Esau atoning for sins

Something interesting I found in rabbinical literature, that likely Islam borrowed from rabbis. It suggests substitutionary atonement. This passage from midrash says Esau will take on the sins of Israel! The logic is a bit absurd but this is not uncommon, you see similar used to support the righteous dead atoning for sin. Interesting how rabbis speak of the righteous atoning for others sins by their death, and here you see the wicked making atonement for the sins of the more righteous! Yet they some how find the atonement of Christ as wicked, impossible, and unjust!

 First Breshit Rabbah aka Genesis Rabbah, a commentary on the book of Genesis:

וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל רִבְקָה אִמּוֹ הֵן עֵשָׂו אָחִי אִישׁ שָׂעִר (בראשית כז, יא), גְּבַר שֵׁדִין, כְּמָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (ישעיה יג, כא): וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ שָׁם, (בראשית כז, יא): וְאָנֹכִי אִישׁ חָלָק, כְּמָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (דברים לב, ט): כִּי חֵלֶק ה' עַמּוֹ. רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר מָשָׁל לְקַוָּץ וְקֵרֵחַ, שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹמְדִין עַל שְׂפַת הַגֹּרֶן, וְעָלָה הַמּוֹץ בַּקַּוָּץ וְנִסְתַּבֵּךְ בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, עָלָה הַמּוֹץ בַּקֵּרֵחַ וְנָתַן יָדוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְהֶעֱבִירוֹ. כָּךְ עֵשָׂו הָרָשָׁע מִתְלַכְלֵךְ בַּעֲוֹנוֹת כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה וְאֵין לוֹ בַּמֶּה יְכַפֵּר, אֲבָל יַעֲקֹב מִתְלַכְלֵךְ בַּעֲווֹנוֹת כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה וּבָא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְיֶשׁ לוֹ בַּמֶּה יְכַפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טז, ל): כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר לֹא שָׁאוּל הוּא לָהּ וְלֹא שְׁאוּלָה הִיא לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא (ויקרא טז, כב): וְנָשָׂא הַשָּׂעִיר עָלָיו, זֶה עֵשָׂו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: הֵן עֵשָׂו אָחִי אִישׁ שָׂעִר. (ויקרא טז, כב): אֶת כָּל עֲוֹנֹתָם, עֲוֹנוֹת תַּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כה, כז): וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם. (בראשית כז, יב): אוּלַי יְמֻשֵּׁנִי אָבִי וְהָיִיתִי בְעֵינָיו כִּמְתַעְתֵּעַ, כְּמֵת וּכְתוֹעֶה וּכְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. (בראשית כז, יב): וְהֵבֵאתִי עָלַי קְלָלָה וגו', אֲפִלּוּ בְּרָכָה אַחַת שֶׁהוּא עָתִיד לִתֵּן בַּסוֹף אֵינוֹ נוֹתְנָהּ לִי. (בראשית כז, יג): וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִמּוֹ עָלַי קִלְלָתְךָ בְּנִי, רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר אָדָם שֶׁחָטָא לֹא אִמּוֹ נִתְקַלְּלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ג, יז): אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ, אַף אַתָּה עָלַי קִלְלָתְךָ בְּנִי. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק עָלַי לִכָּנֵס וְלוֹמַר לְאָבִיךָ יַעֲקֹב צַדִּיק וְעֵשָׂו רָשָׁע. (בראשית כז, יד): וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיִּקַּח וַיָּבֵא לְאִמּוֹ, אָנוּס וְכָפוּף וּבוֹכֶה.  --Breshit Rabbah 65

Translation:

And Jacob said to Rebecca his mother, "Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man" (Genesis 27:11), a man of demons, as it is said (Isaiah 13:21), "And goats (se’irim) shall dance there." "And I am a smooth man" (Genesis 27:11), as it is said (Deuteronomy 32:9), "For the Lord’s portion is His people." Rabbi Levi said: This is like a hairy man and a bald man standing at the edge of the threshing floor. The chaff rises and gets entangled in the hairy man’s hair, but when it rises to the bald man, he passes his hand over his head and removes it. So too, the wicked Esau becomes defiled with sins all the days of the year and has no means of atonement. But Jacob becomes defiled with sins all the days of the year, and when Yom Kippur comes, he has a means of atonement, as it is written (Leviticus 16:30), "For on this day atonement shall be made for you." Rabbi Yitzchak said: It is not borrowed by him nor lent to him; rather, "The goat shall bear upon it" (Leviticus 16:22)—this is Esau, as it is said, "Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man." "All their iniquities" refers to the iniquities of the innocent (tam), as it is said (Genesis 25:27), "And Jacob was an innocent man." "Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver" (Genesis 27:12), like a dead man, a wanderer, or an idol-worshipper. "And I shall bring a curse upon myself" (Genesis 27:12)—even a single blessing that he is destined to give in the end, he will not give to me. And his mother said to him, "Upon me be your curse, my son" (Genesis 27:13). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: When a man sins, it is not his mother who is cursed, as it is said (Genesis 3:17), "Cursed is the ground because of you." So too, "Upon me be your curse, my son." Rabbi Yitzchak said: Upon me to go in and tell your father that Jacob is righteous and Esau is wicked. "And he went, and took, and brought to his mother" (Genesis 27:14)—compelled, bent over, and weeping.--Genesis Rabbah 65:15 (see Hebrew link for a professional translation)

On this passage the following comments are provided by Talmudist Etz Yosef aka Enoch Zundel ben Joseph:

לא שאיל כו'. פרש"י לא המשל הזה שאול לדבר הזה. ולא הדבר הזה שאול הוא למשל. שלפי שהרבה משלים הם שאינם אלא זכר לדבר. ולא עיקר הדבר. לכן קאמר ר"י שמשל זה אינו כשאר משלים שהם רק בשאלה לזכר בעלמא ולא לעיקר. אלא משל זה הוא לעיקר הדבר שהרי מצינו מפורש במעשה יוהכ"פ מענינו של דבר דכתיב ונשא השעיר עליו ואין שעיר אלא עשו ואין תם אלא יעקב: 

AI translation:

"Not borrowed, etc." Rashi explains: This parable is not borrowed for this matter, nor is this matter borrowed for the parable. For many parables are merely a reminder of the matter and not its essence. Therefore, Rabbi Yitzchak says that this parable is not like other parables, which are only borrowed as a mere reminder and not for the essence. Rather, this parable is for the essence of the matter, for we find it explicitly in the act of Yom Kippur regarding the essence of the matter, as it is written, "The goat shall bear upon it" (Leviticus 16:22), and "goat" refers only to Esau, and "innocent" (tam) refers only to Jacob.

Commenting further on this is Yalkut which is commonly cited in rabbinical commentaries quote the Midrash too:

– נוֹטֵל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כָּל עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנוֹתְנָן עַל עֵשָׂו הָרָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "וְנָשָׂא הַשָּׂעִיר עָלָיו" – וְאֵין שָׂעִיר אֶלָּא עֵשָׂו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "הֵן עֵשָׂו אָחִי אִישׁ שָׂעִר". "אֶת כָּל עֲוֹנֹתָם" – אָמַר עֵשָׂו: כַּמָּה כֹּחַ יֵשׁ לִי שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן עָלַי כָּל עֲוֹנוֹת יַעֲקֹב אָחִי. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נוֹטֵל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲוֹנוֹתָם וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל בְּגָדָיו וְנַעֲשׂוּ אֲדֻמִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "מַדּוּעַ אָדֹם לִלְבוּשֶׁךָ", יָשַׁב וּמְכַבְּסָן עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ לְבָנִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "לְבוּשֵׁהּ כִּתְלַג חִוָּר". "אֶל אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה" – (כָּתוּב בְּרֶמֶז קט"ו). 

AI translation:

“And the goat shall bear upon itself”—the Holy One, blessed be He, takes all the iniquities of Israel and places them upon Esau the wicked, as it is said: “And the goat shall bear upon itself”—and the goat is none other than Esau, as it is said: “Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man” (Genesis 27:11). “All their iniquities”—Esau said: How much strength do I have that You place all the iniquities of my brother Jacob upon me? At that moment, the Holy One, blessed be He, takes their iniquities and places them on his garments, and they become red, as it is said: “Why is Your apparel red?” (Isaiah 63:2). He sat and washed them until they became white, as it is said: “His garment was as white as snow” (Daniel 7:9). “To a barren land”—(written in Remez 115).--Yalkut, Remez 576

 Commentary Tirefet Yisrael states:

וכאשר אתה תבין עוד אלו שני המועדים, הנה הם שניהם שוים. וזה כי ביום הכפורים מקריבים שני שעירים (ויקרא טז, ה). ובמדרש (ב"ר סה, יד) "וקח לי משם שני גדיי עזים טובים" (בראשית כז, ט), טובים לך, טובים לבניך; טובים לך, שעל ידיהם אתה נוטל הברכות. וטובים לבניך, שעל ידם מתכפר להם, דכתיב (ויקרא טז, ל) "כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם", עד כאן. ועוד במדרש, "ונשא השעיר עליו את כל עונותם" (ויקרא טז, כב), היה נוטל הקב"ה עונות ישראל, ונותן אותם על עשו, שנאמר (שם) "ונשא השעיר עליו את כל עונותם", ואין "שעיר" אלא עשו, שנאמר (בראשית כז, יא) "הן עשו אחי איש שעיר", עד כאן. הרי מדרגת יום כפורים שהוא יתברך היה נותן עונש של יעקב על עשו. וכן היא מדרגת פורים; מה שהיה רוצה המן, שהוא מזרע עשו, לעשות למרדכי, שהוא מזרע יעקב, שהיה חפץ לאבדו, נטל הקב"ה ונתן על זרע עשו, הוא המן, ונאבד. ודברים אלו הם דברים גדולים ומופלגים, ואין כאן מקומם, כי פירשנו דבר זה במקומו.

כלל הדבר, מה שהיו ישראל מנצחים כח עשו, הוא מדרגה עליונה מעולם העליון. וכן ביום הכפורים נצוח סמאל, הוא* כח עשו, כמו שמבואר מדברי חכמים הוא למעלה מן עולם הזה. ולפיכך אמרו כי פורים ויום הכפורים לא יעברו ולא יהיו בטלים, כי אלו שנים הם בטול כח עשו שבא לעולם, כמו שהתבאר. ומאחר כי מדרגתם מעולם העליון, אין בטול להם אף לזמן התחיה, שיתבטלו עניני עולם הזה. ואין זה נחשב בטול התורה, כמו שהתבאר למעלה (ס"פ נב), כי עולם התחיה הוא סדר אחר, והשם יתברך סדר העולם לפי מה שראוי לעולם. אבל שתהיה התורה בטלה מכל וכל, דבר זה אינו, מן הטעם אשר התבאר לפני זה (שם), כי התורה כולא בה, כמו שאמרו (אבות פ"ה מכ"ב) 'הפוך בה דכולא בה', אף סדר התחיה. ולכך השגת התורה היא לעולם ולעולמי עולמים.

AI translation:

And when you further understand these two festivals, behold they are both equal. And this is because on Yom Kippur they offer two goats (Leviticus 16:5). And in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 65:14) on the verse, “And fetch me from there two good kids of the goats” (Genesis 27:9)—“good for you, good for your children; good for you, for through them you receive the blessings. And good for your children, for through them atonement is made for them, as it is written (Leviticus 16:30), ‘For on this day shall atonement be made for you’”—end quote. And further in the Midrash, “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities” (Leviticus 16:22). The Holy One, blessed be He, would take the iniquities of Israel and place them upon Esau, as it is stated (ibid.), “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.” And “goat” [se'ir] refers only to Esau, as it is stated (Genesis 27:11), “Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man [ish sa'ir]”—end quote. Behold, the level of Yom Kippur is that He, may He be blessed, would place the punishment of Jacob upon Esau.  And so it is the level of Purim; that which Haman, who was from the seed of Esau, wanted to do to Mordecai, who was from the seed of Jacob—for he desired to destroy him—the Holy One, blessed be He, took and placed upon the seed of Esau, that is Haman, and he was destroyed. And these matters are great and profound, and this is not their place, for we have explained this matter in its proper place.  The general principle is: that by which Israel triumphs over the power of Esau is a supernal level from the upper world. And so too on Yom Kippur, the triumph over Samael, who is the power of Esau, is, as is clarified from the words of the sages, above this world. And therefore they said that Purim and Yom Kippur will not pass away nor be nullified, for these two [festivals] are the nullification of the power of Esau that came into the world, as has been explained. And since their level is from the upper world, they have no nullification, even in the time of the Resurrection, when the matters of this world will be nullified. And this is not considered a nullification of the Torah, as was explained above (see end of chapter 52), for the world of the Resurrection is a different order, and God, may He be blessed, ordered the world according to what is fitting for the world. But that the Torah should be nullified completely—this matter is not so, for the reason that was explained before this (there), for the Torah encompasses everything, as they said (Avot 5:22), “Turn it over and over for everything is in it”—even the order of the Resurrection. And therefore the attainment of the Torah is forever and for all eternity. --Tiferet Yisrael 53:4-5

 This is part of a broader discussion on what parts of the Torah will be perpetual and what might be nullified.

Another appearance is in Drashot Maharal, Drush L'Shabbat HaGadol by Judah Loew of Prague (Maharal):

ובמדרש (ילקו"ש ב', תק"ו) ונשא השעיר עליו את כל עונותם אל ארץ גזרה נוטל הקב"ה עונותיהם של ישראל ונותנן על עשו הרשע שנאמר ונשא השעיר עליו ואין שעיר אלא עשו שנאמר הן עשו אחי איש שעיר את כל עונותם אמר עשו מה כח יש לי שאתה נותן לי עונות יעקב אחי באותה שעה נוטל הקב"ה את כל עונותם ונותנם על בגדיו ונעשים אדומים שנאמר מדוע אדום ללבושך יושב ומכבסן עד שנעשים לבנים שנאמר לבושיה כתלג חיור. ויש לדקדק למה נותן את כל עונותם על עשו ולמה נותנן על לבושו. אבל יראה כי הם הם הדברים אשר אמרנו למעלה, כי חטא ישראל הוא מצד יצה"ר אשר מתגרה בישראל ועשו וזרעו הן הן יצה"ר של ישראל, ובבטול האומה הזאת מן העולם אז יתבטל יצה"ר מישראל. ורמז זה הכתוב הן עשו אחי איש שעי"ר במספרו היצר הרע, ואין ספק כי יעקב ועשו הם נגד יצר טוב ויצה"ר כאשר ידוע למבינים, ולכך אמר שנתן חטא יעקב על עשו. שכבר אמרנו כי יעקב הוא טהור וקדוש מצד עצמו רק שהחטאים הם באים מבחוץ על יעקב מצד היצה"ר, ולכך נותן החטאים על עשו אחיו. ואומר עשו מה כח יש לי כו', ר"ל כי אין דבר גירוי בישראל הזה מכח עשו רק כי כך גזר הקב"ה. ואמר שנותנן על לבושיו, כי המדות שהוא יתעלה מתלבש בהן נקרא מלבוש שלו, ולכך נותן חטא ישראל על מלבושיו, ואומר שיושב הקב"ה ומכבס לבושו, כי הוא יתעלה מקוה טהור ----ומטהר ומסלק החטא עמו שאמרנו:

AI translation:

In the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Part 2, 506), regarding "The goat shall bear upon it all their iniquities to a remote land" (Leviticus 16:22), the Holy One, blessed be He, takes the sins of Israel and places them upon the wicked Esau, as it is written, "The goat shall bear upon it," and "goat" refers only to Esau, as it is said, "Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man" (Genesis 27:11). "All their iniquities"—Esau says, "What power do I have that you give me the sins of my brother Jacob?" At that moment, the Holy One, blessed be He, takes all their iniquities and places them upon his garments, and they become red, as it is said, "Why is your apparel red?" (Isaiah 63:2). He sits and washes them until they become white, as it is said, "His garments are white as snow" (cf. Daniel 7:9). 

It is worth examining why He places all their iniquities upon Esau and why upon his garments. It seems that this aligns with what we said earlier: the sin of Israel comes from the evil inclination (yetzer hara) that incites Israel, and Esau and his descendants are themselves the evil inclination of Israel. With the nullification of this nation from the world, the evil inclination will be nullified from Israel. This is hinted at in the verse, "Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man (ish sa’ir)," where "sa’ir" numerically equals "yetzer hara" (evil inclination). There is no doubt that Jacob and Esau correspond to the good inclination (yetzer tov) and the evil inclination (yetzer hara), as is known to those who understand. Therefore, it is said that the sin of Jacob is placed upon Esau. As we have already stated, Jacob is pure and holy by his nature, and sins come to him externally through the evil inclination. Thus, the sins are placed upon his brother Esau. Esau says, "What power do I have?"—meaning that there is no incitement in Israel from Esau’s power, but rather it is so decreed by the Holy One, blessed be He. It says that He places them upon his garments, for the attributes through which He, may He be exalted, manifests are called His garments. Therefore, the sins of Israel are placed upon His garments, and it says that the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and washes His garments, for He is the pure mikveh (ritual bath) that purifies and removes the sin, as we have said.--Drashot Maharal, Drush L'Shabbat HaGadol: Drush Al Hamitzvot 48

Jewish commentator RaMBaN (not to be confused with RaMBaM) says:

Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Said Rav Shmuel: ‘Although it is [only] with reference to the goat of the sin-offering that it is written [explicitly] that it was for the Eternal, the goat which was sent away [to Azazel] was also for the Eternal.’ But there is no need for this [comment]. For the goat which was sent away was not an “offering’ since it was not slaughtered. Now if you can understand the secret of the word after ‘Azazel,’ you will know its secret [that of Azazel] and the secret of its name, since it has companions in Scripture. And I will reveal to you part of the secret by hint: when you will be at thirty-three you will know it.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra]. Now of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra it may be said that he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter, and I will not be the talebearer who revealeth his secret, since our Rabbis of blessed memory have already revealed it in many places. Thus they have said in Bereshith Rabbah: “And the ‘sa’ir’ shall carry upon him, this is a reference to Esau, as it is said, Behold, Esau my brother is a man who is ‘sa’ir’ (hairy). All ‘avonotham’ (their iniquities), [read]: ‘avonoth tam’ (the sins of him who has been called tam, ‘a man of integrity’), as it is said, and Jacob was a man ‘tam’ (‘of integrity’).” It is explained more clearly in the Chapters of the great Rabbi Eliezer: “The reason why they would give Sammael [i.e., Satan] a conciliatory gift on the Day of Atonement, was so that he should not annul [the effect of] their offerings, as it is said, one lot for the Eternal, and the other lot for Azazel, the lot of the Holy One, blessed by He, to be a burnt-offering, and the lot of Azazel to be ‘the goat of sin,’ bearing upon it all the iniquities of Israel, as it is said, And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities--Ramban on Leviticus 16:8:1

Here RaMBaN tells you all you need to know even the history of keeping this secret.

Still another:

When you consider all that we have written and quoted on this subject you will be convinced that there most certainly cannot be a question of the scapegoat being an offering, a sacrifice to a Satanic force called Azzazel. All strife, war, etc., in the world have their origin in that domain where Satan-Se'ir, the other name for Esau and the negative character traits he symbolizes, reign supreme. This is the force which welcomes this scapegoat laden with sin. All goats, both male and female, are part of his domain. The nearest “relative” of this Satan-Samael-Azzazel is Esau and the nation descended from it. Esau already bore the name שעיר, a hairy man, as the antithesis of Yaakov the “smooth” man. The land in which he settled was named after him, and when pagans used to offer sacrifices to the שעירים, the he-goats, representing brute physical force and obstinacy, this was their way of paying homage to the ideals represented by Esau.--Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 16:7:7

 Another:

According to the Mishna, a red thread was tied to the scapegoat, and “red” (Edom) was Esau’s other name. So there was a tradition that the scapegoat in some way symbolised Esau. Azazel, the mysterious place or entity for which the goat was intended, was Samael, Esau’s guardian angel.--Covenant and Conversation; Leviticus; The Book of Holiness, Achrei Mot, Thinking Fast and Slow 5

Another medieval rabbi vague alludes: 

ויאמר יעקב אל רבקה אמו הן עשו אחי איש שעיר ואנכי איש חלק. בראשית רבה איש שעיר. כמה דאת אמר ושעירים ירקדו שם (ישעיה יג כא). ואנכי איש חלק כמה דאת אמר כי חלק יי' עמו. וממה שרמזנו למעלה בענין יעקב ועשו תבין זה. וסוד גדיי העזים והמטעמים נרמוז בענין יום הכפורים בגזירת האל. ויונתן תרגם ויבא לו יין וישת ואזדמן ליה מלאכא דיי' ואייתי מן חמרא דאצנע בעינבוי מן יומי שירוי עלמא ויהביה ביד יעקב ויעקב אמטי ליה לאבוי לאכול ושתי:

AI translation: 

And Jacob said to Rebecca his mother, "Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man" (Genesis 27:11). In Bereshit Rabbah (65:14): "A hairy man"—as it is said, "And goats (se’irim) shall dance there" (Isaiah 13:21). "And I am a smooth man"—as it is said, "For the Lord’s portion is His people" (Deuteronomy 32:9). And from what we hinted at earlier regarding the matter of Jacob and Esau, you will understand this. The secret of the kids of the goats and the delicacies will be hinted at in the matter of Yom Kippur, by the decree of God.--Recanati on the Torah

He largely told the reader Esau=goat.

Finally, a modern rabbi A.L. Scheinbaum comments,

"The Yalkut cites what seems to be a Midrash Pliah, a Midrash whose rationale eludes us...In his Tiferes Yonasan, Horav Yonasan Eibshutz, zl, wonders why Eisav has to be the receptacle for Jewish sin... When Klal Yisrael's sins are brought before the Heavenly Tribunal to be prosecuted, the angel Gavriel comes forward to defend them. "Ribono Shel Olam," he begins, "All of these transgressions are really the fault of Eisav haRasha. The Jewish people are no more than students of his evil ways. Perhaps they might be called good students, but students no less. Therefore, the sins of Your people should be placed on Eisav's head, for he is to blame."--Peninim on the Torah, Parashas Acharei Mos, p 209-210

I have not been able to find the passage as Scheinbaum describe it, perhaps he embellished it, or as a document I cannot find!

As you can see, the Rabbis have no problem with Esau bearing and taking away the sins of Israel! 

Gaudium et Spes draft implying universalism

It is sometimes stated that Vatican II taught universalism or at least implied it, which is not true, in fact, edits were made to remove this idea, and Fathers agreeing it is heresy, though there is some suspicion about some section being deliberately ambiguous on this matter. Regardless, this article intends to show how a section of Gaudium et Spes was edited to remove potentially universalist language!

An early draft of Gaudium et Spes here page 223:

Per « mundum » hic intelligimus sive coelum et terram seu universitatem rerum a Deo creatarum, sive universam familiam humanam, cuius membra, quamvis peccatores sint, a Deo tamen personaliter diliguntur, pro quibus Christus seipsum tradidit et postea resurrexit! et qui omnes una gaudent vocatione divina, licet « mundus », sub signo Maligni positus; Deo in hoc tempore adversetur, donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur? Illum uno verbo dicimus mundum, quem sic dilexit Deus ut Filium suum Unigenitum daret,) Christum nempe qui lux est mundi.

 AI translation:

By the term “world” we understand here either heaven and earth, that is, the totality of things created by God, or the entire human family, whose members, though sinners, are nevertheless personally loved by God, for whom Christ gave Himself and thereafter rose again, and who all share in one divine calling, although the “world,” placed under the sign of the Evil One, opposes God in this time, until in the end it too is saved through faith. In a single word, we mean that world which God so loved that He gave His only-begotten Son, namely Christ, who is the light of the world.

The later draft of Gaudium et Spes at Vatican II read in its preface:

 «Nomine “mundi” hic intelligimus ex un parte caelum et terram seu universitatem rerum a Deo creatarum, ex altera parte universam familiam humanam, cuius membra, quamvis peccatores sint, a Deo tamen personaliter diliguntur, pro quibus Christus seipsum tradidit et postea resurrexit et qui omnes una eademque gaudent vocatione divina; licet “mundus” quatenus sub signo Maligni positus est, Deo hoc tempore adversetur, donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur»: n. 2. AS IV/1, 436.

 AI Translated:

By the term “world,” we understand here, on the one hand, heaven and earth, that is, the totality of things created by God; on the other hand, the entire human family, whose members, though sinners, are personally loved by God, for whom Christ gave Himself and thereafter rose again, and who all share in one and the same divine calling; although the “world,” insofar as it lies under the sign of the Evil One, opposes God in this time, until in the end it too is saved through faith: n. 2. AS IV/1, 436.

 The last line quoted state, "until in the end it too is saved through faith" can easily be read as implying universalism, this was so obvious that bishops objected.

First was a bishop from Chile, Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez, S.D.B., Archbishop of Santiago de Chile (1961–1983):

Ad n. 2. Pag. 5, linn. 21-29: Proponitur alia ordinatio huius paragraphi: « (incipiendo a lin. 26) Licet “ mundus ” quatenus sub signo Maligni positus intel- ligatur (quod verbum ponitur pro “ est ”, quia hic potissimum agitur de modo intelligendi) Deo in tempore (dicitur “ in ”, quia affirmatio valet tantummodo usque ad Diem Domini) adversetur (cf. 1 Io. 5, 19; Io. 12, 31; 14, 30; 15, 18. 19; 16, 8-11; 17, 9, etc.), tamen nomine “ mundi ” hic intelligimus (reditur ad lin. 21) ex una parte caelum et terram seu universitatem rerum a Deo creatarum, ex altera parte universam familiam humanam, cuius membra, quamvis peccatores sint, a Deo tamen personaliter diliguntur, pro quibus Christus seipsum tradidit et postea resurrexit, et qui omnes una eademque gaudent vocatione divina. Illum uno verbo dicimus mundum, quem sic dilexit Deus ut Filium suum Unigenitum daret: Christum nempe, lucem mundi ». Et nota bene quod omittitur phrasis « donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur » (lin. 27) quia non videtur hanc affir- mationem fieri posse de “ mundo ” sensu peiorativo sumpto. Ratio huius muta- tionis ordinis est desiderium servandi homogeneitatem textus. Sic etenim iam ab initio proponitur, quasi in obliquo, sensus peiorativus “ mundi ”, et deinde, usque ad finem, agitur de sensu positivo. In textu officiali phrasis « licet ... adversetur ... salvetur » rumpit cursus idearum.--https://archive.org/details/ASIV.1/page/n561/mode/2up?q=%22donec+in+fine+et%22&view=theater p 566-567

AI translation: 

To n. 2. Page 5, lines 21–29: It is proposed to reorder this paragraph as follows: "Although the 'world,' insofar as it is understood as placed under the sign of the Evil One (the word 'understood' is used instead of 'is,' because here it is primarily a matter of the mode of understanding), opposes God in this time (the preposition 'in' is used, because the statement holds only until the Day of the Lord) (cf. 1 John 5:19; John 12:31; 14:30; 15:18–19; 16:8–11; 17:9, etc.), nevertheless, by the term 'world' we understand here (returning to line 21) on the one hand heaven and earth, that is, the totality of things created by God, and on the other hand the entire human family, whose members, though sinners, are nevertheless personally loved by God, for whom Christ gave Himself and thereafter rose again, and who all share in one and the same divine calling. In a single word, we mean that world which God so loved that He gave His only-begotten Son: namely Christ, the light of the world." And note well that the phrase "until in the end it too is saved through faith" (line 27) is omitted, because it does not seem possible to make this affirmation about the 'world' taken in a pejorative sense. The reason for this change in order is the desire to maintain the homogeneity of the text. For thus, from the beginning, the pejorative sense of the 'world' is presented, as it were, indirectly, and then, until the end, the positive sense is treated. In the official text, the phrase "although… opposes… is saved" disrupts the flow of ideas.

Bishop Giocondo Maria Grotti, O.S.M. (1928–1971), Prelate of Acre e Purus, Brazil, and Titular Bishop of Thunigaba said:

Lin. 27: « donec in fine et ipse (mundus) per fidem salvetur ». Ut patet ex notula 2, appellatio seu allusio fit ad Io. 3, 17-18, ubi inspirate dicitur Christum missum fuisse ut salvetur mundus per Ipsum, certe tamen quoad ea familiae humanae membra quae creditura erunt; quae vero credere renuent, condemnabuntur, ut ex notissimis aliis evangelicis locis patet. Econtra e constitutionis textu ansa interpretationi praebetur iuxta quam « totus » mundus in fine per fidem salvabitur: quod aequivaleret negationi inferni seu duarum mundi categoriarum, quas Dominus iudicabit (cf. Mt. 25, 31-46).--https://archive.org/details/ASIV.2/page/n739/mode/2up?view=theater page 744 AI Translation 

AI translation: 

Line 27: "donec in fine et ipse (mundus) per fidem salvetur" ("until in the end it [the world] is saved through faith") refers, as noted in footnote 2, to John 3:17–18, where it is divinely stated that Christ was sent so that the world might be saved through Him, certainly with respect to those members of the human family who will believe; but those who refuse to believe will be condemned, as is clear from other well-known Gospel passages. On the contrary, the text of the constitution provides an opportunity for an interpretation according to which the "entire" world will be saved through faith in the end: this would be equivalent to denying hell or the two categories of the world that the Lord will judge (cf. Matthew 25:31–46).

 Archbishop Federico Melendro y Gutiérrez, S.J., a Spanish Jesuit who served as Archbishop of Anqing, China's comments are seen below:

Ad prooemium, pag. 5, n. 2, lin. 27. Sermo est de « mundo » quatenus  significat « universam familiam humanam », de quo mundo dicitur: « donec  in fine et ipse (hic “ mundus ”) per fidem salvetur » (cf. Io. 3, 17-18). Tale  assertum est obscurum et ambiguum, ideoque corrigendum.    

a) Est obscurum, quia videtur significare « universam familiam humanam in fine tandem, per fidem, salutem obtenturam esse »; quod sapere  videtur doctrinam de sola fide causa salutis.    

b) Est ambiguum, quia posset intelligi, sensu Origenis, de salute tandem in fine ab universo genere humano obtinenda, exclusa aeternitate inferni. In textu autem citato ex Io. 3, 17-18, contrarium prorsus eruitur.  Nam in contextu 3, 19, sermo est de causa amissionis salutis: « erant enim  eorum mala opera ». Et in eodem contextu (3, 15-16) bis repetitur alios  obtenturos « vitam aeternam », alios vero « perituros », i. e., in aeternum.-- https://archive.org/details/ASIV.2/page/n787/mode/2up?view=theater page 793

English AI translation: 

To the Proemium, Page 5, Number 2, Line 27: The discussion concerns the "world" insofar as it signifies the "entire human family," about which it is said: "until in the end it (this 'world') is saved through faith" (cf. John 3:17–18). This statement is obscure and ambiguous and therefore must be corrected. 

a) It is obscure because it seems to imply that "the entire human family will ultimately, through faith, attain salvation," which appears to suggest the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. 

b) It is ambiguous because it could be understood, in the sense of Origen, as implying salvation ultimately attained by the entire human race in the end, excluding the eternity of hell. However, the cited text from John 3:17–18 yields the exact opposite. For in the context of John 3:19, the cause of the loss of salvation is mentioned: "for their works were evil." And in the same context (John 3:15–16), it is twice repeated that some will attain "eternal life," while others will "perish," that is, eternally.

Michael Cardinal Browne said: 

2. Bis in schemate ponuntur verba ex quibus intelligi posset totum genus humanum tandem aliquando ad aeternam salutem perventurum esse. Ita (par. 2, pag. 5, linn, 2-27) habetur: « ... licet “ mundus ” quatenus sub signo Maligni positus est, Deo hoc tempore adversetur, donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur». 

Item (par. 36, pag. 28, linn. 9-12) habetur: « Omnes enim ad imaginem  Dei creati sunt, et ex uno principio orti, ad unum eumdemque finem vocantur, iam nunc vitam SS. Trinitatis participantes ab Eaque vires ad communem salutem accipientes». --https://archive.org/details/ASIV.2/page/n665/mode/2up?view=theater page 670

 AI translation:

2. Twice in the Schema, words are used from which it could be understood that the entire human race will ultimately attain eternal salvation. Thus, in paragraph 2, page 5, lines 2–27, it is stated: "...although the 'world,' insofar as it lies under the sign of the Evil One, opposes God in this time, until in the end it too is saved through faith." 

Likewise, in paragraph 36, page 28, lines 9–12, it is stated: "For all are created in the image of God and, arising from one origin, are called to one and the same end, already now participating in the life of the Most Holy Trinity and receiving from It the strength for common salvation."

Luigi Maria Carli (1914–1986) was Bishop of Segni (Signinus), Italy. He was one of the more conservative voices that made the most objections at Vatican II. He always sniff hints of universalism:

Pag. 5, lin. 27. Auferantur verba « donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur », quia nullibi in S. Scriptura legitur « mundus » malignus in fine saeculorum salvatum iri. Citatio Io. 3, 17-18 respicit salvationem mundi in actu primo (non in actu secundo), iam peractam per mortem Christi. --https://archive.org/details/ASIV.2/page/n683/mode/2up ASIV.2 p 689

AI translation:

Let the words "donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur" ("until in the end it too is saved through faith") be removed, because nowhere in Sacred Scripture is it stated that the "world," under the influence of the Evil One, will be saved at the end of the ages. The citation of John 3:17–18 refers to the salvation of the world in the first act (in actu primo), already accomplished through the death of Christ, not in the second act (in actu secundo).

then another from Augustine Cardinal Bea

Initio schematis (n. 2) optime exponuntur variae acceptiones  vocis « mundus » et additur: « Licet mundus, quatenus sub signo Maligni positus est, Deo hoc tempore adversetur, donec in fine et ipse per  fidem salvetur » ... 5 . Iamvero, ni fallor, hic agitur de conceptu ... 6 mundi,  qui Novo Testamento proprius est, quique denotat creaturas liberas proprie quatenus Deo adversantur. Sic v. g. in noto textu ad Galatas, cap. 6,  14: « Mihi mundus crucifixus est et ego mundo », ille mundus certe in  fine non se convertet ; 7 vel in 1 loannis, cap. 2, 15: « Si quis diligit  mundum, non est caritas Patris in eo »; et alia huiusmodi . 8 Agi in textu  de mundo hoc sensu innuunt etiam expressiones ipsae ... 9 adhibitae, quae  desumuntur ex 1 loannis , cap. 5, 19 ... 10 . Iamvero patet, hunc talem  « mundum » ex conceptu suo 11 nunquam salvari posse praecise quia Deo  adversatur. Nec valet hic provocare ad Ioannem, cap. 3, v. 17 s. ... 12 ;  nam ibi 13 non agitur de mundo quatenus sub signo maligni est, sed quatenus significat universitatem rerum a Deo creatarum ..."-- https://archive.org/details/ASIV.1/page/n571/mode/2up page 577

At the beginning of the schema (n. 2), the various meanings of the word "world" are excellently set forth, and it is added: "Although the world, insofar as it is placed under the sign of the Evil One, opposes God in this time, until in the end it too is saved through faith" ... Now, unless I am mistaken, here the discussion concerns the concept of the world proper to the New Testament, which denotes free creatures precisely insofar as they oppose God. For example, in the well-known text of Galatians, chapter 6, verse 14: "The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world," that world certainly will not be converted in the end; or in 1 John, chapter 2, verse 15: "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him"; and other similar passages. The expressions used in the text, which are drawn from 1 John, chapter 5, verse 19, also suggest that the discussion is about the world in this sense. Now, it is clear that such a "world," by its very concept, can never be saved precisely because it opposes God. Nor is it valid here to appeal to John, chapter 3, verses 17 and following; for there the discussion is not about the world insofar as it is under the sign of the Evil One, but insofar as it signifies the totality of things created by God ... 

During the actual editing it was stated:

« Populi Dei » scribatur « Regni Dei » vel « Corporis Christi » (5288). 

(C) Multis displicet incisum de « mundo ». Aliqui Patres integras novas formulas proponunt quibus conantur in uno textu comprehendere terminologiam biblicam (5288, 5489, 5583, 5551, 5414); nulla tamen plene satisfacit. Complures postulant ut omittantur verba « donec in fine ... salvetur » (5834, 5292, 5551, 5486, 5639, 5424, 5488); aliquibus dicta videntur esse incompleta (5606, 5747). 

Explicationem desiderant regni « Maligni » (5488); non placet formula « quamvis peccatores sint » (5292); nec « hoc tempore » (5488); nec defectus visionis historiae (5292); desideratur additio eschatologica (5292), allusio ad Mysterium Verbi incarnati, Christi crucifixi et resurgentis (5287). 

Hac de causa totum comma noviter redactum est, omittendo quaestionem terminologiae « de mundo » in Sacra Scriptura, quae, ut in notis addatur, suo loco in schemate respicienda est; adducendo dimensionem anthropologicam, cosmologicam, historicam « mundi » de quo sermo est; addendo interpretationem eam christianam quae schemati respondeat. 

[8] (D) Aspectus anthropologicus (simul socialis). 

(E) Aspectus cosmologicus. 

(F) Aspectus historicus. 

(G) Elementa proposita a variis Patribus (5606, 5478). 

(H) Phrasis sequens additur, ut appareat conceptio « christiana » mundi. 

(I) Ita iam dogma fundamentale creationis indicatur. 

(K) Ita visio hamartologica clare retinetur. 

(L) Additur « crucifixi et resurgentis », propter rationem oecumenicam et theologicam Orientalium. 

(M) Ulterior descriptio Maligni hic non conveniret. --

Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II: Periodus quarta, pars VI :  p423

AI translation:

 “Let ‘People of God’ be written as ‘Kingdom of God’ or ‘Body of Christ’ (5288).

(C) Many are displeased with the section on the ‘world.’ Some Fathers propose entirely new formulations, attempting to encompass biblical terminology in a single text (5288, 5489, 5583, 5551, 5414); however, none fully satisfy. Several request the omission of the words ‘until in the end ... it is saved’ (5834, 5292, 5551, 5486, 5639, 5424, 5488); to some, the statements seem incomplete (5606, 5747).

They desire an explanation of the kingdom of the ‘Evil One’ (5488); the phrase ‘though they are sinners’ is not pleasing (5292); nor is ‘in this time’ (5488); nor the lack of a historical vision (5292); an eschatological addition is desired (5292), as well as an allusion to the Mystery of the Incarnate Word, of Christ crucified and risen (5287).

For this reason, the entire section has been redrafted, omitting the question of the terminology of the ‘world’ in Sacred Scripture, which, as noted, should be addressed elsewhere in the schema; introducing the anthropological, cosmological, and historical dimensions of the ‘world’ in question; adding the Christian interpretation that corresponds to the schema.

[8] (D) Anthropological aspect (also social).

(E) Cosmological aspect.

(F) Historical aspect.

(G) Elements proposed by various Fathers (5606, 5478).

(H) The following phrase is added to highlight the ‘Christian’ conception of the world.

(I) Thus, the fundamental dogma of creation is indicated.

(K) Thus, the hamartiological vision is clearly retained.

(L) ‘Crucified and risen’ is added for ecumenical and theological reasons related to the Eastern Churches.

(M) A further description of the Evil One would not be suitable here.

Then we see the old repeated much later:

Per « mundum » hic intelligimus sive coelum et terram seu universitatem  rerum a Deo creatarum, sive universam familiam humanam, cuius membra, quam-  vis peccatores sint, a Deo tamen personaliter diliguntur, pro quibus Christus  seipsum tradidit et postea resurrexit! et qui omnes una gaudent vocatione divina,  licet « mundus », sub signo Maligni positus; Deo in hoc tempore adversetur,  donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur? Illum uno verbo dicimus mundum,  quem sic dilexit Deus ut Filium suum Unigenitum daret,) Christum nempe qui lux est mundi. --https://archive.org/details/ASV.3/page/222/mode/2up page 223

However, the final result omits it!:

Mundum igitur hominum prae oculis habet seu universam familiam humanam cum universitate rerum inter quas vivit; mundum, theatrum historiae generis humani, eiusque industria, cladibus ac victoriis signatum; mundum, quem christifideles credunt ex amore Creatoris conditum et conservatum, sub peccati quidem servitute positum, sed a Christo crucifixo et resurgente, fracta potestate Maligni, liberatum, ut secundum propositum Dei transformetur et ad consummationem perveniat.--Gaudium et Spes, Preface

Official translation: 

Therefore, the council focuses its attention on the world of men, the whole human family along with the sum of those realities in the midst of which it lives; that world which is the theater of man's history, and the heir of his energies, his tragedies and his triumphs; that world which the Christian sees as created and sustained by its Maker's love, fallen indeed into the bondage of sin, yet emancipated now by Christ, Who was crucified and rose again to break the strangle hold of personified evil, so that the world might be fashioned anew according to God's design and reach its fulfillment.

 

Answering "WherePeteris" on "Universalism and Hell"

The following article was produced to try to defend the late Pope Francis' misguided statement on his hope Hell is empty, which on its face contradicts the faith, which is unfortunate as it appears the Pope was ignorant of a matter of faith, which Pope John Paul II may have been as well (despite him rejecting hopeful universalism). The article by Adam Rasmussen can be found here:  https://wherepeteris.com/universalism-and-hell/

Many of the topics I already addressed. The article references Orthodox scholars, which is odd, considering their arguments and positions on Hell cannot work in the imaginary bounds of Catholic "aspirational universalists." Orthodox universalists, as many universalists, believe MANY will go to Hell, it's just that Hell will end and the souls will enter heaven after a while. This is even more directly heresy in Catholicism. The Orthodox Church tends to be open to the idea some might be saved after a short stay in Hell. 

The writer states:

"Dogmatic universalism is associated principally with Origen of Alexandria, a church father who lived in the third century, and aspirational universalism with the aforementioned Catholic theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar."

Origen is not a church father, he like Tertullian are not counted among them since he was declared a heretic and anathematized. Vatican II somewhat rehabilitated Origen but never lifted the anathema against him or his teachings. He was just commended as being an influential writer

Love him or hate him, canonize or anathematize him, Origen was the most influential theologian who lived between Paul and Augustine. Unfortunately, his exact views are lost to us because the vast majority of the thousands of works he wrote have not survived. This is partly due to their extraordinary size and partly because he was condemned as a heretic at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the sixth century. 

Yes, he influenced many, not everything he said was heretical. The church never lifted his anathema, he was anathematized long before Constantinople II. Even his own day he was condemned and butted heads with his Patriarch.  

The emperor Justinian had a list of heresies of the sixth-century Origenists drawn up, which included the pre-existence of souls, universal salvation (even of the devil), and the belief that the stars are alive. There is contradictory evidence about how many of the condemned propositions Origen himself had held. Furthermore, modern historical studies have cast doubt on whether Justinian’s anathemas were ever formally adopted by the Council.[1] The 20th-century Catholic reappropriation of Origen is premised on the difference between the speculative, non-definitive nature of the historical Origen’s views and the later, dogmatic views of the condemned Origenists.

Commenting about whether the Council adopted it is misleading, Origen and universalism were condemned even by later councils. The writer sadly quotes the notorious Orthodox priest Fr Kimel, who other EO told me bishops refused to assign to a parish because of his writings. Again, universalism is more compatible in Eastern Orthodox than Catholicism! For instance, later ecumenical councils state:

Constantinople III:

the fifth holy synod, the latest of them, which was gathered here against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of the renowned Cyril, and the letter said to have been written by Ibas to Mari the Persian.--Constantinople III (AD 680-681), Exposition of Faith

Nicea II, the fathers recognized the anathema against universal reconciliation: 

"Cosmas, the deacon and chamberlain, reads from the Life of our holy Father Sabbas:-- 

  "At the fifth holy General Council, held at Constantinople, Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, together with the speculations of Evagrius and Didymus, concerning the pre-existence and restitution of all things, were all subjected to one common and Catholic anathema, all the four Patriarchs being present and consentient thereto...--Nicea II, Session I, p36

We reject along with them Severus Peter and their interconnected band with their many blasphemies, in whose company we anathematize the mythical speculations of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the fifth synod, that assembled at Constantinople.--Nicea II, Definition

 Florence:

It also embraces, approves and accepts the fifth holy synod, the second of Constantinople, which was held in the time of our predecessor most blessed Vigilius and the emperor Justinian. In it the definition of the sacred council of Chalcedon about the two natures and the one person of Christ was renewed and many errors of Origen and his followers, especially about the penitence and liberation of demons and other condemned beings, were refuted and condemned.--Council of Florence, Session XI: Bull of union with the Copts, February 4, 1442

The claim is silly for a Catholic to make, the Church affirmed Origen and his doctrines were condemned at Constantinople II! Bring it up is a distraction and misleading. 

The most absurd part of all of this is Constantinople II essentially damned dead theologians, yet this point is conveniently stepped over by advocates of hopeful universalism:

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.--Constantinople II (AD 553), Anathemas against the "Three Chapters", Canon XI

Many like to comment that an anathema is not a damnation of the person to Hell, yet the council explaining why they anathematized the dead stated the anathema means they are "separated from God":

Since the Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle curses even the angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached, how is it possible even for the most presumptuous to assert that these condemnations apply only to those who are still alive? Are they unaware, or rather pretending to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.-- Constantinople II, Sentence against the "Three Chapters"

Continuing on he states concerning Pope John Paul II's slip up:

This statement encapsulates the core thesis of Balthasar’s book. That it is from Balthasar has been confirmed (after a fashion) by the fact that the Vatican’s official journal, Acta Apostolica Sedis (and thus also the Vatican website), censored this part of the pope’s address. I assume with the pope’s consent, the words “whether or” were removed (“we are not granted the knowledge of which human beings”). As a result, the official, censored version merely says that we do not know who specifically is in hell. The uncensored version has been preserved by EWTN and other sources.

However, there is uncertainty about John Paul II’s view. In the long, written interview he had with journalist Vittorio Messori in 1994, he seems to reject Balthasar’s view (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, 185-86). The Wednesday catechesis on hell was given five years later, so the pope may have changed his opinion later. Regardless, the controversial nature of both Balthasar’s book and John Paul II’s catechesis on hell indicate why, after saying bluntly that God will save everyone, Pope Francis added with a laugh, “Do not say this aloud!”

I appreciate he is more honest than many hopeful universalists with Pope John Paul's words--they were revised and almost certainly at the Pope's request or consent. And unlike many others he acknowledges Crossing the Threshold of Hope reject von Balthasar (among others) hypothesis concerning Hell as wrong. 

Rasmussen states:

The only time eternal punishment is mentioned explicitly in the Pauline corpus is in 2 Thessalonians 1:9: “eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord” (RSV). Catholic biblical scholars are divided over whether that letter was written by Paul himself or posthumously in his name by one of his companions.[3]

The note states: 

[3] “Increasingly in recent times, however, the opinion has been advanced that 2 Thessalonians is a pseudepigraph, that is, a letter written authoritatively in Paul’s name, to maintain apostolic traditions in a later period, perhaps during the last two decades of the first century.” (Introduction to 2 Thessalonians, New American Bible: Revised Edition)

Another reason why not all American bishops are on board with the NAB. The NAB doubts the Bible many times. It repeats the debunked claim of camels in Genesis 12 being anachronistic. It says "call no man father" in Matthew 23:9 means Matthew's community was evidently doing this and needed to be corrected. Many more examples exist including 1 Corinthians 3:15 where Catholic dogma is downplayed again. 

Another one of his notes I find absurd:

[6] Some patristic scholars, such as David Bentley Hart and Ilaria Ramelli, argue that the word eternal only indicates that the punishment will continue through the succession of all ages of the cosmos, but not for infinite time. The apokatastasis takes place after all the ages are complete. I have chosen not to address this avenue in this essay in part because it seems to be outside the bounds of Catholic doctrine.

He omits that Hart is an outright universalist. And "seems to be outside" is absurd, it certainly is outside! The CCC, ecumenical council and other says Hell does not end. Why add "seems"?

Like many defenders of this positions, they are ignorant or ignore several magisterial texts that either say Hell is populated, or assume it to be the case! Furthermore, they have a paper thin stack of Church Fathers supporting their position, so they supplement it without ones that embraced the overt form of universalism outright, which even people like Rasmussen admit is heresy.

Previously I made this article showing magisterial and liturgical texts on Hell.

Vatican II against aspirational universalism.

Bishop Barron's poor attempt as salvaging Balthasar.

You can read the debate between Lyra Pitstick and Fr Edward Oaks. 

Pitstick's article is here.

 To be continued

Council of Constantinople 920: Tetragamy Controversy

Council of Constantinople 920

Byzantine Council concerning the scandal of multiple marriages in particular the Emperor Leo VI's Tetragamy, 4th marriage, after his previous three wives died without producing an heir that survived childhood. This council was held after Leo's death. Source: Jus graeco-romanum. Pars III. pages 228-232 https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/STskqjJ0MxsC?hl=en&gbpv=0 https://archive.org/details/jusgraecoromanu00linggoog/page/228/mode/2up?view=theater

This in turn used Collatio Tertia Novellae Constitutiones Annorum 911-1057

COLLATIO TERTIA. Novellae constitutiones annorum 911-1057. NOV. I. Tomus unionis de nuptiis, quartis praesertim et tertiis'. (Α. 920.) Ὑπόθεσις τῆς ἀκολουθούσης διατάξεως, καὶ εἴδησις, πῶς ἡ τετραγαμία τῷ βασιλεῖ κυρίῳ λέοντι τετόλμηται, καὶ ὅπως κατηργήθης διὰ τοῦ τόμου τῆς ἑνώσεως. Λέων ὁ σοφώτατος εἶχε μὲν πρώτην γαμετὴν τὴν ἁγίαν θεοφανώ, μεθ ̓ ἧς καὶ θυγατέρα ἔτεκεν· ἀλλὰ τάχιον ἐτεθνήκει. καὶ αὐτῆς δὲ πρὸς κύριον ἀπελθούσης τῆς ἁγίας, ζεύγνυται ζωῇ τῇ θυγατρὶ τοῦ τζαουτζά στυλιανοῦ, ἑνὸς τῶν ἀρχόντων καὶ φίλων τοῦ βασιλέως. κἀκείνης συν τόμως ἔπαιδος τελευτησάσης, καὶ τρίτην ἠγάγετο γυναῖκα, εὐδοκίαν, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ θέματος ὀψικίου, ἐπιλεγεῖσαν διὰ τὸ κάλλος, ἥτις ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς ὠδῖσι θνήσκει σὺν τῷ βρέφει. ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἀφάτῳ συσχεθεὶς λύπῃ ἐπὶ τῷ καταλειφθῆναι ἔπαις, ἐφέσει τεκνογονίας καὶ τετάρτην λαμβάνει γυναῖκα, τὴν τῆς καρβωνοψίνης ζωὴν, καὶ τίκτει μετ ̓ αὐτῆς τὸν κωνσταντίνον. ο πατριάρχης δὲ νικόλαος καὶ οἱ μητροπολῖται ἀφορίζουσι τὸν βασιλέα τῆς ἐκκλησίας· καὶ τὸν ἀφορισμὸν οἱ μέν τινες τῶν ἀρχιερέων συντεμεῖν ἔλεγον δεῖν, καὶ μὴ ἐπὶ πλείονα παρατείνειν καιρόν· οἱ δὲ οὐκ ἐπείθοντο. καὶ σχίσματα ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ στάσις πολλή· καὶ πολλὰ δεόμενον τὸν βασιλέα καὶ παρακαλοῦντα οἱ μὲν προσεδέχοντο, οἱ δὲ ἀπειθεῖς ἦσαν καὶ ἄτεγκτοι. ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς συνετὸς ὤν, καὶ ὅθεν ἀνεφύη τὸ ἀσύμφωνον τῶν ἀρχιερέων οὐκ ἀγνοῶν, μεθίστησι τὸν πατριάρχην νικόλαον, καὶ ἐξορίζει τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὡς ψεύστην, καὶ πολλάκις μὲν ὅρκοις διαβεβαιοῦντα καὶ ὑποσχόμενον δοῦναι τῷ βασιλεῖ τὴν τοῦ ἐπιτιμίου συμπάθειαν, τοσαυτάκις δὲ μεταμελόμενον καὶ ἀναβαλλόμενον ἐπίτηδες. προβάλλεται δὲ πατριάρχην τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πνευματικὸν πατέρα εὐθύμιον, ἄνδρα πολλοῖς ἔτεσι τῇ μοναχικῇ διαπρέψαντα ἀσκήσει, καὶ προφητικοῦ χαρίσματος ἠξιωμένον. οὗτος ἐλεύθερον τοῦ ἐπιτιμίου δείκνυσι τὸν βασιλέα, καὶ τοῦ χρονίου δεσμοῦ ἀπολύει καὶ εἰς κοινωνίαν δέχεται. ἀλλ ̓ ἦσαν ἔτι πολλοὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων οἱ μὴ συν ελθόντες τῇ τοῦ πατριάρχου οἰκονομίᾳ, καὶ μᾶλλον οἱ τοῦ μέρους τοῦ ἐκβληθέντος νικολάου. ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ μὲν βασιλεὺς λέων μετέστη πρὸς κύριον, καὶ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἐκείνου ἀλέξανδρος τῆς βασιλείας ἐγκρατὴς ἦν, τὸν μὲν πατριάρχην εὐθύμιον ἐξωθεῖ τῆς ἐκκλησίας μεθ ̓ ὕβρεων, ἀντεισάγει δὲ πάλιν τὸν προεκβεβλημένον νικόλαον· καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐστασίαζε πράγματα, διαιρεθέντων τῶν μητροπολιτῶν, καὶ τῶν μὲν τῷ ἐκβληθέντι πατριάρχῃ, τῶν δὲ τῷ ἀντεισαχθέντι προσκειμένων. οὐ πολὺ τὸ ἐν μέσῳ, καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀλέξανδρος ἐτεθνήκει· ὁ δὲ κωνσταντῖνος τῆς βασιλείας κληρονόμος ἐγεγόνει. ὃς συγκαλέσας τόν τε πατριάρχην νικόλαον καὶ σύμπαντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς (ὁ γὰρ εὐθύμιος ἤδη πρὸς κύριον ἐξεδήμησε), πείθει τούτους πρὸς μίαν γνώμην συνελθεῖν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν, καὶ δοῦναι τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ μετὰ θάνατον κοινῇ ψήφῳ τὴν ἄφεσιν· κανονικὴν δὲ ψῆφον ἐκθεῖναι, τοῦ μηκέτι τολμῶν τοιοῦτον ἢ πραχθῆναι ἁμάρτημα. ἐφ ̓ οἷς ὁ λεγόμενος οὑτοσὶ τῆς ἑνώσεως τόμος προέβη.

COLLATION III. New Constitutions of the Years 911–1057. NOVEL I. Tome of Union Concerning Marriages, Especially Fourth and Third Marriages (920 CE). Subject of the Following Ordinance and Account of How Tetragamy Was Dared by the Emperor Lord Leo and How It Was Abolished Through the Tome of Union. Leo the Most Wise had as his first wife the holy Theophano, with whom he had a daughter; but she died soon after. After the holy Theophano departed to the Lord, he married Zoe, the daughter of Stylianos Tzaoutzes, one of the nobles and friends of the emperor. When she too died shortly afterward without bearing a child, he took a third wife, Eudokia, from the Opsikion theme, chosen for her beauty, who died in childbirth along with the infant. Overwhelmed by unbearable grief at being left childless, and driven by a desire for offspring, the emperor took a fourth wife, Zoe Karbonopsina, and with her he fathered Constantine. However, Patriarch Nicholas and the metropolitans excommunicated the emperor from the Church. Some of the bishops argued that the excommunication should be shortened and not prolonged, but others were unpersuaded. This led to schisms and much strife among them. While some accepted the emperor’s pleas and entreaties, others remained defiant and unyielding. The emperor, being prudent and not unaware of the source of the bishops’ discord, deposed Patriarch Nicholas and exiled him from the Church as a liar, for he had repeatedly sworn and promised to grant the emperor leniency from the penalty but just as often changed his mind and deliberately delayed. In his place, Leo appointed his spiritual father, Euthymius, as patriarch—a man distinguished for many years by monastic discipline and deemed worthy of prophetic gifts. Euthymius declared the emperor free from the penalty, released him from the prolonged restriction, and received him into communion. However, many bishops still did not agree with the patriarch’s dispensation, especially those aligned with the deposed Nicholas. When Emperor Leo passed to the Lord and his brother Alexander became ruler, Alexander expelled Patriarch Euthymius from the Church with insults and reinstated the previously deposed Nicholas. This caused even greater turmoil in Church affairs, with the metropolitans divided—some siding with the deposed patriarch, others with the reinstated one. Not long after, Alexander died, and Constantine became the heir to the empire. Constantine summoned Patriarch Nicholas and all the bishops (as Euthymius had already departed to the Lord) and persuaded them to come to a unified opinion and harmony, granting his father forgiveness by a common vote even after his death. They also issued a canonical decree that such a sin should never again be dared or committed. On these grounds, the so-called Tome of Union was issued.

Tome of Union

Greek

English

Ὁ τόμος τῆς ἑνώσεως, ἤτοι ἔκθεσις τῆς γενομένης τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἑνώσεως, ἐπὶ κωνσταντίνου καὶ ῥωμανοῦ· τοῦ μὲν βασιλεύοντος, τοῦ δὲ τὸ τηνικαῦτα τῷ τοῦ βασιλεωπάτορος ἀξιώματι - διαπρέποντος. Ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς χριστὸς καὶ θεὸς τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς καὶ ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς ὅσοι μετ ̓ ἐκείνων ἄξιοι γεγόνασι τῆς κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ, ἐξαίρετόν τινα κλῆρον τὴν εἰ ρήνην κατέλιπε, τοῦτο γνώρισμα παρεχόμενος τοῖς οἰκείοις τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν οἰκείοτητος, εἰ τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης σφιγ γόμενοι μὴ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος διασπῶσιν ἑνότητα· πρότερον αὐτὸς οἰκείῳ ὑποδείγματι δείξας ἡμῖν, ἣν ἔχει περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης προαίρεσιν, δι' ὧν ὑπεράνω παντὸς ὕψους τελῶν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐσχατιὰν κατῆλθε τὴν ἡμετέραν, καὶ παραπλησίως ἡμῖν σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος ἐκοινώνησεν, ἵνα τοὺς ἐξ ἀλλήλων διῃρημένους εἰς ἑνότητα καταστήσῃ. ἔπειτα καὶ τοῖς τὰ ἐκείνου μαθήματα πεπαιδευμένοις ταύτην κατέλιπε τὴν κληρονομίαν, τὸ εἰρηνεύειν ἐν ἀλλήλοις, καὶ οὐ τοῦτο μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ πρὸς εἰρήνην ἄγειν ἑτέρους πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς στασιάζοντας. ἀλλὰ γὰρ τοιούτου ὄντος τοῦ πράγματος, ἐξαρχῆς καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν οὐ διέλιπεν ἡ τοῦ πονηροῦ στασιώδης κακία τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας διαταράττουσα πλήρωμα, νῦν μὲν ταύτην νῦν δὲ ἐκείνην ἀνακινοῦσα τὴν πρόφασιν. ἀλλ ̓ ὁ μὲν τοιοῦτος· ὁ δὲ τῆς εἰρήνης αἴτιος καὶ διδάσκαλος χριστὸς ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ πύλας εἰπὼν ᾅδου μὴ κατισχύσειν τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ, ἀεὶ τὰ σκάνδαλα εἰς τὴν τοῦ πονηροῦ κεφαλὴν περιτρέπων, τὴν εἰρήνην τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ διαφυλάττει ἀλύμαντον. οὗτος ἐκεῖνος, ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν χριστὸς, ὁ θεὸς, ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς, ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ ἀληθινὸς, τῶν ἱερῶν τέκνων τῆς πανάγνου νύμφης αὐτοῦ, τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐξ ἀλλήλων διασπασθέντων, τῇ αὐτοῦ προνοίᾳ καὶ χάριτι τὴν ἕνωσιν αὐτοῖς κατεπράξατο, καὶ τοῖς ἀχράντοις κόλποις πάλιν συνήγαγε τῆς μητρός· διδοὺς ἐκείνῃ μὲν χαίρειν ἐπὶ τῇ συναγωγῇ τῶν τέκνων, ἑαυτῷ δὲ τὴν ἐξ ἑνὸς στόματος καὶ μιᾶς καρδίας προσάγεσθαι τῆς δόξης ἀναφορὰν, πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς, ὅσοι μὴ πρὸς τὴν ταραχώδη τοῦ δαίμονος προαίρεσιν ἀποκλίνουσιν ἀλλὰ τοῦ τῆς εἰρήνης αἰτίου τὸ παράγγελμα τιμῶσι, τὴν εὐχαριστίαν προσάγειν. ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄνω χρόνων ἐγένοντο σκανδάλων ἀφορμαὶ, ὁποῖαι δὴ καὶ γεγόνασι, καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἑκάστοτε κίνησιν τοῦ κακοῦ τοῖς σοφοῖς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν οἰκονόμοις ἡ πρόσφορος ἐξεύρηται θεραπεία· νῦν δὲ ὅτε συμβέβηκε τεταράχθαι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐξ ἀφορμῆς γαμικῆς ἐν τῷ μὴ τυγχάνειν τὸν γάμον ἐλεύθερον μέμψεως, πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου κώλυσιν ἡ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἱερὰ κρίσις φέρει τὴν γνώμην, καὶ τοῦ μὴ προέρχεσθαι τοῦτον ἔτι χώραν εὑρίσκειν. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ νῦν καὶ μετέπειτα τῶν κατεχόντων σκανδάλων ἀπηλλάχθαι περιγενήσεται τοῖς, ὅσοι μὴ τὸ φιλόνεικον καὶ τὴν ἔριν ἀντὶ τῆς εἰρήνης ἠγάπησαν τοῦ χριστοῦ. τῆς γὰρ προφάσεως ἐκποδὼν γεγενημένης, ἀφ ̓ ἧς ἐξέφυ τὰ σκάνδαλα, τοῦ εἰρηνεύειν τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν εἰρήνην οὐδεμία ἐστὶν ἡ κωλύουσα πρόφασις. καὶ γὰρ ἐν παντὶ πράγματι οὕτως ἔχει· τῆς σφαλερᾶς αἰτίας τῆς τῶν ἀτόπων γενέσεως ἐκποδὼν καθισταμένης, πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς εὐταξίαν ἀποκαθίσταται τὰ τέως ἐκεῖθεν λαβόντα τὸ πονηρῶς διακεῖσθαι· οὕτω καὶ σώματι νόσου προσγενομένης, τοῦ αἰτίου ταύτης ἀναχωρήσαντος, τὸ ὑγιαίνειν ἐπανέρχεται, καὶ θαλάσσῃ ἐξ ἀνέμων βιαιότητος ταραττομένῃ, τῆς καταιγίδος πεπαυμένης, ἡ γαληνιῶσα κατάστασις ἐπανήκει. διὰ τοῦτο κοινῇ συναθροισθέντες ἀρχιερεῖς τε καὶ ἱερεῖς, ὅσοι μὴ ἑαυτοῖς (ἐῶ γὰρ εἰπεῖν ἄλλοις) ἀρέσκειν ἠγάπησαν, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν εἰρήνην τοῦ στασιάζειν προετίμησαν, συνείδομεν, ἐπείπερ ἐκ τῶν γαμικῶν ἀφορμῶν τὰ σκάνδαλα τὴν γένεσιν ἔλαβε, ταῦτα διανακαθάραι, καὶ διασφαλίσασθαι τοῦ μηδαμῶς ἔτι διὰ τῆς αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν βίον προόδου μήτε τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ταράττειν, μήτε τὴν ζωὴν τῶν οὕτω ζῆν ἑλομένων κατάκριτον καὶ κατεγνωσμένην ποιεῖν. α ́. Καὶ λοιπὸν ἀποφαινόμεθα κοινῇ γνώμῃ καὶ κρίσει, ἀπόγε τοῦ παρόντος ἔτους, ὅ ἐστιν ἑξακισχιλιοστὸν τετρακοσιοστὸν εἰκοστὸν ὄγδοον ἐπινεμήσεως ὀγδόης, τέταρτον γάμον μηδενὶ τολμᾶσθαι, ἀλλ ̓ εἶναι ἀπόβλητον παντελῶς· καὶ τὸν, εἴ τις ἐπὶ τοιοῦτο ἐλθεῖν συνοικέσιον προθυμηθείη, πάσης ἀπεστερημένον εἶναι συνάξεως ἐκκλησιαστικῆς καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον ναὸν εἰσόδου ἀλλότριον, μέχρις ἂν ἐπιμένοι" τῷ συνοικεσίῳ. τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν ἁγίοις ἔδοξε πατράσι, καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν γνώμην ἐκδηλοτέραν" ποιοῦντες, ὡς ἀλλότριον αὐτὸν τῆς χριστιανικῆς πολιτείας ἀποκηρύττομεν ἀλλ ̓ οὕτω μὲν περὶ τοῦ τετάρτου γάμου. β ́. Ἵνα δὲ καὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων γάμων εὐσχημονέστερον τυπωθῇ καὶ τοῦ τῶν χριστιανῶν βίου μὴ ἀνάξιον ἔχῃ τὴν προσαγωγὴν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ τρίτου ὁρίζομεν γάμου, ὥστε μὴ ἁπλῶς μηδὲ ὡς ἔτυχεν ἐπιτελεῖσθαι αὐτόν. καὶ γὰρ συγκεχώρηται μὲν ὡς φύ πασμα τοῖς πατράσιν, οὔπω τότε καθὼς νῦν γινομένου τοῦ πράγματος ἀπηρυθριασμένως οὐδ ̓ εἰς πλάτος ἐξηπλωμένου, ἀλλ ̓ ὥσπερ εἴ τις ἐν οἴκῳ παραπεπτωκὸς ἐν γωνίᾳ παρίδῃ πολλάκις κείμενον ῥύπασμα· νῦν δὲ ὅτε χώραν ἔλαβε παῤῥησίας καὶ ὡς οὐδὲν ἔχων εἰς ἀσχημοσύνην οὐδὲ ῥυπαίνων λογίζεται ἐκ τοῦ προβῆναι εἰς πληθυσμὸν, καλῶς ἔδοξεν ἀνακαθαίρειν αὐτὸν, ὥσπερ καὶ αἶσχος οὐκ ἐν γωνίᾳ παρεῤῥιμμένον ἀλλ ̓ ἐξηπλωμένον ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας οὐδαμῶς ἐῶμεν, ἀλλὰ καθαί ρομεν καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτου ἀηδὲς ἀποβάλλομεν. καὶ τῇ ἀνθρω πίνῃ τοίνυν συνυπείκοντες ἀσθενείᾳ, καὶ τῆς πρεπούσης εὐσχημοσύνης φροντίδα ποιούμενοι τῇ χριστιανῶν ζωῇ, τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῶν τριγάμων παραφυλάττεσθαι διορίζομεν, ὥστε εἴ τις πρὸς τεσσαρακοστὴν ἔτος ἀναβεβηκὼς, καὶ μήτε τὴν φύσιν αἰ δούμενος μήτε τῆς ὀφειλομένης χριστιανοῖς εὐκόσμου ζωῆς φροντίδα ποιούμενος, ἀλλὰ μόνης τῆς ἐμπαθοῦς ἐπιθυμίας γινόμενος, πρὸς τρίτον ἑαυτὸν ἐπιῤῥίπτοι γάμον, τοῦτον μετὰ πάσης ἀκριβείας καὶ παρατηρήσεως μέχρι πενταετίας ἀμέτοχον εἶναι τῆς τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ μεταλήψεως, καὶ μηδαμῶς ἐπ ̓ αὐτῷ συντέμνεσθαι τὸν χρόνον. ὃς γὰρ μετὰ τὸ τεσσαρακοστὸν ἔτος τὸ ῥύπασμα ἐν τῇ τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ εἶναι καὶ λέγεσθαι ἠγάπησε, τίνα παρέξει πληροφορίαν τῆς περὶ τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ σπουδῆς, δι ̓ ἣν ὁ χρόνος τῆς μεταλήψεως τῶν ἁγιασμάτων αὐτῷ συντμηθήσεται; ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀξιωθῆναι τῆς ἀχράντου μεταλήψεως οὐκ ἔσται συγκεχωρημένον αὐτῷ ἐν ἄλλῳ καιρῷ τῇ μεταλήψει προσιέναι, ἢ ἐν μόνῃ τῇ” σωτηρίῳ τοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἀναστάσει, διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς προηγουμένης ἐγκρατείας τῶν νηστειῶν ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀνακάθαρσιν. ταῦτα δὲ φαμὲν, ὅταν μὴ τέκνα παρῇ ἐκ τῶν προτέρων γάμων τοῖς ἤδη μετὰ τὸ τεσσαρακοστὸν ἔτος τρίτην ἄγεσθαι προῄρημένοις γυναῖκα. ἐπεὶ ἐὰν τέκνα παρῇ, ἀσυγχώρητος αὐτοῖς ἡ τριγαμία. λίαν γάρ ἐστιν ἄδικον, τὸν μὲν χαρίζεσθαι τῇ ἐξώρῳ ἐπιθυμίᾳ, τοῖς δὲ παισὶ τῶν προτέρων γάμων μὴ προνοεῖσθαι τὸ ἀσφαλὲς καὶ τὸ ἄλυπον καὶ ἀτάραχον καὶ ὅσα οἶδε τὸ ἀνθρώπινον καταλαμβάνειν ἐκ τῆς πολυσπόρου τεκνώσεως. καὶ εἴ τις δὲ τριακοντούτης ὢν καὶ τέκνα ἔχων ἐκ τῶν προλαβόντων γάμων τρίτη συνάπτοιτο γυναικὶ, καὶ οὗτος δὲ ἀσυγχώρη τος μέχρι τετάρτου ἔτους καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῶν ἁγιασμάτων ἀμέτοχος ἔστω”· διότι δῆλός ἐστιν ἐξ οὐδενὸς ἑτέρου, ἀλλ ̓ ἢ ὑπὸ ἀκρασίας κινούμενος καὶ τοῦ δοῦλος εἶναι σαρκικῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἐπὶ τὸν τοιοῦτον γάμον ἐλθεῖν. καὶ μετὰ τὸ τυχεῖν δὲ τῆς μεταλήψεως τῶν μυστηρίων, τρὶς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ μόνον ἀξιωθήσεται τῆς ἀπολαύσεως· ἅπαξ μὲν ἐν τῇ σωτηρίᾳ τοῦ χρι στοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἀναστάσει, δεύτερον δὲ ἐν τῇ κοιμήσει τῆς ἀχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου, καὶ τρίτον ἐν τῇ γενεθλίῳ ἡμέρᾳ χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, διὰ τὸ καὶ ἐν ταύταις προηγεῖσθαι νηστείαν καὶ τὸ ἐκ ταύτης ὄφελος. εἰ δὲ παῖδες μὴ περίεισιν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ τεκνογονίας ἐπιθυμεῖν οὐκ ἀσύγγνωστον, τὸ τηνικαῦτα συγγνώμης ἀξιωθήσεται ὁ τοιοῦτος γάμος, καὶ μόνῳ τῷ ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν κρατήσαντι ἐπιτιμίῳ θεραπευ θήσεται. ταῦτα μὲν καὶ περὶ τοῦ τρίτου γάμου. γ. Οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τὸν δεύτερον, οὐδὲ τὸν πρῶτον ἐκτὸς ἀσφα λείας ἐῶμεν, ἀλλὰ κἀκείνους ορίζομεν οὕτω συνίστασθαι, ὥστε μηδεμίαν ἔχειν πονηρὰν αἰτίαν, ἢ ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς ἢ ἐκ προηγησαμένης λαθραίας φθορᾶς, ἀλλὰ νομίμως καὶ καθαρεύοντας τῶν τοιούτων μολυσμάτων καὶ πορνικῆς ἀκαθαρσίας. εἴ τις οὖν τῶν εἰρημένων καταφρονήσας τύπων πρὸς γαμικὴν ὁμιλίαν πρώτην ἢ καὶ δευτέραν συνέλθοι, τοῦτον ἡ τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐκκλησία, ἡ καθαρὰ καὶ μηδένα σπῖλον ἔχουσα ἢ ῥυτίδα, τοῖς σωτηρίοις ὑποβάλλουσα ἐτασμοῖς οὐ πρὶν εἰς μετάληψιν τῶν θείων παραδέξεται μυστηρίων, ἢ τὸν ὡρισμένον ἐπὶ τῇ πορνείᾳ χρόνον ἀκριβῶς αὐτὸν ἐκπληρῶσαι (εἰ μὴ ἄρα ἡ τοῦ βίου ἀναγκαία κατεπείγοι ἀναχώρησις), τουτέστι μέχρις ἂν τὸ ἑβδομον ἐκπλη ρωθῇ ἔτος. ὁ δὲ τολμῶν ἱερεὺς παρὰ τὸν διατετυπωμένον ὅρον μεταλήψεως θείας τινὰ τούτων ἀξιῶσαι, περὶ τὸν ἴδιον κινδυνεύσει βαθμόν· δηλονότι τοῦ ἀξιωθέντος παρὰ τὸν ὡρι σμένον τύπον τῆς θείας κοινωνίας πάλιν εἰς τὸ ἀκοινώνητον περιισταμένου μέχρι τῆς συμπληρώσεως τοῦ ἑβδόμου ἔτους. Ταῦτα μὲν, ὡς δεδήλωται, ὑπὸ τῶν πάλαι βασιλευσάντων ἐπράχθησαν. νῦν δὲ τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος εὐδοκίᾳ καὶ χάριτι καὶ ταῖς τῆς πανάγνου καὶ θεομήτορος καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου αρχιστρατήγου πρεσβείαις δι τοὺς ἤδη πρὸ ἐνενήκοντα χρόνων ἕνεκεν τῆς προδηλωθείσης αἰτίας καὶ ἀφορμῆς ἀποῤῥαγέντας ἱερεῖς καὶ μονάζοντας ἡ παγγάληνος βασιλεία τῶν θεοστεφῶν βασιλέων ἡμῶν, βασιλείου καὶ κωνσταν τίνου, συνῆψέ τε καὶ συνήνωσε, καὶ μίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν εἰργάσατο. ὅθεν χρεὼν ἀνακηρύττεσθαί τε καὶ μεγαλύνεσθαι τοὺς τὸ τοιοῦτον θεοφιλὲς καὶ ἀξιόλογον ἔργον πεπληρωκότας.

The Tome of Union, or Exposition of the Union of the Church Accomplished under Constantine and Romanus; the Former Reigning as Emperor, the Latter then Distinguished by the Dignity of Emperor-Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ and God left to His disciples and apostles, and to all those who have become worthy of His inheritance, a special legacy: peace. He bestowed this as a mark of kinship with Him, so that, bound by the bond of peace, they might not disrupt the unity of the Spirit. He Himself first demonstrated to us by His own example His commitment to peace, descending from the heights above all to our lowly state, taking on flesh and blood like ours, in order to unite those divided from one another. Subsequently, He bequeathed this inheritance to those trained in His teachings: to live in peace with one another and, beyond that, to lead others who are in conflict toward peace with each other. However, despite the nature of this matter, from the beginning until now, the rebellious malice of the evil one has not ceased to disturb the sacred fullness of the Church, stirring up one pretext after another. Yet Christ, our God, the source and teacher of peace, who declared that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church, continually turns the scandals back upon the head of the evil one, preserving the Church’s peace unblemished. It is He, our peace, Christ, God, Father, High Priest, and true Shepherd, who, through His providence and grace, has brought about the union of the sacred children of His immaculate bride, the Church, who had been torn apart from one another. He has reunited them in the pure embrace of their mother, granting her joy in the gathering of her children, offering to Himself the glory rendered from one mouth and one heart, and enabling all those who do not incline toward the tumultuous will of the devil but honor the command of the Author of peace to offer thanksgiving. In earlier times, various occasions for scandal arose, as they did, and for each disturbance caused by evil, the wise stewards of the churches found appropriate remedies. But now, when the Church has been troubled due to a marital issue—namely, a marriage not free from reproach—the sacred judgment of the Church issues its decision to prevent it, ensuring that such a marriage finds no further place. Thus, both now and in the future, those who do not love contention and strife over Christ’s peace will be freed from the scandals that persist. For when the pretext from which scandals arose has been removed, there is no obstacle preventing those who love peace from living in it. Indeed, in every matter, when the harmful cause of wrongdoing is eliminated, things previously disturbed by it are restored to their original order. Just as when a body is afflicted by disease, the removal of its cause restores health, or when a sea is troubled by violent winds, the calming of the storm brings back tranquility—so too here. Therefore, the bishops and priests gathered together, those who have not loved pleasing themselves (let alone others) but have preferred the peace of the Church over strife, have recognized that since scandals arose from marital issues, these must be thoroughly addressed and safeguarded. This ensures that such matters no longer disturb the Church through their progression in life, nor render the lives of those who choose to live thus condemned and reprehensible. 1. Hence, we declare with common judgment and decision that, from the present year, which is the 6428th year, eighth indiction, a fourth marriage shall not be dared by anyone but shall be entirely rejected. Anyone who ventures to enter such a union shall be deprived of all ecclesiastical communion and even barred from entering the holy church until they desist from that union. This was also the judgment of the holy fathers before us, and we, making their decision clearer, declare such a person alien to Christian fellowship. Thus, regarding the fourth marriage. 2. To ensure that other marriages are conducted with greater decorum and are not unworthy of Christian life, we also decree concerning the third marriage that it should not be performed casually or haphazardly. For, although it was permitted by the fathers as a concession, it was not then practiced as shamelessly as it is now, nor had it spread widely. It was as if someone in a household overlooked a small piece of filth lying in a corner. But now, when it has gained boldness and is no longer considered shameful or defiling due to its prevalence, it has seemed good to purify it, just as we do not allow a disgrace spread across a house to remain but clean it and cast out its offense. Thus, accommodating human weakness and ensuring the fitting decorum of Christian life, we decree that for those entering a third marriage, if someone over forty years of age, neither respecting nature nor caring for the orderly life owed to Christians but driven solely by passionate desire, enters a third marriage, they shall, with all precision and observance, be excluded from partaking in the holy sacraments for five years, and this period shall not be shortened. For one who, after the age of forty, chooses to bring such defilement into Christ’s Church—what assurance can they provide of their commitment to a virtuous life that would justify shortening the time of exclusion from the sacraments? Even after being deemed worthy of receiving the immaculate communion, they shall not be permitted to partake at other times except during the saving Resurrection of Christ our God, due to the purification gained through the preceding fasts. This applies when there are no children from previous marriages for those entering a third marriage after forty. If there are children, a third marriage is unforgivable. For it is utterly unjust to indulge in reckless desire while failing to provide security, peace, and care for the children of previous marriages, as human nature understands the burdens of excessive procreation. If someone, being thirty years old and having children from previous marriages, enters a third marriage, they too shall be unforgivable and excluded from communion in the sacraments for four years, as it is clear they are driven not by any other motive but by lack of self-control and enslavement to carnal desire. After receiving the mysteries, they shall be permitted to partake only three times a year: at the saving Resurrection of Christ our God, at the Dormition of our immaculate Lady Theotokos, and at the Nativity of Christ our God, due to the benefit of the preceding fasts. However, if there are no children, since the desire for procreation is not unforgivable, such a marriage shall be deemed worthy of leniency and treated only with the penance established from the beginning until now. Thus, regarding the third marriage. 3. Nor do we leave the second or first marriage without safeguards, but we decree that they too must be conducted in a manner free from any evil cause, such as abduction or prior illicit corruption, but lawfully and free from such defilements and fornication. If anyone, disregarding these principles, enters a first or second marriage, the Church of Christ, which is pure and without spot or wrinkle, subjects them to its saving scrutiny and will not admit them to partake in the divine mysteries until they have precisely fulfilled the time prescribed for fornication (unless urgent necessity of life’s departure compels otherwise), that is, until the seventh year is completed. Any priest who dares to grant communion to such a person contrary to the established rule risks their own rank, as the one who received communion contrary to the prescribed rule will be returned to a state of non-communion until the seventh year is fulfilled. These things, as described, were accomplished under the emperors of old. But now, by the good pleasure and grace of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and through the intercessions of the all-pure Theotokos and the great Archangel, the most splendid reign of our God-crowned emperors, Basil and Constantine, has united and reconciled the priests and monastics who, for ninety years, were separated due to the aforementioned cause and occasion, and has established one Catholic and Apostolic Church. Therefore, it is fitting to proclaim and magnify those who have accomplished such a God-pleasing and noteworthy work.

Acclamations and Anathemas

Ἐπιφωνήσεις συνοδικαί. Πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη τῶν βασιλέων. βασιλείου καὶ κωνσταντίνου τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ἡμῶν βασιλέων πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη. τῆς εὐσεβεστάτης αὐγούστης Θεοφανοῦς πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη. νικολάου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου καὶ οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη. βασιλείου καὶ κωνσταντίνου, λέοντος καὶ ἀλεξάνδρου, κωνσταντίνου καὶ ῥωμανού, χριστοφόρου, ῥωμανοῦ, νικηφόρου καὶ ἰωάννου, τῶν τὴν οὐράνιον βασιλείαν τῆς ἐπιγείου αλλαξαμένων, αἰωνία ἡ μνήμη. εὐδοκίας καὶ θεοφανους, Θεοδώρας καὶ ἑλένης, τῶν εὐσεβεστάτων αὐγούστων, αἰωνία ἡ μνήμη. γερμανοῦ, ταρασίου, νικηφόρου καὶ μεθοδίου, τῶν ἀοιδίμων καὶ μακαρίων πατριαρχῶν, αἰωνία ἡ μνήμη. ἰγνατίου, φωτίου, στεφάνου καὶ ἀντωνίου, νικολάου καὶ εὐθυμίου, στεφάνου, τρύφωνος, Θεοφυλάκτου, πολυεύκτου καὶ ἀντωνίου, τῶν ὀρθοδόξων πατριαρχῶν, αἰωνία ἡ μνήμη. ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατριαρχῶν, γερμανοῦ, ταρασίου, νικηφόρου καὶ μεθοδίου, γραφέντα ἢ λαληθέντα, ἀνάθεμα. ἅπαντα τὰ παρὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν παράδοσιν καὶ τὴν διδασκαλίαν καὶ ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν ἁγίων καὶ ἀοιδίμων πατέρων καινοτομηθέντα καὶ πραχθέντα ἢ μετὰ τοῦτο πραχθησόμενα, ἀνάθεμα. τοῖς συκοφαντοῦσι τὴν ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, ὅτι τετραγαμίαν ἐδέξατο χάριν τῆς εὐδοκία Θεοῦ γεγενημένης οἰκονομίας καὶ τῆς προσλήψεως καὶ ἑνώσεως τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν, οὓς ἡ τῶν προλαβόντων σκανδάλων αἰτία ἐχωρίζετο, ἀνάθεμα. τοῖς τολμῶσι λέγειν, ὅτι ἡ ἐκκλησία τὸ καθαρὸν καὶ ἄχραντον οὐ σώζει τῆς ἁγι στείας αὐτῆς, ἀλλὰ μολυσμόν τινα προσετρίψατο διὰ τὴν χάριτι θεοῦ γενομένην σύναψιν τῶν τέκνων, οὓς διεμέρισε μὲν τὸ ἤδη προγεγονὸς σκάνδαλον, συνῆψε δὲ ἡ τούτου παρὰ πάντων ὁμοῦ ἀθέτησις καὶ ἀποκήρυξις, ἀνάθεμα, τοῖς ἐν καταφρονήσει τιθεμένοις τοὺς ἱεροὺς καὶ θείους κανόνας τῶν ἱερῶναι πατέρων ἡμῶν, οἳ καὶ τὴν ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν ὑπερείδουσι καὶ ὅλην τὴν χρι στιανικὴν πολιτείαν κοσμοῦντες πρὸς θείαν ὁδηγοῦσιν εὐλάβειαν, ἀνάθεμα. Τούτων οὕτω διωρισμένων πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας τοῦ ἀμέτοχον εἶναι τὸ εὐσεβὲς τῶν χριστιανῶν πλήρωμα τῶν ἐξ ἀθεμίτων γάμων ῥύπων, δεόμεθα τῆς σῆς ἀγαθότητος, χριστὲ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ἔτι καὶ διὰ παντὸς πᾶν σκάνδαλον, πᾶσαν διαμερισμοῦ αἰτίαν τῆς σῆς ἐξελαύνειν ἐκκλη σίας καὶ συντηρεῖν αὐτῇ τὴν εἰρηναίαν κατάστασιν, πρεσβείαις τῆς δεσποίνης ἡμῶν καὶ ἀχράντου σου μητρὸς, τῶν πανιέρων σου μαθητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων, δὲ ὧν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ τὴν σὴν κατεφύτευσας εἰρήνην, καὶ πάντων οἷς ἐξ αἰῶνος εὐαρεστούμενος ὤφθης ἁγίοις. αμήν.

Synodical Acclamations. Many years to the emperors. Many years to Basil and Constantine, our orthodox emperors. Many years to the most pious Augusta Theophano. Many years to Nicholas, the most holy and ecumenical patriarch. Eternal memory to Basil and Constantine, Leo and Alexander, Constantine and Romanos, Christopher, Romanos, Nikephoros, and John, who exchanged the earthly kingdom for the heavenly one. Eternal memory to Eudokia and Theophano, Theodora and Helena, the most pious Augustae. Eternal memory to Germanos, Tarasios, Nikephoros, and Methodios, the renowned and blessed patriarchs. Eternal memory to Ignatios, Photios, Stephen, Anthony, Nicholas, Euthymios, Stephen, Tryphon, Theophylaktos, Polyeuktos, and Anthony, the orthodox patriarchs. Anathema to all that was written or spoken against the holy patriarchs Germanos, Tarasios, Nikephoros, and Methodios. Anathema to all that was innovated or done, or will be done hereafter, contrary to ecclesiastical tradition and the teaching and example of the holy and renowned fathers. Anathema to those who slander the holy church, claiming it accepted tetragamy for the sake of the divine economy and the reconciliation and union of our brethren, whom the scandal of earlier events had separated. Anathema to those who dare to say that the church does not preserve its pure and immaculate sanctity, but has contracted some defilement through the union of the children, accomplished by the grace of God, whom the prior scandal had divided, but the universal rejection and condemnation of this scandal has united. Anathema to those who despise the sacred and divine canons of our holy fathers, which uphold the holy church, adorn the entire Christian polity, and guide it to divine reverence. With these things thus determined for the security of the holy church, so that the pious multitude of Christians may be free from the defilements of unlawful marriages, we beseech your goodness, O Christ our God, now and always to remove every scandal and cause of division from your church, and to preserve its peaceful state, through the intercessions of our Lady, your immaculate Mother, your most holy disciples and apostles, through whom you established your peace throughout the world, and all the saints who from the beginning have been pleasing to you. Amen.