OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 10:40:16 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 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 174668 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #1080 on: March 31, 2010, 06:35:16 PM »



This is so obvious it's not even funny. First they tried to swallow up the Orthodox by violence in the Middle Ages.
You mean like when the Byzantines massacred the Latins who were living in Constantinople???

Was this in reaction to the massacre of Christians in the provinces of southern Italy who were in dioceses belonging to the Patriarch of Constantinople and who were refusing to change to unleavened bread and adopt other latinisations?
Not sure what the reaction was but there is blood on your hands as well as on our so stoping playing this moral superiority nonsense. Such an attitude on your part has no place in reality.

Catholicism has shed an ocean of Orthodox blood, in many countries and in many centuries.

Pope John Paul II graciously asked God to forgive those who have done this in his several "apologies."
No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1081 on: March 31, 2010, 06:44:57 PM »

No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.

The violence within Orthodox history has been sporadic and considered aberrant.  The violence within Roman Catholicism has been consistent throughout history and institutionalised.

But I think we are derailing this thread which so far has been able to stay on topic through all its many 24 pages!!
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 06:47:51 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #1082 on: March 31, 2010, 06:52:02 PM »

No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.

The violence within Orthodox history has been sporadic and considered aberrant.  The violence within Roman Catholicism has been consistent throughout history and institutionalised.

But I think we are derailing this thread which so far has been able to stay on topic through all its many 24 pages!!
So according to your evaluation, your violence is better than our violence?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1083 on: March 31, 2010, 07:08:37 PM »

No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.

The violence within Orthodox history has been sporadic and considered aberrant.  The violence within Roman Catholicism has been consistent throughout history and institutionalised.

But I think we are derailing this thread which so far has been able to stay on topic through all its many 24 pages!!
So according to your evaluation, your violence is better than our violence?

They seem to be of different quality,  Even as recently as Pope Pius IX, not more than 140 years ago, the Pope went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy on his side.   To his bitter disappoinment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.  Ne obliviscamur.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #1084 on: March 31, 2010, 07:14:55 PM »

No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.

The violence within Orthodox history has been sporadic and considered aberrant.  The violence within Roman Catholicism has been consistent throughout history and institutionalised.

But I think we are derailing this thread which so far has been able to stay on topic through all its many 24 pages!!
So according to your evaluation, your violence is better than our violence?

They seem to be of different quality,  Even as recently as Pope Pius IX, not more than 140 years ago, the Pope went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy on his side.   To his bitter disappoinment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.  Ne obliviscamur.

O cool. So you guys are guilty of a higher quality of bloodshed. That's just fantastic.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1085 on: March 31, 2010, 07:32:41 PM »

No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.

The violence within Orthodox history has been sporadic and considered aberrant.  The violence within Roman Catholicism has been consistent throughout history and institutionalised.

But I think we are derailing this thread which so far has been able to stay on topic through all its many 24 pages!!
So according to your evaluation, your violence is better than our violence?

They seem to be of different quality,  Even as recently as Pope Pius IX, not more than 140 years ago, the Pope went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy on his side.   To his bitter disappoinment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.  Ne obliviscamur.

O cool. So you guys are guilty of a higher quality of bloodshed. That's just fantastic.

I'm dropping out of this discussion with you, Papist.  Is there anybody who does not know of the violence and persecution which has chararcterised the Roman Catholic Church?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1086 on: March 31, 2010, 09:34:44 PM »

The Orthodox on the list, who are sometimes suspected of not understanding Roman Catholic teaching, would benefit from a study of the sources:

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia article on Purgatory

The Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur given to this article confirm that this teaching is in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church and may be safely believed and trusted by the faithful.

"That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wisdom 10:2), but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the "land of promise" (Numbers 20:12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 17:3; 3:3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God
."

Quote from: Catholic Catechism
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man
."

Quote from:  The Petrine teaching of Pope Paul VI

"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   "  Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967

So, the Pope says, expiation, fire, torments, purifying punishments.

I looked at this Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI Indulgentiarum Doctrina  and he never says he is playing games or using metaphors.  I think he is being very serious and he expects the Catholic Church to be obedient to his papal magisterium and to take his teaching literally.  He asserts that this teaching must stand until the end of time. Roma locuta est...

« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 09:46:06 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,983


WWW
« Reply #1087 on: March 31, 2010, 09:53:49 PM »

Isn't suffering ultimately the price to pay for Discipleship?  Why isn't that mentioned in Roman Catholic teachings?  Why has Renaissance and Enlightenment thought continue to permeate the Roman Catholic Church to this day and create confusion among the Eastern Catholics (and hybrid entities like the COE/ACOE) who have never bought into the Renaissance/Enlightenment perspective on suffering?

Seems to me that Pope Paul VI came close to saying (but not quite stating) that suffering was the cost of Discipleship in the following from the Indulgentiarum Doctrina cited by Father Ambrose:

Quote
The Apostles themselves, in fact, exhorted their disciples to pray for the salvation of sinners.(23) This very ancient usage of the Church has blessedly persevered,(24) particularly in the practice of penitents invoking the intercession of the entire commu-nity, (25) and when the dead are assisted with suffrages, particularly through the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.(26) Good works, particularly those which human frailty finds difficult, were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners from the Church's most ancient times.(27) And since the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for the law of God were considered of great value, penitents used to turn to the martyrs, to be helped by their merits to obtain from the bishops a more speedy reconciliation.(28) Indeed the prayer and good works of the upright were considered to be of so great value that it could be asserted the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people.(29)

The question in my mind is where is the gap between the extreme emphasis on suffering and the prayers and good works of the community to heal those who are suffering?   Huh
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1088 on: March 31, 2010, 10:08:04 PM »

No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.

The violence within Orthodox history has been sporadic and considered aberrant.  The violence within Roman Catholicism has been consistent throughout history and institutionalised.

But I think we are derailing this thread which so far has been able to stay on topic through all its many 24 pages!!
So according to your evaluation, your violence is better than our violence?

One key difference is that we don't make butchers (e.g. Josaphat Kuntsevich) into saints.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #1089 on: March 31, 2010, 11:13:03 PM »


But within the context of its relationship through the centuries with the Orthodox Church, Catholicism has brought us only sorrow, destruction and aggression.  It has proven to be as much an enemy of the Church of Christ as the Muslims and the Communists.  Has it repented?  Has it reformed? Has it been able to assume an entirely different mindset?  We really do not know.

Now we come to it ... at last.  Finally, Fr Ambrose, you reveal your deepest belief and fear.  Here is the meta-narrative that underlies and determines all of your arguments and all of your polemic; here is the deep conviction that explains why you seek out opportunities to attack the Catholic Church and misrepresent its teaching: the Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ, the great Satan, "as much an enemy of the Church of Christ as the Muslims and the Communists," utterly and relentlessly committed to extinguishing the gospel and obliterating the faithful.  

Once such a powerful meta-narrative has been embraced, no counter-evidence will prevail and all expressions of contrition will be judged inadequate.  It is a terrible and dangerous thing to name another as enemy.  How hard it is to love one's enemy.  How hard it is to love when one is surrounded by enemies.  

May God have mercy upon us, poor sinners that we are.  
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1090 on: April 01, 2010, 12:28:23 AM »

... I have many Catholic friends who are priests, school principals, religious and laypeople, and even a hermitess....  We visit one another and share meals.  I was even teamed up with a Roman Catholic nun for about 8 years, taking care of street people and solvent abusers.  I am well able to appreciate the good that is in them and the good that is in their Church. 
That is nice to hear.
Perhaps with more harmonious  interChuirch (Orthodox - Catholic) contacts, charitable projects, and worthwhile joint activities, as members of each Church become more familiar with one another,  we can justifiably look forward to the future with a hope  for better and more charitable relations between the two Churches.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 12:29:26 AM by stanley123 » Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1091 on: April 01, 2010, 12:41:22 AM »

Now we come to it ... at last.  Finally, Fr Ambrose, you reveal your deepest belief and fear.  Here is the meta-narrative that underlies and determines all of your arguments and all of your polemic; here is the deep conviction that explains why you seek out opportunities to attack the Catholic Church and misrepresent its teaching: the Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ, the great Satan, "as much an enemy of the Church of Christ as the Muslims and the Communists," utterly and relentlessly committed to extinguishing the gospel and obliterating the faithful. 

Once such a powerful meta-narrative has been embraced, no counter-evidence will prevail and all expressions of contrition will be judged inadequate.  It is a terrible and dangerous thing to name another as enemy.  How hard it is to love one's enemy.  How hard it is to love when one is surrounded by enemies. 

May God have mercy upon us, poor sinners that we are. 

Compare the above post with this following:

That is nice to hear.
Perhaps with more harmonious  interChurch (Orthodox - Catholic) contacts, charitable projects, and worthwhile joint activities, as members of each Church become more familiar with one another,  we can justifiably look forward to the future with a hope  for better and more charitable relations between the two Churches.

The first is from an RC priest, the second from an RC layman. If it were the other way around, I would not be anywhere near as concerned.  Sad
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #1092 on: April 01, 2010, 12:55:23 AM »

No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.

There's quite a difference between totally sanctioned and justified violence and something brief and unfortunate.  You've expressed yourself an agreement with killing certain heretics even today, using the logic that it is far worse to let one man endanger the souls of many at the cost of his one life. There is certainly some difference in perspective here.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1093 on: April 01, 2010, 01:14:15 AM »

[
Now we come to it ... at last.  Finally, Fr Ambrose, you reveal your deepest belief and fear.  Here is the meta-narrative that underlies and determines all of your arguments and all of your polemic;


Hardly "at last,"  dear Father.  It must be about 3 years ago when I first posted Metropolitan Anthony Bloom's assessment of the relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.  It was first posted to either Lubetri or Papist.

You must also remember that I have lived in Yugoslavia and witnessed the sad results of the work of the Ustashe and Franciscan friars during WWII - a mound near the monastery in Kraljevo where 5,000 students (!) were buried after their brutal killing by knife and axe (not even the mercy of a quick bullet), a nun not quite right in the head after seeing her pregnant mother disemboweled, church after church and monastery after monastery with priceless centuries old frescoes destroyed.  These things do colour one's perception of another religious philosophy, I do not deny it.  

Quote from: The Meta-narrative of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London
"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


But the deep fear of institutionalised Catholicism does not take away from the genuine friendships with individual Catholics no more than the fear of institutionalised and jihadic Islam prevents friendships with individual Muslims.

I think that the bottom line is that despite the calls for "healing of memories" the Orthodox in many countries will always be a little traumatised by their historical encounters with the people of Catholicism.  This ancient residual fear of Catholicism is a factor in the ecumenical dialogue as much as any theological or ecclesiological concerns.   It cannot be suppressed.  It must be brought into the open and examined.



« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 01:28:21 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #1094 on: April 01, 2010, 10:00:30 AM »

No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.

The violence within Orthodox history has been sporadic and considered aberrant.  The violence within Roman Catholicism has been consistent throughout history and institutionalised.

But I think we are derailing this thread which so far has been able to stay on topic through all its many 24 pages!!
So according to your evaluation, your violence is better than our violence?

They seem to be of different quality,  Even as recently as Pope Pius IX, not more than 140 years ago, the Pope went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy on his side.   To his bitter disappoinment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.  Ne obliviscamur.

O cool. So you guys are guilty of a higher quality of bloodshed. That's just fantastic.

I'm dropping out of this discussion with you, Papist.  Is there anybody who does not know of the violence and persecution which has chararcterised the Roman Catholic Church?
You are just are not good at this. Your Church has blood on its hands too and for you to pretend that you are some how morally superior is just nonsense.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1095 on: April 01, 2010, 10:00:55 AM »

You must also remember that I have lived in Yugoslavia and witnessed the sad results of the work of the Ustashe and Franciscan friars during WWII - a mound near the monastery in Kraljevo where 5,000 students (!) were buried after their brutal killing by knife and axe (not even the mercy of a quick bullet), a nun not quite right in the head after seeing her pregnant mother disemboweled, church after church and monastery after monastery with priceless centuries old frescoes destroyed.

And Aloysius Stepinac was beatified by Pope John Paul II.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #1096 on: April 01, 2010, 10:02:24 AM »



The first is from an RC priest, the second from an RC layman. If it were the other way around, I would not be anywhere near as concerned.  Sad
Why are you concerned? The priest is being realistic about Fr. Ambrose.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #1097 on: April 01, 2010, 10:03:12 AM »

No violence in Eastern Orthodox history? If there is then you should stop being such a hypocrite.

There's quite a difference between totally sanctioned and justified violence and something brief and unfortunate.  You've expressed yourself an agreement with killing certain heretics even today, using the logic that it is far worse to let one man endanger the souls of many at the cost of his one life. There is certainly some difference in perspective here.
And your Church has never done anything like this? Bologna! There are forced conversions and violence in your past as well.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #1098 on: April 01, 2010, 10:04:17 AM »

[
Now we come to it ... at last.  Finally, Fr Ambrose, you reveal your deepest belief and fear.  Here is the meta-narrative that underlies and determines all of your arguments and all of your polemic;


Hardly "at last,"  dear Father.  It must be about 3 years ago when I first posted Metropolitan Anthony Bloom's assessment of the relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.  It was first posted to either Lubetri or Papist.

You must also remember that I have lived in Yugoslavia and witnessed the sad results of the work of the Ustashe and Franciscan friars during WWII - a mound near the monastery in Kraljevo where 5,000 students (!) were buried after their brutal killing by knife and axe (not even the mercy of a quick bullet), a nun not quite right in the head after seeing her pregnant mother disemboweled, church after church and monastery after monastery with priceless centuries old frescoes destroyed.  These things do colour one's perception of another religious philosophy, I do not deny it.  

Quote from: The Meta-narrative of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London
"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


But the deep fear of institutionalised Catholicism does not take away from the genuine friendships with individual Catholics no more than the fear of institutionalised and jihadic Islam prevents friendships with individual Muslims.

I think that the bottom line is that despite the calls for "healing of memories" the Orthodox in many countries will always be a little traumatised by their historical encounters with the people of Catholicism.  This ancient residual fear of Catholicism is a factor in the ecumenical dialogue as much as any theological or ecclesiological concerns.   It cannot be suppressed.  It must be brought into the open and examined.




Ok, then I am gonna continue to be traumatized by the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #1099 on: April 01, 2010, 10:30:43 AM »

I am sure I am going to take heat for this, but I somewhat agree with Papist. No one's blood is more excusable, even if the West has committed incomparably greater organized atrocities. "You did it too" is not a rebuttal, and "You did it more" is not either. The only Christian weapon is the Cross, the Weapon of Peace. So we should drop this aspect of the discussion immediately, which I am responsible for starting with my comments about the fourth crusade. I would like to point out that the sack of Constantinople was more an act of a renegade army than something carefully planned, and would not have happened without betrayal from within the Roman (byzantine) imperial family.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 10:32:22 AM by Rufus » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #1100 on: April 01, 2010, 12:49:47 PM »

I would like to point out that the sack of Constantinople was more an act of a renegade army than something carefully planned, and would not have happened without betrayal from within the Roman (byzantine) imperial family.

Still, it didn't stop Venice from enjoying the spoils.

Just as a tip, if you want to stop discussing something then it's best not to introduce new information to discuss. Tongue
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 12:51:00 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1101 on: April 01, 2010, 07:57:09 PM »

I am sure I am going to take heat for this, but I somewhat agree with Papist. No one's blood is more excusable, even if the West has committed incomparably greater organized atrocities. "You did it too" is not a rebuttal, and "You did it more" is not either.

I never said any of that, Rufus.   Papist took what I said and twisted it.

I pointed out the connection between the anti-Italian riots in Constantinople and the persecution and repression of the Byzantine rite and dioceses in southern Italy.  Thanks to the bias of Western history not many people are aware of the connnection.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1102 on: April 01, 2010, 09:25:21 PM »

 

Quote
Quote from: The Meta-narrative of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


But the deep fear of institutionalised Catholicism does not take away from the genuine friendships with individual Catholics no more than the fear of institutionalised and jihadic Islam prevents friendships with individual Muslims.

I think that the bottom line is that despite the calls for "healing of memories" the Orthodox in many countries will always be a little traumatised by their historical encounters with the people of Catholicism.  This ancient residual fear of Catholicism is a factor in the ecumenical dialogue as much as any theological or ecclesiological concerns.   It cannot be suppressed.  It must be brought into the open and examined.

Ok, then I am gonna continue to be traumatized by the massacre of the Latins in ConstantinopleRoll Eyes

It is a good thing that you are now speaking openly of what has traumatised you in your relationship with the Eastern Church. The healing of memories was a prominent theme in the preaching of Pope John Paul II.  I am sure that there must be groups and programmes in your diocese to help you heal the trauma.
Logged
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #1103 on: April 10, 2010, 06:14:19 PM »

I think that these indulgences and good works of ours on earth,  can be applied to some extent to lessen the punishment of those souls already in Purgatory.
For me, it seems like Purgatory is very reasonable and makes a lot of sense. Here's why for example: Suppose that an individual commits some terrible and horrific crimes, causing enormous pain and sorrow to many families, but the day before he is executed, he repents and goes to confession. Now, should that person go directly to heaven, or should he still be required to serve a certain punishment for all the harm he has done on earth.

Plus the damage these sins did to him would still be extant. As CS Lewis said, he would need to wash his mouth out before entering Paradise.



more forest blindness on account of trees from Catholics. this exact circumstance happened with the thieif on the cross and Christ assured him he would be in paradise. end of story. no need to write up reams and reams of sensible sounding theology only to end up in complete contradiction with our Lord.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #1104 on: April 10, 2010, 07:57:58 PM »

I think that these indulgences and good works of ours on earth,  can be applied to some extent to lessen the punishment of those souls already in Purgatory.
For me, it seems like Purgatory is very reasonable and makes a lot of sense. Here's why for example: Suppose that an individual commits some terrible and horrific crimes, causing enormous pain and sorrow to many families, but the day before he is executed, he repents and goes to confession. Now, should that person go directly to heaven, or should he still be required to serve a certain punishment for all the harm he has done on earth.

Plus the damage these sins did to him would still be extant. As CS Lewis said, he would need to wash his mouth out before entering Paradise.



more forest blindness on account of trees from Catholics. this exact circumstance happened with the thieif on the cross and Christ assured him he would be in paradise. end of story. no need to write up reams and reams of sensible sounding theology only to end up in complete contradiction with our Lord.

Bingo. I think the reason Luke (?) chose to tell us of the thief on the cross is that it just shows how there are no strings attached to salvation--he repented, he saw his own evil, and he saw Jesus' own goodness. And immediately he dwelled in paradise within his heart.

No purgatory.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 07:59:22 PM by Rufus » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1105 on: April 10, 2010, 09:00:00 PM »

I think that these indulgences and good works of ours on earth,  can be applied to some extent to lessen the punishment of those souls already in Purgatory.
For me, it seems like Purgatory is very reasonable and makes a lot of sense. Here's why for example: Suppose that an individual commits some terrible and horrific crimes, causing enormous pain and sorrow to many families, but the day before he is executed, he repents and goes to confession. Now, should that person go directly to heaven, or should he still be required to serve a certain punishment for all the harm he has done on earth.

Plus the damage these sins did to him would still be extant. As CS Lewis said, he would need to wash his mouth out before entering Paradise.



more forest blindness on account of trees from Catholics. this exact circumstance happened with the thieif on the cross and Christ assured him he would be in paradise. end of story. no need to write up reams and reams of sensible sounding theology only to end up in complete contradiction with our Lord.

Bingo. I think the reason Luke (?) chose to tell us of the thief on the cross is that it just shows how there are no strings attached to salvation--he repented, he saw his own evil, and he saw Jesus' own goodness. And immediately he dwelled in paradise within his heart.

No purgatory.
I don't see it as saying immediately. It says this day, not immediately. Anyway, I don't see this as a clear proof that there is no purgatory.
For example, one possibility (and there are a whole lot of other explanations) is that Jesus granted the good thief on the cross a plenary indulgence because of his contrition and because he had already endured a crucifixion.
Another explanation is that the good thief endured a temproary stay in purgatory, but at the end of the day, (this day)  he was in paradise.
Even if you reject these explanations, and you say that the thief did go directly into heaven, it still does not prove that there is no purgatory for everyone else. 
Logged
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #1106 on: April 11, 2010, 01:28:14 AM »

why torture the text to come to a different meaning other than the plain meaning? is it because your desire to apologize for complexities of Roman doctrine is more important than, say, accepting Christ's words at face value? i can imagine the conversation between the theif and Christ later on, while Christ launches into a long explanation of how he "didn't actually say 'immediately'" and then spent a few hours lecturing on the finer points of general vs. temporal sin and Catholic theology. the whole thing ends when Christ points him down the hallway, which has a door at the end labeled "Purgatory". I'm sure the thief still felt grateful for the opportunity to be scourged, notwithstanding his participation in arguably the most moving episode in all of Scripture.

Come on now. oh, and there is no reason (other than RC dogma developed hundreds of years later) to think the thief wouldn't be treated the same as everyone. your notion that there is a different set of rules for the thief is counter to Christ's message. i highly doubt one of His final expression and teaching on salvation while on earth was an exception to the rule that hadn't been dreamed up yet.

This is the tail (RC dogma) wagging the dog (the plain language and actions of Christ).

I think that these indulgences and good works of ours on earth,  can be applied to some extent to lessen the punishment of those souls already in Purgatory.
For me, it seems like Purgatory is very reasonable and makes a lot of sense. Here's why for example: Suppose that an individual commits some terrible and horrific crimes, causing enormous pain and sorrow to many families, but the day before he is executed, he repents and goes to confession. Now, should that person go directly to heaven, or should he still be required to serve a certain punishment for all the harm he has done on earth.

Plus the damage these sins did to him would still be extant. As CS Lewis said, he would need to wash his mouth out before entering Paradise.



more forest blindness on account of trees from Catholics. this exact circumstance happened with the thieif on the cross and Christ assured him he would be in paradise. end of story. no need to write up reams and reams of sensible sounding theology only to end up in complete contradiction with our Lord.

Bingo. I think the reason Luke (?) chose to tell us of the thief on the cross is that it just shows how there are no strings attached to salvation--he repented, he saw his own evil, and he saw Jesus' own goodness. And immediately he dwelled in paradise within his heart.

No purgatory.
I don't see it as saying immediately. It says this day, not immediately. Anyway, I don't see this as a clear proof that there is no purgatory.
For example, one possibility (and there are a whole lot of other explanations) is that Jesus granted the good thief on the cross a plenary indulgence because of his contrition and because he had already endured a crucifixion.
Another explanation is that the good thief endured a temproary stay in purgatory, but at the end of the day, (this day)  he was in paradise.
Even if you reject these explanations, and you say that the thief did go directly into heaven, it still does not prove that there is no purgatory for everyone else. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1107 on: April 11, 2010, 03:19:28 AM »

why torture the text to come to a different meaning other than the plain meaning? is it because your desire to apologize for complexities of Roman doctrine is more important than, say, accepting Christ's words at face value? i can imagine the conversation between the theif and Christ later on, while Christ launches into a long explanation of how he "didn't actually say 'immediately'" and then spent a few hours lecturing on the finer points of general vs. temporal sin and Catholic theology. the whole thing ends when Christ points him down the hallway, which has a door at the end labeled "Purgatory". I'm sure the thief still felt grateful for the opportunity to be scourged, notwithstanding his participation in arguably the most moving episode in all of Scripture.

Come on now. oh, and there is no reason (other than RC dogma developed hundreds of years later) to think the thief wouldn't be treated the same as everyone. your notion that there is a different set of rules for the thief is counter to Christ's message. i highly doubt one of His final expression and teaching on salvation while on earth was an exception to the rule that hadn't been dreamed up yet.

Yeah. I can see your argument. Still, I don;t think it proves that there is no purgatory. Catholics have what is called a plenary indulgence which remits all of the temporal punishment due to sin and there is no reason why Our Lord would not have given the good thief total forgiveness and a plenary indulgence.
Also, there is a small point concerning the phrase this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. It doesn't exactly say immediately and you won't go to Purgatory first for a purification.  If I say that this day I shall be attending vespers at an Eastern Orthodox Church, it does not necessarily  rule out the possiblity that I would attend a Catholic Mass before that.
The good thief suffered a lot on his cross and he expressed sorrow for his sins. So he may very well have been taken directly into heaven without going into purgatory first.
Generally, I think that purgatory makes a lot of sense. If you have some lesser sins, then purgatory is where the puriification from those sins will take place before you enter into heaven.
To say that you will go to hell for these lesser sins doesn't seem right to me as it would involve eternal punishment.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #1108 on: April 11, 2010, 11:08:43 AM »

why torture the text to come to a different meaning other than the plain meaning? is it because your desire to apologize for complexities of Roman doctrine is more important than, say, accepting Christ's words at face value? i can imagine the conversation between the theif and Christ later on, while Christ launches into a long explanation of how he "didn't actually say 'immediately'" and then spent a few hours lecturing on the finer points of general vs. temporal sin and Catholic theology. the whole thing ends when Christ points him down the hallway, which has a door at the end labeled "Purgatory". I'm sure the thief still felt grateful for the opportunity to be scourged, notwithstanding his participation in arguably the most moving episode in all of Scripture.

Come on now. oh, and there is no reason (other than RC dogma developed hundreds of years later) to think the thief wouldn't be treated the same as everyone. your notion that there is a different set of rules for the thief is counter to Christ's message. i highly doubt one of His final expression and teaching on salvation while on earth was an exception to the rule that hadn't been dreamed up yet.

Yeah. I can see your argument. Still, I don;t think it proves that there is no purgatory. Catholics have what is called a plenary indulgence which remits all of the temporal punishment due to sin and there is no reason why Our Lord would not have given the good thief total forgiveness and a plenary indulgence.
Also, there is a small point concerning the phrase this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. It doesn't exactly say immediately and you won't go to Purgatory first for a purification.  If I say that this day I shall be attending vespers at an Eastern Orthodox Church, it does not necessarily  rule out the possiblity that I would attend a Catholic Mass before that.
The good thief suffered a lot on his cross and he expressed sorrow for his sins. So he may very well have been taken directly into heaven without going into purgatory first.
Generally, I think that purgatory makes a lot of sense. If you have some lesser sins, then purgatory is where the puriification from those sins will take place before you enter into heaven.
To say that you will go to hell for these lesser sins doesn't seem right to me as it would involve eternal punishment.

Here is an icon of Christ leading the repentant Thief into paradise:

http://english.op.org/uploaded_images/5part-icon-Dismas-798538.jpg

Here the Thief has replaced the Seraphim as the gatekeeper of Paradise

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3527/3176233760_978ac067d6.jpg?v=0


In the service for Great and Holy Friday we sing (and have sung I should say for a while) "In one moment You did graciously grant Paradise to the Wise Thief, O Lord!  Illumine me also by the wood of Your Cross and save me!"

At every DL, and at the Hours of Pascha we proclaim:

"In the Tomb with the Body,
In Hell with the soul,
In the Spirit as God,
with the Thief in Paradise
on the Throne with the Father and the Spirit,
were You, O Christ!
Filling all things,
Yourself alone uncircumscribed!"

That doesn't leave much, really any, room for "purgatory."  And we have been saying these words and seeing these images long before purgatory was dreamt up.
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
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #1109 on: April 11, 2010, 02:00:25 PM »

Well I understand what you are saying, but it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree here, because I honestly can't see the merit in your argument. It seems obvious that you are trying to reconcile scripture with dogma, as if the RC teaching on plenary indulgences and purgatory is a higher truth than Christ's words, and that we have to massage and interpret Christ words and actions in light of a doctrine that was dreamed up later, rather than the reverse (measuring dogma and doctrine against Christ's acts/words).

I also don't understand the idea that we have to go work off our sins (temporal or otherwise). It seems pretty clear throughout the Gospels that Christ's focus is on this Earth and that His mercy, grace and the salvation that comes along with accepting His teachings and changing your life are complete. If there were this whole other level of VERY significant purging and scourging, it seems like it would've been clearly laid out in Scripture. Instead, there are a handful of questionable references to fire, etc. which are far from clearly in their suggestion of a purgatory.

Note also that a belief in the existence and necessity of purgatory (for the thief or anyone else that receives salvation) necessarily requires that the guarantee of salvation we are given by Christ is INADEQUATE to fully cleanse us of sin...something more is needed for salvation to be complete.  That's not at all what I get from Scripture or the Fathers.

The reality is (and I'm not trying to be derogatory or polemical towards you or the RC here) that indulgences and the creation of a place where you have to go to finalize or fully vest your salvation are driven by economics and the RC's hunger (institutionally) for money and donations. On some level you have to see that - it couldn't be clearer.

why torture the text to come to a different meaning other than the plain meaning? is it because your desire to apologize for complexities of Roman doctrine is more important than, say, accepting Christ's words at face value? i can imagine the conversation between the theif and Christ later on, while Christ launches into a long explanation of how he "didn't actually say 'immediately'" and then spent a few hours lecturing on the finer points of general vs. temporal sin and Catholic theology. the whole thing ends when Christ points him down the hallway, which has a door at the end labeled "Purgatory". I'm sure the thief still felt grateful for the opportunity to be scourged, notwithstanding his participation in arguably the most moving episode in all of Scripture.

Come on now. oh, and there is no reason (other than RC dogma developed hundreds of years later) to think the thief wouldn't be treated the same as everyone. your notion that there is a different set of rules for the thief is counter to Christ's message. i highly doubt one of His final expression and teaching on salvation while on earth was an exception to the rule that hadn't been dreamed up yet.

Yeah. I can see your argument. Still, I don;t think it proves that there is no purgatory. Catholics have what is called a plenary indulgence which remits all of the temporal punishment due to sin and there is no reason why Our Lord would not have given the good thief total forgiveness and a plenary indulgence.
Also, there is a small point concerning the phrase this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. It doesn't exactly say immediately and you won't go to Purgatory first for a purification.  If I say that this day I shall be attending vespers at an Eastern Orthodox Church, it does not necessarily  rule out the possiblity that I would attend a Catholic Mass before that.
The good thief suffered a lot on his cross and he expressed sorrow for his sins. So he may very well have been taken directly into heaven without going into purgatory first.
Generally, I think that purgatory makes a lot of sense. If you have some lesser sins, then purgatory is where the puriification from those sins will take place before you enter into heaven.
To say that you will go to hell for these lesser sins doesn't seem right to me as it would involve eternal punishment.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #1110 on: April 11, 2010, 04:48:07 PM »

So I think we've pretty much established that the tail is wagging the dog here. I have a question for Roman Catholics:

You have asserted that one cannot disprove purgatory from Scripture. I would like to pose the question: is there any Scriptural  evidence for purgatory? Patristic evidece? Also, how far back can you historically trace an unambiguous teaching about purgatory?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1111 on: April 11, 2010, 06:09:55 PM »

So I think we've pretty much established that the tail is wagging the dog here. I have a question for Roman Catholics:

You have asserted that one cannot disprove purgatory from Scripture. I would like to pose the question: is there any Scriptural  evidence for purgatory? Patristic evidece? Also, how far back can you historically trace an unambiguous teaching about purgatory?

I would guess that all of this has been hashed over before?
Here is a link to:
Biblical Evidence for Purgatory: 25 Bible Passages
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/02/biblical-evidence-for-purgatory.html
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1112 on: April 11, 2010, 06:11:54 PM »

So I think we've pretty much established that the tail is wagging the dog here. I have a question for Roman Catholics:

You have asserted that one cannot disprove purgatory from Scripture. I would like to pose the question: is there any Scriptural  evidence for purgatory? Patristic evidece? Also, how far back can you historically trace an unambiguous teaching about purgatory?

A link to the early Church Fathers on Purgatory:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1776418/posts
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1113 on: April 11, 2010, 07:42:41 PM »

This may have been covered earlier in the thread, but may I ask this:

If Purgatory is required for the "purification" of sins, then of what value is the (RC) sacrament of absolution? Following confession, are one's sins forgiven and removed at the pronouncement of absolution, or not? There can only be two answers: Yes, they are, or, no, they are not. One answer would negate the notion of purgatory, the other would make a mockery of absolution.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #1114 on: April 11, 2010, 08:08:32 PM »

So I think we've pretty much established that the tail is wagging the dog here. I have a question for Roman Catholics:

You have asserted that one cannot disprove purgatory from Scripture. I would like to pose the question: is there any Scriptural  evidence for purgatory? Patristic evidece? Also, how far back can you historically trace an unambiguous teaching about purgatory?

A link to the early Church Fathers on Purgatory:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1776418/posts

It was widely believed among the Fathers that the soul after death would undergo further purification from sin, and could be helped by the prayers of the living. This is why Orthodox Christians pray for the dead. We also acknowledge that suffering can be a very purifying experience. This is not the same as saying that suffering automatically causes sins to be forgiven.

Notice that only four authors you cited actually speak of purgation from sins as temporal punisment, as unerstood within te RCC: Clement of Alexandria, his pupil Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine. Three of these writers had a very, very heavy gnostic influence, and, since the gnostics denied the bodily resurrection, they often reierpreted the torments of the Last Judgment as punishments in the intermediate state. The idea of the departed soul going through trials and torments in order to become fit to enter heaven is found in Babylonian, Egyptian, and Chinese cosmology. It is nowhere to be found in Judaism or Christianity.

The one non-gnostic author out of the four was Tertullian, who was so burdened down in legalism and arrogance towards less strict Christians that he eventually left the Church o join the untra-ascetic Montanist sect. I am not surprised that his view of the soul's fate after death was also determined by legalisms.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #1115 on: April 11, 2010, 08:47:10 PM »

So I think we've pretty much established that the tail is wagging the dog here. I have a question for Roman Catholics:

You have asserted that one cannot disprove purgatory from Scripture. I would like to pose the question: is there any Scriptural  evidence for purgatory? Patristic evidece? Also, how far back can you historically trace an unambiguous teaching about purgatory?

I would guess that all of this has been hashed over before?
Here is a link to:
Biblical Evidence for Purgatory: 25 Bible Passages
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/02/biblical-evidence-for-purgatory.html

This website is a polemic defending against protestants, so many of the quotes are ones whose interpretation we could both agree on. Other verses given here could be interpreted either way by Orthodox or RC theologians. Most of them are irrelevant, because they are not talking about the state of the departed souls. The apologists who compiled these quotes are doing the exact same thing that our RC posters were doing earlier: showing that purgatory is possible, but not giving a persuasive argument for its existence.

There are only two passages here that I think are worth mentioning. Both are the most frequently quoted verses in defense of purgatory. One is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It indicates that the dead are in some form of torment or bliss, but nowhere do we get the notion that the rich man is being temporarily punished for his venial sins.

The other passage is 1Cor 3:10-15, which, if you read the whole chapter, is talking about a purgation after the general resurrection, not in the intermediate state. These verses, too, do nothing to substantiate the belief that venial sins must be punished to satisfy divine justice. What they do substantiate is that the All-Consuming Fire will burn away one's iniquities after the resurrection--and that is all that it states.

So I still have yet to see that the souls in the intermediate state are undergoing temporary torture for their venial sins.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 08:57:04 PM by Rufus » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1116 on: April 11, 2010, 09:01:05 PM »

This may have been covered earlier in the thread, but may I ask this:

If Purgatory is required for the "purification" of sins, then of what value is the (RC) sacrament of absolution? Following confession, are one's sins forgiven and removed at the pronouncement of absolution, or not? There can only be two answers: Yes, they are, or, no, they are not. One answer would negate the notion of purgatory, the other would make a mockery of absolution.
I know you don't agree with this, but anyway, according to Roman Catholic belief, purgatory is a process of purification according to which souls which are in the state of grace, but imperfectly purified,  are completely purified so that they may enter into heaven. Some souls are not sufficiently free from sin to enter into heaven right away.  For example, there are some lesser sins which although they constitute a moral disorder, still, they would not send us into the eternal damnation of hell.
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1117 on: April 11, 2010, 11:01:02 PM »

This may have been covered earlier in the thread, but may I ask this:

If Purgatory is required for the "purification" of sins, then of what value is the (RC) sacrament of absolution? Following confession, are one's sins forgiven and removed at the pronouncement of absolution, or not? There can only be two answers: Yes, they are, or, no, they are not. One answer would negate the notion of purgatory, the other would make a mockery of absolution.
I know you don't agree with this, but anyway, according to Roman Catholic belief, purgatory is a process of purification according to which souls which are in the state of grace, but imperfectly purified,  are completely purified so that they may enter into heaven. Some souls are not sufficiently free from sin to enter into heaven right away.  For example, there are some lesser sins which although they constitute a moral disorder, still, they would not send us into the eternal damnation of hell.

Your answer is still not answering my question: Does RC absolution result in the forgiveness of sin and their removal from one's "copybook", or does it not?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #1118 on: April 11, 2010, 11:10:47 PM »

So I think we've pretty much established that the tail is wagging the dog here. I have a question for Roman Catholics:

You have asserted that one cannot disprove purgatory from Scripture. I would like to pose the question: is there any Scriptural  evidence for purgatory? Patristic evidece? Also, how far back can you historically trace an unambiguous teaching about purgatory?

I would guess that all of this has been hashed over before?
Here is a link to:
Biblical Evidence for Purgatory: 25 Bible Passages
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/02/biblical-evidence-for-purgatory.html

I knew this would come up:
Quote
2 Maccabees 12:39-42,44-45 . . . Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen . . . Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear . . . So they all . . . turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out . . . For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
The Jews offered atonement and prayer for their deceased brethren, who had clearly violated Mosaic Law. Such a practice presupposes purgatory, since those in heaven wouldn't need any help, and those in hell are beyond it. The Jewish people, therefore, believed in prayer for the dead (whether or not this book is scriptural -- Protestants deny that it is). Jesus Christ did not correct this belief, as He surely would have done if it were erroneous (see Matthew 5:22,25-26, 12:32, Luke 12:58-59, 16:9,19-31 below). When our Lord and Savior talks about the afterlife, He never denies the fact that there is a third state, and the overall evidence of His utterances in this regard strongly indicates that He accepted the existence of purgatory.

We, like the Apostles, have Maccabbees II in our Bible. And we, like the Apostles, have prayers for the departed.  And we, like the Apostles, do NOT presuppose purgatory.

This is just strange, the product of an overworked mind:
Quote
We know from Scripture that a few Old Testament saints went to heaven before Christ went to Sheol and led (presumably) the majority of the pre-Christian righteous there (Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:19-20). Elijah went straight to heaven by a whirlwind, as we are informed in 2 Kings 2:11. It is also generally thought by all sides that Enoch went directly to heaven as well (Genesis 5:24). Moses came with Elijah to the Mount of Transfiguration to talk with Jesus (Matthew 17:1-3, Mark 9:4, Luke 9:30-31). By implication, then, it could be held that he, too, had been in heaven, and by further logical inference, other Old Testament saintly figures.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 11:12:35 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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1119 on: April 12, 2010, 01:38:25 AM »

Your answer is still not answering my question: Does RC absolution result in the forgiveness of sin and their removal from one's "copybook", or does it not?
Here's my understanding of the RC teaching in this regard:
The sin is forgiven. However, even after the sin has been forgiven, there may remain a temporal punishment due to sin which can be remitted by penitential works such as fasting, almsgiving, prayer, works of charity in this world, or by purification in purgatory in the next. Take for example an individual who has killed his wife and children. He then realises that he will go to hell so he confesses out of fear that he will go to hell otherwise. His sin is forgiven, but according to Catholic beleif, God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin, so that person may not go directly into paradise. According to Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
"The fire will assay the quality of everyone's work; if his work abides which he has built thereon, he will receive reward; if his work burns he will lose his reward, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (I Corinthians 3:13-15).

With your kind permission and understanding, let me ask a bit about the Orthodox teaching on the following. Suppose that a man were to burn your house down. He then goes to confession and his sin is forgiven. Yes, Jesus paid for our sins, but will He pay to rebuild your house? Or will the sinner have to repay this debt, even after his sin has been forgiven in confession?
Anyway, the RC teaching is something like that. Obviously, this is an analogy.
Here is a link to an article on indulgences:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1120 on: April 12, 2010, 01:54:44 AM »

Quote
The sin is forgiven. However, even after the sin has been forgiven, there may remain a temporal punishment due to sin which can be remitted by penitential works such as fasting, almsgiving, prayer, works of charity in this world, or by purification in purgatory in the next.


Quote
His sin is forgiven, but according to Catholic belief, God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin,


Still doesn't answer the question of are confessed sins forgiven and removed from the spiritual record after absolution? And what of this: As far as the east is from the west, so far has He taken our sins from us. (Ps. 102/103) Do indulgences and purgatory override the words of the psalm and the words and actions of your sacrament of absolution? Seems these "doctrinal developments" do. Your church has unfortunately painted itself into a semantic corner over the remission of sins, in the guise of the notion of purgatory (oh, your sins aren't quite forgiven, even after confession and absolution), and, worse, indulgences, the "get out of jail free" card. The most unbelievable aspect of all this is the twisting of Christ's words to the "good thief" to justify an erroneous doctrine.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 02:03:51 AM by LBK » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1121 on: April 12, 2010, 02:10:59 AM »

[http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/02/biblical-evidence-for-purgatory.html

2 Maccabees 12:39-42,44-45 . . . Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen . . . Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear . . . So they all . . . turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out . . . For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

The Jews offered atonement and prayer for their deceased brethren, who had clearly violated Mosaic Law. Such a practice presupposes purgatory, since those in heaven wouldn't need any help, and those in hell are beyond it. The Jewish people, therefore, believed in prayer for the dead (whether or not this book is scriptural -- Protestants deny that it is). Jesus Christ did not correct this belief, as He surely would have done if it were erroneous (see Matthew 5:22,25-26, 12:32, Luke 12:58-59, 16:9,19-31 below). When our Lord and Savior talks about the afterlife, He never denies the fact that there is a third state, and the overall evidence of His utterances in this regard strongly indicates that He accepted the existence of purgatory.


This website offers one of the most dishonest cases of scriptural misinterpretation in a long while.   2 Maccabees does not have any connection with a belief in Purgatory.

Instead it is about the forgiveness of serious (mortal) sin after death, something which modern Catholics strenuously deny.

For the very plain and obvious meaning of 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 please click on this previous message in the thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg323113/topicseen.html#msg323113

-oOo-

2 Macc 12: 39-45
King James Version
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Kjv2Mac.html
 
39: And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
40: Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
41: All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
42: Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
43: And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
44: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
45: And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #1122 on: April 12, 2010, 02:15:34 AM »

Your answer is still not answering my question: Does RC absolution result in the forgiveness of sin and their removal from one's "copybook", or does it not?
Here's my understanding of the RC teaching in this regard:
The sin is forgiven. However, even after the sin has been forgiven, there may remain a temporal punishment due to sin which can be remitted by penitential works such as fasting, almsgiving, prayer, works of charity in this world, or by purification in purgatory in the next. Take for example an individual who has killed his wife and children. He then realises that he will go to hell so he confesses out of fear that he will go to hell otherwise. His sin is forgiven, but according to Catholic beleif, God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin, so that person may not go directly into paradise. According to Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
"The fire will assay the quality of everyone's work; if his work abides which he has built thereon, he will receive reward; if his work burns he will lose his reward, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (I Corinthians 3:13-15).

With your kind permission and understanding, let me ask a bit about the Orthodox teaching on the following. Suppose that a man were to burn your house down. He then goes to confession and his sin is forgiven. Yes, Jesus paid for our sins, but will He pay to rebuild your house? Or will the sinner have to repay this debt, even after his sin has been forgiven in confession?
Anyway, the RC teaching is something like that. Obviously, this is an analogy.
Here is a link to an article on indulgences:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
What if, after having gone to confession, the police try to arrest the arsonist and he is shot and killed in the process.  Willl his stint in purgatory pay to rebuild my house?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #1123 on: April 12, 2010, 02:20:53 AM »

As a matter of clarification, according then to your belief, sins may be absolved after death? If this is your belief, would that include all sins, or just the more moderate ones?

All sins, even the worst.  This is the teaching of sacred Scripture.

The history of Judas Maccabeus is an important one in this matter.   It proves that the West is wrong when it believes that grave sin, mortal sin, cannot be forgiven after death.  The text of Maccabees demonstrates that it can. 

To give some context to the incident in Maccabees... What had happened was that many of the dead Jewish soldiers were found to have small idols in their clothing.  They had been worshipping idols, seeking their protection in warfare,  and the text says that this idolatry is the reason God allowed them to be slain in battle.

So the surviving soldiers began to offer profound prayers that this dreadful sin would be forgiven and Judas Maccabeus decided to send a large quantity of silver to the Jerusalem temple for prayers for the forgiveness of these idolaters.

The whole incident substantiates not just prayers for the dead but the Orthodox hope and belief that sin, very serious sin (mortal sin if you will), may be forgiven by God after death.

2 Macc 12: 39-46

Fr Ambrose


Is this a universal teaching among all Orthodox or are there some who take a different view?
Also, how would you reconcile this with the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 25:41 :""Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.'"

What's the contradiction?
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 #1124 on: April 12, 2010, 02:36:47 AM »

Your answer is still not answering my question: Does RC absolution result in the forgiveness of sin and their removal from one's "copybook", or does it not?
Here's my understanding of the RC teaching in this regard:
The sin is forgiven. However, even after the sin has been forgiven, there may remain a temporal punishment due to sin which can be remitted by penitential works such as fasting, almsgiving, prayer, works of charity in this world, or by purification in purgatory in the next. Take for example an individual who has killed his wife and children. He then realises that he will go to hell so he confesses out of fear that he will go to hell otherwise. His sin is forgiven, but according to Catholic beleif, God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin, so that person may not go directly into paradise. According to Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
"The fire will assay the quality of everyone's work; if his work abides which he has built thereon, he will receive reward; if his work burns he will lose his reward, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (I Corinthians 3:13-15).

With your kind permission and understanding, let me ask a bit about the Orthodox teaching on the following. Suppose that a man were to burn your house down. He then goes to confession and his sin is forgiven. Yes, Jesus paid for our sins, but will He pay to rebuild your house? Or will the sinner have to repay this debt, even after his sin has been forgiven in confession?
Anyway, the RC teaching is something like that. Obviously, this is an analogy.
Here is a link to an article on indulgences:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
What if, after having gone to confession, the police try to arrest the arsonist and he is shot and killed in the process.  Willl his stint in purgatory pay to rebuild my house?
I said it was an analogy.
To answer your question, no it would not, but at least I see that you do admit he will have a stint in purgatory.

Logged
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 0.206 seconds with 73 queries.