Against a Sophistry of Canons: Why the Anathema Against Universalism is Absolute

Following upon the previous article's discussion of the canonical grounding for universalism's condemnation, in order to still preserve universalism one may object and attempt a sophistry, asserting that the Church condemned Origen and Origenism as a unit, and that each item that is anathematized is, essentially, like a link in a chain such that if one link is removed, it is possible to replace that separated link into a new chain that is not anathematized. In other words, each item is not condemned in itself, but only in its relation to the other condemned items. This is to say that universalism is only false if you also hold with it that, say, the sun, moon, and stars are reasonable beings (an idea condemned in the Third Anathema); otherwise, universalism is possible. The methodology, then, entails that if you can take one anathema out from a unit of ten, then that one is now rendered hypothetically permissible as long as it is placed in some other uncondemned unit. But, the logic is no different than when one would take nine anathemas out of ten and then re-hypothesize them elsewhere, for as long as the unit of ten, the condemned chain, is broken, then those nine separated links are now hypothetically permissible for use by other chains in other units. But that would make the tenth permissible! In other words, every anathematized item of the unit is actually still unanathematized as long as they are each regrounded in some other uncondemned unit. They are only anathema if they are held together with the others as a whole. So, if nine out of the ten were made to form an entirely new unit, with a new tenth link, then this new unit would be able to distinguish itself from when it was among the ten. 

Now, even if one were to seek to wiggle out of such an absurdity, the attempt is yet to say that the condemnation of universalism is so bound up with the other anathematized items that, since universalism itself doesn’t necessarily depend on those other items, then universalism can safely be removed from consideration as a heresy as long as those other items are not held together with it as a unit. This is still false, however, for the simple reason that it specifically addressed each item in order to show that each item was false, and not only as a whole unit. But how can we be sure of this? One answer is the impossibility of the contrary. For otherwise one would be able to assert that one might keep any condemned idea as long as they can reground it somewhere else. One could, as a consequence of this way of reasoning about the canons, hold to every uniquely anathematized item from every council, as long as they did not hold them together in their units, but separated them out neatly into other, uncondemned units. This method reduces the Church Fathers to imbecility, is an affront to the integrity of the Councils, and stains the holiness of the Church.

To make this clearer, according to the objection’s sophistry one could hold to the idea that the sun, moon, and stars are reasonable beings (Third Anathema, mentioned above) as long as they maintain the anathema against their reasonableness and the other anathemas proper to their unit, and place the doctrine of their reasonableness on other grounds. But how can it be false in one place and true in another? One would have to assert that the sun, moon, and stars are both reasonable and unreasonable. Obviously that approach to the anathemas is ludicrous, destroying the integrity of the canonical tradition. Each idea was condemned uniquely, on purpose, in order to show that each unique idea is uniquely condemned. They cannot be removed and then rehabilitated in other systems, otherwise the individual anathemas are no anathemas at all; they are essentially transformed into menus of ingredients for the use of other units. One could even hypothetically hold that any and all anathemas are able to be rehabilitated on other grounds such that everything that is anathematized in one place is also not anathematized in another.

The problem, as has been shown, is that according to this logic all anathemas are potentially valid as long as a person can dislodge them from their respective unit and then reassert them on some other grounds. If there are ten anathemas, then at least nine of them, and maybe all ten, can conceivably be reintroduced in other systems and so escape the anathema. Therefore, when the idea of a temporary hell is specifically condemned, it is not really that a temporary hell is being condemned, it is only that a temporary hell is condemned if one asserts that together with the idea that the sun, moon, and stars are rational beings. This sort of sophistry is thus exposed as false and dangerous, and the objection against eternal condemnation that is based on it can and ought to be rejected and dismissed outright.

Thankfully, the methodology which seeks to bind the anathematized items found on numbered lists, binding them together in such a way that if a numbered item is removed from its list then it is usable elsewhere, is addressed explicitly in the Sentence of the Fifth Council, specifically in the 14th of fourteen Capitula. Although not absolute proof in itself, it provides clear evidence of how the Council Fathers generally conceive of enumerated condemnations. Condemning Nestorianism, it declares: 

If anyone therefore shall defend the aforementioned epistle and shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall write in its favour, or in defense of the impieties which are contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which it contains in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and shall remain in these offenses unto the end: let him be anathema.

The condemnation clearly includes defending even only a part, which in the Origenism case is to say a specific numbered item, among the anathemas, is anathema. In other words, they cannot be treated as such a unit that if a piece can be removed then it is possible elsewhere. Although this is not stated within the specific condemnations against Origen, it clearly demonstrates the mind of the Council, a principle that the methodology of “unitism” is false. But, the concluding remark in the anathemas against Origen speaks in a similar tone:

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine 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.

It is “these opinions” which identify Origen(ism), and it is “these opinions” which are each anathematized. Referring to these items in the plural highlights their stand-alone diversity, not their unbreakable unity. Defending, or “in any way” even protecting, “these opinions” is anathema. To make this conclusively obvious, after the first anathema the very phrasing of each one begins and ends, “If anyone says or thinks… let him be anathema.” And so each one stands alone as a uniquely condemned item, for each has its own “if, then” logical structure, and so “these opinions” cannot in any way be treated as a chain of dependent reasoning built of excisable doctrines. And so, not only is the general methodology of reducing such lists to a unit false, and its intrinsic absurdity exposed, but within the specific list against Origen the very structure of each anathematized item necessitates that each item is uniquely condemned and forbidden as a public and as a private opinion or theologoumenon. Therefore, universalism (and annihilationism, since the punishment never ends) is absolutely condemned.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Eastern Orthodoxy Contra Universalism (Apocatastasis): The Canonical Grounding

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.

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:

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)

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:

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:

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.