St Mark of Ephesus on St Gregory of Nyssa

In my post for St Mark of Ephesus last week, I referred to the excellent chapters on the subject of St Mark and his confession at Florence in Fr Seraphim’s The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church [1] and Metropolitan Hierotheos’s Life After Death. [2] But reading these two books carefully, one notices an odd discrepancy between them. In the context of his study of St Augustine, Fr Seraphim is concerned to show that, according to the Orthodox Tradition, it is possible for a Saint and Father of the Church to err. On the subject of St Mark, he translates from the book of Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin), St Mark of Ephesus & the Union of Florence: [3]

. . . Here is what St Mark writes:

‘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). [4]

Fr Seraphim goes on to note that in his ‘Second Homily on Purgatorial Fire’, St Mark ‘goes into great detail, with many citations from his works, to show that St Gregory of Nyssa actually did teach the error ascribed to him (which is nothing less than the denial of eternal torment in hell, and universal salvation)’. [5]

Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos seems to paint a significantly different picture. Pay attention to what His Eminence says about this very issue:

In their dialogue with the Orthodox about the purifying fire at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, the Latins used texts of St Gregory of Nyssa as well as other texts. Therefore St Mark Eugenicus, presenting the orthodox views on this subject in two speeches, overthrew the arguments of the Latins.

Among his other observations, he pointed out two relative passages of St Gregory of Nyssa. First, that when St Gregory speaks of the purifying fire he does not at all mean what the Latins teach. The purgatory of the Latins is in the intermediate state of souls and is created, while the purifying fire of St Gregory of Nyssa is eternal and uncreated. Secondly, St Maximus the Confessor too speaks of a restoration as St Gregory of Nyssa understands it. St Mark says: ‘But also what comfort St Maximus contrives with the wonderful Gregory’s doctrine of the restoration, we shall set forth completely’. And in what follows he quotes the text of St Maximus the Confessor. It is significant here to underline that St Gregory of Nyssa was called ‘wonderful’ by St Mark Eugenicus.

And after quoting St Maximus’ text, St Mark, interpreting the words of both saints, concludes that when in ancient teachings the purifying fire is spoken of, it means the eternal fire and not an intermediate state of souls. Clearly the term purifying fire means the eternal fire, that is, more allegorically, the eternal punishments, just as they call light the eternal vision of God in the righteous. Nor in the future life will there be worms and some kind of reptiles, venomous and flesh-eating, but ‘the torture of punishment by the conscience and that bitter regret’. And the gnashing of teeth is the more allegorical expression for the mania of those fighting fiercely, and the grief about it and the bitter lamentation.

It is in this way that St Mark Eugenicus interprets the so-called purifying fire of St Gregory of Nyssa. It concerns the eternal fire which is neither temporary nor created. It is the punishing energy of God, which those who remain unhealed will experience, through their own choice.

Now we shall look at the way in which St Maximus the Confessor writes about the restoration, as St Gregory of Nyssa understands it. He says that there are three restorations. . . . And the third is the restoration of the powers of the soul to the condition in which they were before the fall. St Gregory of Nyssa means this third restoration, and indeed, as St Maximus characteristically says, he makes exaggerated use of it. It is not an error, but he developed it more than he should. [6]

Met. Hierotheos concludes, ‘It is within the teaching of St Maximus the Confessor that we must look at the teaching of St Gregory of Nyssa about the restoration of all things.’ [7] And finally:

The witnesses and teachings of both St Maximus the Confessor and St Mark Eugenicus, who are pillars of Orthodoxy, show that the teaching of St Gregory of Nyssa concerning the restoration of all things differs clearly from the view of the restoration of all things which we find in ancient philosophy and the Origenist conception, which the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned. [8]

So, His Eminence’s points seem to be:

1) St Mark interprets the purifying fire of St Gregory of Nyssa as referring to the eternal fire of hell.

2) St Maximus, whom St Mark follows, teaches that when St Gregory speaks of restoration he refers to the restoration of the powers of souls, which teaching he exaggerated but concerning which he did not actually err.

3) We can conclude that St Mark shows that St Gregory’s teaching on restoration differs from that of Origen.

Recall Fr Seraphim’s claim however that St Mark ‘goes into great detail, with many citations from his works, to show that St Gregory of Nyssa actually did teach the error ascribed to him (which is nothing less than the denial of eternal torment in hell, and universal salvation [i.e., precisely the errors of Origen!])’. [9] Here it looks to me as though Fr Seraphim directly contradicts each of these points Met. Hierotheos seems to be making.

I have a hard time determining which one is correct. I do not have access at the moment to the primary sources, nor even to a truly in-depth, scholarly study of the Council (if there is such a thing). I usually trust both of these writers. Obviously, Met. Hierotheos has access to the primary sources in their original language. But on the other hand Fr Seraphim, even if he is using a translation of St Mark, is actually quoting from the Ephesian Bishop himself and not merely attempting paraphrase or summarise him. I also can’t help but think that if there really was more of a defense of St Gregory than he has quoted, then Fr Seraphim would have been the first to pick up on this and rally to Nyssen’s side. Finally, and this is perhaps slightly impertinent, in Greece Met. Hierotheos does not seem to be treated as a serious theologian. Despite the value of his works to Anglophone Orthodox, which I am the first to admit, they may not always be as reliable as they seem. Certainly, his citations are often rather scanty.

Could Fr Ambrose somehow have altered the texts, whether deliberately or inadvertently? I know very little of him or his abilities or qualifications. Any further information or opinions are welcome! I will just point out that I am not broaching the question of whether in fact St Gregory of Nyssa was in error and taught the false Origenistic apokatastasis (despite a recent comment that ‘we all know he did’!), merely that of whether or not St Mark of Ephesus believed him to be in this error. Though I do believe the latter point to be relevant to determining the former.


[1] Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1998).

[2] Met. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, Life After Death, tr. Esther Williams (Levadia, Gr.: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1998).

[3] Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin), St Mark of Ephesus & the Union of Florence (Jordanville, NY: 1963).

[4] Fr Seraphim, pp. 71-2.

[5] Ibid., p. 73.

[6] Met. Hierotheos, pp. 307-9.

[7] Ibid., p. 309.

[8] Ibid., p. 310.

[9] Fr Seraphim, p. 73.