September 15, 2014, 05:27:14 AM *
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 on: Today at 05:22:35 AM 
Started by mikeforjesus - Last post by mikeforjesus
Jesus warned if anyone causes one to lose faith it is better for him that his neck was tied with a millstone and was drowned in the sea so I apologise

 on: Today at 04:30:04 AM 
Started by mikeforjesus - Last post by mikeforjesus
Forget all I said and concentrate on strengthening your faith in Jesus if you ever lost faith Jesus promises to give it back to you if you ever had faith as He said I will never leave you or forsake you
You can't be saved without faith in Jesus so we can't play any games in this area and hope we still have faith

 on: Today at 03:58:35 AM 
Started by mikeforjesus - Last post by mikeforjesus
I edited this out I shouldn't have
Thanks quiet morning I shall try to do what you told me
No matter how good we are if we don't believe we will perish unless we spent our life pursuing faith and righteousness and avoiding false teachers I think God will give faith to such a person but if not I think he is still saved therefore we should hold onto our faith when Jesus gives it to us and leave the converting to God and those He gave the talent to

When I said in the absence of proof towards any religion I did not mean Christianity as there are prophesies about Jesus

 on: Today at 03:24:17 AM 
Started by qawe - Last post by qawe
In regard to these canons:

Why is the punishment for clergy being deposed, but for a layman it is excommunication? I would have thought that if laymen are excommunicated, clergy should be too, as they committed a bigger sin by not only making a mistake, but also leading others astray by virtue of their high position.

 on: Today at 03:11:09 AM 
Started by Laurentius - Last post by Gunnarr
Pope Innocent III had granted indulgences to any who would die in battle, as had become routine -- however, at that time the Crusade was supposedly headed for Jerusalem. After the Venetian machinations, and the news the host was pointed toward Constantinople, Innocent wrote, "Let no one among you rashly convince himself that he may seize or plunder the Greeks' lands on the pretext that they show little obedience to the Apostolic See" (The Fourth Crusade by Donald Queller). This brought a pause to the proceedings until Venetian and Crusade clergy developed an argument that indulgence would hold because the Pope was unaware that the Greek empire had been usurped by "a murderer" (I can't put my finger on his name, but the controversial emperor of the time). This satisfied the knights -- and we all know the rest of the story. It remained a matter of controversy for later Catholic writers, though, as most historians in orders concluded that the knights had invalidated their indulgence, while secular historians tended to emphasize the indulgence in a way that helped lead to (of course) the Reformation.

Yes this sums it up well enough.

Some further information as well anyway: The Frankish Knights could not afford to get to pay the Venetians to transport them to the holy land by boat. This made them desperate for money. The Venetians struck a deal that the Franks would help them take back Zara and they would consider the the debt payed. Another very important factor is it just so happened Alexios IV Angelos, son of the deposed Emperor Isaac II was also around, and promised the crusaders that if they gave him and his father back the throne he would supply the crusaders with a very large amount of money, manpower support in the Crusade in the holy land, and also to submit the Greeks to the Roman Catholic Church. This made the "Crusade" on Constantinople much more honorable in their eyes later. As you said also, the current Emperor in Constantinople at that time was Alexios III Angelos, who came to throne by deposing his brother Isaac II (who he also blinded).

 The Venetians were excommunicated after taking Zara. The Frankish knights and clergy was less enthusiastic in attacking Zara and later also Constantinople, seeing as they joined the crusade in the objective of going to the Holy Land. Again, though, most were persuaded by the arguments as shown above. It is not exactly an objective to attack fellow Christians, but to replace a heretical emperor who does not even respect his own family with an emperor who not only would bring the empire to the side of the Catholics in full, but also be a heavy weight in helping the whole Crusading cause.

Eventually, Alexios IV and Isaac II were not able to give any of the claimed rewards they promised to the Crusaders, and further the populace in Constantinople became very hostile to these Crusader backed emperors. Riots formed, they were killed, new emperors were proclaimed, and the Crusaders simply attacked again and took the city, installing a Catholic Emperor, who of course had very good relations with the Pope, he even attended some of the ecumenical councils of the roman catholic church, and other smaller councils where the Emperor often asked for financial or military assistance in keeping his lands. I do not know if they had an indulgence for pilgrimage to Constantinople set up at least, but I doubt they did.

 on: Today at 03:06:10 AM 
Started by mikeforjesus - Last post by mikeforjesus

 on: Today at 03:06:05 AM 
Started by wainscottbl - Last post by wainscottbl
Thanks, and I supposed that is part of where we get our prayers, or petitions, to the saints from. But I assume that because in the Maccabees the dead were prayed for this was/is a practice in order them to be brought to peace in Sheol?

 on: Today at 02:48:24 AM 
Started by Jetavan - Last post by surajiype
Things had gotten just too bad in Kerala, obviously something needed to be done but I don't think prohibition will work.  Its not a long term solution at all, but at this stage even a flawed short term solution looks good.

 on: Today at 02:41:48 AM 
Started by wainscottbl - Last post by xOrthodox4Christx
Here's a little article I found through Google. Hope it helps... I could state my opinion, but that wouldn't mean anything.

 on: Today at 02:37:07 AM 
Started by wainscottbl - Last post by JamesRottnek
In Judaism the primary prayer said 'for' (in some sense) one who has died is really a prayer glorifying God (think of it as, more or less, a public statement that: "Even though You've taken our loved one, God, we are still Your people.").  This is known as the Mourner's Kaddish, which roughly means sanctification.  It's text is, if I recall correctly, something like this:
"Glorified and sanctified be God's great name throughout the world which He has created according to His will.  May He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days, and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon; and say, Amen.

May His great name be blessed forever and to all eternity.  Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored, adored and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, beyond all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that are ever spoken in the world; and say, Amen.

May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life, for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

He who creates peace in His celestial heights, may He create peace for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen."

However, there is also the El Malah Rachamim, which is an actual prayer for the dead, essentially asking that the departed be at rest.  "God, filled with mercy, dwelling in the heavens' heights, bring proper rest beneath the wings of your Shechinah, amid the ranks of the holy and the pure, illuminating like the brilliance of the skies the souls of our beloved and our blameless who went to their eternal place of rest. May You who are the source of mercy shelter them beneath Your wings eternally, and bind their souls among the living, that they may rest in peace. And let us say: Amen."

As to your second question, Judaism sees three categories of sin, any of which can be described as avera (transgression).  The first is cheit, which is unintentional, Strong makes the argument that it's root means to miss the mark (as in an archer).  The second level is avon (meaning, literally, iniquity).  It's primarily seen as a sin committed out of uncontrollable desire (chief among them being lust).  The major distinction between it and cheit is that cheit is not done knowingly, whereas avon is done knowingly.  The final is mered, meaning rebellion.  It's a sin that one commits out of deliberate defiance against God.

You can think of the three sins this way: Suppose it's Yom Kippur.  Now, suppose a Jew ate a sandwhich on Yom Kippur.  If he did it because he had no idea it was Yom Kippur, during which Jews are supposed to fast the entire day, it would be cheit - he did it unintentionally.  If, however, he knew it was Yom Kippur, but was really hungry, it would be avon - he knew what he was doing, but couldn't control himself.  Suppose, however, that he wasn't hungry, and knew it was Yom Kippur.  Suppose the sandwhich was even made of food he hated, but he did it anyways.  This would be mered - he did it because he wanted to transgress the law for the sole purpose of transgressing the law.

Which brings me to my last point, in Judaism there isn't - generally - a notion of sin as being a state of being; sin is always a transgression, and it is always specific transgressions.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
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 0.043 seconds with 17 queries.