I’m going through my filing cabinet, turning photocopies into PDF’s and throwing away the paper. While doing so, I’m coming across all sorts of things that I haven’t seen for years. One of these is some pages of Norman Tanner’s edition of the Decrees of the ecumenical councils (1990). This is the sort of thing that I dearly wish was online. But a note in the preface caught my eye:
Our purpose in editing the texts has been to present all the decrees of the councils and only the decrees. For this reason some very important texts have had to be omitted, for example the anathemas against Origen formerly attributed (erroneously) to Constantinople II, or the charges on which pope Honorius was condemned (as these relate to the acts, not the decrees, of Constantinople III), or the profession of faith of pope Hormisdas which was a condition of admittance required of the council fathers at Constantinople IV, but does not appear to have been formally approved by the council.
Now I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Council of Constantinople held by Justinian had condemned Origenism, and perhaps anathematised Origen himself, depending on some text-critical questions. To pronounce a man anathema 300 years after he died in the peace of the church, and died moreover from the effects of torture in confessing Christ, would be morally wrong of course.
Unfortunately I don’t have the relevant pages of Tanner, and I don’t know the facts. Would someone better informed on this council than myself care to comment?