Church Council of 553 AD falsified record

ClementofA · May 7, 2020

"It is true that something remembered by tradition as “Origenism” was condemned by someone in the sixth century, and that Origen was maligned as a heretic in the process; and it is also true that for well more than a millennium both those decisions were associated with the Council of 553 by what was simply accepted as the official record. But, embarrassingly, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that the record was falsified. And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately—if obscurely—bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith."

Saint Origen | David Bentley Hart

Albion · May 7, 2020

It may be a problem for several churches. You identified them. I wouldn't consider it to be exactly "Controversial Christian theology," however.

GreekOrthodox · May 7, 2020

Ive been listening to a podcast called "The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps" and Origen's beliefs were discussed. I do believe he was pretty speculative and wrong in some of his teachings and trying to blend Platonic ideas (preexistance of souls and Universalism) into Christian doctrine. I cant go as far as calling him a saint, but I have to agree that he gets a bum rap in the 6th century.

Oldmantook · May 7, 2020

ClementofA said:
"It is true that something remembered by tradition as “Origenism” was condemned by someone in the sixth century, and that Origen was maligned as a heretic in the process; and it is also true that for well more than a millennium both those decisions were associated with the Council of 553 by what was simply accepted as the official record. But, embarrassingly, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that the record was falsified. And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately—if obscurely—bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith."

Saint Origen | David Bentley Hart

As they say, "and the rest is history." Modern doctrinal belief based upon a revising of history. That would make sense as Origen was never condemned for his belief while he was alive. Nor was Gregory of Nyssa who also taught universalism and was well respected.

ClementofA · May 7, 2020

Albion said:
I wouldn't consider it to be exactly "Controversial Christian theology," however.

Why not? Are not church doctrines related to theology? Is this not a controversial subject?

HTacianas · May 7, 2020

ClementofA said:
"It is true that something remembered by tradition as “Origenism” was condemned by someone in the sixth century, and that Origen was maligned as a heretic in the process; and it is also true that for well more than a millennium both those decisions were associated with the Council of 553 by what was simply accepted as the official record. But, embarrassingly, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that the record was falsified. And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately—if obscurely—bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith."

Saint Origen | David Bentley Hart

The condemnation of Origen is not an article of faith.

ClementofA · May 7, 2020

HTacianas said:
The condemnation of Origen is not an article of faith.

What is it, then? A controversial subject of opinion?

Was Origen condemned? What does that mean?

hedrick · May 7, 2020

I would argue that their treatment of Theodore was about as bad. And that actually was official. I assume you're aware than many Protestants accept only the first 4 councils.

ClementofA · May 7, 2020

HTacianas said:
The condemnation of Origen is not an article of faith.

Does this portion of the OP not relate to any doctrine, theology or "article of faith":

"And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately—if obscurely—bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith."

Compare:

Infallibility of the Church - Wikipedia

hedrick · May 7, 2020

Oldmantook said:
As they say, "and the rest is history." Modern doctrinal belief based upon a revising of history. That would make sense as Origen was never condemned for his belief while he was alive. Nor was Gregory of Nyssa who also taught universalism and was well respected.

I think the OP is interesting, but the consequences on doctrine are not likely to be dramatic.

For Orthodox, the 7 councils have a special authority. If universalism wasn't really condemned, that has potential effects on what's allowable. On the other hand, Orthodox have often said that while they didn't think you could teach universalism as doctrine, one could hope that no one would actually end up in hell. If the OP is right, Orthodox might be a bit more willing to be optimistic on this subject, but it's not like there is likely to be a 180 degree turn.

Catholics and evangelicals aren't so tied to just the councils. Even if it wasn't condemned in the 5th council, there's plenty of tradition since on the subject.

Non-evangelical Protestants are similarly not tied to the authority of the 5th council in the first place, though for other reasons. They are also not as influenced by later traditions as Catholics and evangelicals. Universalism has been acceptable in our tradition for quite a while, though it's a minority view.

HTacianas · May 7, 2020

ClementofA said:
Does this portion of the OP not relate to any doctrine, theology or "article of faith":

"And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately—if obscurely—bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith."

Compare:

Infallibility of the Church - Wikipedia

The Church's "transmission of the faith" has nothing to do with Origen. Origen is a footnote in the history of Christianity. One may be a good Christian regardless of their feelings about him. I like reading his commentaries and I consider him to be a genius. That he held some views later determined to be heretical doesn't change that.

But again, Origen has nothing to do with the Christian faith.

Oldmantook · May 8, 2020

hedrick said:
I think the OP is interesting, but the consequences on doctrine are not likely to be dramatic.

For Orthodox, the 7 councils have a special authority. If universalism wasn't really condemned, that has potential effects on what's allowable. On the other hand, Orthodox have often said that while they didn't think you could teach universalism as doctrine, one could hope that no one would actually end up in hell. If the OP is right, Orthodox might be a bit more willing to be optimistic on this subject, but it's not like there is likely to be a 180 degree turn.

Catholics and evangelicals aren't so tied to just the councils. Even if it wasn't condemned in the 5th council, there's plenty of tradition since on the subject.

Non-evangelical Protestants are similarly not tied to the authority of the 5th council in the first place, though for other reasons. They are also not as influenced by later traditions as Catholics and evangelicals. Universalism has been acceptable in our tradition for quite a while, though it's a minority view.

It is true that the degree of influence of the Councils varies among the branches of Christianity. However it is quite ironic that many of the people who do not otherwise pay much attention to the Councils' decisions attempt to rebut universalism based upon what they perceive was the Council's decision. And yes given human nature, most people would rather hold to their traditions instead of investigating for themselves whether what they believe is true or not.

ClementofA · May 9, 2020

HTacianas said:
The Church's "transmission of the faith" has nothing to do with Origen. Origen is a footnote in the history of Christianity. One may be a good Christian regardless of their feelings about him. I like reading his commentaries and I consider him to be a genius. That he held some views later determined to be heretical doesn't change that.

But again, Origen has nothing to do with the Christian faith.

In the portion i quoted from the OP Origen is not mentioned & is merely incidental:

"And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately—if obscurely—bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith."

JM · May 9, 2020

Interesting quote.

"...by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God." 11.1 LBCF, 1689

The end of "...the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast aside into everlasting torments, and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." 32:2 LBCF, 1689

Leaving now.

God bless.

Church Council of 553 AD falsified record

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Psalti Chrysostom

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Augsburg Catholic

Similar threads