Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[Kolokotronis]

“Pretty sure that was a local excommunication.”

There was a local excommunication, in fact there were several. Unfortunately for Origen, the 5th Ecumenical Council made his condemnation universal.

” IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

II.

IF anyone shall say that the creation (thu paragwghn) of all reasonable things includes only intelligences (noas) without bodies and altogether immaterial, having neither number nor name, so that there is unity between them all by identity of substance, force and energy, and by their union with and knowledge of God the Word; but that no longer desiring the sight of God, they gave themselves over to worse things, each one following his own inclinations, and that they have taken bodies more or less subtile, and have received names, for among the heavenly Powers there is a difference of names as there is also a difference of bodies; and thence some became and are called Cherubims, others Seraphims, and Principalities, and Powers, and Dominations, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly orders as there may be: let him be anathema.

III.

IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema.

IV.

IF anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema,.

V.

IF anyone shall say that a psychic (yukikhn) condition has come from an angelic or archangelic state, and moreover that a demoniac and a human condition has come from a psychic condition, and that from a human state they may become again angels and demons, and that each order of heavenly virtues is either all from those below or from those above, or from those above and below: let him be anathema.

VI.

IF anyone shall say that there is a twofold race of demons, of which the one includes the souls of men and the other the superior spirits who fell to this, and that of all the number of reasonable beings there is but one which has remained unshaken in the love and contemplation of God, and that that spirit is become Christ and the king of all reasonable beings, and that he has created(1) all the bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between heaven and earth; and that the world which has in itself elements more ancient than itself, and which exists by themselves, viz.: dryness, damp, heat and cold, and the image (idean) to which it was formed, was so formed, and that the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world, but that it was created by the working intelligence (Nous dhmiourgos) which is more ancient than the world, and which communicates to it its being: let him be anathema.

VII.

IF anyone shah say that Christ, of whom it is said that he appeared in the form of God, and that he was united before all time with God the Word, and humbled himself in these last days even to humanity, had (according to their expression) pity upon the divers falls which had appeared in the spirits united in the same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to

319

restore them he passed through divers classes, had different bodies and different names, became all to all, an Angel among Angels, a Power among Powers, has clothed I himself in the different classes of reasonable beings with a form corresponding to that class, and finally has taken flesh and blood like ours and is become man for men; [if anyone says all this] and does not profess that God the Word humbled himself and became man: let him be anathema.

VIII.

IF anyone shall not acknowledge that God the Word, of the same substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and who was made flesh and became man, one of the Trinity, is Christ in every sense of the word, but [shall affirm] that he is so only in an inaccurate manner, and because of the abasement (kenwsanta), as they call it, of the intelligence (nous); if anyone shall affirm that this intelligence united (sunhmmenon) to God the Word, is the Christ in the true sense of the word, while the Logos is only called Christ because of this union with the intelligence, and e converse that the intelligence is only called God because of the Logos: let him be anathema.

IX.

IF anyone shall say that it was not the Divine Loges made man by taking an animated body with a yukh logikh and noera, that he descended into hell and ascended into heaven, but shall pretend that it is the Nous which has done this, that Nous of which they say (in an impious fashion) he is Christ properly so called, and that he is become so by the knowledge of the Monad: let him be anathema.

X

IF anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such shall be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema.

XI.

IF anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial yusis, and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit nous): let him be anathema.

XII.

IF anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the Devil and evil spirits are united with the Word of God in all respects, as the Nous which is by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and which humbled itself as they say; and [if anyone shall say] that the Kingdom of Christ shall have an end: let him be anathema.

XIII.

IF anyone shall say that Christ [i.e., the Nous is in no wise different from other reasonable beings, neither substantially nor by wisdom nor by his power and might over all things but that all will be placed at the right hand of God, as well as he that is called by them Christ [the Nous, as also they were in the reigned pre-existence of all things: let him be anathema.

XIV.

IF anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the gnpsis and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the reigned pre-existence: let him be anathema.

XV.

IF anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (nopn) shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema.

Pretty clear, Diva. Origen made some very interesting observations early on and was often quite frank to say in some areas he was speculating. But before too long he went off the rails. Others did too. One of the prime examples is Tertullian.

[Forest Keeper]

None of the Fathers were accused of heresy for their theologoumenna (hypotheses). Those who were anathematized are not the Fathers of the Church (i.e. Origen, Montanus, etc.) because they professed as truth their heresy.

OK, this I didn't know (although I found quite a few websites that called Origen a Father). In any event, as I indicated to Diva, I was specifically thinking of Origen, and to some extent Augustine. New Advent appears to back you up:

Great bishops and saints like Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus of Pontus, Firmilian of Cappadocia, and Alexander of Jerusalem were proud to be disciples of the priest Origen. The bishop Cyprian called daily for the works of the priest Tertullian with the words "Give me the master". The Patriarch Athanasius refers for the ancient use of the word homoousios, not merely to the two Dionysii, but to the priest Theognostus. Yet these priest-teachers are not yet called Fathers, and the greatest among them, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Hippolytus, Novatian, Lucian, happen to be tinged with heresy; two became antipopes; one is the father of Arianism; another was condemned by a general council. In each case we might apply the words used by St. Hilary of Tertullian: "Sequenti errore detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem" (Comm. in Matt., v, 1, cited by Vincent of Lérins, 2.4). (emphasis added)

While this seems to say that they were not technically Fathers, I still find it interesting how much influence they DID have over actual Fathers, even though they were "tinged with heresy". :)

[MarkBsnr]

Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils. All newly elected popes had to profess his condemnation before they could assume their office until the eleventh century and all Latin priests recited it in their breviary until the sixteenth.

Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.

The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some apologists still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.

He didn’t start up a new religion; however what he did do was bad enough.

[MarkBsnr]

Do you have some examples?

I’m probably not going to be communicating much over the next four days, since I am travelling on business and won’t have much internet access or time. So take your time!!!! Make ‘em good. :)

[Forest Keeper]

Philippians 1 says to live is Christ and to die is gain. Paul answered his own question and desire here. His desire was to be with God, but God’s need was for him to be here.

Excellent point.

[stfassisi]

My fervent wish for you is to accept those who don't follow your party line and stop attacking them out of your ignorance. (Sarcasm)

I have no idea why I doubt your sincerity. (Continued sarcasm).

Dear Brother, I assure you that I am sincere.

Buying into total depravity causes man to even doubt any sincere loving comment towards fellow man.

I wish you a Blessed Evening as well.

[irishtenor]

***Buying into total depravity causes man to even doubt any sincere loving comment towards fellow man. ***

Sorry, I’m not following that. What do you mean?

[kosta50]

The job cite was an answer to this statement: “Angels were created as His hosts and obligate servants (the biblical word used is closer to a “slave”), as God’s messengers (aggelos), not His “fans.” They were praising God before they were ministering agents to man

You are reading into the early Jewish biblical views (Job). Job itself represents the most ancient Judaic beliefs. The concept of angels changed drastically over the centuries in Judaism and Christianity; their origins are in Zoroastrianism. The terminology used in Job betrays its early origins. Taken overall, biblically speaking, the angles have only one function and it is always related to man.

For a decent summary (by no means exhaustive) see Angels.

[kosta50]

I honestly believe that The Church is quite clear that both scripture and the writings of the Fathers, to the extent they are in the consensus patrum, are inspired by God

The Church as a whole, yes (i.e. pronuncements of Ecumenical Councils). However, the Divine Liturgy doe snot contain readings of the Apostolic, let alone Church Fathers, except that they are mentioned in or as homilies/commentaries.

You yourself know that the Church does not treat anything but the Gospels as Scripture per se and that only the Gospels sit on the altar. The rest of the scriputres (OT, Epistles) are located elswhere. And during the reaidng fo St. Paul's Letters, the congregration sits (if there are pews), and the espistles are read by laity. This is in stark contrast to the priest only reading of the Gospels and the entire congregation standing (just as in the synagoues visavis Torah and the rest of the Tanakh).

There are degrees of inspiration and they represent degrees of revelation. The NT and the OT must be interpreted through the lens of the Gospels in their fullness, and this includes the Ecumenical Councils and the commentaries of the Fathers; they all must conform to the living word of Christ. Not all "inspired" text is treated equally.

[kosta50]

OK, this I didn't know (although I found quite a few websites that called Origen a Father

Catholic or Orthodox sites? If so, they are sadly mistaken.

While this seems to say that they were not technically Fathers, I still find it interesting how much influence they DID have over actual Fathers, even though they were "tinged with heresy"

Not so, FK. Orgien was orthodox for about half of his life as a priest. The same with Tertullian and Montanus, and others. Many of their early works were every which way orthodox. It is only when they slipped into heresy (for instance Origne taught Gnostic pre-existence of the souls as he slipped ever deeper into Gnostic error). Whole churches slipped into such errors (the Copts for instance) because of these men. How can they be orthodox Fathers of the (Holy catholic and apostolic Church?)

[HarleyD]

...and fulfill his created purpose which is to be like God.

This is a comment that has come up a number of times and I'm puzzled by this. Do you believe man's created purpose is to become like God the Son or like God the Father?

BTW-Animals are distinctly different than man. While there may be a case for them "lying down with each other" in a perfect world, they do not possess a soul.

There is a slight bit of evidence that while Adam and Eve were living, the plants and animals around them were subject to death. After all, Adam was told that in the day that he would eat of the fruit he would die. So he must have had an understanding about dead. Likewise, we find this passage in Ecclesiates:

Ecc 3:19-20 For that which happens to the sons of men also happens to beasts, even one thing happens to them. As this one dies, so that one dies; yea, they all have one breath; so that a man has no advantage over a beast; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all return to dust again.

Please note this was the sentence carried out on Adam, to return to the dust. While this is very scant evidence, it does suggest that animals died and returned to dust all the while Adam and Eve was living. Man was uniquely different from animals before the fall. It is difficult to say what animals were like prior to the fall.

[Kolokotronis]

“However, the Divine Liturgy doe snot contain readings of the Apostolic, let alone Church Fathers, except that they are mentioned in or as homilies/commentaries.

You yourself know that the Church does not treat anything but the Gospels as Scripture per se and that only the Gospels sit on the altar. The rest of the scriputres (OT, Epistles) are located elswhere.”

Here’s what I wrote at 10216:

“But the writings of the Fathers are not considered scripture (they are about scripture) and aside from +John Chrysostomos’ Pascal Sermon, I don’t think any of the writings of the Fathers are read at the Divine Liturgy”.

“There are degrees of inspiration and they represent degrees of revelation.”

I don’t agree.

“Not all “inspired” text is treated equally.”

I agree completely.

Here is what Met. Maximos of Pittsburgh has to say about the Fathers and scripture:

“The Holy Bible, and more specifically the New Testament, does not contain all the doctrine and teachings of Christ. The Church, which has produced the Bible, does not completely submit itself to only one of the epiphenomena of its life, even if it is the most authoritative one, the Holy Scriptures. An important part of the teachings and doctrine of Christ continues to be present and handed down to the generations of Saints through other means and ways that are also part of the life of the Church, a life in the Holy Spirit. One of these ways and means through which Christ’s truth comes to us is the doctrine of the Holy Fathers of the Church.

The term Fathers, as we understand it, refers to great people of faith and sanctity of life, great teachers of Christ’s truth, staunch supporters of the Church and combatants of the enemies of Christian faith and truth (the “heretics”). These Fathers have always taught the faith in faithfulness and continuity with our Christian origins. On the one hand, they edified the faithful and were feeding the flock of Christ with the truth of the Gospel in its fuller meaning, which was handed down to them in the tradition of the Saints along with the Gospel. On the other hand, these same Fathers followed in the footsteps of the Apostles in opposing “the opponents of the faith” (Tit. 1:9; 1 Tim. 6:4-5; 2 Tim. 4:3-5). A “heretic” (from airoumai, choose) is someone who chooses his own doctrine against the doctrine of the Church, or someone who reduces the doctrine to only one of its aspects; thus heresy means reductionism. The Fathers always stood for the wholeness of truth (catholicity from “truth kata to olon,” in its entirety and wholeness).

Fathers combating the various heresies throughout the ages were the Apostolic Fathers, who followed the Apostles and fought especially against Arianism (St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. Gregory of Nyssa); the fathers who fought against Nestorianism (St. Cyril of Alexandria), against Monophysitism and Monothelitism (St. Maximos the Confessor), and against Iconoclasm (St. Theodore of Studion, St. John of Damascus). In addition to the “Old Fathers” of the patristic tradition up the to end of the eighth century, our Holy Orthodox Church also acknowledges the so called “Recent Fathers” of the Byzantine era, among whom St. Gregory Palamas (14th century) has a preeminent place.

The Church depends on all these Fathers and the insights they have concerning the living faith of the Church, present in living continuity with the early Church in the life of the Church through the ages.”

Bottom line...the Bible is only part of the Holy Tradition of The Church, the most important part, but only a part, along with the writings of the Fathers, the Councils, the Creeds, the Canons, the Divine Liturgy, even our architecture and iconography.

This is not at all Western, Latin or Protestant. It is Orthodox. As I have said many times here, we believe differently from Western Christians.

[HarleyD]

It is just possible to spurn that grace

Can you spurn faith?

[Kolokotronis]

“This is a comment that has come up a number of times and I’m puzzled by this. Do you believe man’s created purpose is to become like God the Son or like God the Father?”

The Fathers say that “God became man so that men might become God (or gods or like god)”. The only place I know where a distinction as to which Person of the Trinity is being talked about is made is in comments like that of +Gregory Palamas likening theosis to becoming a living icon of Christ, or +Symeon the New Theologian speaking of a Christian after death being examined “for some similitude to Christ” and about us having been raised by Christ’s grace to the status of sons of God which Christ is by nature. Virtually all of the other comments about theosis and “divinization” either say or point to Christians being what God is by grace and not by assimilation. To that extent I think what the Fathers are referring to is the Trinity, our Triune God.

“While there may be a case for them “lying down with each other” in a perfect world, they do not possess a soul.”

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that they do. Neither, for that matter, does “creation”, but it is taught that creation itself is and has been distorted by man’s sin. Romans 8:22, for example.

I am surprised you mentioned animals not having souls. Do you think the soul is immortal, HD?

[Forest Keeper]

Catholic or Orthodox sites? If so, they are sadly mistaken.

From what I remember they were Catholic-leaning. Plus, the Wiki entry for "Church Fathers" would be all wrong by what you said.

FK: "While this seems to say that they were not technically Fathers, I still find it interesting how much influence they DID have over actual Fathers, even though they were "tinged with heresy"

Not so, FK. ...... Whole churches slipped into such errors (the Copts for instance) because of these men. How can they be orthodox Fathers of the (Holy catholic and apostolic Church?)

I acknowledged that they were NOT technically Fathers. All I did was note that they had great influence over some who WERE actual Fathers. The quote from New Advent clearly says this.

[kosta50]

Kosta: “There are degrees of inspiration and they represent degrees of revelation.”

Kolo: I don’t agree

Okay, then the OT is not a foreshadowing of Christ. I think the Church is clear that the revelation was gradual and that what was revealed was true but the puzzle didn't come together until Christ. At any time before that, the revealed Truth was known to various degrees.

The truth itself comes form God and it's absolute, but the amount revealed is gradual. More was revealed at different stages, and therefore the revelation was made in steps or degrees, each step revealing a bit more.

Here is what Met. Maximos of Pittsburgh has to say about the Fathers and scripture

They worked out what was revealed but they did not add or take away from it.

The Church depends on all these Fathers and the insights they have concerning the living faith of the Church, present in living continuity with the early Church in the life of the Church through the ages.”

But they do not reveal more truth than was revealed.

Bottom line...the Bible is only part of the Holy Tradition of The Church, the most important part, but only a part, along with the writings of the Fathers, the Councils, the Creeds, the Canons, the Divine Liturgy, even our architecture and iconography

Yes, the Church is a living, breathing organism. It is not just the faith but life in faith. It's a complex lifestyle and mindset. But fasting rules, for example are not it, although many treat them as such. They are man-made inventions, Kolo. So, not everything in the Church is this "inspired" immutable tradition handed from generation to generation. The gifts used to be brought in from outside when St. John Chrysostom wrote his homilies. Today, they are made next to the altar.

One of the biggest problems is separating what is human and what is divine. Unfortunately, the Church tends to treat everything as "divine." A lot of it is human. And even to this day, the typikons of Mt Athos (which the Serbian/Russian Church follows) is different from that used by the Greek Church, and this has been a problem for the Serbs as some of the priests educated in Greece use a different typikon.

And the calendar issue, which divided Orthodoxy and which has no signs of healing, is a human invention, and not divine. No doubt, the Church safeguards what was passed on from the Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers all the way to us. But not everything that is seen and heard in the Church is inspired.

I don't know to what extent the Fathers were "inspired" and to what extent they were just good scholars or theologians.

[kosta50]

Kolo to HD: I am surprised you mentioned animals not having souls

It's a Calvinist thing, Kolo. They don't understand that "anima" is what animates, (quickens), that soul is life. Everything that lives has life (soul, spirit) in it. The Holy Spirit is the Giver of Life. That doesn't mean all souls are the same. Yet we don't know how God created animals. We only know how He created man.

[HarleyD]

The Fathers say that “God became man so that men might become God (or gods or like god)”.

This is the same thing that the Mormons teaches. I don't know anywhere in scripture that says we will become God. In fact, going back to the first sin the deception of the serpent was simply that we would become "as God". And Satan's fall was over the fact that he wanted to be like God. The tower of Babel was destroyed and the languages confused because of people wishing to be on par with God. I think there is evidence that this is the greatest sin; to think that we will be like God.

The Bible does say we will be "sons of God" in several places (e.g. Rom 8:19, Gal 3:36, etc) but I think it is a mistake to equate that to being like God the Father. I don't believe that is even equivalent to being the Son of God, as is our Lord Jesus, who has the name that is above all names and remains our High Priest. The scriptures clearly designated us as "sons of God", and there certainly are privileges and responsibilities with that title; but I believe its a grave mistake to assume we will be like God the Father. I'd certainly feel more comfortable using the "sons (small "s") of God" title that He has given us.

I am surprised you mentioned animals not having souls. Do you think the soul is immortal, HD?

Yes, the soul is immortal. Do I believe animals have souls? Off hand I would say I don't. I don't believe in the spirit of animals roaming around in heaven. Fuffy the kitten most likely will not be in heaven contrary to what a vast number of animal lovers would like to believe. But this is an area that I'm just not sure as I haven't studied this. I'm opened to being convince otherwise. It's not that I'm right or wrong; its simply that I don't know.

I did try to find a discussion of this topic but there seems to be scant writings on it, if any at all. So far I have come up empty handed.

[Kolokotronis]

“The truth itself comes form God and it’s absolute, but the amount revealed is gradual. More was revealed at different stages, and therefore the revelation was made in steps or degrees, each step revealing a bit more.”

Agreed

“They worked out what was revealed but they did not add or take away from it....But they do not reveal more truth than was revealed.”

“One of the biggest problems is separating what is human and what is divine. Unfortunately, the Church tends to treat everything as “divine.” A lot of it is human. And even to this day, the typikons of Mt Athos (which the Serbian/Russian Church follows) is different from that used by the Greek Church, and this has been a problem for the Serbs as some of the priests educated in Greece use a different typikon.”

I don’t think we use the typikon of the Church of Greece, but rather that of the Great Church at Constantinople, but I could be wrong.

Agreed again, assuming you mean that they explained more clearly for men what the scripture had revealed.

“So, not everything in the Church is this “inspired” immutable tradition handed from generation to generation.”

Not at all; indeed somethings handed down from generation to generation are clearly NOT inspired, “Greekiness” for example.

“The gifts used to be brought in from outside when St. John Chrysostom wrote his homilies. Today, they are made next to the altar.”

Actually, through the month of October the prosphora for ur parish liturgies were made by my wife in our kitchen, which is not a room next to the altar...but I know what you mean. :)

[Kolokotronis]

“I don’t know anywhere in scripture that says we will become God.”

Its (theosis) a hard concept to explain in English. Try reading +Athanasius the Great On the Incarnation. Its full of scriptural references. In the meantime, look at John 10:34-35, I Cor. 15:28; I Cor.12.27; Genesis 1:27; Rom. 8:15-17; Rom. 8:29; I Peter 4:6; John 14:12. The list goes on, HD. For me, I think Genesis 1:27 lays it right out and fully explains what is meant by the later scriptures. For us to become by grace what Christ is by nature is the whole point, HD.

“Yes, the soul is immortal.”

Oh, I was afraid you would say that. That, HD is one of the earliest and most deadly of heresies. All sorts of error stems from it, as Origen, among others found out. The human soul is not at all immortal by nature. Immortality is a gift offered by God which we can accept or reject as rational and free creatures. I thought that Calvinism might, given its theology, of necessity hold with the idea that the soul is immortal.