OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 03:13:00 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Purgatory vs Toll Houses  (Read 8072 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2011, 09:09:52 AM »


2.   Purgatory can last for millennia or the equivalent of.

Toll houses are over in 3 earth days or 40 earth days.... tollers are not sure on the time frame.


Catholic Church teaches that there is no "time" outside of historical time that we can measure.

These "timing" issues are the anthropology of pious beliefs rather than any part of the core teaching of the doctrine of purgation.  They have a source in the case of the eastern death cycle, but they are nonetheless pious practices, not expressions of revealed doctrine...I speak from the western point of view to you here since you are quick to remind me that Orthodoxy has no doctrine or dogma outside of the First Seven General Councils.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2011, 09:11:45 AM »



3.   Purgatory is in some way a happy place since you know if you are there you will get to heaven in the end.

Toll houses are awful places since there's no certainty if you will be saved or damned.


5.  There are no demons in Purgatory.

The toll houses are swamped with demons and black Ethiopians.

4 is missing.

3 is more pious anthropology

5 borders on racism so I'll leave that alone entirely.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2011, 02:25:46 PM »

The idea of toll houses bothers me. It sounds blasphemous to believe that we will be judged by various demons rather than Jesus Christ. They don't have the authority to judge souls. Thank goodness it is just a theological opinion in Eastern Orthodoxy rather than official doctrine or dogma.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 04:52:11 PM by Fr. George » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2011, 03:00:43 PM »

Starting such a thread the FI was a great idea, just like a plastic kettle. I've moved it here.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 08:25:02 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2011, 04:29:41 PM »


2.   Purgatory can last for millennia or the equivalent of.

Toll houses are over in 3 earth days or 40 earth days.... tollers are not sure on the time frame.


Catholic Church teaches that there is no "time" outside of historical time that we can measure.

These "timing" issues are the anthropology of pious beliefs rather than any part of the core teaching of the doctrine of purgation.  They have a source in the case of the eastern death cycle, but they are nonetheless pious practices, not expressions of revealed doctrine...I speak from the western point of view to you here since you are quick to remind me that Orthodoxy has no doctrine or dogma outside of the First Seven General Councils.

But I would never ever say such a thing!  The teachings of Orthodoxy are in the Bible, especially the New Testament, the Ecumenical Councils, the patristic writings, the liturgy, etc.   It is completely inaccurate to say that our teachings are found only in the Ecumenical Councils.  If that were the case then a multitude of beliefs such as the Real Presence and the Assumption would be reduced to uncertainties.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2011, 04:41:40 PM »



3.   Purgatory is in some way a happy place since you know if you are there you will get to heaven in the end.

Toll houses are awful places since there's no certainty if you will be saved or damned.


5.  There are no demons in Purgatory.

The toll houses are swamped with demons and black Ethiopians.

4 is missing.

3 is more pious anthropology

5 borders on racism so I'll leave that alone entirely.

Unfortunately (5) is part of the divine revelation given by the Angels and Saint Theodora.   I was surprised in the recent toll house thread that toll house adherents stated that this narrative by Saint Theodora is dogma since it is included in the third volume of Saint Justin Popovic's "Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070205011054/http://essenes.net/theo.html
Logged
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2011, 06:29:37 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.

That was never an official teaching of the Church. Actually, the Church has never made any official teaching about a place called Limbo.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2011, 06:48:33 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.

That was never an official teaching of the Church. Actually, the Church has never made any official teaching about a place called Limbo.

I've mentioned this before that it appals the Orthodox that Roman Catholics are willing to trash Tradition (what has been believed and taught and handed down by bishops and priests and faithful for hundreds of years.)   In place of a vibrant Tradition the faith is reduced to the level of "official" teaching promulgated by a backroom Magisterium.  At any time any belief, even one hundreds of years old, may be swept away if it has never had an "official" promulgation.   This reduces the role of the laity in safequarding the tradition to zero. 
Logged
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« Reply #53 on: June 06, 2011, 08:14:03 PM »


I've mentioned this before that it appals the Orthodox that Roman Catholics are willing to trash Tradition (what has been believed and taught and handed down by bishops and priests and faithful for hundreds of years.)   In place of a vibrant Tradition the faith is reduced to the level of "official" teaching promulgated by a backroom Magisterium.  At any time any belief, even one hundreds of years old, may be swept away if it has never had an "official" promulgation.   This reduces the role of the laity in safequarding the tradition to zero. 


Limbo was never part of Tradition. It was proposed by St. Augustine (the same theologian, btw, who declared that infants in the womb didn't receive souls until 40 days after conception) as a possible answer to the question of unbaptized infants that die. But it was never part of an official teaching, and certainly not part of Tradition.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: June 06, 2011, 08:25:18 PM »


I've mentioned this before that it appals the Orthodox that Roman Catholics are willing to trash Tradition (what has been believed and taught and handed down by bishops and priests and faithful for hundreds of years.)   In place of a vibrant Tradition the faith is reduced to the level of "official" teaching promulgated by a backroom Magisterium.  At any time any belief, even one hundreds of years old, may be swept away if it has never had an "official" promulgation.   This reduces the role of the laity in safequarding the tradition to zero. 


Limbo was never part of Tradition. It was proposed by St. Augustine (the same theologian, btw, who declared that infants in the womb didn't receive souls until 40 days after conception) as a possible answer to the question of unbaptized infants that die. But it was never part of an official teaching, and certainly not part of Tradition.

Sometimes the Catholic way of argumentation is quite destructive of the Faith.  Having seemingly lost faith in the Tradition they now appeal only to those things which have been dogmatized by a Pope or by the Magisterium..

How does that work out?   The belief in the Real Presence was not dogmatized until the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century.  Prior to that no Pope had seen fit to dogmatize it.   So for 1,500 years Catholics were presumably able to accept or to deny the Real Presence. 

I don't think that your appeal to "we don't have to believe it if it is not dogmatized" is going to help Catholics maintain the Faith.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #55 on: June 06, 2011, 08:31:45 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.

That was never an official teaching of the Church. Actually, the Church has never made any official teaching about a place called Limbo.

I've mentioned this before that it appals the Orthodox that Roman Catholics are willing to trash Tradition (what has been believed and taught and handed down by bishops and priests and faithful for hundreds of years.)   In place of a vibrant Tradition the faith is reduced to the level of "official" teaching promulgated by a backroom Magisterium.  At any time any belief, even one hundreds of years old, may be swept away if it has never had an "official" promulgation.   This reduces the role of the laity in safequarding the tradition to zero. 
It isn't the job of the laity to safeguard Tradition.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #56 on: June 06, 2011, 08:42:06 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.

That was never an official teaching of the Church. Actually, the Church has never made any official teaching about a place called Limbo.

I've mentioned this before that it appals the Orthodox that Roman Catholics are willing to trash Tradition (what has been believed and taught and handed down by bishops and priests and faithful for hundreds of years.)   In place of a vibrant Tradition the faith is reduced to the level of "official" teaching promulgated by a backroom Magisterium.  At any time any belief, even one hundreds of years old, may be swept away if it has never had an "official" promulgation.   This reduces the role of the laity in safequarding the tradition to zero. 
It isn't the job of the laity to safeguard Tradition.

Phew! That's a major plank of orthodox theology, going right back to Saint Paul. 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Sorting this out will be real fun at the international dialogue.

Logged
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« Reply #57 on: June 06, 2011, 09:37:04 PM »


Sometimes the Catholic way of argumentation is quite destructive of the Faith.  Having seemingly lost faith in the Tradition they now appeal only to those things which have been dogmatized by a Pope or by the Magisterium..

How does that work out?   The belief in the Real Presence was not dogmatized until the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century.  Prior to that no Pope had seen fit to dogmatize it.   So for 1,500 years Catholics were presumably able to accept or to deny the Real Presence. 

First of all, that's not true: the Eucharistic presence of Jesus was affirmed in many councils before that (see the Roman Council VI, Council of Lyon, Council of Constance, etc). Even before these councils, the Real Presence went hand-in-hand with the faith as a basic fact of Christianity and was affirmed by scores of Popes, Saints, and Theologians. Limbo, on the other hand, was vaguley proposed by a few scattered people in the vast history of the Church and was NEVER held in such a high regard as the Real Presence.

Quote
I don't think that your appeal to "we don't have to believe it if it is not dogmatized" is going to help Catholics maintain the Faith.

What about the reverse? "We should believe it, even if it's not dogmatized" - Is that, in every situation, better? That's how you get people declaring their own saints (St. Gandhi, anyone?), among much more serious abuses.

To be honest, the lack of dogmatic foundation is one of the main reasons why I left protestantism. Nobody could standardize any dogma (since anyone who disagreed would just found another church), and as a result, everybody believed something different. What a flood of erroneous opinions came into Christianity, when nobody had the power to set any belief in stone!
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 09:54:55 PM by Nero » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #58 on: June 06, 2011, 11:08:34 PM »

To be honest, the lack of dogmatic foundation is one of the main reasons why I left protestantism. Nobody could standardize any dogma (since anyone who disagreed would just found another church), and as a result, everybody believed something different. What a flood of erroneous opinions came into Christianity, when nobody had the power to set any belief in stone!

Trying to draw parallels between Orthodoxy and Protestantism just doesn't work.

Pope Benedict himself agrees that without the papacy and without the Magisterium we have kept the faith intact.   

Pope Benedict::

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"


~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of the true faith.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company with us is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,340


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #59 on: June 07, 2011, 02:04:39 AM »

Quote from: David Bentley Hart
"...The Eastern church believes in sanctification after death, and perhaps the doctrine of Purgatory really asserts nothing more than that; but Rome has also traditionally spoken of it as 'temporal punishment', which the pope may in whole or part remit...

[The Orthodox view of salvation/theosis is not] merely a forensic imputation of sinlessness to a sinful creature; it is a real glorification and organic transfiguration of the creature in Christ, one which never violates the integrity of our creatureliness, but which - by causing us to progress from sin to righteousness - really makes us partakers of the divine nature.

Very well then: what then could it mean to remit purgation? Why, if it is sanctification, would one want such remission, and would it not then involve instead the very magical transformation of the creature into something beyond itself that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches both deny? These are not, granted, unanswerable questions, but they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be, and whether Roman and Orthodox traditions can be reconciled in a more than superficial way on this one issue"
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 02:05:43 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: June 07, 2011, 03:39:09 AM »


....they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be
 

I believe there is no such need.  We have never needed it in 2000 years of our existence.  We have no church authority,clerical or lay, empowered to formulate new doctrine for the Church.   The Russian bishops have formally stated that we know about the afterlife only the very little revealed by Christ.  Beyond that, they say,  it is only conjecture.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #61 on: June 07, 2011, 07:52:27 AM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.

That was never an official teaching of the Church. Actually, the Church has never made any official teaching about a place called Limbo.

I've mentioned this before that it appals the Orthodox that Roman Catholics are willing to trash Tradition (what has been believed and taught and handed down by bishops and priests and faithful for hundreds of years.)   In place of a vibrant Tradition the faith is reduced to the level of "official" teaching promulgated by a backroom Magisterium.  At any time any belief, even one hundreds of years old, may be swept away if it has never had an "official" promulgation.   This reduces the role of the laity in safequarding the tradition to zero. 
It isn't the job of the laity to safeguard Tradition.

They is not true Wyatt.  It is indeed the role of the laity in the Catholic Church to safeguard and assist the bishops in promulgating Tradition.  However it is not the laity's role to define revealed truth and there certainly is a difference between piety and doctrinal teaching, a not-always-clearly delineated difference between anthropology and theology...or the way we see the truth and the truth itself.  It is the role of our bishops to assist us in coming ever closer to the truth itself, however dim the glass may be.

It can be difficult enough to sort out without Father Ambrose's fingers in the pie, but the bottom line is that the laity, as members of the Body, are certainly charged with safeguarding the truth to the best of their ability.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 07:52:56 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2011, 08:07:10 AM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.

That was never an official teaching of the Church. Actually, the Church has never made any official teaching about a place called Limbo.

I've mentioned this before that it appals the Orthodox that Roman Catholics are willing to trash Tradition (what has been believed and taught and handed down by bishops and priests and faithful for hundreds of years.)   In place of a vibrant Tradition the faith is reduced to the level of "official" teaching promulgated by a backroom Magisterium.  At any time any belief, even one hundreds of years old, may be swept away if it has never had an "official" promulgation.   This reduces the role of the laity in safequarding the tradition to zero. 
It isn't the job of the laity to safeguard Tradition.
We must however have in mind that there is a great difference in  the role of the laity, in many respects.

For example, Ecumenical Councils need the affirmation of the faithful in order to received in the Church.

By way of contrast, teachings promulgated by the Pope and the Magisterium and Catholic General Councils are sufficient unto themselves.  The faithful are obliged to give assent of the mind and will.

We see in this an indication of the difference in the work and responsibilities of the laity in the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

-------------------------------
By the way, statements such as "It can be difficult enough to sort out without Father Ambrose's fingers in the pie" are unhelpful and untrue.


They is not true Wyatt.  It is indeed the role of the laity in the Catholic Church to safeguard and assist the bishops in promulgating Tradition.  However it is not the laity's role to define revealed truth and there certainly is a difference between piety and doctrinal teaching, a not-always-clearly delineated difference between anthropology and theology...or the way we see the truth and the truth itself.  It is the role of our bishops to assist us in coming ever closer to the truth itself, however dim the glass may be.

It can be difficult enough to sort out without Father Ambrose's fingers in the pie, but the bottom line is that the laity, as members of the Body, are certainly charged with safeguarding the truth to the best of their ability.

We must however have in mind that there is a great difference in  the role of the laity, in many respects.

For example, Ecumenical Councils need the affirmation of the faithful in order to received in the Church.

By way of contrast, teachings promulgated by the Pope and the Magisterium and Catholic General Councils are sufficient unto themselves.  The faithful are obliged to give assent of the mind and will.

We see in this an indication of the difference in the work and responsibilities of the laity in the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

-------------------------------
By the way, statements such as "It can be difficult enough to sort out without Father Ambrose's fingers in the pie" are unhelpful and untrue.

Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2011, 08:18:05 AM »


By the way, statements such as "It can be difficult enough to sort out without Father Ambrose's fingers in the pie" are unhelpful and untrue.


We are allowed to disagree...We'll both live long and prosper in any event... Smiley
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #64 on: June 07, 2011, 08:23:23 AM »


By the way, statements such as "It can be difficult enough to sort out without Father Ambrose's fingers in the pie" are unhelpful and untrue.


We are allowed to disagree...We'll both live long and prosper in any event... Smiley

This little leprechaun should be going home in about two years if the cardiologist is any good with his prognostications.   laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2011, 08:27:09 AM »


We must however have in mind that there is a great difference in  the role of the laity, in many respects.

For example, Ecumenical Councils need the affirmation of the faithful in order to received in the Church.

By way of contrast, teachings promulgated by the Pope and the Magisterium and Catholic General Councils are sufficient unto themselves.  The faithful are obliged to give assent of the mind and will.

I am afraid that you've not spent enough...non-selective...time in the documents of the Catholic Church.  There is not quite the "contrast" that you present here.  
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 07, 2011, 08:29:35 AM »


By the way, statements such as "It can be difficult enough to sort out without Father Ambrose's fingers in the pie" are unhelpful and untrue.


We are allowed to disagree...We'll both live long and prosper in any event... Smiley

This little leprechaun should be going home in about two years if the cardiologist is any good with his prognostications.   laugh

Well that is not a happy thought.  Who will I snort at then?  Who will send me smilies with hearts of many colors?  Is there naught that can be done to prolong your miserable life? 

PS: we were preparing my 80 year old mother for a colon resection last Friday when she fell and broke her hip in multiple places.  So now that heals, she gets on her feet and we then knock her right back down.  She is the other person that I snort at periodically.  I may have to become sainted if all my muses go home before me.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 08:32:12 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #67 on: June 07, 2011, 08:40:14 AM »


We must however have in mind that there is a great difference in  the role of the laity, in many respects.

For example, Ecumenical Councils need the affirmation of the faithful in order to received in the Church.

By way of contrast, teachings promulgated by the Pope and the Magisterium and Catholic General Councils are sufficient unto themselves.  The faithful are obliged to give assent of the mind and will.

I am afraid that you've not spent enough...non-selective...time in the documents of the Catholic Church.  There is not quite the "contrast" that you present here.  

There is simply nobody in our Church to whose teaching the faithful are required to give submission of the mind and will.

But let's look at what is taught by Vatican II and the Pope in Lumen Gentium....

Whether they qualify as technically de fide or not by reason of the "we believe, state, proclaim and define... to the whole Church", papal statements still cannot be denied by Catholics.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting. 
 
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. 

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.
 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 07, 2011, 09:12:21 AM »


We must however have in mind that there is a great difference in  the role of the laity, in many respects.

For example, Ecumenical Councils need the affirmation of the faithful in order to received in the Church.

By way of contrast, teachings promulgated by the Pope and the Magisterium and Catholic General Councils are sufficient unto themselves.  The faithful are obliged to give assent of the mind and will.

I am afraid that you've not spent enough...non-selective...time in the documents of the Catholic Church.  There is not quite the "contrast" that you present here.  

There is simply nobody in our Church to whose teaching the faithful are required to give submission of the mind and will.


So when the bishops says "X" you all are free to ignore him and say "X" or "Z" or "Q"
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,107



« Reply #69 on: June 07, 2011, 09:21:53 AM »

But let's look at what is taught by Vatican II and the Pope in Lumen Gentium....

Whether they qualify as technically de fide or not by reason of the "we believe, state, proclaim and define... to the whole Church", papal statements still cannot be denied by Catholics.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting. 
 
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. 

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.

Kind of makes one question the way Vatican II is usually imagined.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,216


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 07, 2011, 10:39:32 AM »

To be honest, the lack of dogmatic foundation is one of the main reasons why I left protestantism. Nobody could standardize any dogma (since anyone who disagreed would just found another church), and as a result, everybody believed something different. What a flood of erroneous opinions came into Christianity, when nobody had the power to set any belief in stone!

Trying to draw parallels between Orthodoxy and Protestantism just doesn't work.

Pope Benedict himself agrees that without the papacy and without the Magisterium we have kept the faith intact.   

Pope Benedict::

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"


~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of the true faith.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company with us is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.

Actually, the Pope is a 'smart cookie' as we say and I would not presume to assert that he did so 'unwittingly.'
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,216


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 07, 2011, 10:41:16 AM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.

That was never an official teaching of the Church. Actually, the Church has never made any official teaching about a place called Limbo.

I've mentioned this before that it appals the Orthodox that Roman Catholics are willing to trash Tradition (what has been believed and taught and handed down by bishops and priests and faithful for hundreds of years.)   In place of a vibrant Tradition the faith is reduced to the level of "official" teaching promulgated by a backroom Magisterium.  At any time any belief, even one hundreds of years old, may be swept away if it has never had an "official" promulgation.   This reduces the role of the laity in safequarding the tradition to zero. 
It isn't the job of the laity to safeguard Tradition.

They is not true Wyatt.  It is indeed the role of the laity in the Catholic Church to safeguard and assist the bishops in promulgating Tradition.  However it is not the laity's role to define revealed truth and there certainly is a difference between piety and doctrinal teaching, a not-always-clearly delineated difference between anthropology and theology...or the way we see the truth and the truth itself.  It is the role of our bishops to assist us in coming ever closer to the truth itself, however dim the glass may be.

It can be difficult enough to sort out without Father Ambrose's fingers in the pie, but the bottom line is that the laity, as members of the Body, are certainly charged with safeguarding the truth to the best of their ability.

Indeed, I think that the issue you identify here is one of the major issues confronting both east and west and has been the case for 1400 years or so.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,340


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #72 on: June 07, 2011, 01:25:04 PM »


....they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be
 

I believe there is no such need.  We have never needed it in 2000 years of our existence.  We have no church authority,clerical or lay, empowered to formulate new doctrine for the Church.   The Russian bishops have formally stated that we know about the afterlife only the very little revealed by Christ.  Beyond that, they say,  it is only conjecture.
On that aspect of Hart's comment I do agree with you. I'm personally unsure how the West might effectively "formulate" to erase this disparity unless they de-formulate something in the process Wink

My point of citing the quotation was Hart has his finger on a key disparity (in regards to which no one has yet commented):

"...The Eastern church believes in sanctification after death... but Rome has also traditionally spoken of it as 'temporal punishment', which the pope may in whole or part remit...

[The Orthodox view of salvation/theosis is not] merely a forensic imputation of sinlessness to a sinful creature; it is a real glorification and organic transfiguration of the creature in Christ, one which never violates the integrity of our creatureliness, but which - by causing us to progress from sin to righteousness - really makes us partakers of the divine nature.

Very well then: what then could it mean to remit purgation? Why, if it is sanctification, would one want such remission, and would it not then involve instead the very magical transformation of the creature into something beyond itself that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches both deny?" (D. Hart)
Logged

Silly Stars
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #73 on: June 07, 2011, 01:34:48 PM »


....they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be
 

I believe there is no such need.  We have never needed it in 2000 years of our existence.  We have no church authority,clerical or lay, empowered to formulate new doctrine for the Church.   The Russian bishops have formally stated that we know about the afterlife only the very little revealed by Christ.  Beyond that, they say,  it is only conjecture.
On that aspect of Hart's comment I do agree with you. I'm personally unsure how the West might effectively "formulate" to erase this disparity unless they de-formulate something in the process Wink

My point of citing the quotation was Hart has his finger on a key disparity (in regards to which no one has yet commented):

"...The Eastern church believes in sanctification after death... but Rome has also traditionally spoken of it as 'temporal punishment', which the pope may in whole or part remit...

[The Orthodox view of salvation/theosis is not] merely a forensic imputation of sinlessness to a sinful creature; it is a real glorification and organic transfiguration of the creature in Christ, one which never violates the integrity of our creatureliness, but which - by causing us to progress from sin to righteousness - really makes us partakers of the divine nature.

Very well then: what then could it mean to remit purgation? Why, if it is sanctification, would one want such remission, and would it not then involve instead the very magical transformation of the creature into something beyond itself that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches both deny?" (D. Hart)

I've seen Pugatory and indulgences explained (see Fr. Alvin Kimel's blog) in a way as to maintain the understanding of purification of our souls. In short, purgatory purifies the attachments to sin and relieves us of our broken spirit from the scars our past sins have produced. Indulgences in turn is the church exercising it's ability to give the grace of God to an individual who deliberately seeks it.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #74 on: June 07, 2011, 01:50:32 PM »


....they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be
 

I believe there is no such need.  We have never needed it in 2000 years of our existence.  We have no church authority,clerical or lay, empowered to formulate new doctrine for the Church.   The Russian bishops have formally stated that we know about the afterlife only the very little revealed by Christ.  Beyond that, they say,  it is only conjecture.
On that aspect of Hart's comment I do agree with you. I'm personally unsure how the West might effectively "formulate" to erase this disparity unless they de-formulate something in the process Wink

My point of citing the quotation was Hart has his finger on a key disparity (in regards to which no one has yet commented):

"...The Eastern church believes in sanctification after death... but Rome has also traditionally spoken of it as 'temporal punishment', which the pope may in whole or part remit...

[The Orthodox view of salvation/theosis is not] merely a forensic imputation of sinlessness to a sinful creature; it is a real glorification and organic transfiguration of the creature in Christ, one which never violates the integrity of our creatureliness, but which - by causing us to progress from sin to righteousness - really makes us partakers of the divine nature.

Very well then: what then could it mean to remit purgation? Why, if it is sanctification, would one want such remission, and would it not then involve instead the very magical transformation of the creature into something beyond itself that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches both deny?" (D. Hart)

What are you fellows talking about? 
Logged

Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2011, 10:55:42 PM »


Trying to draw parallels between Orthodoxy and Protestantism just doesn't work.


Comparing them? I never even brought the two into the same sentence. But as long as you mention it, don't you find it a little problematic that two Orthodox priests may give you two completely different answers when you ask them the exact same question? Examples are everywhere over this board - the converts who found priests that required only Chrismation are just one example, the legitimacy of Toll-Houses and use of condoms may be others. As far as gray-area questions go, it seems like the priest has to take on, in his own person, the entirity of what Catholics call the Magisterium - which is exactly what Protestants do, and fail at.

Quote
Pope Benedict himself agrees that without the papacy and without the Magisterium we have kept the faith intact.

In that quote which you provided, he says "form and content" of the Church. That could more easily refer to the style of the liturgy and the practices therein, but he says nothing about "faith" directly.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #76 on: June 07, 2011, 11:03:19 PM »


In that quote which you provided, he says "form and content" of the Church. That could more easily refer to the style of the liturgy and the practices therein, but he says nothing about "faith" directly.

Anybody agree with Nero's interpretation of the Pope's words?  I believe the Pope is talking about the faith and not about liturgical practices.

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"


Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #77 on: June 07, 2011, 11:04:01 PM »


....they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be
 

I believe there is no such need.  We have never needed it in 2000 years of our existence.  We have no church authority,clerical or lay, empowered to formulate new doctrine for the Church.   The Russian bishops have formally stated that we know about the afterlife only the very little revealed by Christ.  Beyond that, they say,  it is only conjecture.

Was this often times not the very reason much doctrine was formulated, though? Someone could've very well said in the 4th century, "We don't need to have a council to spell these things out, we've never needed to in the past!"
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #78 on: June 07, 2011, 11:14:07 PM »


 - the converts who found priests that required only Chrismation are just one example,
 

A priest may even omit Chrismation and receive a person from another Christian Church (such as your own) by a mere Confession of Faith.   However these are not decisions for individual priests;  he has to follow the policy of his bishop
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #79 on: June 08, 2011, 01:07:14 AM »


....they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be
 

I believe there is no such need.  We have never needed it in 2000 years of our existence.  We have no church authority,clerical or lay, empowered to formulate new doctrine for the Church.   The Russian bishops have formally stated that we know about the afterlife only the very little revealed by Christ.  Beyond that, they say,  it is only conjecture.

Was this often times not the very reason much doctrine was formulated, though? Someone could've very well said in the 4th century, "We don't need to have a council to spell these things out, we've never needed to in the past!"


.
Councils addressed the aspects of the faith -trinitarian, christological, pneumatological- which were currently in danger from heretical teachings.

Having dealt with the heresy threatening the Church the Councils dissolved.  They are extraordinary irruptions from the other world into the life of the Church, the work of the Spirit, in safeguarding the teaching of Christ and His path to salvation.

For the last 1200 years the Church has had no need to call further Councils.  Heresies which have come along have been localised and have been dealt with by local Synods and local Churches.

So, the teaching authority of the Church -which is the Tradition and the Spirit who flows within it- has flowed on quietly for centuries since the last Great Council in 787.

If we should be faced by a new church-wide heresy, then the Church will probably combat it again by convening an Ecumenical Council.  But in the absence of the need to combat widespread and major heresy threatening the Church it could be counterproductive for the Church to set about formulating doctrine.   In itself that could lead to disruption and schism within the Church.  Well, that's how I see it myself.  And of course there is the question:  where are the holy ascetics and theologians who would speak on this and who have the trust of the universal Church?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #80 on: June 08, 2011, 10:11:30 AM »


....they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be
 

I believe there is no such need.  We have never needed it in 2000 years of our existence.  We have no church authority,clerical or lay, empowered to formulate new doctrine for the Church.   The Russian bishops have formally stated that we know about the afterlife only the very little revealed by Christ.  Beyond that, they say,  it is only conjecture.

Was this often times not the very reason much doctrine was formulated, though? Someone could've very well said in the 4th century, "We don't need to have a council to spell these things out, we've never needed to in the past!"


.
Councils addressed the aspects of the faith -trinitarian, christological, pneumatological- which were currently in danger from heretical teachings.

Having dealt with the heresy threatening the Church the Councils dissolved.  They are extraordinary irruptions from the other world into the life of the Church, the work of the Spirit, in safeguarding the teaching of Christ and His path to salvation.

For the last 1200 years the Church has had no need to call further Councils.  Heresies which have come along have been localised and have been dealt with by local Synods and local Churches.

So, the teaching authority of the Church -which is the Tradition and the Spirit who flows within it- has flowed on quietly for centuries since the last Great Council in 787.

If we should be faced by a new church-wide heresy, then the Church will probably combat it again by convening an Ecumenical Council.  But in the absence of the need to combat widespread and major heresy threatening the Church it could be counterproductive for the Church to set about formulating doctrine.   In itself that could lead to disruption and schism within the Church.  Well, that's how I see it myself.  And of course there is the question:  where are the holy ascetics and theologians who would speak on this and who have the trust of the universal Church?

I am not sure what you mean here by "formulating doctrine"....

So often in my travels I find people who think that until a doctrine is defined it is not real or true.

I see so much talk of doctrine and dogma and what MUST be believed and all that and really very little talk about Truth or Revelation or the Word.

The way I was taught was this: long before any of the Church's doctrines were ever defined they were the truth and the seeds of that truth had been sown by Christ and by his disciples and had been prefigured by the patriarchs. 

So I don't know what this ultra-fascination with "formulation of doctrine" is in fact.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 10:12:28 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #81 on: June 08, 2011, 10:39:13 AM »


....they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be
 

I believe there is no such need.  We have never needed it in 2000 years of our existence.  We have no church authority,clerical or lay, empowered to formulate new doctrine for the Church.   The Russian bishops have formally stated that we know about the afterlife only the very little revealed by Christ.  Beyond that, they say,  it is only conjecture.

Was this often times not the very reason much doctrine was formulated, though? Someone could've very well said in the 4th century, "We don't need to have a council to spell these things out, we've never needed to in the past!"


.
Councils addressed the aspects of the faith -trinitarian, christological, pneumatological- which were currently in danger from heretical teachings.

Having dealt with the heresy threatening the Church the Councils dissolved.  They are extraordinary irruptions from the other world into the life of the Church, the work of the Spirit, in safeguarding the teaching of Christ and His path to salvation.

For the last 1200 years the Church has had no need to call further Councils.  Heresies which have come along have been localised and have been dealt with by local Synods and local Churches.

So, the teaching authority of the Church -which is the Tradition and the Spirit who flows within it- has flowed on quietly for centuries since the last Great Council in 787.

If we should be faced by a new church-wide heresy, then the Church will probably combat it again by convening an Ecumenical Council.  But in the absence of the need to combat widespread and major heresy threatening the Church it could be counterproductive for the Church to set about formulating doctrine.   In itself that could lead to disruption and schism within the Church.  Well, that's how I see it myself.  And of course there is the question:  where are the holy ascetics and theologians who would speak on this and who have the trust of the universal Church?

I am not sure what you mean here by "formulating doctrine"....

So often in my travels I find people who think that until a doctrine is defined it is not real or true.

I see so much talk of doctrine and dogma and what MUST be believed and all that and really very little talk about Truth or Revelation or the Word.

The way I was taught was this: long before any of the Church's doctrines were ever defined they were the truth and the seeds of that truth had been sown by Christ and by his disciples and had been prefigured by the patriarchs.  

So I don't know what this ultra-fascination with "formulation of doctrine" is in fact.

The formulation of doctrine is a large part of the sacred anthropology of the Roman Catholic Church, enclosing the truth in unceasingly permutating skins to suit each new age.  It seems to fascinate the Pope and the Magisterium enormously. Endless Encyclicals and Apostolic Constitutions and not a few General Councils have been engrossed with it.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 10:42:08 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 08, 2011, 10:45:47 AM »


....they are questions as yet unanswered, and there is a genuine need for a serious engagement on what the doctrinal formulation regarding sanctification after death should be
 

I believe there is no such need.  We have never needed it in 2000 years of our existence.  We have no church authority,clerical or lay, empowered to formulate new doctrine for the Church.   The Russian bishops have formally stated that we know about the afterlife only the very little revealed by Christ.  Beyond that, they say,  it is only conjecture.

Was this often times not the very reason much doctrine was formulated, though? Someone could've very well said in the 4th century, "We don't need to have a council to spell these things out, we've never needed to in the past!"


.
Councils addressed the aspects of the faith -trinitarian, christological, pneumatological- which were currently in danger from heretical teachings.

Having dealt with the heresy threatening the Church the Councils dissolved.  They are extraordinary irruptions from the other world into the life of the Church, the work of the Spirit, in safeguarding the teaching of Christ and His path to salvation.

For the last 1200 years the Church has had no need to call further Councils.  Heresies which have come along have been localised and have been dealt with by local Synods and local Churches.

So, the teaching authority of the Church -which is the Tradition and the Spirit who flows within it- has flowed on quietly for centuries since the last Great Council in 787.

If we should be faced by a new church-wide heresy, then the Church will probably combat it again by convening an Ecumenical Council.  But in the absence of the need to combat widespread and major heresy threatening the Church it could be counterproductive for the Church to set about formulating doctrine.   In itself that could lead to disruption and schism within the Church.  Well, that's how I see it myself.  And of course there is the question:  where are the holy ascetics and theologians who would speak on this and who have the trust of the universal Church?

I am not sure what you mean here by "formulating doctrine"....

So often in my travels I find people who think that until a doctrine is defined it is not real or true.

I see so much talk of doctrine and dogma and what MUST be believed and all that and really very little talk about Truth or Revelation or the Word.

The way I was taught was this: long before any of the Church's doctrines were ever defined they were the truth and the seeds of that truth had been sown by Christ and by his disciples and had been prefigured by the patriarchs.  

So I don't know what this ultra-fascination with "formulation of doctrine" is in fact.

The formulation of doctrine is a large part of the sacred anthropology of the Roman Catholic Church, enclosing the truth in unceasingly permutating skins to suit each new age.  It seems to fascinate the Pope and the Magisterium enormously. Endless Encyclicals and Apostolic Constitutions and not a few General Councils have been engrossed with it.

You are talking about teaching and definition.  Formulation of the Truth is an act of Revelation that ended with the death of the last Apostle.

This is a formal teaching of the Church of your original baptism...I think you were originally baptised a Catholic.  If not my apologies.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: June 08, 2011, 11:00:29 AM »

So, about them thar Toll Houses. Kinda like Purgatory in the Father's description, eh?

1.   Purgatory is for two things; purification and the expiation of the temporal punishment due to sin.


False.  These are not separate "thingies"...They are two different ways of talking about the same thing.

Pope Paul VI teaches that punishment is inflicted by God on souls in Purgatory.

Please refer to his "INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA" (Apostolic Constitution On Indulgences) which was solemnly promulgated by His Holiness, on 1st January 1967

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

1.2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments.

Would you be able to provide the papal teaching which correlates this to purification and equates them as the same thing?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 11:01:23 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,107



« Reply #84 on: June 08, 2011, 11:15:29 AM »


In that quote which you provided, he says "form and content" of the Church. That could more easily refer to the style of the liturgy and the practices therein, but he says nothing about "faith" directly.

Anybody agree with Nero's interpretation of the Pope's words?  I believe the Pope is talking about the faith and not about liturgical practices.

I never really thought about it that way. But if Nero's interpretation is right, it's in keeping with the popular Catholic writer Scott Hanh:

Quote
Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 08, 2011, 11:24:40 AM »

So, about them thar Toll Houses. Kinda like Purgatory in the Father's description, eh?

1.   Purgatory is for two things; purification and the expiation of the temporal punishment due to sin.


False.  These are not separate "thingies"...They are two different ways of talking about the same thing.

Pope Paul VI teaches that punishment is inflicted by God on souls in Purgatory.

Well aware Father.  When you are ready to understand "punishment" as the Catholic Church understands it, then we can talk.  As long as you and Webster are doing the teaching, then there is no common ground.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #86 on: June 08, 2011, 12:44:28 PM »

So, about them thar Toll Houses. Kinda like Purgatory in the Father's description, eh?

1.   Purgatory is for two things; purification and the expiation of the temporal punishment due to sin.


False.  These are not separate "thingies"...They are two different ways of talking about the same thing.

Pope Paul VI teaches that punishment is inflicted by God on souls in Purgatory.

Well aware Father.  When you are ready to understand "punishment" as the Catholic Church understands it, then we can talk.  As long as you and Webster are doing the teaching, then there is no common ground.

Who is Webster?

Define the meaning of "punishment" as given in the petrine statement of Pope Paul VI in message 83.  Define it by reference to papal statements, no Maryisms please.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #87 on: June 08, 2011, 12:55:05 PM »


the popular Catholic writer Scott Hanh:

Quote
Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.

Who is Hanh?  Does he come with an Imprimatur?

What does it mean to be "stagnant in theology"?

Does it mean a refusal to consider a theology of women priests?

Does it mean refusing to entertain such developing theology as "Mary, the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit"?

Is this stagnation also a characteristic of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #88 on: June 08, 2011, 01:07:15 PM »

They is not true Wyatt.  It is indeed the role of the laity in the Catholic Church to safeguard and assist the bishops in promulgating Tradition.  However it is not the laity's role to define revealed truth and there certainly is a difference between piety and doctrinal teaching, a not-always-clearly delineated difference between anthropology and theology...or the way we see the truth and the truth itself.  It is the role of our bishops to assist us in coming ever closer to the truth itself, however dim the glass may be.

It can be difficult enough to sort out without Father Ambrose's fingers in the pie, but the bottom line is that the laity, as members of the Body, are certainly charged with safeguarding the truth to the best of their ability.
Why does the laity have to safeguard Tradition? Are you saying that our Church may come to a point where the Magisterium has it completely wrong and the only way that out Church will be saved by apostasy is through an uprising of laypeople?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #89 on: June 08, 2011, 01:07:15 PM »

Who is Hanh?  Does he come with an Imprimatur?
He is brilliant, and yes, I am sure that his books do.

What does it mean to be "stagnant in theology"?
Not holding being able to hold an Ecumenical Council for a millennium maybe?

Does it mean a refusal to consider a theology of women priests?
What do the Anglicans have to do with this discussion?

Does it mean refusing to entertain such developing theology as "Mary, the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit"?
Huh?

Is this stagnation also a characteristic of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches?
No.
Logged
Tags: purgatory toll houses particular judgment Scott Hahn 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   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 0.188 seconds with 72 queries.