This may be (merely) anecdotal, but I don’t think so. Eastern Orthodoxy today seems to have a universalist bent to it. Universalism is the belief that all people will eventually be saved, and that hell is temporary, and even purifying, rather than eternal. It’s true that the Orthodox Church does not officially teach universalism, but there is a spectrum of thought among Orthodox theologians, both historical and contemporary, that seriously flirts with the idea, to say the least.
For Catholics the question is clear: universalism is condemned:
1. Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) “If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary… let him be anathema.”
2. Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
“Those who do evil will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil.”
It confirms the eternal punishment of the damned, directly opposing universalist claims.
3. Council of Florence (1442) – Bull Cantate Domino
“The Holy Roman Church… firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church… can be saved…”
4. Pope Pius IX – Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863)
“There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance… but even here, one must guard against the dangerous opinion that salvation is assured for everyone.”
5. Second Vatican Council – (1964)
Lumen Gentium 16:
“Very often, men, deceived by the Evil One… exchange the truth of God for a lie… Hence, to procure the salvation of all these… the Church… must preach the Gospel to everyone.”
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992)
CCC 1035:
“The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.”
Interestingly the Orthodox accept the first of these councils mentioned above, Constantinople II, which they name Constantinople V. So then why would they be tending towards universalism? I must say that this trend has creeped into Catholicism, in the mind of its members including the hierarchy. Pope Francis, in an interview, strangely said, “What I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is.” Yet the Pope recognizes that it is not official teaching of the Church.
In fact, Archbishop of the Orthodox Russian Church in the United States, Platon Levshin, wrote the authoritative, The Orthodox Doctrine of the Apostolic Eastern Church, which is an EO catechism written around 1776. In it there is no affirmation or hint of universalism, to the contrary actually:
“[The wicked] shall ever be in a dreadful state, and shall be banished into the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, in the abode of evil spirits, the place of eternal torments, ‘where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched’ (Mk 9:44). Then the word of Christ shall be fulfilled: ‘And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal” (Mt. 25: 46).[1]
The doctrine for EO is or was clear. Our Lord explicitly mentions the eternity of hell, as opposed to it just being a place of temporary torment, universalism in other words.
Yet something has happened to more contemporary Orthodox doctrine with the pretense of going back into the sources. The justification of a diabolical unsound optimism has been taken place in recent decades, and in a sense this is the root of our current moral crisis and religious decline (though the tide seem to be turning, see my related article: https://mycatholictwocents.com/2025/08/06/eschatological-optimism-versus-eschatological-pessimism/).
There are some Fathers of the Church that EO appeal to in order to justify this growing modern interest and inclination towards universalism: First, St. Maximus, who did use Origenian language such as apokatastasis, though he radically and Christologically reinterpreted it to mean the restoration of the entire cosmos in Christ, which seems to be the original meaning behind the notion in Acts 3:21. Apokatastasis does not mean the automatic salvation of rational creatures which is universalism. Secondly we have St. Clement of Alexandria whose eschatology sounds hopeful, which is not full-on universalism. St. Clement speaks of Divine punishment as medicinal, which of course is true, though it does not negate the Divine punishment based on pure justice for all eternity in hell. Thirdly EO has recourse to the great mystical St. Gregory of Nyssa. He is a complex case precisely because his theological doctrine is wrapped up in a mystical language. He seems to promote a certain spiritual universalism, not dogmatic or systematic one, that does entail the purification of all souls in the end.[2]
There are other less important figures that EO point to in order to justify universalist tendencies. Interestingly EO has caved in regarding moral issues like divorce and contraception, permitting these under certain circumstances. This seems to be what is happening to their eschatology, caused by this extreme form of eschatological optimism (again, see me prior article, link above).
One of the main reasons of this I believe is the extreme form of theology that EO utilizes. Their theology is less rational and hence open to tremendous fluctuations and deviations. Let’s compare EO theology with the more synthetical Catholic theology.
First, regarding the approach to God, EO theology focuses on the unknowability of God, namely, what he is not. This is called apophatic theology. Catholic theology, on the other hand, balances between apophatic or negative theology and cataphatic or positive theology. By hyper emphasizing the former approach to God, one easily can fall into theological agnosticism. Even the name of God becomes totally equivocal.
Stemming from the approach, God’s essence becomes absolutely unknowable for EO theology. Yet we can know him through His energies. Hence natural theology and the whole preambula fidei are simply tossed out, which would actually make apologetics impossible. We could not give reasons for our faith. The Catholic position agrees in the sense that God’s essence is unknowable. Man cannot grasp God’s essence, as a simple hole in the ground cannot contain all the ocean water. Yet through analogy we can know things about God. Analogy is of the utmost importance because by affirming that effects bare some resemblance to their causes, through the effects we can know some things of the cause. So we can truly know God through the creatures, as Vatican I dogmatically defined.
Let’s pass on to the language of God. Of course EO theology would thus emphasize the ineffability of God. All language fails to express the Divine. Catholic theology would defend analogical knowledge of God and thus we can say things about God, like that he is Life, has knowledge, is a Person (is three Persons actually), is Perfection, etc. Analogical thinking truly gives us knowledge of God, though of course it is far inferior to the knowledge we receive from supernatural faith.
Turning to mysticism, EO theology does not stress systematization here as Catholicism does, but rather, direct experience of the Divine Light. In fact, EO theology is distrustful of systematization because they believe it is rationalism as opposed to rationality applied to the content of faith, namely, Divine Revelation.
Essentially, EO theology is liturgical, mystical and experiential, distrustful of rational systematization. Catholic theology is precisely sound philosophy applied to the content of faith.
This is why EO despise Scholasticism, especially our greatest theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas:
“Moreover, since it is the proper and special office of the Scholastic theologians to bind together by the fastest chain human and divine science, surely the theology in which they excelled would not have gained such honor and commendation among men if they had made use of a lame and imperfect or vain philosophy…Among the Scholastic Doctors, the chief and master of all towers Thomas Aquinas”.[3]
Interestingly, even many Fathers, including Apostolic Fathers, defended natural knowledge and rationality as a means to unite with God and save souls.
The point is this, without rationality, culminating in the Scholastic Tradition, EO theology fluctuates and easily conforms to the contemporary socio-political trend, secularism which is quite prevalent today (though again, the tide seems to be turning here). This is precisely manifested in universalism, which again is rooted in a widespread erroneous anthropological optimism.
Without a strong and sound intellectualist tradition, one easily falls into heresy. Without proper and profound rational distinctions, heterodoxy can easily reign. Heresies are born of bad philosophies which lack proper distinctions, and the fundamental one is between nature and supernature, a distinction that is blurred in EO (see my previous article: https://mycatholictwocents.com/2025/05/16/two-forgotten-essential-catholic-doctrines-deification-and-satisfaction/). St. Thomas taught the axiom “qui bene distinguit bene docet”.
We cannot despise philosophy since it provides the correct tool for a true homogenous development of doctrine, without simply conforming to the times. Again Pope Leo XIII:
“…a perpetual and varied service is further required of philosophy, in order that sacred theology may receive and assume the nature, form, and genius of a true science… Those will certainly more fully and more easily attain that knowledge and understanding who to integrity of life and love of faith join a mind rounded and finished by philosophic studies.”
Check out Trent Horn’s recent video on universalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaIzJxPIhtw&t=483s.
[1] Platon, The Orthodox Doctrine of the Apostolic Eastern Church, trans. from the Greek (New York: AMS press, 1857), 162-163.
[2] If you want to check it out for yourself, see his Soul and Resurrection, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm.
[3] Pope Leo XIII, encyclical letter, Aeterni Patris, On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy (1879), #16-17.
