Thanks Hedrik. A search of the actual source referred to by the learned author of the above page reveals nil occurrences of the word 'damnation' in 600+ pages of transcript, despite the author's assertion that:
'Epiphanius (speaking for the council) explicitly says that the existence of eternal damnation “is the confession of…the divinely inspired Apostles”'
The actual text on p.423 reads as follows:
Gregory reads : —
" Definition 18.—If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to
his merits in the righteous balance of the Lord, that neither will there be any end of punishment, nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven— that is, the full enjoyment of God ; for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink, but righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches—let him be anathema."
Epiphanius reads :—
" This is the confession of the patrons of our true faith—the holy Apostles, the divinely- inspired Fathers: this is the confession of the Catholic Church, and not of heretics. That which follows, however, is their own, full of ignorance and absurdity, for thus they bluster :"—
The webpage author's elision of phrases is less than illuminating. Definition 18 properly construed is not inconsistent with universalism. Its purport is simply that none can be fully reconciled until they confess to those 3 articles. We say that according to scripture they will so confess, be it in this age or the world to come.
The 2nd reference in context on p.438 reads:
" Furthermore, we confess the two natures of Him who was for us incarnate of Mary ever a Virgin, the undefined Mother of God,
acknowledging Him to be at the same time perfect God and perfect Man, as the Council of Chalcedon hath defined, which drave out the
blasphemous Eutyches and Dioscorus from the sacred courts, and with these we class also Severus and Peter; and their chain of
variously-blaspheming and discordant fellows.
With whom we also anathematise the fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, in accordance with the fifth General Council assembled
at Constantinople.
The problem with the statement in question is that it is too vague. There is no extant documentation from Con II regarding Evagrius and Didymus, in relation to whom Hefele in his Excursus informs us that:
Cardinal Noris, in his Dissertatio Historica de Synodo Quinta, is of opinion that Origen was twice condemned by the Fifth Synod; the first time by himself before the eight sessions of which alone the acts remain, and again after those eight sessions, in connexion with two of his chief followers, Didymus the Blind and the deacon Evagrius.
Internet History Sourcebooks
So the 'fables' of Origen were those anathematised in connection or together with, his 2 disciples. Unfortunately, no such corroboration or definition exists from Con II as the full transcript is not extant.
The only glimmer of light for Jude and his ilk here is the mention of Eutyches is the preceding paragraph, connected by the 'with whom'. But this just takes us back to the 'Three Chapters controversy' and lack of other reliable means by which the 'impious writings' in Capitula XI of Con II may be identified:
IF anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, [...]
So, to sum up, the passages cited in Nicea II contain no endorsement of eternal damnation, and insufficient information to determine that universalism was ever contemplated for purposes of condemnation.
