Reasons not to be Eastern Orthodox #237: "Aerial Toll Houses"

The 7th Ecumenical Council spoke of these canons as being the canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council, and so you are mistaken. Canon 2 specifically endorses the 1 canon that St. Cyprian's Council produced, and if you bother to read it, you will see that this can expresses the very view of the Church found in his Treatise on the Unity of the Church. And as a matter of fact these canons were accepted in the west. You find Pope's citing them authoritatively as canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council, and it is in fact this canon that is the basis for ascribing ecumenical weight to a number of local councils and canons of particular Church Fathers. It's not coincidental, for example, that the canons endorsed in this canon happen to match the collections of canons you find in the NPNF volume on the Ecumenical Councils. It is true that there were some specific canons which addressed Roman practice that the west did not accept, but canon 2 is not one of them.

 

The main point of Cyprian's treatise is that the unity of the Church is found in obedience to the bishop. Anglicanism maintained the historic succession of the episcopate, so I'm still not sure why citing Cyprian is relevant here. Cyprian said 'the Church is where the bishop is', in effect, yet you say we (Anglicans) aren't the Church, even though we have bishops in the historic succession. It seems like there's another step involved aside from just adding up authorities.

In the West, the canons of Trullo were only acknowledged as valid for the Byzantine rite. Where they conflicted with Western practice, they were ignored. In any event, Anglicanism never accepted Nicea II as Ecumenical or authoritative. Since you say Nicea II is part of the Tradition anyway, we're back, once again, to the Church defining Tradition and Tradition defining the Church.

 

St. Cyprian's canon expresses the view that there is only one Church, and that is the subject of his Treatise on the Unity of the Church -- you may be confusing the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, which do focus to a large extent on the idea of obedience to the bishop. St. Cyprian is arguing that there is only one Church, that it cannot err, and that schismatics and heretics are not in it.

Furthermore, if you take the Nicene Creed, which states that we believe in "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." If you exegete the meaning of that based on how it was understood at the time, you don't come up with a branch theory of the Church. They certainly were not including in the One Church, the Donatists, any other schismatics, or any heretical group.

 

And by this statement, you can only make it if you disconnect Anglicanism from the Church that actually resided in England for 1500 years prior to Henry VIII needing a divorce.

 

I never said there was more than one universal Church. Surely you would agree that there is more than one local Church. Given the jurisdictional conflicts that exist within Orthodoxy, perhaps one shouldn't be so quick to throw stones inside a glass house?

 

You are asserting that there are parts of the "universal" Church which do not agree in doctrine, and are not in communion with each other, which is historical nonsense, if you take the actual meaning of the Creed seriously.

 

That doesn't answer my question though: the demons will judge us; and then God will judge us. What's the point of them judging us, if He will later?

I'm only empiricist in the sense that, if you make a natural claim, then provide natural evidence. I've got no problem with the existence of the supernatural (obviously), and in that case different standards of evidence will apply. But I don't think it's too much to ask that when we're dealing with natural phenomena, we are given natural evidence. Why is the air above the earth in any way significant, eschatologically? It's not. The only reason why it would be, is if you held to a Ptolemaic universe where height above ground was literally a high closer to the spheres of the heavens. Aristotle posted that the Immoved Mover (God) lived beyond the final sphere of the heavens, that's how tightly the ancients collapsed the two realities, and we have learned to distinguish them. That's not empiricism, that's allowing the evidence of our naked eye to amend and update our conclusions of the nature of reality.

And as for Ephesians 2:2, I have no problem with that statement. But it still does not posit a Ptolemaic universe, or a collapse of the natural with the supernatural. In fact one of the great gifts of the Scriptures is that they are able to overcome the undeveloped mindsets of those who composed them. The people wrote something which they themselves did not understand. That's how advanced the Scriptures were, and they could encompass the worldview of the people of that era, AND the space-age worldview of our era. There is nothing in the Scriptures which collapses the natural with the supernatural.

 

It's more complicated than that. For one thing, the difference in doctrine is at the margins. Lutheranism, Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy all adhere to the early trinitarian and christological dogmatic definitions. They accept the same NT canon. They all accept the sacramental understanding of Baptism and Communion. Three out of four of them retained the historic episcopate. For another thing, the lack of intercommunion is one-sided in some cases. Any Orthodox Christian who wishes to take communion in a Roman Catholic parish may do so as far as the latter is concerned. Any Orthodox or Roman Catholic who wishes to take communion in an Anglican parish may do so. That the Orthodox or the Roman Catholics do not extend the same courtesy to the Anglican is no fault of the Anglican's. Also, the Moscow Patriarchate is not currently in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. So to say, in effect, "it's ok when we do it but it's not ok when you do it" seems quite arbitrary. I don't see anything incoherent in saying that there can be equally legitimate true particular Churches that have nonessential differences.

 

Nonsense. I never suggested any such things. When God allowed Babylon to destroy Judah, was Babylon calling the shots, or was God? If you believe the Bible, God was, but he used an evil nation to carry out his judgment.

What about any of that tells you anything about whether or not demons confront the souls of those who have departed? I am not sure how you find room for God in your worldview, but your worldview is at odds with what Scripture clearly teaches about demons and angels.

There is nothing about angels and demons interacting with the souls of the departed that requires a Ptolemaic universe. I am surprised you still believe in God after Kruschev announced that the Cosmonauts didn't see God in space, and so there must be no God.

 

The problem with your interpretation of the Creed is that the Donatists differed with the Nicene Church on no theological questions, aside from their specific views about the efficacy of the sacraments of clergy they considered impure), and likewise preserved an historic episcopate, and yet those who composed the Nicene Creed did not include them in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. So if you are free to read things into the Nicene Creed that clearly are not there, why not do the same with Scripture? Why not come up with twisted ways to get around the teachings that sodomy is a sin, or anything else in Scripture that someone might find inconvenient?

 

I think it's fair to interpret the Creed in accordance with the scriptural passages from which its wording was undoubtedly derived:

"I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." - Ephesians 4:1-6 (NRSV)

"The love Paul requires of us is no common love, but that which cements us together, and makes us cleave inseparably to one another, and effects as great and as perfect a union as though it were between limb and limb. For this is that love which produces great and glorious fruits. Hence he says, there is one body; one, both by sympathy, and by not opposing the good of others, and by sharing their joy, having expressed all at once by this figure. He then beautifully adds, and one Spirit, showing that from the one body there will be one Spirit: or, that it is possible that there may be indeed one body, and yet not one Spirit; as, for instance, if any member of it should be a friend of heretics: or else he is, by this expression, shaming them into unanimity, saying, as it were, You who have received one Spirit, and have been made to drink at one fountain, ought not to be divided in mind; or else by spirit here he means their zeal. Then he adds, Even as you were called in one hope of your calling, that is, God has called you all on the same terms. He has bestowed nothing upon one more than upon another." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Ephesians

Much of the biblical passage is quite mystical, but it seems clear to me (as it did to Chrysostom) that oneness is something we strive for, not something that "just is".

 

Although I agree with you in concept, to be completely fair I feel I must point out that this is not precisely what Scripture says.

2Co 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
2Co 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

There is an inference commonly drawn that' to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord'. But that is not explicitly stated. To illustrate, if I were to say, "I would rather be gone from this office and sitting at home by the fireplace," I cannot conclude that being gone from the office is equivalent to being at home. I may have stopped at the store.

A better Scripture, I think, is Hebrews 9:27.

 

I think that's fair. I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy.

 

Hebrews 9:27 teaches us, And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: When Jesus paid the price on the cross, He said, "It is finished." He paid the price in full. Prayers from earth cannot help pay that price. When a believer dies, he has "run his race" and his life is over; he has "kept the faith" to his last breath, and in God's eyes there is no spot or stain of sin lingering. Therefore there is no need (or chance) for the person to 'grow in grace' after death. The Scripture does not say that it is appointed unto men to die once and then to grow in grace prior to the judgment; that is an unwarranted addition to the word of God.

Any doctrine that reduces (even a little bit) the full, complete efficacy of the shed blood of Jesus is a bad doctrine. If we are to envision a soul being stopped by demons, we may also envision the angels producing the invoice stamped "Paid in Full," before continuing without further molestation.

 

Let's picture a man living in China who has never heard the Gospel until he is mortally injured, and in those last minutes of his life a Christian tells him about Jesus. Let's assume the man believes in Jesus Christ as his redeemer, and then passes on. He knew almost nothing of church doctrine, so he died holding many theologically erroneous ideas about God. Let's say he didn't even believe the doctrine of the Trinity. Is he not a part of the "universal" Church?

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:39-43)
How much Church doctrine did the thief on the cross know? Yet Christ welcomed him into the universal Church.

If a person must have all of his doctrine correct in order to be a part of the 'universal' Church, then the 'universal' Church is completely empty. Not one soul who has ever lived has ever gotten all of it 100% right. Not Augustine, not Chrysostom, and certainly not any of us.

So, even though that Baptist over there isn't officially "in communion" with this EO over here, and so on, if they are both trusting in God's grace through Christ and not in any personal deeds or merits or 3rd party prayers, they are joined as members of His body on earth, they are joint heirs with Jesus Christ, and they are in spiritual union through Christ the Head. They are in communion whether they know it or not. Or will the hand say to the foot, "I have no part with you"??

 

You could just as easily engage in eisegesis, and argue that references to homosexuality being a sin are only talking about abusive relationships, or pedophiles. One need only review the canons of the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils to confirm that they did not consider schismatic groups, or heretical groups to be included in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. So you are imposing an ahistorical interpretation on the text.

Likewise, neither Ephesians 4 nor the words of St. John Chrysostom support the notion that this would included either heretical or schismatic groups. Within the Church, we do need to strive to maintain the unity of the Church, because, for example, when we sin, we separate ourselves to some extent from that unity, which is why the prayer of absolution includes the words "Reconcile and unite him (her) to Thy Church...." So everyone within the Church needs to strive to remain united and to promote the unity of the Church... but this has nothing to do with those outside of the Church by their own choice, or those who were never part of the Church but joined schismatic or heretical false Churches.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem taught in his catechetical lectures that if you are travelling somewhere, it is necessary for you to not merely find a Church, but to look for a Catholic Church, i.e., one that actually belongs to the unity of faith and unity in communion of the Church.

 

Obviously, it is appointed unto man to die once, and obviously after this there is the judgment, but unless you believe in the heresy of soul sleep, after someone dies up until the present, no one has faced the final judgment yet. And so it is equally obvious that this says nothing about what happens between death and that final judgment. St. Paul also says in Hebrews that we are to pursue holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. If we have to pursue it, that obviously means that every Christian does not already have it, just by virtue of the fact that Jesus paid it all.

 

What matters is whether an interpretation follows the rules of exegesis, not whether it is "historical".

We return once again to the question of who is in the Church, and the circular reasoning and authoritarianism that lies at the heart of Orthodox ecclesiology. You either don't understand that point, or you're intentionally ignoring it.

 

How God choses to deal with someone outside of the Church is not part of the normal means of salvation provided within the Church. We know God is merciful, and that God will judge everyone based on the light that they have received and what they did with it. And so your mortally wounded man in China may well be saved under such circumstances, and I would imagine he probably would be. But you cannot make rules out of exceptional circumstances, or things that happen outside of the Church, which God has not chosen to reveal to us.

And I never said or implied that salvation was a matter of having 100% correct doctrine. It is normally a matter of repenting and believing the Gospel, being baptized, receiving the Eucharist, and living a life of repentance and obedience to Christ.

 

Your interpretation does not follow the rules of exegesis, because your interpretation is clearly at odds with the understanding of those who composed the Creed, and they are also at odds with how the Fathers have always understood Ephesians 2. They never took it to refer to a Church that exists in branches, divided by doctrine and not in communion with one another. You have to wait for Anglicans to come onto the scene to find anyone espousing such an interpretation. Therefore, it is an ahistorical interpretation, and you are engaging in eisegesis because you don't want to deal with the actual implications of what these texts actually teach.