C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Just one of the beauties of being Catholic, I can believe in all of them and they are fruitful.
- Status
A
anthony022071
Guest
[Ignatios]
“Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You shall be called ‘Cephas’ (which means Peter).” (John 1:42)
Mark Bonocore was right. The Orthodox overlook John 1:42.
catholicconvert.com/Porta…Chrysostom.pdf
< Mark Bonocore said that the funny thing was that a Greek Orthodox he was
debating didn’t even know that “Kephas” was actually the Greek transliteration of
the Aramaic word ‘Kepha”! They just assumed that Paul was calling Peter “the
Head,” because that’s what it means in Greek. They had completely overlooked
John 1:42. Which, funny enough, seems to be employing the same Greek pun.
Otherwise, why give the translation?
Mark says, think about it. If Simon Bar-Jonah was called “Kephas” by the
Greeks and “Kepha” by the Aramaic-speakers, how did he end up as “Peter” in the
Gospel narratives? Why isn’t he “Kephas” throughout the Gospels? Why change it
to “Petros,” unless the Gospel writers are trying to avoid equating Simon Bar-
Jonah with the name “Head” so as to make it clear that his name is “Rock.” >
As I said,Jesus named Simon Bar Jonah “Kepha” long before Kepha made his confession of faith.
“Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You shall be called ‘Cephas’ (which means Peter).” (John 1:42)
Mark Bonocore was right. The Orthodox overlook John 1:42.
catholicconvert.com/Porta…Chrysostom.pdf
< Mark Bonocore said that the funny thing was that a Greek Orthodox he was
debating didn’t even know that “Kephas” was actually the Greek transliteration of
the Aramaic word ‘Kepha”! They just assumed that Paul was calling Peter “the
Head,” because that’s what it means in Greek. They had completely overlooked
John 1:42. Which, funny enough, seems to be employing the same Greek pun.
Otherwise, why give the translation?
Mark says, think about it. If Simon Bar-Jonah was called “Kephas” by the
Greeks and “Kepha” by the Aramaic-speakers, how did he end up as “Peter” in the
Gospel narratives? Why isn’t he “Kephas” throughout the Gospels? Why change it
to “Petros,” unless the Gospel writers are trying to avoid equating Simon Bar-
Jonah with the name “Head” so as to make it clear that his name is “Rock.” >
The Church Fathers did not usually place both interpretations side by side. So it is not a matter of me not reading all the way through or placing their quotes out of context. But is you separate Peter’s faith from Peter,then you place it out of it’s context.
You’re not talking about the One Catholic Church,but about regional Eastern churches,which rebelled against the Church of Rome,the supreme see by apostolic tradition.
The Orthodox can’t prove that the Catholic Church has not kept the holy tradition. The Catholic Church was never limited to keeping Byzantine traditions and theological expressions.
The Orthodox Church did not exist prior to the Great Schism. The was only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Yes,the spiritual interpretations are also valid. But Christ himself was referring to Peter.
How does this resolve the question? John Chrysostom also said many times that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. “Rock” is used in the Bible as a personal name,not just a noun. St. Paul uses Kephas as a name for Peter. There’s no getting around that. See the article I posted for an overview of John Chrysostom’s interpretations of Matthew 16:18.
A
anthony022071
Guest
St. Ephraem the Syrian (ca. A.D. 350):
“Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people.”
(Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli)
A
anthony022071
Guest
bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm
Pope Gregory the Great:
“I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church” (Epistles 5:44).
newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm
< There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epp., XIII, l, he speaks of “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches”, and in Epp., V, cliv, he says: “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church.” As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epp., II, xlvi; III, xxx; V, xxxvii; VII, xxxvii). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epp., IX, clvi), and his authority could annul them (Epp., V, xxxix, xli, xliv). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epp., II, l; III, lii, lxiii; IX, xxvi, xxvii). >
Pope Gregory the Great:
“I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church” (Epistles 5:44).
newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm
< There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epp., XIII, l, he speaks of “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches”, and in Epp., V, cliv, he says: “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church.” As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epp., II, xlvi; III, xxx; V, xxxvii; VII, xxxvii). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epp., IX, clvi), and his authority could annul them (Epp., V, xxxix, xli, xliv). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epp., II, l; III, lii, lxiii; IX, xxvi, xxvii). >
T
tdgesq
Guest
Thanks for the information Anthony. I had not seen Bonocore’s analysis before on the writings of Pope Gregory. It confirms my own.
The EO don’t agree that Peter is the rock, which Gregory makes explicit. They don’t agree with Gregory’s affirmation that the Pope has authority to annul an Eastern synod, held by the Bishop of Constantinople no less. They don’t agree that Gregory had the authority to speak with the authority of Peter the Prince of the Apostles and forbid all bishops under pain of interdict from interfering with monasteries.
Yet despite all of that, they attempt to convince folks that because the Pope refused to use the term “universal bishop” or “universal Pope” (in response to the use of the term by John the Faster) that he must not have believed he had the authority that he did in fact exercise. Astonishing.
A
anthony022071
Guest
[tdgesq]
catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Webster05Chrysostom.pdf
To John,
Bishop.
Gregory to John, Bishop of Constantinople.
“For, having confessed thyself unworthy to be called a bishop, thou hast at length been brought to such a pass as, despising thy brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop. And indeed with regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory; in which he annulled the acts of the synod, which had been assembled among you in the case of our once brother and fellow-bishop Gregory, because of that execrable title of pride, and forbade the archdeacon whom he had sent according to custom to the threshold of our Lord, to celebrate the solemnities of mass with you.”
TO CASTORIUS,
BISHOP.
Gregory to Castorius, Bishop of Ariminum (Rimini).
“We therefore interdict in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and forbid by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, in whose stead we preside over this Roman Church, that any bishop or secular person hereafter presume in any way to devise occasions of interfering with regard to the revenues, property, or writings of monasteries, or of the cells or vills thereto appertaining, or have recourse to any tricks or exactions: but, if any case should by chance arise as to land disputed between their churches and any monasteries, and it cannot be arranged amicably, let it be terminated without intentional delay before selected abbots and other fathers who fear God, sworn upon the most holy Gospels.”
globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm
“If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.” (Lib. ix., Ep. 59)
“Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?..Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles…received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)
credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm
Actually,Mark Bonocore wasn’t talking about Pope Gregory. He was quoted by Steve Ray in this link.
catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Webster05Chrysostom.pdf
Epistle XVIII.
To John,
Bishop.
Gregory to John, Bishop of Constantinople.
“For, having confessed thyself unworthy to be called a bishop, thou hast at length been brought to such a pass as, despising thy brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop. And indeed with regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory; in which he annulled the acts of the synod, which had been assembled among you in the case of our once brother and fellow-bishop Gregory, because of that execrable title of pride, and forbade the archdeacon whom he had sent according to custom to the threshold of our Lord, to celebrate the solemnities of mass with you.”
EPISTLE XLI.
TO CASTORIUS,
BISHOP.
Gregory to Castorius, Bishop of Ariminum (Rimini).
“We therefore interdict in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and forbid by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, in whose stead we preside over this Roman Church, that any bishop or secular person hereafter presume in any way to devise occasions of interfering with regard to the revenues, property, or writings of monasteries, or of the cells or vills thereto appertaining, or have recourse to any tricks or exactions: but, if any case should by chance arise as to land disputed between their churches and any monasteries, and it cannot be arranged amicably, let it be terminated without intentional delay before selected abbots and other fathers who fear God, sworn upon the most holy Gospels.”
globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm
“As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city.” (Lib. ix., Ep. 12);
“If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.” (Lib. ix., Ep. 59)
“Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?..Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles…received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)
credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm
T
tdgesq
Guest
My mistake. I was looking at a previous post. I’m happy to take Phil’s compilation as confirmation.
P
prodromos
Guest
I read the article thoroughly thank you, though it is becoming apparent that you have not understood him, or me.
Bishop Hilarion clearly speaks of “Hell” or “Hades” as the abode of the dead BEFORE Christ’s death and resurrection, and he refers to its destruction by Christ’s resurrection.“Death unwilling to be defeated is defeated; corruption is transformed; unconquerable passion is destroyed. While hell, diseased with excessive insatiability and never satisfied with the dead, is taught, even if against its will, that which it could not learn previously. For it not only ceases to claim those who are still to fall [in the future], but also lets free those already captured, being subjected to splendid devastation by the power of our Saviour… Having preached to the spirits in hell, once disobedient, He came out as conqueror by resurrecting His temple like a beginning of our hope and by showing to [our] nature the manner of the raising from the dead, and giving us along with it other blessings as well.”
Cyril of Alexandria 5th Festive Letter 1, 29-40 (SC 732, 284).
Clearly, Cyril perceived the victory of Christ over hell and death as complete and definitive. According to Cyril, hell loses authority both over those who were in its power and those who are to become its prey in the future. Thus, the descent into Hades, a single and unique action, is perceived as a timeless event. The raised body of Christ becomes the guarantee of universal salvation, the beginning of way leading human nature to ultimate deificationI defined clearly in my earlier post that I am talking about the “second death”, the place prepared for the Devil and his followers. This is not what Bishop Hillarion is talking about.
You are totally confused if you can draw such a conclusion to what either I or Bishop Hillarion have written.
I don’t
I hope that doesn’t sadden you.In future, please respond to what I have written, and not your fantasy version of it.
John
T
tdgesq
Guest
O.k. Let me try to understand. (1) Hell/Hades. This was the abode of the dead before Christ’s resurrection. It is now destroyed. I take it you don’t mean literal destruction, but rather Christ’s triumph over it. Otherwise Hell/Hades no longer exists, which means we would have to set forth another state/place where souls currently reside. So Hell/Hades still exists as a state where souls reside, but one over which Christ has triumphed. A fair assessment?
.
So now we have (2) Second Death. This is the place prepared for the Devil and his followers. It looks like it is a state that exists, otherwise it couldn’t have been prepared. Are the devil and his angels currently in (2) Second Death, or are they in (1) Hades/Hell? No human souls are in Second Death, at least not until the general judgment. So Second Death exists, there just aren’t any human souls in it yet Correct so far?
Now on to (3) Heaven. I asked this question in the previous post:
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?
Here was your answer:
Well, that isn’t an answer, is it? Let me ask again. Are the righteous also held in (1) Hades/Hell until the final judgment? There is a state (3) Heaven. I assume you would say it currently exists. Perhaps what you are saying is that there isn’t anybody in heaven yet, except for Christ and the Blessed Virgin perhaps. Regardless, there is a state (3) Heaven.You are totally confused if you can draw such a conclusion to what either I or Bishop Hillarion have written.
I don’t
Well John, you can call it a fantasy rather than what you wrote, but I count three different states: (1) Hades/Hell; (2) Second Death; and (3) Heaven.
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Do you really not understand that “shall be called” refers to the future event recorded at Matt. 16:18, and therefore does not in any way contradict the interpretation of “rock” as referring to Peter’s confession? “Shall be” is future tense. Jesus is prophetically foretelling something, not giving him the name at that moment. Joe
I
Ignatios
Guest
ChaldeanRite:
If the Pope said Jump, the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic, in particular the Melkite, they dont say how high, nor do they jump, if they see it not fit for themselves.
I think you agree with me, that, the Eastern and the Western churches including the Orthodox, dont go by what a Priest say, the RCC has the Magisterium, and above them THEEE Pope, ultimetly they go by what the Pope say and NOT what a Priest say, now, in the Eastern churches, Catholics and Orthodox, they go by what the “SYNOD” say, The Synod is the one who define the teaching.
I already did, but, let me posted again, and read it if you are sincere with your question.
east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory
And here how it starts
urgatory: Could you please explain the differences among Latin theology concerning the Dogma of Purgatory and that of the various Eastern Churches?
As a general rule, all Eastern Christians do not use the word “Purgatory.” This includes both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, **and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable. **
In the Medieval West, many popular theologians defined Purgatory as a specific place, where people essentially sat around and suffered.
So the site that I posted earlier is known that the whole Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic follows. and it is legitimate.
Now, Do you have a ligitimate source from the Byzantine Catholic that it says explicitly that they must Teach the RC Dogma of the Purgatory in their churches???
because as you see from the the link that I posted “East2West” it is explicilty for their doctrine, if they do teach it especially if it is a dogma then for sure they must list it as such and teach it in all their churches as defined by the RCC
Here is another one from the Melkite,…It is the common tradition of the Eastern and Western Churches to pray for the dead. This reflects the belief that they do not attain their final state of blis until the Last Day and so can be helped by our prayers. The West has called this intermediate condition “purgatory” and has seen it as punishment due to past sins, whether forgiven or not. The Eastern tradition has not given this intermediate state a same and prefers to see it as a period of further growth: a growth which is surely purging or cleansing, but not punishing.
stannmelkite.homestead.com/EasternChristiansBelieve.html
My question was not whether you believe in them all or not nor it was whether they are beautifull or not, here let me post it again
Ignatios earlier:
This is what the RCC say, But, The Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic church still doesnt teach it in their church as we see from their site that I posted earlier, and they disagree with the RCC on this issue, this is a known issue between them and the RCC, it is not a secret nor one can distort it, anyone can go to their rooms and ask them if they do or do not teach it in their church.
If the Pope said Jump, the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic, in particular the Melkite, they dont say how high, nor do they jump, if they see it not fit for themselves.
Oh yes the controversial Fr. Thomas O’CONNELL, …lol, yes… First thing comes to mind when you find an Irish or Scottish Roman Catholic, became priest In the Byzantine Catholic, is, why did he go there for???, but, it doesnt matter.
I think you agree with me, that, the Eastern and the Western churches including the Orthodox, dont go by what a Priest say, the RCC has the Magisterium, and above them THEEE Pope, ultimetly they go by what the Pope say and NOT what a Priest say, now, in the Eastern churches, Catholics and Orthodox, they go by what the “SYNOD” say, The Synod is the one who define the teaching.
I already did, but, let me posted again, and read it if you are sincere with your question.east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory
And here how it starts
urgatory: Could you please explain the differences among Latin theology concerning the Dogma of Purgatory and that of the various Eastern Churches?As a general rule, all Eastern Christians do not use the word “Purgatory.” This includes both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, **and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable. **
In the Medieval West, many popular theologians defined Purgatory as a specific place, where people essentially sat around and suffered.
So the site that I posted earlier is known that the whole Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic follows. and it is legitimate.
Now, Do you have a ligitimate source from the Byzantine Catholic that it says explicitly that they must Teach the RC Dogma of the Purgatory in their churches???
because as you see from the the link that I posted “East2West” it is explicilty for their doctrine, if they do teach it especially if it is a dogma then for sure they must list it as such and teach it in all their churches as defined by the RCC
Here is another one from the Melkite,…It is the common tradition of the Eastern and Western Churches to pray for the dead. This reflects the belief that they do not attain their final state of blis until the Last Day and so can be helped by our prayers. The West has called this intermediate condition “purgatory” and has seen it as punishment due to past sins, whether forgiven or not. The Eastern tradition has not given this intermediate state a same and prefers to see it as a period of further growth: a growth which is surely purging or cleansing, but not punishing.
stannmelkite.homestead.com/EasternChristiansBelieve.html
My question was not whether you believe in them all or not nor it was whether they are beautifull or not, here let me post it againIgnatios earlier:
I
Ignatios
Guest
Thank you for the reply Alethiaphile, I think I am all done with anthony untill he starts to read and listen to what the text is saying, it is kind hard to debate with someone when you have to explain to him everything and what he is saying. yes I like to teach but right here it is a debate and not school. forgive me anthony but I promise you if you show some understanding of what you are talking about, then I will answer, untill then my friend, I am all done with you.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Maybe you need to read what you think supports your case more carefully:
east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory
And here how it starts
As a general rule, all Eastern Christians do not use the word “Purgatory.” This includes both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, **and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable. **
In the Medieval West, many popular theologians defined Purgatory as a specific place, where people essentially sat around and suffered.
So the site that I posted earlier is known that the whole Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic follows. and it is legitimate.
Now, Do you have a ligitimate source from the Byzantine Catholic that it says explicitly that they must Teach the RC Dogma of the Purgatory in their churches???
because as you see from the the link that I posted “East2West” it is explicilty for their doctrine, if they do teach it especially if it is a dogma then for sure they must list it as such and teach it in all their churches as defined by the RCC
from east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory
Fair enough, this is part of what makes us catholic.
do you got that?
Are you going to try and contest this?
Not the existence of the DOGMA that there is a place in which
This part in red is not a very clear or accurate statement. We pray for the dead so that they may be released from Purgatory. Purgatory is done once you are purified from all sin. Therefore, your time in their is dependent on your level of sin, NOT until the end of the world as this above quote strongly implies. And if you are smart, you wear the Scapular and Our Lady will free you from their provided you are properly devoted.
E
elts1956
Guest
I don’t know if I would call Peter’s teachings in this hypocrisy as I believe a loose definition of hypocrisy would be to preach one thing, but act in another way. Remember Peter was a converted Jew. I am sure more Apostles than just Peter were confused as to Gentiles being bound by Jewish Laws, or not. It was probably a very hot topic. As I understand it, the argument betwen Paul and Peter was over rituals performed by Orthodox Jews, such as circumcision, laws of cleanliness in food etc. Then didn’t Peter have a vision where angels were holding a cloth on which a pig and other foods the Jews considered unclean were placed? And I vaguely remember, he heard Christ telling him it was okay to eat these things. This is what Paul was trying to tell Peter and this is why Paul is called the Apostle of the Gentiles.
I
Ignatios
Guest
ChaldeanRite:
urgatory: Could you please **explain the differences ** if there was no diffrenceswhy would they ask about the diffrences and then explain what the diffrences are… and then where do you see that they agree with the RCC concerning the dogmas of the Purgatory AS DEFINED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH…
And then later they continue saying the following:
“… The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable…”
Now where in the above you see the same teaching as the Purgatory dogma defined and explained and taught and followed by the RCC ???
if they did believe in the dogma of the RCC they would have said it and defined it exactly the same as the RCC !!! but they didnt …and the words that I enlarged for you as big as i can get them, so you dont missed them, are saying that they dont believe in it in a nice way… sigh
And I see that you ignored my question to you again, and that is the following: “My question was not whether you believe in them all or not nor it was whether they are beautifull or not, here let me post it again”
concerning the following:
Please can you verify for me which one of the Catholic teachings you are referring to?
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.
Fair enough, this is part of what makes us catholic.
is there play on the words in the above or with the words in the above…
Does the enlarged Text and highlighted, was too small for you in order to read it and then comprehend it?Does the word diffrence has to have a bunch of theologians get together and interpret so you can accept it as such…>>>" …And here how it starts
urgatory: Could you please **explain the differences ** if there was no diffrenceswhy would they ask about the diffrences and then explain what the diffrences are… and then where do you see that they agree with the RCC concerning the dogmas of the Purgatory AS DEFINED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH…And then later they continue saying the following:
“… The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable…”
Now where in the above you see the same teaching as the Purgatory dogma defined and explained and taught and followed by the RCC ???
if they did believe in the dogma of the RCC they would have said it and defined it exactly the same as the RCC !!! but they didnt …and the words that I enlarged for you as big as i can get them, so you dont missed them, are saying that they dont believe in it in a nice way… sigh
And I see that you ignored my question to you again, and that is the following: “My question was not whether you believe in them all or not nor it was whether they are beautifull or not, here let me post it again”
concerning the following:
Please can you verify for me which one of the Catholic teachings you are referring to?
- Is it the Western Catholics or the Eastern Catholics?
- And if it is the Eastern Catholics, which one of them I would be looking at their Teachings?
- Is it gonna be the Byzantine Catholics .
- And If it is the byzantine Catholics which one of the byzantine Catholics would that be?
- The Slavic church or the Melkites or another of the many others of the Eastern Byzantine Catholic.
- 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 )
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.
you forgot the red out!!! and then you replied the following:
Fair enough, this is part of what makes us catholic.
is there play on the words in the above or with the words in the above…
I
Ignatios
Guest
which one of them is it??? see why I put the dictionary in a previous post concerning the meaning of "Purgatorium"and what it means… you cant get around this one
and then you added your comments :
As for me NO I will never get that( GOD forbid that I get something like that), you can keep it. we pray for the Dead as we explained previously why for those who departed this life. and it is nothing close to the definition of the RCC praying for the dead.
But, your quetion should be directed to the Eastern byzantine Catholics, in particular the Melkite…because apparently what they understand from your DOGMA is the following which you overlooked…>>>"…The West has called this intermediate condition “purgatory” and has seen it as punishment due to past sins, whether forgiven or not. The Eastern tradition has not given this intermediate state a same and prefers to see it as a period of further growth: a growth which is surely purging or cleansing, but not punishing."
Both of you sees it diffrently…what more could be said concerning this…is it the same ? NO …
If you want to know what the Orthodox believe concerning thisyou should look it up from a genuine Orthodox link and not from an eastern Catholic.
The Orthodox dont believe in a third Place besides Hell and Heaven
"…Council at Constantinople local Council, 1772 AD
Convened regarding Purgatory. Condemned the innovation of purgatory. "
Statement
We the godly, following the truth and turning away from such innovations, confess and accept two places for the souls of the dead, paradise and hell, for the righteous and sinners, as the holy Scripture teaches us. We do not accept a third place, a purgatory, by any means, since neither Scripture nor the holy Fathers have taught us any such thing. However, we believe these two places have many abodes
Now that is an Orthodox Statement.
ChaldeanRite:
I cant explaine it any better then this, I rest my case…if you going to contest this there is nothiong that you accept that they dont believe and teach it in their churches. any more then the above is a" beating a dead horse"
You can take your arguement against those whom you are united with, since the above is not from me nor from an Orthodox site , but it is from your brothers in the Melkite Catholic church.So your arguement is with eachothers the Catholics.
And as for the" being smart part and wear the Scapular…" if this what samrt is, …loool… then I would rather be a stupid than being of that kind of smart, we obtain our salvation IN THE LORD BY our Faith in Him , that He redeemed us through his blood on the Cross and not through “purgatory” and Indulgences (Paper from the Pope to get out of the Third place).
A
anthony022071
Guest
How do you know that it was only future tense? If someone is given another name with the words “You shall be called” it usually means “from now on”.
Genesis 17:5
“Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.”
Peter is a translation of Kepha. And Simon Bar Jonah was called Peter,or Simon Peter,from the time that he first met Jesus.
M
Mickey
Guest
…And so, since all bishops are successors of St Peter, then you are saying that all bishops should have the title of “Vicar of Christ”? Or at the very least, the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Antioch?
Is this the reason the title was adopted by Rome–because of this quote by St Ephraim the Syrian?
A
anthony022071
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
St Peter was in Antioch first.
NeIther have I.
And I do not think St Ephraim considered the bishop of Rome to be the Vicar of Christ.
You may want to look at the fictitous “Donation of Constantine” for the origin of this odd title.
- Status