Fifth Ecumenical Council?

[dostoyevskyfan]

Was this actually valid since it was called by Emperor Justinian? Was Pope Vigilius actually for it. I’m not sure if he was even there. Would this make it invalid?

I’m really interested in Origen of Alexandria and the peculiar theory of “Apocatastasis” which was deemed anathema at the second council of Constantinople. If the council didn’t have the backing of the pope then that teaching technicially isn’t heresey right? at worst heterodox?

I’ve read that some saints expressed the hope of “God being all in all” like Julian of Norwich and a few others. Much of the early church gave the doctrine serious consideration I believe, such as gregory of nyssa, clement of alexandria, and diodore of Tarsus. It is documented that a majority of the early church believed it. I think St.Augustine rejected it and that why its not part of core church teaching.

Anyone have more information/opinions/thoughts? I’m not as sharp as some of you on church history…

 

[Rogerteder]

If the Pope approves the council it is valid. Doesnt necessarily matter who calls it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

If the Pope and the Church didn’t believe that the Second Council of Constantinople was Ecumenical, it wouldn’t be counted among the Ecumenical Councils. There are countless councils, some involving almost the entire Church, that aren’t counted as Ecumenical, such as the Council in Trullo.

Many of the early Ecumenical Councils were not called for by the Pope, like the Council of Nicea which was called by the Emperor to restore peace to the Empire.

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes, it seems to be considered to have been a valid council. You can read the Catholic Encyclopedia’s treatment here.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

That was some good reading. I also found this:

Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:

1.It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.

2.It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated
.
3.Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.

4.It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.

5.It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).

6.The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the **approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked. **
7.It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.

Was Origen and his teachings heretical? It seems like the pope acted out of fear of his own life. I think I’m going to read some of Origen’s works if I can find them…

 

[diggerdomer]

Was this actually valid since it was called by Emperor Justinian? Was Pope Vigilius actually for it. I’m not sure if he was even there. Would this make it invalid?

I’m really interested in Origen of Alexandria and the peculiar theory of “Apocatastasis” which was deemed anathema at the second council of Constantinople. If the council didn’t have the backing of the pope then that teaching technicially isn’t heresey right? at worst heterodox?

I’ve read that some saints expressed the hope of “God being all in all” like Julian of Norwich and a few others. Much of the early church gave the doctrine serious consideration I believe, such as gregory of nyssa, clement of alexandria, and diodore of Tarsus. It is documented that a majority of the early church believed it. I think St.Augustine rejected it and that why its not part of core church teaching.

Anyone have more information/opinions/thoughts? I’m not as sharp as some of you on church history…

yes it’s valid.

 

[Hesychios]

Was Origen and his teachings heretical? It seems like the pope acted out of fear of his own life. I think I’m going to read some of Origen’s works if I can find them…

No Pope called any of the Seven Councils. And the legates from Rome did not preside in spite of what some sources imply, they were usually given very prestigious treatment and courtesy when they attended.

All of the local churches were asked to ratify the early councils.

I think that the reign of Pope Vigilius marks the beginning of the string of ‘Byzantine’ Popes, those which were appointed by the imperial court from either Constantinople or Ravenna.

Origen’s case was more complex than can be addressed here. He was a pioneer theologian, a seminal thinker, which is one of the reasons a lot of his work was rejected later. (It should be remembered that some of Augustine’s positions were ultimately rejected by the church too.)

The theory of Apocatastasis is very appealing. It is not wrong to wish for all the world to be redeemed, we just cannot say such a thing will happen. It suggests for instance (taken to the ultimate conclusion), that even Satan can be redeemed.

As I understand it (I am a bit rough on this, and you probably know more than I) part of the reason Origen speculated on a ‘returning’ was that along with it he seems to have speculated on or assumed the pre-existence of the soul, a divine spark. It has Platonic overtones. We now fully understand that of humankind only Jesus Christ pre-existed “born of the Father before all ages”. The rest of us have souls created at conception and do not come down from heaven into these bodies.

One can see how close some of the orthodox Christian gnostics (sages or wise) and the renegade Gnostics really could be in the early centuries. Origin was a very orthodox and influential Christian by any standards (and a famous catechist), and he was long dead before some of his ideas were condemned.

Of course we can always pray that all creation returns to God, and ask God to ‘make it happen’ and forgive, but we can’t teach that it will happen as if we know it is bound to happen. In fact the evidence (scriptural and traditional) usually suggests the other way.