OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 01:12:02 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 8069 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 08, 2011, 01:08:43 PM »

Not holding being able to hold an Ecumenical Council for a millennium maybe?

Ever heard of Arabs, Turks, Tatars, Mongols, Communists, Austro-Hungary?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #91 on: June 08, 2011, 01:24:40 PM »

Who would call an Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Council?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #92 on: June 08, 2011, 01:26:15 PM »

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

What on earth are you talking about?

The Church never held any Ecumenical Council for the first 300 years if its existence.  Was it stagnating? 

Must have been a ghastly period of stagnation for you.

I really cannot think of any compelling reason why the Church would need to convene Ecumenical Councils after it had addressed the major Trinitarian, Christological and Pneumatological heresies between 325 and 787 - a brief period of 460 years.

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,107



« Reply #93 on: June 08, 2011, 01:40:55 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?

I don't know how much point there would be to going through those question one-by-one. Hahn doesn't necessarily represent Catholicism, notwithstanding my earlier statement that he is "popular". I'm not even sure if he could be said to "represent" neo-conservative Catholics.

The sentence I quoted is from this passage:

Quote
So I started looking into Orthodoxy. I met with Peter Gillquist, an evangelical convert to Antiochian Orthodoxy, to hear why he chose Orthodoxy over Rome. His reasons reinforced my sense that Protestantism was wrong; but I also thought that his defense of Orthodoxy over Catholicism was unsatisfying and superficial. Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #94 on: June 08, 2011, 01:45:00 PM »

Who would call an Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Council?

If one were ever needed and God forbid... !   Looking at our recent history, and assuming a new heresy came along and were seriously disturbing the peace of the Church - I imagine it would be a conciliar effort.

In 1998 when the Orthodox were quite disturbed about ecumenism the Church of Russia suggested a Pan-Orthodox Synod.  This was taken up by the other Churches.  The Church of Greece hosted it in Thessalonica (it is called the Thessaloniki Summit) and all the Orthodox Churches attended.

Later in 2005 when there was the crisis in the Jerusalem Patriarchate, the Bishops of the Holy Land turned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.  He organised a Pan-Orthodox Synod and all the Orthodox Churches attended.


« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 01:54:49 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #95 on: June 08, 2011, 01:54:03 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?

I don't know how much point there would be to going through those question one-by-one. Hahn doesn't necessarily represent Catholicism, notwithstanding my earlier statement that he is "popular". I'm not even sure if he could be said to "represent" neo-conservative Catholics.

The sentence I quoted is from this passage:

Quote
So I started looking into Orthodoxy. I met with Peter Gillquist, an evangelical convert to Antiochian Orthodoxy, to hear why he chose Orthodoxy over Rome. His reasons reinforced my sense that Protestantism was wrong; but I also thought that his defense of Orthodoxy over Catholicism was unsatisfying and superficial. Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.

Why is Hahn so mealy-mouthed?

I really prefer the resounding words of the nineteenth-century church historian Adolf von Harnack who wrote,

"The Orthodox Church is in her entire structure alien to the gospel and represents a perversion of the Christian religion, its reduction to the level of pagan antiquity."

Now *that* is a statement you can respect !!
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,107



« Reply #96 on: June 08, 2011, 02:05:55 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?

I don't know how much point there would be to going through those question one-by-one. Hahn doesn't necessarily represent Catholicism, notwithstanding my earlier statement that he is "popular". I'm not even sure if he could be said to "represent" neo-conservative Catholics.

The sentence I quoted is from this passage:

Quote
So I started looking into Orthodoxy. I met with Peter Gillquist, an evangelical convert to Antiochian Orthodoxy, to hear why he chose Orthodoxy over Rome. His reasons reinforced my sense that Protestantism was wrong; but I also thought that his defense of Orthodoxy over Catholicism was unsatisfying and superficial. Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.

Why is Hahn so mealy-mouthed?

I really prefer the resounding words of the nineteenth-century church historian Adolf von Harnack who wrote,

"The Orthodox Church is in her entire structure alien to the gospel and represents a perversion of the Christian religion, its reduction to the level of pagan antiquity."

Now *that* is a statement you can respect !!

Grin

Well, you might prefer that, but I suspect that Hahn wouldn't be nearly as popular among Catholics (including a lot of "ecumenical-minded" Catholics) if he said that.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,446



« Reply #97 on: June 08, 2011, 02:35:07 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Who would call an Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Council?
You keep on asking that as if a documented answer hasn't been given (and it has, several times).  There have been several Pan Orthodox Synods before and after the Vatican went its way.  Most have been convened by the emperor or the EP, but there have been exceptions, e.g. the Synod of Jerusalem, called by Pat. Dositheus. It's not an impossibility, just the need has not arisen.

The Vatican has invented for itself its canon that only it can call Ecumenical Councils.  No such rule called any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #98 on: June 08, 2011, 02:37:07 PM »

Scott Hahn:

It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Seriously, the man should take his blinkers off.   THIS is what we have reaped in the 20th century  -- a harvest of 50 million martyrs who stand now before the throne of Jesus Christ and are already preparing the Church for a renewed flourishing of Christian faith and holiness.  To take Russia as an example, in the last 20 years the monasteries have grown from just 4 under Communism to over 400. Monasteries and convents filled with monks and nuns, and fresh accommodation being built at as fast as can be.  So many aspirants that the Holy Synod has asked the abbots to discourage older married couples separating and going into monasteries and to concentrate on taking the younger applicants. The same situation in Serbia.  Everywhere young monks with black beards.

We give glory and praise to God for these holy Martyrs and what their prayers are now bringing about.

"In Memory Of The 50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust"

http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,446



« Reply #99 on: June 08, 2011, 02:38:14 PM »

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

What on earth are you talking about?

The Church never held any Ecumenical Council for the first 300 years if its existence.  Was it stagnating?  

Must have been a ghastly period of stagnation for you.

I really cannot think of any compelling reason why the Church would need to convene Ecumenical Councils after it had addressed the major Trinitarian, Christological and Pneumatological heresies between 325 and 787 - a brief period of 460 years.
You have to forgive Wyatt's Vatican, Father, as it continually needs "Ecumenical Councils" to rubber stamp approval of the latest version of its present "truth."  When your life is constantly in flux, you think chasos and change for change  is normal.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 02:40:50 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,446



« Reply #100 on: June 08, 2011, 02:45:29 PM »

Christ is ascended!

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
God forbid!
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #101 on: June 08, 2011, 03:53:15 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Who would call an Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Council?
You keep on asking that as if a documented answer hasn't been given (and it has, several times).  There have been several Pan Orthodox Synods before and after the Vatican went its way.  Most have been convened by the emperor or the EP, but there have been exceptions, e.g. the Synod of Jerusalem, called by Pat. Dositheus. It's not an impossibility, just the need has not arisen.

The Vatican has invented for itself its canon that only it can call Ecumenical Councils.  No such rule called any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Are "Pan Orthodox Synods" the same as Ecumenical Councils?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #102 on: June 08, 2011, 03:53:16 PM »

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

What on earth are you talking about?

The Church never held any Ecumenical Council for the first 300 years if its existence.  Was it stagnating? 

Must have been a ghastly period of stagnation for you.

I really cannot think of any compelling reason why the Church would need to convene Ecumenical Councils after it had addressed the major Trinitarian, Christological and Pneumatological heresies between 325 and 787 - a brief period of 460 years.
You have to forgive Wyatt's Vatican, Father, as it continually needs "Ecumenical Councils" to rubber stamp approval of the latest version of its present "truth."
Since when is the Vatican mine? Oh well...that's sweet I guess. If I'm going to possess a plot of land, might as well be holy and venerable land.  angel
Logged
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« Reply #103 on: June 08, 2011, 04:06:48 PM »

Not holding being able to hold an Ecumenical Council for a millennium maybe?

Ever heard of Arabs, Turks, Tatars, Mongols, Communists, Austro-Hungary?

Vikings, Nazis, Barbarians, Moors and Muslims, World Wars...
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 04:09:18 PM by Nero » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,446



« Reply #104 on: June 08, 2011, 04:12:21 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Not holding being able to hold an Ecumenical Council for a millennium maybe?

Ever heard of Arabs, Turks, Tatars, Mongols, Communists, Austro-Hungary?

Vikings, Nazis, Barbarians, Moors and Muslims, Visigoths, World Wars...
All of which has nothing to do with it, as all the Ecumenical Councils after Constantinople I had such problems to worry about.  We had Pan Orthodox and Ecumenical Councils despite all that.  Although the East's obstacles (Ottomans etc.) were more substantive problems.
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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,446



« Reply #105 on: June 08, 2011, 04:13:52 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Who would call an Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Council?
You keep on asking that as if a documented answer hasn't been given (and it has, several times).  There have been several Pan Orthodox Synods before and after the Vatican went its way.  Most have been convened by the emperor or the EP, but there have been exceptions, e.g. the Synod of Jerusalem, called by Pat. Dositheus. It's not an impossibility, just the need has not arisen.

The Vatican has invented for itself its canon that only it can call Ecumenical Councils.  No such rule called any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Are "Pan Orthodox Synods" the same as Ecumenical Councils?
Except for not being infallible and irreformable, i.e. of eternal authority and not for the moment, yes.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,107



« Reply #106 on: June 08, 2011, 04:29:31 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Who would call an Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Council?
You keep on asking that as if a documented answer hasn't been given (and it has, several times).  There have been several Pan Orthodox Synods before and after the Vatican went its way.  Most have been convened by the emperor or the EP, but there have been exceptions, e.g. the Synod of Jerusalem, called by Pat. Dositheus. It's not an impossibility, just the need has not arisen.

The Vatican has invented for itself its canon that only it can call Ecumenical Councils.  No such rule called any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Are "Pan Orthodox Synods" the same as Ecumenical Councils?

Perhaps the best way for us Catholics to understand the term "Pan Orthodox Synod" is to compare it to the term "General Council" as used by the West.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,107



« Reply #107 on: June 08, 2011, 04:31:15 PM »

Not holding being able to hold an Ecumenical Council for a millennium maybe?

Ever heard of Arabs, Turks, Tatars, Mongols, Communists, Austro-Hungary?

Vikings, Nazis, Barbarians, Moors and Muslims, World Wars...

I haven't the slightest idea what you two are talking about.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,446



« Reply #108 on: June 08, 2011, 06:23:19 PM »

Christ is ascended!
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?
Quote
18. Is there any sure repository of holy tradition?

All true believers united by the holy tradition of the faith, collectively and successively, by the will of God, compose the Church; and she is the sure repository of holy tradition, or, as St. Paul expresses it, The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim. iii. 15.

St. Irenæus writes thus:

We ought not to seek among others the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church; for in her, as in a rich treasure-house, the Apostles have laid up in its fullness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life. (Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 4.)
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #109 on: June 08, 2011, 06:28:15 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Quote
18. Is there any sure repository of holy tradition?

All true believers united by the holy tradition of the faith, collectively and successively, by the will of God, compose the Church; and she is the sure repository of holy tradition, or, as St. Paul expresses it, The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim. iii. 15.

St. Irenæus writes thus:

We ought not to seek among others the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church; for in her, as in a rich treasure-house, the Apostles have laid up in its fullness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life. (Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 4.)
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

With the sound of a trumpet!

Thanks for this.  Nicely put.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #110 on: June 08, 2011, 08:59:58 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Who would call an Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Council?
You keep on asking that as if a documented answer hasn't been given (and it has, several times).  There have been several Pan Orthodox Synods before and after the Vatican went its way.  Most have been convened by the emperor or the EP, but there have been exceptions, e.g. the Synod of Jerusalem, called by Pat. Dositheus. It's not an impossibility, just the need has not arisen.

The Vatican has invented for itself its canon that only it can call Ecumenical Councils.  No such rule called any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Are "Pan Orthodox Synods" the same as Ecumenical Councils?
Except for not being infallible and irreformable, i.e. of eternal authority and not for the moment, yes.
So, say the Eastern Orthodox did hold a council that is "infallible and irreformable," how would such a council be called? Would the Ecumenical Patriarch call it? Who decides if the council is ecumenical or not?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 09:00:14 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,446



« Reply #111 on: June 09, 2011, 10:58:42 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Christ is ascended!
Who would call an Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Council?
You keep on asking that as if a documented answer hasn't been given (and it has, several times).  There have been several Pan Orthodox Synods before and after the Vatican went its way.  Most have been convened by the emperor or the EP, but there have been exceptions, e.g. the Synod of Jerusalem, called by Pat. Dositheus. It's not an impossibility, just the need has not arisen.

The Vatican has invented for itself its canon that only it can call Ecumenical Councils.  No such rule called any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Are "Pan Orthodox Synods" the same as Ecumenical Councils?
Except for not being infallible and irreformable, i.e. of eternal authority and not for the moment, yes.
So, say the Eastern Orthodox did hold a council that is "infallible and irreformable," how would such a council be called?
The same way the Pan Orthodox Councils are called, in which case we mean, how have they been called, as we are talking about actual practice, not rarified theory.

They have been called, like all the Ecumenical Councils, by the Emperors, but lesser powers have called them: Prince Vasile Lupu of Moldova convened the Synod of  Iași (called the Council of Jassy in the West) in 1642.  The EP has called them, but so have other hiearchs: Patriarcah Dositheos of Jerusalem called the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.  Examples called by the EP would be the Synods of Constantinople in 1593 (which elevated Moscow as the Third Rome and Fifth Patriarchate), and of 1723 (which accepted the reorganization of the Patriarchate of Moscow into the Holy Governing Synod).
Would the Ecumenical Patriarch call it?
His All Holiness has, but so have others.  Which is why the present EP is having trouble excluding the OCA from the conciliar talks HAH has called.

Who decides if the council is ecumenical or not?
As the case with the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Pan Orthodox Councils of that time, the Church decides.
The Church, for instance, decided that the Second Ecumenical Council was Ecumenical, although it was convened as a local Council.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 11:06:14 AM 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,107



« Reply #112 on: June 09, 2011, 11:53:00 AM »

Who decides if the council is ecumenical or not?
As the case with the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Pan Orthodox Councils of that time, the Church decides.

This is a point we can agree on.

Consider for example that, on the Catholic side, eight councils (First Council of the Lateran, Second Council of the Lateran, Third Council of the Lateran, Fourth Council of the Lateran, First Council of Lyon, Second Council of Lyon, Council of Vienne, and Council of Constance) were regarded as "General Councils" until sometime in the 16th century, at which St Robert Bellarmine and others proposed that they should be considered Ecumenical Councils -- a proposal which later came to be widely accepted in the Catholic Church.

Nor would I rule out the possibility that the Orthodox Church might someday come to consider one or more of the "Pan-Orthodox Councils" to be an Ecumenical Council.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 11:55:14 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 10, 2011, 02:33:08 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Not holding being able to hold an Ecumenical Council for a millennium maybe?

Ever heard of Arabs, Turks, Tatars, Mongols, Communists, Austro-Hungary?

Vikings, Nazis, Barbarians, Moors and Muslims, Visigoths, World Wars...
All of which has nothing to do with it, as all the Ecumenical Councils after Constantinople I had such problems to worry about.  We had Pan Orthodox and Ecumenical Councils despite all that.  Although the East's obstacles (Ottomans etc.) were more substantive problems.

So what Ecumenical Councils where convened in the areas were Orthodox Christians were discriminated or openly persecuted by the state? What Councils were convened in the warfare?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 02:34:19 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #114 on: June 10, 2011, 03:13:53 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Not holding being able to hold an Ecumenical Council for a millennium maybe?

Ever heard of Arabs, Turks, Tatars, Mongols, Communists, Austro-Hungary?

Vikings, Nazis, Barbarians, Moors and Muslims, Visigoths, World Wars...
All of which has nothing to do with it, as all the Ecumenical Councils after Constantinople I had such problems to worry about.  We had Pan Orthodox and Ecumenical Councils despite all that.  Although the East's obstacles (Ottomans etc.) were more substantive problems.

So what Ecumenical Councils where convened in the areas were Orthodox Christians were discriminated or openly persecuted by the state? What Councils were convened in the warfare?

Is the presence of mutilated hierarchs, clergy and laity at Ecumenical Councils not well attested to?? I know someone who says that it is scandalous that we would even consider holding a Holy and Great Council without mutilated hierarchs present.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 03:27:49 AM by John of the North » Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,446



« Reply #115 on: June 10, 2011, 01:40:10 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Not holding being able to hold an Ecumenical Council for a millennium maybe?

Ever heard of Arabs, Turks, Tatars, Mongols, Communists, Austro-Hungary?

Vikings, Nazis, Barbarians, Moors and Muslims, Visigoths, World Wars...
All of which has nothing to do with it, as all the Ecumenical Councils after Constantinople I had such problems to worry about.  We had Pan Orthodox and Ecumenical Councils despite all that.  Although the East's obstacles (Ottomans etc.) were more substantive problems.

So what Ecumenical Councils where convened in the areas were Orthodox Christians were discriminated or openly persecuted by the state? What Councils were convened in the warfare?
Ecumenical Councils concern the whole Church, not just where they are convened.

The First, Fourth and Seventh Councils were convened in times of peace for the Orthodox, but preceded and followed by strife.

The Fifth was held when Rome had just been liberated from Arian Goths, the Sixth when Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had fallen to the caliphs and Cyprus harrassed, with Rome surrounded by the Arian Lombards; the Seventh when only Constantinople stood free (and even then it was threated by the caliphs, pagan slavs, etc.). 

All this talk is besides the point: if Wyatt had lived in 1111, he would bring this up: at that time, even if you retroactively (as the Vatican did) accept Constantinople IV 869 as an Ecumenical Council, it would be 242 years since one was called, and it would be 12 more years before the Vatican called one. 336 years if you count from Nicea II.  What did the Vatican do all those 254/336 years, almost as long as the c. 275 years between the Council of Jerusalem of the Apostles and the Council of Nicea I?  After 1123 the Vatican did average to call another council every 50 years, but then after Trent it waited three centuries.  If the Vatican could call a council during those three centuries, why didn't it?

If it were as the Ultramontanists allege, and we cannot call an Ecumenical Council after 1054, by that date we have gone without one for nearly three centuries, two centuries if you want to count Constantinople IV.  And yet, even by the Ultramontanists own admission, the Church still managed to exist.
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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,214


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 10, 2011, 01:49:27 PM »

It has been discussed that one of the ways that east and west could move beyond the debate over post 1054 'ecumenical councils' held by the west, would be for the west to go back to its pre-17th century nomenclature and determine that they were in fact, 'general councils' or some sort of 'super synod.' However, if that were to happen, the theologians and the pope would have a whole lot of 'splaining to do to the faithful. This is kind of ironic in that one of the Catholic posters recently was quite adament that the laity have nothing to do with the preservation of tradition. If he is right, then there should be 'no problemo' from the Catholic rank and file, but methinks that is not really the case........
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,446



« Reply #117 on: June 10, 2011, 02:07:49 PM »

Christ is ascended!
It has been discussed that one of the ways that east and west could move beyond the debate over post 1054 'ecumenical councils' held by the west, would be for the west to go back to its pre-17th century nomenclature and determine that they were in fact, 'general councils' or some sort of 'super synod.' However, if that were to happen, the theologians and the pope would have a whole lot of 'splaining to do to the faithful. This is kind of ironic in that one of the Catholic posters recently was quite adament that the laity have nothing to do with the preservation of tradition. If he is right, then there should be 'no problemo' from the Catholic rank and file, but methinks that is not really the case........
LOL. Indeed.  Things are not as they are made out to be.
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
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,211



WWW
« Reply #118 on: June 10, 2011, 04:04:59 PM »

Can "good works" serve to "cover" ("atone" in Hebrew) for one's sins?


The Literal Translation

The Jewish Publication Society translation says: “Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.”

And this translation of "breaking off" matches the Protestant King James Version.

The word-for-word translation of this phrase from Strong's Hebrew dictionary says: "sin by righteousness break your iniquities showing to the poor". (http://biblos.com/daniel/4-27.htm)

In Hebrew, "atonement" means "cover" or "ransom". "Breaking off" is a different word than the one for "atonement/cover/ransom."


The Rabbinical View

Daniel 4:24(Judaica Press Tanakh) says: "Indeed, O king, may my counsel please you, and with charity you will remove your sin and your iniquity by showing mercy to the poor; perhaps your tranquility will last."
At first glance this sounds like the king was bearing some sins and could atone for them with charity.

The Rabbinical view, apparently based in part on this verse, is that good works act as an atonement. Thus, one rabbinical criticism of Christianity is that it wouldn't be necessary for the Messiah to die, since good works would be another way to act as an atonement.


The Roman Catholic View

The Roman Catholic "New American Bible" translates Daniel 4:24 as:
Therefore, O king, take my advice; atone for your sins by good deeds, and for your misdeeds by kindness to the poor; then your prosperity will be long."
Footnote: [24] A classic Scriptural text for the efficacy of good works


Another Catholic website lists Daniel 4:24 among "Biblical Texts which point to the existence of Purgatory"

It sounds like the Roman Catholic view is that "good works" act to "atone" for sins.

Although this matches the Rabbinical view, the Catholic translation is farther off than the Rabbinical translation, since the Rabbinical translation at least doesn't say "atone"


The Protestant View

A Protestant commentary I read (http://www.defendproclaimthefaith.org/jewish_objection_atonement.htm) explains that this verse is Daniel telling Nebuchadnezzar that if he ceased doing his sins by doing righteousness like helping the poor, then he might avoid disaster.
Personally, It seems to me that the passage's words about "breaking off" from sin could be different from the idea of a religious cover or ransom from guilt (asham).


The Protestant view may be influenced by the Protestant idea of Sola Fide. The Protestant view is not that good works and following God aren't "necessary" or aren't part of being a righteous person.

Instead, the Protestant view of "Sola Fide" focuses on the specific way in which the blessings of Christ's atonement are transmitted. Protestantism says that faith is the spiritual instrument or vehicle by which we are "saved", or in "Protestant-speak": receive the blessings of the atonement, have our sins cleansed.
(The Protestant concept of "getting saved" focuses on the Atonement & communion with Jesus, while Orthodox think about "being saved" in terms of a process of following God's example and becoming like Him. However, the narrow Protestant concept is a piece of the broader Orthodox term for Salvation. This is a tangent, because right now I am only focusing on the "Atonement" part of Orthodoxy.)

Still, I am not sure that Protestants would say faith itself acts as an atonement, but simply that it is an instrument or means connecting us to Christ so that we receive the atonement's blessings.


What do you think the Orthodox View is?
I could see the Orthodox view matching the Protestant view and seeing the RC view as an incorrect development of its doctrine about merits and Purgatory that developed in Western Christianity in the Middle Ages. Perhaps the Rabbinical view could also be seen as a way of coping with the fact that atonement sacrifices weren't being performed anymore- although I think maybe some Judaic groups might still perform them.


Side question: Can love and truth serve to Atone?

Another verse says that "[By] Lovingkindness and truth iniquity is purged and [by] the fear of the LORD men depart from evil" (Proverbs 16:6)
The Rabbinical view says that this means love can act to atone for sin, so it can be used instead of ritual sacrifice. However, I find this even less clear, because love is not an act like performing charity. Instead, it makes sense to see love as a motivation or spirit involved in or forwarding the process.

On the other hand, perhaps love does also serve as an atoning agent, that it is something that is involved with spiritually cleansing sins. But that doesn't mean nothing else is involved. For example, paint paints a house, but there is also a paintbrush and a painter involved.

What do you think?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 04:06:47 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #119 on: August 25, 2011, 05:44:00 AM »


But the Partial Judgement is NOT the Final Judgement which will occur when Christ comes to judge mankind.  It is "partial" in the sense that it is not fully definitive and between it and the Final Judgment a soul's fate may be altered, even to the extent of being rescued from hell.

As we know salvation from hell was once a part of Western Catholic belief also but it has been discarded.  An echo of the old orthodox belief survives still in the Requiem Mass "Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu."

For a little more on that see message 50
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32546.msg514593.html#msg514593

The true and ancient Irish belief in rescue from hell....

"How Saint Patrick Spent Lent in the Year 439 AD"

White birds come to fly around them singing sweetly, and the Angel
promises Patrick the sea and the land as far as his eye can see.
Patrick asks, "Is there nothing else that He grants me besides this?"
The Angel tells him that he may have seven souls saved from hell on
every Saturday until Doomsday.  Patrick replies that if God is going to
give him anything, let Him give twelve souls.  "Thou shalt have them,
but get thee gone from the reek," says the Angel.


Patrick refuses to go, saying that as he has been tormented he will not
go until he is satisfied, and asks what else God will give him.  The
Angel promises the rescue from Hell of seven souls every Thursday in
addition to the twelve already promised every Saturday, if Patrick will
leave the reek.



Extract ::  "How Saint Patrick Spent Lent in the Year 439 AD"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2951
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 05:49:17 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #120 on: August 25, 2011, 08:51:23 AM »

Ah!  Now I see a clear difference between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church.

In the Catholic Church man owes God...

In Orthodoxy, God owes man...



But the Partial Judgement is NOT the Final Judgement which will occur when Christ comes to judge mankind.  It is "partial" in the sense that it is not fully definitive and between it and the Final Judgment a soul's fate may be altered, even to the extent of being rescued from hell.

As we know salvation from hell was once a part of Western Catholic belief also but it has been discarded.  An echo of the old orthodox belief survives still in the Requiem Mass "Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu."

For a little more on that see message 50
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32546.msg514593.html#msg514593

The true and ancient Irish belief in rescue from hell....

"How Saint Patrick Spent Lent in the Year 439 AD"

White birds come to fly around them singing sweetly, and the Angel
promises Patrick the sea and the land as far as his eye can see.
Patrick asks, "Is there nothing else that He grants me besides this?"
The Angel tells him that he may have seven souls saved from hell on
every Saturday until Doomsday.  Patrick replies that if God is going to
give him anything, let Him give twelve souls.  "Thou shalt have them,
but get thee gone from the reek," says the Angel.


Patrick refuses to go, saying that as he has been tormented he will not
go until he is satisfied, and asks what else God will give him.  The
Angel promises the rescue from Hell of seven souls every Thursday in
addition to the twelve already promised every Saturday, if Patrick will
leave the reek.



Extract ::  "How Saint Patrick Spent Lent in the Year 439 AD"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2951
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,214


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #121 on: August 25, 2011, 09:01:05 AM »

^ Really? A most erroneous, uncharitable and uncalled for comment, in my opinion.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #122 on: August 25, 2011, 09:11:26 AM »

\

^ Really? A most erroneous, uncharitable and uncalled for comment, in my opinion.

But still a most astounding admission from Elijahmaria that the religious culture of Saint Patrick and 5th century Christianity in Ireland was that of Orthodoxy and not that of modern Roman Catholicism!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: August 25, 2011, 09:14:43 AM »

^ Really? A most erroneous, uncharitable and uncalled for comment, in my opinion.

Not when one considers some of the more vile things said about my faith here in this Forum.

The difference is that those who deliver those shots here mean precisely what they say and work hard to make it as ugly as possible.

I however do this kind of thing rarely, and in an attempt to show you what it feels like.  I don't really believe what I say, nor do I mean to do any lasting harm, unlike those here who want to see many aspects of my faith destroyed...and are quite willing and eager to say so.

Where are you when all that is happening?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: August 25, 2011, 09:15:51 AM »

\

^ Really? A most erroneous, uncharitable and uncalled for comment, in my opinion.

But still a most astounding admission from Elijahmaria that the religious culture of Saint Patrick and 5th century Christianity in Ireland was that of Orthodoxy and not that of modern Roman Catholicism!

Who am I to argue with male claiming behavior?  Smiley
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: August 25, 2011, 10:19:00 AM »

\

^ Really? A most erroneous, uncharitable and uncalled for comment, in my opinion.

But still a most astounding admission from Elijahmaria that the religious culture of Saint Patrick and 5th century Christianity in Ireland was that of Orthodoxy and not that of modern Roman Catholicism!

Who am I to argue with male claiming behavior?  Smiley

But it was thine own self who put forth the claim that Saint Patrick's requests of God were an example of "In Orthodoxy, God owes man..." (another of your vile claims against Orthodoxy) thereby identifying the Saint with Orthodoxy (or what you erroneously perceive as Orthodoxy.  laugh )


« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 10:23:35 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: August 25, 2011, 10:29:26 AM »

\

^ Really? A most erroneous, uncharitable and uncalled for comment, in my opinion.

But still a most astounding admission from Elijahmaria that the religious culture of Saint Patrick and 5th century Christianity in Ireland was that of Orthodoxy and not that of modern Roman Catholicism!

Who am I to argue with male claiming behavior?  Smiley

But it was thine own self who put forth the claim that Saint Patrick's requests of God were an example of "In Orthodoxy, God owes man..." (another of your vile claims against Orthodoxy) thereby identifying the Saint with Orthodoxy (or what you erroneously perceive as Orthodoxy.  laugh )

 laugh laugh laugh

Darn!!...you got me. 

Well that's ok.  I never did have much truck with Patrick anyway.

But ya cannot have Saint Brigit!!!

 angel
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: August 25, 2011, 12:28:41 PM »


Well that's ok.  I never did have much truck with Patrick anyway.


The high veneration in which the Irish hold Patrick is evidenced by the common salutation, "May God, Mary, and Patrick bless you."

He singlehandedly--an almost impossible task--converted Ireland. Saint Patrick established the Church throughout Ireland on lasting foundations: hetravelled throughout the country preaching, teaching, building churches, opening schools and monasteries, converting chiefs and bards, and everywhere supporting his preaching with miracles.

"The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland" written by the Four Masters state that by the year 438 Christianity had made such progress in Ireland that the laws were changed to agree with the Gospel. That means that in just a few years a 60 year old man was able to so change the country that even the laws were amended. St. Patrick had no printing press, no finances, few helpers and Ireland had no Roman roads to travel on.  But when he died, about 466, Ireland was worshipping Christ in every part of the country.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: August 25, 2011, 12:48:42 PM »


Well that's ok.  I never did have much truck with Patrick anyway.


The high veneration in which the Irish hold Patrick is evidenced by the common salutation, "May God, Mary, and Patrick bless you."

He singlehandedly--an almost impossible task--converted Ireland. Saint Patrick established the Church throughout Ireland on lasting foundations: hetravelled throughout the country preaching, teaching, building churches, opening schools and monasteries, converting chiefs and bards, and everywhere supporting his preaching with miracles.

"The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland" written by the Four Masters state that by the year 438 Christianity had made such progress in Ireland that the laws were changed to agree with the Gospel. That means that in just a few years a 60 year old man was able to so change the country that even the laws were amended. St. Patrick had no printing press, no finances, few helpers and Ireland had no Roman roads to travel on.  But when he died, about 466, Ireland was worshipping Christ in every part of the country.

True enough.

I was jest joshin' ya!!
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,340


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #129 on: August 25, 2011, 04:09:15 PM »

Scott Hahn:

It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Seriously, the man should take his blinkers off.   THIS is what we have reaped in the 20th century  -- a harvest of 50 million martyrs who stand now before the throne of Jesus Christ and are already preparing the Church for a renewed flourishing of Christian faith and holiness.  To take Russia as an example, in the last 20 years the monasteries have grown from just 4 under Communism to over 400. Monasteries and convents filled with monks and nuns, and fresh accommodation being built at as fast as can be.  So many aspirants that the Holy Synod has asked the abbots to discourage older married couples separating and going into monasteries and to concentrate on taking the younger applicants. The same situation in Serbia.  Everywhere young monks with black beards.

We give glory and praise to God for these holy Martyrs and what their prayers are now bringing about.

"In Memory Of The 50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust"

http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm

Fabulous article.
Quote
Editors Notes: We cannot even well imagine but "50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust" is not the correct number, as we have learned from Alexander Solzhenitsyn that more then 66.5 million Orthodox Christians also perished from 1917 and onward during the times of the Soviet Union.
Logged

Silly Stars
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,459



« Reply #130 on: August 25, 2011, 04:24:54 PM »


But the Partial Judgement is NOT the Final Judgement which will occur when Christ comes to judge mankind.  It is "partial" in the sense that it is not fully definitive and between it and the Final Judgment a soul's fate may be altered, even to the extent of being rescued from hell.

As we know salvation from hell was once a part of Western Catholic belief also but it has been discarded.  An echo of the old orthodox belief survives still in the Requiem Mass "Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu."

For a little more on that see message 50
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32546.msg514593.html#msg514593

The true and ancient Irish belief in rescue from hell....

"How Saint Patrick Spent Lent in the Year 439 AD"

White birds come to fly around them singing sweetly, and the Angel
promises Patrick the sea and the land as far as his eye can see.
Patrick asks, "Is there nothing else that He grants me besides this?"
The Angel tells him that he may have seven souls saved from hell on
every Saturday until Doomsday.  Patrick replies that if God is going to
give him anything, let Him give twelve souls.  "Thou shalt have them,
but get thee gone from the reek," says the Angel.


Patrick refuses to go, saying that as he has been tormented he will not
go until he is satisfied, and asks what else God will give him.  The
Angel promises the rescue from Hell of seven souls every Thursday in
addition to the twelve already promised every Saturday, if Patrick will
leave the reek.



Extract ::  "How Saint Patrick Spent Lent in the Year 439 AD"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2951

ROFL! This is awesome material to work with.

Thanks Father.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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 0.181 seconds with 69 queries.