There is an unfortunate and deeply misled tendency prevalent that “dares hope” that all people will be saved. Although on the surface this appears compassionate, and seeks to magnify God's mercy, the belief is deeply destructive of His holiness and justice. It plays His mercy against His justice, thereby dividing God's attributes off from one another, and so undermines God's unity. Moreover, it undermines the value of Christ’s Atonement, and makes it functionally irrelevant. Rather than enter into the weeds of the theological aspect of this debate, as important as it is, it is important to pause, back up, and inquire into where the Church canonically stands on the issue. And so what follows is a brief exposition of the Church’s canons regarding what is called universalism (ἀποκατάστασις, apocatastasis), the idea that one day all entities will be saved or restored to communion with God.
Several of the anathemas that were accepted by the Second Council of Constantinople, which is the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), were composed by the Emperor Justinian, who is also a saint and respected theologian in the Church. Among the nine anathemas he pronounced against Origen and Origenism, the ninth reads:
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 (ἀποκατάστασις, apocatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.
This anathema expressly and unambiguously condemns the idea, both the public teaching and even the thought (i.e. theologoumenon, which is to say private opinion), that the divinely pronounced punishment to which the devils and impious men are subjected will cease. It is held to be a position that is definitely contrary to right, orthodox faith. After the resurrection and the final judgment, both demons and impious men will be cast into eternal, non-temporary punishment, according to the decision of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. In fact, the 11th Canon of this Council also lists Origen among many principle heretics:
If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.
Sadly, the foregoing anathema would include some modern Orthodox writers.
But some may complain that St. Justin had no business making these claims, perhaps that he even bullied the council Fathers. Nonetheless, it is there. But perhaps the Fathers were willing or coerced to capitulate to political pressures. Nonetheless, it is there. The Council ratified it. And so, whether one likes it being there or not, it is, nevertheless, there. And yet, that is not the end of the story.
Condemning Origen explicitly, the reference to "impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead" is doubtless a reference to the Dread Judgement Seat of Christ. Speaking on this issue of what is meant by the Resurrection of the Dead mentioned at the end of the foregoing quotation from Trullo, St. John of Damascus (676-749), a contemporary of the Trullan Council (692), teaches at the very end of his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:
The teaching clearly differentiates the mutually exclusive modes of eternity: one an everlasting fire of torment of "such fire as God would know," and one that is life eternal and unceasing joy in the presence of the All-Holy Trinity. The fates are presented as fixed and immutable, which accords perfectly with what is affirmed in the Ecumenical Councils.
Cementing the point, and reflecting the Orthodox position, St. John of Damascus says earlier in his chapter on the Aeon or Age:
The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), which was significantly informed by St. John of Damascus' theological thought, also adopts the decrees of the Fifth and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils, and those of Trullo. After stating the “pattern for those who have received the sacerdotal dignity is found in the testimonies and instructions laid down in the canonical constitutions,” the relevant portion of Canon 1 states:
From the Acts of the 6th Ecumenical Council, it is found (in the Acts, Session XVIII., L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1019.):
The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called Trullus, has decreed as follows.
… and in addition to these, to the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian), renewing in all things the ancient decrees of religion, and chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion.
Therefore the Sixth Ecumenical Council confirmed the prior Council’s anathemas of Origen’s teachings.
The Council of Trullo, the Quinisext Council, also affirms the condemnation of Origen's teachings as presented at the Fifth Ecumenical Council:
The Council of Trullo, the Quinisext Council, also affirms the condemnation of Origen's teachings as presented at the Fifth Ecumenical Council:
Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one hundred and sixty-five God-bearing fathers who assembled in this imperial city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek myths, and brought back again the circlings of certain bodies and souls, and deranged turnings [or transmigrations] to the wanderings or dreamings of their minds, and impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead.
Condemning Origen explicitly, the reference to "impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead" is doubtless a reference to the Dread Judgement Seat of Christ. Speaking on this issue of what is meant by the Resurrection of the Dead mentioned at the end of the foregoing quotation from Trullo, St. John of Damascus (676-749), a contemporary of the Trullan Council (692), teaches at the very end of his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:
We shall therefore rise again, our souls being once more united with our bodies, now made incorruptible and having put off corruption, and we shall stand beside the awful judgment-seat of Christ: and the devil and his demons and the man that is his, that is the Antichrist and the impious and the sinful, will be given over to everlasting fire... But those who have done good will shine forth as the sun with the angels into life eternal, with our Lord Jesus Christ, ever seeing Him and being in His sight and deriving unceasing joy from Him, praising Him with the Father and the Holy Spirit throughout the limitless ages of ages. Amen. (Book 4, Ch. 27, Concerning the Resurrection)
The teaching clearly differentiates the mutually exclusive modes of eternity: one an everlasting fire of torment of "such fire as God would know," and one that is life eternal and unceasing joy in the presence of the All-Holy Trinity. The fates are presented as fixed and immutable, which accords perfectly with what is affirmed in the Ecumenical Councils.
Cementing the point, and reflecting the Orthodox position, St. John of Damascus says earlier in his chapter on the Aeon or Age:
But we speak also of ages of ages, inasmuch as the seven ages of the present world include many ages in the sense of lives of men, and the one age embraces all the ages, and the present and the future are spoken of as age of age. Further, everlasting life and everlasting punishment prove that the age or æon to come is unending. For time will not be counted by days and nights even after the resurrection, but there will rather be one day with no evening, wherein the Sun of Justice will shine brightly on the just, but for the sinful there will be night profound and limitless. In what way then will the period of one thousand years be counted which, according to Origen, is required for the complete restoration? (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 2, Ch. 1)
Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that has found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils [therefore including the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, and possibly inclusive of Trullo], or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils [which could also refer to Trullo], or by our holy Fathers.
Now, if there were improprieties regarding the Fifth Ecumenical Council’s anathemas, or if something had been erroneously smuggled into them at some point, this would have been a perfect opportunity to amend the problem (not to mention the Sixth Ecumenical Council, not to mention Trullo whose Canon 2 also rather affirmed the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils).
And yet, someone may further complain and say that the acceptance of the prior Councils was much too general to be certain that they included the specific anathemas, and therefore does not necessitate accepting the anathemas set forth from them. Despite the obvious tenuous nature of such a complaint, it will be worth noting that Canon 1 continues:
And yet, someone may further complain and say that the acceptance of the prior Councils was much too general to be certain that they included the specific anathemas, and therefore does not necessitate accepting the anathemas set forth from them. Despite the obvious tenuous nature of such a complaint, it will be worth noting that Canon 1 continues:
For all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were expedient. Accordingly those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate; and those whom they delivered over to punishment, we subject to the same penalty.
Necessarily the anathemas against Origen are absorbed in this affirmation. The absolute rejection of a temporary punishment and universal restoration (apocatastasis) is de jure affirmed, and objections to it denied. Universalism is thus deemed inconsistent with Orthodox theology on canonical grounds. Not only rejected but condemned, to defend universalism is to be under the express anathema of the Orthodox Church’s binding canonical decrees as being at variance with the truth and therefore with right faith.
-Fr. Joshua Schooping
For the Church's canonical rejection of Pelagianism, see here.
