Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[anthony022071]

And I have shown you also in return, the quotes within the FULL CONTEXT that is, most of those fathers you have listed, in which it shows clearly that you were putting their quotes out of context.

 

[anthony022071]

She is here from the time of CHRIST She is the True and the only one who can lay a claim to be the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD” and measure up to it rightfully truthfully and without usurpations.

And yet the Orthodox can’t back up that claim from historical facts
or the writings of the Church Fathers.

I answered you the following:

Matt. 14:31 …31And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him ( Peter), and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Is this what your church is built upon???
So your church is built upon the little faith, or/and the doubt.

Catholics say that Christ built the Church upon Peter,remember? The Peter who had great faith after the Resurrection.

 

[anthony022071]

What do the Orthodox think about this?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=244890

Please post comments on that thread.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Reading your text in the blue, I can tell that your knowledge is so little, not only towards the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD, but also concerning your own Rite and your mother church (the RCC).

Fallacy:
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

** Purgatory is not about praying for the dead ONLY**,

Who is suggesting that? Not me. Please don’t put words into my mouth.

Anyhow, you avoided the question:
If Purgatory does not exist, why do you pray for the dead?

from an Eastern Catholic website:
…Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”

You didn’t quote the rest:

5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.

Regarding Purgatory, whatever you quoted above was just words form a dictionary, here is what the Church has to say about it in the Catechism, which can be found here:
stwalburgas.blogspot.com/2008/02/dogma-of-purgatory.html
Which of course, I’m sure you’ll read because thats how you became so “knowledgeable” in Catholic teaching in the first place:thumbsup:

**1031 **The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

Goodnight.

 

[steve_b]

Steve B,

this does not prove that he is the Infallible Supreme Leader of the Church.

Jesus made Peter head of the apostles ergo also makes him head of the Church. How is it you’re not making that connection?

John:

did Jesus say that Peter would have complete jurisdictional control of the entire Church, and that anything he said ex cathedra would be infallible?

Jesus says to Peter alone, “poimaino” my sheep,[Jn 21] the meaning of poimaino
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3540597&postcount=927

And

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3544884&postcount=964

John:

You lost me here, the Old Testament was written before Peter was ever Born and we do not say it is full of errors,

[snip]

So

• infallibility isn’t new!!!.
  THAT’S the point, infallibility isn’t new.

John:

What do you mean by teaching error?

Pentecost is considered when the apostles began teaching. That’s why I specified Pentecost. While Jesus was with them, the apostles weren’t on their own.

John:

I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where it is written that Papal infallibility (ex cathedra) and Supremacy would definitely be passed on, and only to the Bishop geographically located in the Roman city?

Is the bible infallible or fallible?

John:

Even if we accept this, it does not establish a succession (of the right to infallibilty and Supremacy) based solely in the Province of Rome.

Is the bible fallible or infallible? If it is infallible, when did infallibility end?

Re: Succession, it’s a fact mentioned in scripture. Peter was the one who called for the replacement of Judas. And Judas office was filled.

Then we see Clement of Rome, teaching on succession and where he received this teaching… He writes during apostolic times. St John is still alive. And Clement, successor to Peter, is settling sedition among bishops in Corinth He writes:

“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80

John:

Fine, but this does not automatically mean that there must be a single Bishop (only in Rome) who has exclusive right to the title Universal Bishop of the Church, and ex cathedra infallibility.

You’ve been reading anti Catholic materials

John:

The promises (exactly what promises I am not sure, the promises made at the confession were only guaranteed to Peter)

guranteed to Peter, but show where those promises don’t get passed on to Peter’s successors.

John:

could be kept eternally in a variety of ways, the CC and OC being two equally viable possibilities.

Fine, since you like the variety approach, YOU make the case for the OC. And I’ll sit back and take your role. Make their case

John:

This was not established. Where did Jesus say, "Because of this, I will call you Peter,

Peter was the Father’s choice. From ALL time. Do you want to contest that too?

John:

and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, because I will ensure that you have a legitimate successor, located in the province of Rome, because that is where you will die, and the exact way that this promise will be kept is by guaranteeing the Bishop of Rome Infallibility, but only when he speaks ex cathedra, and Supreme rule of the entire Church, because this is the only way he would not be all hat and no cows."?

Jesus told Peter specifically that he would be crucified. Do you want to contest that? Only the Romans had the right to execute anyone? Do you doubt that when Jesus told Peter how he would die, that he didn’t know where and by whom? Do you REALLY think that when Peter called for Judas replacement, Jesus didn’t know that when it came time, Peter’s death would also produce a replacement for him as well?

Since apparantly you don’t believe in apostolic succession, show me where Jesus said no one would replace anybody. No succession, and everything will end with the death of the last apostle. NOTHING gets passed on. Show me that in scripture.

John:

I am not dissenting,

thefreedictionary.com/dissent

 

[tdgesq]

No one will be in Hell until the final judgment after the second coming . . . .

There may be some Orthodox that believe this, but Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of the Moscow Patriarchate, one of the most conservative Orthodox writers I am acquainted with, certainly does not. He unambiguously states that Christ descended into Hades (hell) and preached the good news to all souls. Otherwise it looks like you ascribe to a “third” state between heaven and hell - what Catholics term Purgatory.

orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx

. . . and until that day we believe that no one’s fate is sealed.

Hilarion agrees with you here. A potential problem with this theory is that it looks like the doctrine of Apocatastasis; a name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls. This doctrine was condemned by a local synod of Constantinople in 543. newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

If all you are saying is that all souls in Hades may not yet be eternally damned, then Catholics are free to agree with you. There is nothing in Catholic dogmatic theology that requires a belief that any person is eternally damned. In fact, we are taught that is a judgment reserved for God alone.

By the way, it is perfectly acceptable in Catholic theology to hold that Purgatory is a level of Hades, although this is not a dogmatic requirement. St. Thomas Aquinas believed this to be true, and it makes sense to me considering that while in this state the soul is separated from the immediate presence of God. newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

 

[prodromos]

That’s a new concept; sounds unreasonable.

It is ancient. What do you find unreasonable about it?

So where does the Orthodox church teach that hell is empty?

First define what you mean by Hell. Are you perhaps referring to Hades or are you referring to the Lake of Fire?

And where are all the souls in the meantime?

Receiving a foretaste of what they are to expect at the final judgment.

Whats the point of personal judgment if the judgment does not get executed?

What on earth are you talking about?

John

 

[prodromos]

Also unreasonable; Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, the God that enlightens the Church;

Eph 3:10
so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

First, there is no full stop at the end of verse 10, but apart from that if you look back at verse 5 you will learn that what was once hidden has been revealed to the Apostles and the Prophets.

What you are basically saying is that the Church does not have the authority to teach revealed truths. Perhaps you guys believe that theology is not progressive.

I am basically saying nothing of the sort. Of course the Church has authority to teach revealed truths. It has no authority to teach innovations which are not that which was revealed to the Apostles and the Prophets. And no, theology is not progressive. The seven ecumenical councils merely defended the faith once handed down by the Apostles. They did not declare anything new.

And we find hints of Purgatory all over Scripture, especially in Maccabees and also in the Jewish tradition.

No, you read your ‘doctrine’ back into those passages and traditions.

2 Maccabees 12:32-45

Perfectly in line with Orthodox belief. We pray for the dead and do good works in their name because we love them and do not know the state of their souls when they died. In Maccabees their sins were made apparent, but only God truly knows our hearts so we do not assume the salvation of any of our dearly departed, regardless of how godly they may have appeared to us in life. Thus we ask that God would show mercy on their souls and honor the good works we do on their behalf.

John

 

[prodromos]

Who’s holy tradition are we talking about? The tradition of the Catholic Church,to which the Church Fathers belonged? or the tradition of the Orthodox Church,which entity did not exist prior to the Great Schism?

Orthodox Holy Tradition is the same now as it was before the schism and was once shared by Rome. We have not added anything.

Who had the final authority on what was orthodox doctrine and what was not? The popes or the Greek clergy?

The synods of bishops of whom the Popes were members defend orthodox doctrine against heresy.

John

 

[prodromos]

And yet the Orthodox can’t back up that claim from historical facts
or the writings of the Church Fathers.

You simply refuse to accept the evidence.

Catholics say that Christ built the Church upon Peter,remember?

Orthodox say, as Scripture says, that the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets with Christ as the cornerstone.

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

John

 

[prodromos]

There may be some Orthodox that believe this, but Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of the Moscow Patriarchate, one of the most conservative Orthodox writers I am acquainted with, certainly does not. He unambiguously states that Christ descended into Hades (hell) and preached the good news to all souls. Otherwise it looks like you ascribe to a “third” state between heaven and hell - what Catholics term Purgatory.

orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx

(sigh) It is apparent that we need to be clear about the terms we are using. When I speak of Hell in the context of the final judgment I think it should be clear that I speak of the place prepared for the devil and his followers (the second death) also known as the “Lake of Fire”. Since Christ has not yet come as judge it should be plain that He has not yet sent anyone to Hell.
Hades, the place of the dead to which Christ descended and rent asunder from within is not the Hell to which I am referring after the second coming. These two places often get translated as the same word in English which is where your confusion is coming from.

Hilarion agrees with you here. A potential problem with this theory is that it looks like the doctrine of Apocatastasis; a name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls. This doctrine was condemned by a local synod of Constantinople in 543.

It looks nothing like Apocatastasis. Once someone is in Hell (lake of fire) they are there for eternity.

If all you are saying is that all souls in Hades may not yet be eternally damned, then Catholics are free to agree with you. There is nothing in Catholic dogmatic theology that requires a belief that any person is eternally damned. In fact, we are taught that is a judgment reserved for God alone.

Now you are using the term “Hades” instead of “Hell”. I thought Catholics believed that Hades has been destroyed by Christ’s resurrection

By the way, it is perfectly acceptable in Catholic theology to hold that Purgatory is a level of Hades, although this is not a dogmatic requirement. St. Thomas Aquinas believed this to be true, and it makes sense to me considering that while in this state the soul is separated from the immediate presence of God.

How can anyone be separated from the presence of God who is everywhere present?

John

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Of course the Church has authority to teach revealed truths. It has no authority to teach innovations which are not that which was revealed to the Apostles and the Prophets. And no, theology is not progressive. The seven ecumenical councils merely defended the faith once handed down by the Apostles. They did not declare anything new.

“revealed truths”, “innovations”, what sort of semantics are we getting into here?

Does the Church have the authority to bind and loose? If so, then how can it not teach new doctrines?

 

[tdgesq]

(sigh) It is apparent that we need to be clear about the terms we are using.

Bishop Hilarion is quite clear about the terms he is using. You didn’t look at the article:

The Byzantine and old Russian icons of the Resurrection of Christ never depict the resurrection itself, i.e., Christ coming out of the grave. They rather depict ‘the descent of Christ into Hades’, or to be more precise, the rising of Christ out of hell. Christ, sometimes with a cross in his hand, is represented as raising Adam, Eve and other personages of the biblical history from hell.

Hilarion simply does not use anything close to your terminology. In fact, he roundly criticizes much of the western tradition for failing to acknowledge that Christ descended into hell, rather than just to the Limbo of the Fathers as many RC theologians hold.

Hades, the place of the dead to which Christ descended and rent asunder from within is not the Hell to which I am referring after the second coming. These two places often get translated as the same word in English which is where your confusion is coming from.

I’m not confused at all. Then you do hold to a “third” state between heaven and hell. Are the righteous also held in Hades until the final judgment?

It looks nothing like Apocatastasis. Once someone is in Hell (lake of fire) they are there for eternity.

This looks like the RC division between hell (purgatory) and hell (infernus). I have no problem with that, but Bishop Hilarion obviously does:

We do not know if every one followed Christ when He rose from hell. Nor do we know if every one will follow Him to the eschatological Heavenly Kingdom when He will become ‘all in all’.

He does not posit a “third” state called “Hades” as separate and apart from a place called “Hell.” I am glad you do though.

Now you are using the term “Hades” instead of “Hell”. I thought Catholics believed that Hades has been destroyed by Christ’s resurrection

Correct. I am using the eastern term as set forth in Hilarion’s article. We don’t really use the term Hades at all except when comparing to the EO view. You are thinking of Limbo of the Fathers. And yes, we believe it was emptied with Christ’s descent.

How can anyone be separated from the presence of God who is everywhere present?

I think we both know I’m not referring to God’s omnipresence. If you don’t believe that there is a level of separation from God in Hell, then perhaps you could give me your understanding.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

It is ancient. What do you find unreasonable about it?

Let me be more clear: The thing I referred to as unreasonable was that idea of hell not being occupied.

Is the rich man in hell? And by Hell, I mean specifically eternal damnation, separated from God for eternity; the absence of the beatific vision.

Luke 16
26 And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither

So at least we can say one person is in hell

And finally:

**1035 **The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

**1033 **We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

“revealed truths”, “innovations”, what sort of semantics are we getting into here?

Does the Church have the authority to bind and loose? If so, then how can it not teach new doctrines?

Let me be more clear about “new doctrines”

Our Lord promised the Church, not new revelations, but an even-deeper penetration into the Deposit of Faith.

prounione.urbe.it/pdf/f_prounione_bulletin_n54_fall1998.pdf
on the section on the IC

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

…Kepha is the name that Jesus gave to Simon Bar-Jonah,long before he made the confession of faith.

Matthew 16:16-18 …this is what Saint Peter said FIRST16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God.”

And then the LORD called him Peter …17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18****And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.[d] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.”

you should read your bible and LISTEN to what the TEXT IS SAYING and not the figments of your mind, anthony.

the above is a clear sign of how wrong you are perceiving the texts, actually you are not perceiving anything you are only seeing what your mind is dectating to you wich is been overcome by the false teachings of the RCC.

Am I wrong for repeating what they said? They said Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built,and so do I.

No you are not wrong for repeating what they said, but you are wrong to stop reading half way through and call it an Interpretation and accept it as such, by placing it out of context.

Who’s holy tradition are we talking about? The tradition of the Catholic Church,to which the Church Fathers belonged? or the tradition of the Orthodox Church,which entity did not exist prior to the Great Schism?

there is only one Holy Tradition, and this Tradition is found in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and this Church would be the one who refused to change and alter the Holy Tradition, and if we analyse the Teaching among all the churches, ONE and Only ONE would measure up to it rightfully, that would be the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD.

Are you up to go through this, let us see who kept the Holy Tradition and those who added, subtracted, altered, distoreted and appropriated to themselves what only can apply to the other and by no mean it can apply to themselves.

The entity of the Orthodox Church did not exist??? your very church says otherwise, you cant be more RC then your church.

The literal and obvious interpretation logically comes first. It is more essential

uuuhhh, looool, so, you also go by a less obvious and less literal and less essential, besides the Obvious and the literal and the essential, and also accept the first as the second…thats why I said before that this is not an interpretation any more, but, a clear sign of confusions, delusions and like the one who didnt know which is the winning card from the loosing ones, so he bought all of them so this way he for sure will have the winning one amongst the many wrongs, sign of uncertainty.

Yes,the Church Fathers said both. Can you believe both interpretations?

I dont know if I should keep trying to explain to you the diffrences between the Title and the EXPLANATIONS/INTERPRETATIONS
here let me post an example for you for the “humpteen” times, cause I am really started to give up on you,…and Please, Please listen to what teh TEXT is saying and not the figment of your mind for once >>> St. Chrysostom says, "therefore He added this, ‘and I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church,’ **that is ****upon the Rock of his confession **(Hom. liv. in Matt. 16. sect. 2, P.G. lviii. 534).

see the larger text, this is an Interpretation, and the blue is a TITLE of what is to be Interpreted
now this is one of many…so please lets not go there again.**

 

[Ignatios]

All those interpretations are valid. But Christ named Simon Kepha,so logically the literal interpretation comes first

Same person. Kepha and Cephas are both personal names meaning Rock,and both refer to Peter

I am just not going to keep going into this who ever likes to know the answers for the above Please go back and search my posts, it is there numerous times.
What can I expect from someone who would post the following earlier (anthony): …" Kepha is the name that Jesus gave to Simon Bar-Jonah,long before he made the confession of faith"

How many?

Dont really know, do you? or anyone does? Please share it, just wish that I had the time to do the research for that.

It’s more wide-spread,and the pope is not as authoritarian,for better and worse,as those of the first millenium.

why dont you read your RC Catechism, it says it all there, and it contradict your saying.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

That’s not true. Until the Great Schism,the Eastern clergy called the Church “Catholic”.

again you should read things within context, the word “catholic” (I have explained this before on this thread) is not a name but an ATTRIBUTE of the Church in another word the word"catholic" is to tell what the Church is.
Read below, the following is from an Eastern CATHOLIC site:

Our experience of the term “catholic” makes us identify it almost exclusively as the brand name or trademark of one particular Church, the Roman Catholic. However the word is not a name so much as a description and as such it has been used among Christians for centuries in speaking about the Church. It is as a description that the word is used in the creed, not only by Catholics and Orthodox but by some Protestants as well.
stannmelkite.homestead.com/EasternChristiansBelieve.html

No,you have to read history and the writings of the Church Fathers to find out what the true Church is.

why? did the RCC taught you that the Church Fathers taught something diffrent then the Bible, hhhmmm, Perhaps so, here comes to mind the DOGMAS of your church(Putrgatory, Imma. Conc. Infallability, Indulgences etc…) which is a foreign to the Church Fathers.

 

[Ignatios]

ChaldeanRite:

… Fallacy:…

OOO Dear!!! I was expecting less comments.

Who is suggesting that? Not me. Please don’t put words into my mouth.

Anyhow, you avoided the question:
If Purgatory does not exist, why do you pray for the dead?

By Prodromos, …2 Maccabees 12:32-45"*Perfectly in line with Orthodox belief. We pray for the dead and do good works in their name because we love them and do not know the state of their souls when they died. In Maccabees their sins were made apparent, but only God truly knows our hearts so we do not assume the salvation of any of our dearly departed, regardless of how godly they may have appeared to us in life. Thus we ask that God would show mercy on their souls and honor the good works we do on their behalf.

John"*

Well said Prodromos, thank you brother.

You didn’t quote the rest:

5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.

??? here is the whole chapter the seventh chapter that is>>>Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”
and here is the Link that would take you straight to it
east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory

However This actually makes your Church even look …well…not as good as you like it to be,

1. Are you Implying that the the largest Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) beleive and teach the Pugatory??? I like your answer to this please.
2. Give us a proof that they do, if you say that the Pugatory is in their Doctrine and they teach it.
3. if it is true that they entrust their selves to the teaching of the church, then why not teaching the purgatory?
4. who is that “holy church” they reffered to in the above?

Regarding Purgatory, whatever you quoted above was just words form a dictionary

“Just words from DICTIONARY”??? because it is from the dictionary, that makes reliable, in the meaning that is, and since as you apparently might not know that your mother church the RCC has been trying to move away from the word “Place” since it is not biblical and could not proove that.
that was the purpose of using the dictionary, to say, that even if you tried to move away from it, you can not, since it is in the name itself.

 

[Ignatios]

Which of course, I’m sure you’ll read because thats how you became so “knowledgeable” in Catholic teaching in the first place

Please can you verify for me which one of the Catholic teachings you are referring to?

1. Is it the Western Catholics or the Eastern Catholics?
2. And if it is the Eastern Catholics, which one of them I would be looking at their Teachings?
3. Is it gonna be the Byzantine Catholics .
4. And If it is the byzantine Catholics which one of the byzantine Catholics would that be?
5. The Slavic church or the Melkites or another of the many others of the Eastern Byzantine Catholic.
6. or is it maybe your Chaldean church.( OH by the way, are you guys now, firm with Rome or still not sure, or that was the church of the east? that kept going back and forth )

7 Or is it the Maronites church…

I would really appreciate it if you can tell me which of the Catholic teaching you are looking at, so I will know where to go, Because it can get really confusing once you get in those things you know.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

Silly me !!!:banghead: did not know what THEE Pugatory is by the RCC

…He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

Ok lets get to it.
And the text in color suppose to mean Purgatory? Or where do you see Purgatory in the Bible, as defined by the RCC?
In that site you posted in the above, all I see is praying for the dead from most exept for Augustine in which is understandable, since he didnt know Greek in which he made mistakes from the Bible, in which it lead to the concept of the “Original Sin” and therefore that lead to most of the dogmas, in which one of them is the “Limbo” ( now they are moving away from this one…sheesh it took them hundreds of years to know that it was not valid).

Goodnight.

lailo tob, shlomo a7ono or you are Chaldean then it will be shlama a7onno

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

1. Are you Implying that the the largest Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) beleive and teach the Pugatory??? I like your answer to this please.
2. Give us a proof that they do, if you say that the Pugatory is in their Doctrine and they teach it.
3. if it is true that they entrust their selves to the teaching of the church, then why not teaching the purgatory?

Ever member of the Catholic Church, the Spouse of Christ, His only One, is bound to believe in all dogmas taught. I think thats crystal clear.

hrbcc.org/bulletin_20041107.shtml

   This belief in a period of purification is supported by Scripture in the Old and New testaments: 2 Maccabees 12:46,       2 Timothy 1:18, Matthew 12:32, 1 Corinthians 3:15.    
       The Church’s teaching on purgatory is plain and simple. There is a place or state of purification where souls can be       helped by the prayers of the faithful. The catechism describes purgatory as the “final purification of the elect —       entirely different from the punishment of the damned.”

*Fr O’Connell - *Holy Resurrection Byzantine Catholic Mission

Would you like to give your quotes from the Byzantines that explicitly deny the existence of Purgatory?