Anathemas against Origen

Michael · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

A lot of people think UR was condemned at the second council of Constantinople, but what the assembled Bishops condemned were certain views being taught by those who considered themselves disciples of Origen.

They condemned those views in these words:

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

,If anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil…If anyone shall say that there is a twofold race of demons, of which the one includes the souls of men and the other the superior spirits who fell to this, and that of all the number of reasonable beings there is but one which has remained unshaken in the love and contemplation of God, and that that spirit is become Christ and the king of all reasonable beings, and that he has created all the bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between heaven and earth…and that the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world, but that it was created by the working intelligence which is more ancient than the world, and which communicates to it its being…If anyone shall say that Christ, of whom it is said that he appeared in the form of God, and that he was united before all time with God the Word, and humbled himself in these last days even to humanity, had (according to their expression) pity upon the divers falls which had appeared in the spirits united in the same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to restore them he passed through divers classes, had different bodies and different names…If anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such shall be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their bodies shall be annihilated…If anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body…and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit: let him be anathema

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html

The “monstrous restoration” condemned is a return to a totally incorporeal pre-existence, in which matter is done away, and bodies are “annihilated.”

UR isn’t condemned, and I’m wondering if the idea that resurrection bodies are primarily spherical is really condemned?

The idea that we’d only be spheres (in a universe with no matter, incapable of physically manefesting a continuity with our earthly appearance, and incapable of recognizing one another) is clearly condemned, but is the idea of a spherical body itself condemned?

(The repeated use of the conjunctive “and” instead of “or” might be relevant here.)

Any thoughts?

AllanS · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Hi Michael,

Spherical bodies! I wonder how much of what is commonly believed in our time is equally absurd.

That list of anathemas makes interesting reading. Is that all it has to say about universalism? What about future councils?

james.goetz · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Hi Michael,

Robin Parry has an interesting series of blog posts related to anathemas against Origen:

theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-universalism-heretical-part-1.html

theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-universalism-heretical-part-2.html

theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-universalism-heretical-part-3.html

theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-universalism-heretical-part-4.html

theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2010/06/postscript-universalism-as-theologumena.html

Michael · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

If you mean the seven ecumenical councils of the undivided Church, that’s all they have to say about UR (the personal anthema’s of the Emporer Justinian, and the decrees of local synods are not ecumenical, and carry no dogmatic weight.)

There are still Orthodox Bishops teaching UR.

en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_6_10

Even Orthodox who don’t teach it, accept it as a pious hope.

theandros.com/restoration.html

And if you believe that Christ is still with the Church, any future councils would be guided by The Holy Spirit.

What do you think our resurrection bodies will be like?

Will they be pure spirit (or energy)?

Will they be physical bodies?

Or perhaps physical bodies dominated by the spirit (instead of by the flesh)?

Will they have flesh (and bone)?

Will they have sexual organs?

Will they have only the external form of our present bodies, or will they have internal organs?

If they have internal organs, will those organs function as they do now?

Will we eat (and if we do, will our GI tracts still process food)?

Michael · March 9, 2018, 1:38am

Thank you James.

I particularly liked this (from part 3.)

First, it is clear that when apokatastasis is condemned in the fifteen canons it is always done so in association with other, problematic, ideas. Thus in anathemas I and XV the concern is with apokatastasis as linked with the idea of the pre-existence of souls and an eschatology which sees a simple return of souls to an original unity. In anathema XIV it is apokatastasis as associated with an immaterial, pantheistic eschatology. But this is not a condemnation of universalism as such. Rather, it is a condemnation of universalism as linked into a wider, theologically problematic, system of thought. Even Justinian’s anathema IX—an anathema the status of which is ambiguous given that it was not a product of the Ecumenical Council—which looks like a blanket condemnation of all universalism might, in context, be taken as a condemnation of Origenist-universalism. Certainly when the Fifth Ecumenical Council turned Justinian’s earlier anathemas against Origen into fifteen approved anathemas they nuanced it in that way. If Justinian intended a blanket condemnation of universalism that was not what the Council agreed to.

Second, in support of this interpretation we may note that Gregory of Nyssa was known to teach a version of universal salvation that denied the problematic notion of the pre-existence of souls. Neither Gregory nor his teachings are ever condemned. Indeed, Gregory was highly revered as an orthodox theologian—named the “Father of the Fathers” by the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787—and remains so to this day. One contemporary Orthodox theologian wrote to me as follows:

Bulgakov points out, quite astutely I think, that Gregory of Nyssa’s version of apokatastasis, which is more developed and less ambiguous than that of Origen, has never been officially condemned. This means, I suppose, that any Orthodox theologian has, shall we say, a canonical loophole to speak of the apokatastasis a la Nyssa, not a la Origen—an apologetic move that Bulgakov makes.

According to Bulgakov, the doctrine of eternal hell does not have the status of a dogma in the East. Bulgakov wrote a very important essay, “Dogma and Doctrine”, in which he argued that strictly speaking, the Seven Ecumenical Councils have endorsed only two main doctrines—the trinity and incarnation with some corollaries, likes the status of Mary and the veneration of icons—and that most other central beliefs are to be relegated to the status of theologoumena [issues over which individual Christians may hold different personal opinions]. I must admit that I am more inclined to accept Bulgakov’s minimalism, than the dogmatic maximalism which characterizes, for example, the scholastic tradition in the West.

Third, when the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Origen by name in canon XI, the context suggests that Christology and not apokatastasis was the primary concern.

Finally, we might add that none of the central claims of orthodox Christianity, as embodied in the rule of faith or the Ecumenical Creeds, is incompatible with universalism. So universalism is certainly not unorthodox in the sense of being contrary to essential dogma. Indeed some universalists have embraced universalism precisely because they feel that it enables them to better hold together important Christian beliefs which stand in awkward tension on more traditional notions of hell (e.g., divine love for creation and divine providence over creation).

theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co … art-3.html

But I’m still interested in whether the idea of spherical bodies (per say–without the idea of pre-existence, the idea that matter will be abolished, the idea that these spherical bodies couln’t appear in more concrete form, or the idea that “all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared”) is condemned in these anathemas.

Any thoughts?

Ricky_13 · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

Amen to all of the great answers. I actually came to this forum looking for an answer to the anathemas against Origen. My question has been answered. Thank you all.

TGB · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

Anathema VII caught my eye:

If anyone shall say that Christ (of whom it is said that he appeared in the form of God and that he was united before all time with God the Word and humbled himself in these last days even to humanity) had (according to their expression) pity upon the divers falls which had appeared in the spirits united in the same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to restore them he passed through divers classes, had different bodies and different names…let him be anathema.

What interests me is that Christ is said to have been “united before all time with God the Word.” Now THAT is interesting because it’s recognized that the Word “appeared” and “humbled himself in the last days,” i.e., the Word “became” flesh. Incarnation (and hypostatic union) are a temporal event. So how is it that “Christ” (who is the incarnate Logos) is “forever united to God the Word”?

Tom

atHisfeet · March 9, 2018, 1:44am

Thought this was interesting - from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:

It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.

It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated.

Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.

It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.

It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).

The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.

It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.

newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:44am

That’s some good detective work there, aHf! Thanks!

atHisfeet · March 9, 2018, 1:44am

I did a lot of studying a year or two ago on the history of the church and some of the councils, etc. But my computer crashed a few months ago and I’ve lost all of my studies. But i recalled reading that and was able to find it quickly online.

I also recall discovering that Gregory of Nazianzus, who precised over the First Council of Constantinople in 381, also believed in Apocatastasis. Gregory of Nysaa was also in attendance at that council, as I recall.

Yet this was after Origen and Apocatastasis were supposedly declared anathema in 543.

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:44am

Ummmm no. 381 was not after 543.

It would however be shocking if Apocatastasis was declared anathema in 543 after the two Gregories (especially the Father of Orthodoxy himself, the Orthodox of the Orthodox) helped shape prior councils on what was orthodox and what was heretical.

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:44am

Having said that, the key point for RCCs is that a Pope speaking in what is arguably ex cathedra ratified the anathemas of the Emperor on this topic, and at no great date afterward. This is definitely one of the dogmatic sources of the RCC, and I recall reporting in some detail about this in another thread somewhere.

atHisfeet · March 9, 2018, 1:44am

Yes. Sorry, that was a typo.

The point being that there was more than just Origen who held this belief. Though some held it more prominently than others, I suppose. Some may not have taught it at all, though they believed it themselves (I forget what they called that). But they were not all condemned with Origen, which says to me that there was more to what was declared anathema then just the belief that all men will be saved (as was pointed out earlier in the thread). Seems Origen believed many other things that might have set him apart from Orthodoxy and got him condemned and the doctrine of the Apocatastasis suffered more as a result of collateral damage than from a direct attack. Even if that might have eventually happened anyway.