(3) A Response to Father Kimel’s Universalist Reblog – YouTube

This is not properly an article, but a script from a webshow I had done. I simply put the script here so interested people can check sources and whatnot.

Notes from the onset:

-Two sides to every story, my appeal is to people weighing the evidence and sincerely interested in the best answer to the question: is universalism a heresy?

-Appeals to authority, such as X number of scholars, is a logical fallacy. I am not inclined to respond to logical fallacies.

-It is worth noting that the article Father Kimel reblogged from Alura appeared to have a veneer of scholarship, but at one point plagiarized a footnote from Price’s book and did not seem to critically look at the sources he was citing. It’s just a blog post after all, but I just do not want people or Fr Kimel to think that it was actually scholarly simply because it contained footnotes.

-I do not pretend to be smarter than the people I respond to. However, an appeal to one’s own intelligence, or the lack of intelligence of someone else, does not prove a point. Ex: William Henriksen had a PHD from Princeton and was fluent in 20 languages, but that does not mean his view of ecclesiology or predestination is correct.

-All interpretations must be proved out by evidence. The most compelling explanation of the evidence should win the day in an honest dialogue.

  • Claim: Constantinople II did not “officially” include the anathemas against Origen from either 543 AD or 553 AD during the actual council, so therefore Origenism nor universalism was not really condemned.
    • Sixth and Seventh councils disagree—Canon 1 of Trullo, Session 7 of Nicea II
      • Canon I of Trullo: “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.”
        • Which myths?
      • Nicea II: We also anathematize the fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, in accordance with the fifth general council in Constantinople.” (Session VII, Decree, Open Source, p. 438)
        • Which “fables?”
        • Cosmas the Deacon and Chamberlain reads from the Life of our holy Father Sabbas: At the fifth holy General Council held at Constantinople, Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, together with the speculations of Evagrius and Didymus concerning the pre-existence and restitution of all things, were all subjected to one common and Catholic anathema all the four Patriarchs being present and consistent thereto. (Session I, p. 36 of open source translation)
    • Fifth council in its decree makes explicit mention of anathematizing heretics including Origen “with their impious writings.” (Session 8 Par 11) It names the heretics in the order as found in Justinian’s Edict (551), only adding Origen last because he was not in the edict.
    • This is not an “unusual discrepancy” that implies it was interpolated, it merely maintains the chronological order each individual was anathematized, Origen being last.
      • Honest question: Which impious writings of Origen’s would be referred to? Where would an honest person glean this information if the council itself did not give the titles to any books?
      • We must look at contemporary sources.
      • Those sources indicated that the point at issue specifically were the anathemas against Origen, hence the most credible historical interpretation of Session 8 was that the conciliar fathers were condemning all of Origen’s writings which taught the doctrines found in the anathemas.
        • Origen’s On the First Principles and Fr Behr’s thesis; St Jerome vs Rufinus
    • Scholarship: The 553 anathemas against Origen were part of the actual minutes and canons of the council—“the acts which Justinian circulated included the new set of anathemas against Origenism.” (Price, Constan II, Vol 1, 34) Hence, when they received the actual council and signed onto it, they were literally signing onto the anti-Origenist anathemas. “The acts, or at least the canons, of the council were sent to each ecclesiastical province and…all the Bishops were required to sign them.” (Ibid.)
    • Our earliest primary source which discusses what occurred during the fifth council is the Life of St Sabas, which was written by St Cyril of Scythopolis “immediately after the council.” (Price, vol 2 on constan 2, p. 270) It asserts explicitly that apokatastasis was condemned by the council.
    • Every single contemporary source, including Saint Cyril of Scythopolis (d. 559), Evagrius Scholasticus (d. 594), Saint Eulogius of Alexandria (d. 608), as well as two additional seventh century sources, addressed the Origenist canons as canons of Constantinople II. Price asserts that they actually received more attention than the canons from Session VIII, so these were not passing references. (vol 1, 101-102)
    • Conciliar minutes, decrees, and canons are not the only elements which are considered “part” of an ecumenical council. Anything appended to a council is treated as part of it.
      • Ex: Constantinople III Session III agonized over a letter from St Menas of Constantinople (he died before the council) and at a later session (14) the conciliar minutes of Constantinople II were “exonerated” by finding multiple copies without the letter.
      • Saint Cyril of Alexandria added sections to the minutes of Ephesus and saw nothing wrong with it.
        • “So that some may not be ignorant of the meaning of the Creed…I inserted the doctrines, that is, the expositions of the holy Fathers in the commentaries [minutes] made there, in order that those who read them may know in what way it is proper to understand the exposition of the holy Fathers which is the pure creed of the true faith.” (epistle 55 par 8)  (cited in p. 434 of Price and Gruamann’s Ephesus as proof of editorial changes).
        • In Epistle 33 Cyril writes, “There was action, therefore, taken in Ephesus about this individual petition [Nestorius excommunication], while the council confirmed the faith expounded by our holy Fathers who gathered at Nicea…We have added also the testimonies of our old and blessed Fathers so that those who approach this matter may know how our Fathers who imbued us with its mysteries, understood the profession of faith. Therefore, since this was done in such a way by all at that time, why should they not all the more? For if what pleased all is confirmed by all, peace will by every means be obtained, provided that what was agreed upon shall be contradicted by no one. Therefore, even though many things have been done by them, and very difficult too, and every pretext contrary to humanity has been tried, yet considering that enduring this is pleasing to God and to the very pious emperor, a friend of Christ, and besides that, it is useful for the church…(par 8) However, let some men not simply spew out the expressions of foreigners against me. They defame me as one who has a taste for the expressions of Apollinaris or Arius or Eunomius, as they have written about me in Ephesus. (par 9)
      • During Chalcedon they declare as follows: “909. Stephen bishop of Ephesus said: ‘Let the definition that was issued by the 318 holy fathers at Nicaea and confirmed at Ephesus be read, for the maintenance of the orthodox faith.’ 910. The holy council said: ‘This is the wish of us all.’ John presbyter and protonotary read…”
        • The 7/22 minutes of Ephesus are read including the creed and all of their authoritative interpretations for a florigellium of the fathers. This Florigellium, v. 918, in sub-verse 18-20 includes Amphilocus and Atticus’ letters, which were added by St Cyril to the 7/22 minutes.
      • Objection: “Preceding is not specific enough!” Response: Chalcedon at the end of session one (by imperial decree) accepted all of these letters “with the two canonical letters of Cyril which were approved and published at the first council of Ephesus.”
        • Detractors argue that what “really” was not part of the council does not apply. But the council itself asserts at the end of session 1 that what is “published” by the council is received with the council.
        • This is why the letter of St Cyril to John of Antioch was “published at” Ephesus though it occurred two years later. See footnote 521 on Session 1 of Chalcedon; Session 2 Par 16, 19 for the mention of the letter and 20 for its acceptance by common acclimation.
        • Universalists essentially take liberal biblical text criticism and impose it upon councils. However, the conciliar fathers themselves do not permit themselves to be reduced to such a modern rationalization.
          • Their treating of councils and minutes is weird by our standards.
    • Conciliar minutes are considered to be authoritative along with canons and decrees, as well as the Synodikon:
      • Because of this it was necessary to bring in the Acts of the council and to read them, and from these to proclaim the true faith; so they were set out in the midst. But as soon as they were brought forth the dissenters at once cried out, “Not the Acts of the council, but read the definition only.” But while the divine synod was uncertain what this outcry meant, and why they rejected and did not accept the Acts, those men still did not depart in any degree from the same futile evil opinion and their twisted attitude, not at all accepting the reading of the Acts. At this, by the glorious command of our most clement emperor, a passage was read from the Synodikon which is customarily read on the ambo on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, which word for word is this: “On those who reject the words of the holy fathers, which were expressed at the confirmation of the correct doctrine of the Church of God, of Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose, Amphilochius who spoke God’s words, Leo the most holy bishop of the elder Rome, and the rest, and in addition on those who did not embrace the Acts of the ecumenical councils, the fourth, that is, and the sixth, anathema.” On this subject a passage from the Acts was also read…(1351 Synod, chap 12)
    • Response: Origen was condemned in a pre-conciliar session by the same bishops and not the council itself. (Price, Constan II, vol 2, 271) Responses:
      • The anathemas of 553 explicitly identify themselves as “of the holy 165 fathers of the holy fifth council of Constantinople.” (Price thinks this is added, yet affirms it was sent with the conciliar minutes and treated as part of it)
      • The council itself makes mention of Origen’s “impious writings” which can only be a reference to the content of the anathemas, offering us the historical context necessary to know precisely what the council was condemning. Session 8 was not supposed to be unclear on this point so that we can pick and choose what from Origen we accept and what we don’t. To quote Schaff, “even if these anathemas were adopted at the Home Synod before the meeting of the Fifth Ecumenical, it is clear that by including his name among those of the heretics in the XIth Canon, it practically ratified and made its own the action of that Synod.”
      • It was received as part of the council by everyone who received it.
      • It was accepted that documents can be appended to conciliar minutes and received as part of the council, as evidenced by St Cyril’s explicit admission, Chalcedon’s treatment of the letter to John of Antioch, and the sixth council’s agonizing over St Menas’ pre-conciliar letter.
    • Claim: Justinian originally did not anathematize Origen in the anti-Origenist anathemas– “St. Justinian does not mention Origen’s name [in] his imperial edict, known as the Homonoia – the first draft of those anathema [in Constantinople II]” proving that the addition of his name to Session 8 is a forgery.
      • “Scholarly evidence:”
      • McGuckin (2017), who mentions “Pope Vigilius’s copy of the anathemata, which has survived, he [Origen] is not named and contemporary scholars have strongly suspected that his name was also added retrospectively.” He fails to provide a citation specifying what exact documents or scholars he is referring to. We shall see, what is being referenced is Justinian’s 551 Edict and Vigilius’ two constitutia.
      • McGuckin probably was confused by something he read in Ramelli (2013), who simply claims that “Origen is not the object of any authentic anathema,” because he is not named within them.
      • She (?) refers to “‘Vigilius’ documents’, which were emanated by a council that was not wanted by him, [i.e. the constitutia], most remarkably do not even contain Origen’s name. Origen was never formally condemned by an ecumenical council.”
        • We should not expect the constitutia to include Origen’s name.
      • In footnote 216, she states that, “In its sketch in Justinian’s homonoia that list [of anathematized people] does not include the name of Origen.”
      • She does not cite which manuscript she refers to or any other scholarship that has a homonoia (lit. “concord”) which lacks Origen’s name.  
      • It may sound to McGuckin that Ramelli is referring to some unknown, recently unearthed manuscript of Justinian’s rough draft of what session 8 should say, but this is not the case.
      • Ramelli’s “homonoia” is an oblique reference to Justinian’s “Edict on the Orthodox Faith” from 551, the very document that the 8th session of Constantinople ii was modeled after. According to Price, “The canons of 553 simply sum up the message of the edict and thereby endow it with ecumenical authority.” (vol 1 p. 123)
      • In its 10th anathema of the edict, it “merely” condemns “arius, eunomius, macedonius, apollinaris, nestorius, and eutyches” without reference to Origen.
      • The document itself is only concerned with the three chapters and the preceding four councils (see footnote 90 in vol 1 of constan ii) —the issue of Origen was to be dealt with two years later in the 5th council due to the recent agitation of the Palestinian monks two years later.
        • Price’s adduces in footnote 45 (vol 2 on constan 2) that Richard’s (1970) research demonstrated that the Origenistic anathemas and letter were essentially copied verbatim from Palestinian monks Conon and Eulogius’ plaint sent to Constantinople, which was sent in 552-553, after the edict was penned.
      • A historian expecting Justinian’s edict from 551 to contain Origen’s name in order to clear Constantinople II’s minutes from the charge of forgery is guilty of anachronism.
      • Due to Ramelli’s confusing recounting of events, McGuckin is confused. He repeats the claim the “homonoia” lacking Origen’s name is somehow significant (which it is not) and postulates the existence of “Pope Vigilius’s copy of the anathemata [of Origen]” from Ramelli’s passing statement about the constitutia.
        • I am aware of no known copy of the anathemas sent specifically to Vigilius preserved in the manuscript record.
      • The anathemas against Origen were only discovered in the 17th century and we have no indication that they were Vigilius’ personal copies.
      • Ramelli ignores that appended to the actual anathemas was a letter that repeatedly names Origen, a letter which Price dates to approximately to the time of the anathemas and places the letter immediately before them in his translation.
        • From the letter: “We bid you most sacred ones to assemble together, read the appended exposition attentively, and condemn and anathematize each of these articles together with the impious Origen.”
      • Ramelli makes claims which should lead actual Orthodox Christians and historians to disregard her research.  On the same page: “Origen was never formally condemned by an ecumenical council.” On the preceding page Ramelli says “its [the Council of Constantinople II] ecumenicity is in fact doubtful.”
        • These are historical claims that lack both attention to detail and understanding of ecclesiology.
    • Response: The council only affirmed the 553 anathemas, not the 543 anathemas:
      • Session V verse 87 implies that they accepted Vigilius condemnation of Origen from (most likely) 543. “we indeed find many others condemned and anathematized after death, including also Origen…This has been done even now by your holinesses [i.e. the Bishops] and by the Vigilius the most religious pope of Elder Rome.”
        • First constitutim, 219: “no one is permitted to pronounce any new judgement against the deceased but they are it be left exactly as the last day found each one.”
        • This means it is most likely Vigilius penned the first constitutim significantly after he condemned Origen.
        • It should be noted that the 543 Anathemas named Origen and quoted him.
        • Price’s assertion (footnote 10 of Appendix I in COnstan II and footnote 307 in vol 1 of constan ii) that evidence of a pre-conciliar session can be inferred by Session V, verse 87 does not mean that Vigilius was literally part of that specific session.
        • One claim decades later (“Pseudo” Anastasius) alleges that “the most holy Pope Vigilius of Rome had assented to, were written by argument, which Vigilius wrote to Justinian, and which are revealed in the synod and are extant in his action in the literary record.” Whether this was St Justinian presenting Vigilius’ acceptance of the 543 anathemas (which had been accepted by the entire Pentarchy), as he had done in the 7th session with the 544/45 condemnation of the three chapters, or Vigilius simply not explicitly disowning in writing his previous acceptance of the 543 anathemas, are possible.
  • Claim: “Orthodox infernalists will object that both beliefs listed in the canon are to be read as being condemned separately. However, the canon itself makes that reading impossible (Ware, DWSA, pdf. 4). To argue otherwise is absurd.”
    • Misuse of Ware: “It does not speak only about apocatastasis but links together two aspects of Origen’s theology: first, his speculations about the beginning, that is to say, about the preexistence of souls and the precosmic fall; second, his teaching about the end, about universal salvation and the ultimate reconciliation of all things. Origen’s eschatology is seen as following directly from his protology, and both are rejected together…. In this way we could put forward a doctrine of universal salvation affirming it, not as a certain logic…but as a heartfelt aspiration, a visionary hope that would avoid the circularity of Origen’s view and so would escape the condemnation of the anti-Origenist anathema.”
      • Calling something “absurd” does not make it absurd.
      • Ware is not endorsing Alura’s conclusion. Ware points out that the council viewed the theology as connected. He nowhere says, as the blogger claims, that each individual aspect of the anathemas must be met for any individual anathema to stand.
      • Ware’s point is that simply having universalist “aspirations” is not condemned, but positing a system along the lines ascribed to Origen’s is.
      • Justinian calls these “wicked and destructive doctrines”—plural. Each doctrine is destructive.
      • The 10th anathema (543) states, “Anathema to Origen also called Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine.” This shows it was understood each opinion (plural) is wrong as well as the overall doctrine, as Ware posits. This idea that its all or nothing is foreign to both sets of anathemas.
      • Ware’s argument, though still incorrect, is different than Alura’s. Nowhere can we condemn people from hoping for the salvation of all. Hope is not condemned, though such a hope is surely baseless and is obviously a “workaround” to teach, and not actually strictly hope for, a false doctrine.
      • In other words, being hopeful is not condemned, but teaching the hope is.
  • Universalism is not condemned because “it is not [found in] a canon or doctrinal decree”
    • Not true, see Session 7 of council nicea ii which includes the decree from the whole council: “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” (Letter to churches of Constantinople explaining the decree, p. 454)
    • Author(s) of Synodikon understood the sixth session to be teaching dogmatically:
      • 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.
        • Note: This was the council’s refutation to Hiera’s decrees.
      • Synodikon: 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!
    • Conciliar fundamentalism
      • Response: “Only schismatics believed in conciliar fundamentalism!” or “The defenders of this doctrine in the Orthodox blogosphere have gone as far as to *claim* that it was the standard view of the time and is therefore just.”
      • First, it is not up to us to determine for ourselves what is just, we are supposed to reiterate what the Scriptures and fathers convey to us is just.
      • Second, scholars disagree:
      •  “The Council of Chalcedon was the first ecumenical council of which the complete and full acts were published and the emperor Marcian in authorizing their publication must have calculated that their honest disclosure of tensions and disagreements would prove the thoroughness and the freedom of the council’s work. For a modern reader they show the human side of what was brought about ‘by the ineffable and secret power of the Holy Spirit.’ But by the sixth century the Acts of Chalcedon had come to be read by Chalcedonians as an authoritative text, and the story of the Council of Chalcedon, as revealed in the acts, was viewed as akin to sacred history.” (Chalcedon in Context, 90)
      • “In what might be read as a variation of Gwynn’s argument*, he [Price] characterizes the reception of Chalcedon’s acts as a ‘new conciliar fundamentalism’, whereby the ‘honest disclosure of tensions and agreements’ became fodder for future disagreements.” – Kevin Uhalde Early Medieval Europe 19 (3) 2011 (p. 370)
        • *Gwynn’s argument is the first chapter in the book and it essentially states that councils gained authority over time and once they had this authority, they were understood in an unyielding sense which gave rise to forgeries and strange interpretations. He believes the church should evolve in doctrine openly and not work within the paradigm of forcing a hermeneutical consistency between the councils.
      • “”Conciliar fundamentalism” reflected the new norm within Roman Christianity, as councils were given a near scriptural level of authority… Justinian and deacon Ferrandus both offered approaches that engaged the rules, if not a literal spirit, of conciliar fundamentalism.” (Blogger, Cool Cal)
      • Objection: “St. Justinian himself deeply criticized” conciliar fundamentalism.
      • “[W]hy could Justinian not simply have said that the bishops were not judging the letter and that the favourable references to it were no more than obiter dicta [i.e. incidental, non binding remarks]? It is revealing that he felt it necessary to argue that contradictory statements by different bishops could be discounted; the implication is that authority attached not simply to conciliar decrees but to whatever had been said at councils.” (Chalcedon in Context, 88)
  • Claim: “[T]he Synodikon is a relatively open liturgical document and just isn’t as authoritative as either the scriptures or the ecumenical councils.”
    • According to who? The saints affirm what we pray is what we believe.
    • What is prayed in common in all the churches is what’s agreed upon and has been received by all.
    • “According to Ivan Biliarsky and Radu G. Paun, a seventeenth-century edition of the Synodikon in the Romanian Orthodox Church does not contain the condemnations of Italos at all, nor does the printed Slavic edition from 1627 (Biliarsky and Paun, pp. 401fn36).”
      • If the above scholars are actually correct, which is not always the case, this would be compelling evidence that the synodikon has not been received to include the condemnation from Nicea II. However, editions before and after the 17th century would be important in establishing such a case.
  • Claim: Council of Jerusalem does not teach eternal damnation, because it was only condemning Calvinism
    • In condemning one thing another can be taught in passing, i.e. arguments over the essence-energies distinction inferred from the 6th council discussed in 1351.
    • All the local churches accepted Jerusalem (1672) (evidenced by it reception by all the patriarchs in the early 18th century and Russia in the 19th century) and Jassy (1642). The private opinion of a Met. Kallistos Ware, who does not that Nicea II gave a criteria for the ecumenicity of councils, does not undo this.
  • Claim: Gregory of Nyssa and John Cassian taught universalism
    • No to Gregory of Nyssa. I am not alone in this. Metropolitan Hierotheos in Life After Death argues as such as does RC scholar Fr Guilio Maspero in Trinity and Man.
    • St John Cassian:
      • These are what the rich man in the gospel kept, and never distributed to the poor — while the beggar Lazarus was lying at his gate and desiring to be fed with his crumbs; and so he was condemned to the unbearable flames and everlasting heat of hell-fire. (Conference 3, Chap 9)
      • Wherefore every one while still existing in this body should already be aware that he must be committed to that state and office, of which he made himself a sharer and an adherent while in this life, nor should he doubt that in that eternal world he will be partner of him, whose servant and minister he chose to make himself here: according to that saying of our Lord which says If any man serve Me, let him follow Me, and where I am, there shall My servant also be. John 12:26 For as the kingdom of the devil is gained by consenting to sin, so the kingdom of God is attained by the practice of virtue in purity of heart and spiritual knowledge. (Conference 1, Chap 14)
        • Counterarguments that “everlasting” and “eternal” can’t really mean what they say is special pleading.
  • Claim: Scriptures do not teach eternal damnation—appeals to David Bentley Hart
    • Appeal to authorities is a logical fallacy.
  • Claim: “Christianity is true philosophy, not a form of fideism.”
    • We have certain documents we accept presuppositionally as true. Christianity is not a wax nose one can make into any image one wants. This is a second commandment violation.

Irrelevant arguments made against mois:

  • Chalcedon really accepted Ibas’ letter! Those who “only read English and have no knowledge of classical languages, think that when the papal legate said, “his letter,” that it clearly must refer to another letter read which was from the clergy of Edessa coming to the defense of Ibas… The Latin clearly says, “eius epistola,” or “his letter.” It cannot be read under any conditions whatsoever as “their letter” as in “the clergy of Edessa’s letter.””
    • This is an appeal to one’s own background, which is poor argumentation.
    • No one argued “his” means “their” in Latin, which is what Alura’s linguistic argument hinges upon. My article stated the obvious: that a letter of recommendation from a group of people on another’s behalf can be referred to “his”/”my”/”our” i.e. 2 Cor 3:2-3 Vt “YOU ARE OUR LETTER.”
    • Alura cites his knowledge of Latin as reason that “it cannot be read under any conditions whatsoever” as a letter of recommendation, but Vigilius read and wrote the same Latin…
    • St Justinian, who read both Latin and Greek, expounded this interpretation of “his letter.” Proof of this can be found in Footnote 3 of Price’s introduction to the second constitutim, where it is said Vigilius’ interpretation of the phrase is borrowed from Justinian’s first edict against the Three Chapters, something we find cited in Facundus.
    • Facundus, also fluent in Latin, likewise did not reject the “his letter” argument on ground that it grammatically made no sense,as Alura just did. So, three Latin speakers, two of which at points agreed with Alura’s overall position (Vigilius recanted), never found Justinian’s argument to be linguistically impossible “under any condition.”
    • Alura is ignorant that this is a basic literary convention in Latin. i.e. Deacon Joseph’s letter of recommendation from the Patriarch of Alexandria Michael I during the council of constan IV is referred to as “his letter of recommendation” or in Latin “COMMENDATITIA EIUS EPISTOLA.”
      • Why isn’t it called “Michael I’s letter” as Alura demands? Because no one in English, Latin, or Greek speaks that way.
      • Latin: Verumtamen iuxta canonica praecepta legatur commendatitia eius epistola in audientiam omnium, in hac sancta et universali synodo, et ita connumeretur omnibus nobis vicariis patriarchalium sedium.
    • Alura “does not do Greek.” Chalcedon was officiated in Greek and contains a Greek literary convention translated into Latin and English. The Greek Scriptures themselves contain this literary convention, as noted by scholarship on 2 Cor 3.
    • The blogger is reading a Latin translation of Greek, inferring something different than other Latin readers like Vigilius, and then ignoring the Greek evidence which the Latin would have been based upon.
    • Actual Greek and Latin scholars, as opposed to people posting under pseudonyms online, find no issue linguistically with the reference to “his letter” being that of the Edessene clergy.
  • Odd, personal fixation on Wikipedia.
  • Plagiarism:” The internal references within the acta of Constantinople (553) that reference Origen as condemned then are not to local synodal canons from Constantinople 543, but to the preconciliar session of 553 (Diekamp, pp. 82-115). This position has subsequently been endorsed by many other scholars (Hombergen, pp. 21fn2). “
  • Footnote 10: “This [the preconciliar session theory] was first proposed by Diekamp (1899); for the general acceptance of his thesis see the list of concordant voices in Hombergen (2001), 21, n. 2.”

Conclusion: The bloggers ends with the plea, “branding us heretics is a bridge too far.” Sadly, it is not.

A position built upon so many falsehoods and in defiance of church canons and decrees, let alone the teaching of all of its canonized saints, does make universalism heretical.

This is not name calling. It’s a plain statement of fact.

If we cannot state the obvious, that universalism is heretical, then what heresy can we really condemn? Did the councils really condemn Arianism? Arius said no. Did they really condemn Nestorianism? Nestorius says Chalcedon vindicated him. We can go on and on.

The simplest and most honest answer is that without presuming upon an existential crisis where all of our Scriptures and formative Patristic documents are uncertain due to the fog of time, universalism is most definitely a heresy and should be expounded by no one within the Church.

People are entitled to their private hopes, with the conviction that they are incorrect. If this is not good enough, universalists are free to start their own religion. If they do this, they will not have to rewrite history and reinterpret what has been considered formative and authoritative by the Church over centuries.