Purgatory......

[Andrew_Phillip]

Google it.

We EO always find the tortured efforts of Byzantine Catholics to justify themselves very amusing!

Of course it does. This is the point that you do not seem to get: You, personally didn’t explain theosis. Others read your comments on forgiveness and heaven and got the wrong impression of the EOC teaching, which sounded heretical. It would help if you posted with a little more care and a lot more caution whe speaking for as “we” for the EOC.

Oh I see… you are the expert on EO beliefs and practice! obviously heresy only applies to others and not yourselves! One wonders why “we EO” caused such an awful fuss with all of that Great Schism nonsense! Oh pleaaase!

Oh my. You will, obviously be very hard pressed to find the ancient Church teaching that she was not “The Immaculate Conception”. I assume that you mean to say something very different. Moreover, while you will find one church father who claims that she did sin, the overwhelming consensus, fortified in the lex orandi, is that she did not. You are speaking inaccurately about EOC teaching. The rest of this passage is a mish-mash of juxtaposed EOC and CC teachings. It’s hard to decipher, but you seem determined to repeat the same error on forgiveness of sin.

**Good Grief!!!

Surely you can’t believe we EO accept the innovation of 1848 regarding the “Immaculate Conception”???

The wages of “Original Sin” is earthly death. The Church always taught the Most Holy Virgin died an earthly death - it’s called the “Dormition of the Virgin” - and it happened just before the “Assumption” - by God’s will and Mercy. This is distinct from the “Asencion” of Christ which happened by His own Divine and Perfect Power - because He was God, and perfect.

And as to “Personal Sin” - we EO recognise the secondary debate about this - and interpret Christs’ rebuke of His mother at the wedding at Cana differently. But it is not the primary point for us anyway - regarding the “Immaculate Conception” dogma and innovation.

Perhaps you could tell us when the Roman Catholic Church decided that the Most Holy Virgin did NOT die and earthly death (or perhaps did or didn’t) - and why Rome taught about the Dormition of the Virgin for about 1500 years?

Please, oh please point to one single quote or source from the seven lawful Ecumenical Councils of the Unified Apostolic Church where the Immacculate Conception is taught and agreed??? Please, just one!!! Go on… I dare you… LOL Uproariously!**

You, however, weighed in with your own opinion that SMM had incontrovertibly justified her position. Did you make that conclusion before even looking at her evidence? Have you gone tribal - accepting whatever any EO says, even when it is patently unsupported?
This is quintessential shark jumping.

**SMM is more than capable of refuting, or justifying any statement she makes with sources and facts… I happen to agree with her on her call here. If you have any incontrovertible proof she is wrong - please provide it. But don’t use the usual RC sophistry such as it’s “unsupported” or “not inconsistent with”. Thats’ just a total cop-out and fluff - you can Google that if you like.
**

Actually I am delighted that you finally made an effort to quote people who can carefully and accurately discuss EO postions. I would love for you to do some similar work on your innovative idea of “no theosis in Hades” and the mutability of God’s judgement. (Hint: Start with St. John Damascene on the latter).

**Hmmm… more condesension. You should be more careful in quoting me - no Theosis in Hell - outside of the eternal uncreated energy and light of God. Hell is for punishment - not for short stays of self improvement!!! Oh… I nearly forgot - you have assumed the role of the EO Magisterium. Sorry **

As to the passages themselves, there isn’t much to say. What you quoted from Mark of Ephesus is much ado about nothing. I had quoted the doctrinal statement of Florence - it said *nothing *about a place, and nothing about fire. So with whom is St. Mark continuing the argument? Not us. (And if such theologumena are of such concern, then good, go back (as I asked before) and show the scriptural support for the 3 days of earth travel, the 37 days of ATHs, and such.)

**Sure - The Great Schism was much ado about nothing!!! LOL Uproariously! This is a pretty typical argument of Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics - because otherwise they would all still be Orthodox wouldn’t they?

At least the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholics (by far the majority of Byzantine Catholics) were self effacing enough to admit and acknowledge the differences spoken of by Mark of Ephesus were real and important. No denialist arguments there!
**
The article from St.John’s in DC is great until the very end, when they start, in effect, to define RC doctrine and show themselves as not being well-educated in it. Of course no one really expects that EO have expertise in Catholic theology, so, while I cannot take their closing comment as significant, neither do I fault them for it.

Well of course, why haven’t we EO realised this sooner??? - The EO are totally incapable of understanding Catholic Theology, Our Own Theology and even Protestant Theology… That’s why in your esteemed opinion we are actually Catholics who just talk like Protestants!!! Still LOL Uproariously!

 

[SeanTom]

Purgatory is much talked about between Catholics and Protestants. Some Protestants consider purgatory to be anti-Scriptural and outright blasphemous. To most Protestants, purgatory is a second chance at salvation, and clearly un-Biblical.

On the other hand, not all Catholics are in agreement of purgatory because they have been taught that (a) it could last a long, long time; (b)) it is very unpleasant; and © they will more than likely have to spend time there when they die instead of going directly to Heaven. Purgatory has been described by some as “Hell that you get out of”. If that were true, it would be no surprise that many Catholics end up leaving for seemingly “greener pastures”! Both of these reactions are unfortunate and misplaced, because purgatory is actually very good news and very Biblical; and even if they don’t want to admit it, any Protestant who takes Scripture seriously will believe this to be true.

If salvation were only about getting to Heaven, then purgatory would make no sense. But salvation is all about Jesus, being united to Him, and being conformed to His image. When we get to Heaven, we will need to be perfectly united to Him in order to stand in the Lord’s presence. Scripture is clear: “Without holiness, no one will see God” (Hebrews 12:14). To me this means that those of us, and there are many, who die without asking forgiveness of current or past venial sins, will not be in a position to see God’s face until we cleanse our souls of these sins. Now we may think we’re doing pretty good in our lives; but if we are honest, we’ll admit that we all have things that need work, and sins to be forgiven. And if we die before we are perfectly conformed to Christ, there is still some spiritual “dirt” that needs to be purged. The final cleansing that makes up what we lack, the last phase of our sanctification, is what Catholics refer to as purgatory. Far from being a terror, in many ways, purgatory is a guarantee of our destiny. Everyone who undergoes purgatory WILL be guaranteed a place in Heaven.

Interestingly, the Church has never made a formal declaration of the exact nature or duration of purgatory; it may in fact be instantaneous. But nevertheless, our souls must be cleansed of all sins before we can look upon God’s face.

Purgatory is our cleansing agent, like confessing our sins to God before taking Communion“. Purgatory is actually more of a process than a place; but IF it needs to be described as a place, perhaps it would best be considered the “purification room” of God’s Heavenly Kingdom. The cleansing of our souls prior to seeing God’s face is very factual. Put another way, if Hell is a place of “outer darkness” and Heaven is a place of light, then purgatory is the time it takes one’s eyes to adjust to the light.

Bible passages which appear to support Purgatory:

There is no direct, unambiguous reference in the Bible to either the existence or the nature of Purgatory. Its existence has been inferred from a number of passages in the Bible:

2 Maccabees 12:39-45: This passage is taken from the Apocrypha which is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church and a few Protestant denominations as an integral part of the official canon of scripture. It talks about living persons praying for the dead. One could reason that there is no need to pray for the deceased if they are in Heaven; they have already received their reward. If the deceased is in Hell, then prayer would again be meaningless because they would be beyond help. One might surmise that there must be an intermediate state or location where a person’s soul could be helped by the prayer of others.

1 Corinthians 3:15 discusses how each individual’s good and bad works will be judged after death. This is probably the main text used by Catholics to support their belief in Purgatory. The passage refers to fire which will test the quality of each man’s work. If it is burned up…he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. This passage could be interpreted as a reference to the purifying fires of Purgatory, which would eventually allow a person to escape. This reference cannot refer to Hell, because one cannot leave that place; it cannot refer to Heaven because there is no pain there; it must refer to some intermediate location. The key word in the original Greek is “zemiothesetai” which is translated as “suffer loss” in many versions of the Bible. But the original word also can refer to punishment; this alternative meaning is suppressed in most translations.

Revelation 21:27 states that no impure person will enter heaven. “But nothing unclean shall enter it…” Some reason that if a person dies with some minor sins still on their record, then they are obviously not pure; they must go to some place to be refined until they can attain heaven.

Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that “nothing unclean shall enter heaven.” From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or “purged” of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2

(Continued in next posting)

 

[SeanTom]

(Continued from previous posting)

Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us “to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit.” Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive “for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”

Graffiti can be seen on the walls of the catacombs, where Christians during the persecutions of the first three centuries recorded prayers for the dead. Indeed, some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both written during the second century), refer to the Christian practice of praying for the dead. Such prayers would have been offered only if Christians believed in purgatory, even if they did not use that name for it.

Why no protests?

Whenever a date is set for the “invention” of purgatory, we can point to historical evidence to show the doctrine was in existence before that date. Besides, if at some point the doctrine was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it?

A study of the history of doctrines indicates that Christians in the first centuries were up in arms (sometimes quite literally) if anyone suggested the least change in beliefs. They were extremely conservative people who tested a doctrine’s truth by asking, Was this believed by our ancestors? Was it handed on from the apostles? Surely belief in purgatory would be considered a great change, if it had not been believed from the first—so where are the records of protests?

They don’t exist. There is no hint at all, in the oldest writings available to us (or in later ones, for that matter), that “true believers” in the immediate post-apostolic years spoke of purgatory as a novel doctrine. They must have understood that the oral teaching of the apostles, what Catholics call tradition, and the Bible not only failed to contradict the doctrine, but, in fact, confirmed it.

Disbelievers prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.

. The word Purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory.

Christ refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? “He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: “In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid
reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin” (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation, Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine.

In this same vein, some ask why Catholics pray for the dead? Actually, this is a very ancient custom practiced by all of God’s people from the Old Testament. The book of 1 Maccabees tells us that it is a good thing to pray for the dead; and even today, there are a lot of prayers for the dead in Jewish funerals. This is as proper as praying for the person while alive; since, in the eternal sense, the person isn’t really dead as his or her soul may be in purgatory. And as we all know, or should know, Jesus wants us to pray and ALL prayers are heard by Him. We believe our prayers can help those in purgatory and that Jesus, through our prayers, will consider our pleas for their early acceptance into His Heavenly Kingdom.

 

[josie_L]

Double post, oops!!

 

[dvdjs]

Well of course, why haven’t we EO realised this sooner??? - The EO are totally incapable of understanding Catholic Theology, Our Own Theology and even Protestant Theology…

Don’t tar all EO with your accusation. Many do understand Catholic theology. And certainly most EO understand EO theology. I would think that all do, but your posts hint otherwise.

That’s why in your esteemed opinion we are actually Catholics who just talk like Protestants!!!

Please, not “we”, I never suggested that, and it is very unfair of you to suggest that I did. This was about your (singular) words - which I have hastened to differentiate from EO teaching.

Still nothing on in illud hoc scitote, eh?

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**Dvdjs…

If any EO participant has any problem with how I am representing our Church teachings here or in any other thread, they are more than capable of saying so themselves. There are a lot of very knowledgeable and experienced EO regular members, and senior members of this forum.

Notwithstanding the methods of argument employed by some posters here - it is an obvious fact of life and written communication that words can be a less than perfect way of asserting, explaining or defending a position. Especially when we are seeking to respond in the specific, to an issue of a much more general nature.

I have however, noticed that you often resort to a number of tactics when you discuss things here:

1. Deflection and distraction towards issues not germaine to the issue;
2. Deliberate misinterpretation of words and ideas of others;
3. Deliberate misrepresentation of words and ideas of others;
4. Mis-quoting or truncation of quotes to support your positions;
5. Ignoring or failing to acknowledge where an issue has been demonstrated objectively - or where other Catholics have seriously contradicted what you have argued;
6. Alleging those who disagree with you are wrong, because they do not understand their own Theology;
7. Alleging those who disagree with you are wrong because they don’t understand RC Theology;
8. Alleging that others have not done “sufficient” study to comment;
9. Asserting things in a most condescending manner;
10. Just being plain rude.

Now, I did not join this forum to play those sorts of games - and none of the EO here seem to be interested in that either. There are many (very many) EO people reading my posts who rarely comment - I know this because I am getting large numbers of private emails from them.

I can honestly say - that none of them have pulled me up in any public thread at all. None have pulled me up privately on any Theological matter either. On the contrary, many EO reading my posts are congratulating and encouraging me to persist with stating EO teachings accurately. Many are also providing me with extra resource materials and sources of value and use in these discussions.

I might add, that a couple of Regular and Senior Members of this forum have briefed me about you specifically - and some of these EO individuals have switched on the “ignore posting” command which hides your posts (singularly) from their view - because they just can’t be bothered. I have not done this, because every so often you make a good point - albeit rarely IMO.

They have done this because of the ten points I raise above.

I ask that you please reflect upon this please.**

P.S. Josie - Red is my favorite color. Could you try turning down the contrast or brightness on your monitor - or perhaps put on some Sun-Glasses (but not Theological blinkers please LOL

 

[JonNC]

=Andrew Phillip;6185407
If you are really interested in EO differences with the Lutherans, Calvinists and Wesleyans on Purgatory - I will try to post some extracts from answers at EO Councils held specifically to address these further errors in the C17th C18th and C19th.

These may help you to understand the core differences because necessarily the EO addressed the Protestant errors in the context of the Roman Catholic errors from which they arose as a reaction during the Reformation.

I’d be interested in these. If it is a derailment of the thread, please PM me.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

i want to thank you SeanTom for your two posts on the Catholic understanding of and teaching on Purgatory.

Most interesting and illuminating. Thankyou!

By now you have probably worked out that as an EO believer, I do not adhere to all aspects of what the Catholic Church teaches and I do see real differences between the two Churches.

**In particular, I found your posting to largely confirm what the EO understanding of the Catholic teaching actually is - particularly a distinct third state or place, seperate from Heaven or Hell, and purging punishment (with or without Fire) for a time until the soul is perfected enough to enter Heaven.

In my reading of what you have posted, it contradicts what dvdjs and other Catholics are putting forward here. And it’s significant, because you are a Catholic.**

There are differences… and they are significant and real. The Psuedo Synod of Ferrera Florence was a discussion of the differences between our two Churches on these matters, and I quote a small EO apologetic on it for you:

***In the following sitting the Latins presented a defence of their doctrine on purgatory. As much as can be concluded from the answer given by the Greeks to it, they tried to prove their doctrine by the words of 2 Mac. xii. 42, 46, where it is said that Judas Maccabaeus “sent to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering,” remarking at the same time “that it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.” They also quoted the words of Jesus Christ, “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (S. Matt. xii. 32.) But their especial defence was founded on the words of the Apostle S. Paul (I Cor. iii. 11, 15): “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” Different extracts were also made by the Latins from the works of the Eastern Fathers—Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Damascene, Dionysius the Areopagite, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa; and the Western—Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great. They did not also forget to quote the authority of the Church of Rome in defence of their doctrine, and to make use of their usual sophistries.

To all this the Orthodox party gave a clear and satisfactory answer. [5] They remarked, that the words quoted from the book of Maccabees, and our Saviour’s words, can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after death; but whether by means of punishment by fire, or by other means, nothing was known for certain. Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with punishment by fire and tortures? Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once. ***

If you are interested in reading the EO response in full, please visit the following address:

orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

I thought you might be interested after such a detailed and thoughtful post - because the page I have provided the link for deals with virtually all of the scriptures you have used and quoted in your posts - but needless to say - advocates a very different interpretation of the same scriptures.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

I’d be interested in these. If it is a derailment of the thread, please PM me.

Thanks,
Jon

No worries Jon,

I don’t see why posting it here would derail the thread, because these EO teachings and critiques of Protestant teaching on Purgatory are instructive for Catholics too. They do NOT amount to defences of Catholic teaching - but rather, of a very different Orthodox understanding.

Please be patient though… As I am doing some detailed work on the fundamental diffences on the Filioque for another thread - and I’ve got to get through that first.

But I will definitely post something here later, and will link you up to the references to those EO Councils asap.

In the meantime, you might have a look at this Link - and short excerpt below:

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7064

***ACCURATE SOURCES OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

What are the sources of the One Undivided Church, the Orthodox Church, from which emerge its teachings? Why is it imperative for the members of the Church to know these sources? The mainsources of Orthodox teaching are the Bible and Sacred Tradition. The third source is the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists. The fourth source is decisions of the canonical synods, local and ecumenical, and their utterances of faith, especially the Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed) and some of their canons pertaining to faith. The fifth source is the discourses written at the time of disputes and schisms, especially the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western parts of the Undivided Church (1054). The sixth source is a variety of discourses written after the Protestant Reformation; these documents critique the various errors of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PATRIARCH JEREMIAH II (1573-1582)

The first correspondence related to attempts at unity between the Orthodox Church and the new Lutheran Church took place in the sixteenth century. A group of German theologians at the University of Tubingen, under the leadership of Jacob Andreae and Martin Crusius, sent Stephen Gerlack to Constantinople to present to Patriarch Jeremiah II on May 24, 1575, three letters and the Augsburg Confession translated in Greek. Their goal was to explore possible unity of the new movement with the Ancient Orthodox Church. The Patriarch sent the first of three lengthy answers to the theologians on May 15, 1576, through the German embassy. The theologians then sent a detailed reply to the Patriarch. In all, the correspondence on the Augsburg Confession resulted in three answers and three replies. The death of the principles on both sides ended this effort. The three Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople are important sources that restate the accurate teachings of the Orthodox Church. Jeremiah’s correspondence was the first contact of the Orthodox Church with the new Protestant movement.

CONFESSION OF KRITOPOULOS, PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA (1625)

The next Confession to serve as a source of the teachings of the Church was written by Patriarch Metrophanis Kritopoulos - a chancellor at the time - while he was studying in England and Germany. It was in response to the request of the people in these countries for an explanation of the Orthodox Faith. This Confession gives an authoritative, informative and unoffensive account of the confession of the Faith and is written with scientific method. It was presented to the students and scholars of the Christian Faith in England in 1626 and was well-received.***

 

[adstrinity]

I want to know where in the BIble one can prove that the moon is made of cheese.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

I want to know where in the BIble one can prove that the moon is made of cheese.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

:bowdown:

**I would ask dvdjs - He is certain to know, and probably the exact color of that cheese too!

Jumping the Shark means something completely different here downunder - here it’s when we actually jump over sharks when surfing! Tons of fun for the whole family!!!**

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

As a faithful Orthodox Christian… with respect for legitimate EO Church Sources - and Interpretations of the EO Church - I have had a quick look, did a word search and hereby pronounce"

“The EOC does NOT teach that the Moon is made of cheese”

There is just nothing there about cheese and the moon in context with each other!

However, for those interested in how we EO approach and determine what our Church teaches - this extract might help you too understand us better:

***The decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Synods include the Regional Synods, Saint-Apostles and some Fathers which have been ratified by the Ecumenical Synods, especially the Sixth in its Canon 102. So the faithful member of the Orthodox Church should thoroughly study the primary sources, then read the secondary sources herein listed. The distinction between the primary and secondary sources is important, because the primary 'sources were found in the life and teachings of the One Undivided Church of the first thousand-years of Christianity and were adopted and kept as such through the centuries, excepting innovations such as the filioque phrase in the Nicene Creed.

Because Sacred Tradition is of equal validity as the Bible, the identification of sources is essential since Tradition is rooted in these sources, written and preserved by the Church itself. This is important, because the Church makes the decisions and interprets the Bible, eliminating possible individual misinterpretations.

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter ofone’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Because the Church has not written and officially adopted a catechism in which the infallible teaching of the Church is definitely expressed, the theologian has the “freedom with authority”, to express anew the same unchangeable Truths of Christ. Christianity (or Christendom) has been separated into many parts because individuals through the centuries have taken it upon themselves to interpret the Bible personally. They have used limited knowledge and were unaware of the basic sources, and have consequently arrived at false interpretations, each claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit is made to seem a dividing force for each, rather than leading and being the guardian of the One Undivided Church of Christ as revealed in Scripture. Apostle Peter warns against personal interpretation of Scripture by saying that:

“Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this ashe does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard tounderstand, which the unlearned and unstable twist to their owndestruction, as they do the other scriptures … knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of man and lose your own stability.” (2 Peter 3:15-17)

The Orthodox Christian is blessed to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which has been preserved intact, by mercy, the fullness of the Christian Faith. In Holy Orthodoxy, the interpretation of Scripture and the teachings of the Church have the unanimous ratification of the Church, with its infallible authority. It is this interpretation of the teachings of Christ by the infallible Church that must be first known and understood by the Orthodox Christian who is admonished by Apostle Peter:

“Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15)***

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As a faithful Orthodox Christian… with respect for legitimate EO Church Sources - and Interpretations of the EO Church - I have had a quick look, did a word search and hereby pronounce"

“The EOC does NOT teach that the Moon is made of cheese”

There is just nothing there about cheese and the moon in context with each other!

However, for those interested in how we EO approach and determine what our Church teaches - this extract might help you too understand us better:

***The decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Synods include the Regional Synods, Saint-Apostles and some Fathers which have been ratified by the Ecumenical Synods, especially the Sixth in its Canon 102. So the faithful member of the Orthodox Church should thoroughly study the primary sources, then read the secondary sources herein listed. The distinction between the primary and secondary sources is important, because the primary 'sources were found in the life and teachings of the One Undivided Church of the first thousand-years of Christianity and were adopted and kept as such through the centuries, excepting innovations such as the filioque phrase in the Nicene Creed.

Because Sacred Tradition is of equal validity as the Bible, the identification of sources is essential since Tradition is rooted in these sources, written and preserved by the Church itself. This is important, because the Church makes the decisions and interprets the Bible, eliminating possible individual misinterpretations.

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter ofone’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Because the Church has not written and officially adopted a catechism in which the infallible teaching of the Church is definitely expressed, the theologian has the “freedom with authority”, to express anew the same unchangeable Truths of Christ. Christianity (or Christendom) has been separated into many parts because individuals through the centuries have taken it upon themselves to interpret the Bible personally. They have used limited knowledge and were unaware of the basic sources, and have consequently arrived at false interpretations, each claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit is made to seem a dividing force for each, rather than leading and being the guardian of the One Undivided Church of Christ as revealed in Scripture. Apostle Peter warns against personal interpretation of Scripture by saying that:

“Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this ashe does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard tounderstand, which the unlearned and unstable twist to their owndestruction, as they do the other scriptures … knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of man and lose your own stability.” (2 Peter 3:15-17)

The Orthodox Christian is blessed to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which has been preserved intact, by mercy, the fullness of the Christian Faith. In Holy Orthodoxy, the interpretation of Scripture and the teachings of the Church have the unanimous ratification of the Church, with its infallible authority. It is this interpretation of the teachings of Christ by the infallible Church that must be first known and understood by the Orthodox Christian who is admonished by Apostle Peter:

“Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15)***

Hey Andrew,

Someone mentioned it before, and I’ll admit I need a new script of eyeglasses for my eyes, but that red font is really hard for me…:bigyikes:

Maybe blue or green? :jrbirdman:

 

[aspirant]

Made pure and perfect by God’s Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness is the overall legitimate context and teaching here.

This statement agrees with the Catholic faith. Thanks.

 

[dvdjs]

**Dvdjs…

If any EO participant has any problem with how I am representing our Church teachings here or in any other thread, they are more than capable of saying so themselves. There are a lot of very knowledgeable and experienced EO regular members, and senior members of this forum.

Notwithstanding the methods of argument employed by some posters here - it is an obvious fact of life and written communication that words can be a less than perfect way of asserting, explaining or defending a position. Especially when we are seeking to respond in the specific, to an issue of a much more general nature.

I have however, noticed that you often resort to a number of tactics when you discuss things here:

1. Deflection and distraction towards issues not germaine to the issue;
2. Deliberate misinterpretation of words and ideas of others;
3. Deliberate misrepresentation of words and ideas of others;
4. Mis-quoting or truncation of quotes to support your positions;
5. Ignoring or failing to acknowledge where an issue has been demonstrated objectively - or where other Catholics have seriously contradicted what you have argued;
6. Alleging those who disagree with you are wrong, because they do not understand their own Theology;
7. Alleging those who disagree with you are wrong because they don’t understand RC Theology;
8. Alleging that others have not done “sufficient” study to comment;
9. Asserting things in a most condescending manner;
10. Just being plain rude.

Now, I did not join this forum to play those sorts of games - and none of the EO here seem to be interested in that either. There are many (very many) EO people reading my posts who rarely comment - I know this because I am getting large numbers of private emails from them.

I can honestly say - that none of them have pulled me up in any public thread at all. None have pulled me up privately on any Theological matter either. On the contrary, many EO reading my posts are congratulating and encouraging me to persist with stating EO teachings accurately. Many are also providing me with extra resource materials and sources of value and use in these discussions.

I might add, that a couple of Regular and Senior Members of this forum have briefed me about you specifically - and some of these EO individuals have switched on the “ignore posting” command which hides your posts (singularly) from their view - because they just can’t be bothered. I have not done this, because every so often you make a good point - albeit rarely IMO.

They have done this because of the ten points I raise above.

I ask that you please reflect upon this please.**

I have reflected. I am sorry that you do not engage the substance of my posts, but instead deflect attention to a critique of your perceptions of their style. That is an uninteresting game IMO.

I have made the offer before, in other contexts, and offer it again: if you feel that I am guilty in my posts of any of the above charges - especially the very serious charges that you make, such as “deliberate misrepresentation”, ie, peeling off the veneer, lying - please get specific. I would hope that we would be able to discharge such wrong impressions by discussion of any specific case. This is, IMO, far better than making risky assumptions about my intentions - eg that perceived misrepresentations are “deliberate”.

I have invited correction about possible factual errors. As to the charge of:

Ignoring or failing to acknowledge where an issue has been demonstrated objectively

I find it astonishing that you raise this issue. I am particularly astonished because I spent some considerable time tracking down SMM’s references on the earthquake Chrysostom quote. Of course, I have realized that she will not read my posts (a fact which in no way changes her responsibility to acknowledge objective demonstrations of the errors in claims that she has made). But you also have personally weighed on on this matter, with an assessment of her incontrovertible justification. Well, have you read the references? Do you stand by your assessment? Are you willing to “acknowledge where an issue has been demonstrated objectively”? These claims were inflammatory and not supported. There are aspects that have been conclusively proven wrong. There are others remain unsupported. I have openly asked for help in checking, and in finding missing information. Have you lent any?

… where other Catholics have seriously contradicted what you have argued

As I stated before, I don’t read every post, but try to respond if I am addressed. If I am not addressed, I may miss such an oblique reference to something I have posted. If there is something that you think I need to address or acknowledge then help me out by calling it to my attention. This perhaps you should acknowledge, then please, tell me specifically what you think I need to acknowledge.,

 

[dvdjs]

As to my “allegations”. I think that I have been cautious in my posts. If you feel that you have the capacity to explain the teachings of the faith of the EOC or CCC, fine. Personally I will freely stipulate that I lack that capacity, I am not trained as a theologian or a catechist; I enough education and training to know what it means to “know”, and thus to recognize my limitations. On the other hand, it is simple to see when someone is going off the tracks, by comparison to other facts, however isolated. And if that recognition has a bearing on some issue that I care about, I will post it and dispute the position that I see as being off-track. It is a fairly simple matter to know enough to spot an error, it is harder, it demands much more training, to supply the correct teaching. But ISTM that anyone interested in truth will be happy to be informed about a misguided trajectory - even if the course correction cannot be supplied in full. I acknowledge that there may be some who are more interested in affirmation than truth; what do you suggest that I do in such cases?

I will add that IMO it requires no study at all to question or to comment. And pointed comments backed with specific citations require no more study than whatever was undertaken to acquire the information. Moreover, personal observations require no more study than having made the observations. On the other hand, making definitive declarations on behalf of a body with no support other than one’s own expertise - that, to be meaningful, does require study. I am sorry if that comes as bad news to anyone, but I think that that point is a crucial one that needs to be made. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts, and not to their own logic.

I apologize for the condescending tone of my posts. It takes more time than I have to change my pedantic analytical style into conversational English. Especially since I am the world’s worst typist. It is a well-known hazard to draw inferences about mindset from emails or forum posts. How do you think your posts sound?

On the other hand, the rudeness issue, again surprises me, I have not brought up your personality for discussion. I have not LOL’d your posts. I try to stick to issues of verifiable fact, so I might call attention to an error, but have not, IIRC, made charges of “deliberate” misconduct. If the shark jumping offended you, I apologize, but honestly I am still trying to figure out whether or not you are a serious poster. In case you haven’t noticed, not everyone on internet fora is.

I, of course, am not privy to the volume or contents of your private messages. So your raising them as evidence of something or other is just impossible for me to address. I would love for knowledgeable people to post openly. I was, and am hoping to hear from someone about your idea of no theosis in Hades. I have come up empty looking for any support of it, and IIRC, you stipulated that you were only speculating. I have concerns about your comments on the mutabilty of God’s judgment and have actually sought out opinions of those with more expertise, and found no support for your position. I am very surprised to see you adopt the position that the Theotokos sinned. I am surprised that you would be getting support for these positions.

As a BC, I know a good bit about Eastern lex orandi, and let’s say that I know at least a little of Eastern phromena; as a BC who has spent extensive time at EO services, I know a good bit more. These ideas that I just listed do not resonate with my experience. My response when such issues are raised is to engage them. If I am wrong, I will have learned something from that engagement. If I am right I will have helped to safeguard authentic Eastern Christianity, which is precious to me. That - not to play games - is why I am here.

 

[aspirant]

The Church always taught the Most Holy Virgin died an earthly death - it’s called the “Dormition of the Virgin” - and it happened just before the “Assumption” - by God’s will and Mercy. This is distinct from the “Asencion” of Christ which happened by His own Divine and Perfect Power - because He was God, and perfect.

This is no argument against Catholicism, since Catholics believe the same.

Perhaps you could tell us when the Roman Catholic Church decided that the Most Holy Virgin did NOT die and earthly death

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary didn’t die. Pope Pius XII mentioned her death numerous times in Munificentissimus Deus.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is a consistent position in the EOC, and it has not changed since the beginning of the Apostolic Church on earth 2000 years ago. It is not the EOC that has innovated or reformed it’s teaching here - but it is the RCC and subsequent Protestant reformations.

Peace be with you Andrew;

I have read some of your posts here, I must say you are now starting to drive yourself in frenzy of comical proportions.

Before answering the many false claims you have made thus far about the Roman Catholic Church. Please take into consideration that sharing your faith here on non catholic forums are most welcomed, but to place blame, or unbelief of an other’s faith from your posts reveals that you have only come aware of Roman Catholicism second or third hand.

Without going to historical facts of EOC let me just summarize here; Please, recall that it was Jewish converts to “The Way” that brought the Gospel to you. The EOC has always been inconsistent in the Apostolic Faith, for the fact that Apostates, heretics and heresies originally came from Eastern Church’s. It was the Popes and other successors to the Apostles who maintained the Apostolic Catholic Faith from their own blood. So EOC has always maintained inconsistency in Leadership, and Apostolic faith.

I will give you this much to pride your self on; that is; you maintain an ancient language and culture that meets Apostolic traditions, this is for sure!. But? Jesus told Peter and his apostle to go out into the whole world and baptise every people nation and tongue and tribe. The Roman Catholic Church has not remained idle from her own Apostolic culture and language, she has gone out to the four corners of the earth to proclaim the gospel even at the expense of her own blood.

This I reveal to you so that posters here can hear the Truth from the falsely accused side, not an opinion to the Truth. As far as your false accusations about new innovations? every Protestant and Roman Catholic can read your post and realize that you do not have a full understanding of Protestantism. Secondly what you have been misinformed of Purgatory, is not new at all, you have been poorly catechised against the Roman Catholic Church. For one Purgatory comes from the same Hebrew faith the original apostles believed. The Roman Catholic Church because she preached and baptised around the globe, while Eastern Orthodoxy remained in her Orthodox language and customs rejected progress of the Gospel being transmitted in other languages and cultures and understandings. You do not speak for the Orthodox or Eastern Church community, because you misunderstand the progress of the Gospel and renaming it as being changed, when in reality the same Apostolic Faith is being proclaimed as Jesus commissioned Peter and the Apostles and their successors in the Popes, Patriarchs and Bishops.

In summary what you object to in reality is the authority Jesus placed in Peter’s Keys and Chair exercised in the Popes since the Original Apostles, and you object to the Roman Catholic Church defending and teaching the Apostolic Faith to languages and cultures that are foreign to your Eastern Orthodox language and culture, thus your late invention to call yourself “Orthodox” isolating yourself from progress of the Gospel. The Roman Catholic Church has not changed or innovated no Apostolic Catholic Faith, in fact she has defended and defined the Apostolic Catholic Faith to new peoples and worlds, in a language that the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be understood, leaving you Eastern, or Orthodox language and cultural traditions in the past.

You do not object to the Apostolic Faith which The Roman Catholic Church has been faithful since Peter, you object from an other’s pride 1000 years later. Lately your schismatic objections are invalid, because the Roman Catholic Church has progressed the Gospel to many different languages and cultures, and defined the Apostolic faith in terminology that some Eastern or Orthodox in schism objects to, thinking it to be new, but in reality it is not. What is new is your new objection to Peter’s Chair and authority exercised in the unbroken succession line of Popes from St.Peter.

You “think” Roman Catholicism invented Protestantism, this is a wrong understanding and position to take from any perspective. It is comparable for a historian to incorrectly believe because the first Apostates, heretics, and heresy’s came from the Eastern Church and remained in them today. History records, that the Roman Catholic Church defeated every apostate, heretic and heresy that came by way from the Eastern Church’s in her Popes and councils. IF you want to argue against new innovations let us begin with the Eastern Church’s where it all began and how the Popes and Bishops protected the Apostolic Catholic faith again even at the expense of their own blood.

My prayer to all this revelation is to help you promote the Gospel from your beautiful “Orthodox” language and culture, not defend it by making false accusations and objections from a schismatic position from a new isolated “Eastern” or “Orthodox” position. Your objections to the Pope and Catholic councils is what is a new innovation from you and protestantism, not the Roman Catholic Church defending and clarifying the faith to every people and tongue around the world that does not adhere to your language and culture expressed in the Apostolic traditions.

Peace be with you

 

[dvdjs]

Sorry, AP that I missed all the goodies embedded in your quote section. And only responded to the last part.

We EO always find the tortured efforts of Byzantine Catholics to justify themselves very amusing!

IMO this is way over the line. You made the remark once, and I voiced my opposition. I really don’t care if you treat me disrespectfully, but this attitude extended to a Church of the Catholic faith is hardly appropriate.

dvdjs: “Of course it does. This is the point that you do not seem to get: You, personally didn’t explain theosis. Others read your comments on forgiveness and heaven and got the wrong impression of the EOC teaching, which sounded heretical. It would help if you posted with a little more care and a lot more caution whe speaking for as “we” for the EOC.”

Ap: “Oh I see… you are the expert on EO beliefs and practice! obviously heresy only applies to others and not yourselves! One wonders why “we EO” caused such an awful fuss with all of that Great Schism nonsense! Oh pleaaase!”

Your remark is non-responsive. The post that confused people didn’t touch on theosis, that was the problem. What it did say sounded Protestant. The problem was your exposition of the Orthodox faith, not the faith itself. And this understanding required no subtle expertise, since what was needed to dispel confusion was just absent.

dvdjs: “Oh my. You will, obviously be very hard pressed to find the ancient Church teaching that she was not “The Immaculate Conception”. I assume that you mean to say something very different. Moreover, while you will find one church father who claims that she did sin, the overwhelming consensus, fortified in the lex orandi, is that she did not. You are speaking inaccurately about EOC teaching. The rest of this passage is a mish-mash of juxtaposed EOC and CC teachings. It’s hard to decipher, but you seem determined to repeat the same error on forgiveness of sin.”

AP:“Good Grief!!! Surely you can’t believe we EO accept the innovation of 1848 regarding the “Immaculate Conception”??? The wages of “Original Sin” is earthly death. The Church always taught the Most Holy Virgin died an earthly death - it’s called the “Dormition of the Virgin” - and it happened just before the “Assumption” - by God’s will and Mercy. This is distinct from the “Asencion” of Christ which happened by His own Divine and Perfect Power - because He was God, and perfect. And as to “Personal Sin” - we EO recognise the secondary debate about this - and interpret Christs’ rebuke of His mother at the wedding at Cana differently. But it is not the primary point for us anyway - regarding the “Immaculate Conception” dogma and innovation. Perhaps you could tell us when the Roman Catholic Church decided that the Most Holy Virgin did NOT die and earthly death (or perhaps did or didn’t) - and why Rome taught about the Dormition of the Virgin for about 1500 years?”
Please, oh please point to one single quote or source from the seven lawful Ecumenical Councils of the Unified Apostolic Church where the Immacculate Conception is taught and agreed??? Please, just one!!! Go on… I dare you… LOL Uproariously!

Please read more carefully. Your comment, as you wrote it, was just impossible: there are no teaching of the ancient church against the Immaculate Conception. I realized that you must have meant something else, and said so. Anyone with some knowledge of the matter would know this. But those who lack knowledge might not. It was important, IMO, to make a comment to dispel any mistaken idea that there was, in fact, an ancient teaching against this. This issue has been discussed a great deal at CAF and other fora with many posts from me. If you would actually like to know my thoughts, search.

dvdjs: You, however, weighed in with your own opinion that SMM had incontrovertibly justified her position. Did you make that conclusion before even looking at her evidence? Have you gone tribal - accepting whatever any EO says, even when it is patently unsupported? This is quintessential shark jumping.

AM: SMM is more than capable of refuting, or justifying any statement she makes with sources and facts… I happen to agree with her on her call here. If you have any incontrovertible proof she is wrong - please provide it. But don’t use the usual RC sophistry such as it’s “unsupported” or “not inconsistent with”. Thats’ just a total cop-out and fluff - you can Google that if you like.

.
I have provided incontrovertible proof of one egregious, substantive error. If you read the items to which you were referred you would know. If you don’t read then you will not know, As to sophistry, don’t try this. I am not in the habit of making claims out of thin air. I will not claim more than what I actually know, I can claim that multiple references given do not touch on the Chrysostom quote at all. I have not gotten my hands yet on Whelton’s book - the only one that makes a claim of forgery about a claimed source of the quote. Any readers that have it have not volunteered to quote the relevant passage. However, we do know that the ostensibly tainted source is not the only source of the quote; the whole sermon is found in Migne’s PC, which is widely used as authentic. We also know that Whelton was excoriated in reviews for poor citation of claims. When I get the book I will say more. But it is not sophistry to limit my claims, it is just rigorous analytical thinking.

 

[dvdjs]

dvdjs: Actually I am delighted that you finally made an effort to quote people who can carefully and accurately discuss EO postions. I would love for you to do some similar work on your innovative idea of “no theosis in Hades” and the mutability of God’s judgement. (Hint: Start with St. John Damascene on the latter).

AP: Hmmm… more condesension. You should be more careful in quoting me - no Theosis in Hell - outside of the eternal uncreated energy and light of God. Hell is for punishment - not for short stays of self improvement!!! Oh… I nearly forgot - you have assumed the role of the EO Magisterium.

You shouldn’t assume condescension. I am sincerely happy that you had shifted from giving your own opinion as EO teaching, to, instead, giving actual words of actual teachers.
No theosis in Hell we agree on. What came up in our discussion as a distinctive difference between us, was the suggestion that there is no theosis of souls of the departed awaiting the second judgment. I have no possible role in the EO magisterium, and don’t claim it, but I can read, and thus far I only find contradiction to your position. And you have not given anything substantive; ridicule of my standing in the EO magisterium may be fun, but it isn’t probative.

dvdjs: As to the passages themselves, there isn’t much to say. What you quoted from Mark of Ephesus is much ado about nothing. I had quoted the doctrinal statement of Florence - it said nothing about a place, and nothing about fire. So with whom is St. Mark continuing the argument? Not us. (And if such theologumena are of such concern, then good, go back (as I asked before) and show the scriptural support for the 3 days of earth travel, the 37 days of ATHs, and such.)

AP: Sure - The Great Schism was much ado about nothing!!! LOL Uproariously! This is a pretty typical argument of Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics - because otherwise they would all still be Orthodox wouldn’t they?
At least the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholics (by far the majority of Byzantine Catholics) were self effacing enough to admit and acknowledge the differences spoken of by Mark of Ephesus were real and important. No denialist arguments there!

Again, please restrict your comments to me, not my Church. In any case, your remarks are not responsive to mine. I am, however, interested in any sources about this idea that the Ukrainians think of the differences spoken about by St. Mark as real and important. Finally, I don’t think that you claim of denial is fair. The CC did not at Florence or since dogmatize “place” or fire". So why is it an issue?