OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 12:22:57 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Indulgences, Temporal Punishment, Purgatory, etc  (Read 181906 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #720 on: May 10, 2009, 03:32:55 AM »

Posted on: Yesterday at 12:17:24 PMPosted by: Salpy 
Quote
Quote from: AlexanderOfBergamo on May 08, 2009, 02:45:32 PM
Dear NorthernPines,
I can understand what u mean and I often wonder the same thing. Actually I think of them both being "two patriarchs on the same See". Recently, the declaration of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III show how his interpretation of the nature of Christ is fully in line with that of st. Cyril of Alexandria - and since I esteem this great saint, I judge him to be fully Orthodox. Many of his predecessors abused of st Cyril's words, but Shenouda shows to be a greater pastor for his flock. In other words, he is just a good non-canonical Orthodox leader- as there are many even among the Chalcedonian Churches. If one day His Holiness would decide to bring his Patriarchate back to full communion with us, I'd be the first one to acknowledge him as the true and only Pope of Alexandria. Actually the Orthodox Patriarch serves more as a "vicar" of the legitimate Pope of Alexandria until the future reconciliation, which I highly pray for.


I don't want to derail the thread, or start a debate that would be better fit for the private forum.  However, Pope Shenouda is not viewed by any OO's as deviating in any way from the tradition of his predecessors.     
   

...which proves how the OO and Shenouda's predecessors never really embraced monophysitism as it was condemned by Chalcedon. Sometimes human pride, politics and language are extremely divisive, as the Tower of Babel Story clearly teaches us, and the Chalcedonian Schism is a consequence of those three human weaknesses. I think we're getting ready to look for unity now... and maybe for a new and more "neutral" formulation on Christ's nature which comprises both our positions. Who knows... but God?


Quote
Not sure if I'm doing this right, but I nominate Alex's post for Post of the Month.

Too kind, but I think our brethrens might have written better posts then mine...

Humbly, 
       your unworthy brother in Christ.

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #721 on: May 12, 2009, 09:40:17 AM »

Hello.

Yes, it's authoritative in that it is persuasive, but not in that it is controlling.  It's of use to counter Calvinists (and their spawn, the Evangelicals), but otherwise not much use.  We base our theology on the consensus of the Fathers, not our answers to heretics. You would be better to read something of St. Symeon the New Theologian or such.
To touch on this again, I read last night in The Orthodox Church by Met. KALLISTOS that Dositheos RECANTED his statements on the topic of Hades that he made at the synod of Jerusalem. Why would he do that, if it was such a profound, and ancient teaching of the Church? Interesting.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 09:40:51 AM by PoorFoolNicholas » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #722 on: May 12, 2009, 10:12:23 AM »

To touch on this again, I read last night in The Orthodox Church by Met. KALLISTOS that Dositheos RECANTED his statements on the topic of Hades that he made at the synod of Jerusalem. Why would he do that, if it was such a profound, and ancient teaching of the Church? Interesting.

Spot on!  May I have the honour of supplying what Metropolitan Kallistos wrote?

"What exactly is the condition of souls in the period between death and the Resurrection of the Body at the Last Day? Here Orthodox teaching is not entirely clear, and has varied somewhat at different times. In the seventeenth century a number of Orthodox writers — most notably Peter of Moghila and Dositheus in his Confession — upheld the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, or something very close to it (According to the normal Roman teaching, souls in Purgatory undergo expiatory suffering, and so render ‘satisfaction’ or ‘atonement’ for their sins. It should be remarked, however, that even in the seventeenth century there were many Orthodox who rejected the Roman teaching on Purgatory. The statements on the departed in Moghila’s Orthodox Confession were carefully changed by Meletius Syrigos, while in later life Dositheus specifically retracted what he had written on the subject in his Confession).

The Orthodox Church

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #723 on: May 12, 2009, 12:11:03 PM »

Hello.

Yes, it's authoritative in that it is persuasive, but not in that it is controlling.  It's of use to counter Calvinists (and their spawn, the Evangelicals), but otherwise not much use.  We base our theology on the consensus of the Fathers, not our answers to heretics. You would be better to read something of St. Symeon the New Theologian or such.
To touch on this again, I read last night in The Orthodox Church by Met. KALLISTOS that Dositheos RECANTED his statements on the topic of Hades that he made at the synod of Jerusalem. Why would he do that, if it was such a profound, and ancient teaching of the Church? Interesting.
And yet it was still the teaching of the council of Jerusalem. Is the Council of Jerusalem a heretical council?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 12:11:39 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #724 on: May 12, 2009, 01:30:57 PM »


And yet it was still the teaching of the council of Jerusalem. Is the Council of Jerusalem a heretical council?

Not to my knowledge. But that doesn't mean that everything that is discussed at a council is universally acceptable to the Church.
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #725 on: May 12, 2009, 01:59:05 PM »

And yet it was still the teaching of the council of Jerusalem. Is the Council of Jerusalem a heretical council?

...modern Eastern or Greek Orthodoxy is much more reserved about the abiding dogmatic authority of this synod [of Jerusalem]. The fact that the Greek bishops often received their training at Latin schools (notably in Venice) accounts for what the late Georges Florosky termed the "pseudomorphosis" of Orthodox theology.

From Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Jerusalem#Importance_and_criticism).
Logged
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 #726 on: May 12, 2009, 02:00:13 PM »

So would it be correct to say that, if a teaching such as purgatory is accepted by some Orthodox, it's permitted to believe it, but unless it's accepted by all Orthodox, it's not required?
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)
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #727 on: May 12, 2009, 08:41:51 PM »


And yet it was still the teaching of the council of Jerusalem. Is the Council of Jerusalem a heretical council?

Not to my knowledge. But that doesn't mean that everything that is discussed at a council is universally acceptable to the Church.
Exactly Douglas! Well put. And Papist, this synod seems to be the only hinge on which you say that Orthodoxy holds to the doctrine of purgatory. What have you now sir? Any other quotes? I would love to see some. Dositheos RECANTED his statements. Why would someone do this if it was such a FIRM position to take? As far as this synod proving anything, it doesn't. If you have anything else from the Orthodox perspective, I would be very interested.
Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #728 on: May 12, 2009, 08:42:48 PM »

So would it be correct to say that, if a teaching such as purgatory is accepted by some Orthodox, it's permitted to believe it, but unless it's accepted by all Orthodox, it's not required?
Where are these "some"?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #729 on: May 12, 2009, 10:36:16 PM »

From what I read about the Orthodox Council at Constantinople , 1772 AD. It was convened to condemn the innovation of purgatory. Here's some of what was said: "We the godly, following the truth and turning away from such innovations, confess and accept two places for the souls of the dead, paradise and hell, for the righteous and sinners, as the holy Scripture teaches us. We do not accept a third place, a purgatory, by any means, since neither Scripture nor the holy Fathers have taught us any such thing. However, we believe these two places have many abodes ...
None of the teachers of the Church have handed down or taught such a purgatory, but they all speak of one single place of punishment, hades, just as they teach about one luminous and bright place, paradise. But both the souls of the holy and the righteous go indisputably to paradise and those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God. For on behalf of such souls, that is of the moderately and forgivably sinful, there are in the Church prayers, supplications, liturgies, as well as memorial services and almsgiving, that those souls may receive favour and comfort. Thus when the Church prays for the souls of those who are lying asleep, we hope there will be comfort for them from God, but not through fire and purgatory, but through divine love for mankind, whereby the infinite goodness of God is seen. "
 It is declared that hades has many abodes, and that those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom, and that there are in the Church prayers that these souls may receive favor and comfort. So while condemning the innovation of Purgatory on the one hand, still, on the other hand, it is declared that there is an abode in hades where those who have offended moderately may hope to gain freedom?
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #730 on: May 13, 2009, 12:37:09 AM »

It is declared that hades has many abodes, and that those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom, and that there are in the Church prayers that these souls may receive favor and comfort. So while condemning the innovation of Purgatory on the one hand, still, on the other hand, it is declared that there is an abode in hades where those who have offended moderately may hope to gain freedom?

That sounds fine. Hades is a part of the Biblical teaching. Some Fathers thaught about it having many abodes. And praying for the dead was always a practice of the Orthodox Chruch. Everything sticks together.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 12:38:04 AM by Michał » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #731 on: May 13, 2009, 01:11:53 AM »

Errata: "Some Fathers taught...".
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #732 on: May 13, 2009, 02:36:13 AM »

That sounds fine. Hades is a part of the Biblical teaching. Some Fathers thaught about it having many abodes. And praying for the dead was always a practice of the Orthodox Chruch. Everything sticks together.
I don't see the big difference between ending up in a special abode in hades for your moderate sins and being able to get out eventually because of the prayers of the Church and ending up in Purgatory for your venial sins and being able to be helped out of Purgatory by the prayers of the Church? 
And I don't see the difference between a moderate sin and a venial sin. I have read it on this forum that the Orthodox Church does not accept the difference between venial and mortal sins. But we see here an official pronouncement and declaration given by the Orthodox Church making a clear distinction between those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever and those who have been moderately and forgivably sinful and may be helped out of the temporary abode in hades by the prayers of the Church.
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #733 on: May 13, 2009, 02:59:36 AM »

I don't see the big difference between ending up in a special abode in hades for your moderate sins and being able to get out eventually because of the prayers of the Church and ending up in Purgatory for your venial sins and being able to be helped out of Purgatory by the prayers of the Church?

Differences:
1. Orthodox version is in agreement with biblical and patristic terminology, while the RC version isn't.
2. Purgatory is explained to be to purge people's souls. Being temporary in Hades - not necessarily so. It is more like being detained on the boarder because of lacking some necessary papers and stamps, and waiting till they will be sent (here: in the form of prayers and Eucharist).


And I don't see the difference between a moderate sin and a venial sin. I have read it on this forum that the Orthodox Church does not accept the difference between venial and mortal sins.

The Orthodox Church understand itself as an Eucharistic assembly. Following this thought, we make a disctinction between the sins which exclude us from the from the full participation in this assembly (until we repent and confess) and the sins which don't do that (they can be called moderate).
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 03:00:35 AM by Michał » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #734 on: May 13, 2009, 03:47:45 AM »

The Orthodox Church understand itself as an Eucharistic assembly. Following this thought, we make a disctinction between the sins which exclude us from the from the full participation in this assembly (until we repent and confess) and the sins which don't do that (they can be called moderate).
It seems to me like it is pretty much the same thing as mortal and venial sins.
In Catholicism, mortal sins exclude one from Holy Communion until you repent and confess, whereas venial sins do not. It is difficult for a Catholic trying to understand the Orthodox teaching on this as to why an Orthodox would think that the concept of mortal and venial sins is heretical ?
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #735 on: May 13, 2009, 03:51:38 AM »

It is difficult for a Catholic trying to understand the Orthodox teaching on this as to why an Orthodox would think that the concept of mortal and venial sins is heretical ?

It is not heretical in our understanding. Rather, it is rooted in medieval scholasticism, completely foreign to Orthodoxy, while the Orthodox distinction is rooted in our ecclesiology.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #736 on: May 13, 2009, 04:14:09 AM »

I think that the greatest difference is this: that in RC purgatory the souls are SURE of their final salvation through purgatorial fire, while in EO hades the souls only hope for it - in other words, only the prayers of the living can (but not necessarily do) deliver a soul from that abode in hades reserved for "moderate or forgivable sins". The fire in hades, and torments connected with it, don't even save us or purify us in any way...
I don't even think it might be a strange exercise of divine justice. Those who pray for us must have had love for us, and we must have loved them too. The love we gave them in our earthly life is thus given back to us in form of prayers... Indeed, love saves us when our human flesh has "missed the mark".

Hope this helps overcoming the difficulties in understandig the EO position on this issue.

In Christ,    your unworthy and sinful brother Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #737 on: May 13, 2009, 02:41:48 PM »

2. Purgatory is explained to be to purge people's souls. Being temporary in Hades - not necessarily so. It is more like being detained on the boarder because of lacking some necessary papers and stamps, and waiting till they will be sent (here: in the form of prayers and Eucharist).
I notice that in Matthew 25, Jesus mentions that there are two places, heaven and hell. The just shall go into heaven, while the unjust shall go into hell according as: "41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. "
This hell or hades mentioned here has fire. How then would the Orthodox reconcile the words of Our Lord with the teaching that there is an abode in hades which does not have any fire or any punishment, since those in this abode have sinned moderately? Or is it a punishment to be waiting in line to get into heaven. 
Logged
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 #738 on: May 13, 2009, 03:17:41 PM »

So would it be correct to say that, if a teaching such as purgatory is accepted by some Orthodox, it's permitted to believe it, but unless it's accepted by all Orthodox, it's not required?
Where are these "some"?

None that I know of for "purgatory".  So substitute "toll houses" for "purgatory" in the question above and perhaps someone will answer it.  Thanks!
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)
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #739 on: May 13, 2009, 03:29:08 PM »

None that I know of for "purgatory".  So substitute "toll houses" for "purgatory" in the question above and perhaps someone will answer it.  Thanks!
Ha, I guess you are right there! Wink
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #740 on: May 13, 2009, 03:31:26 PM »

I notice that in Matthew 25, Jesus mentions that there are two places, heaven and hell. The just shall go into heaven, while the unjust shall go into hell. . .

In this passage, Jesus talks about the situation which will set in after the Last Judgement. The just will be experiencing the Kingdom of God (which can also be called the Kingdom of Heaven or Heavenly Kingdom, but I wouldn't call it Heaven, as we are to live with our resurrected bodies on the New Earth which will come from the New Heaven). And the unjust will be experiencing the everlasting fire (hell, gehenna).

This hell or hades mentioned here has fire. How then would the Orthodox reconcile the words of Our Lord with the teaching that there is an abode in hades which does not have any fire or any punishment, since those in this abode have sinned moderately? Or is it a punishment to be waiting in line to get into heaven. 

First of all, Matthew 25 doesn't talk about hell or hades. It talks about hell (that is the lake of fire into which hades will be thrown). Secondly, the division of hades into abodes isn't an Orthodox dogma. It's rather a technical term used by some Fathers and local councils. As Irish Hermit said, some Fathers had a very simple idea of aferlife, some had a very complex one. Both are part of our Holy Tradition, but neitheir of them is official for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Finally, what makes you think that there is no fire in this (hypothetical) abode? The Council of Constantinopole (1772) describes the whole hades as a "place of punishment".
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #741 on: May 13, 2009, 06:20:35 PM »

Finally, what makes you think that there is no fire in this (hypothetical) abode? The Council of Constantinopole (1772) describes the whole hades as a "place of punishment".
I thought you said that if people have moderately sinned, they are placed in an abode in hades, which is like being detained on the border because of lacking some necessary papers and stamps, and waiting till they will be sent (here: in the form of prayers and Eucharist). Now I didn not read where there was any indication on your part that people in this abode are being cleansed by fire.  If so, or if there is punishment of one kind or another in this abode in hades, then it looks like it is comparable to the Latin doctrine of Purgatory where venial sinners end up before entering into heaven.

Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #742 on: May 14, 2009, 07:18:53 AM »

And as you usual, dear stanley123, you don't understand what meaning most (if not all) Orthodox ascribe to that 'fire'. "God is a consuming fire". The fire in heaven and the fire in hades are nothing but one and the same fire, i.e. God's infinite love for us.
Those in heaven are deified by this infinite divine fire, while those in hades have some spiritual obstacle within themselves "closing" the doors of their hearts to this fire. Thus, everywhere in hades there must be some sort of fire - a fire which produces a spiritual torment for those in hades and a spiritual growth and bliss for those in heaven. But be careful: the torments of that fire are not a direct punishment of God - it's the souls that can't stand the heat of God's love because of one's imperfection and sinfullness. This is the same difference between saying that sunlight is unbearable to the eyes and saying that your eyes can't stand sunlight because it's too shining for you.
In conclusion - yes, even those who could spend their afterlife in a different abode in hades whence you 'could' get out MUST be experiencing this consuming fire - but as a softer torment then those in the 'bottomless pit' of hades where the damned 'live' (I know this verb may inappropriate, but can't find a better word in my poor English vocabulary).

In Christ,    Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #743 on: May 14, 2009, 11:11:33 AM »

After the Final Judgement, the Lord's triumphant presence in the whole cosmos will be both joy of the Kingdom and pain of gehenna:
"These [sinners] shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed" (2 Tes 1:9-10).

Now it is similar. God is present both in heaven and in hades ("If I should go up to heaven, you are there; if I should go to down to hades, you are present", Psalm 138,8). Please, notice that Lazarus and the rich man from Luke 16:19-31, although separated by a gulf, are in the very same place (they can see each other) but one is feeling comfort and the other, a consuming fire.
Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #744 on: May 14, 2009, 11:21:14 AM »

Exactly Douglas! Well put. And Papist, this synod seems to be the only hinge on which you say that Orthodoxy holds to the doctrine of purgatory. What have you now sir? Any other quotes? I would love to see some. Dositheos RECANTED his statements. Why would someone do this if it was such a FIRM position to take? As far as this synod proving anything, it doesn't. If you have anything else from the Orthodox perspective, I would be very interested.
Papist? Hello? Anyone?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #745 on: May 14, 2009, 11:57:37 AM »

Exactly Douglas! Well put. And Papist, this synod seems to be the only hinge on which you say that Orthodoxy holds to the doctrine of purgatory. What have you now sir? Any other quotes? I would love to see some. Dositheos RECANTED his statements. Why would someone do this if it was such a FIRM position to take? As far as this synod proving anything, it doesn't. If you have anything else from the Orthodox perspective, I would be very interested.
Papist? Hello? Anyone?
Well that dogmatic council is enough evidence to demonstrate that the EO church once believed in Purgatory. I am not arguing that you believe in it now. Just that it once did. This thread is really getting old and tired. Objective evidence has been provided that your Church once believed in Purgatory (or a concept very similar to purgatory) and that it is that. I don't understand why this debate continues except that maybe some here must be as "un-Roman" as possible in order to justify their faith.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #746 on: May 14, 2009, 12:02:39 PM »

Well that dogmatic council is enough evidence to demonstrate that the EO church once believed in Purgatory. I am not arguing that you believe in it now. Just that it once did. This thread is really getting old and tired. Objective evidence has been provided that your Church once believed in Purgatory (or a concept very similar to purgatory) and that it is that. I don't understand why this debate continues except that maybe some here must be as "un-Roman" as possible in order to justify their faith.
To you maybe. Do you know of any other councils that even remotely suggest that Orthodoxy taught Purgatory? Perhaps you could provide one that wasn't recanted at a later time Papist.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #747 on: May 14, 2009, 12:06:15 PM »

Well that dogmatic council is enough evidence to demonstrate that the EO church once believed in Purgatory. I am not arguing that you believe in it now. Just that it once did. This thread is really getting old and tired. Objective evidence has been provided that your Church once believed in Purgatory (or a concept very similar to purgatory) and that it is that. I don't understand why this debate continues except that maybe some here must be as "un-Roman" as possible in order to justify their faith.
To you maybe. Do you know of any other councils that even remotely suggest that Orthodoxy taught Purgatory? Perhaps you could provide one that wasn't recanted at a later time Papist.
Again, all I am saying is that the council of Jerusalem the EO Church clearly taught the doctrine of Purgatory. I am not saying that they always did teach this nor that they teach it now. All I can see is that the EO Church has changed. That's all. I am sorry if this bothers you but its the clear historical reality. You all can do all the exigetical acrobatics you want to get out of that reality but reality is reality.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #748 on: May 14, 2009, 12:10:35 PM »

Again, all I am saying is that the council of Jerusalem the EO Church clearly taught the doctrine of Purgatory. I am not saying that they always did teach this nor that they teach it now. All I can see is that the EO Church has changed. That's all. I am sorry if this bothers you but its the clear historical reality. You all can do all the exigetical acrobatics you want to get out of that reality but reality is reality.
Again, all I am saying is that you need to provide something more substantial than a RECANTED confession from a LOCAL synod. If you cannot do this, then you are just wasting everyones' time saying that we taught it.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 12:10:52 PM by PoorFoolNicholas » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #749 on: May 14, 2009, 12:11:52 PM »

Again, all I am saying is that the council of Jerusalem the EO Church clearly taught the doctrine of Purgatory. I am not saying that they always did teach this nor that they teach it now. All I can see is that the EO Church has changed. That's all. I am sorry if this bothers you but its the clear historical reality. You all can do all the exigetical acrobatics you want to get out of that reality but reality is reality.
Again, all I am saying is that you need to provide something more substantial than a RECANTED confession from a LOCAL synod. If you cannot do this, then you are just wasting everyones' time saying that we taught it.
Yawn. So the EO church eventual rejected its own teaching. So what does this prove? only that you once believed in purgatory and then rejected it.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #750 on: May 14, 2009, 12:15:06 PM »

Yawn. So the EO church eventual rejected its own teaching. So what does this prove? only that you once believed in purgatory and then rejected it.
Yawn. I waiting, Papist.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #751 on: May 14, 2009, 12:17:05 PM »

Yawn. So the EO church eventual rejected its own teaching. So what does this prove? only that you once believed in purgatory and then rejected it.
Yawn. I waiting, Papist.
I'm waiting as well.  Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #752 on: May 14, 2009, 12:30:12 PM »

Papist, the Eastern Orthodox Church has never changed. All we can say is that a groups of EO hierarchs back in the 17th century was influenced by the Latin theology. That's all. The Council of Jerusalem is not recognised by our Church as ecumenical. The Church did not say universal "yes" to its decisions. And still, when we take the canon of this council regarding the afterlife, only this part seems to be heterodox: "But they are aware of their future release from there". Everything else sounds completetly Orthodox and has always been taught by the Church, up to this day.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #753 on: May 14, 2009, 12:45:17 PM »

Well that dogmatic council is enough evidence to demonstrate that the EO church once believed in Purgatory. I am not arguing that you believe in it now. Just that it once did. This thread is really getting old and tired. Objective evidence has been provided that your Church once believed in Purgatory (or a concept very similar to purgatory) and that it is that. I don't understand why this debate continues except that maybe some here must be as "un-Roman" as possible in order to justify their faith.
To you maybe. Do you know of any other councils that even remotely suggest that Orthodoxy taught Purgatory? Perhaps you could provide one that wasn't recanted at a later time Papist.
Again, all I am saying is that the council of Jerusalem the EO Church clearly taught the doctrine of Purgatory. I am not saying that they always did teach this nor that they teach it now. All I can see is that the EO Church has changed. That's all. I am sorry if this bothers you but its the clear historical reality. You all can do all the exigetical acrobatics you want to get out of that reality but reality is reality.

And the reality is that the Council of Jerusalem, while Pan Orthodox, was never Ecumenical, used Vatican arguments against the Vatican's sibling Calvinism which were later repudiated, OK a catechism which dealt with purgatory but OKd only the Orthodox revised revision...

Btw, what do you do with your Council of Siena, which taught conciliarism but was later branded a heresy?
Quote
It was decreed in the Council of Constance that five years later another council should be called. In fact Martin V summoned it for Pavia, where it was inaugurated on 23 April, 1423. The general session had not yet begun when the pestilence broke out at Pavia, for which reason the transfer of the Council to Siena was decreed. The procedure of the Council was almost identical with that at Constance. Certain formalities of safe conduct issued by the city for the members of the Council were the cause of friction with the pope. On the eighth of November four decrees were published: against the Hussites and the Wyclifites; against those who continued the schism of Benedict XIII; on the postponement of the negotiation with the Greek schismatics, and on greater vigilance against heresy. Gallican proposals of reform were productive of discord with the French. On 19 February, 1424, Basle was selected as the place of the next Council. On 20 February the dissolution of the Council was decreed, but the Decree was not published until 7 March. The French would have preferred to continue the Council until the "reform" of the church "in capite et in membris" (in its head and its members) had been accomplished, but whether to avoid a new schism, or on account of fear of the pope (since Siena was too near the Papal States), they departed. The magistrates of Siena took care not to let anyone depart until he had paid his debts.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13779a.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #754 on: May 14, 2009, 01:17:26 PM »

Papist, the Eastern Orthodox Church has never changed.
This is not easy to believe. For example, I read that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its teaching on contraception. In fact, in an earlier edition of one book, it was said that it was not OK, but in a later edition of the same book, it was approved, under certain circumstances. Similarly,  the teaching of St. Paul on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church. Is it not true that the Orthodox Church has changed its teaching on that point?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #755 on: May 14, 2009, 01:47:14 PM »

Papist, the Eastern Orthodox Church has never changed. All we can say is that a groups of EO hierarchs back in the 17th century was influenced by the Latin theology. That's all. The Council of Jerusalem is not recognised by our Church as ecumenical. The Church did not say universal "yes" to its decisions. And still, when we take the canon of this council regarding the afterlife, only this part seems to be heterodox: "But they are aware of their future release from there". Everything else sounds completetly Orthodox and has always been taught by the Church, up to this day.
So you are saying that it changed?  Grin
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #756 on: May 14, 2009, 01:48:44 PM »


And the reality is that the Council of Jerusalem, while Pan Orthodox, was never Ecumenical, used Vatican arguments against the Vatican's sibling Calvinism which were later repudiated, OK a catechism which dealt with purgatory but OKd only the Orthodox revised revision...

So you are saying it changed?  Grin
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #757 on: May 14, 2009, 02:31:15 PM »

Quote
So you are saying it changed?
No, but I'll answer:

1) Even your st. Peter first Pope changed his mind on circumcision
2) Even your Popes changed their mind on Galileo Galilei
3) Even your Popes changed their mind when they introduced the liturgy in vernacular, previously condemned by the Council of Trent
4) Even your Popes changed their position on ecumenism (introducing the "sister churches" concept)
5) Even your Popes changed their long-standing practices such as baptism by threefold immersion, communion under both species, eucharistic canon prayed ad Orientem...
6) Even your Popes changed their mind on the 8th Ecumenical Council when John VIII signed for "our" Constantinople V anathematizing the Filioque clause

And my brother, the list might go on for ages unto ages.

In Christ,    Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #758 on: May 14, 2009, 02:37:26 PM »

Quote
So you are saying it changed?
No, but I'll answer:

1) Even your st. Peter first Pope changed his mind on circumcision
2) Even your Popes changed their mind on Galileo Galilei
3) Even your Popes changed their mind when they introduced the liturgy in vernacular, previously condemned by the Council of Trent
4) Even your Popes changed their position on ecumenism (introducing the "sister churches" concept)
5) Even your Popes changed their long-standing practices such as baptism by threefold immersion, communion under both species, eucharistic canon prayed ad Orientem...
6) Even your Popes changed their mind on the 8th Ecumenical Council when John VIII signed for "our" Constantinople V anathematizing the Filioque clause

And my brother, the list might go on for ages unto ages.

In Christ,    Alex
So you are saying it changed?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #759 on: May 14, 2009, 02:39:16 PM »


And the reality is that the Council of Jerusalem, while Pan Orthodox, was never Ecumenical, used Vatican arguments against the Vatican's sibling Calvinism which were later repudiated, OK a catechism which dealt with purgatory but OKd only the Orthodox revised revision...

So you are saying it changed?  Grin

Pat.  Diotheos changed his mind.  Our Church doesn't depend on the opinion of one man. Roll Eyes

You haven't addressed your "infallible" pontiffs change on the Council of Siena.

Quote
So you are saying it changed?
No, but I'll answer:

1) Even your st. Peter first Pope changed his mind on circumcision
2) Even your Popes changed their mind on Galileo Galilei
3) Even your Popes changed their mind when they introduced the liturgy in vernacular, previously condemned by the Council of Trent
4) Even your Popes changed their position on ecumenism (introducing the "sister churches" concept)
5) Even your Popes changed their long-standing practices such as baptism by threefold immersion, communion under both species, eucharistic canon prayed ad Orientem...
6) Even your Popes changed their mind on the 8th Ecumenical Council when John VIII signed for "our" Constantinople V anathematizing the Filioque clause

And my brother, the list might go on for ages unto ages.

In Christ,    Alex
So you are saying it changed?

The Vatican, yes.

Btw, on point 3) Trent had changed the decree of Popes Victor and Damasus: they changed the Divine Liturgy to the vernacular-Latin (the DL at Rome prior to that had been in Greek).
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 02:42:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #760 on: May 14, 2009, 02:40:50 PM »

So I am pretty much done with this thread. And I know exactly what all of you will say: "He's done because he can't prove his point. He's running away." Well that is not the real reason. The reasons are
1. It has already been conclusively demonstrated that the EO Church, at one time, taught the doctrine of Purgatory.
2. The EO Church has since changed its teaching on the matter.
3. There are some here who, no matter what, refuse to come to terms with this reality so that it is pointless for me to continue this discussion.
You all have fun.  Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #761 on: May 14, 2009, 02:42:03 PM »


And the reality is that the Council of Jerusalem, while Pan Orthodox, was never Ecumenical, used Vatican arguments against the Vatican's sibling Calvinism which were later repudiated, OK a catechism which dealt with purgatory but OKd only the Orthodox revised revision...

So you are saying it changed?  Grin

Pat.  Diotheos changed his mind.  Our Church doesn't depend on the opinion of one man. Roll Eyes

The EO church changed its mind as Jerusalem was a Panorthodox council. Peace out. If you want to start another thread about Sienna, feel free too. I'll have to research the topic though in order to have a dicucssion about Sienna.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #762 on: May 14, 2009, 02:46:40 PM »

So I am pretty much done with this thread. And I know exactly what all of you will say: "He's done because he can't prove his point. He's running away." Well that is not the real reason. The reasons are
1. It has already been conclusively demonstrated that the EO Church, at one time, taught the doctrine of Purgatory.
2. The EO Church has since changed its teaching on the matter.
3. There are some here who, no matter what, refuse to come to terms with this reality so that it is pointless for me to continue this discussion.
You all have fun.  Smiley

In other words, the echo of your projection of "development of doctrine" onto the Orthodox has caused cognitive dissonance that is deafening, and evidently speachless.

Again, you have based all your claims on a patriarch who retracted his statement at a council the Orthodox never said was infalllible.  Not exactly our council of Siena.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #763 on: May 14, 2009, 03:19:00 PM »

Quote
The EO church changed its mind as Jerusalem was a Panorthodox council. Peace out. If you want to start another thread about Sienna, feel free too. I'll have to research the topic though in order to have a dicucssion about Sienna.

No. But the Orthodox hierarchy temporarily embraced the Latin forgeries so that by Divine Providence, Truth might be revealed and heresy condemned by the laypeople and the hierarchs not present at the council.

Orthodoxy vs Catholicism 1-0! (Just Joking)
I repeat that the Orthodox Church is not made of one man. YOU RC's ascribe your teachings to one man (the Pope) but we as Orthodox ascribe infallible teachings to the Ecumenical Councils. Now, no ecumenical councils have been issued since the Schism of 1054 AD, so no council can provide infallible teaching. Yet, there might be local and even panorthodox councils which are recognized some authority, but no infallibility. And definitely, the Synod of Jerusalem has no minimal value. It was lead by heterodox theologians and even latinizing hierarchs. Most of the concerns of that synod was to anathematize the Calvinist heresies embraced by Lucaris, but it failed in preserving the intact faith of the Church. We have no problem in admitting the existence of "heterodox" and "fallible" councils: are you disposed to do the same with your self-proclaimed infallible Pope?

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #764 on: May 14, 2009, 03:24:11 PM »

Quote
Btw, on point 3) Trent had changed the decree of Popes Victor and Damasus: they changed the Divine Liturgy to the vernacular-Latin (the DL at Rome prior to that had been in Greek).
Sorry for the unforgivable imprecision... Errata Corrige:

3bis) Your Popes double-changed the language from Greek to Latin first and from Latin to the vernacular after Vatican II.

Is this more correct?
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Tags: indulgences purgatory Hell forgiveness after death toll houses apokatastasis 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 »   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 0.166 seconds with 73 queries.