I don’t doubt you were given this quote by a Catholic contributor. It is not from Lyons II however. Ludwig Ott’s statement stands. Unfortunately, you will find some radical Catholic traditionalists that will give you stuff like this without any critical examination of the source.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to reference a Council by date or number interchangeably.
I assume you’ve read the book then. Tell me, what Council or ex cathedra statement does the author reference to support this statement?
This is an impossible way to discern the truths of your faith! If you apply those two requirements (conciliar or ex cathedra statements) then what percentage of your teaching will be safe? Much of it will be totally undermined. For starters the teaching on contraception would have no authority nor would the system of annulments and nor would the male only priesthood.
Since when did I say this was the only way to discern the truths of the Catholic faith? You read far too much into my inquiry of Bob; although I’m sure you two will become good friends, since I predict he will do his best to point out the differences between our two Churches without taking any time and effort to see if their views can be reconciled.
The book is published with the approval of HIS EMINENCE THE CARDINAL PATRIARCH OF LISBON
So then you haven’t read the book and cannot tell me what Council or ex cathedra statement is referenced, if any.
Just as a matter of interest and clarification, are there Council or ex cathedra statements about heaven or hell?
Just as a matter of interest and clarification, are there Council or ex cathedra statements about heaven or hell?
I seem to remember those in the statements on IC, infallibility and Assumption.
Yes, but those are not ex cathedra. Ex cathedra statements are very tightly focused. Of the entire document on the Assumption Munificentissimus Deus (48 paragraphs) only one sentence is ex cathedra and binding *de fide *under pain of mortal sin. The rest can be ignored if people desire -as we have seen here today concerning the document’s teaching that Mary actually experienced death. It’s optional.
Yes. I’ll tell you what they are if you relate the EO Tradition on the matter to me.
His present inquiry can be reconciled to the current discussion quite easily.
Abouna, I ask for blessings please,
Perhaps you could give more information than you did in your initial post as to exactly what the Maronite rite believes regarding “sheol”.
(1) Heaven (which can be tricky to define by Syriac terms) is not reachable until the Judgement, all souls wait in Sheol until that time. Is this purgatory? There is no mention of a purgation that I can remember or seen taught by the traditional churches.
A possibly fair assessment, however, “construed” implies false pretenses, I would word it as, “Perhaps this can be an example of “latinized” Maronites?” Purgatory never has been a part of our tradition, thus Maronites teaching purgatory is certainly a latinization.
They only seem irreconcilable until traditions collide, i.e. when Maronites suddenly learn they have to adapt purgatory because the Latins say so, or, when Western Maronites suddenly learn of their actual traditions, but have been so far Latinized to believe those things to be their traditions. Prior to, we pray and worship in ignorance, assuring a conflict free communion. It is when our identity comes into question (whether we are “catholic” enough) do we see these concepts having conflict. Imagine that struggle on a pastoral level? It is a heartbreaking issue to together cry over with a priest.
What we are taught can be found in the Liturgy, and pastoral explanations there of. Sheol comes from the Jewish tradition, as Syriacs have many Semitic influences. Christ broke the gates of Sheol (Hades), but until His judgement all souls must wait. Christ bridged the gap between man and God, but we also must wait for our final decision to be made, and the veil is fully lifted. The Syriac tradition fully accepts and teaches theosis, and that our progression and being with God never ends. There is no final point that must be reached prior to being in God’s light, the belief contrary to does not fit with the Syriac understanding of creation and the soteriological ends.
Ahhh. I think I understand your tradition’s difference with the Roman Catholic belief. So no one from this life is in heaven yet? Do you venerate any saints then in your rite? Hmmm. I suppose the Roman Catholic view is that anyone who is saved (whether in purgatory or heaven) is a saint strictly speaking.
Hmmm. I know if I wanted to switch rites (i.e. from Latin to Maronite), I could and remain in good standing with the Catholic Church (of course I’m not Syrian, but Polish-American so I’m thinking hypothetically really). If I switched rites, will my belief in purgatory be affected?
My apologies. 
So the enacting clause is not ex cathdra. Interesting. This infallibility thing seems more useless than I previously thought.Yes, but those are not ex cathedra. Ex cathedra statements are very tightly focused. Of the entire document on the Assumption Munificentissimus Deus (48 paragraphs) only one sentence is ex cathedra and binding *de fide *under pain of mortal sin. The rest can be ignored if people desire -as we have seen here today concerning the document’s teaching that Mary actually experienced death. It’s optional.