Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
“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.
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". :)
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.
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. :)
Excellent point.
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.
***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?
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.
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.
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?)
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:
“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.
Can you spurn faith?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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. :)
“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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.