Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Ignatios]

mardukm:

Contrary to your belief, the Catholic dogma of the Assumption does not assert that Mary did NOT die.

But do you disagree that many theologians of your church did suggest that she did not die and it is understood as such by many RCs???
I agree the RCC did not specifically say that, but wouldnt this put your definition of the “original Sin” in big error??? think about it…I am Glad that I have a feeling that you are one who knows what he is talking about… and I am saying to myself right now… ABOUT TIME

It’s obvious you have not actually bothered to read what the Church herself teaches

Actually I did, very much so, but I dont blame you for saying that since the way I worded it, it sounded as if I said that the RCC believes that she didnt die. but my comments was broad not precise.

but get your understanding from anti-Catholic sources

I get my info from all including the RCC.

I urge you to read more about what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches from her own words before you criticize her.

I respect your words, but my brother, if i have no criticism for the RCC then I am RC, and you must understand that despite all the many similarity there is many diffrences and great ones too, and whenever we cross them, there going to be …well. a heated debate for if there was no criticism then there should be an agreement then there should be no schism.

Actually, whenever I find EO criticize the Catholic Church based on wrong information, I see it as a sign of hope, because it demonstrates they/you have not really touched upon what the Catholic Church teaches.

But then that could also generate more criticism after gaining more knowledge about what the RCC really teaches. and that goes NOT only to the Orthodox but to all including RCs too.

It gives me hope also because once you read what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches, instead of depending on second-hand polemic sources from your own Church, then you’ll see the fullness of Truth.

But if someone had already saw the fullness of truth, especially when it is backed up by history, church history, biblicaly and Church Fathers, and all point East. But I thank you for your calm comments and I appreciate your approach, however, have you really looked at the Orthodox Faith without any prejudice, I encourge to do so since it seems like you have a white heart.

May our GOD the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit be with you, keep you and Bless you †††
I will remember you in my prayer tonight:tiphat:

 

[Ignatios]

catholic1seek:

OKAY OKAY. So the E.O. don’t believe in purgatory, so what? The Catholic Church does.

Where is this heading? ? ?

If the E.O. does not, simply say so. Though perhaps I’m not understadning the argument 100%.

good night catholic2seek GOD bless you †††

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

But do you disagree that many theologians of your church did suggest that she did not die and it is understood as such by many RCs???

That is true. I would humbly suggest however that we (including myself) stick to debating about the official teachings instead of the theologoumena.

I agree the RCC did not specifically say that, but wouldnt this put your definition of the “original Sin” in big error??? think about it…

1. The dogma uses the phrase “after her life on earth…” as a preface to the Assumption. When I first read that (and I was not yet Catholic), I thought it meant that the Virgin Mary died. Also, consider the fact that the official explanation given for the promulgation of the dogma appeals to the Eastern Feast of the Dormition of Mary as evidence for the Assumption. Thus, one can only conclude that the ones who drafted it understood that Mary died a bodily death.
2. Actually, I am an Oriental Catholic (not Eastern, but Oriental - i.e., I came into Catholicism, from Coptic Orthodoxy, which is an Oriental Orthodox Church, not an Eastern Orthodox Church), not a Latin Catholic, so my definition of “original sin” is the same as yours.
3. Can you please explain how it puts the Latin Church’s understanding of original sin “in error”?

Actually I did, very much so, but I dont blame you for saying that since the way I worded it, it sounded as if I said that the RCC believes that she didnt die. but my comments was broad not precise. I get my info from all including the RCC.

Thank you for the explanation, brother.

But then that could also generate more criticism after gaining more knowledge about what the RCC really teaches. and that goes NOT only to the Orthodox but to all including RCs too.

I suppose that’s a possibility. I look at it as more of an opportunity to explain the Faith.

But if someone had already saw the fullness of truth, especially when it is backed up by history, church history, biblicaly and Church Fathers, and all point East. But I thank you for your calm comments and I appreciate your approach, however, have you really looked at the Orthodox Faith without any prejudice, I encourge to do so since it seems like you have a white heart.

Actually, I translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy - the journey for me took a little over three years.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Your compliments humble me. Likewise, I sense the peace of the Spirit in you.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Brother ChaldeanRite,

Do you remember Father Ambrose back when the ECF was still called the Eastern Christianity Forum? He said he would withhold the Eucharist from any Orthodox Christian who denied that the Blessed Mother after her death was assumed bodily into heaven.

The imperative to believe in the Assumption for the Orthodox comes from her Tradition, not from an ecclesiastical ruling. There is an imperative to believe it nonetheless.

Blessings,
Marduk

That was my first impression but an Orthodox Priest in one of the books they were selling at an OC EO church said it was actually not required for accent. I think he was wrong.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So gymnasium is a place.
And you use that argument to prove that Purgatory is a place.
But Equilibrium is a state and not a place.

You see ‘place’ defined as a region in space, but Heaven and Hell are outside of space, as G_d is outside of space.

G_d and the Kingdom are not in space and time, but rather space and time are within G_d and the Kingdom.

Thus defining Heaven and Hell as places is meaningless.
Defining Heaven an Hell as states is meaningful.

Heaven is the state of Joy in the presence of G_d, the Loving Father and Friend.

Hell is the state of horror in the presence of Satan, the father of lies, and the enemy.

Actually, Satan is himself an illusion.
Satan is just a perverted view of the Divinity as an enemy, and the perverted view of his truth is lies.

We are told that the dead are asleep until the last day.
Whether that sleep is dreamless, or troubled is another question.
Dreamless sleep last but a moment.
Troubled sleep can last an eternity.

This sleep is the third state.
Call it Purgatory if you like. That would be an apt description of troubled sleep.

 

[elts1956]

[Ignatios]

An Orthodox saint with somewhat peculiar views.

“The Son is the Only-begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit
is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, not as any
creature, which also is of the Father and of the Son, but as
living and having power with both, and eternally subsisting of that which is the Father and the Son.” (Sermons 75:3)

“And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons.” (To Turribius, Epistle 15)

And Gregory the Great also.

“The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son…the Redeemer imparted to the hearts of His disciples the Spirit who proceeds from Himself.” (Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 1:22,2:92)

“Our Lord … shews how the Spirit of Both so proceeds as to be coeternal with Both…He who is produced by procession is not posterior in time to those by whom He is put forth.” (Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 25:4)

“but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons.” (To Turribius, Epistle 15)

How explain the physical body of Christ fully human, fully God?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

“but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons.” (To Turribius, Epistle 15)

How explain the physical body of Christ fully human, fully God?

So much misunderstanding of words taken out of context.

The Son is the Only-begotten of the Father

Read Psalm 2 Verse 7 to understand the context of the word ‘begotten’
There is no implication of male progenesis here. It refers to the rite of acknowledgement. This was commonly performed at circumcission, but also at Bar Mitzvah, or at any time when a father chooses to acknowledge his son.
Note, in Jewish lore of the era, there is no concept of adoption.
An acknowledged son is a legal son. Blood is irellevant.
A son of blood who is denied is not a son.
The difference between King David and Our Lord lies in the publicity of the acknowledgement.
David was acknowledged in a dream.
Our Lord was publicly acknowledged twice, first at the Baptism, and later at the Transfiguration.

He who proceeded from both

Again you fail to correctly translate ‘ex’

ex PREP ABL
ex PREP ABL [XXXAX]
out of, from; by reason of; according to; because of, as a result of.

Too often, the simple translation is taken, whereas, reading the Gospels, it is clear that the meaning is causative not generative.
No party of the trinity is a source of any other party.
All three are CO-ETERNAL.

Understanding the Latin as implying sourceship is contrary to the Gospels, and indeed Tradition.
Causativity is the only possible understanding of the Latin to be in concord with the Gospels.

“Our Lord … shews how the Spirit of Both so proceeds as to be coeternal with Both…He who is produced by procession is not posterior in time to those by whom He is put forth.” (Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 25:4)

You only have to understand what you yourself have written to see this truth.

Providing a portal, or providing a cause, but not being a source.

 

[anthony022071]

[Ignatios]

here is from the an Orthodox council convened for the innovation of Purgatory:
*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 … *
“Everyone will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49).

“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come” (Matt 12:32).

“After his death, Jesus went to preach to the Spirits in prison” (1 Pet 3:19)

“Nothing unclean can enter heaven” (Rev 21:27)

1 Corinthians 3:14–15: “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

“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).

Latin writing in the catacomb of Precilla that says:
“I implore you, brothers to pray whenever you come here and invoke the Father and Son in all your prayers so that they might save Agape (the person in the tomb) forever”

Clement of Alexandria:
The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, “yet” etc. (Patres Groeci. IX, col. 332 [A.D. 150-215]).

Cyprian:
It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the Day of Judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).

Basil:
“…and if they * are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however, they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest.” (Basil, Homilies and Psalms, 370 A.D.)

Gregory of Nyssa
“…he [the departed soul] is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by purifying fire.” (Sermon on the Dead)

John Chrysostom:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice Job l:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 (A.D. 392)).*

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

[Ignatios]

“Everyone will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49).

“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come” (Matt 12:32).

“After his death, Jesus went to preach to the Spirits in prison” (1 Pet 3:19)

“Nothing unclean can enter heaven” (Rev 21:27)

1 Corinthians 3:14–15: “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

“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).

Latin writing in the catacomb of Precilla that says:
“I implore you, brothers to pray whenever you come here and invoke the Father and Son in all your prayers so that they might save Agape (the person in the tomb) forever”

Clement of Alexandria:
The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, “yet” etc. (Patres Groeci. IX, col. 332 [A.D. 150-215]).

Cyprian:
It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the Day of Judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).

Basil:
“…and if they * are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however, they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest.” (Basil, Homilies and Psalms, 370 A.D.)

“…he [the departed soul] is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by purifying fire.” (Sermon on the Dead)

John Chrysostom:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job l:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 (A.D. 392)).

*
[/quote]

 

[tdgesq]

lol. ok. thats fine . let me explain it to you since you appear that you dont know…Local Councils are bound only to the jurisdiction that it is involved in this council.

Are you saying that the Council of Jerusalem was wrong? If not, then its local character doesn’t make any difference. If isn’t a true expression of the Orthodox understanding of Hades, Heaven, and Hell then please let me know.

It would be nice if you get out of this pre-school mentality, “mine is better then yours” and put some vidences down. are you up to it?

Oh, that was in response to your statement that the RC’s tamper with the words in council documents. I just decided to make the same claim about the EO to see how you reacted, not because I believe it. You are right. It is a pretty childish claim from either side. Let’s stop doing it.

No I dont, I thought by now you would have reaserched what my brother in CHRIST Prodromos was trying to explain to you, but obviously not.
Read the following and please try to comprehend it:

We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment,( LOOK AND TELL ME WHERE DO YOU SEE THIRD PLACE OR “PURGATORY” REST OR TORMENT IS GOING ( he didnt go yet)TO HELL OR HEAVEN )

I’m having trouble comprehending it for a number of reasons. First, your sentence structure is nearly unintelligible, but from what I can make of it you claim here that nobody has gone to hell yet.

Second, the council of Jerusalem does not say “going,” it says “[W]e believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment . . . .” It looks like you disagree with that council after all.

Finally, pretending that somehow the council can be read to agree with you that the souls of the dead are “going” to be at rest or in torment, does that mean the souls of the just are not in heaven?

For in purgatory you may leave and go to heaven before the Second coming and before the Great judgementd day of Christ. or maybe you will stay there after the judgement day.

Now this really does make it appear you believe the souls of the just are held in Hades before the final judgment. So is Hades also what you are calling hell? Are the souls of the just held in hell until the final judgment? Seems like that is what you are saying.

here is from the an Orthodox council convened for the innovation of Purgatory:
*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 … *

Link or citation please. In any case, now we have two places - heaven and hell, with many abodes in each. Are the souls of the just in heaven or hell?

You just refuse to see it, and keep searching for a way to proove the Purgatory.
STATE is NOT PLACE, here is the Dictionary>>>Dictionary.com
. . .
Now your church is trying to get way from the word place and stick to the word State, they will not succed, why? >>>

Using dictionary.com to define theological terms is probably a bad idea, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. I did read the rest of what you quoted. When you put quote tags around things it makes it difficult to respond to them because they don’t appear in the reply window. Please also give citations or links.

Again, regardless of whether Purgatory or Hades constitutes a “place” or a “state” (I don’t know of any dogmatic definition on that) it is nevertheless something where:

of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

It is true that RC’s believe that souls can be released from Purgatory to Heaven based upon good works they have performed during life and due to the prayers of the faithful for their release. Do you believe the RC is heretical for believing such a thing?

 

[anthony022071]

Clement of Alexandria (c. before 215 A.D.):

"In the other life there will be two fires, a ‘devouring and consuming’ one for the incorrigible, and for the rest, a fire that ‘sanctifies’ and ‘does not consume, like the fire of the forge,’ a ‘prudent, intelligent’ fire which penetrates the soul that passes through it. (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 8.6, c. before 215 A.D.)

Luke 16
The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.”

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

“Everyone will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49).

Again half quotes to spin things out of context in order to support their claims, (sigh).
Lets look at it with in context
Mark 9:47-51 …And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God (here is One place)with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell (and here is the second, where is the third place here???),
48where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’[a] 49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

EVERY ONEwill be salted with fire. And that would include the saints; Your Purgatory does not say that EVERYONE will be salted with fire that if and ONLY IF the word Fire here means the Purgatorial fire, Could the fire mentioned here reffers to the Holy Spirit, and HIS WORDS were directed to the Apostles, it certainly shows so and that is what the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD tyeaches concerning this sentence that the LORD was talking to the Apostles, lets see if there is something else in the Bible that would make this one clearer for you RCs…>>> Luke 3:16
John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
well well well, this was not your purgatorial fire, this was the Holy Spirit †††, you see now, is this teaching leading to Heaven or to hell since you applied such innovations fior the purpose of supremacy to the … †††…you must becarefull, I know this is onl;y a debate but you must be on your guards not to fall into a great sin that would lead you to hell >>>…but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven

Your claim again is utterly refuted.

But anthony, I am serious my friend, if this is going to lead you to a great sin as the red above I will stop this debate right now, and claim you as the winner, for I would rather, Do this than be the cause of driving someone into such a great sin.

PLEASSE BECAREFULL with your quotes you prooved over and over that you do not research nor do you try to comprehend what you are writing at all.

I will remember you in my prayer †††

“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come” (Matt 12:32).

I say Amen, and that’s why the Orthodox Church pray for the dead so GOD “MAY” have mercy on them, but we do not know for sure, but we pray out of love for them, as we ought to as Christians, BUT GOD in HIS own WILL if HE wills it then they would be forgiven.
We do not pray somebody out of hell or in your case Purgatory.

“After his death, Jesus went to preach to the Spirits in prison” (1 Pet 3:19)

Prison is for those who are condemned, according to the definitions of your church Purgatory is for those who are forgiven…So again and again you are trying desperately to grasp to anything just to respond, I started to feel sorry for you my friend seriously… No offence but any respected and clever RC Apologist would not use such quotes, and the RCC has quit a few of them I must admit, but obviously I haven’t seen any of them on this thread yet

“Nothing unclean can enter heaven” (Rev 21:27)

Amen †††

1 Corinthians 3:14–15: “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” …

“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).

Basil:
“…and if they * are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however, they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest.” (Basil, Homilies and Psalms, 370 A.D.)

Gregory of Nyssa
“…he [the departed soul] is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by purifying fire.” (Sermon on the Dead)

This WELL worth the respond.

Now, lets see what the Church has to say about those claims.

CONTINUES …

 

[Ignatios]

EVERYONE MUST READ THIS, IT IS LONG, BUT, WELL WORTH THE TIME

“Given at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence”
"…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."***:clapping: I must say here I love the responds of the orthodox Fathers.

In explanation of the Apostle’s words, they quoted the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood, hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the eternal fire; the word day, as meaning the day of the last judgment; and the words saved yet so as by fire, as meaning the preservation and continuance of the sinner’s existence while suffering punishment. Keeping to this explanation, they reject the other explanation given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and consequently gave quite another meaning to all this quotation. “It is very right to suppose,” wrote the Orthodox teachers, “that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners. Consequently, if we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke the Greek language, explains the Apostle’s words, written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the majority of these Church celebrities.” The expressions sothenai, sozesthai, and soteria, used by heathen writers, mean in our language continuance, existence (diamenein, einai.) The very idea of the Apostle’s words shows this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle says that they continue in fire, preserving and continuing their existence, though at the same time they are being burned by fire…

CONTINUES …>>>>

 

[Ignatios]

…To prove the truth of such an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11, 15,) they make the following remarks: The Apostle divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle part. By gold, silver, stones, he means virtues; by hay, wood, stubble, that which is contrary to virtue, i. e., bad works. “Your doctrine,” they continued to tell the Latins, “would perhaps have had some foundation if he (the Apostle) had divided bad works into two kinds, and bad said that one kind is purified by God, and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But he made no such division; simply naming the works entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins. After which he says, 'Every man’s work shall be made manifest,’ and shows when this will happen, pointing to that last day, when God will render unto all according to their merits: ‘For the day,’ he says, ‘shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.’ Evidently, this is the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as opposed to the present life, which is but night. This is the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream shall precede Him. (Dan. vii. 10; Ps. 1. 3; xcvii. 3; 2 S. Pet. iii. 12, 15.) All this shows us that S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal fire prepared for sinners. ‘This fire,’ says he, ‘shall try every man’s work of what sort it is,’ enlightening some works, and burning others with the workers. But when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their existence in the fire, and suffer eternally. Whereas then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad; whereas the time of this event is referred by him to the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also; whereas, again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying all evil actions, but not the doers; it becomes evident that the Apostle Paul does not speak of purgatorial fire, which, even in your opinion, extends not over all evil actions, but over some of the minor sins. But these words also, ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,’ (zemiothesetai, i.e., shall lose,) shows that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures; they are deprived of the Divine light: whereas this cannot be spoken of those purified, as you say; for they not only do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and candour.”
In answer to the words quoted by the Latins from Basil the Great (in his prayer for Pentecost), Epiphanius, John Damascene, and Dionysius the Areopagite, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine remarked, that these quotations did not prove anything to the advantage of the Church of Rome. They could not even find the testimony of Theodoret adduced by the Latins. “Only one Father remains,” they continued, “Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err, especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers.” The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: “if such was his idea,” and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: “we must view the general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (idia).”
The Eastern teachers said, concerning the testimonies of the Western Fathers, that they were rather ignorant of them, not having any translation in Greek, and tried to excuse them by the circumstances under which they wrote, their misunderstanding the Apostle’s words (I Cor. iii. 11, 15), the difficulty of drawing a general conclusion from many circumstances (founded on visions), &c.
As regards the weight of the opinion of the Church of Rome pointed to by the Latins, it was found by the Greeks to be inconsistent with the subject then in hand.

anthony !!! shall we move on to the “filioque” now, maybe you will have better luck there my friend?

tdgesq, I dont want you to think that I am going to ignore you my friend, but it is summer and the activity is high, but I promise you that I will not let your post go unnoticed I will get back to you as soon as the time allows me to, Next few days maybe or sooner if I can.

 

[anthony022071]

EVERY ONE will be salted with fire. And that would include the saints;

 

[peary]

So the question is, “Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church False”? This is what the RCC states, at least on the most basic of levels, so why is this true? I am a Protestant who is very much interested in the idea of Holy Tradition, and an organic Church, however I feel that the Orthodox position is stronger than the Roman Catholic Position, in several aspects, but mainly that the Early Church always decided important issues by council involving popular vote (or so I have heard), well there was certainly no popular vote about the Bishop of Rome getting to be infallible, or that the Vatican was the source of all distinguishment of truth. For that matter the RCC views the Anglican Church as false because it broke off and decided (however weakly) that it had a valid link to the Apostles, so why shouldn’t we view the RCC as a false Church that had broken off from the main Church?

I would really like strong arguments for the Catholic position, and also why the Eastern Orthodox Church is wrong.

Thanks all, John!

**I do not know where you got your information or misperception from, but the Orthodox are part of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, and, as such, is necessarily valid but schismatic. This means that they have a valid Faith, valid priesthood, and valid sacraments.

If you read your history, you will see that it is the Catholic Church in the West which continued its Councils, and it are the councils who make the necessary decisions for the Church. This is not a “popular vote” in that the laity are involved, but the decisions are made by the teaching Magisterium (bishops and pope). This also includes the Eastern rite Catholics who are under Rome and who recognize the chair of Peter as legitimate.

Vatican I defined what infallibility of the chair of Peter means. It is something that the Church always believed in but was never clarified until the 1870s. It simply states that the pope, together with the bishops as the teaching authority of the Church (Magisterium) cannot err in matters of Faith and morals because of the protection of the Holy Spirit. And this is the only explanation reasonable to understand how the Church has remained steadfast in its position of Faith and morality for the past *two thousand *years. It also is tied into an understanding of Matthew 16:18-19 with regard to the authoritative role Peter was given as head of the Apostles and the Church - *“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *

The problem with the Anglican Church is that, historically, it rid itself of its legitimate bishops and priests either through exile or murder. When that occurred, that ecclesial body broke its succession in the Church and to the Apostles; hence, it became not only an invalid body but an illicit one.

There were (and still remain) many historical and cultural misunderstandings between the western and eastern Church which contributed to various factions of it excommunicating each other. Hopefully, that rift is slowly being healed and a full unity can be achieved.**

 

[Mickey]

Vatican I defined what infallibility of the chair of Peter means. It is something that the Church always believed in but was never clarified until the 1870s.

Interesting. It took over 1800 years to clarify such an important doctrine.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Interesting. It took over 1800 years to clarify such an important doctrine.

Yes, God doesn’t work on your time always my friend.

10000 years from now, 1800 years won’t seem like much

 

[peary]

Hello, I have posted this before, so I am repeating myself. I think the disagreement between Peter and Paul was over , for one thing, Jewish teachings about what was kosher and what was not. ie. no pork and other gentile foods. Also, I believe Peter had a vision, or dream in which angels appeared holding a cloth on which these unclean foods were placed. Peter then heard the voice of our Lord stating they should not be held unclean in the Christian faith. Again, Paul is known as the Apostle of the Gentiles. He was trying to lead the converted Jews toward a more universal understanding of Christ’s laws.

Paul ended up endorsing Peter anyway, argument or no argument. Peter was correct; Paul later understood his error and embraced Peter’s decision by doing the same thing himself.

 

[Mickey]

Yes, God doesn’t work on your time always my friend.

To God Almighty, there is no time.

But I do not believe He would keep such an important dogma from being apparent in His Church for the first 1800 years (of our time).

That is one reason why the Holy Orthodox Church believes it is an innovation.