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

Bishop Barron's inconsistency on Vatican II and Hell

Previously, I wrote at length concerning Bishop Barron's page defending reasonable hope as a possibility (including its many misleading, bad or flat out wrong references among which were theologians condemned for heresy like Origen, or were never Catholic like Isaac the Syrian)

Recently, Bishop Barron's outfit Word on Fire produced a page with Q&A on the legitimacy of the Second Vatican council. I would critique it as not being nuanced enough, but that would be for another article. As stated before the fathers of the Second Vatican council did not accept von Balthasar's absurd notion that Hell might be empty, rather Lumen Gentium was worded so as to remove this as a possibility. Prior to Bishop Barron removing comments to his video on reasonable hope that all be saved, I provided Barron with that statement by Lumen Gentium, a document of Vatican II and the fathers' drafting notes on it, in all likelihood the Bishop ignored the comment since he could not answer the claim, though its possible did not see it, though he responded to my other statements. I bring this up because the Bishop in his new page on Vatican II states:

7. Could parts of Vatican II’s doctrine be removed or reversed in the future?

No.....
The doctrine articulated by Vatican II is, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, part of the Catholic Church’s official magisterial teaching. It may be deepened or clarified in the future, but it cannot be removed or reversed.

Considering the bishop said Vatican II's doctrine cannot be removed or reverses, Bishop Barron needs to explain Lumen Gentium 49's drafting notes where the following question and answer occurred:

One father wanted a sentence to be introduced from which it would be clear that there are damned defacto, lest damnation remain as a mere hypothesis. 

Answer:  The proposal does not square with this context. In no. 48 there are cited the words of the Gospel in which the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form which is grammatically future.

The full article on Lumen Gentium with the reference is found here. We are indebted to James T O'Conner for this find.

The question is to be asked: Will Bishop Barron be consistent with his position on Vatican II and recant his position that it is possible no humans will be in Hell? Will Bishop Barron admit he erred in teaching that reasonable hope that all be saved is theologoumenon rather than heresy?

Until the Bishop Barron acknowledges the Second Vatican Council taught a Hell populated with humans is a certainty rather than a possibility, he cannot be taken too seriously on Vatican II.
Bishop Barron likely does not admit it is heresy  because of his education where Balthasar was treated as orthodox, even the prior popes largely treated him as orthodox, though Pope John Paul II explicitly named von Balthasar in the issue of Hell, and stated the gospels were clear (ie people will go to Hell). There is precedent in church history for a theology to a heavy weight like Origen, only to be condemn centuries later. The same can be said of Theodore of Mopsuestia who was seen as orthodox by the Chalcedonian father, but when Constantinople II came around his writings were condemned (and controversially he was post humously anathematized).

Against Isaac the Syrian

Isaac the Syrian, also know as Isaac of Nineveh, was a 7th Century bishop of Niveveh from Qatar who was almost certainly a member of the Church of the East, yet he is considered a saint by the Orthodox Church and some eastern Catholic Churches, though not recognized in the Roman church. 

Bishop Barron has cited Isaac the Syrian for his contention of the possibility of an empty Hell, however Isaac treated Hell more like a purgatory where many people went to for a time. Isaac's 'hope' was an expectation and not limited to human, but included Satan himself. In addition, several Orthodox memes quote Isaac on Hell, often omitting the fact he denied it's unending nature.

The following include excerpts of the Russian Orthodox bishop, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev's book, "The Spiritual World Of Isaac The Syrian" (2016)

Concerning Isaac's church--the Church of the East, Metropolitan Alfeyev writes:

"A local council in 585 confirmed the unshakeable authority of Theodore and forbad anyone 'in open or in secret to defame this Doctor of the Church or to refute his holy books" Subsequently two other Councils, in 596 and 605, condemned Henana's interpretations and repeated the anathemas against those who 'refute the commentaries, exegeses and teachings of the proven teacher, the blessed Theodore the Interpreter, and who attempt to introduce new and strange exegeses replete with folly and blasphemy'. The faith of the Church of Persia became 'the faith of Theodore', or 'of Theodore and Diodore', --The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian. Hilarion Alfeyev. 2016 

Notice the phrase "blessed Theodore the Interpreter"? Isaac used that exact phrase when quoting him on universal reconciliation! Diodore of Tarsus, though considered a saint in the early Church was a universalist in all likelihood.  Isaac's communion openly made Theodore of Mopsuestia their standard and doctor of the church. Nestorius got Nestorianism largely from Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodore rejected theotokos too, he believed Mary was anthropotokos and only indirectly theotokos.

Metropolitan Hilarion writes:

"By the mid-seventh century the names of 'the three teachers'--Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius--were inserted in the diptychs of the Church of the East and they were commemorated ever since."

"The Church of the East continued to commemorate Theodore and Diodore after they had been anathematized in Byzantium, and it included the name of Nestorius on the diptychs long after he had been condemned. All of this testifies that the Church of Persia, though not 'Nestorian' in a strict theological sense, adhered to the theological and Christological thought which was rather close to that of Nestorius."--The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian. Hilarion Alfeyev. 2016 

So, clearly the Church of Isaac the Syrian was fairly close theologically to Nestorius himself, and considered him a saint along with his teacher--Theodore of Mopsuestia. 

Isaac the Syrian,  held the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia in high regard, as indicated in the following:

"anyone who likes can turn to the writings of the blessed Interpreter, a man who had his sufficient fill of the gift of grace, who was entrusted with the hidden mysteries of the scriptures, (enabling him) to instruct on the path to truth the whole community of the Church; who, above all, has illumined us orientals with wisdom -- nor is our mind's vision capable enough (to bear) the brilliancy of his compositions, inspired by the divine Spirit.... From the blessed Theodore, the Interpreter. After other luminous statements he says...."--Homélies Ascétiques, Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian), The Second Part, Chapter IV-XLI. Translated by Sebastian Brock. (emphasis mine)

Some Orthodox apologists claim "The Second Part" is not Isaac the Syrian at all, but some other heretic, or possibly even another Isaac mistaken for their St Isaac the Syrian. However, even if we take Isaac's writings before the rediscovery of "The Second Part" it is evident Isaac was a heretic, some universalists suggested Isaac was one of them by Isaac's statements about Hell, though not as explicit as "The Second Part" we have now.  In the first part, Isaac still quoted Theodore of Mopsuestia calling him the "blessed Interpreter" there too:

"Concerning all these things one may be well instructed in particulars from the writings of the blessed bishop Theodore, the light of the whole world. For he speaks about the kind and the rank of revelations, especially in the three volumes on Genesis and in the two volumes on Job and in the last one about the Twelves Prophets, and in the commentaries on the Acts and the Gospel of Matthew."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, XIX, On the Revelations and Powers which Happens to the Saints in Images. Page 105-106

"...as the blessed commentator denotes in his commentary on the story in the Acts: And those who went on the way with Paul...."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, XIX, On the Revelations and Powers which Happens to the Saints in Images. Page 106

"The is clearly proved by the blessed commentator in the second volume on Job.--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, XIX, On the Revelations and Powers which Happens to the Saints in Images. Page 108

Concerning the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, whereas Isaac the Syrian stated he was "blessed", "illumined", etc. the ecumenical council stated strongly for the contrary:

First, we considered Theodore of Mopsuestia. When all the blasphemies in his works were exposed, we were astonished at God's patience, that the tongue and mind which had formed such blasphemies were not straightaway burned up by divine fire. We would not even have allowed the official reader of these blasphemies to continue, such was our fear of the anger of God at even a rehearsal of them (since each blasphemy was worse than the one before in the extent of its heresy and shook to their foundation the minds of their listeners), if it had not been the case that those who revelled in these blasphemies seemed to us to require the humiliation which their exposure would bring upon them. All of us, angered by the blasphemies against God, burst into attacks and anathemas against Theodore, during and after the reading, as if he had been living and present there. We said: Lord, be favourable to us; not even the demons themselves have dared to speak such things against you. --The Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the "Three Chapters" AD 553

The voluminous amount of contempt for Theodore of Mopsuestia is too much to quote! But the council stated he is anathema:

Consequently we anathematize the aforesaid three chapters, that is, the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia along with his detestable writings,--The Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the "Three Chapters" AD 553

Initially, the Pope, while recognizing Theodore as having heretical theology, was hesitant to anathematize someone long after death, eventually he went along with it.

Bishop Alfeyev mentions Isaac depended on Evagrius:

"According to Brock, Isaac's style--phraseology and terminology--"owes a great debt to two writer in particular, John the Solitary and Evagrius'.....Isaac mentions Evagrius by name and many times quotes from him"--The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian. Hilarion Alfeyev. 2016

Issac calling Evagrius (Euagrius)"the sage among the saints", "blessed". A few instances include:

"And the following word has been said by the sage among the saints, Mar Euagrius, who did every thing which he did with a purpose: Prayer is a joy that gives place to thanksgivings."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, VIII: What it is that helps a man to come near etc. Page 72

"The blessed Euagrius has well said: A clear way is founded upon mercy."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, LXII: On True Knowledge and Temptations etc. Page 306

"And also the blessed Euagrius witnessing to this through real experience, has committed it to writing, for the sake of ampler confirmation, as it were lest any one should think that the blessed Macarius wrote this in his letter fortuitously without having examined his words carefully..."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, LXII: On True Knowledge and Temptations etc. Page 333

"As also the blessed Euagrius says: the mind which by the grace of God performs works of excellence and approaches unto knowledge, perceives little of the foolish part of the soul."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatises. LXXIV: On the Discrimination of Virtues etc. Page 345 

Yet, according to the third Council of Constantinople in AD 680-681, the prior council Constantinople ecumenical council (AD 553) was in part to condemn Evagrius:

Wherefore this holy and universal synod of ours, driving afar the error of impiety which endured for some time even till the present, following without deviation in a straight path after the holy and accepted fathers, has piously accorded in all things with the five holy and universal synods: that is to say, with...... 5. 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.--Third Council of Constantinople. Exposition of Faith. A.D. 680-681 (emphasis mine)

The bishop explains how the Orthodox church came to recognize his as a saint---it happened hundreds of years later:

"by the eleventh century, the Greek translations of his writings made Isaac widely known in the Greek-speaking East; in the famous anthology of ascetical texts, the Evergetinon, passages from 'abba Isaac the Syrian' stand on the same footing as those of classics of early Byzantine spirituality. This is how a modest 'Nestorian' bishop from a remote province of Persia became a Holy Father of the Orthodox Church of Chalcedonian orientation...."--The Spiritual World Of Isaac The Syrian. Hilarion Alfeyev. 2016

How can you conclude from Metropolitan Hilarion's book, and from Isaac's veneration of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Evagrius that Isaac was orthodox?

The most perplexing thing about the canonization by some of Isaac the Syrian is his veneration of formerly condemned heretics and doctrine at a time after an ecumenical council ruled against the heretics and their heresies. Ironically, those condemned by Constantinople II were condemned after death as heretics though in life being presumed to die within the Church, while Isaac the Syrian was on the opposite end and venerated, being known only hundreds of years after death, despite his heresy and rejection of an ecumenical councils rulings. 

Isaac the Syrian taught even the restoration of the demons:

And it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of completion in relationship to His own Being in a state in which the holy angels are now, in perfection of love and a passionless mind--Isaac the Syrian, The Second Part, Chapter 40:4, translated by Sebastian Brock

This doctrine was anathematized explicitly in AD 543 by Pope Vigilius, Eastern Patriarchs and Emperor Justinian:

Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.--Book against Origen of the Emperor Justinian, AD 543 (Denzinger 211)

How is such a blatant heretic a saint? How can bishops such as Robert Barron cite Isaac the Syrian as a legitimate source? The Second Council of Constantinople, contrary to what is commonly believed, seemed to suggest the heretics anathematized post humously by it, including Theodore of Mopsuestia and Evagrius died "separated from God" in other words.....damned to Hell.

Addedum: This link contains an Eastern Orthodox defense of Isaac, from a mystical albeit non-academia point of view.mystical albeit non-academic point of view.