Are hellish torments everlasting?
Seven years ago, the site "Pravoslavie.Ru" published my article "Holy Fathers and" Optimistic Theology "". The readers' comments received after that, as well as a more serious acquaintance with the patristic heritage and the problem touched upon in the article, allowed me to significantly revise and expand it: a new chapter appeared, others were supplemented with patristic testimonies; some arguments of the opponents of the church teaching about the eternity of the afterlife retribution are considered, some inaccuracies are corrected. In addition, it is taken into account that some of the authors mentioned in the original version of the article have significantly changed their views on this issue in recent years.Part 1
In the Holy Scriptures about the eternity of the coming punishment for sinners it is said repeatedly and quite definitely: “And many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth will awake, some for eternal life, others for eternal reproach and shame” (Dan. 12: 2); “And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25: 46); "Whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit, there will be no forgiveness for ever, but he is subject to eternal condemnation" (Mark 3:29); “Those who do not know God and do not submit to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ... will be punished, eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1: 8, 9).This truth was later confirmed with special force by the Holy Fathers and Councils of the Church.
"Whoever says or thinks that the punishment of demons and wicked people is temporary and that after some time it will have an end or what will happen after the restoration of demons and wicked people - let it be anathema" - this is the 9th anathematism against the Origenists proposed by the saints Justinian the Great and adopted by the Local Council of Constantinople in 543.
The idea of \u200b\u200buniversal salvation (of all people and all demons) was also condemned by the 12th anathematism of the 5th Ecumenical Council: “Whoever claims that the powers of heaven and all people, and even evil spirits will unite with that God-Word in which there is no substance ... - let it be anathema. " Subsequently, the general condemnation of Origen's non-Orthodox opinions was confirmed by the fathers of the Council of Trull in 692, as well as the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils.
There were several of these non-Orthodox opinions of Origen, of which the most famous are the preexistence of souls, the plurality of worlds, and the general apocatastasis. The opinion condemned by the 9th anathematism - about the finiteness of hellish torment - was expressed not only by Origen. In addition to him, the same thoughts can be found in Didymus the Blind, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius of Pontus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus. And the Church has always uncompromisingly opposed this opinion.
Theological disputes about Origen's non-Orthodox opinions began, as far as can be judged from some sources, even during the latter's life and later, towards the end of the 3rd century, with a thorough criticism of Origen's theological ideas were made: from the standpoint of Alexandrian theology - St. Peter, from the standpoint of Asia Minor theology - St. Methodius , and from the standpoint of Antiochian theology - Saint Eustathius, and another 100 years later, about 400 years, as many as four Local Councils took place, condemning the teachings of Origen: Alexandria, chaired by Patriarch Theophilus; Roman, chaired by Pope Anastasius I; Cyprus, presided over by Saint Epiphanius, and Jerusalem. Moreover, according to Sulpicius Severus, a witness to one of them, it was the idea of \u200b\u200bapocatastasis that caused the greatest outrage, which flared up when “when the bishops read many excerpts from his (that is, Origen - YM) books ... and reproduced one passage, in which it was asserted that the Lord Jesus ... with His torment even redeemed the sins of the devil. Because it is in His kindness and mercy that if He transforms a wretched person, then He will also free the fallen angel. "
Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria reports in his district epistle about the decision of the Council of Alexandria in the year 400: "Origen's books were read before the Council of Bishops and were unanimously condemned." Following his example, Pope Anastasius convened a Council in Rome, the decision of which he writes in a letter to Simplician: "We reported that everything written by Origen in the past, which contradicts our faith, has been rejected and condemned by us." At the same time, the Jerusalem Council was convened, and the Palestinian bishops wrote to Patriarch Theophilos: “There is no Origenism among us. The teachings you have described we have never heard here. We anathematize those who adhere to such teachings. "
Finally, in the same year, a Council of Cyprus was held, presided over by St. Epiphanius, who also condemned Origenism. Sozomenus mentions that Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus “in the assembly of Cypriot bishops forbade the reading of the Origen books; then he wrote a definition about this to other bishops, and to Constantinople, urging them to convene Councils and approve the same ”(Church history. VIII, 14). Saint Epiphanius, as is evident from his writings, considered the idea of \u200b\u200bthe possibility of the restoration of the devil one of Origen's main delusions, and it is obvious that the idea of \u200b\u200bthe temporality of hellish torments was condemned at the Cyprus Council.
In the East, Origen was also reprimanded by St. Alexander of Alexandria and St. Athanasius the Great, in the West - by Blessed Jerome and Blessed Augustine.
In Orthodox asceticism, opposition to the spread of Origen's ideas was no less widespread: starting with the Monk Pachomius the Great (who forbade his students to read the works of Origen), including such famous ascetic critics of Origenism, such as the Monks Barsanuphius the Great and John, Simeon the Holy Fool, the Nile of Sinai, Vikenty Lyrinsky and ending with the Monk Savva the Sanctified, with whose direct participation these disputes were completed by the decree of the V Ecumenical Council, which, without introducing anything new, confirmed similar decisions of the previous Local Councils. And after him the same condemnation was repeated at the Lateran Council of 649, convened by Saint Pope Martin I, and, regardless of Origen's name, by the Council of Constantinople in 1084, which decreed:
“To all who accept and teach others false and pagan opinions ... that the torment of sinners in the future life will end, and that creation and humanity are to be restored at all; and thus the Kingdom of Heaven is presented as destructible and transient, while Jesus Christ Himself and our God gave us the teaching that it is eternal and indestructible, and we, on the basis of all Holy Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, believe that torment will be endless and the Kingdom Heavenly is eternal; to those who, by such opinions, destroy themselves, and create others as fellows of eternal condemnation, anathema. "
“After a strict condemnation of Origenism, theological thought was given a certain norm by which it was to be guided in revealing eschatological truths. It is not surprising, therefore, that the doctrine of a general apocatastasis in the further history of Christian writing had no adherents. "
"Optimistic" theology
However, after a long time, the idea of \u200b\u200buniversal restoration was revived again among a number of Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. This return of "optimistic eschatology" took place in different ways, but in many respects it was caused by the need to rethink the position of Orthodoxy in a heterodox environment. Related to this is the fact that, as a rule, theologians living in exile were active supporters of this error.The ecumenical context was the first impetus for the return of the concept of apocatastasis. In the distortion that ecclesiology received in the general ecumenical attitudes of the theologians of emigration (we are talking about the recognition or, at least, the admission of the equal salvation of other confessions / religions), there was initially a logical need to overcome the dogma of the eternity of hellish torments. The second factor, even more significant, is the influence of the ideas of sophiology, to which many of the theologians-"optimists" were not indifferent. The meaning of the "Sophian total-unity" presupposed the same metaphysical prerequisites for universal restoration as classical Origenism.
The ideas of apocatastasis, dug out and cleaned from the dust of centuries, turned out to be so widely popular among the under-church Orthodox intelligentsia that they even ended up in the "Orthodox catechism" "God lives," published by members of the Paris Orthodox brotherhood in 1979. The catechism aroused great interest in the West and was translated into Russian in 1990. The authors of this doctrinal work declare bluntly:
“Let's put it bluntly: the idea of \u200b\u200beternal hell and eternal torment for some, eternal bliss, indifferent to suffering, for others, can no longer remain in the living and renewed Christian consciousness the way our catechisms and our official theology textbooks once depicted it. This outdated understanding, trying to rely on the Gospel texts, interprets them literally, roughly, materially, without delving into their spiritual meaning, hidden in images and symbols. This concept is becoming more and more intolerant of violence against the conscience, thought and faith of a Christian. We cannot admit that the Golgotha \u200b\u200bsacrifice was powerless to redeem the world and conquer hell. Otherwise, it would be necessary to say: all creation is a failure, and the feat of Christ is also a failure. It is high time for all Christians to jointly testify and reveal their intimate mystical experience in this area, as well as their spiritual hope, and perhaps their indignation and horror regarding the materialistic ideas of hell and the Last Judgment set forth in human images. It is high time to put an end to all these monstrous statements of the past centuries, which create from our God of love what He is not: an “external” God, Who is only an allegory of earthly kings and nothing else. The pedagogy of intimidation and terror is no longer effective. On the contrary, it blocks the entrance to the Church for many of those who seek the God of love. "
Similar statements can be found among our compatriots.
As you can see, the ambitions of the "optimists" are stated quite openly and rather aggressively.
The first thing that is alarming in the position of "eschatological optimists" is the point of view from which they view the problem: from the position of people who firmly know that they will definitely not end up in hell under any circumstances. It all looks as if, standing with one, if not two feet already in paradise, "optimists" generously squander the mercy of God, coming up with an excuse to have mercy on the unfortunate fallen angels and those people who are a little less fortunate than themselves.
I would like to believe that after the Last Judgment and the General Resurrection, the theologians-"optimists", together with their adherents, will indeed be on the right side. But their writings were compiled in this perishable body and for those who wear the same perishable bodies, and therefore it is important to note that the angle of view chosen by them is radically different from that which the holy fathers adhered to: "All will be saved, I alone will perish." Enlightened by personal holiness and the augmented grace of God, the greatest minds of Christianity approached this mystery with great humility, ceaselessly “keeping their minds in hell and not despairing” (Monk Silouan the Athonite); “I dwell where Satan is” (Abba Pimen). This approach completely excludes any basis for the emergence of ideas of the finiteness of hellish torment, for it reveals the deep moral depravity of the "optimistic" position: we are all primarily defendants and any reasoning about the inevitability of "amnesty" is incorrect - this is an attempt at the mercy of the Judge.
If the "eschatological optimists" understood this and followed the holy fathers, there would be no pretext for reviving the half-forgotten heresy, there would be no need for this article. But since this understanding is not observed, and the theologians-"optimists" continue to persist in their error, moreover, to develop it and insist on the rejection of the primordial teaching of the Church, which is obligatory for all Christians, as we saw with the example of the catechism cited, we will have to consider their arguments.
The argumentation used to support the mentioned idea can be divided into three types: metaphysical, moral and legal.
Metaphysical argumentation: "The kingdom of the century to come is the restoration of the world to its original state"
“At the Second Coming and the last fulfillment of times, the entire totality of the universe will enter into full union with God”; “After incarnation and resurrection, death is restless: it is no longer absolute. Everything now strives to “άποκατάστασις των πάντων” - that is, to the complete restoration of everything that was destroyed by death, to the shining of the entire cosmos with the glory of God, which will become “everything in everything”; “Every human life can always be renewed in Christ, no matter how heavy it is with sins; a person can always give his life to Christ so that He will return it to him free and pure. And this work of Christ extends to all mankind beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. " “Eternity is God, divine life,” therefore, those who are outside of God cannot remain in this state forever and will inevitably be restored after some period.These are typical examples of attempts at metaphysical substantiation of "eschatological optimism." Since at their core they all go back to the same Origenist scheme, it is not superfluous to recall the words of Fr. George Florovsky:
“The whole pathos of the Origen system lies in removing, canceling the riddle of time. It is precisely in this that the intimate meaning of his famous teaching on "general restoration", on apocatastasis, lies. Origen's doctrine of "universal salvation" is not determined by moral motives. This is, first of all, a metaphysical theory. Apokatastasis is a denial of history. The entire content of historical time will dissipate without memory or trace. And “after” history will only remain what was “before” history ”.
We will come to the same conclusion if we dwell more attentively on the very premise of restoration in the metaphysical argumentation of the “optimists”.
It is not entirely clear why they consider the idea of \u200b\u200b"returning to what was before" Christian? The Church expects a fiery transformation of the life of the world into the kingdom of the century to come, and not an inevitable general return to its primitive state. There is no question of any return of anyone to a primitive state at all. The Lord will say: “Behold, I create everything new” (Rev. 21: 5), and not “Behold, I restore the old”.
God, “as he created those who did not exist, so will recreate those who have received being - a creature that is more divine and higher than the former,” testifies St. Gregory the Theologian. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, speaking about the future transformation of the world, gives the following image: it will be like "the transformation of a baby into a perfect husband." The premise of the theologians-"optimists" about the return of the world to the womb of its primordial nature is directly opposite to this patristic perspective. In fact, this is the same denial of history, revealing the non-Christian roots of this metaphysical scheme. That is why this very premise was condemned as a separate point at the V Ecumenical Council: “Who says that the life of the spirits will be similar to the life that existed from the beginning, when the spirits were not yet fallen and perished, and that the end would be the true measure of the beginning (emphasis added us. - Yu.M.), let there be anathema ”(15th anathema).
The patristic vision of a person's afterlife can be characterized as symmetrical. Eternal hell corresponds to eternal paradise, eternal existence without God corresponds to eternal being with God. It is to this symmetry that many holy fathers appealed in their dispute with the supporters of the opinion about the finitude of hellish torments. “For if there is ever an end to torment,” writes St. Basil the Great, “then eternal life, no doubt, must have an end. And if we dare not think this about life, then what is the reason for putting an end to eternal torment? " “As punishments are eternal, so eternal life should not have any end afterwards” (Blessed Jerome of Stridonsky). According to this vision, eternal hell would exist as a potential even if neither Lucifer nor the ancestors of the human race had fallen away from God. As a potency conditioned by the free will of created beings, it would exist even if there were no one in it.
Of the theologians-"optimists" only one Fr. Sergiy Bulgakov honestly admitted that the Church Fathers had just such a vision and just as honestly admitted that he did not agree with it, while completely unsubstantiated ascribing to such a paternal vision the understanding of eternity as a special kind of temporality. In fact, the teaching of the Church, on the contrary, is a completely consistent denial of all temporality in eternity: “We will have to go with demons to where the fire is inextinguishable ... and not for a few time or for a year, and not for a hundred or thousand years for the torment will have no end, as Origen thought, but forever and forever, as the Lord said ”(Theodore the Studite).
Here we come to the second corollary of the metaphysical argumentation of the neo-origins - the denial of the productivity of free will. "To accept, together with Origen, that evil will eventually exhaust itself and only God will remain infinite, is to forget about the absolute character of personal freedom: the absolute precisely because this freedom is in the image of God."
From the point of view of Orthodox theology, human freedom, as Fr. Georgy Florovsky, should include the freedom to make a decision even against God, “for the salvation of people is prepared not by violence and autocracy, but by conviction and good disposition. Therefore, everyone is sovereign in his own salvation, so that those who are crowned and those who are punished justly receive what they have chosen ”(Venerable Isidore Pelusiot). “God honored man by granting him freedom,” writes St. Gregory the Theologian, “so that good belongs personally to the one who chooses him, no less than to the One who initiated good in nature.
Fr. Sergiy Bulgakov, who most seriously developed the "optimistic" argumentation, admitted the existence of such a problem. In his opinion, it should have been resolved in such a way that “such freedom ... has no stability in itself as an intensifying self. Freedom in evil presupposes a convulsive volitional effort of continuous rebellion, which is why one can break away from it. "Eternal torment" has only negative eternity, it is only a shadow cast by the self. Therefore it is impossible to recognize behind them the positive force of eternity, and therefore it is impossible to assert their indestructibility. "
However, all the statements made here are dubious and unsubstantiated, starting with the postulated instability of "negative freedom" and ending with the proposed Fr. Sergius introduced two eternities - positive and some negative, which is “defective” in comparison with the first, as well as the supposed possibility of “falling away” in eternity from being outside of God to being with God and in God.
Stepping aside somewhat, it should be recognized that modern criticism of the theory of apocatastasis, as a rule, is limited to this point alone, which, of course, is its weakness. It looks as if modern theologians are ashamed to point out with all clarity that "eschatological optimism" unequivocally tramples on the primordially Christian understanding of hellish torment, which has the deepest biblical and patristic foundations, primarily as retribution. This leads to very sad results: as a result of such a one-sided emphasis on personal freedom, the impression arises that for salvation it is enough just to desire to be with God, and this, of course, is a delusion, because in this case, both asceticism and improvement in the commandments are deprived of all meaning. and, ultimately, the very existence of the Church and Christianity.
Such an unhealthy inclination is not characteristic of patristic criticism of the apocatastasis. It, organically growing out of biblical theology, is centered just around the truth of divine justice. It is noteworthy that, according to the above thought of the Monk Isidore Pelusiot, freedom of the individual is due precisely to this justice. And to the champions of "eschatological optimism," we must, following the Church Fathers, say: yes, there can be no universal salvation, because it is unjust. Of course, no one will envy the generosity of the Employer when He will equally reward the workers of the tenth hour and those who have endured the heat and heaviness of the day. But in any case we are talking about workers, not about idlers.
Finally, as a third point, it can be pointed out that the denial of free will leads to the denial of God's love itself, for which the eschatologists-“optimists” stand up in words: “The concept of universal salvation, denying the eternity of hell, simultaneously ignores the incomprehensible mystery of God's love, which is above all our rational or sentimental concepts, and the mystery of the human person and its freedom. The love of God presupposes complete respect for His creatures, up to the point of “free powerlessness” to deny them freedom. "
Thus, the position of the supporters of apocatastasis leads not only to a denial of the value of human freedom, but also to a denial of both Divine justice and Divine love. It is in vain that some modern theologians contrast these two attributes to the extreme, trying to present them as mutually exclusive. Neither Scripture nor the Tradition of the Church tells us about such a categorical opposition. One cannot deny the other, since Divine justice is one of the expressions of Divine love.
“The teaching of the holy Fathers of the Church about retribution explains why in their minds that duality, that contradiction between justice and Divine love, which various heretical sects could not resolve in any way ... anger, but in the sense of such a property of God, according to which God rewards every free being according to his deeds, that is, in accordance with where a person determined himself ... The truth of God is guided not by a feeling of insult, but by the moral dignity of being. This truth cannot contradict love, for it is compelled not by the desire for satisfaction, which excludes love, but by the direct impossibility, without denying Itself, to grant peace and life to lawlessness. "
A.I.Sidorov Evagrius of Pontic: life, literary activity and place in the history of Christian theology // Creations of Abba Evagrius. M., 1994.S. 34.
The Epistle of Anastasius, Bishop of the City of Rome, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, about the Rufinus // Zadvorny V. History of Popes. M., 1995.T. 1.S. 197.
Socrates Scholastic. Church history. M., 1996.S. 252.
Sulpicius Sever. Chronicle // Sulpicius North. Compositions. M., 1999. S. 135-136.
Quotes from the epistles are taken from: Schaff P. The Principal Works of St. Jerome. New York, 1892.
In a letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, St. Cyprian writes: “About one position that he (Origen) seeks to establish, I do not know whether to cry or laugh ... He teaches that the devil will again become what he once was, and return to his former dignity, and ascend to the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh God! How stupid a person must be to think that John the Baptist, the apostles Peter and John, Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophets will be joint heirs of the devil in the Kingdom of Heaven! .. Origen's words are the words of an enemy hated and opposed to God and His saints, and not only those that I have quoted, but countless others as well ”(Quoted in Schaff P. The Principal Works of St. Jerome).
St. Athanasius the Great called the teaching of Origen, "who preached that there would be an end to torture and God would forgive every sin to both people and demons," among those examples of "impious blasphemy" into which one can fall, "if we understand a lot literally in the Divine Scriptures" ( Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria. Creations. M., 1994. T. 4. P. 431).
Denzinger H. Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. 37. Auflage. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1991, S. 237.
Anathema: history and XX century / Comp. P. Palamarchuk. M., 1998. S. 139-141.
Macarius (Oksiyuk), Metropolitan. Eschatology of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1999.S. 649.
What has been noticed even by Western researchers, see, for example, Felmi K.Kh. An Introduction to Contemporary Orthodox Theology. M., 1999.S. 276–277. Of the Orthodox works, one can mention a special chapter in the book: Vasilidis N. The Sacrament of Death. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1998. S. 524–542.
God is alive. Christian catechism. London. 1990.S. 426.
See, for example: Georgy Kochetkov, priest. In the beginning was the Word. A catechism for the enlightened. M., 1999.S. 421.
Lossky V.N. Mystical theology // Theological works. No. 8.P. 122.
Lossky V.N. Dogmatic theology. M., 1991.S. 268.
In the same place. P. 269.
Sergiy Bulgakov, archpriest. Bride of the Lamb. Paris, 1933.S. 498.
Georgy Florovsky, priest. Contradictions of Origenism // Path. 1929. No. 18.P. 109.
Gregory the Theologian, saint. Creations. T. 1. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1994. S. 547.
PG. T. 41. Col. 555.
Cit. Quoted from: John Meyendorff, Archpriest. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox Theology. M., 2000.S. 60.
Cit. Quoted from: Makariy (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Dogmatic theology. SPb., 1857.T. 2.S. 502.
Jerome of Stridonsky, blessed. Four books of interpretation on the Gospel of Matthew. M., b.g. P. 236.
Theodore the Studite, Reverend. Announcement Teachings and Testament. M., 1998.S. 75.
Olivier Clement. Origins. M., 1994.S. 296.
Isidore Pelusiot, Reverend. Letters. M., 2000.S. 292.
PG. T. 36. Col. 632.
Sergiy Bulgakov, archpriest. Prototype and image. SPb., 1999.T. 1.S. 357.
For more details see: Ivanov M.S. Hell and eternal torment // Orthodox conversation. 1998. No. 5. P. 2–7.
Placida (Desus), archimandrite. "Death is Conquered": The Last Times According to the Teachings of the Fathers of the Church // Alpha and Omega. 2000. No. 2 (24). P. 183.
Sergius (Stragorodsky), patriarch. Orthodox teaching on salvation. M., 1991.S. 141, 145.
Part 2
Moral argumentation: "The God of love cannot punish"
Here is an illustration of this typical argument: “The conventional notion of eternal torment is only a school opinion, a simplistic theology (“ punishing ”) that neglects the depth of texts such as John. 3:17 and 12:47. Can you imagine that along with the eternity of the Kingdom of God, the God of love prepares the eternity of hell, which would in some sense be a failure of the Divine plan, a victory, at least partial, of evil !? Meanwhile, the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15:55 seems to suggest otherwise. If Blessed Augustine did not approve of “charity,” then this was directed against libertinism and sentimentalism; but on the other hand, the pedagogical argument of fear no longer works, but risks bringing Christianity closer to Islam. "What is the main mistake of this thesis? The fact that theologians-"optimists" understand hellish torment as an action on the part of God, while the holy fathers taught that this is a consequence caused by the person himself. It is not God who prepares the eternity of hell. Hell, according to the thought of the Monk Macarius of Egypt, lies "in the depths of the human heart." “Likewise,” explains the Monk Simeon the New Theologian, “just as the blind, who do not see the shining sun, although they are entirely illuminated by it, remain outside the light, being removed from it by feeling and sight, so the Divine light of the Trinity will be in everything, but sinners imprisoned in darkness, and among him they will not see him ... but, scorched and condemned by their own conscience, they will have inexpressible torment and inexpressible sorrow forever. "
Saint Irenaeus of Lyons explained this truth simply, succinctly and theologically flawlessly back in the 2nd century: “He gives His fellowship to all who keep love for Him. Communication with God is life and light and the enjoyment of all the blessings that He has. And those who, according to their own will, depart from Him, He subjects them to separation from Himself, which they themselves chose. Separation from God is death, and removal from the light is darkness, and alienation from God is the deprivation of all the good things that He has. But the blessings of God are eternal and endless, therefore their deprivation is eternal and endless, just as in relation to the immeasurable light, those who have blinded themselves or blinded by others are forever deprived of its sweetness, not because the light causes them the torment of blindness, but blindness itself gives them misfortune. ...
Yes, “God is love” (1 John 4:16) and this love “will be ... all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), but for those who have become the embodiment of hatred, it will become hellish fire. This is what the famous words of the Monk Isaac the Syrian speak about: "Those who are tormented in hell are struck by the scourge of love."
Some "eschatological optimists" say that the Gehenic fire is of a purifying nature and supposedly has as its food the sins of this or that person or demon thrown into it. Over time, this food will be exterminated and the fire, finding no place for itself in the purified nature, will disappear - this is how restoration will take place. For someone a year will be enough, for someone a century, someone will suffer for millennia ... However, this is not so, and the torment cannot be long or short-term, because “there will be no more time” (Rev. 10: 6) ... "Eternity in Christ Jesus is a state of being outside and above time."
Trying to solve in such a direct and primitive way the question of how to reconcile Divine love with the eternal torment of those to whom it is addressed, the theologians-"optimists" create an equally difficult dilemma. After all, proclaiming the inevitable “restoration of all” in God, they, without noticing it, fall into the madness of “forced paradise”: “In the next century, it is absolutely impossible not to know and not love God. This love is here the law of being. " With this approach, Heavenly Jerusalem turns into a concentration camp.
Theologians-"optimists" may really not believe that someone sincerely can not love God, their Creator and Heavenly Father. They, like Muslims, think that the basis of sin lies only in ignorance of the goodness of God. One has only to find out - and there will be no sin, Muslims say. One has only to know, even after death and the general Resurrection, - and he will repent and fall with tears at the feet of the Lord, and the Lord, of course, will have mercy on him and accept, say the theologians, “optimists,” “and the cries of the late repentance of sinners will join to the general symphony of the triumph of good "I wish it were so! Moreover, we would like the sinners (and first of all, ourselves) to bring true repentance in this life. It would be even more desirable that no one would sin and would not depart from God.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Because sin is not based on ignorance, but on the personal will of an intelligent being. After all, both the devil and Adam knew - much better than us - the goodness of God, but they fell away. Their choice leaned towards a life without God.
And among the angels and people who followed the devil there are those for whom evil is not a misunderstanding or an annoying oversight, but a deliberate choice. Evil for them is the path of personal suicidal self-realization. It is foolish to argue about whether or not the devil can repent when he does not want to repent. As K.S. Lewis, “there are only two kinds of people: those who say to God: 'Thy will be done' and those to whom God says: 'Thy will be done.' Everyone in hell chose him themselves. "
So what should God do with those who do not want to be with Him and in Him? For the collar and to heaven? Destroy? Don't create? The Lord does not follow any of the indicated paths, and precisely because he loves his creation, even after it has rejected Him. Just one phrase of St. Gregory Palamas turns the wrong perspective of “eschatological optimism” hidden in these issues into the perspective of the Creator's true generosity: “God, because of His inherent goodness and mercy, not for the sake of those who have become evil of their own free will, allowed good to come into being, but for the sake of the good he created, and those who have become bad. "
Legal reasoning: "It is unfair to punish for a temporary sin forever"
“Can the God of love, proclaimed by Christ, punish endlessly for the sins of temporary life? Is the power of evil so great that it will exist even when the Lord reigns in all things? "St. John Chrysostom also answered this argument: “Don't tell me: where is justice if torment has no end? When God does something, obey His definitions and do not submit them to human thoughts. " What to do, in Orthodox Christianity, the relationship of a person with God is not accepted to think in the category of justice. This does not mean that Divine justice as such is denied, we only say that for those who completely entrust themselves to the mercy of God, “mercy is exalted over judgment” (James 2:13). Just as “as a grain of sand does not maintain balance with a large weight of gold, so the demands of God's justice do not balance in comparison with the mercy of God,” says the Monk Isaac the Syrian. But “if you demand justice, then, according to the law of righteousness, we should have perished immediately at the beginning,” continues St. John Chrysostom.
In addition, as Saint Justinian the Great rightly noted, there is not much justice in “connecting those who to the end led a life of perfection with lawless people and homosexuals and admit that both of them will enjoy the same benefits. ".
Finally, it is necessary to pay attention to how St. Gregory Dvoeslov answered this question. “This perplexity would be just,” says the saint, “if the irritable Judge considered not the hearts of people, but only deeds. The wicked had the end of their sins because they had the end of their lives. They would like, if they could, to live without end, in order to be able to sin without end. "
This idea is repeated by the prominent theologian of the 15th century Joseph Briennius, pointing out that, strictly speaking, it is incorrect to raise the question of eternal punishment for temporary affairs, because God judges the inner disposition of a person, only expressed in actions. True believers and virtuous people have an immortal disposition for good, therefore they follow into infinite bliss, and those who have a final disposition to sin follow into eternal punishment.
The Monk Gregory the Sinaite offers yet another image: "As the embryos of hellish torments are invisibly hidden in the souls of sinners on earth, so the first fruits of heavenly blessings are communicated in the hearts of the righteous through the Holy Spirit." That is, by our death, we give birth to that eternal destiny, which we have nurtured in ourselves all this life. This is the deepest meaning of real temporary life, which is ignored by “optimistic theology”: “here victorious crowns are given to the winners as pledges; just as for the conquered, here is the beginning of their shame and torment. "
In the "optimistic" position, a perverted understanding of eternity is manifested, according to which it turns out that eternity is a continuation of our present being, only in the absence of death. But Orthodoxy thinks in a completely different way: eternity is otherness. As St. John of Damascus writes, “eternal life and eternal torment signify the endlessness of the century to come. For the time after the resurrection will no longer be counted in days and nights, or, better, then there will be one non-evening day, since the Sun of righteousness will clearly shine on the righteous, and for sinners a deep endless night will come. So how will the millennial time of Origen's recovery be calculated? " (An exact statement of the Orthodox faith. 2. 1).
Argumentation from the Misunderstood Doctrine of Christ's Descent into Hell
Another variation of "optimistic theology" has emerged relatively recently. Its supporters, in contrast to the "optimists" -ecumenists, recognize that it is impossible to be saved outside the Orthodox Church and that salvation is only in Christ and is inextricably linked with the recognition of Him as God and man. However, they manage to weave this truth with the Origenist lie as follows.First, they teach that as if the Lord Jesus Christ, after his death on the cross, descended into hell, brought out of it the souls of absolutely all people who had died before. Secondly, they say, the descent into hell was not a one-time act, but an ongoing act, so that Christ, as it were, constantly dwells in hell, so that the souls of all dying people can be met there and preached to them, and these souls are already convinced after death directly by Christ, accept Orthodoxy and are brought out of hell.
Expounded "in its pure form", this false doctrine looks so absurd that it seems unnecessary to refute it, however, since it has to be heard from people who have some fame and even authority in the Orthodox environment, and, in addition, there are people who are misled by them, not it would be superfluous to say a few words in refutation.
First of all, it should be noted that the idea that Christ, having descended into hell, liberated the souls of absolutely everyone who is there, is not characteristic of the Church. If we turn to the creations of the holy fathers, we will see a completely different teaching.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem spoke about the withdrawal from hell only of the Old Testament saints: “He descended into the underworld in order to free the righteous from there too” (Catechumens 4, 2); “The holy prophets and Moses the lawgiver, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, David and Samuel and Isaiah, and the baptist John, fled ... All the righteous who were swallowed up by death have been redeemed. For it was fitting for the preached King to become the redeemer of good preachers. Then each of the righteous said: “Death, where is your victory? Hell, where is your sting? For the Conqueror has redeemed us ”” (Explanatory words. 14, 19). Likewise, the Monk Ephraim the Syrian wrote that the Lord Jesus Christ “brought out the souls of the saints from hell” (Interpretation on the book of Deuteronomy. 1. 34). Blessed Jerome says that the Savior descended into hell "in order to triumphantly lead with Him to heaven the souls of the saints who were imprisoned there." The Monk John Cassian writes: "Having penetrated into hell, Christ ... crushed the iron faiths, and the holy captives, who were kept in the impenetrable darkness of hell, he raised from captivity with Him to heaven."
In St. Epiphanius of Cyprus we read: “What then? Does God save everyone by appearing in hell? No, but even there there are only believers. "
And St. John Chrysostom, speaking about the descent of Christ into hell, explained: “This only shows that He destroyed the power of death, and not destroyed the sins of the dead before His coming. Otherwise, if He freed all those who had died before from Gehenna, then why did He say: “The land of Sodom and Gomorrah will be more comforting”? By this it is given to understand that they, although easier, will nevertheless be punished. And although they have already suffered extreme punishment here, this will not save them. "
Blessed Augustine wrote: "He deigned to descend into hell, where the sufferings of hell could not restrain Him ... what was written about the" resolution of the sufferings of hell "can be attributed not to everyone, but only to those whom He could accept, since he considered them worthy of liberation."
In the "Catenas" for the 1st Epistle of Peter there is a fragment from the unpreserved creation of St. Cyril of Alexandria, which states that as on earth the preaching of Christ was addressed to everyone, but benefited only those who believed, "so also during the descent into hell He freed from the bonds the death of only those who believed and recognized Him. "
The Monk John Damascene also wrote that the Lord preached to everyone in hell, but for some this sermon was for salvation, and for others it was a reproof: “The deified soul descends into hell, so that, just as for those who were in the earth, the Sun of righteousness would shine, in the same way, for those who were under the ground, who are in darkness and in the shadow of death, light shone; so that, just as to those who were on earth, the Lord preached peace, to the captives of liberation and the blind, insight, and to those who believed would become the cause of eternal salvation, and for those who did not believe - the reproof of unbelief, in the same way he preached to those who were in hell ”(Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith. 3, 29 ).
Pope Gregory Dvoeslov expressed himself with particular clarity in this regard in a letter to two clergy of Constantinople: “After your departure, I learned ... that your love said that the Almighty Lord our Savior Jesus Christ, having descended into hell, all who confessed Him as God , saved and freed from well-deserved punishment. I wish your brotherhood would think about this in a completely different way, namely, that He who went down into Hell, by his grace, released only those who believed that He would come and lived according to His commandments. For it is known that even after the incarnation of the Lord, no one can be saved, even from those who believe in Him, if they do not live by faith, as it is written: “Whoever says,“ I have known Him, ”but does not keep His commandments, he is a liar ”(1 John 2: 4); “Faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26). So, if today believers are not saved without good deeds, and unbelievers and condemned people are saved without good deeds by the Lord who descended into hell, then the fate of those who have not seen the incarnate Lord is much better than those who were born after the mystery of the incarnation. How foolish it is to say and think so, the Lord himself testifies to this when he says to his disciples: “Many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see, and did not see” (Luke 10:24). But in order not to occupy me with your love with my reasoning for a long time, I advise you to read what Philastrius wrote about this heresy in his book about heresies. Here are his words: “There are heretics who say that the Lord, having descended into hell, preached there about Himself to everyone after their death, so that those who confess Him there might be saved, while this is contrary to the words of the prophet David: in hell who confess Thee (Ps. 6: 6), and the words of the Apostle: those who, having no law, have sinned, are outside the law, and will perish (Rom. 2: 12) ”. Blessed Augustine also agrees with his words in his book on heresies. So, having judged about all this, do not contain anything other than what the true faith of the Catholic Church teaches. "
This teaching was confirmed at the Toledo Council of 625, which decreed: "He descended into hell in order to expel from there the saints who were kept there." In the middle of the 8th century, Pope Boniface accused the Irish monk Clement of heresy, who claimed that Christ, having descended into hell, freed everyone from there - both believers and pagans. The Rome Council of 745, convened by Pope Boniface, condemned Clement and recognized that the Lord descended into hell not to free the damned from it or destroy the hell of condemnation, but to free the righteous who preceded Him.
We see the same teaching in later saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria explained: “Those who had a good time in their lives, and then received salvation through the descent of the Lord into hell, as St. Gregory [the Theologian] thinks. He says: "Christ, having appeared to those in hell, saves not all without exception, but only believers." For it depended on the will of each not to remain insensitive to the rich gift of the Creator, but to present oneself as worthy of the Giver's goodness. "
Saint Gregory Palamas wrote that the Lord descended into hell "to enlighten those sitting in darkness and to revive those who believed in Him in spirit."
Saint Demetrius of Rostov: “When our Lord, clothed in humanity, ascended to heaven, immediately showed the way to heaven for the whole human race, the souls of the holy forefathers and prophets, brought out of hell, followed Christ along it”.
The same truth is contained in the catechisms used by the Church today, for example, St. Philaret of Moscow writes: "The Lord Jesus Christ descended into hell in order to preach the victory over death there and free souls who with faith awaited His Coming" (Extensive Orthodox Catechism of the Orthodox Eastern Church. 213). And St. Nicholas of Serbia also says: "To the invisible Church belong ... all Christians who have died in true faith in Christ over the past 20 centuries, as well as the Old Testament righteous, whom the Lord saved during His descent into hell" (Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Finally, the same is written in the liturgical books of the Orthodox Church. So, at Easter Matins in Sinaxar, according to the 6th canto, it is said: “The Lord has now stolen human nature from the treasures of hell, elevated to heaven and brought incorruption to the ancient heritage. I have descended into hell, not all resurrect, but you have deigned to believe in Him. Souls from the age of the saints, being held in need, freedom from hell. "
Only a few saints spoke about the salvation of the souls of all those who died during the descent of the Lord into hell - St. Amphilochius of Iconium, who wrote: "When he appeared to hell ... all were released ... everyone ran after Him ... one could see every prisoner who saw freedom and every captive rejoicing in the resurrection" (Word 6, against heretics); The Monk Roman the Sweet Songwriter, who put the following words into the mouth of hell: “He grabbed me by the throat, and I cast out all who I swallowed, crying:“ The Lord is risen! ”” (Kontakion 42), and the Monk Joseph Volotskiy, who wrote that the Lord “ brought everyone out of hell ”(The Enlightener. 4).
It is possible that some of these fathers, by the word "all" meant all saints, and not all people in general, but be that as it may, from the above quotations it is clear that this opinion does not constitute the consent of the fathers and does not express the teaching of the Church, which was expressed the listed saints: Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim the Syrian, John Chrysostom, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Cassian, Jerome of Stridon, Augustine of Ipponian, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Dvoeslov, John of Damascus, Theophylact of Bulgaria, Gregory of Moscow Rostai - a the Church Councils that were held on this occasion and the divine service of the Orthodox Church.
But if the statement that the Lord brought everyone out of Hell, although not the teaching of the Church, is nevertheless found in some ancient church authors (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.), then the statement that the Lord allegedly continues to be in Hell, preaching everything there to the new souls of the dying and convincing them to believe in Him, is a completely new teaching, never before known to the Church and alien to her faith. Which in itself brings him under the words of the apostle: “Whoever preaches the gospel to you other than what you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1: 9).
The Church teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ descended into hell as a deified soul when it was separated from His body by death. Then his soul united with his body and the Resurrection took place, and after that the miraculous Ascension to Heaven, and now Christ in humanity is at the right hand of the Father. Actually, every Christian speaks about this, confessing the Lord Jesus Christ "risen on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father" in the Creed.
You can also quote the words of St. Innocent of Kherson: "Our Savior descended into hell Himself, by His will and His power, descended in order to soon get out of hell, descended alone to bring out from there all who were waiting for His coming with faith."
The aforementioned new teaching contradicts the words of the apostles who said that the Lord, “having been put to death according to the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, by which He also descended to the spirits in prison, preached” (1 Pet. 3: 18-19); “It is said: he ascended on high, took captivity captive and gave gifts to men. And “ascended,” which does not mean that He first descended into the underworld of the earth? He who descended, He is also He who ascended above all heavens, in order to fill all ”(Eph. 4: 8-10).
It is clearly said: “preached”, not “preaches” and “descended into the underworld places”, after which “ascended”, and not “constantly descends” or “descended and remains in the underworld”. About where Christ abides, the Apostle Peter says quite definitely: "Ascended into heaven, he abides at the right hand of God" (1 Pet. 3:22).
In addition, false doctrine deprives human life itself of meaning on earth. According to the Orthodox teaching, this life is given to a person as a time for choosing - whether he is with God or against God, and the choice made, expressed in the words and deeds of a person, determines his posthumous fate.
The Monk Barsanuphius the Great says about this: “Regarding knowledge of the future, do not be mistaken: what you sow here, you reap there. After leaving here, no one can already succeed ... Brother, here is work - there is reward, here is feat - there are crowns ”.
And St. John Chrysostom writes: “Only real life is the time for exploits, and after death - judgment and punishment. “But in hell,” it is said, “who will confess You?” (see: Psalm 6: 6) ".
And in the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church, the same thought is expressed: “There is no repentance in hell, there is no other weakness there: there is an indefatigable worm, there the earth is dark, and everything is darkened” (Rite of the burial of priests).
Finally, the indicated false teaching deprives the meaning and existence of the earthly Church, because with this approach it becomes completely unnecessary: \u200b\u200bif we accept that Christ after death still personally meets everyone in hell and gives the opportunity to enter heaven, then what difference does it make - to be in the Church or outside of it, lead an ascetic life or wallow in sins, if everyone has the same end?
Some features of "optimistic" theology
One can agree with Clement Olivier when he writes that “in a spiritual sense it is impossible to talk about hell for others. The topic of hell can only be discussed in terms of I and You. The Gospel warnings are addressed to me, revealing the seriousness and tragedy of my spiritual destiny ”. The story of the ancient Paterikon about a monk is well known, to whom an angel appeared, holding the soul of his condemned brother in his hands, and asked: "In what part of hell will you order me to throw him?", After which the monk, repenting, exclaimed: "Lord, forgive me and him ! " God does not want the death of the sinner. Of course, an Orthodox Christian cannot wish for anyone's destruction.But the very formulation of the question of the universality of salvation is incorrect. This is, first of all, a deeply personal question. No collectivism is appropriate here. This is not to say: if only five percent are saved, then this is contrary to Divine love, but if two-thirds, then this is all right. Of course, if we approach the issues of eschatology, proceeding from statistical criteria, then, indeed, only one hundred percent salvation should be recognized as ideal. “But this opinion is very erroneous,” says the Monk Ambrose of Optina, “because nowhere in the Holy Scripture is a special spiritual right attributed to the multitude and number. The Lord clearly showed that the sign of the true Catholic Church does not consist in multitude and number when he says in the Gospel: “Fear not, little flock! for your Father was well pleased to give you the kingdom ”(Luke 12:32). There is also an example in the Holy Scriptures not in favor of the multitude. After the death of Solomon, the kingdom of Israel was divided with his son, and Holy Scripture represents the ten tribes as fallen away, and the two tribes that remained faithful to their duty, did not fall away ”(Response favored to the Latin Church). One can also recall the words of Saint Gregory Palamas that even if among people there was only one righteous person who became such by his own will, this would justify in the eyes of God both the creation of the world and the falling away of all other rational beings.
Saint Ambrose of Mediolansky owns a wonderful phrase: "One and the same person is simultaneously saved and condemned." Everyone can potentially be saved. And not only man. Saint Basil the Great wrote that before the fall of Adam, even the devil had the possibility of repentance. Moreover, already much after the Fall, the Monk Anthony the Great was given from God the order of repentance for demons. However, over the past 16 centuries, not a single case of the use of this rank has been known.
For evil spirits, repentance is impossible, not because they are forbidden to repent, and not because God is unable to forgive them, but only because they themselves are so deeply rooted in their freely chosen state of apostasy that they do not want and will never want to return. to God. This is, as St. Gregory Dvoeslov writes, "the reason that they do not pray for the devil and his angels, who are sentenced to eternal punishment."
Of course, fortunately, there are not so many people who consciously surrendered to the devil and fundamentally reject the love of God. However, there is another, much larger category, which we constitute, "simple" sinful people, although they want to be in paradise and believe that they have pleased God with their lives, but who will be among the rejected after the Judgment. All the parables of the New Testament are eschatological, and they all talk about it. Not only those who have chosen Satan as their father, but also those who have said all their lives: "Lord, Lord!" - can go to eternal flour. Not only those who refused to come to the Kingdom Feast, but also those who came to it in inappropriate clothes, may find themselves in the pitch darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
What should we do when we realize that we are so afflicted with sin that we ourselves fall under this judgment of the gospel truth? We can only pray to the Lord for forgiveness of us and our neighbors, leaving our common fate to the will of God's mercy, but not demanding universal pardon, providing a logical basis for this. We are all defendants, each of us deserves to be condemned, and any condemnation and punishment will certainly be more merciful than what we deserve.
What do we do? Pray? Yes. Hope? Yes. Of course, we cannot know for certain either our fate, or the fate of our neighbor. But we can and should repeat the testimony that the Lord left us in His Gospel, adhering to the understanding of it that we find in the Holy Fathers.
Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus: “Origen was charmed by sin and uttered deadly words ... This heresy is terrible and worse than all the ancient heresies, with which it philosophizes in a similar way. [Among other things] he falsely taught that the devil would be restored to his rulership. John the Baptist and other saints are blessed with the fact that they will be fellows of the devil in the Kingdom of Heaven! " (Panarion. 64.3, 72).
Blessed Jerome of Stridon: “Origen is a heretic ... He fell into error in the doctrine of the resurrection of bodies; I was mistaken in the doctrine of the state of souls and of the devil's repentance ... I would have been an accomplice in his error if I had not said that he was mistaken, and did not anathematize all this constantly "(Letter to Vigilantius).
Saint John Chrysostom: “No one is released from Hell, and those imprisoned there forever burn in fire and endure such torment that cannot be described. If no word can express even those fierce sufferings that people who are burnt here endure, then the suffering of those who are tormented there is all the more incomprehensible. Here, at least, all suffering ends in a few minutes, and there the burning sinner burns eternally, but does not burn out ”(Conversations on Matthew the Evangelist. 43.4).
Venerable John Climacus: “All, and especially the fallen ones, must take care not to admit the ailment of the godless Origen into their hearts; for his bad teaching, instilling in God's love for mankind, is very pleasing to voluptuous people ”(Ladder. 5, 41).
To the question of one Origenist about the teachings of Origen, Didymus and Evagrius that “that future torment must have an end, and people, angels and demons will return again to their first state,” the Monk Barsanuphius the Great replies: “These are pagan dogmas. This is the idle talk of people who think of themselves that they mean something. These are the words of idle people. These are the products of delusion ... These (opinions) do not lead those who believe them to the light, but to darkness. They do not prompt the fear of God, but more to the success of the devil. They do not extract from the mud, but immerse it in it. This is the essence of these tares, which the enemy sowed in the field of the Householder ... Brother, if you want to be saved, do not go into this (teaching), for I testify to you before God that you have fallen into the devil's moat and into extreme destruction. So, depart from this and follow the holy fathers. "
Saint John Moschus describes a vision through the prayers of Saint Cyriacus, when Origen was seen among other heretics in the hellish flame (Spiritual Meadow 26).
Venerable John Damascene: "The Origenists ... they say that Christ and the devil will be under the same authority" (About a hundred heresies in brief. 64).
Venerable Nikita Stifat: “I believe in the resurrection of the dead and confess the endless kingdom of the righteous throughout the ages of ages, and that the punishment of sinners and the demons themselves will last forever and never end and that sinners and demons will not return to their original state, as Origen is mistaken in the darkening "(Confession of Faith. 13).
Saint Simeon of Thessalonica: “Against Origen, who senselessly allowed a change (of states) in the next century and accepted the end of punishment, the Creed says:“ And the life of the next century. Amen". In the Gospel: "These go into eternal torment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25: 46). "
Saint Theophan the Recluse: “Well, well, let the torment, in your opinion, not last; how long will they last? Yes, even a thousand thousand years, but still must end, you say. But what is the benefit to us, sinners? After all, the torment there will be unbearable ... So, it is badly thought up. Think better that there will be no torment at all, but not on paper only, not for your own reasons, but bring us a certificate of this from the one who has the keys of hell; Then we, sinners, will benefit from it: sin for yourself as much as you like and as you like! And the way you think ... thank you for your kindness about us! Besides, everything is somehow vague. You forget that there will be eternity, not time; therefore, everything will be there forever, and not temporarily. You consider torment to be hundreds, thousands and millions of years, and then the first minute will begin, and there will be no end to it, for there will be an eternal minute. The score will not go further, but will be in the first minute, and it will be like that. "
Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov): “The voluptuous epicureans cry in vain:“ It cannot be that hellish torment, if only it exists, was so cruel, eternal! This is inconsistent neither with the mercy of God, nor with sound reason. Man exists on earth for enjoyment; he is surrounded by objects of pleasure: why should he not use them? What's wrong and sinful? " Leaving this cry to the arbitrariness of those who utter it and oppose it to Divine Revelation and Teaching, the son of the Holy Church, who dwells on earth for repentance, is guided in his concepts of eternity and the fierceness of hellish torment by the Word of God. What did the multi-passionate human heart not reject in order to indulge in debauchery more freely! .. Is it any wonder that it rejected the reins and thunderstorms stopping the sinner in his ways, rejected hell and eternal torment? But they do exist. The sin of every limited creature before its Creator, infinitely perfect, is infinite sin; and such a sin requires infinite punishment. "
And these are only those fathers (and even then not all) who definitely spoke out about the condemnation of the false teaching about the finiteness of hellish torment. And the number of the holy fathers who simply taught about eternal torment is so great that it cannot be counted at all. It is surprising to see the stubbornness of the so-called "optimists" who, with so many and clear conciliar decrees of the Church, with such an abundance of patristic testimonies and even direct words of Scripture, continue to persist, asserting that the false teaching about the finiteness of hellish torments "was never rejected by the Church" and "neither in which it does not contradict the Orthodox faith. " With what hearts do such people read the prayer rule every evening, saying: "Lord, deliver me eternal torment" (prayer of St. John Chrysostom) and "Thy judgment, O Lord, fear and endless torment" (prayer of St. John of Damascus)?
Evdokimov P.N. Woman and the salvation of the world. Minsk, 1999.S. 121.
Moreover, "The Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith" directly anathematizes those who teach that God is the culprit of the eternal punishment of unrepentant sinners. - Dogmatic messages of the Orthodox hierarchs of the XVII-XIX centuries about the Orthodox faith. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1995, p. 151.
Macarius of Egypt, reverend. Spiritual conversations. M., 1998.S. 442.
Simeon the New Theologian, reverend. Creations. M., 1892.T. 3.S. 123.
Irenaeus of Lyons, saint. Against heresies. M., 1996.S. 505.
Isaac the Sirin, Reverend. Ascetic words. M., 1993.S. 76.
Delikostopoulos Athanasius. Orthodox faith. Athens, 1993.S. 176.
Sergiy Bulgakov, archpriest. Bride of the Lamb. S. 505.
Epifanovich S.L. Regarding M.F. Oksiyuk "Eschatology of St. Gregory of Nyssa" // Venerable Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine Theology. M., 1996.S. 207.
Lewis Clive S. Divorce. M., 1990.S. 24.
Gregory Palamas, saint. Conversations. Moscow, 1993. Part 2. P. 156–157.
Alexander Men, archpriest. Son of Man. Brussels, 1983, p. 128.
John Chrysostom, saint. Teachings. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1993.Vol. 2.P. 520.
Isaac the Sirin, Reverend. Ascetic words. P. 420.
Justinian the Great, saint. Letter to the Holy Council about Origen and his associates // Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. SPb., 1996.T. 3.S. 538.
Gregory Dvoeslov, saint. Creations. M., 1999.S. 688.
Αργυρίου Α. Iωσήφ τοΰ Βρυεννίου μετά τινος Ισμαηλίτου Διάλεζιζ // Επετερις. 35 1967. Σ. 173.
Gregory the Sinaite, reverend. Creations. M., 1999.S. 19.
Simeon the New Theologian, reverend. Creations. M., 1892.T. 2.S. 49.
Jerome, blessed. Interpretation on the Epistle to the Ephesians, book. 2 // Jerome, blessed. Creations. Ch. 17. Kiev, 1903.S. 303.
Cit. Quoted from: Holy Gospel with the interpretation of the holy fathers. M., 2000.S. 61.
Word on Holy Saturday // PG T. 43. Coll. 440D. However, the Western researcher A. Vaillant believed that this work did not belong to the saint and was written much later than his life. Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to familiarize ourselves with his work and form an opinion on how convincing his arguments were.
John Chrysostom, saint. Selected Creations. M., 1993. Book. 1.P. 399.
Epistle 164, II, 5 // PL 33, 710-711.
PG 74, 1016 A.
St. Gregory the Dvoeslov letter 179, to Gregory the presbyter and Theodore the deacon of Constantinople about whom the Lord brought with him from hell when he went into it // Christian reading. SPb., 1841. Part 2. P. 93–97.
Bruns H.D. Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum Veterum Selecti. Berlin, 1839. T. 1. P. 221.
MacCulloch J.A. The Harrowing of Hell. Edinburgh, 1930. P. 259-260.
Interpretation of the New Testament of Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria. M., b.g. P. 212.
Gregory Palamas, saint. Homilies. Montreal, 1965.S. 161.
Creations of others like the saints of our father, St. Demetrius of Rostov. SPb. P. 306.
A similar opinion is also found in the works of the Monk Maximus the Confessor (Question Answers to Falassius, 7), however, he writes it not as his own, but accompanies the words “some speak” and cites it simply as one of the interpretation options known to him.
Cit. from: Holy Gospel with the interpretation of the Holy Fathers. P. 613.
Barsanuphius the Great and John, Venerables. A Guide to Spiritual Life in Answers to Disciples' Questions. M., 2001.S. 513.
John Chrysostom, saint. Selected Creations. Book. 1, p. 398.
See: Olivier Clement. Origins.
PL 15. Col. 1224 (20, 58).
Basil the Great, saint. Creations. M., 1993.T. 2.P. 321.
Gregory Dvoeslov, saint. Decree. op. P. 689.
Barsanuphius the Great and John, Venerables. A Guide to Spiritual Life in Answers to Disciples' Questions. S. 510-513.
The Scriptures of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church Pertaining to the Interpretation of the Orthodox Divine Service. SPb., 1857.T. 3.P. 131.
See: Theophan the Recluse, saint. Contemplation and reflection. M., 2000.
See: Ignatius (Brianchaninov), saint. The word about death // Ignatius (Brianchaninov), saint. Collected Works. T. 3.
Part 3
"Optimistic Patrology"
Many modern supporters of the idea of \u200b\u200b"universal salvation" are trying to rehabilitate it by referring to the holy fathers who allegedly were supporters of this delusion. Let us consider how consistent these attempts are.Saint Gregory of Nyssa
Saint Gregory is the only one of all Orthodox saints who definitely taught about the finiteness of hellish torments. And this fact invariably becomes the subject of speculation on the part of supporters of "optimistic theology". Here are two examples.“The VI Ecumenical Council included the name of St. Gregory of Nyssa among the“ holy and blessed fathers ”, and the VII Ecumenical Council even called him“ the father of the fathers ”. As for the Council of Constantinople in 543 and the Fifth Ecumenical Council, at which Origenism was condemned, it is very indicative that, although the teaching of Gregory of Nyssa about universal salvation was well known to the fathers of both Councils, it was not identified with Origenism. The Council Fathers recognized that there is a heretical understanding of universal salvation (the Origenistic apocatastasis, “in connection” with the idea of \u200b\u200bthe pre-existence of souls), but there is also an Orthodox understanding of it based on 1 Cor. 15: 24-28. "
“God wants all people to be saved. Do we believe that God's purpose will fail? Or we can hope for the final apocatastasis - the “restoration” of all things, in which every rational creature (including even the devil) will be saved. It was this doctrine of universal salvation that Origen defended. For this he was condemned by the V Ecumenical Council. Saint Gregory of Nyssa also expressed hope for the final salvation of the devil. But he did it more carefully, and therefore was not convicted. Therefore, in Orthodoxy, the doctrine of "apocatastasis" (in a restrained version) takes its rightful place. "
As can be seen from the quotes presented, the logic of the "optimistic theologians" is the same: not condemned means approved. However, is it really so? And what is the actual ecclesiastical attitude to the eschatological teaching of the great Saint of Nyssa? Here is a brief overview of the opinions of the holy fathers on this score.
The Monk Barsanuphius the Great, being asked about such an opinion of Saint Gregory, which he had previously condemned as a clear deviation from Orthodoxy, replies: “Do not think that people, although saints, could completely comprehend all the depths of God ... If the holy man speaks of the above opinions, you will not find that he would confirm his words, as if he had an affirmation from above, but they flowed from the teachings of his former teachers, and he, trusting their knowledge and wisdom, did not ask God if this was true ”.
Saint Cyriacus the Hermit (6th century) also spoke of the inadequacy of referring to the teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa to justify the heresy of universal salvation. that the Origenists cite the authority of St. Gregory of Nyssa as an excuse, saying that “the teachings of pre-existence and restoration are safe,” the elder replied that their teachings, including apocatastasis, “are not safe, but dangerous and harmful, and blasphemous ... But God through revelation showed me the dirt of his heresy. "
Saint German of Constantinople also spoke negatively, but with the assumption that the works of Saint Gregory were damaged by the Origenists: “Those who liked the absurdity that, as if for demons and for people subject to eternal punishment, there was no time to expect deliverance ... they proceeded to his pure and healthy creations and mixed in the dark and deadly poison of origen ravings. "
Saint Mark of Ephesus, citing extensive excerpts from Saint Gregory, exclaims: “Do we not act correctly that we do not accept such words of Saint Gregory of Nyssa on faith, considering them either forged or, if they are even genuine, not accepting them as contradicting the Scriptures and general dogmas? " “Saint Gregory of Nyssa, being a man, deviated somewhat from the correct teaching, and even then at a time when this teaching was the subject of controversy and was not finally condemned and rejected by the opposite teaching presented at the V Ecumenical Council; so it is not surprising that, as a man, he himself sinned exactly (the truth) ... But the V Ecumenical Council recognized such an opinion (about the finiteness of torment) from all the teachings as the most inhuman and, as harmful to the Church and as weakening of the diligent, is betrayed anathema ... So, these sayings, if indeed they were spoken by the wonderful Gregory ... are in no way convincing for us, looking at the general judgment of the Church and guided by Divine Scripture, and not looking at what each of the teachers wrote, expressing as his own opinion. "
The Monk Maxim the Confessor, rejecting the idea of \u200b\u200bapocatastasis, believed that Saint Gregory "used this term in the sense of restoring the cognitive powers of man to that state of correct attitude to truth, in which they came out of the creative hands of their Creator."
The general ecclesiastical attitude was expressed in one phrase by Saint Photius of Constantinople: “What Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, says about restoration (περι άποκαταστάσεως), is not accepted by the Church”. It is not accepted regardless of whether it is an interpolation of heretics, whether it is the own thoughts of the ancient saint, or the wrong interpretations of his real thoughts.
So the consensual attitude of the holy fathers to the peculiarities of the eschatology of St. Gregory of Nyssa is well known and leaves no room for any speculation: these features were known and condemned.
Reverend Isaac the Syrian
Ten years ago, the publication of the “newly discovered 2nd volume of the works of the Monk Isaac the Syrian” in the translation of Hegumen Hilarion (Alfeev, now Bishop of Vienna and Austria) took place in Russian. Orthodox Christians have received with great interest the appearance of a translation of what was presented as previously lost creations of a well-known and very revered and beloved ascetic and holy father.However, reading the newly discovered text caused serious bewilderment. For the reader familiar with the 1st volume of the works of the holy father, it was impossible not to notice the strange inconsistencies. So, if the author of the 1st volume considers hellish torment eternal (p. 58), then the author of the 2nd volume calls such an opinion blasphemous (p. 39). If the author of the 2nd volume declares that “the death of our Lord was not for our atonement from sin and not for any other purpose, but only so that the world would know the love that God has for creation” (p. 3) , then the author of the 1st volume does not find such, to put it mildly, strange opposition: “And Christ Himself, out of His love for us, obeyed the Father in joyfully accepting the reproach ... Therefore, the Lord that night, in whom he was betrayed, he said: This is my blood, even for many we are shed for the remission of sins ”(p. 48). If the author of the 2nd volume says that even if Adam and Eve “did not break the commandment, they still would not be left in paradise forever” (p. 39), then for the author of the 1st volume such an opinion is impossible, since he believes that the paradise from which Adam was expelled "by the advice of the devil" is "the love of God" (p. 83). Finally, if the author of the 1st volume refers, as authorities, to Saints Gregory the Theologian and Cyril of Alexandria, then the author of the 2nd volume refers to the "blessed" Theodore of Mopsuestia and "Saint" Diodorus of Tarsus.
These and other inconsistencies have been noticed by quite a few people. On the pages of the Orthodox press in a number of works, doubts were expressed that the newly found texts belonged to the pen of the great ascetic of Orthodoxy.
But not so much the discrepancies themselves, as the fact that the same questions on the pages of the 1st and 2nd volumes are solved in completely different keys and proceeding from different premises, is the main evidence that these pages cannot belong to one author.
The most striking example is the understanding of what the afterlife punishment is. The author of the second volume is convinced that this is something external in relation to both the tormented one and in relation to God, who will be “all in all”; from which he concludes that such a punishment excludes Divine love, contradicts it. The Monk Isaac the Syrian, on the contrary, believes that Divine love itself is a punishment for unrepentant sinners. With such an approach, the emergence of the contradiction that becomes the foundation of the "optimistic" reasoning of the author of the 2nd volume is impossible.
Even the character of the authors of both volumes is different. If the Monk Isaac the Syrian appears before us as a theologian-mystic and secret viewer, then the author of the 2nd volume is more likely to be a theologian-theoretician.
In this work, we will restrict ourselves only to those problems related to the “newly found writings” that are directly related to our topic, leaving aside the questions of Christology and confessional affiliation of the Monk Isaac the Syrian.
However, as regards the last question, it is worth giving an example from the life of Elder Paisiy Svyatogorets: “Once the elder sat near the Stavronikita monastery and talked with the pilgrims. One of them, a graduate of the theological faculty, claimed that Abba Isaac the Syrian was a Nestorian, and repeated a well-known Western view on this issue. Elder Paisios tried to convince the theologian that Abba Isaac was not only Orthodox, but also a saint, and that his ascetic words were filled with much grace and power. But the theologian stubbornly stood his ground. The elder went into his kaliva grieved and plunged into prayer ... On the way he had a vision: he saw the face of the monastic fathers passing before him. One of the monks stopped before the elder and said: “I am Isaac the Syrian. I am very, very Orthodox. Indeed, in the area where I was bishop, the Nestorian heresy was widespread, but I fought with it "... After this, the elder in the September Menaion to the text" On the 28th day of the same month, the memory of our venerable father Ephraim the Syrian "added with his own hand:" Isaac the Great Hesychast, who was treated very unjustly. "
The fact that Saint Isaac was an anti-nestorian in his teaching and in life is also written by the abbot of the Athonite monastery Iviron. It is interesting that the aforementioned testimony of Elder Paisius explains some of the omissions of Nestorian historians. In the work "Ketaba de Nakfuta", for example, about Saint Isaac it is written that he was bishop of Nineveh for only five months, after which he "left the episcopal see for a reason that only God knows." Later, when he was ascetic in the monastery of Rabban Shabura, Saint Isaac "said three things that were not accepted by the community" and which aroused the indignation of the Nestorian bishop Daniel of Bet Garmai. The fight against Nestorianism and the confession of Orthodox views is precisely what could have led to the abandonment of the pulpit and to indignation on the part of the Nestorian monks and clergy. We see confirmation of this in an older contemporary of Saint Isaac - Martyria (Sahdon), who, being the bishop of the Persian Church, professed Orthodoxy, for which he was condemned by the Nestorians. By the way, a similar assumption about the reasons for the removal of Saint Isaac from the pulpit was already expressed by the Russian patrologist A.I. Sidorov.
Let us now turn to the question of the finiteness of future torments in the newly found writings attributed to the Monk Isaac the Syrian.
“The most characteristic feature of the eschatology of the Monk Isaac is his belief in universal salvation ... This belief has little in common with the teaching of Origen, condemned in the 6th century by the Church, since it proceeds from fundamentally different premises. The starting point of all eschatological constructions of the Monk Isaac is not the logical necessity of restoring all created being in its original state, but the love of God, which surpasses any idea of \u200b\u200bretribution and retribution. " While agreeing that the initial premises of the opinion of the finiteness of hellish torment in Origen and Pseudo? Isaac the Syrian are really different, one cannot agree that "this has little to do with the doctrine condemned by the Church", since at the V Ecumenical Council it was precisely the very idea of \u200b\u200bthe finiteness of torment, not its prerequisites.
Referring to the Syrian version of the 1st volume, Bishop Hilarion believes that the Greek version has undergone a later Orthodox (or Monophysite) revision. A.I. On the contrary, Sidorov, on the basis of a number of indirect evidence, is inclined to believe that both the 1st and 2nd volumes have a number of Nestorian interpolations.
In our opinion, that specific interpretation of the idea of \u200b\u200b"all-forgiving" God's love, which is the starting point of Isaac the Syrian's eschatological theology of Pseudo ?, is found not only in 39-40 conversations, but is consistent throughout the entire 2nd volume and at the same time never occurs in volume 1. Either the 1st volume is a completely Orthodox forgery, and then we will have to raise the question of the decanonization of the Monk Isaac, since the Church cannot glorify those whom it anathematizes, or the 2nd volume is a completely Nestorian forgery, and in this case it is necessary to protect the blessed memory of the great Orthodox ascetic from heretical blasphemy. Let us recall that in one of the conversations of the second volume, the author pronounces an anathema against the Orthodox (those who do not share the opinions of Theodore of Mopsuestia)!
Trying to defend his opinion about the belonging of the texts he translated to the Monk Isaac the Syrian, Bishop Hilarion lists what he considers to be "irrefutable proofs that both volumes belong to the same author."
He refers to them, firstly, that "in the Syrian manuscript tradition, the 2nd volume is thought of as a continuation of the 1st", and secondly, that "two conversations from the 2nd volume are identical to two words from the 1st" and thirdly, that "in the text of the 2nd volume there are several references to words from the 1st volume." Fourthly, that “the same ascetic dictionary is used in both volumes. This applies, in particular, to such terms as hermit, silence, asceticism, heart, mind, thoughts, impulses, contemplation, revelation, enlightenment, despondency ", as well as" identical idioms "such as" spiritual prayer, pure prayer, heartfelt prayer, spiritual contemplation. " Finally, sixth, the fact that “both volumes are characterized by a similar imagery. In particular, both volumes use marine images: ship, sea, waves, sailing, helmsman, diver, pearls and others. "
However, upon closer examination, the weakness of all these arguments becomes clear. As for the first, the evidence of the Nestorian handwritten tradition cannot be considered evidence, since this tradition itself needs to be justified for its reliability: it contains many pseudo-epigraphs. Among them, a work directed against Orthodoxy is also known, inscribed also with the name of the Monk Isaac the Syrian, which Bishop Hilarion himself considers inauthentic, despite the "evidence of the handwritten tradition."
As for the second argument, the coincidence of the two chapters in the 1st and 2nd volumes seems to be more a proof of the inauthenticity of the 2nd volume, otherwise why would the Monk Isaac, if he were the author of both volumes, repeat himself twice? Regarding the third argument, it must be noted that the indications that the researcher interprets as references to the 1st volume are in fact references by the author of the 2nd volume to the previous chapters of the same volume.
As for the use of a seemingly common ascetic vocabulary and idioms, it must be admitted that these examples are common to all ascetic writing, and on this basis, the pen of the Monk Isaac can be attributed to almost the entire body of texts that make up it. The same can be said about the above sea images, which are common for all Christian writing, starting with the New Testament: the depth of the sea (Matthew 18: 6), waves (James 1: 6; Jude 1: 13), sand of the sea (Rom. 9: 27), pearl (Matt. 13: 45-46), ship and helmsman (James 3: 4), sailing (Mark 6: 48), shipwreck in faith (1 Tim. 1: 19) etc.
Thus, none of the listed arguments is at all unshakable. It is quite possible that if it were a less scandalous text, such evidence would be sufficient. But when there are many substantive reasons to doubt the authenticity of the newly found works and these texts cause considerable confusion among Orthodox believers and force to radically revise both the author's legacy and his place in patristic writing, then it should be done with special care, with special reverence, with special responsibility to weigh the pros and cons and analyze each argument before giving a final answer. The problem, in our opinion, is that Bishop Hilarion gave an overly hasty answer.
Monk Silouan the Athonite
In the second edition of his Introduction to Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, in the section dealing with eschatology, Bishop Hilarion enlists another Orthodox saint in the ranks of the “optimists” - the Monk Silouan the Athonite: “The Monk Silouan was very far from Origenism, but the thought of the torment of sinners in hell was intolerable to him. That is why he considered it necessary to believe in the possibility of the salvation of all people and to pray about it. "However, two different things are confused here. It is one thing to pray for the salvation of all, and the Orthodox Church prays for “those who are held in hell”. But it is quite another matter to assert and rationally substantiate the necessity and inevitability of universal pardon, and this is already quite unequivocally condemned by the Church. And the Monk Silouan, led by the Holy Spirit, never confused these two things.
“Praise the Lord that He gave us repentance, and by repentance we will all be saved without exception,” the monk wrote and immediately added: “Only those who do not want to repent will not be saved, and in this I see their despair, and I cry a lot. pitying them. " The Monk Silouan understood that "our will is a copper wall between us and God and does not allow us to approach or contemplate His mercy." “I feel sorry for those people who do not know God. They do not see the eternal light and after death they go into eternal darkness. We know this because the Holy Spirit in the Church reveals to the saints what is in heaven and what is in hell. " In the light of the words quoted above, an attempt to record the Monk Silouan the Athonite as a supporter of the heresy about the finiteness of hellish torments can be characterized as a misunderstanding at best.
Some "optimists" still dare to enroll in their supporters such holy fathers as St. Gregory the Theologian, the Monks John Climacus and Maximus the Confessor, saying that they, too, taught about the finiteness of hellish torments. But this is nothing more than slander, intended for people unfamiliar with patristic creations. It is enough to look at the writings of these saints to make sure that they taught in the same way as the Church teaches.
St. Gregory the Theologian: “The immortal soul ... will be eternally either punished for depravity, or glorified for virtue” (Third word).
Venerable Maximus the Confessor: "Deeds in virtue ... are the culprits for us of the Kingdom of Heaven, as passions and ignorance are the culprits of eternal torment" (Chapters on Love, 2. 34). "And He will take revenge on His opponents, separating, through the holy angels, the unrighteous from the righteous, the damned from the saints ... And, as the truth of divine words says, He will reward for endless and endless centuries a righteous reward to each according to the dignity of the life he has lived" (Mystagogy, XIV ).
Venerable John Climacus: “He who has truly acquired the memory of eternal torment and the last judgment ... he will not love anything temporary ... and without care and laziness will follow Christ, constantly looking to heaven and from there awaiting help for himself” (Ladder, 2.1). "Let the memory of eternal fire fall asleep with you every evening and rise with you" (Ladder, 7:21).
In addition, the advocates of universal salvation resort to another invention: they argue that the Greek word "αίώνιο,", used in Scripture, as well as by the Greek-speaking holy fathers, does not really mean "eternal" in the sense of infinite, but simply " very long ”, and therefore, as if when they speak of“ eternal torment, ”it means that it is supposedly still not eternal, but finite.
Such tricks can deceive only those people who do not have the opportunity to test them. Not to mention the fact that this statement is untenable in itself: to be convinced of this, it is enough to look into any dictionary of the ancient Greek language - the words of the holy fathers quoted above leave no room for such interpretations. In addition, regarding the future punishment by the Evangelist, exactly the same word "αίώνιος" is used as is used about the future bliss: "And these will go into eternal torment (κόλασιν αίώνιον), and the righteous into eternal life" (ζωήν αίώνιον) (Matt. 25: 46). And what, do the "optimists" think that Christ's Kingdom of the century to come is also not eternal, but simply "very long" and will end sooner or later, like the torments of hell? And yet, how will they explain that the same word "aίώνιος" in Scripture is applied to God Himself when He is called "the eternal God" (Rom. 14:25)? Will they also say that this simply means “a very long God”? Here is a vivid example of the absurdity and blasphemy that stubborn resistance to truth can lead people to.
Conclusion
In this work, we have cited a number of words from Holy Scripture, as well as council decrees: the Roman, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Cyprus Councils of 400, the Council of Constantinople 543, the V Ecumenical Council, the Lateran Council of 649, the Council of Constantinople of 1084, and in addition sayings of such holy fathers as Saints Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Blessed Jerome of Stridon, Saint Justinian the Great, Saint Gregory Dvoeslov, Saints Cyriacus, the Hermit the Great, Barson the Great Saint German of Constantinople, Saint John of Damascus, Saint Theodore the Studite, Saint Photius of Constantinople, Saint Simeon the New Theologian, Saint Nikita Stephatos, Saint Gregory of Sinait, Saint Simeon of Thessalonica, Mark of Ephesus, Ignatius (Bryan) , th o the coming punishment for sinners is a reality that will never end, and that the opposite opinion is wrong. It seems that for those who sincerely wish to know the true teaching of the Orthodox Church, this is more than enough.In conclusion, I would like to note that the Church reacted to attempts to revive the ideas of apocatastasis in the twentieth century in the same way as in previous centuries. The Bishops' Council of 1935, chaired by the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan (later - Patriarch) Sergius (Stragorodsky) and dedicated to the teachings of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, repeated:
“We must not forget that the devil can no longer convert, as well as all those who completely surrendered to him. This means that next to the “city of God” and “outside” it (Rev. 22: 15) there will forever be an area of \u200b\u200brejection, “the second death” (Rev. 21: 8). Revelation does not know the apocatastasis of all creation, but only the deification of those who will be with Christ. “God will be everything” only in the “sons of the Kingdom”, everything in everyone, whose will is consciously identified with the will of God.
Yuri Maximov
Hilarion (Alfeev), hieromonk. The world of Isaac the Syrian. M., 1998.S. 308.
Callistus (Ware), bishop. Understanding salvation in the Orthodox tradition // Pages. 1996. No. 3. P. 34.
The argument is extremely strange. Having condemned the idea of \u200b\u200bthe pre-existence of the soul with the name of Origen, the fathers of the V Ecumenical Council did not mention in this connection the Nemesia of Emesa, who also adhered to this error. Is it possible, on the basis of this fact, to conclude that the Church condemned this idea only in Origen's interpretation, "but there is also its Orthodox understanding" in the interpretation of Nemesia?
Barsanuphius the Great and John, Venerables. A Guide to Spiritual Life. M., 1995.S. 388.
Palestinian Patericon. Issue 7: Life of the Monk Kyriakos the Hermit. SPb., 1899.S. 17.
Cit. Quoted from: Macarius (Oksiyuk), Metropolitan. Eschatology of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1999.S. 565.
Mark of Ephesus, saint. The second word against purgatory / Ambrose (Pogodin), archimandrite. Saint Mark of Ephesus and the Union of Florence. New York, 1963, p. 132.
Mark of Ephesus, saint. The second word is against purgatory. P. 129.
Macarius (Oksiyuk), Metropolitan. Eschatology of St. Gregory of Nyssa. P. 575.
Photius. Bibliotheque. Ed. R. Henry, IV vol. Paris, 1965. P. 291a.
It is gratifying to admit that Vladyka Hilarion, over the past seven years, has revised his views on the issue of universal salvation and had the courage to leave the camp of “optimist theologians”, which is clearly seen from his recent interview in which he criticizes Danish “optimist theologians” who reject reality hell: “Is it possible to believe that evildoers and monsters who kill people, who rebel against God and all that is holy, will end up in paradise together with the righteous and saints? Is it possible to believe that John the Baptist and Herod, the holy martyr Benjamin of Petrograd and Lenin, thousands of shot new martyrs and confessors of Russia and their executioners will end up in paradise? If so, then the line between good and evil is completely erased. Then it doesn't matter whether you are a saint or a villain, whether you do good or evil, whether you save people from death or kill them ... A person is morally responsible for his actions. And he will pay for the sins of earthly life in eternity ”(http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act\u003dinterview&div\u003d178). However, his opinion about the belonging of the newly discovered Nestorian writings to the Monk Isaac the Syrian, unfortunately, remained the same.
Isaac, hieromonk. Life of Elder Paisiy the Holy Mountain. Moscow, 2006. S. 243–245.
Vasileios, archimandrite. Abba Isaac the Syrian: An Approach to his World. Montreal: Alexander Press, 1997.
Wensinck A.J. Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh. Amsterdam, 1923. P. XVIII.
See his introduction to the book: Theodorite of Kirsky, blessed. History of God-lovers. M., 1996.S. 121.
Hilarion (Alfeev), hieromonk. On the main themes of theology of St. Isaac the Syrian // [Pseudo] -Isaac the Syrian. About divine secrets and spiritual life. M., 1998. S. 281–282.
Hilarion (Alfeev), hieromonk. Dispute about the legacy of the Monk Isaac the Syrian // Orthodox conversation. 2000. No. 3. S. 30. With the exception of specially stipulated cases, all subsequent "irrefutable evidence" are given under this article.
Hilarion (Alfeev), hieromonk. Creations of the Monk Isaac the Syrian // Church and time. 1998. No. 4 (7). P. 169.
More convincing is the example with the word qestonares - torturers. However, this example alone is still not enough. Both the 1st volume of the Monk Isaac and the 2nd volume of [Pseudo] -Isaac are quite extensive. If both, according to Vladyka Hilarion, belong to the same author, then there should be much more such examples in them.
Hilarion (Alfeev), hieromonk. The sacrament of faith. Klin, 2000.S. 271.
Silouan the Athonite, reverend. Scriptures. Ivanovskoe, 1997.S. 88.
In the same place. P. 77.
In the same place. P. 29.
M.P. On the question of the so-called "single opinion" of Metropolitan Sergius // Symbol. 1998. No. 39. P. 166. In addition to the future Patriarch Sergius, ten bishops signed this, which at that time constituted almost the entirety of the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was at large. Most of these bishops subsequently received the martyr's crown.
Late in the evening on November 19, 2009, priest Daniil Sysoev was killed in the Moscow church of the Apostle Thomas on Kantemirovskaya: an unknown person wearing a mask entered the church and shot him point-blank.
I knew Father Daniel for ten years - from October 1999. We met at the same conference where both spoke. He called me the day before, and on the very day of the speech I saw a man in a cassock walking in front of me, and immediately realized that this was the very “Deacon Daniil Sysoev” with whom I spoke on the phone.
Not long before his death, in an interview, Father Daniel said: “We must walk before God, as the Lord said about Enoch:“ Enoch walked with God, and God took him. ” This walking with God is the root of the mission. "
Father Daniel has always "walked with God." And although this is, first of all, the state of the soul, wholly directed towards God, but it found its expression even literally - in his gait, speech, not to mention his actions and words.
He walked easily, like a man who knows where and why he is going, who is calm in the present and does not worry about the future, because he entrusted all the worries to the Lord, Who is close to him as a Loving Father.
Over the past ten years, I have heard many times from Father Daniel that he would like to die as a martyr. I'm afraid that now from my words it sounds quite different from what it sounded from his lips. In his speeches on martyrdom, there was neither gloomy solemnity nor morbid exaltation; he said it simply and joyfully, and hearing, I felt the same feeling of awkwardness and bewilderment that I experienced when I read in the epistles of the holy martyr Ignatius the God-bearer about his ardent desire to suffer for Christ. One and the same spirit was in both, and I did not understand either one or the other.
I remember how a couple of years ago in Macedonia, where we arrived together, I brought Father Daniel to the amphitheater of the ancient city of Bitola. During the Roman Empire, here, for the amusement of a crowd of pagans, people were fed to animals. On the sides of the amphitheater, two small rooms have been preserved, in which the animals were kept before they were released into the arena, and in the center there is one closet in human height, from where the condemned to be torn apart. It is known for certain that in this way, in this amphitheater, several martyrs of the early Church died for Christ. And I said to Father Daniel: "Here, father, you can stand where the martyrs stood before going out to the feat." And he entered this dark room. I remember how he stood in it and looked from there into the sky.
He probably looked at his killer with the same concentrated calm. Frankly, I was thinking about whether Father was scared at the last moment? Because I would be scared. And so he asked the only eyewitness who had seen the murder with his own eyes: what did Father Daniel do when, leaving the altar, he saw a masked man with a pistol in his hands? And he heard: “He was walking towards him. Right at him. "
Priest Daniil Sysoev was born on January 12, 1974. He was baptized at the age of three. He was brought up in a church family. I remember he told me about dear childhood memories: how my mother read him the lives of the saints at night.
He was a conscientious believer since childhood, which was under the godless communist regime. There is a story when in a Soviet school an atheist teacher put him in front of the whole class and began to say with a mockery: “Here, guys! Danila, it turns out, believes in God. Maybe you also know prayers? " And the boy firmly answered: “Yes, I believe in God! And I know prayers! "
Father took faith seriously from a very young age. According to him, from the age of 12, even from his parents, if they presented him with any fundamental requirements, he asked for a biblical justification, and if he received it, he fulfilled it unquestioningly. This already reflected his main desire - always and in everything to recognize the will of God and follow it. He preferred God to everything else, and God's will to any other.
I know many good priests in Russia, but I have never met a person in our country who loved God so much, fervently and selflessly as Father Daniel. Just shortly before his death, when I was at one of the priest's public talks, I thought that only a deeply loving person can never stop talking for two and a half hours about God and only about God, and speak in such a way that the audience is not listening for two and a half hours. stirring.
Back in Soviet times, he sang in the kliros, and after leaving school in 1991 he entered the Moscow Theological Seminary. He told me that he always wanted to be a priest, and did not imagine himself to be anyone else. This desire originated in childhood, when he experienced clinical death and saw an angel who brought his soul back to his body.
In 1995, Father Daniel got married, graduated from seminary, and was ordained a deacon. From that moment, he began his wide preaching and missionary activity. He taught the law of God in the senior classes of the Yasenevo Orthodox gymnasium. I remember one of his stories about that time. He once gave the students a theme for the composition “What will remain after me? What will I take with me? " And some parents later came to him indignant: “Is it possible for children to give such Topics? They don't need to be reminded of death. " To which he replied: "Is your child immortal?" Father Daniel was convinced that since death is inevitable for none of us, we need to properly prepare for it, and for this a Christian has everything he needs, and the sooner he starts preparing, the better.
Since 1996, Father Daniel began to conduct missionary conversations at the Krutitsky Compound, was an associate of Father Anatoly (Berestov) in the Counseling Center named after the righteous John of Kronstadt that he created. He met and talked with sectarians and occultists, preaching to them and converting them to Orthodoxy.
Besides Father Daniel, I do not know any other person who could boldly enter any audience and start a conversation with a person of any religious views - and at the same time he always had something to say in essence. He was a true missionary and loved to tell people about Christ, loved when from the lamp of his soul other souls were kindled with the fire of the gospel joy.
Father very much respected his heavenly patron, the prophet Daniel, and it was from him that he received his missionary aspiration, as he himself told me. Once, while reading the book of the prophet Daniel, the priest drew attention to the words: "And the prudent ones will shine like lights in the firmament, and who have turned many to the truth - like stars, forever, forever" (Dan. 12: 3). “And I thought,” he said, “it's great: to shine like a star!”
I know that he did the Jesus Prayer, considered it very important to receive frequent communion - having properly prepared himself - and constantly read the Bible, which, it seems, he knew much of it by heart. Prayer, the Eucharist and the word of God - these were the three main foundations of the mission for him.
During his life, he baptized more than 80 Muslims and converted about 500 Protestants to Orthodoxy.
Father Daniel attended Protestant meetings and preached there about Orthodoxy based on the Bible, participated in public debates with Old Believers, with neo-pagans, but most of all he became known as a missionary among Muslims and a polemicist with Islam.
He received threatening letters and calls from Muslims. A year and a half before the murder, Muslim journalist Kh. Khamidullina filed a complaint against him with the prosecutor's office, demanding that a lawsuit be filed for inciting sectarian and ethnic hatred. The prosecutor's office refused to initiate a case, but a real campaign was launched in the Muslim media to denigrate Father Daniel - Orthodox people do not know about this, because, for obvious reasons, they are not familiar with the Muslim media.
Quite recently, just three days before the murder, Father Daniel gave me a lift to my house in a car, and we remembered with a laugh the times of ten years ago. Father Daniel said that of all religions, Islam was always the least interesting for him and he had no intention of doing it. I also recalled our old conversation, when we were returning from the Krutitsy courtyard and he was glad to learn that I was writing apologetic articles, responding to Muslim criticism: “That's good, so I don't have to do this.” But the Lord, through one set of circumstances, then through another, arranged so that he had to deal with Muslims or the topic of Islam, and Father Daniel went where the Lord indicated. This was the most important thing for him.
In 2000, he graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy and successfully defended his dissertation on "Anthropology of Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists." It was later published as a separate book. He also wrote a number of other works. “Walking with a Protestant in an Orthodox Church” is a unique work in which, on the basis of the Bible, the structure and decoration of an Orthodox church and Orthodox worship are explained. "Chronicle of the Beginning" and "Who is Like God?" In them, Father Daniel explains why the Orthodox Christian cannot adhere to the evolutionary theory.
"Marriage with a Muslim" is a book dedicated to one of the most painful issues of the coexistence of Christians and Muslims in our country. The impetus for its emergence was the fact that I opened the “Question to the priest” section on the website “Orthodoxy and Islam”, where one could ask a question to Father Daniel. And I myself was amazed by the abundance of letters from baptized women who were either going to marry Muslims and asking if this was permissible from the point of view of the Church, or had already entered into such a marriage and faced certain problems, in the resolution of which they asked for advice. In addition, in pastoral practice, Father Daniel had to meet such Russian women who, under the influence of such marriages, renounced Christ and converted to Islam, and then, having suffered in a Muslim marriage and realizing their fall, with the help of the priest, they came to repentance and return to the Church. ... All this prompted Father Daniel to write such a book in which he exhaustively examines this issue, recalling that, according to the rules of the Church, an Orthodox person is not allowed to marry or marry a non-believer, and also giving specific advice regarding problems that arise if such a marriage still concluded. The priest also had another brochure of a similar theme - "Marry an unbeliever?"
In addition, Fr. Daniel published the book Why Are You Not Baptized Yet ?, which deals with the most typical objections to baptism that can be heard from the lips of the most ordinary people. For those who are baptized, but not churched, he wrote a brochure "Why Should You Go to Church Every Sunday?" And for churchgoers - the book "On the frequent communion of Christ's mysteries", which we co-authored with him.
Shortly before his death, he told me that the most dear and beloved of his books for him is “Conversations on the Book of Songs of Songs,” composed of records of biblical conversations that he conducted for many years, explaining the Holy Scriptures on the basis of patristic interpretations.
Finally, his most recent book is "Instructions for immortals, or What to do if you still die ...". It also contains the following words: “The best death for a Christian, of course, is martyrdom for Christ the Savior. This is the best death possible for a person in principle. Some sent condolences to Optina Pustyn after the murder of three monks; for a Christian, this is actually the greatest joy. In the ancient Church, condolences were never sent when someone, somewhere, was killed. All churches always sent congratulations immediately. Imagine, congratulations on the fact that they have a new protector in Heaven! Martyrdom washes away all sins, except for heresy and schism ... "
Quite many, even among those who did not agree with him on any issues, were surprised and admired by his courage. Quite recently, after the funeral, a priest I know called me and told me how he saw footage of Father Daniel standing alone in an audience filled with Muslims, and from the pulpit joyfully tells them about Christ and that Islam, which rejects the God-man Christ, cannot be true religion. “It doesn't fit in my head,” my interlocutor told me. “What a heart you need to have to go and stand among them and speak like this!”
The footage that my friend saw was filmed at the first dispute with Muslims. Some Orthodox Christians were unhappy with the fact that Father Daniel took part in these disputes, but the initiative did not belong to him: the Muslims publicly invited him. And how could the witness of Christ refuse to give an account of his hope? His refusal would be an argument for them in their propaganda of Islam.
Father Daniel told me later that he was sure that he would be killed immediately after the first dispute, and the day before he had experienced great fear and anxiety. And at night he had a vision. He saw himself standing in front of a maze of stones, such as are in the north. And, walking in its circles, he came to the center, where there was an altar, on which lay the victim who had just been tortured and killed. And he realized that this is the altar of Satan, to which the sacrifice was made. Father Daniel was seized with anger, and he knocked over the altar with his foot. Satan himself immediately appeared in the form of the Joker in the clown's cap, as he is depicted on playing cards. There was wild hatred in his eyes, and he threw himself at Father Daniel. The father began to pray: “Most Holy Theotokos, protect! Saint Nicholas, help! " and other saints. And then an invisible wall seemed to rise in front of Father Daniel, so that Satan rushed at him, but could not overcome it and bounced back over and over again. Looking at this, the priest admitted vain thoughts, and at the same moment Satan broke through the invisible wall and grabbed him by the throat. Father Daniel prayed: "Most Holy Theotokos, forgive me, I have sinned, deliver me from him." Then Satan disappeared, and Father Daniel was told about the upcoming dispute: "You will not lose, but you will not win either."
“And so it happened,” Father Daniel told me. And he added that after this vision he completely ceased to be afraid of Muslims and their threats, because, seeing Satan himself and his powerlessness before God, one can no longer be impressed by any human malice, which always gives way to satanic malice.
And during the second dispute, I, together with Father Oleg Stenyaev, were among the assistants-assistants of Father Daniel. It seems to me that the dispute went well (although, of course, it could have gone even better). It is noteworthy that after him some Muslims accepted Orthodoxy, who helped in organizing these disputes.
Being himself half Tatar (by his mother), Father Daniel paid special attention to the spread and strengthening of Orthodoxy among the Tatar people. He became the first and, it seems, the only priest who, with the blessing of the hierarchy, began regularly serving prayers in the Tatar language (partially) for Orthodox Tatars, published a prayer book in Tatar for his own money. Together with his assistants, he went to preach both the Sabantuy (Tatar national holiday) and the Tatar cultural center; in Egypt, he spent hours preaching to his Muslim guide, arguing about faith with the muftis on television.
He became notorious among Muslims - she frightened and embarrassed some Orthodox Christians, but not Father Daniel himself. He said that this fame helped him in his mission, and it was true. Because those Muslims who had at least a weak interest in Christianity found out in this way who they should go to - and they were not mistaken, for they could always be greeted by him with love and hear answers to all their questions. There were some Muslims who came to him to convert him to Islam, and as a result they themselves received baptism from him.
Among those who call themselves Orthodox, I have met such strange people who say that he should not have preached to Muslims, that one should respect their religion, that there is no benefit from his preaching. But Father Daniel believed - like the Lord, and the apostles, and all the saints - that one should respect erring people, but not their errors. Truth is one, and that which contradicts the truth and denies it is a lie, and respect for a lie is contempt for the truth. This simple thing cannot be understood by all those who are indifferent to the truth, therefore they did not understand Father Daniel either, although, perhaps, they owe his life to him. Batiushka was able to convert a number of Wahhabis to Christ, including one Pakistani who was going to become a “shahid”, and one woman who was preparing to become a “suicide bomber”. And what, really, it really would have been better if Father Daniel had not preached to these people, and they, having remained on the same path, would have blown up an airplane, a house, or a train in the subway - perhaps just the one in which he was traveling any of the critics of Father Daniel?
He was even more successful in preaching to Protestants. When he, with the blessing of Metropolitan Vladimir, came with his missionaries to Kyrgyzstan and began to attend Protestant meetings and convert them, so that even pastors were among those affiliated with Orthodoxy, the local sect leaders, unable to resist him in word, made a decision generally prohibit your people from gathering all the time while Father Daniel is in the country. So they tried to prevent him from coming to their congregations to preach by abolishing the congregations themselves.
Father Daniel was very concerned about the mission around the world. Together with him we traveled twice to Macedonia and preached to the schismatics there. Fr. Daniel investigated the question of how one can preach to Catholics in Western Europe and South America. In December 2009, he hoped to travel to Thailand to preach to the northern tribes. Being a missionary himself, he was very fond of missionaries and tried to get to know everyone who preached Christ. He helped a lot of people. He gave money for the construction of a temple in Indonesia, donated to the upbringing of Orthodox children from poor families in Zimbabwe, hosted Orthodox Chinese, Orthodox Thais, and even Orthodox Indians. With the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II, Father Daniel created a school of Orthodox missionaries. He also taught missiology at the Nikolo-Perervinskaya Theological Seminary.
And, surprisingly, his active missionary activity did not in the least interfere with his parish labors and duties. In 2001, he was ordained a priest. In 2006, the priest built a small wooden church in the name of the Apostle Thomas in the south of Moscow (of which he was the abbot) and wanted to build here a huge basilica temple in honor of his heavenly patron the Prophet Daniel. As he told me, he came up with this idea - to build a basilica - during a visit to the temple of the holy Great Martyr Demetrius in Thessaloniki.
In the temple, Fr. Daniel conducted Bible talks every Thursday, explaining to the parishioners one chapter of the Old Testament and one chapter of the New in the light of patristic teachings, every Friday - catechumens, which every adult wishing to be baptized had to listen to, and every Sunday - Sunday school for children ... Wanting people to understand the divine service better, he published the texts of the all-night vigil and the liturgy and made it the duty of the attendants to distribute them to people in the church before each service. He also introduced popular singing. As a result, the parishioners thanked him for finally being able to understand the meaning of what is sung in the temple. The priest served with great concentration, especially in the last year, and loved to preach very much. During the service he gave two or three sermons.
One of my friends, the altar boy in the church of Father Daniel, shortly before the father's death, confessed to me that he was surprised how completely and without mercy he gave himself to other people, especially parishioners.
Indeed, he did not spare himself. I remember one day he broke his leg, but the dean did not give a priest to replace him. And then Fr. Daniel, with his leg in a cast, went to church and served, overcoming pain. All parishioners and all acquaintances remember Father Daniel as a cheerful and cheerful person, but few people know how often he endured sorrow from illness, especially from severe headache and heartache. But the priest did not show his suffering and was always attentive to the numerous parishioners, he listened to each and gave advice.
Of course, Father Daniel had his weaknesses, but even his shortcomings, so to speak, in some way stemmed from his merits. As a Christian, he was open to everyone, and this had its downside a certain excessive gullibility, which he sometimes fell victim to when he happened to trust those people or books that, in my opinion, should not be trusted. As far as questions of faith are concerned, the priest was very careful, but as for some other issues, for example, history, he could trust just such sources. Associated with this, for example, is his position in relation to World War II, which developed under the influence of V. Rezun's books. We discussed this issue with him more than once.
I must say that the father never dictatorially imposed his views on those who were next to him. He always listened carefully to objections, if they were in essence, and often corrected his views if he saw that they did not correspond to the truth. He often invited me and other people whom he trusted to discuss some of his thoughts and ask if he was wrong. If he understood that he was wrong, then it was not a problem for him to admit it and give up erroneous thoughts, because he valued the truth most of all, and not his thoughts and respected every person who was near.
With Father Daniel it was easy to fulfill the rule of St. Augustine; "In the main, there is unity, in the secondary, diversity, in everything - love." The second point was possible with him precisely because the first and third points of this maxim were an immutable reality for Father Daniel.
Another feature, which seemed to many to be his lack and which stemmed precisely from the ardent love of Father Daniel for the truth, was the categorical form of presenting thoughts. On every question, the priest tried to get to the bottom of the truth, and if he managed to get to the bottom, he expressed this truth directly and definitely. In our politically correct world, such directness was like the sharpness of a ray piercing the darkness. Someone was attracted by such an honest harshness, while others, on the contrary, repulsed.
I myself did not always agree with the form of presentation of his thoughts. For example, the discussion about Uranopolitanism, initiated by him in the last year of his life. In principle, in essence, Father Daniel did not set out anything except the teaching of the Church, saying that the heavenly is more important than the earthly, that belonging to the Church is more important than nationality, for in it “there is neither Greek nor Jew ... but Christ is all and in everything” (Col. 3: 11) that all the saints “spoke of themselves that they were strangers and strangers on earth; for those who say so show that they are looking for a fatherland. And if they had in their thoughts the fatherland from which they came, they would have had time to return; but they strove for the best, that is, for the heavenly; therefore God is not ashamed of them, calling himself their God: for he has prepared a city for them ”(Heb. 11: 13-16). And that all of us Christians are also on earth “strangers and strangers” (1 Pet. 2: 11) and “we have no permanent city here, but we are looking for the future” (Heb. 13:14), for “our residence is in heaven "(Phil. 3:20). There was no mistake here. But with the need to introduce a special term, I did not agree with Fr. Daniel, just as the term itself seemed discordant to me, and the form of expressing this truth, I thought, could be softer.
Although, strictly speaking, those who fiercely argued with him on the Internet either disagreed on the merits, or were not at all interested in the essence of the issue. It is worth saying that after the death of the priest, I learned that even in the term he was not an innovator: the word "ouranopolitis" is found in many of the holy fathers, in particular, St. John Chrysostom uses it five times.
On the day of Father Daniel's funeral, one of his opponents confessed to me: "It was now that I began to understand everything that my father wrote about Ouranopolitanism, because I really wanted to get where he went."
Father Daniel was a deeply decent and honest man. Batiushka was one of those about whom you could know in advance that if you needed something, you just have to contact, and he will not refuse. For me he was a model priest. Everything he did, he dedicated to Christ, did in his name.
I have many personal memories. I remember how he visited me when I was in the hospital. I remember how I took it out to show me my daughter Dorothea when she was only two or three days old. I remember teaching me to drive.
I remember our travels, and especially the last - to Serbia, from where we returned just a week before his martyrdom. During this trip, he confessed to me that when it becomes especially difficult for him or when life's circumstances are unbearable, he always feels as if he is in a huge hand that leads him through all the troubles.
The very last day of Father Daniel's earthly life began with the liturgy, which he served and at which, naturally, he received Communion. Then he added to the Orthodox Church a woman who came from the Old Believers. Then he was baptized. A few hours later, he began, as usual, to conduct Bible talks, after which he talked until late with everyone who wanted to. Finally, when there was almost no one left in the church, he went to the altar to confess his spiritual child. At this time, an assassin burst into the temple, who started shooting and shouting: "Where is Sysoev?" Fr Daniel fearlessly left the altar to meet him and accepted a martyr's death for Christ.
I remember that my father spoke more than once about how not accidental all the Gospel readings, read according to liturgical conceptions, turn out to be, as always, they turn out to be surprisingly timely and relevant.
On the day of his death, the ordinary Gospel reading contained the following words of the Lord: “I say to you, my friends: do not be afraid of those who kill the body and then can do nothing more ... I tell you: everyone who confesses me before men, and the Son of man confesses before the angels God's ".
If you find an error or typo in the text of the page, please send us a message by clicking the button below.
If this page is not available in a proofread translation into your language, please use the button below.
Attention! Machine translation will be performed by Google Translate and may contain semantic errors. By default, the text is translated from the current document language into English, in the service you can choose any other language.Recently, two "Official Explanations of the Department for External Church Relations" were published - one "on the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council", the second "on the meeting of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow with Pope Francis." Concern in the Church because of the above two topics has reached such a boiling point that someone in the DECR finally decided that this cannot be ignored further, and official explanations must be given in order to reassure people. The very idea of \u200b\u200bgiving explanations is very correct, but the content of these explanations reminded me of the Sumerian proverb: "if you don't know what to say, don't say anything." Because in reality these explanations not only do not calm, but even more outrage people. Below are the ten most egregious points.
1. These two texts overlap. And in the matching part of both documents mentor tone written:
“To avoid such a dialogue would be a crime against the Lord, who commanded His apostles go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that He commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20) ".
This is written in denunciation of "today's pseudo-zealots" - in one explanation it is cited as an answer to those who dared to doubt the advisability of the Havana meeting, and in another explanation it is cited as an answer to those who criticize the draft document "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world. ".
That is, the authors of these explanations want to convince us in this way that the ecumenical meetings with the heterodox in general and the meeting with the Pope in particular took place in fulfillment of the commandment "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"? This means that we must imagine that our patriarch was flying to Cuba with the thought: "Francis must be baptized, otherwise it is not good to transgress the commandment of the Lord." Well, and we must, apparently, take their two-hour conversation for a catechetical conversation before baptism. True, it is not clear then, why did we officially refuse to meet the patriarch with the pope for twenty years in a row (as stated earlier)? Didn't Benedict XVI and John Paul II need to be baptized and taught to observe everything that Christ commanded? Why then did we “evade such a dialogue” with them and commit such a “crime before the Lord”? And, of course, the authors from the DECR enlightened us about the thoughts with which they themselves travel to the meetings of the WCC and other ecumenical organizations. It turns out that this is in order to baptize the non-Orthodox there in Orthodoxy.
Among the DECR staff, I do not know a single one who would think that heterodox should be re-baptized, but at the same time they write to us in these official explanations that the meeting with the Pope and the contacts discussed in the document on relations with heterodox are allegedly carried out in fulfillment of the commandment about the baptism of nations. When people write such blatant lies, they demonstrate an extreme degree of contempt for their readers.
2. Second pearl. This is already from the clarification about the Havana meeting. The DECR authors assure us that:
"The main reason for the meeting was the need to urgently discuss the tragic situation associated with the persecution of Christians in several regions of the world, primarily in the Middle East."
To show us how bad things are, the authors provide statistics, including the following:
"There were one and a half million Christians in Iraq - 150,000 remained."
Let me remind the authors of the document what they themselves know very well: the extermination of Christians in Iraq began soon after the invasion of the American coalition there in 2003. It acquired catastrophic proportions with the outbreak of the civil war in 2006. That is, ten years ago! Why then did they not arrange a meeting between the patriarch and the pope, if, as we are convinced, this is the main reason, and the meeting turned out to be so effective that it saved many lives? Why, for ten years, was such a powerful tool hidden? Why didn't they use it while there were still a million and a half Christians in Iraq?
Yes, you heard right when I mentioned the effectiveness of the meeting. The authors of the explanation enlighten us:
“In the Joint Statement, adopted at the end of the meeting, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis called on all forces that are trying to resist extremism to take concerted action. The Patriarch and the Pope have reached out to political leaders, exhorting them to overcome their differences and rally to fight a common threat. This appeal turned out to be extremely relevant, as evidenced by the fact that the leading world powers soon after the meeting agreed to establish an armistice in Syria. And today many Syrians have united their efforts in the fight against terrorists trying to destroy their state and destroy Christians in it. "
The "golden feathers" of the DECR do not stop there, they are carried on:
“The authors of the incoming appeals should have answered the question: if someone's life, including an Orthodox person, depended on your meeting with an influential Catholic, would your Christian conscience have allowed you to avoid this meeting? All the more so when it comes to thousands of lives. But the ceasefire in Syria, reached after the meeting, saved the lives of many people. "
That is, the authors paint in front of us the following picture: the Pope met with the Patriarch, their declaration was published, Bashar al-Assad and the field commanders of the Syrian opposition read it carefully and confessed to themselves and to each other: “Earlier, when the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow expressed everything the same thing individually, we could somehow ignore their calls, but now that they met and said this together - now everything is serious. It's time to end this unfortunate war. " And finally, a truce was concluded, which "saved the lives of many people." And now the authors of the DECR believe that we will believe in it and even that we will believe that they themselves believe in this nonsense.
I see at least five options for showing that the statements of the DECR authors about "the fact that the world's leading powers agreed to establish an armistice in Syria soon after the meeting" is a blatant lie. But, in order not to tire the reader, I will limit myself to just one, the shortest.
Let me remind you that the meeting of the Patriarch with the Pope took place on February 12. And now let's turn to Google and see when the agreement on the current ceasefire in Syria was concluded: "The participants of the meeting of the International Syrian Support Group in Munich on Thursday, February 11, reached an agreement on the introduction of a ceasefire in the country."
I would like to clarify: I have no doubt that our patriarch, like the Pope, sincerely worries about the suffering of Christians in Syria. Any person who knows at least a little about the atrocities that took place cannot remain indifferent. And the desire to declare their attitude towards this tragedy is quite understandable. But our patriarch is a very adequate person, I suspect that the Pope is also adequate enough to understand that any of their statements on this topic are exclusively declarative in nature and have no impact on those on whom the end of oppression of Christians really depends (well, they are not guided by members of ISIS and other similar organizations by statements of Christian leaders).
So, such a purely declarative action does not attract the main reason for the meeting. But even if we play along with the authors of the document and portray those stupid people they think we are, and believe that thanks to the declaration of the pope and patriarch, peace came to Syria and thousands of Christian lives were saved, we will still have the question: why did we meet? ? If the matter is in two signatures under one text, then one could simply drive someone from the DECR to Rome, take the Pope's signature, and then submit the same document for signature to the Patriarch (or in reverse order) and publish it as a joint statement. It is not necessary to arrange a personal meeting for this and to take two very busy people away from their affairs. It is unlikely that the Pope would say: no, I will sign a declaration in defense of the killed Christians only if I personally see Patriarch Kirill, and if he does not deign to appear before my eyes, let them be killed further, I will not sign anything. Very unlikely.
Instead of all this clowning and cynical attempts to hide behind the corpses of Middle Eastern Christians, the authors of the DECR had to either directly and honestly name the real reason for meeting with the pope, or, if for some reason this reason cannot now be made public (well, for example, dark forces are viciously oppressing us and can use this reason to the detriment of our Church), then directly and honestly state the inability to voice it.
3. Another example of the success and significance of the Havana Declaration, the DECR authors consider that:
"The Joint Statement sounded a call for public solidarity and active peacemaking in Ukraine."
In doing so, we were reminded that:
"One of the forces involved in this confrontation are the Ukrainian Uniates, who recognize the Pope as their supreme head."
This sounds more sane than the previous pearl about Syria, because Ukrainian Uniates really should consider the Pope as their head and listen to what he signed. However, the authors further discourage us by admitting:
"Ukrainian Greek Catholics lashed out at Pope Francis for signing the Joint Statement."
Then what is the victory of the declaration here?
4. Another such "victory" that looks more like a defeat:
"This statement also emphasizes that the split among the Orthodox in Ukraine can only be healed in a canonical way."
The very fact that in order to solve a purely intra-Orthodox problem it was necessary to refer to the authority of the head of the non-Orthodox confession (the Pope) testifies to our helplessness to solve this problem on our own. By the way, the Roman Catholics also have quite serious schisms in some places, but the Pope's representatives did not include in the text of the declaration a clause stating that they, too, "can be healed only by canonical means." Probably, Catholics believe that it is necessary to solve such internal problems on their own, and resorting to the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow to try to heal the schisms between Catholics, this means signing our own inability to solve them. One should be ashamed of this, and not proud as a "victory."
“His Holiness Patriarch Kirill went to the meeting in Havana, following the example of Saint Mark of Ephesus”,
and elsewhere they emphasize
"That during the meeting in Havana, no theological or canonical issues were discussed."
But Saint Mark actually went to the Ferraro-Florentine Cathedral just to discuss theological issues, which is easy to see after reading the book of Archim. Ambrose (Pogodina), to which the DECR authors refer. So you will decide - or our patriarch at the meeting followed the example of St. Mark of Ephesus and then, it turns out, he discussed theological issues, or he did not discuss theological issues at a meeting with the Pope, and in this case the analogy with St. Mark is out of place.
“The Patriarch and the Pope did not participate in any joint liturgical activities and did not offer joint prayers, therefore references to the inadmissibility of joint prayers with heretics in accordance with the canons of the Orthodox Church are absolutely inappropriate in this case.”
What wonderful words! How gratifying to hear them! But why did the authors of the DECR forget to explain how these words of theirs relate to the following paragraphs of the Havana declaration, signed jointly by the Pope and the Patriarch: “We send out prayers to Christ, the Savior of the world” (paragraph 11), “we turn with hope to the Most Holy Mother of God, calling to Her with the words of an ancient prayer ”(item 30)?
If these words cannot be understood as a joint prayer, then explain how then they should be understood? Among many others, I even heard such an assumption: Patriarch Kirill, in fact, during the meeting secretly joined Pope Francis to Orthodoxy, and therefore their joint prayer is not a canonical violation, since it was the prayer of two Orthodox Christians. And dad is now gathering his courage and is just looking for a convenient time to announce to his flock that he has become a child of the Russian Orthodox Church. I personally think this version is very fantastic, but even it looks more intelligible than the tactics chosen by the DECR to repeat, like a mantra, the words: "there were no prayers, there were no, there were no prayers."
7. Let us now return to an explanation of the documents for the Pan-Orthodox Council.
The authors of the DECR took the path of convincing readers in the spirit of "everything is fine, beautiful marquise." They threateningly castigate "maliciously spreading rumors" that the draft documents of the Pan-Orthodox Council include "the signing of a union with the Roman Catholic Church." But for some reason they keep silent about the fact of serious criticism of these documents, which is heard in many Local Churches, and is by no means reduced to rumors of a union with Catholics. Thank God that His Holiness the Patriarch was not satisfied with these false replies that came out of the depths of the DECR, and blessed the holding of a conference on April 19 at the PSTGU, specially dedicated to the collection and analysis of constructive criticism of the draft documents of the Pan-Orthodox Council.
Many thanks to our patriarch for the fact that, at his insistence, the draft documents were published. That is why believers not only in Russia but also in other countries got the opportunity to find out what is in these documents and to express their attitude towards them. The organizers of the cathedral originally intended to publish the documents after their adoption. Patriarch Kirill made sure that these projects became open for broad church discussion before the council, and it is unlikely that such an experienced person did this, believing that the entire ecumenical Church would meet these documents with amicable "approval!"
It is noteworthy that at the conference on April 19, a representative of the DECR made a wonderful overview report, in which he mentioned numerous examples of constructive and serious criticism expressed against the documents of the cathedral. This means that they were known in the DECR, but the authors of the "clarification" of April 15 preferred to ignore them and reduce to absurdity the position of people who are wary of the Pan-Orthodox Council.
“If the apostles had been locked up, avoiding any contact with non-believers, the preaching of the Gospel of Christ would never have gone beyond the Zion chamber. Oppression by people of another faith or other views makes a person like the Pharisees. "
They are trying to convince us that there are only two options - either continuing to participate in ecumenical meetings, or being locked up, refusing to preach and oppressing people of other faiths. However, between these two options there is a rich palette of other options, and many of them are much more attractive to Orthodox Christians than the extremes voiced by the DECR authors.
And the latent comparison of the ecumenists with the apostles looks completely anecdotal. You can compare how the apostles ended their lives with how prominent ecumenists ended it. They were by no means persecuted by those to whom they seemed to preach Orthodoxy. You can also compare how many people were brought into the Church by the Apostles, and how many - those who did not crawl out of the ecumenical meetings. It seems that if the apostles were engaged in preaching in the spirit of ecumenical activity, praised in the draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council, then the preaching of the Gospel of Christ would never have gone beyond the Athenian Areopagus, where it would have drowned in those senseless discussions from which the Apostle Paul left and never returned. ...
Indeed, why did the apostle not come a second time to the Areopagus? After all, those who were there told him: "We will listen to you about this another time" (Acts 17:32). That is, they directly said that they were ready to continue to listen to the Christian teaching, why did the apostle not come another time, became a permanent member of the Athenian Areopagus, did not continue preaching there? It would be good to think about this for those who like to justify ecumenical meetings with references to the apostles. Indeed, according to the authors of the DECR, the Apostle Paul thus "avoided dialogue" and committed "a crime before the Lord."
9. If the authors of the "DECR explanation" present their opponents as phariseeswho abhor people, then supporters of ecumenical contacts (and, including themselves), they describe as those who
“Without fear, they enter into dialogue with the heterodox - not for the sake of reaching doctrinal compromises, but for the sake of witnessing the purity and truth of the Orthodox faith, for the sake of finding acceptable forms of mutual coexistence, for the sake of saving the lives of persecuted Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, for the joint protection of the family as consecrated by God the union of a man and a woman, for the sake of protecting the life of unborn babies, for the sake of peace on earth. "
Finally, thanks to the anonymous authors of the DECR, we learned what true greatness and fearlessness are. Just imagine: they go on business trips abroad without fear, without fear they check into good European hotels, without fear attend dinners and buffets there, without fear smile and nod to heterodox participants, without fear read their reports to them, and as a result of all this courageous activity brings peace on earth, the lives of unborn children are protected, persecuted Christians of the Middle East are saved, and so on and so forth.
The authors of the DECR are trying to convince us of this and believe that we will take it with full confidence. Secular people, meeting this kind of texts, often leave a comment: "I wonder what the author smoked?" I think that the authors of the DECR explanations when writing these texts did not smoke anything, at least nothing stronger than tobacco. They simply think their readers are the most dumb dumbwho will believe any nonsense that they write. And this attitude, in fact, is not at all what should be demonstrated in a text that claims to appease doubters.
The assurances that contacts with heterodox are made for the sake of "saving the lives of persecuted Christians in North Africa" \u200b\u200blook especially cynical. Let me remind you that Russia officially refused to provide asylum to Copts who fled from the persecution that began after the "Arab Spring". And our Church, including the eloquent authors of the DECR, in no way objected to this decision. Though giving asylum could really save people, unlike chatter at ecumenical meetings.
“The Rules of Procedure of the Pan-Orthodox Council adopted at the Meeting of the Primates exclude the possibility of considering any other, new topics or documents… Moreover, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, all amendments to these documents - if necessary - can be adopted exclusively by unanimous decision of all Local Churches, which means that no amendment can be adopted if at least one of the Local Churches participating in the work of the Council declares its disagreement with it. Such a decision-making procedure allows the Russian Orthodox Church to freely participate in the work of the Pan-Orthodox Council, without fear that a decision may be imposed on the Local Churches that disagrees with the teachings of the Fathers and the centuries-old Tradition of the Church. "
They calmed me down so calmly! But what about the fact that the same regulation makes it very unlikely that fair amendments to documents will be adopted, the imperfection of which has already been repeatedly shown by many people? In order not to go far, I will give a simple example: the text about the mission of the Church in the modern world contains a quote from Eusebius of Caesarea, who, not only is not a saint, he is known as an Arian or "semi-Arian"! The practice of referring to the Arians as an authority in the conciliar texts of the Orthodox Church is clearly not consistent with the "patristic teaching and the centuries-old Tradition of the Church."
At the conference held on April 19, among other amendments sent to our patriarch, there was one that requires the removal of the reference to Eusebius. I have no doubt that His Holiness will voice this amendment at the Pan-Orthodox Council. But even if our amendment is supported by twelve more local Churches, but not at least one - for example, Constantinople - this means that, according to the mentioned regulations, the amendment will not be adopted and the document will be approved with a quote from Eusebius. The same story with all other amendments. If the authors of the DECR wanted to reassure us, it would be better for them to explain how our delegation would act in such cases in order to avoid "imposing a decision on us that disagrees with the teachings of the Fathers and the centuries-old Tradition of the Church."
* * *
Those who have read my other articles will know that I usually write in a more restrained and unemotional manner. However, two "explanations" from the DECR forced me to make an exception in the faint hope that, perhaps, even the caustic style of comments would help the authors of these texts realize that one should not consider Orthodox believers to be complete idiots and write outright lies on behalf of the Synodal department. I am by no means the only one who noticed the pearls listed above, because of which these two texts have already become on the Internet a laughingstock... I would like to believe that in the future we will no longer see such shameful texts standing out for the official opinion of one of the synodal departments of the Church.
From the editors of the Holy Fire:
On April 20, DECR Chairman Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk, speaking to teachers and students of Moscow theological schools, spoke about the meeting of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia with Pope Francis held on February 12, 2016 in Havana (mospat.ru/ru/2016/04 / 20 / news130414 /).
It must be admitted that in the speech of Metropolitan Hilarion, of course, there is a considerable grain of truth in relation to those who do not remember the Patriarch and call for a split in our Church. But as a pastor of Christ's Church, Vladyka Hilarion with this speech completely compromised himself and showed full pastoral incompetence... No matter how wrong some laymen and clergymen are wrong, criticizing the "meeting of the millennium" in Havana, which confused many believers, but to call them constantly "Pharisees", "would-be zealots", "rabid" zealots "," provocateurs and screamers ", etc. P. - this is completely unacceptable for the archpastor of the Russian Church and is contrary to the Spirit of Christ. After all, these people also root for our Church and for the purity of its doctrine (and I think no less than the Metropolitan himself), and the fact that some of them are theologically illiterate should be covered by the learned Metropolitan theologian Hilarion with pastoral love, and not glue them offensive labels and epithets that in no way paint a permanent member of the Holy Synod. After all the main property of a good shepherd is not to offend, but to teach.
As a reminder, on November 1, 2010, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk, without any theological discussion, arbitrarily imposed a moratorium on the use of the word "heresy", so as not to offend heretics and build good relationships with them. According to Metropolitan Hilarion, this term is “derogatory and offensive” (https://mospat.ru/ru/2010/11/15/news30385/). Let us remind the Vladyka theologian that the term “heresy” is not derogatory and offensive, as His Eminence claims, but patristic... This term simply states the fact of the falling away of the church community from the holy apostolic faith of the Church or the distortion of faith by this community. Term "heresy" is actively used in many works of the Holy Fathers, is contained in the doctrinal books and epistles of the Orthodox Church, in liturgical sequences.
During the historic announcement of the moratorium, Vladyka Hilarion said: “First of all, this was done in order to find new ways of coexistence and new methods of interaction. At the same time, entering into a dialogue, the Orthodox Church refused to use the term "heresy" in relation to Catholicism. ... The Orthodox have imposed a moratorium on the use of this term for the duration of the work of the theological commission for the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. "
However, in order to establish a fruitful interfaith dialogue between the philocatolic synodal structure of the DECR and a huge number of Orthodox believers of the Russian Orthodox Church, it would be very appropriate for both theological and pastoral positions for the chairman of the DECR, Metropolitan Hilarion, to impose a moratorium on such terms as: "Would-be zealots", "rabid" zealots "," provocateurs and screamers. "
And then, helping God, it will be possible to find new ways of coexistence and new methods of ecumenical interaction between the DECR and Orthodox believers.
Source http://www.blagogon.ru/digest/700/
