On the historical reception of the eschatological views of the 'Cappadocians fathers (and mothers)'
On the historical reception of the eschatological views of the 'Cappadocians fathers (and mothers)'
In what
follows, I will make a list of references of both pre-modern and recent
(20-21th centuries) witnesses of ‘universalist’[1]
or ‘universalist-leaning’positions in
the writings of the Cappadocian Christian philosophers (who lived in the fourth
century): Basil of Caesarea, Macrina the Younger, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory
of Nazianzus. The purpose of this text
is to show that, while scant, there is evidence that in Ancient and
Medieval times some have affirmed the presence of the doctrine in these figures
– at least in the case of Gregory of Nyssa – or tried to explain it away by
suggesting that the texts have been interpolated (which, in a way, is an admission
of the presence of the doctrine in the texts themselves) and the latter
strategy was probably popular among the later Greek fathers.
It should
be noted that there is no writing attributed to Macrina the Younger. Her
position, however, might be inferred by reading the dialogue ‘On the Soul and
Resurrection’ (e.g. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm ) written by his brother
Gregory of Nyssa, in which she appears as the ‘Teacher’.
In this
text, my main aim is not to make a case that any of the above figure as being
universalists (although, I would say that the case is pretty strong for Gregory
of Nyssa and Macrina the Younger[2]).
I just want to present how their texts were received on this topic over time. It
should be noted that only Gregory of Nyssa’s writings were with a
considerable frequency read as endorsing universalism.
Basil of
Caesarea
In a letter
to Augustine of Hyppo (fl. 4-5th centuries), Paulus Orosius (fl. 4-5th
centuries) wrote that Basil, along other
two men named both Avitus, endorsed ‘Origenist’ eschatological views[3]:
“These two Avitus and with them the holy Basil the Greek, who taught
these most blessed things, handed down certain things from the books of Origen
himself that are not correct, as I now understand. First, that before all
things appeared to be made, they always remained made in the wisdom of God,
saying this word: For whatsoever God made, he did not begin by making. Then
they said that there was one principle and one substance of angels,
principalities, powers, souls, and demons, and that a place was given to either
an archangel or a soul or a demon according to the quality of their merits,
using this word: A lesser sin has deserved a greater place. The world was
finally made so that souls who had previously sinned might be purified in it. They
declared that the eternal fire, by which sinners are punished, was neither a
true fire nor eternal, saying that the fire was said to be the punishment of
one's own conscience: but that eternal, according to Greek etymology, is
not perpetual, also adding Latin testimony, because it is said: in eternity and
in the world of ages he will put the eternal behind the eternal: and thus all
the souls of sinners, after the purification of their conscience, will return
to the unity of the body of Christ. They also wanted to assert about the devil,
but they did not prevail, because since a substance made good in it cannot
perish, the substance must at some time be saved, having been completely burned
up by the devil's malice. But concerning the body of the Lord they have thus
delivered, that when the Son of God came to us after so many thousands of
years, he was not idle until then, but preaching forgiveness to angels, powers,
and all superior beings, when he assumed the quality of the form of those whom
he visited, he thickened to the palpability of the flesh by the appearance of
the assumption of flesh: this he determined again by the passion and
resurrection until he came to the Father by ascending; thus neither was the
body ever laid down, nor was God confined to any body as reigning. They also
said that the sun and moon and stars were to be understood as creatures subject
to corruption, unwilling to be; and that these were not elementary splendors,
but rational powers: but that they offered service to corruption, for the sake
of him who subjected them in hope.” (CONTRA PRISCILLIANISTAS ET ORIGENISTAS LIBER UNUS, translated with
Google)
The Latin reads:
“Isti vero Aviti duo et cum his sanctus
Basilius Graecus, qui haec beatissime docebant, quaedam ex libris ipsius
Origenis non recta, ut nunc perintellego, tradiderunt. Primum omnia
antequam facta apparerent, semper in Dei sapientia facta mansisse dicentes hoc
verbo: Deus enim quaecumque fecit faciendo non coepit. Deinde dixerunt
angelorum, principatuum, potestatum, animarum ac daemonum unum principium et
unam esse substantiam et vel archangelo vel animae vel daemoni locum pro
meritorum qualitate datum esse utentes hoc verbo: Maiorem locum minor culpa
promeruit. Mundum novissime ideo esse factum, ut in eo animae purgarentur, quae
ante peccaverunt. Ignem sane aeternum, quo peccatores puniantur, neque esse
ignem verum neque aeternum praedicaverunt dicentes dictum esse ignem propriae
conscientiae punitionem: aeternum autem iuxta etymologiam Graecam non esse
perpetuum, etiam Latino testimonio adiecto, quia dictum sit: in aeternum et in
saeculum saeculi postposuerit aeterno: ac sic omnes peccatorum animas post purgationem
conscientiae in unitatem corporis Christi esse redituras. Voluerunt etiam de
diabolo asserere, sed non praevaluerunt, eo quod cum substantia in eo bona
facta perire non possit exusta in totum malitia diaboli aliquando salvandam
esse substantiam. De corpore vero Domini sic tradiderunt, quia cum usque ad nos
veniens Filius Dei post tot milia annorum otiosus eo usque non fuerit, sed
praedicans remissionem angelis, potestatibus atque universis superioribus, cum
qualitatem formae eorum, quos visitaret, assumeret, usque ad palpabilitatem
carnis assumptionis specie crassuisse: hoc passione et resurrectione
determinans rursus donec usque ad patrem veniret ascendendo tenuasse; ita neque
depositum usquam fuisse corpus nec in corpore ullo regnantem circumscribi Deum.
Creaturam quoque subiectam corruptioni non volentem intellegendam esse dicebant
solem et lunam et stellas; et haec non elementarios esse fulgores, sed
rationales potestates: praebere autem servitium corruptioni, propter eum, qui
subiecit in spe.” (source: https://www.augustinus.it/latino/orosio/index2.htm )
The
presence of the ‘universalist’ doctrine is contested in Basil as in one of his
writings we find a very fierce attack of it[4].
Gregory
of Nazianzus
In this
case, the probable presence of the doctrine is affirmed by Rufinus of
Aquilea (fl. 4-5th centuries), as he affirms that Gregory was in
agreement with Origen of Alexandria (fl. 3rd century) who famously endorsed it in his Apology
against Jerome, book 1, paragraph 43. According to Rufinus, previously Jerome
of Stridon was also an universalist and believed that both humans and fallen
angels will ultimately be saved. Given the apparent change of mind of Jerome,
Rufinus writes that the former would have to condemn not only Origen but also
various others, including Gregory of Nazianzus (underline and bolded mine):
“ These things which you [Jerome] have
said are read by all who know Latin, and you yourself request them to read
them: such sayings, I mean as these: that all rational creatures, as can be
imagined by taking a single rational animal as an example, are to be formed
anew into one body, just as if the members of a single man after being torn
apart should be formed anew by the art of Æsculapius into the same solid body
as before: that there will be among them as amongst the members of the body
various offices, which you specify, but that the body will be one, that is, of
one nature: this one body made up of all things you call the original church,
and to this you give the name of the body of Christ; and further you say that
one member of this church will be the apostate angel, that is, of course, the
devil, who is to be formed anew into that which he was first created: that man
in the same way, who is another of the members, will be recalled to the culture
of the garden of Eden as its original husbandman. All those things you say one
after the other, without bringing in the person of that 'other' whom you
usually introduce when you speak of such matters cautiously, and like one
treading warily, so as to make men think that you had some hesitation in
deciding matters so secret and abstruse. Origen indeed, the man whose disciple
you do not deny that you are, and whose betrayer you confess yourself to be,
always did this, as we see, in dealing with such matters. But you, as if you
were the angel speaking by the mouth of Daniel or Christ by that of Paul, give
a curt and distinct opinion on each point, and declare to the ears of mortals
all the secrets of the ages to come. Then you speak thus to us: O
multitude of the faithful, place no faith in any of the ancients. If
Origen had some thoughts about the more secret facts of the divine purposes,
let none of you admit them. And similarly if one of the Clements said any such
things, whether he who was a disciple of the apostle or he of the church of
Alexandria who was the master of Origen himself; yes even if they were said by
the great Gregory of Pontus, a man of apostolic virtues, or by the other Gregory,
of Nazianzus, and Didymus the seeing prophet, both of them my teachers,
than whom the world has possessed none more deeply taught in the faith of
Christ. All these have erred as Origen has erred; but let them be forgiven,
for I too have erred at times, and I am now behaving myself as a penitent, and
ought to be forgiven. ”
(Apology Against Jerome, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27051.htm )
Rufinus
here suggests that, formerly, himself and Jerome agreed that all these thinkers
(including Jerome himself) endorsed the same ‘errors’ of Origen, including the
doctrine of ‘apokatastasis’, in the sense of universal salvation.
Gregory
of Nyssa
As I wrote
in the Introduction, however, the Cappadocian father whose writings have been
interpreted as endorsing a form of universalism (either accepted as genuine or
interpolations) was clearly Gregory of Nyssa.
Photius
of Constantinople (fl.
9th century) reports that,
according to the writer Stephen Gobar (fl. 6th century) that the doctrine was detected and
rejected by Severus of Antioch (fl. 6th century) and detected by Germanus of
Constantinople (fl. 8th century) who endeavoured to show, however,
that it was inserted by interpolations of ‘Origenist’ heretics:
“For example, the opinion of Severus on the
holy conductors of the churches and of the arrangements where he reflects on
the words of Cyril and John in their message to Thomas, Bishop of Germanica; he
does not approve of what St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, said on the restoration
of man, nor Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis and martyr, nor Irenaeus, the holy
Bishop of Lyons, when they say that the kingdom of Heaven consists of the
coming of certain material foods.” (Bibliotheca, codex 232, source: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_07bibliotheca.htm#232; underline mine)
“The subject that defines this book which is a
polemical work is to demonstrate that St. Gregory of Nyssa and his writings are
free of any taint of Origenism. In fact those to whom this silly idea of
the redemption of demons and men freed from everlasting punishment is dear are
those, I say, ---- because they know the man by the elevation of his
teaching and the abundance of his writings and because they see his
distinguished conception of the faith spread among all men, ---- who have
attempted to mix into his works, full of the light of salvation, informed,
troubled and disastrous ideas from the dreams of Origen as part of the design
to soil with heresy by a method which overturns the virtue and distinguished
wisdom of the great man.
This is why, sometimes by faked additions,
sometimes by their relentless efforts to pervert correct thinking, they have
attempted to falsify many of his works which were beyond reproach. It is
against these that Germanus, the defender of the true faith, has directed the
sword sharpened with truth and leaving his enemies mortally wounded, he makes
the victory apparent and his mastery over the legion of heretics who created
these pitfalls.” (ibid. 233, source: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_07bibliotheca.htm#232 )
Another
possible thinker that thought that Gregory of Nyssa’s works were interpolated
was Anastasius of Sinai (fl. 7-8th centuries):
“1 Anastasius of Sinai may be another post-553
universalist saint, though he also may have strongly opposed the doctrine. On
one occasion, he writes that “our holy Fathers define resurrection as the
restoration (apokatastasin) to the original condition of the first human
being” (Questiones et Responsiones 19.11). Elsewhere, he uses
Maximus’ language of silence referring to the two trees in the garden of Eden,
which, as argued below, is an indication of universalism (On the Hexaemeron 8).
However, in a different quote, he also argues that Gregory of Nyssa’s writings
on apokatastasis were interpolated (Viaea Dux 22.3).
Given the well-known ambiguity regarding the authorship of all of Anastastius’
works, it seems that these texts probably come from different authors.
Nevertheless, whoever wrote the universalist passages was certainly writing
after 553.” (source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/04/02/st-maximus-the-universalist/ )
It is perhaps
interesting to note that if Anastasius of Sinai truly believed
that the passages in support of ‘apokatastasis’ in Gregory of Nyssa’s writings
were interpolation, this interpretative framework was perhaps common in his
time. He, after all, was a near-contemporary of St. Germanus of Constantinople.
Perhaps,
however, the most important ancient attestation is present in the Letters of Barsanuphius
of Gaza (fl. 6th century)
who didn’t in any way deny the presence of the universalist doctrine in Gregory
of Nyssa. Here is the query of a monk and his response (Letter 604) where the
saint answers that saints can be mistaken, without denying the assertion that Gregory
of Nyssa might have indeed been an universalist:
“Question from the same person… “in regard to
the subject of apokatastasis, the holy Gregory of Nyssa himself
clearly speaks about it, but not in the manner in which they say he does,
namely: ‘When hell ceases, humanity will return to its original condition,
namely, that of pure intellects’; rather, he does in fact say that hell will
cease and assume an end. (On the Soul and on the Resurrection, PG 46.108)
Therefore, father, tell us why such a person does not speak correctly, as
befits a holy person who has been counted worthy of speaking for the Holy
Spirit. For some of the fathers and teachers even disagree about Paradise,
saying that is not material but spiritual. And on other chapters of Scripture,
one finds disagreements among some of them. So clarify this for us, master, we
implore you, in order that we may be illumined by you and give glory to God,
and so that we may not doubt our holy Fathers.”
Response by St. Barsanuphius
May all the fathers who have pleased God, the
saints and the righteous and genuine servants of God pray for me. Do not think
that, because they were saints, they were able actually to comprehend all the
depths of God. For the Apostle says: “We know only in part.” (1 Cor. 13:9) And
again: “To one is given through the Spirit such and such, and not all of these
gifts to one and the same person; but to one person it was given in this way,
to another in that way, and al of these gists are activated by one in the same
Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-11). Knowing then, that the [mysteries] of God are
incomprehensible, the Apostle cried out: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom
and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and how inscrutable
His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His
counselor?” (Rom. 11:33-34), and so forth. Applying themselves, therefore, to
becoming teachers of their own accord, or else obliged by others to come to
this point, they achieved great progress, sometimes even surpassing their own
teachers. Moreover, they were assured about the truth in developing new
doctrines, while at the same time remaining faithful to the traditions of their
teachers.
In this way, there are also some [brothers]
here who have received certain doctrines from their teachers, which are
not, however, correct. For after achieving progress and themselves becoming
spiritual teachers, nevertheless, they did not pray to God about their
teachers, in order to learn whether what they said was spoken through the Holy
Spirit. Rather, trusting that their teachers possessed wisdom and knowledge,
they did not in fact bother to discern their teachings. And so the teachings of
their teachers became mingled with their own teachings, and they spoke
sometimes from the doctrines learned from their masters, while at other times
from the brilliance of their own intellect. Thus, even the words of their
teachers were ascribed to their name. For while they received these words from
others, they progressed and improved more than their teachers, and they spoke
through the Holy Spirit; that is to say, they were assured by the Spirit and
spoke from the doctrines of their teachers who proceeded them, but they did not
actually examine these words in order to discern whether they needed to be
assured by God through supplication and prayer in regard to their truth. So the
teachings [of the two] were mingled together. Thus, since it was they who spoke
the words, it was to their names that they were ultimately ascribed. Therefore,
when you hear that one of them received from the Holy Spirit whatever he
speaks, then this is clear assurance that we ought to trust him. When, however,
this person speaks on those matters, it does not seem that he refers to the
same kind of assurance, but rather to the teachings and tradition of those who
preceded him. In this way, while paying attention to their knowledge and
wisdom, nonetheless, they did not ask God about these matters, as to whether or
not they are true.
There then! You have heard all my foolishness.
So be calm, and commit yourselves to God, ceasing from such idle talk and
paying attention to your passions, about which you will be asked to give
account on the Day of Judgment. For you will not be asked about these matters,
why you do not understand them or why you have not learned them. Therefore,
weep and mourn. Follow in the footsteps of our fathers, of Poemen and all the
other like him, and “run in such a way that you may win” (1 Cor. 9:24) in
Christ Jesus our Lord, to Whom be the glory to the ages. Amen. (Letter
604)” (source: https://classicalchristianity.com/2016/03/01/ss-barsanuphius-and-john-on-universalism/ )
The West
Syriac (i.e. Syriac Orthodox) scholar John of Dara (fl. 9th century) mentions that Diodore of Tarsus,
Theodore of Mopsuestia[5],
Stephen bar Sudayle and Gregory Nyssa maintained the view that hell is
temporary:
“[1] Diodore of Tarsus wrote in his book On
Providence, and his disciple Theodore [of Mopsuestia] who is Nestorius’
teacher, states in many passages that there is an end to judgment. The same
interpretation is also taken in the Book of Hierotheus (ܣܘܐܬܘܪܝܐܕ), which is not authentically his,
but someone else composed it in his name, and he is Stephen bar Sudayle.
[2] Likewise, also, Gregory of Nyssa, in his
homily On Exhortation ( ܘܗ ܐܪܡܐܡܒ
ܐܢܝܬܪܡ), and in his [writing] to his
sister Macrina[6],
and in other writings, presents the dogma of apokatastasis ( ܣܝܣܐܛܣܐܛܩܘܦܐ, ἀποκατάστασις), i.e. restoration (ܫ ܝܪܕܢܡܕ ܐܝܢܘܦ), and states that there is an end
to the torture to come.
[3] Apart from this saint[7],
all the doctors of the Church, both Greeks and Syrians, commonly say that there
is no end to the torture. This [teaching] is well presented by the holy saint
Severus in the Letter to Cesaria the Hypatissa that starts with when
I read the writing of the love of God, of your excellent rational elegance. …”
(John of Dara, On the Resurrection of Human Bodies, 4:21:1-3, edited and
translated by Aho Shemunkasho)
Mark of
Ephesus (fl. 15th
century) seems to make a partial
admission of the presence of the doctrine, who also however suggests that it is
due to some ‘Origenist heretics’ that made some interpolations:
“‘With regard to the words which are quoted of
the blessed Gregory of Nyssa [by the Latins arguing for their doctrine of
Purgatory], it would be better to give them over to silence, and not at all
compel us, for the sake of our own defense, to bring them out into the open.
For this Teacher is seen to be clearly in agreement with the dogmas of the
Origenists and to introduce an end to torments.’ According to St Gregory (St
Mark continues), ‘there will come a final restoration of all, and of the demons
themselves, “that God”, he says, “may be all in all”, as the Apostle says.
Inasmuch as these words have also been quoted, among others, at first we shall
reply regarding them as we have received it from our Fathers. It is possible
that these are alterations and insertions by certain heretics and Origenists. .
. . But if the Saint was actually of such an opinion, this was when this
teaching was a subject of dispute and had not been definitely condemned and
rejected by the opposite opinion, which was brought forward at the Fifth
Ecumenical Council; so that there is nothing surprising in the fact that he,
being human, erred in precision (of truth), when the same thing happened also
with many before him, such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Dionysius of Alexandria and
others. . . . Thus, these utterances, if they were actually said by the
marvellous Gregory concerning that fire, do not indicate a special cleansing
[such as purgatory would be—ed. note], but introduce a final cleansing and a
final restoration of all; but in no way are they convincing for us, who behold
the common judgment of the Church and are guided by the Divine Scriptures, but
not beholding what each of the Teachers has written as his personal opinion.
And if anyone else has written otherwise about a cleansing fire, we have no
need to accept it’ (‘First Homily on Purgatorial Fire’, ch. 11; Pogodin, pp.
68-9).” (source: https://logismoitouaaron.blogspot.com/2010/02/st-mark-of-ephesus-on-st-gregory-of.html )[8]
Finally,
Ilaria Ramelli wrote a paper where she discusses the interpretations of St.
Gregory of Nyssa writings where she reports that in ancient times the
‘apparently universalist’ content was often explained as either interpolations
to Gregory or as referring to describing the finite punishments of a part of
the saved or not referring to salvation at all. Here is the link: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ramelli-gregory-nyssa-essay.pdf . From the paper, an example
of the latter type of interpretations:
“In An. et res. 136, Gregory cites Phil 2:10–11
as another important scriptural prop of the theory of apokatastasis (along with
1 Cor 15:28): “This is what the Apostle states rather clearly, expressing the
eventual universal harmony with the Good:‘Every knee will bend before Christ,
those of heavenly, earthly, and infernal creatures, and every tongue will
confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father’,
designating with the ‘horns’ the angels and celestial beings, and signifying by
means of the rest the intellectual creatures that come after the angels, namely
us, who will all be engaging in one great feast characterised by harmony”. At
this point, cod. A reports the following scholium, written again by a reader
who was worried about Gregory’s doctrine of apokatastasis and intended to show
that Gregory did not in fact support such a theory. In reference to Gregory’s
description of the common eschatological feast of humans and angels alike, when
humans will return to their state of […], the scholiast, vexed, comments: “What
does he (St Gregory) say that the future feast […] of the immaterial angels and human
creatures will consist in? That all will unanimously recognise […] the existence of God […]. Therefore, regarding the
acknowledgment of God’s existence […], all—sinners and righteous people—will agree […], but they will certainly not be
found in the same state […] (otherwise, where would justice […] be?), but some will enjoy the
Kingdom of Heavens, whereas the others will be excluded […] from it, as the Apostle states””
This shows
that from ancient times the writings of Gregory of Nyssa raised interpretative controversies.
Opinions
of recent researchers:
It should
be noted that there are various and respected Catholic scholars of the 20th
century that classify at least St. Gregory of Nyssa as an
‘universalist’:
· The ‘Apocatastasis’ article
in ‘Catholic Encyclopedia’: “From the moment, however, that
anti-Origenism prevailed, the doctrine of the apokatastasis was definitely
abandoned. St. Augustine protests more strongly than any other writer against
an error so contrary to the doctrine of the necessity of grace. See, especially,
his "De gestis Pelagii", I: "In Origene dignissime detestatur
Ecclesia, quod et iam illi quos Dominus dicit æterno supplicio puniendos, et
ipse diabolus et angeli eius, post tempus licet prolixum purgati liberabuntur a
poenis, et sanctis cum Deo regnantibus societate beatitudinis adhærebunt."
Augustine here alludes to the sentence pronounced against Pelagius by the
Council of Diospolis, in 415 (P.L., XLIV, col. 325). He moreover recurs to the
subject in many passages of his writings, and in City of God XXI sets himself
earnestly to prove the eternity of punishment as against the Platonist and
Origenist error concerning its intrinsically purgatorial character. We note,
further, that the doctrine of the apokatastasis was held in the East, not only
by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but also by St. Gregory of Nazianzus as well; "De
seipso", 566 (P.G., XXXVII, col. 1010), but the latter, though he asks the
question, finally decides neither for nor against it, but rather leaves the
answer to God.” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm
· Pope Benedict XVI, in his book on Eschatology (1974),
writes that both were universalists (bolded mine): “No quibbling helps here:
the idea of eternal damnation, which had taken ever clearer shape in the
Judaism of the century or two before Christ, has a firm place in the teaching
of Jesus, as well as in the apostolic writings. Dogma takes its stand on solid
ground when it speaks of the existence of Hell and of the eternity of its
punishments. This teaching, so contrary to our ideas about God and about man,
was naturally only accepted with great difficulty. According to fragments
preserved in Justinian and the Pseudo-Leontius, it was Origen who, in his
ambitious attempt to systematize Christianity, the Peri Archōn, first
proposed the idea that given the logic of God’s relationship with history,
there must be a universal reconciliation at the End. Origen himself regarded
his outline systematics as no more than a hypothesis. It was an approach to a
comprehensive vision, an approach which did not necessarily claim to reproduce
the contours of reality itself. While the effect of Neo-Platonism in the Peri
Archōn was to over-accentuate the idea that evil is in fact nothing
and nothingness, God alone being real, the great Alexandrian divine later
sensed much more acutely the terrible reality of evil, that evil which can
inflict suffering on God himself and, more, bring him down to death.
Nevertheless, Origen could not wholly let go of his hope that, in and through
this divine suffering, the reality of evil is taken prisoner and overcome, so
that it loses its quality of definitiveness. In that hope of his, a long line
of fathers were to follow him: Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria,
Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Evagrius Ponticus, and, at least on
occasion, Jerome of Bethlehem[9]
also. But the mainstream tradition of the Church has flowed along a different
path. It found itself obliged to concede that such an expectation of universal
reconciliation derived from the system rather than from the biblical witness.”
(source: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/hell-purgatory-heaven-in-eschatology-death-and-the-eternal-life/ )
· Hans Urs von Balthasar also believed that Gregory of Nyssa
believed in ‘universal reconciliation’: “It would be absolutely idle to want to
doubt that Gregory held the doctrine of apocatastasis. The endeavor of Germain
of Constantinople (fl. 770), which is attested to by Photius, to see Origenist
interpolations in the many passages where there is a question of apocatastasis
is not only lacking in proof but is refuted by the very coherence of this
doctrine with all the rest of Gregory’s system.” (Presence and Thought: Essay
on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa, trans. Mark Sebanc (Ignatius
Press, 1995), 85-86 n. 92.; source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2024/09/17/none-are-coerced-all-are-saved-a-response-to-david-bradshaws-reading-of-gregory-of-nyssas-universalism/ )
For some
web-sources that argue that the Cappadocians might have been a proponent of
‘’universal reconciliation’, see:
· This paper by Ilaria Ramelli
discusses Basil’s views, addressing both Orosius’ testimony and the passage
above in the Regulae of Monks: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/st-basil-and-apokatastasis.pdf
· This blog post written by Mark
Chenoweth argues that both Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus (alongside Gregory of
Nyssa and others) were universalists: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/02/02/the-deep-patristic-roots-of-harts-universalism-a-response-to-fr-lawrence-farley/
· An accessible case that Gregory of
Nyssa was an universalist can be found in this blog post written by Mark
Chenoweth: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2024/09/17/none-are-coerced-all-are-saved-a-response-to-david-bradshaws-reading-of-gregory-of-nyssas-universalism/ .
· Also, this post by Armando Elkhoury
argues for the presence of ‘universalism’ in “On the Soul and
Resurrection”: https://thehiddenpearl.org/2013/02/18/the-fire-of-purgation-in-gregory-of-nyssas-de-anima-et-resurrectione/ (it has been reblogged her: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2023/07/05/the-fire-of-purgation-in-gregory-of-nyssas-de-anima-et-resurrectione-2/ )
[1] By ‘universalism’ I mean the view
that all human beings will be ultimately
saved.
[2] For instance, in “On the Soul
and Resurrection”, one can find these passages: “In any and every case evil
must be removed out of existence, so that, as we said above, the absolutely
non-existent should cease to be at all. Since it is not in its nature that evil
should exist outside the will, does it not follow that when it shall be that
every will rests in God, evil will be reduced to complete annihilation, owing
to no receptacle being left for it?” and “But He that becomes all things
will be in all things too; and herein it appears to me that Scripture teaches
the complete annihilation of evil. If, that is, God will be in all existing
things, evil; plainly, will not then be among them; for if any one was to
assume that it did exist then, how will the belief that God will be in all be
kept intact? The excepting of that one thing, evil, mars the comprehensiveness
of the term all. But He that will be in all will never be in that which does
not exist.”. If evil will disappear in the final state of creation, it
seems that this would imply that all wills are turned towards the good.
But
if it is so it is hard to accept that some will be eternally punished. Indeed,
even Thomas Aquinas (fl. 13th century) remarked that punishments
cannot be everlasting if the damned eventually orient their will towards the
good: “But this punishment of the soul would not be everlasting if its will
could be changed for the better, since it would be unjust if its punishment
continued after its will is good. Therefore, the will of a lost soul cannot
turn towards the good.” (Summa Contra Gentiles 4.93; source: https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~SCG4.C93 )
[3] It is also interesting
because it provides an evidence for an on-going discussion about the ‘eternity’
terminology both in Latin and Greek.
[4] We can quote the relevant
passage:
“Question: If one will be punished with many
beatings and one with few, how can some say that there will not be an end to
punishment?
Answer: Things that seem ambiguous and
expressed in a veiled way in some passages of the Scripture inspired by God are
clarified on the basis of the more explicit words found in other passages. Now,
in a passage the Lord says that these will go to αἰώνιος punishment, in another passage
he sends some to αἰώνιον fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, and yet another time
he mentions the Gehenna of fire and adds: “where their worm does not die and
their fire is not extinguished”; again, the prophet has foretold, concerning
some, that “their worm will not die and their fire will not be extinguished.”
In divinely inspired Scripture there are these and similar passages in many
places. But, for a deception of the devil, many people, as though they forgot these
and similar statements of the Lord, adhere to the conception of the end of
punishment, out of an audacity that is even superior to their sin. For, if at a
certain moment there is an end to αἰώνιος punishment, αἰώνιος life will certainly have an
end as well. And if we do not admit of thinking this concerning life, what
reason should there be for assigning an end to αἰώνιος punishment? In fact, the
characterisation of αἰώνιος is equally ascribed to both. For Jesus states: “These will go to αἰώνιος punishment, and the righteous
to life αἰώνιος.”
If one accepts this, one must understand that
the expressions “One will be punished with many sufferings,” or “with few,” do
not indicate an end, but a difference in punishment. For, if the Lord is a
righteous judge, he is so not only with the virtuous, but also with the wicked,
and renders to each one according to one’s deeds. One may deserve the eternal
fire, and this, milder or stronger; one may deserve the worm that does not die,
and his such a to cause more or less suffering, in accord with each one’s desert;
and another may deserve the Gehenna, which is similarly differentiated in its
kinds of punishments, and another person may deserve the outer darkness, where
one may be found only in weeping, another also in the gnashing of teeth,
according to the duration of these punishments. And it seems indeed to be the
case that there are an outer and an inner darkness. And the Proverbs’
expression, “down to the bottom of hell,” indicates that there are some who are
in hell, to be sure, but not on its bottom; these undergo a less severe
punishment. Now, too, it is possible to notice something of the sort in bodily
illnesses: one has fever along with other symptoms and suffering; another has
only fever; the latter is not found in the same situation as the former; and
yet another one has no fever, but is afflicted by some suffering in his limbs,
and this one too, in turn, has more or less pain than another one. Now, also
what the Lord said, “with many or few pains,” was said according to the
established custom […] Likewise, the expression “to be tortured by many or few
punishments” should not be understood—I repeat—in the sense of an extension in
time or a fulfilment in time, but in the sense of a differentiation in
punishments. (Reg. brev. 267 PG 31.1264C-1265D; trans. Ramelli; source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/02/07/committing-theological-fraud-st-basil-the-great-and-david-bentley-hart/ )”
[5] For the eschatological
position of Theodore and Diodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html
[6] Here John of Dara seems to
refer to the dialogue ‘On the Soul and Resurrection’
[7] It should be noted that John
of Dara is talking about his own tradition, the West-Syrian tradition. It might
be surprising that, according to a writer of a tradition that venerates
Evagrius Ponticus and Didymus the Blind (usually interpreted as universalists),
only Gregory of Nyssa was seen as a saint endorsing universalist views.
However, there is evidence that inside this tradition Evagrius was often not
interpreted as an universalist. See e.g.: https://www.academia.edu/129664834/Origenism_and_the_Memory_of_Evagrius_Ponticus_during_the_Syriac_Renaissance_Dionysius_bar_%E1%B9%A2al%C4%ABb%C4%AB_s_Commentary_on_the_Chapters_on_Knowledge
[8] We should note the context here.
Mark of Ephesus is commenting on how the ‘Latins’ were quoting Gregory in
support for the belief in Purgatory. He seems to reject their interpretation by
basically stating that Gregory’s eschatological writings shouldn’t be regarded
as authoritative as they seem to endorse universalism.
[9] Also known as Jerome of Stridon
Comments
Post a Comment