Recently, Father Kimel wrote an article with the intention of discrediting an earlier article I wrote which demonstrated that the Second Council of Nicea definitively taught that damnation is eternal.
In response to a quote from Session VI which states that in Hell there will not be “any end of punishment,” Father Kimel wrote in an article titled Divine Retribution, Hell, and the Development of Dogma:
This exchange came to my attention via Craig Truglia’s article “Nicea II’s Teaching on Eternal Damnation, Origen, and Apocatastasis.” Mr Truglia treats Epiphanius’ statement as if it were an authoritative conciliar pronouncement. That’s an understandable mistake, given the exclamation of approval (“This is the confession …”); but it misunderstands how a church council defines dogma. If we wish to learn what a council has doctrinally determined, we look to its decrees and canons. Conversations between the bishops may help us to better interpret the decrees and canons, but they do not represent the dogmatic voice of the council.
Father Kimel, who has not hidden the fact that he has never read the entire minutes of an ecumenical council, is understandably ignorant of both how councils viewed themselves and how fathers subsequently viewed those same councils. For everyone who who has done the dirty work of reading a whole council, it is obvious that the conciliar fathers had the view that, similar to the Scriptures, everything that a council affirmed as true must be affirmed.
Father Richard Price, indisputably the greatest living authority (though not infallible) on this subject, has coined this idea “conciliar fundamentalism.” In his first volume on the Council of Constantinople II, he wrote that Justinian, Ferrandus, and all contemporaries during the 6th century approached “all the acts and not just the decrees…with exaggerated respect.” (p. 98) Ferrandus of Carthage’s explicitly wrote:
If there is disapproval of any part of the Council of Chalcedon, the approval of the whole is in danger of becoming disapproval… But the whole Council of Chalcedon, since the whole of it is the Council of Chalcedon, is true; no part of it is open to criticism. Whatever we know to have been uttered, transacted, decreed and confirmed there was worked by the ineffable and secret power of the Holy Spirit. (Quoted in Ibid.)
Father Price is highly critical of conciliar fundamentalism and calls it a “failure to distinguish adequately between conciliar decrees and conciliar debates.” (Ibid.) Regardless of its merits to modern scholars, it was obviously the prevailing view of what is authoritative in the ecumenical councils from the time of the councils until the advent of the heresy of modernism.
The Three Chapters controversy would not have been a controversy if the fathers had the epistemic “out” of simply saying that Sessions 9 and 10 of Chalcedon were not decrees and canons. This already gives us some indication that conciliar fundamentalism was not some sort of sixth century innovation which arose out of nowhere. It was already ingrained at this point.
Even earliest than this, one of the attendees of Nicea, Saint Athanasius himself, wrote the following about the first ecumenical council:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. (De Synodis, Par 6)
Athanasius was clearly speaking of “the acts of Nicæa” (Par 7) and not merely the Creed. So, we can see that Ferrandus was not the first person to speak of the work of a council in its very acts as inspired like the Scriptures.
What were the occasions for Athanasius’ and Ferrandus’ comments? For Athanasius, his comments were inspired by debate throughout the fourth century over the Nicene council. A conciliar fundamentalist iteration should not surprise us, because it is a way of asserting the authority of Nicea over countless Semi-Arian councils. Both Constantinople I and Ephesus I did not have any statements in their documents which caused significant debate within the Empire (the Nestorianizers maintained communion until the late fifth century), so we should not be surprised that we lack any contemporaries writing conciliar fundamentalist statements to defend those councils. However, due to the Monophysite schism rearing its ugly head in response to Chalcedon, it makes sense we start seeing conciliar fundamentalist statements again, such as Ferrandus’.
In short, disputed councils give the occasion for their defenders to invoke a conciliar fundamentalist defense. We cannot read into Constantinople I or Ephesus lacking such defenses as proof that no one had the mindset. History provides for us a good explanation as to why conciliar fundamentalism did not need to be invoked concerning those councils. Further, Athanasius offers us a fourth century invocation of the idea, demonstrating that conciliar fundamentalism existed since the beginning.
It should not surprise us then that we have more examples of conciliar fundamentalism in the first millennium. Father Price narrates for us an example of this occurring during the Council of Constantinople III. Due to this council’s translation not being published yet, we English-speakers have only this account to glean from:
In its Session III of 13 November 680 a copy of the acts of 553 was read out and found to contain three monenergist or monothelete documents: inserted at the very beginning of the acts was a document entitled ‘A discourse by the sainted Archbishop Menas of Constantinople addressed to the most blessed Pope Vigilius of Rome on Christ’s possession of a single will’, while the acts of Session VII of 553 were found to contain two declarations of faith by Vigilius, one addressed to Justinian and the other to his consort Theodora, which professed belief that ‘Christ is one hypostasis and one person and one operation’. The manuscript was immediately examined by the emperor Constantine IV (chairing the council), his officials and the bishops, who found that the discourse of Menas came on pages that had simply been stuck into the manuscript; it was agreed that a fuller examination of the latter would be carried out at an appropriate time.
This further examination did not take place till Session XIV of 6 April 681, when it was found that the two declarations by Vigilius were likewise crude insertions into the manuscript read out in Session III; it was also revealed that on a scroll containing the acts solely of Session VII of 553 the offending additions to the text had been ‘written crosswise’ – that is, they were an addition written at right angles to the original text, presumably in the margin. As additional evidence of the spuriousness of all three inserted documents, a number of additional manuscripts were now produced that
contained none of them.
What are we to make of all this? The discourse by Menas, whether genuine or a forgery, had no proper place in the acts of 553. But the evidence that the two declarations by Vigilius had likewise been clumsily stuck into the manuscript is more suspect: if this were so, why was the examination of the manuscript delayed for five months? It looks as if the evidence needed time to be concocted… (p. 106)
To make a long story short, apart from conciliar fundamentalism, why would the council’s fathers:
1. Examine the manuscripts in such an exacting matter or (worse), or
2. Fabricate manuscripts if the offending statements made were neither decrees or canons?
Obviously, the point at issue was that if these offensive statements were part of the minutes of the fifth ecumenical council, it would demonstrate that either the fifth or sixth ecumenical councils were in error. So, the examinations were called for in order to vindicate the councils from any slurs of inconsistency or incorrect teaching.
The preceding should not surprise us, because anyone steeped in the thinking of the Saints realizes that they likewise oftentimes accord the writings of previous saints to a near-infallible status. Saint Maximus took this view to the extreme in his treatment of Saint Gregory of Nazianzus in the Ambigua. Maximus wrote that “every syllable” of Saint Gregory’s writings had “a most suitable meaning.” (Amb 6.2, quoted in p. xii)
In the introduction to Book I, Nicholas Contas notes that this patristic fundamentalism (a phrase I am coining) arose from the high veneration paid to Saint Gregory:
Gregory is a saint, a man who through bodily asceticism and spiritual contemplation attained the highest possible degree of perfection, experienced divine realities, and was so completely assimilated to God that his words, as Maximos reminds us, can be fully understood only by someone who is Gregory’s equal in virtue (Amb 19.2,42.3, 45.2; see 10.105, 19.5). Having received the “whole outpouring of divine wisdom that can be attained by the saints,” Gregory’s words have a sacred, indeed inspired, character, not unlike the words of Scripture (see prol. Thom. 3, Amb 19.2, 21.2, 32.2). As the very “mouth of Christ,” Gregory the Theologian’s words are an extension of the words of Christ the Word. (p. xiii)
To those who find this insane, Contas makes the following comment:
Such devotion to the writings of a fourth-century bishop might strike the modern reader as extreme, and perhaps even sacrilegious, yet this response would fail to grasp one of the most cherished doctrines of Byzantine theology. To the Byzantine mind, Gregory was simply a link in a succession of divinized saints stretching back to the apostles and prophets (see Am b 41.2, 10.42-56). Were not Saint Paul’s letters— a collection of occasional and often prosaic documents— set alongside the words of Christ in the Gospels and given the status of Scripture? Why, then, should not the works of other saints, and especially those by Saint Gregory, who shared the title of “Theologian” with John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, be held in comparable esteem (see Amb 21.14)?…It is therefore no surprise that Maximos’ interpretation of Gregory makes use of exegetical methods traditionally brought to bear on the interpretation of Scripture. (p. xiv)
Now that we have established a significantly wide context, we can see that the saints disagree with Father Kimel’s assertion that:
If we wish to learn what a council has doctrinally determined, we look [only] to its decrees and canons.
The preceding assertion, even though it is wrong, would make some sort of sense if what Father Kimel was quoting from Nicea II was some sort of passing statement in the minutes. However, and I really hate pointing this out, Father Kimel has not read the council he is commenting on. He did not realize that what he was quoting was in fact a decree from Session 6 of Nicea II.
Session 6 of Nicea II is literally the council’s definitive “refutation” to “the definition” of the Council of Hiera, a “robber council” which falsely styled itself as Ecumenical. (p. 306) In Session 6, Gregory (a Bishop of Neoceasarea) read Hiera while Epiphanius (a Deacon from Constantinople) read the council’s response to Hiera.
Granted, there was no “abba kadabra,” “hokey pokey and turn yourself around,” or magic words that stated Session 6 was a “decree.” Nicea II was not like Chalcedon where votes were held at the end of every session. It was more orchestrated. The document was simply introduced as an “irrefragable confutation…with which the Holy Spirit has favoured us,” with the Council simply responding “let it be read” (p. 303), indicating they recognized the document to be inspired by the same Spirit.
This puts any honest universalist in a tough position. The document which stated that in Hell there would not be “any end of punishment,” was accepted uncritically as inspired by God Himself in Session 6.
But, none of this is really earth-shattering to anyone who has actually read the council. In the council’s official letter to the whole Church, another decree which says of itself that the council was led “by the inspiration and operation of the Holy Spirit,” (p. 452), it in passing takes the eternal nature of damnation for granted:
But the Lord awakened as a man out of sleep and as a mighty man refreshed with wine and He smote His enemies in the hinder parts and put them to a perpetual shame.’ If then eternal shame was by His resurrection put on His enemies that is the power of darkness, how then can Christians any more serve idols” (p. 454)?
This leaves no confusion as to what the council taught, from Whom they asserted they received their teachings, and the definitive nature of the council’s pronouncements.
As for the rest of the article, it devolves into a discussion of the ramifications of Romanides’ thought which, in Father Kimel’s view, makes universalism the most Orthodox conclusion possible. It would be hard to describe this as anything other than strange.
Is Romanides (who is not even a saint) above an ecumenical council? This is clearly the logical conclusion of Father Kimel’s thought when he asks rhetorically, after admitting the sixth ecumenical council likewise taught retributive damnation:
…is this what the Orthodox Church popularly teaches today? The answer is no.
In so doing, Father Kimel cites Romanides as representing “today’s” Orthodox teaching on Hell and that this teaching is opposed to the ecumenical councils.
In summary, Father Kimel has made the following mistakes. Having not read the council of Nicea II, he did not realize two things. First, that his representation of what is authoritative in an ecumenical council is historically untrue, due to the “conciliar fundamentalist” mindset of the conciliar fathers. Second, the parts of Nicea II he opposed had in fact met his own, more exacting, criteria for “definitiveness.”
In addition to the “sins” of repeating factually incorrect statements, Father Kimel has implied that the Orthodox Church has changed her teachings on eternal damnation. This idea is heterodox and it should be recanted immediately. Father Kimel is morally obliged to confess that the Church has never changed Her teachings.
Perhaps, Father Kimel can both correct the record and ask for forgiveness in misleading the ignorant and simple. An exercise in such humility, from a clergyman no less, would be a great inspiration to laymen and other clergy alike.
Please pray for Father Kimel that God may give him the simplicity in heart and wisdom to disown the contents of his recent article.
__
Update 6/9/20:
I was sent even more evidence that Session 6’s definition on damnation is ecumenically authoritative–its paraphrased in the Synodikon which is prayed every year at the beginning of Lent.
Nicea II, Session 6:
If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits, in the righteous balance of the Lord that neither will there be any end of punishment nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven, that is the full enjoyment of God, for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink but righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches, let him be anathema.
To them that accept and transmit the vain Greek teachings that there is a pre-existence of souls and teach that all things were not produced and did not come into existence from non-being, that there is an end to torment or a restoration again of creation and of human affairs, meaning by such teachings that the Kingdom of the Heavens is entirely perishable and fleeting; whereas the Kingdom is eternal and indissoluble as Christ our God Himself taught and delivered to us, and as we have ascertained from the entire Old and New Scripture, that the torment is unending and the Kingdom everlasting; to them who by such teachings destroy themselves and become agents of eternal condemnation to others, anathema!
Help Grow the Orthodox Church in Cambodia!
Has this article blessed you? Please bless the Moscow Patriarchate’s missionary efforts in Cambodia to bring the Gospel to a people who have not heard it!
$1.00
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Craig, good stuff here. Just a note – which you can delete after you read it – you had a typo in this sentence: “Maximus took this view to the extreme in his treatment of Saint Gregory of Nyssa in the Ambigua.” I suppose you meant here Nazianzus. It would be kind of ironic if it were Nyssa…whom I believe Maximus endeavors to correct.
I will fix, thanks for the catch!
Yeah, well….I’ve taken the time to read the ecumenical councils and the canons thereof. Most people don’t, so when someone comes along and states that “this dogma” or “that doctrine” belongs to the councils, they just accept that an authority wiser and smarter than them has spoken and the case is closed.
What I have found regarding Constantinople II, as well as Emperor Justinian, is quite disturbing. The character of Justinian is quite suspect in this whole matter, from the way he treated Pope Virgilius and anyone else who dared speak against his will, to the reasons he had for both calling the council and what he wished for it to accomplish. Some 1500 years removed from Constantinople and the machinations of this emperor, we cannot know the full scope of his behavior, but what we do know is quite troubling. You appear to want to treat the council as a clean-cut, once-and-done deal. It is far from that, and modern scholarship has show us that there are parts of the council that smack of forgery and fraud done to get what the emperor wanted. Quite frankly, your whole appeal to the council to support the idea of eternal punishment is both bogus and a smear on the character of God. It appears that when you entered Orthodoxy, you dragged in some leftover baggage from your Calvinist/Augustinian errors. I would suggest you jettison them.
Here is a small piece I wrote on the subject of Constantinople II
https://http4281.wordpress.com/2020/03/20/but-the-5th-ecumenical-council-says-stop-no-it-doesnt/
It is not thorough because I haven’t had the luxury of time to put it altogether in a piece yet. A larger writing is in process, but I doubt you will much care for that either. It seems that infernalists are absolutely scandalized to believe that God may actually be what the Bible says He is – LOVE – and can only act in that manner towards His creatures and His Creation.
I’m glad you found Othodoxy. I shall endeavor to pray that Orthodoxy finds you.
What you are teaching is not Orthodoxy. It is liberal Protestantism, which has creeped its way into RCism and into parts of Orthodoxy. I do not necessarily view these councils as anything other than political, but the way we treat them ought to be how the saints treat them. And Justinian is canonized. And you’re stuck with that–unless you are crypto-Protestant and pick and choose your own saints, own councils, and own doctrines.
Craig, a fantastic article that left me laughing out loud at certain points. The only thing I would say is that I would not cede to the modernists the right to call zeal to protect the Councils as “fundamentalism”, but there must instead be a better word or phrase, perhaps “filial respect”?
I am simply using a word scholarship already coined. I prefer, “reading history like the saints.”
The ironic thing is that I am in reality sort of a liberal myself. Not that I want to be. But I am academically trained in reading history and I still approach it too academically. The difference is I think i am honest with what I read, so I realize the saints themselves read history differently and recognize that we need the humility to conform our minds to that of the saints.
My mind is just not there yet. Pray for me that it will be.
Well to play devil’s advocate here (as I myself affirm the reality of the dogmatic status of eternal damnation), just because a few council fathers and saints viewed absolutely every part of an ecumenical council as infallible, does this necessarily make it so? I mean did not the Council of Chalcedon err in the acts when it re-instated people like Ibas of Edessa? And I mean there’s just a lot of messy things that have happened at the councils, and as you say, St. Maximus believed everything St. Gregory the Theologian wrote was infallible, but is this true? Certainly not! The saints most certainly can err on matters of faith, the most obvious being St. Gregory of Nyssa on this very question of universal salvation, so is it really that far of a stretch to say that we must exercise wisdom when discerning what is and is not infallible within the ecumenical councils?
Personally, I think the best way to do this is to see what has and has not entered the liturgical life of the Church; obviously this too would be the nail in the coffin for universal salvation given we proclaim the Synodikon liturgically, but for me this seems like a much more authentic way for the Spirit to guide the Church on what the teachings of the Councils are, because otherwise you’re left to the whims of academics and translators to interpret the complexity of the acts and sessions and what not.
“…just because a few council fathers and saints viewed absolutely every part of an ecumenical council as infallible, does this necessarily make it so?”
It’s not a “few,” however. As I pointed out, the entire councils of Constan II and Constan III explicitly hinged upon the entire concept (why else go wacky over Ibas letter or Vigilius using the term monoenergia?) So, if you have councils which have entire sessions devoted to conciliar fundamentalism, it means all the council’s fathers were devoted to it.
“I mean did not the Council of Chalcedon err in the acts when it re-instated people like Ibas of Edessa?”
No, because the council fathers recognized he repented of his Nestorianism. Further, a good historical case can be made that Ibas disowned his letter and claimed he did not write it. So, even if he was lying, the council by affirming him was not affirming his letter, which gets rid of any doctrinal problems.
As for patristic fundamentalism, this is extremely hard tenet to hold. But let;s be honest…we do this in Orthodoxy. How often do we cite spiritual lives and things from fathers as authorities, even if it is questionable as to their historicity? There is certainly a fundamentalism here, perhaps toned down a notch. Photios tells us to “cover the nakedness of the fathers” when they teach something wrong, which in other words is, look the other way. DOn’t we do this when the Scriptures themselves have obvious errors, such as varying numbers of people in the armies in the books of Kings and Chronicles?
While the looseness of our own epistemology is an interesting subject (and perhaps my key reason for writing the article), the decrees of Nicea II affirm eternal damnation. So, its a moot point. Fr Kimel’s attempt to say the part of the council that talked about eternal damnation was not “authoritative” because it was not a decree is not even factually true–both statements are found in decrees that invoke the Holy Spirit as the author explicitly.
God bless,
Craig
Thanks for the reply! I’m curious, did any saints adhere to “conciliar fundamentalism”? From everything I’ve read about the saints’ commentaries on the councils, which is limited, I don’t remember any of them articulating this view exactly, so could it be the case that the council fathers were just using hyperbole to describe the importance of the councils, and not actually trying to make an articulated theology of ecumenical councils?
I ask this because, as far as I know, there is no tradition in Orthodoxy of studying and citing the acts of the councils as inerrant the same way we would do this with the Holy Scriptures. In fact, as far as I’m aware, study the acts of councils is a relatively recent thing, and there are several older councils (like I Nicaea and I Constantinople) which we don’t even have the acts for!
This is why I prefer what I stated in my original comment about the infallible authority of a councils’ decrees being known insofar as they enter the liturgical life of the Church (Seraphim Hamilton actually has some great work on this in his articles “The Liturgical Transmission of Tradition” and “What is an Ecumenical Council?”). Once again, this would still be a nail in the coffin for universalists because we liturgically proclaim the anathema against Origen and universalism on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, and personally this is what convinced me that I cannot be Orthodox and a universalist, because of how scandalized I was when Fr. Kimel told me that “the liturgy can contain errors.” What are your thoughts on this understanding?
Also, your comparison of the writings of the fathers to that of Scripture is worrying. The Scriptures are unique in that they are completely inerrant, i.e. they contain absolutely no errors or contradictions. When we see an apparent contradiction in Scripture it is just that, apparent. Just because we may not understand how to resolve it, it doesn’t mean we cannot. Reading the fathers is not like this, in their works there can be real errors and contradictions because they were not guided by the Spirit in the same way the writers of Scripture were. While I most certainly believe that the vast majority of what the Fathers wrote is infallibly protected from error, their writings are still categorically distinct from the Holy Scriptures, and this principle should not be undermined.
God bless!
Well, I quoted Saint Athanasius speaking of an acts that no longer exists (which is sad, its like the lost sayings of prophets referred to obliquely in 1 and 2 Chronicles.) As for how many more saints talk about it, this is not a topic where I bill myself an expert. I merely repeated Fr Price on the issue (he has 1 page total on the topic explictly) and Contas (who more broadly comments on this fundamentalism being a common Byzantine practice.) So, being that this is a RC and Byzantine scholar, one a modernist, do you doubt them? Do you think they are misrepresenting the fathers?
Based on limited information, I do not think so. The Councils themselves operated under this pretext. Every council explicitly speaks of the Holy Spirit speaking through them (both Palamite councils also share this feature.) The three chapters controversy is not a controversy unless their understanding was “fundamentalist.” As I detail, the whole slavish examination in the 6th council over a letter added as an introduction to the minutes (it was not even part of the minutes) and passing statements *quoted* from Vigilius in Session 7 of the 5th council (he was not even there and they were not quoting the letters in questions over the issue of monothelitism), to me shows incontrovertible evidence that the councils themselves worked from a fundamentalist mindset. Being that the conciliar fathers are saints, you have the answer to your question right there.
You rightly observe there are difficulties. Do we really believe the syntax of councils is inspired like the Scriptures (presuming you agree that the Scriptures are)? While we have fathers who would treat the councils (and other fathers) this way, part of this I think is a honorific. But “I think” is the operative term. There is a long road from “maybe the high minded statements that the councils are infallible everywhere is exaggerated praise” to “the minutes are in effect not binding and only the decrees and canons are infallible.” If the conciliar fathers themselves clearly did not believe the latter, we already automatically know that’s wrong, even if the former view is a literalistic way of interpreting those same fathers.
God bless,
Craig
The minutes of councils, while important and worth investigating with regards to their accuracy, as you give the historical example of Constantinople III, by no means makes them equivalent to canons. This is where you err on your arguments based upon II Nicaea. Furthermore, your statements on Fr. Kimel’s blog about the reason of him or other theologians for not being condemned by synodal judgment or his bishop is because the hierarchy is totally incompetent or corrupted by modernism are mistaken. The Holy Spirit preserves the Orthodox Church no matter the strife. Such accusations are self-serving for your ends in declaring that your interpretation of II Constantinople and II Nicaea are correct. They also denigrate the authority and integrity of the holy synods of the present-day, which is just as harmful as denigrating those of yore, which you claim to defend. It is one thing to make your arguments based upon the your readings of the councils. It is quite another to cast doubt upon the Orthodox Church’s integrity in synodal or episcopal proceedings in the present-day, especially for a laymen and so publicly.
This is really not much of a point. Just because you don’t like the conciliar fundamentalism of the fathers (nor do I, have you ever read those councils? They sure do not seem very inspired), that does not mean that the fathers treated doctrinal statements in the minutes as binding. So, there’s a lot of rhetorical flailing here, but little substance,
Nevertheless, the anti-universalist statements are in 2 decrees in Nicea II–which renders your whole opposition moot to begin with.
No canon of II Nicaea condemns universalism. What you cite are not canons. Nor is what you cite present in the definition of II Nicaea with the exception of one line that in general names Origen. But that is only a clear reference to the doctrines condemned at III Constantinople, whose interpretation we dispute. Your entire article on II Nicaea is moot because it entirely rests on your already decided interpretation of III Constantinople and on citations that are not canons.
In any case, I’m not particularly interested in redebating this matter with you. My chief concern is your willingness to throw the integrity of the present-day bishops and synods under the bus in order to win an argument with a priest on the internet. If that concern appears to be nothing more than rhetorical flailing, well then I suppose I must take Tertullian’s advice.
Is the Creed of Nicea a Canon? Then how is it authoritative then?
This does not make sense. If decrees teach something, by Fr Kimel’s definition, its authoritative. If whatever the minutes present as is true according to conciliar fundamentalism, then that to is authoritative. Now neither decrees or minutes are authoritative, but only canons? What are you getting at, Alura?
As my previous statement implies, the Definitio of II Nicaea is authoritative in addition to its canons. But where in the Definition of II Nicaea is universalism in all its forms condemned? As I said before, at most you have a repetition of a condemnation of Origen ( https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101038140339&view=1up&seq=384 ). But again, that is only in reference to III Constantinople, whose interpretation on the scope of its condemnation of universalism in its canons is in dispute between you and I. II Nicaea therefore clarifies nothing your favor unless you invoke your strange take on conciliar minutes and treat them as canons.
Alura, why are you changing your tact? What motivates you to do this? You went from “there is no canon” to now conceding that decrees hold weight.
As for, “But where in the Definition of II Nicaea is universalism in all its forms condemned?” this is a logical fallacy–an appeal to endless specificity. But, lucky for you, the decree simply says damnation will have no end–so that covers all forms of apocatastasis which postulate that everyone will leave Hell. Because those who are in Hell will never have an end to torment. That’s what the decree plainly states.
This is why the time to pray for those in Hades is now.
As a side note, you then end your reply incoherently citing that I am making an argument strictly from the minutes–which to repeat for the 4th time I am not. It is in the decree.
There is something wrong with universalism. It certainly effects minds for the worse. This is not some petty insult. Its an obvious fact and I expect more from you and am saddened to see someone as intelligent as you suckered in by heresy as you are.
No, Craig, you’re not citing the Definitio of II Nicaea when you refer to Epiphinius in the 6th session. That is not part of the council’s definitio, which is in the 7th session. And asking for more specificity is not a logical fallacy, when the condemnation at III Constantinople was very specific in the rendition of universalism that was condemned. If you want to seal the deal for your argument using II Nicaea, find the condemnation in one of its canons or in THE DEFINITIO, which is not the same as Ephiphinius’ refutations, of II Nicaea. The Definitio is here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101038140339&view=1up&seq=384 . I’ve read it and you can too in your translation. You will not find what you’re looking for.
As for my supposed falling into heresy, let me be clear: One of the reasons why I converted to Orthodoxy was precisely because it allows for one to believe in universal salvation, with caveats of course.
Alura, again you are shifting. Does something have to be called a “definition” to be a “decree?” What is the “definition” or “decree” (being that it appears fair game to be fast and loose with words) of Chalcedon? Is the Tome not definitive, though all the fathers of Chalcedon received it as such? Is the letter of Nicea II, to the world’s churches, summing up its doctrine not definitive–especially considering attached to the letter was all the council’s canons? Where is the stone where it is written that “the definitio” was the only decree of Nicea II. The reference before Session VI to the Holy Spirit speaking through them, is this a lie? Is it said to no effect?
My apologies for believing you have fell into heresy. It is more sad to here your website has been mislabeled all along. Universalism is a damnable belief. I wish it upon none.
I have not shifted at all. You’re the one willing to come up with doctrines of hermeneutics based on your own willy nilly Protestant-like readings of conciliar minutes without any consideration at all for the living Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church or of its current bishops and synods. Instead, you blaspheme them, accusing them of powerlessness due to liberal modernist corruptions – a nice conspiracy theory that allows you to explain away why some of the most vocal Orthodox academics and public figures are able to proclaim universal salvation without censure, not just in the USA but across the globe and in multiple autocephalous churches.
As for the definitio matter, yeah, that’s a thing – a legal thing. Look at the examples of Niermeyer’s Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, pp. 412 of the 2002 edition. It’s commonly used in the way I’ve described. And given that Athanasius Bibliothecarius and the popes of Rome understood it as such, it only goes to show further that such was the understanding. The binding portions of II Nicaea are the Definitio of the Council and its canons. The minutes are informative. Case closed.
At any rate, see you in Hell.
More accusations, yet you answered none of my questions. The ironic thing is if you already concede that the Nicea II fathers were Conciliar Fundamentalists, which the OP shows persuasively, then effect they viewed the whole council as an infallible decree. This is not “fancy hermeneutics.” It’s basic facts. You remind me of an RC apologist saying something is not “Ex cathedra” because the Pope somehow did not pronounce his teaching to be “from his seat” or whatever “clear enough.”
And I am not so convinced you will go to Hell. You can repent. But, unrepentant universalists are cursed, as the synodikon states.
God bless,
Craig
Please keep up the good work on this issue, Craig. Would that this heresy be buried for good. Not the people, of course, but the false teaching. In the way it’s being presented recently, it truly is another gospel. Which is none at all.
😦
Actually, I have a more substantive comment. I’d like to finish the second book of ambigua by Maximus and then just read everything from St Gregory of Nyssa. I plan on it to take years. And, unlike the heretics, I am willing to find out that he is wrong about this or that. But, because they have zero credibility and are literally like Satan (“Did God really say…”) I simply do not trust them and would prefer to do a more unbiased and complete analysis.
Nice. The Ambigua’s a stellar refutation of Origenism. St. Maximus provides deft solutions for all this universalism gobbledygook.
If one is familiar with the history of Protestantism, these current arguments for universalism ring eerily similar to the formation of a new denomination. Complete with its own charismatic frontman, its own hermeneutic, and its own gospel. “Hooray, we FINALLY found the truth! And who cares what came before us.” The demons love novelty (because it promotes disunity) as well as anything that would tempt us to forsake our moral/ascetic struggle. From Genesis to the maps, there are always Two Ways! People have to twist and bend pretty hard to get another meaning.
Good luck with St. Gregory. That should be an edifying project. Though his early works seem heavily Platonic.
I forgot to add this. I find it ironic that I write an article demonstrating the epistemology and hermeneutic of the saints, get called an “extremist” and “Protestant for saying “Hey, this is how the saints did it…but by your own standards you’re still wrong anyway.”
If Fr Kimel was bigger we could call them Kimelites. Thank God, he really does not have enough traction–especially if he takes his time writing against me.
Thank you. I really do not like the Platonism, though I understand it.
Actually DBH is who I had in mind. I think Hartians has a good ring to it (rhymes with Martians). 🙂
I don’t think he actually even communes in an Orthodox church anymore. He’s the Tychonius of universalism.
Golly, you’re stupid.
I thought you’d think people who loved man so much that they even wanted Hitler in heaven would have kinder replies than this.
Curious how academia-worshipping universalists tend to be such insufferable nasty pricks. It’s almost as if universalism is nothing but reprobate cope. I think I will stick to the Protestant-Calvinist-Augustinian-Western captivity-infernalist Church Fathers, councils and liturgical tradition. After all, it doesn’t really matter if I make the wrong choice: even I shall be saved.
Sadly, its a crutch for some family member that died, some absurd personal sin, or (worse of all) a second commandment violation–they idolize their own god and not the true God.
He was made a preist by a vagante Lazar Pulhalo. He is not a preist.
Who?