Universalism Was Condemned and Defeated In 553 A.D. At The The Fifth Ecumenical Council

[dqhall]

The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen
______________________________________________________________


• 9

"If Anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, Let Him Be Anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his Nefarious and Execrable and Wicked Doctrine and and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, Or Defends These Opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.


• Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.)


CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)

Second Council of Constantinople - Wikipedia





It's done, finished, Over etc. The issue has already been resolved. There's nothing left to debate.

.

Jesus defeated Universalism while instructing his disciples in Matthew 25:33-46.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why is Origen considered a significant church father despite his extremely heretical opinion on this matter?

Origen's name got dragged through the mud because of the more extreme views of later people.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Origen's not a Church Father.

Oh he's indeed considered a church father by the church of the east (The Eastern Orthodox church and the Oriental churches).

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Origen's name got dragged through the mud because of the more extreme views of later people.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

He [Theodore] maintained, e.g., that God the Word was one & Christ another.

You can criticize Theodore's treatment of the unity of Christ. But this is a lie. It's hard to take seriously condemnations that are clearly hatchet jobs. It may well be that after fair consideration people would decide that Theodore's treatment was insufficient. Many modern scholars agree with that assessment, although many take the other approach. But if this was being done in a Christian way, that judgement would be combined with an understanding of what Theodore was trying to accomplish.

Theodore was certainly not out to cause trouble for the Church, as the document alleges. Indeed it's the spirit of intolerance that is visible in so many of the councils that caused splits, and that made attempts to reconcile groups fail.

When a council so manifestly lacks a Christian spirit, I don't think it's worth considering whether its canons have merit.

Chalcedon started a series of fights within the Church that had serious impact. Part of the problem was that there had been insufficient exploration of alternatives. Over the next century or two folks such as the Cappadocians thought further about these matters and came up with new ideas. But damage had already been done.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his Nefarious and Execrable and Wicked Doctrine and and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, Or Defends These Opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

The most surprising thing about this topic since I've talked about it online are how many Internet Eastern Orthodox are for some kind of Origenism. I would say, next to liberal Protestants of various backgrounds that has been the biggest group I've run across since talking about this since 2004 (and this was even true on web sites like Orthodox Christianity.net years ago). One guy in particular was amazing. He was a very ardent Greek Orthodox, really believed in "synergy of Church and State" (especially when talking about history and Oriental vs. Eastern Orthodox conflicts), really seemed like whatever the EO equivalent of patriotic flag waver. (I think he was some kind of Platonists). He kept repeating some kind of apocastasis like slogan "In the end all will be redeemed" or something like that. I would point out all the various statements, canons, councils etc. and he kind of found specific loop holes or other problems with them. He seemed to found some kind of specific formula that allowed him to be Origenist yet not have the anathemas apply to his position (Well lots of did have to do with other stuff that he wasn't advocating like the Pre-existence of souls etc.)

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is worth pointing out that the anathemas against Origen are perhaps the most debated and disputed of anything in all the original seven ecumenical councils. And that they are, indeed, properly a condemnation of Origen is suspect--with a view by many that they reflect Justinian's own views and not necessarily the Church's own condemnation.

Further, the anathemas are directed against the more extreme and dogmatic views of later Origenists, not so much Origen himself (who does not speak dogmatically, but rather speculatively, on certain subjects).

So what can be said, at least, is that certain dogmatic positions of some later Origenists, especially those which are rooted in Platonism, have been condemned.

That is to say, that all will be saved, on the basis of reason that all things will return to their original primordial state, is condemned. However, to say that it is possible that all might be saved in the end is not condemned. Origen's Platonic speculation concerning the pre-existence of souls is rejected (Origen himself never taught this as actual doctrine, but merely opined it as possible), and thus the Platonic rationale that, in the end, souls will return to their original state is likewise rejected. And those who teach such things as dogma are therefore rejected.

However, that it is indeed possible, not on account of the Platonic theory but on account of divine grace, that in the end maybe all will be saved is not rejected; it is merely unknown. As such the holy fathers who dared to hope in the restoration of all things are not condemned, and it is within the hope and prayer of the Church that ultimately hell is empty. Not on the basis of Platonic theory, but on the basis of the hope of the Gospel on account of the saving work of Jesus Christ.

We might say then that Hard or Dogmatic Universalism is outright condemned; but that Soft or Agnostic Universalism is not. We cannot say "All will be saved" but we can say, "We hope that all will be saved."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Not David]

Oh he's indeed considered a church father by the church of the east (The Eastern Orthodox church and the Oriental churches).

No, he isn't. Father Matthew said one cannot be a Church Father and a heretic at the same time.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

No, he isn't. Father Matthew said one cannot be a Church Father and a heretic at the same time.

Well isnt that neat. I've been told that he is by at least two EO priests...

 

[Not David]

The most surprising thing about this topic since I've talked about it online are how many Internet Eastern Orthodox are for some kind of Origenism. I would say, next to liberal Protestants of various backgrounds that has been the biggest group I've run across since talking about this since 2004 (and this was even true on web sites like Orthodox Christianity.net years ago). One guy in particular was amazing. He was a very ardent Greek Orthodox, really believed in "synergy of Church and State" (especially when talking about history and Oriental vs. Eastern Orthodox conflicts), really seemed like whatever the EO equivalent of patriotic flag waver. (I think he was some kind of Platonists). He kept repeating some kind of apocastasis like slogan "In the end all will be redeemed" or something like that. I would point out all the various statements, canons, councils etc. and he kind of found specific loop holes or other problems with them. He seemed to found some kind of specific formula that allowed him to be Origenist yet not have the anathemas apply to his position (Well lots of did have to do with other stuff that he wasn't advocating like the Pre-existence of souls etc.)

Sadly, modernist Christians prefer to trust scholars in what the Councils were about rather than their own Saints.

 

[Not David]

Well isnt that neat. I've been told that he is by at least two EO priests...

I trust Father Matthew.

 

[Mathetes66]

"Origen himself never taught this as actual doctrine, but merely opined it as possible.

"

Prove it otherwise with direct evidence quotes. Thanks.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

"

Prove it otherwise with direct evidence quotes. Thanks.

That actually is the position of the Coptic Church and expressed in this detailed article on the topic.

The School of Alexandria - Origen - Ch 4 - Origen and Origenism

 

[Mathetes66]

"You can criticize Theodore's treatment of the unity of Christ. But this is a lie. It's hard to take seriously condemnations that are clearly hatchet jobs."

So let me get this straight. When Theodore states the The Word of God is one person and that the Christ is another person, making two different persons, is that what you confess also? This is clearly contradictory to Scripture over & over again. 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday & today & forever. He is one Person with two different natures, the Divine & the human. It is all the heretical beliefs that teach contrary to this historical Christian doctrine.

It is up to you to bring direct quotations that show otherwise. I will be waiting. Thanks.

 

[Mathetes66]

"That actually is the position of the Coptic Church and expressed in this detailed article on the topic."

My question was directed to ViaCrucis but I will look later at your website. Thanks.

 

[Mathetes66]

The School of Alexandria - Origen - Ch 4 - Origen and Origenism

Vigilantius, on his return to the West after his visit to Jerusalem, had openly accused St. Jerome of a leaning to the heresy of Origin. St. Jerome wrote to him in the most severe tone repudiating the charge of Origenism & fastening upon his opponent those of ignorance & blasphemy. He justified his use of the writings of Origen, as he writes,

But, since Christ has shown us in Himself a pattern of perfect humility, bestowing a kiss upon His betrayer and receiving the robber’s repentance upon the cross, I tell you now when absent as I have told you already when present, that I read and have read Origen only as I read Apollinaris, or other writers whose books in some things the Church does not receive. I by no means say that everything contained in such books is to be condemned, but I admit that there are things in them deserving censure. Still, as it is my task to study by reading many authors to cull different flowers from as large a number as possible, not so much making it an object to prove all things as to choose what is good, I take up many writers that from the many I may learn many things; according to that which is written "reading all things, holding fast those that are good" 1 Thess. 5:21.

St. Jerome adds,

Origen is a heretic, true; but what does that take from me who do not deny that on very many points he is heretical? He has erred concerning the resurrection of the body, he has erred concerning the condition of souls, he has erred by supposing it possible that the devil may repent, and- an error more important then these- he has declared in his commentary upon Isaiah that the Seraphim mentioned by the prophet are the divine Son and the Holy Ghost. If I did not allow that he has erred or if I did not daily anathematize his errors, I should be partaker of his fault.

For while we receive what is good in his writings we must on no account bind ourselves to accept also what is evil.

Still in many passages he has interpreted the Scriptures well, has explained obscure places in the prophets, and has brought to light very great mysteries, both in the Old and in the New testament.

 

[Andrewn]

The Canons and Decrees of The Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.

You mean to say that infallible people designated some councils as "ecumenical" (out of numerous councils and synods)?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

See post #52

"We do not believe that everything that anyone happened to say at an Ecumenical Council is infallible, but we most certainly do believe that the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible, and this is because we believe that the Church as a whole, is infallible. Individual members, and even local Churches may err, but it is not possible for the entire Church to teach that which is erroneous—and Ecumenical Councils are certainly an example of what the Church as a whole teaches. "

For one thing, a council of a few people does not equal an entire church. It equals a number of people who have put themselves in positions of authority within the church, but that isn't quite the problem, either.

The real problem is in the statement that the entire church cannot be wrong. It's an ad populum fallacy. The entire church is made of humans which, either individually or as a whole, have never in the history of mankind given evidence of infallibility. Not only that, but the only way to know that the church, as a whole, is infallible is by the authority of something else that is also infallible. This chain of endorsement ultimately must come from God, who never gave such an endorsement, even once. He gave us power, promised us comfort and guidance, gave us a savior and saving knowledge of himself, but he never declared us infallible.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

You mean to say that infallible people designated some councils as "ecumenical" (out of numerous councils and synods)?

That should not be a surprise. Wouldn't that be true of the first Church counsel, aka the Counsel of Jerusalem in Acts 15? The results of that counsel were presumed to be from the Holy Spirit, and all of the people participating in it likewise were fallible. It's kind of like the saying that "the whole is greater than just the sum of the parts."

 

[charsan]

@Jude1:3Contendforthefaith I feel it is a good effort but vainless, if people here does not recognise the Councils, then they won't change their minds about the heresies condemned there.

Also as we see many time on CF they repeat those heresies. As you can see from this thread heresy is alive and well on CF because people throw out the councils and Church