them. We cannot know what was in the mind of these departed the moment they died, so we err on the side of love. Only if we know they were raging atheists may we not.

I like that phrase: 'err on the side of love'!

Andreas, thank you so much to you and your wife! It is so wonderful of both of you to ask on my behalf!
Love the phrase "err on the side of love"! It makes me feel good - like I didn't do something wrong. I used to light a candle at church in general for people who are in hell and say "Please God help them, if You can, out of Your never ending mercy!"; and one candle in general for people who are in Paradise and say " Please my sweet Christ put them in a better place - closer to You!"

I never prayed for someone who committed suicide, or who were raging atheists in particular, since I do not know any of them.

All my departed ancestors, or relatives, for whom I pray in particular or give the names to the priest, were Orthodox Christians. As the Father at the monastery said it is our duty - and honestly this is what I felt for the departed people I was related to because many of them resisted the conversion during ottoman empire etc. (one of my great grandfathers Jorgo and his friend were killed after the service of the Annunciation while they went to get fish for their families since that was the only day during Lent they could have fish and were recognized as Christians). So it is because of the hardships they had to endure - and of course mainly because of God's mercy - that I was born in an Orthodox family. Therefore for as long as I live I will be indebted in prayer to my forefathers.

Thank you again so much Andreas and wife because now I am at peace! :)

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Nina,

Your message reminds us that while we pray for our departed ones, they pray for us (I am sure). As Our Lord showed us, love is stronger than death.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Botolph]

I don't see how Hitler could be in heaven since he committed suicide. It is said, however, that Stalin made his confession four times before he died. This comes from the daughter of the priest who had the unenviable task of hearing him confess ('I see, Comrade General Secretary - er, how million was that?'). Would we be offended to find Stalin in heaven?

From a legalistic perspective you are perhaps perhaps correct; I believe that legalism is a Roman rather than Orthodox tendency.

One of my oldest friends hanged himself, the sons of two colleagues have plunged from the tops of buildings, a friend of my son (and son of my patient) drove off the side of a mountain.
Suicide is the most cruel and yet most desperate of sins and the most destructive to those left behind; to burst into the presence of God uninvited and with despair/hatred in ones heart fills me with dread.

This does not stop me for praying for their souls, as I believe our Lord would expect. I know not what was in their hearts or what precipitated their actions.

I reiterate that "for God all things are possible" and that he wishes not one soul to reside in hell.

One of my roles is as a palliative medicine physician (the other is oncologist). It breaks my heart when a dying person tells me he has no belief; it does not stop me from praying from his soul - these are most often sensitive and good human beings by any human judgement. Many have been betrayed by what they conceive as "the Church".

All is possible for God. Christ is risen, for good reason. As a humble sinner, is it for me to judge whom God might spare, even everyone - the parable of the vineyard comes to mind.

I might add that I know of Hindus, Buddhists and even Moslems whose love of others puts Christians to shame - salvation is through Christ alone, how He does it may not always be revealed.

To trust in his love and goodness and mercy is the best policy.

I mean no offense, just a humble opinion from a layman.

Botophus

[Kosta]

Suicide is a dreadful sin. But we do not know the state of mind of an individual who commits suicide. Many have mental illness others suffer depression. Others may be so deranged that they believe they are doing society a favor.

The Love of God takes all into consideration, after all isnt suicide seen as a lesser evil in Matt 18.6, "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and drowned in the depth of the sea."

Sin is a seperation from God. The more you sin ,the greater the seperation.

Except for the final gehenna fire of the second coming reserved for the purely evil, i do not believe in a hell, Only degrees of seperation from the Divine Light. With the most wicked being so distant from that pure Light that they are in outerdarkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth as the gospel says.

As the book of the Macabees teaches us to pray for those sinners that have departed, because there is a ressurection and a final judgment, we are judged upon death but will be judged again by Christ our God a second time. If your fate is sealed airtight immediately upon death why have a Final Judgement?

One who prays for a departed sinner does not only help the deceased, but himself as well. It reminds us of our fate and to live a better life and tIme for repentance is in the present for we know not when we'll die. Thus the remembrance of a departed sinner is helping us live a better christian life, and this profits both our souls and will not go un-noticed by our Lord.

[John Charmley]

Dear Kosta,

What a wonderful and powerful expression of the Christian spirit; thank you for this.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

I was , of course, thinking of this only in relation to Hitler, not to suicides generally. It's hard to see how you could cause WWII, make murder a state industry, then kill yourself because your plans didn't work out, and still expect to avoid hell. Imagine further Goebbels and his wife who murdered their children and then committed suicide because they could not live in a world without Nazism.

I was moved (as you would expect having worked in a large law firm) by the news item on Wednesday that a young lawyer at a very large City firm (Freshfields) had killed himself by jumping 80ft from a gallery in Tate Modern because of stress. We may hope that God is merciful to such a one, though, as I mentioned somewhere before, we need a blessing to pray for a specific person who committed suicide. Perhaps the Church needs to take what may appear to be a firm stance so that potential suicides don't think, 'well I'll be alright anyway because God is merciful'.

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas,

No one who has read your generous posts could have been in any doubt as to your meaning, and you are, of course, right, this is such a very difficult area.

Literally, thank God that He makes the final judgements, for this is beyond anything we can really pronounce upon. We all stand in need of His Grace, and we will all approach the judgement seat in fear and trembling, not least

your brother in Christ,

John

[Nina]

Yes Andreas and John!

And to support this point further (concerning suicides), I am including a passage from the letters of Elder Joseph (I am in love with his letters and I am so grateful that God made me came across this very precious book):


Monastic Wisdom: The Letters of Elder Joseph the Hesychast

"As for your questions, the son whose mother asked you cannot be commemorated by the Church because he committed suicide. If she wants, she can only give to charity for him. The Lord is great and the depth of His charity is infinite. If she wants, she should send alms especially to the ascetics, who pray day and night and whose prayers the Lord hears. As you mentioned, she knows many monks. She should give them alms to distribute amongst themselves, or to nuns. Nothing else can be done for him." (pp. 210-211)

[Sunny]

Dear Nina and all,
Concerning almsgiving, when you give alms, do you tell the monastics that it is in memory of a particular someone (like a non-Orthodox), or do you keep that between you and the Lord?
Thank you,
Sunny

[Nina]

Dear Nina and all,
Concerning almsgiving, when you give alms, do you tell the monastics that it is in memory of a particular someone (like a non-Orthodox), or do you keep that between you and the Lord?
Thank you,
Sunny

Dear Sunny,

Kali Sarakosti! = Good Lent!

I do not know the answer to your question, however I suspect that you have to tell, since the monastics need to know the name and maybe the story of the person they will pray about.

Maybe someone else here might have a helpful answer for you.