I came across a most interesting historical writing regarding the growth of the Church and the relationship of emperors to the Church. As I read the book, my thoughts immediately deferred to  Emperor Justinian, and his atrocious treatment of the members of the 5th Ecumenical Council. If the linked article is true regarding Justinian’s personal behavior, as recorded by Procopius, then I would ask how it is that the Orthodox Church refers to this man as “Saint” Justinian? It is beyond me. Apparently the Church has been willing to overlook his behavior in favor of his unrelenting support of Orthodoxy in the face of the Arian, Monophysite, and Nestorian heresies which were plaguing the Church at that time.  My personal feeling is that the Orthodox Church might be wise to submit their “saints” to the same process that is done in the Roman Catholic Church. A couple of miracles would suffice to change my mind about Justinian. In terms of defending Orthodox Christianity against heresies, Justinian may have been “great,” but until I see some deeper proofs that he is indeed now among the  heavenly chorus of the saints, a man who murdered his enemies in cold blood remains a questionable character in my mind, especially for the title of “saint.”

Why is this of importance to me? Simply put, those who teach that an eternal conscious hell of torment is a dogmatic statement of the Church are wont to point to the 5th Ecumenical Council as their “Case Closed” moment when all other philosophic and scripture arguments of theirs have been trashed and left in ruins, as  for instance by David Bentley Hart. One may question interpretations of Scripture, but the councils are held to be the infallible rule of faith for a Christian of the apostolic faith, one with which he cannot dissent. If, however, emperor Justinian overstepped his bounds through his intrusion of personal belief into the intentions of that council, then portions of this council, to wit, the additional canons which Justinian forced the council to add, may well have all the validity of the infamous Robber Council of Ephesus, convoked by Emperor Theodosius II on August 8, 449. I specifically speak of the 9 Canons which condemn Apokatastasis.

When St. Constantine’s son Constantius apostasized from Orthodoxy and converted to the Arian heresy, believing that Christ was not the pre-eternal God and Creator but a created being, St. Athanasius, who had previously addressed him as “very pious”, a “worshipper of God”, “beloved of God” and a successor of David and Solomon, now denounced him as “patron of impiety and Emperor of heresy,… godless, unholy,.. this modern Ahab, this second Belshazzar,” like Pharaoh, worse than Pilate, and a forerunner of the Antichrist.

Again, St. Hilary of Poitiers wrote to Constantius: “You are fighting against God, you are raging against the Church, you are persecuting the saints, you hate the preachers of Christ, you are annulling religion; you are a tyrant no longer only in the human, but in the divine sphere… You lyingly declare yourself a Christian, but are a new enemy of Christ. You are a precursor of Antichrist, and you work the mysteries of his secrets.”

Constantius’ heretical cast of mind made it easier for him to assume the place of Christ as head of the Church. (Which sounds suspiciously like the position of the Roman Pontiff) Thus at the Council of Milan in 355, he said: “My will is law”. (Which again, sounds very much like the understanding of the Roman Church, i.e., that the decree of a pope overrides that of an ecumenical council and is infallible). To which St. Osius of Cordoba, replied: “Stop, I beseech you. Remember that you are a mortal man, fear the Day of  Judgement, preserve yourself pure for that. Do not interfere in matters that are essentially ecclesiastical and do not give us orders about them, but rather accept teaching from us. God has entrusted you with the Empire, and to us He has entrusted the affairs of the Church. And just as one who seizes for himself your power contradicts the institution of God, so fear lest you, in taking into your own hands the affairs of the Church, do not become guilty of a serious offence. As it is written, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. We are not permitted to exercise an earthly role; and you, Sire, are not authorised to burn incense.” (Indeed! And I think it would have been prudent for Emperor Justinian to have remembered this. He was neither a bishop nor a theologian per se. His intrusion into the council was unwarranted and appears more egocentric than God-centered.)

In her monumental scholarly work on the doctrine of Apokatastasis, Ilaria Ramelli writes:

“The Council that is usually cited as that which ‘condemend Origen’ is the fifth ecumenical council, the second Constantinopolitan Council, in 553 CE. First of all, its ecumenicity is in fact doubtful, since it was wanted by Justinian and not by Vigilius, (that alone should cause the honest mind to stop and rethink this council – but the pursuing of an agenda is often done at the cost of truth, whether by politician or theologian) the bishop of Rome, or other bishops; Vigilius was even brought to Constantinople by force, (and this is a legitimate council???) by the emperor’s order, and moreover he did not accept to declare that the council was open (Justinian had to do so). The anathemas, fifteen in

number, were already prepared before the opening of the council. (What???  I thought the canons were supposed to be derived from the operation of the council as they seek to find truth!!!) Here, Origen is considered to be the inspirer of the so-called Isochristoi. This was the position of the Sabaite opponents of Origen, summarized by Cyril of Scythopolis who maintained that the Council issued a definitive anathema against Origen, Theodore, Evagrius, and Didymus concerning the preexistence of souls and apokatastasis, thus ratifying Sabas’ position (V. Sab. 90). One of these previously formulated anathemas, which only waited to be ratified by the Council, was against the apokatastasis doctrine: ‘If anyone supports the monstrous doctrine of apokatastasis [τὴν τερατώδη ἀποκατάστασιν], be it anathema.’ Other anathemas concern the ‘pre-existence of souls,’ their union with bodies only after their fall, and the denial of the resurrection of the body. These doctrines have nothing to do with Origen; in fact, Origen is not the object of any authentic anathema. And Vigilius’s documents, which were finally emanated by a council that was not wanted by him, most remarkably do not even contain Origen’s name. Origen was never formally condemned by any Christian ecumenical council. [G.L.] Prestige once observed, inspiredly, that ‘Origen is the greatest of that happily small company of saints who, having lived and died in grace, suffered sentence of expulsion from the Church on earth after they had already entered into the joy of their Lord.’ We may add that Origen, strictly speaking, did not even suffer any formal expulsion from the church. One problem is that later Christian authors considered the aforementioned anathemas as referring to Origen; so, extraneous theories were ascribed to him. The condemnations were also ascribed to Didymus and Evagrius; indeed, the Isochristoi professed a radical form of Evagrianism and some anathemas seem to reflect some of Evagrius’s Kaphalaia Gnostica, but it would be inaccurate to refer all of Justinian’s accusations and of the Council’s ‘condemnations’ to Evagrius.

It is even of more interest that the site Papal Encyclicals Online,  a part of the Roman  Catholic Church which officially in its own Catechism insists that punishment is eternal, does not recognize the anathemas supposedly decreed against Origen, stating:

The council did not debate ecclesiastical discipline nor did it issue disciplinary canons. Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.

Apparently, in a moment of breathtaking theological honesty, the Roman Church is willing to admit that modern scholarship has shown these anathemas to be bogus as a three dollar bill.  Go to the link I posted and read the original canons with commentary. There is absolutely nothing  – NOTHING – in the original canons of the council mentioning apokatastasis.  And as you read about Justinian, and the manner in which he ruled and his treatment of those who did not defer to his desires, you get the feeling that much of what happened in this council to supposedly condemn apokatastasis was nothing more than an outrageous show of force which somehow took hold and has been maintained throughout the centuries.

“O, but Ed!  The next two councils also condemned apokatastasis!”

NO
THEY
DIDN’T!

I will pay you the princely sum of $100 if you can find me any mention of the word “Apokatastasis” in any of the canons of the 6th or 7th Ecumenical Councils. Just show me the word “Apokatastasis” or even “Universal Redemption” in the following quote, which is the closest you can get:

Wherefore this holy and universal synod of ours, driving afar the error of impiety which endured for some time even till the present, following without deviation in a straight path after the holy and accepted fathers, has piously accorded in all things with the five holy and universal synods: that is to say, with

1. the synod of 318 holy fathers who gathered at Nicaea against the madman Arius, and
2. that which followed it at Constantinople of 150 God-led men against Macedonius, opponent of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinarius; similarly too, with
3. the first at Ephesus of 200 godly men brought together against Nestorius, who thought as the Jews and
4. that at Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus, hateful to God; also, in addition to these, with
5. the fifth holy synod, the latest of them, which was gathered here against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of the renowned Cyril, and the letter said to have been written by Ibas to Mari the Persian. (Where is ANY mention of not only Apokatastasis by name, but of previous saints who held to that position, such as St. Isaac of Ninevah and St. Gregory of Nyssa?)

Reaffirming the divine tenets of piety in all respects unaltered, and banishing the profane teachings of impiety, this holy and universal synod of ours has also, in its turn, under God’s inspiration, set its seal on the creed which was made out by the 318 fathers and confirmed again with godly prudence by the 150 and which the other holy synods too accepted gladly and ratified for the elimination of all soul-corrupting heresy.

As demonstrated by the Papal Encyclical  Online, the original 15 anathemas had NOTHING to do with Apokatastasis. Origen was condemned because of some very strange ideas he had regarding the pre-existence of souls and the restoration that followed from that idea. To say that Apokatastasis is condemned because Origen believed in a bizarre form of universal restoration linked to the pre-existence of souls is called “guilt by association.”

It is patently dishonest, and in a court of law, such a presentation would be thrown out as irrelevant to the main issue – which was, in the case of Constantinople II – the Three Chapters and the condemnation of Origen’s ideas about pre-existence.

But let’s not let the facts get in the way of our desire to see sinners – especially those we hate – get  “what’s coming to them.” Perhaps you have never had the privilege of sitting in a Fundamentalist Revival Tent Meeting and hearing the glee with which the evangelist declares that “sodomites and fornicators will have their place in the Lake of Fire!”  You may be unfamiliar with the satisfaction of Calvinists as they refer to the “non-elect” as “receiving that eternal damnation of which they are utterly worthy!”

What I rarely saw in either of these religious camps – to which I once lamentably not only belonged, but spewed out their distorted message regarding the hateful God who waits to damn sinners – was an urge for us to pray for the lost, combine with tears of sorrow over their expected fate.  No, as David Bentley Hart says in his new book, it is much more to satisfying to the ego to be able to look at others, feel that we are better than they are, and then relish the delight of condemning them to eternal shrieking pain for their obstinate refusal to join our little club of perfect theology. Perhaps all the while looking over the paraparets of heaven with St. Thomas Aquinas and toasting their fate with a fine lager and smiles of joy!

After all, it is not Christ who saves, but having perfect theology about Him!