T
- Status
T
TrentCath
Guest
Also it appears I may have been somewhat hasty in conceding that ‘Hades’ and Purgatory were one and the same thing.
Now this website (Orthodox Catholic Faith) states** 'Orthodoxy teaches that, after the soul leaves the body, it journeys to the abode of the dead (Hades). There are exceptions, such as the Theotokos, who was borne by the angels directly into heaven. As for the rest, we must remain in this condition of waiting. Because some have a prevision of the glory to come and others foretaste their suffering, the state of waiting is called “Particular Judgment.”
**
It is supported by the Orthodox Confession of Faith written by Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47) which can be read here which states **'Q. 61. Will all men then give an account of their works, each one individually (48) giving an account, and will there be a particular judgment?
R. Although there will not be rendered an account of one’s life on that day of last judgment, since God knows all things, yet anyone knowing his sins at the time of death will recognize even more so after his death what he has merited. For if indeed one’s works will be known to a man, even also will he be aware of the verdict of God, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus says: “I am persuaded by the words of the wise to believe that every fair and God-beloved soul, when freed from the chains of the body, departs hence and immediately rejoices in the total perception and contemplation of the good which awaits it and experiences a wonderful pleasure and happily flies to the Lord, this life having been fled, as from a grave prison, and having shaken off the fetters by which the wings of the mind were accustomed to be held down, and enters into the happiness concealed in the image which it now perceives; and later when it receives its recognized flesh from the earth, which both gave it and accepted it in faith and then it also will be allowed to enter the inheritance of the heavenly glory.”[151] So also in regard to the souls of the sinners, it is to be thought that certainly they themselves are aware of the damnation that they are to receive. Although both good and evil do not have perfect payment for their deeds before the last judgment, nevertheless, because they are not in the same state, they are not sent to the same place. But, it is clear that this would be impossible before the last judgment without a particular judgment. Therefore, there is a particular judgment.’**
I had encountered this idea of a ‘Particular Judgement’ before and can’t believe that I didn’t remember it sooner as regards this discussion. Now we know that the catholic faith teaches that one of 3 things happen to us after we die:
*]We Go Straight to Hell
*]We Go Straight to heaven
*]We go to purgatory until we are purified
'**I. The Particular Judgment
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification592 or immediately,593-or immediate and everlasting damnation.594’** (New Catechism of the Catholic Church, which can be seen
here vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2L.HTM )
The first undoubtedly happens to the greater number of souls, the second to a very few most obviously the Virgin Mary and The Saints, the third to everyone else. This idea of a ‘Particular Judgement’ as a state of waiting is in no way taught or accepted by the Catholic Faith.
It appears to have its origins in 2 Esdras (A book not accepted as canonical by the church but used by some Orthodox) Chapter 7 verses 76-101, specifically where verses 100-101 where it says '…‘Will time therefore be given to the souls, after they have been seperated from their bodies, to see what you have described to me?’ He said to me, 'They shall have freedom for seven days, so that during these seven days they may see the things of which you have been told, and afterwards they shall be gathered in their habitations’ Now it is one thing to accept as scripture a book that you do not use for Dogma (though I would find it remarkable that a passage such as this would not be used to support the idea of a particular judgement) another to accept as scripture a book which appears to be clearly contrary to what the church teaches.
Lastly from The Orthodox Confession of Faith it is said regarding Purgatory '**Q. 66. How must one consider the purgatorial fire?
R. No Scripture makes mention of the fact that after death there is a temporal punishment that cleanses souls; what is more, the opinion of Origen was condemned by the Church at the second Council of Constantinople because of this. Also, the soul can receive no sacraments after death; and if it were then to make satisfaction for its sins, it would have to perform a part of the sacrament of holy Penance, which would be contrary to the orthodox teaching. Therefore, the Church rightly performs for them the unbloody sacrifice and prayers, but they do not cleanse themselves by suffering something. But, the Church never maintained that which pertains to the fanciful stories of some concerning the souls of their dead, who have not done penance and are punished, as it were, in streams, springs and swamps**.’
Now whilst it is true that ‘purgatorial fire’ per se was not defined as Dogma, cleansing pains were by the Council of Florence (something which I have previously pointed out). Therefore even if it is true that Hades and purgatory are the same (something which is not at all clear) the Orthodox understanding of it would still be faulty and contrary to Church Teaching.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Ok, fine. All Eastern Christians (whether Orthodox like myself or Eastern Catholic like a majority of the people on this board) are deviant heretics who have no place in the Catholic Church. Enjoy breathing with one lung again. Happy?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother TrentCath,
I will respond to your posts soon, but can you please do all of us here a favor.
When you respond, can you please be discerning about using the quote function?
Please notice the gray area of your posts. If you include your response in that gray area, then when someone hits the {quote} button at the bottom of the post to respond to your post, then your entire post disappears.
What you need to do is separate each portion of the post you are responding to with the quote function (it looks like a bubble in the icon header of the response window, to the left of the icon that looks like the pound sign). Use the quote function to demarcate the portions of someone’s post to which you want to respond, and give your response after using the quote function. When you do that, your particular responses will appear once someone hits the {quote} button at the bottom of your post to respond to you.
Mardukm:
Mardukm:
Mardukm:
===================================================
Make sure to give your responses after the symbol ****
Blessings,
Marduk
I will respond to your posts soon, but can you please do all of us here a favor.
When you respond, can you please be discerning about using the quote function?
Please notice the gray area of your posts. If you include your response in that gray area, then when someone hits the {quote} button at the bottom of the post to respond to your post, then your entire post disappears.
What you need to do is separate each portion of the post you are responding to with the quote function (it looks like a bubble in the icon header of the response window, to the left of the icon that looks like the pound sign). Use the quote function to demarcate the portions of someone’s post to which you want to respond, and give your response after using the quote function. When you do that, your particular responses will appear once someone hits the {quote} button at the bottom of your post to respond to you.
Here is an example of what it will look like:
Here is the response of TrentCath1.
Here is the response of TrentCath2.
Here is the response of TrentCath3.
===================================================
Make sure to give your responses after the symbol ****
Blessings,
Marduk
T
TrentCath
Guest
No problem
T
TrentCath
Guest
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water… No, seriously that isn’t what I said. I didn’t use the word heretic until others started bandying it around in relation to my view, for some time afterwards. All I have done is put forward the view of the Church no more and no less. To imply that I said all Eastern Christians were heretics is a gross distortion of my words and actions, in fact its simply making things up.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I just find it odd that you question their beliefs when they have been reunited with Rome. Their very existence seems to attract your suspicion, which disturbs me somewhat.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Cavaradossi,
However, as you may have noticed, he has recently accepted correction on several opinions he previously expressed. So let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. I’d like to assume he is here to learn, as all of us are.
Blessings,
Marduk
I greatly appreciate your comments on this point, as I’m sure my other Oriental and Eastern brethren do as well. I admit I felt the same apprehension that you and others have felt about brother Trentcath’s purpose here in the ECF (expressed not only by you, but others, including one of our Latin Catholic brethren).
However, as you may have noticed, he has recently accepted correction on several opinions he previously expressed. So let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. I’d like to assume he is here to learn, as all of us are.
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, the Supreme Pontiff has limited powers of governance over the universal Church. He also has other powers of governance because he is a bishop over the See of the Vicar of Christ: the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome including the Primatal See, and Vatican City State.
gcatholic.com/dioceses/data/type-rome.htm
Christus Dominus:
Individual bishops who have been entrusted with the care of a particular church-under the authority of the supreme pontiff-feed their sheep in the name of the Lord as their own, ordinary, and immediate pastors, performing for them the office of teaching, sanctifying, and governing. Nevertheless, they should recognize the rights which legitimately belong to patriarchs or other hierarchical authorities.
T
TrentCath
Guest
By that token I shouldn’t question the beliefs of ‘Latin Catholics’ and yet I do question some of them
T
TrentCath
Guest
To be frank I feel like we’re just going round in circles, perhaps we should just agree to disagree?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I see your point. If we’re not here to learn, then were here for the wrong reasons
V
Vico
Guest
You do not see that the jurisdiciton over Rome and Italy is different in function from the universal functions unique to the Supreme Pontiff?
T
TrentCath
Guest
I must admit to being confused, to what exactly are you referring?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think he’s saying that the Pope does not govern the Church as a universal diocese or universal archdiocese but that his universal jurisdiction over the church differs in function from the jurisdiction of a bishop over his diocese.
M
mardukm
Guest
Here’s a past post that gives a very abbreviated, but concise explanation:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7952677&postcount=23
Blessings,
Marduk
T
TrentCath
Guest
Thanks for the clarification.
In that case, I say that the only difference I can see between a Bishops jurisdiction over his diocese and that of the Pope over The Church is that that of a bishop is more direct in that a bishop doesn’t wait for other bishops to resolve matters rather he resolves it himself. On the other hand the Pope would normally wait for bishops to resolve problem’s or write to them with instructions to resolve problems before becoming involved himself. That said the First Vatican Council says ‘Wherefore we teach and declare that… this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and
immediate.’ Therefore I can’t see any actual dogmatic differences between a bishops powers over his diocese and that of the Pope over the whole church except that the Popes are greater, but I may be wrong.
T
TrentCath
Guest
Thanks for that interesting post
Here’s a past post that gives a very abbreviated, but concise explanation:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7952677&postcount=23
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
Cavaradossi elaborated well.
I referred to the canon law at first. I believe you are not familiar with it so do not see how they have defined the various powers. Also the clarifications at Vatican II are very good.
The Supreme Pontiff has more power of governance in the See of Rome than in the universal Church. These are different functions.
T
TrentCath
Guest
So what powers would you say The Pope has in the See of Rome that he does not have in The Church?
- Status