OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 10:22:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Question for Roman Catholics  (Read 1785 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« on: May 12, 2009, 08:08:41 AM »

Dear folks,

Is it true that the Pope never endorsed the 25 "anathematisms" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council against Origen?

If so - does it mean that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that the main tenets of Origenism (i.e. pre-existence of souls, acquisition of body as punishment for sin, resurrection in non-material shapeless "spherical" body, "apokatastasis ton panton") are heretical?

I would be very grateful for clarification, especially with sources, links, etc

Many thanks!

George
Logged

Love never fails.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2009, 11:50:21 AM »

I'm a Roman Catholic and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2009, 12:25:13 PM »

George,

from the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Origen and Origenism:

Quote
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.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2009, 04:31:26 PM »

George,

from the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Origen and Origenism:

Quote
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.

Thank you, Schultz. I found that information online, too. Plus, my nemesis-gnostic-origenist on the Maidan forum uses pieces like this one to prove to me that Origenism was never, never, but never condemned by the only True Church (meaning Catholic Church - the Orthodox Church is, according to his definition, "a Greek sect"). Is this true? Is it really OK to be an Origenist, to believe that we will be resurrected in matter-free, shapeless, invisible, "spherical" bodies - and to take Communion at the Roman Catholic Church?
Logged

Love never fails.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2009, 05:25:29 PM »

As a Roman Catholic, I was always taught that apokastasis and the so-called "Two Creations" of Origen were condemned by the Catholic Church.  Of course, that was 20 years ago and I don't have any sources in front of me, nor do I think we were actually given any in CCD.

The former is implicitly condemned by the Council of Trent which stated that not ALL will be saved.  Salvation is offered to all, but it would be a violation of Free Will for all to be saved in the end.

As far as the latter, it's obviously Platonic and not Biblical in nature, contrary to whatever Origen may have to say about it.  But your foil on Maidan has already drunk the Kool-Aid, so to speak, and would most likely lecture the Pope himself were His Holiness to disagree with him! Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2009, 06:10:06 PM »

As a Roman Catholic, I was always taught that apokastasis and the so-called "Two Creations" of Origen were condemned by the Catholic Church.  Of course, that was 20 years ago and I don't have any sources in front of me, nor do I think we were actually given any in CCD.

The former is implicitly condemned by the Council of Trent which stated that not ALL will be saved.  Salvation is offered to all, but it would be a violation of Free Will for all to be saved in the end.

As far as the latter, it's obviously Platonic and not Biblical in nature, contrary to whatever Origen may have to say about it.  But your foil on Maidan has already drunk the Kool-Aid, so to speak, and would most likely lecture the Pope himself were His Holiness to disagree with him! Wink

Well, you see, he states that unless something is not approved by the Pope, then it does not matter whether it is in the Ecumenical Councils decisions or not. In this case, it's even worse because Origenism does not seem to be explicitly condemned by any particular Pope, AND the anathematisms against Origen seem to be, indeed, "non-conciliar," added to the documents of the Fifth Ecumenical Council without the approval of the whole Church, solely by the power of "that Greek schismatic" "Caesaropapist" Justinian...
Logged

Love never fails.
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2009, 06:44:26 PM »

As a Roman Catholic, I was always taught that apokastasis and the so-called "Two Creations" of Origen were condemned by the Catholic Church.  Of course, that was 20 years ago and I don't have any sources in front of me, nor do I think we were actually given any in CCD.

The former is implicitly condemned by the Council of Trent which stated that not ALL will be saved.  Salvation is offered to all, but it would be a violation of Free Will for all to be saved in the end.

As far as the latter, it's obviously Platonic and not Biblical in nature, contrary to whatever Origen may have to say about it.  But your foil on Maidan has already drunk the Kool-Aid, so to speak, and would most likely lecture the Pope himself were His Holiness to disagree with him! Wink

You studied about Origen in CCD?  Interesting! 
Logged

StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 707


St. George


« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2009, 07:17:43 PM »

Dear folks,

Is it true that the Pope never endorsed the 25 "anathematisms" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council against Origen?

If so - does it mean that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that the main tenets of Origenism (i.e. pre-existence of souls, acquisition of body as punishment for sin, resurrection in non-material shapeless "spherical" body, "apokatastasis ton panton") are heretical?

I would be very grateful for clarification, especially with sources, links, etc

Many thanks!

George

I never heard about the Pope not endorsing the 25 anathemaisms of the Fifth Ecumenical Council against Origen.  When I studied Catholic theology, his apokatastasis and ideas concerning pre-existence of souls and the Fall were regarded as erroneous.  However, I did not discern an animus against him.  It's interesting: a few weeks ago a Coptic priest told me in person that Origen was a "great teacher."  Yet, I've heard Eastern Orthodox regard him as a great heretic.   
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 07:18:01 PM by StGeorge » Logged
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 707


St. George


« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2009, 07:23:41 PM »

I just found this:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070425_en.html

Pope Benedict XVI considers Origen, among other things, a "great master of faith." 

Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2009, 07:26:46 PM »

It's interesting: a few weeks ago a Coptic priest told me in person that Origen was a "great teacher."  Yet, I've heard Eastern Orthodox regard him as a great heretic.   

Most Eastern Orthodox would also regard Origen as a great teacher in most respects. However, his doctrine of pre-existence of the souls was clearly erronous, and the way in which these ideas were used to teach a very distorted view of the Incarnation by some were what lead to his condemnation at the 5th Ecumenical Council.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2009, 07:29:39 AM »

It's interesting: a few weeks ago a Coptic priest told me in person that Origen was a "great teacher."  Yet, I've heard Eastern Orthodox regard him as a great heretic.   

Most Eastern Orthodox would also regard Origen as a great teacher in most respects. However, his doctrine of pre-existence of the souls was clearly erronous, and the way in which these ideas were used to teach a very distorted view of the Incarnation by some were what lead to his condemnation at the 5th Ecumenical Council.

Well, but that's exactly my question - did it, in fact? It does look from the "Catholic Encyclopedia" that the RCC believes this "condemnation" to be a hoax.

I am most concerned not as much about apokatastasis as about Origen's (and Origenists') view on the human resurrected body to be invisible, immaterial and shapeless (or "spherical"). You see, I am absolutely convinced that if I ask, say, one hundred people from among my fellow Ukrainians who are (or consider themselves) Orthodox or Greek Catholic, will your body be risen - with hands, feet, etc., - then perhaps 80 or 90 will say, what nonsense!!! People are just generally "sure" that "souls" will live in heaven or in hell forever. Maybe some priest in some church sometimes preaches about resurrection of the body, but that's "far in between," rare, unpopular, and simply unheard by the people, not received. The prevaling view (based on very numerous prayers to the saints, recently published in Ukraine in special books) is that "this mortal body" remains in the earth and disappears; it's not important; the only important thing is the soul, and only the soul will live forever, kind of "mixed" or "blended" with God.

Not, to add insult to injury, it looks that immaterial resurrection was never officialy proclaimed by any Roman Catholic pope to be an error.
Logged

Love never fails.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2009, 12:51:52 PM »

Well, you see, he states that unless something is not approved by the Pope, then it does not matter whether it is in the Ecumenical Councils decisions or not.

Ask him where he gets such a crazy idea, the idea that a belief is allowed if that belief is not personally and directly condemned by the Pope.

An Ecumenical Council may have condemned the notion of spherical  resurrected bodies, but such a council did not condemn the notion of parabolic resurrected bodies (don't try to visualize it). And since the Pope did not personally and directly condemn parabolic resurrected bodies, the lack of papal condemnation means that belief in parabolic resurrected bodies is A-OK?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2009, 02:57:13 PM »

Dear folks,

Is it true that the Pope never endorsed the 25 "anathematisms" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council against Origen?

If so - does it mean that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that the main tenets of Origenism (i.e. pre-existence of souls, acquisition of body as punishment for sin, resurrection in non-material shapeless "spherical" body, "apokatastasis ton panton") are heretical?

I would be very grateful for clarification, especially with sources, links, etc

Many thanks!

George
According to the Catholic encyclopedia, the doctrine of the apokatastasis was first held by Origen, but later on held by  St. Gregory of Nyssa. However, "the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church."
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=914
 
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2009, 03:02:58 PM »

Dear folks,

Is it true that the Pope never endorsed the 25 "anathematisms" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council against Origen?

If so - does it mean that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that the main tenets of Origenism (i.e. pre-existence of souls, acquisition of body as punishment for sin, resurrection in non-material shapeless "spherical" body, "apokatastasis ton panton") are heretical?

I would be very grateful for clarification, especially with sources, links, etc

Many thanks!

George
According to the Catholic encyclopedia, the doctrine of the apokatastasis was first held by Origen, but later on held by  St. Gregory of Nyssa. However, "the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church."
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=914
 


Thank you. But again, two things: (1) the last sentence in the Catholic encyclopedia article reads, " It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council," - so you guys (RCs) seem to be free to believe that Origenism was never actually condemned; and (2) I am not as much concerned with the "apokatastasis ton panton" as about resurrection in immaterial, invisible, shapeless "spherical bodies" - do you believe in this? If not, - why, exactly?   
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 03:03:17 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2009, 03:19:56 PM »

George,

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the General Resurrection:

Quote
The Fourth Lateran Council teaches that all men, whether elect or reprobate, "will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear about with them"
(emphasis mine)

The text from that particular canon (The First) from the Fourth Lateran Council is as follows:
Quote
And finally, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God made flesh by the entire Trinity, conceived with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost of Mary ever Virgin, made true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, pointed out more clearly the way of life. Who according to His divinity is immortal and impassable, according to His humanity was made passable and mortal, suffered on the cross for the salvation of the human race, and being dead descended into hell, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. But He descended in soul, arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both; He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ.
(emphasis mine)


Also from the CathEncyc article on the General Resurrection:

Quote
All shall rise from the dead in their own, in their entire, and in immortal bodies; but the good shall rise to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection of Judgment. It would destroy the very idea of resurrection, if the dead were to rise in bodies not their own. Again, the resurrection, like the creation, is to be numbered amongst the principal works of God; hence, as at the creation all things are perfect from the hand of God, so at the resurrection all things must be perfectly restored by the same omnipotent hand. But there is a difference between the earthly and the risen body; for the risen bodies of both saints and sinners shall be invested with immortality.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2009, 03:29:30 PM »

^^Many thanks, brother.
Logged

Love never fails.
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2009, 11:40:38 AM »

While I cannot answer your questions specifically I can tell you I've never met a practicing Catholic who didn't believe the Resurrection will be literal and physical. If you have a gnostic friend trying to tell you Catholics believe otherwise, then he just hasn't done a lot of reading from Catholic sources.

Same with Copts. Some Copts call him "master Origen" but every Copt I've ever talked to says "no he was not a saint because of some heresies".....and they all believe in a literal bodily Resurrection.




Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.08 seconds with 45 queries.