Pope John Paul Iv And St. Athanasious

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]In May 1973, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III paid a cordial visit to His Holiness, the late Pope Paul VI in Rome. This was the first meeting between an Alexandrine and Roman Pontiff since the time of the great schism of 451 AD. Both Popes signed a common Declaration, containing, amongst other things, a confession of common Faith in the mystery of the Word Incarnate. In welcoming His Holiness to Rome, the late Pope Paul VI said, "You are indeed the head of a church whose origin goes back to the Evangelist Mark and which had in Saint Athanasius...the invincible defender of our common Nicene faith, that is, faith in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ."[/quote]

His Holiness Pope John Paul IV said, "the invincible defender of our common Nicene faith", was he saying that St. Athanasius was infallible as Roman Catholics consider His Holiness Pope John Paul IV?

Reza

[Aloysius]

Pope Paul VI (the sixth) not Pope John Paul IV, there have only been two John Pauls. hehehe

"invincible" is not synonymous with "infallible". it merely means that his faith was indestructible, that he was steadfast no matter what the odds were against him.

one has 'infallibility' when they are rendered by Divine Power incapable of binding the Church in error through their office.

[RezaMikhaeil]

In the quote thou, it wasn't St. Athanasus's personal faith that's mentioned, but rather it says: "the invincible defender of our common Nicene faith"

PS: I thought there were just 2 pope john pauls but the article that I got this from must have had a typo cause it said IV LOL

Edited April 29, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Brother Adam]

My major christology paper was on the declarations between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches that have been coming out recently. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it here.

--


The Franciscan University of Steubenville

A Commentary on the Christological Declarations between the Roman Catholic Church and Non-Catholic Eastern Churches

Adam J. Janke

THE 213 – Theology of Christ
Dr. Stephen Hildebrand
4/25/2006

As ecclesial leaders of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church, and protectors of the fullness of salvation, the holy pontiffs of the last century have had natural concern for full unity with our Eastern, non-Catholic brethren. Since the 1970’s several Christological declarations have been developed through which Rome has come to full agreement with the Assyrian, Coptic, Armenian, and Syrian churches. Each declaration is worded similarly and is focused on many of the same doctrines concerning the nature of Christ. In each declaration both sides confess that the division of the past had been caused especially in the terminology that was used between the different churches. So then each declaration is very careful in the way it describes the Son of God. The semantics of different words render different meanings to doctrine and often subtle differences can lead to heresy and division. In the development of the theology of these Eastern churches theologians have had to wrestle with and understand the various differences in terms such as nature, person, and will. The documents prove that the terms used to describe the nature of the Son of God are a basic foundation for reaching orthodoxy in Christological doctrine.

The declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East focuses on the importance of one hypostasis in Christ. It states that “our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation.” According to Dr. Elias Tsonievsky non-Chalcedonian Churches such as the Assyrian Church confess a “united or combined nature.” (176) One united nature in Christ would deny either his humanity or his divinity. Tsonievsky states that Chalcedon uses the phrase that Christ is “in two natures” rather than “of two natures.” In order for Christ to be able to save mankind he must be fully human, that is have a fully human nature, and fully divine, that is have a fully divine nature. These two natures must exist, with neither swallowed up by the other in the Trinitarian person of Christ. The Christological declaration shows that the Assyrian Church recognizes that the divine Christ does not dualistically reside in the man Jesus, rather that their union is complete, undivided, and unconfused. It is a confession made against Nestorius who through this same duality refused to say that Mary is the theotokos.

While each of the declarations are similar, each have unique components in the language they use to describe proper Christology in order to show a unity through terms that may previously caused division. The Coptic declaration, between Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria emphasizes the unity of both the divine and the human in Jesus Christ, especially that their unity is never indivisible. “His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye…In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.” Language is naturally limiting, and so to describe accurately, the Son of God and His incarnate nature is a difficult task. The language “a twinkling of an eye” and “for an instant” tries to capture that there was no time, from the moment of Jesus’ conception that He was not together in his natures, both fully man, and fully God. That which makes Jesus a man, his mind, soul, and his body, are preserved together and completely united with His divinity as the Son of God. In the incarnation these two are not separated at any time. The use of defining phrases as they may exist in the Western Church do not hinder an agreement to be reached here, because while all of the ‘right’ words are difficult to come to agreement on, both Churches realize that they seek to say the same thing. Both Churches realize that there are no true theological differences in what this declaration confesses.

Where Pope Shenouda III and Paul VI saw problems in describing the unity of the natures of Christ, John Paul II and the Armenian Church found the same problem especially in the terminology that had been used in the past and how it caused division. The declaration states that “the reality of this common faith in Jesus Christ and in the same succession of apostolic ministry has at times been obscured or ignored. Linguistic, cultural and political factors have immensely contributed towards the theological divergences that have found expression in their terminology of formulating their doctrines.” Again the limitations of language seem to cause problems between Churches causing divisions where division may not exist simply because putting the nature of God into words cause confusion. According to Dr. Mesrob Krikorian the Armenian Church “proclaims one wonderful and unspeakable unity of two natures in Christ, and confess one born of the Virgin Mary as real man and at the same time God, and with divinity adore humanity, and with humanity adore divinity.” (222) In speaking here of only one nature instead of two natures the Armenian Church would confess heresy, and be apart from the Catholic Church, yet even the language of the description leads to further reflection and if by “divinity adoring humanity” and visa versa there isn’t still some understanding of two natures that still truly exist in one man. The fear here may have been that the Chalcedonian doctrine was confessing two persons instead of only two natures. This declaration however saw beyond the previous confusion in terminology and both sides were able to see that despite previous disagreements, they truly do now agree who the Son of God is.

Finally, the declaration between Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I brings the Syrian Church and Catholic Church into dialogue. The Syrians also attempted to declare only “one nature”, but through the declaration which has been established today show that language often needlessly gets in the way. They most clearly recognize that “the confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries…in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter.” The declaration goes on, as the previous three did to profess a perfect, flawless union between the human and the divine natures in Christ and yet how these natures remain without blending or mingling. Previous confusion is found when those such as Severius Zaka asserts that “the eternal Word, descended from heaven and took from the Virgin Mary a human body with a self-endowed mind and speech, and that it united with it a real self, by natural and personal union; hence it is one nature from two, without mixing nor fusion or change.” (310) The primary problem that existed was a lack of understand that the hypostasis, the person of Jesus Christ, united with the Trinity is only one person, and yet, unlike all other creatures that exist, in taking on a human nature, the divine nature is not assumed, nor is the human nature assumed. Both exist in union, yet still remain distinct.

Therefore, the documents prove that the terms used to describe the nature of the Son of God are a basic foundation for reaching orthodoxy in Christological doctrine. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following about God: “Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity.” (CCC 43) The simplicity of God as God is what inhibits us from a true, complete, and proper understanding of God. We can talk about God. We can say in Christ there is a divine nature and a human nature, but as Frank Sheed in Theology and Sanity shows us, knowing that fact helps us know God no better than knowing a tree has bark. Even God’s revealing name, I AM, hides as much as it reveals. In a way it refuses to answer the question about who God is as much as it is an answer. These Christological divisions that appear throughout the century are a problem of our inability to describe God, truly as He is, as much as they are a question of who the true heretic may be.

Edited April 29, 2007 by Brother Adam

[Era Might]

St. Athanasius was a Bishop, and as such, the charism of infallibility was not part of his individual office. The Bishops are infallible in union with St. Peter, while the Bishop of Rome possesses the charism of infallibility in his individual office. Pope St. Leo the Great writes at length on this topic in the fifth century:

[quote]The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful; and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank, inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself, but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren; and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

The article says Paul VI (the sixth)... Paul is different than John Paul, and VI (6) is different than IV (4)... but that's alright; seeing as you're not Roman you have no reason to know Papal names nor Roman Numerals teehehe

Along with differentiating between things, the important thing here is that "invincible" is different from "infallible"; "invincible" means that something cannot be defeated; there are even things such as "invincible ignorance", meaning ignorance that just cannot be broken down and taught, it will remain ignorant of facts... the way Budge is ignorant of the teachings of Apostolic Churches like yours and mine, Reza, because she has invincible, or unconquerable, ignorance. But in this case, it is an invincible defense; all this is saying is that, though the Arians tried their hardest, Athanasius' defense of the faith could not be defeated; it was unconquerable, indestructible, capable of weathering all storms; he was a juggernaut of defending the faith, he could not be stopped.

moreover, Paul VI was not here describing a charism of the good saint, but a virtue. He had no charism to be invincible; he had personal virtue which made him invincible. Neither Bishops nor Patriarchs nor Popes have a charism of invincibility by virtue of their office; it is very clear from history: bishops are defeated all the time. Sometimes they are defeated justly because they were bad, sometimes they were defeated unjustly. Napoleon locked up the pope for a bit. But the teaching authority of the pope, or the whole magisterium together, has a negative charism (not particular to the individual, as is the case with a virtue; but by the nature of the office) which renders them incapable of binding the Church in error. this is not a positive good to their teaching office, ie we cannot say that everything they teach is from the Mouth of God and intended to be taught to us in that exact manner with that exact wording; all we know is that, when they bind the Church to a particular teaching, that teaching cannot be erroneous.

[Era Might]

The last 5 Popes:

John XXIII
Paul VI
John Paul I
John Paul II
Benedict XVI