Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
“In the end, those who refuse to accept the Old Testament Deuts are going to have to explain why they accept the NEW Testament Deuts, such as James, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter in their Scriptures, as THEY TOO were debated initially.”
Revelation, too, in the East. It wasn’t really “accepted” until the 11th century and even then only very grudgingly. +John Chrysostomos argued forcefully that it shouldn’t be included in any canon of scripture and to this day it isn’t read in public in the Orthodox Church. In the back of my mind I seem to remember that Luther also rejected the book, but I’ll leave that to others. Frankly, I can’t see much of anything useful in it.
LOLOL!!!
OLD!!! We don’t get old. We’re like fine wine that mellows with age.
Many early Church Fathers certainly believed in purgatory, as seen in these writings...
“I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with the invisible enemies, after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world; 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 on the Psalms, 7:2 (ante A.D. 370).
“When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil.” Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Dead, PG 13:445,448 (ante A.D. 394).
“For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigour of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. 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.” Cyprian, To Antonianus, Epistle 51 (55):20 (A.D. 253).
“When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil.” Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Dead, PG 13:445,448 (ante A.D. 394).
“For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,—not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man’s graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another’s wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come.” Augustine, City of God, 21:13 (A.D. 426).
Of course. He gave every human a chance to be redeemed. He did not force His redmeption on anyone.
That being the case, then the Atonement was not an actual atonement but a potential atonement and not a finished work as Jesus said it was.
Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation(ἱλαστήριον- hilasterion) by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Hebrews 2:17
Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation(ἱλαστήριον-hilastērion) for the sins of the people.
1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation(ἱλαστήριον-hilastērion) for our sins.
"hilasterion", is an appeasing sacrifice by which the Wrath of God against sin was satisfied by the Precious Blood of Christ, just as the blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant did for Israel on the Day of Atonement.
Being a potential atonement leaves salvation strictly in the hands of men, and them being the cause of their own salvation, since it is ultimately their act which secures their salvation, thusly being an anthropomorphic salvation whereby man's will is sovereign rather than Theopomorphic whereby God's Will is Sovereign.
So, when Christ Jesus shouted from the Cross of the Work of Atonement, "It is Finished", you say, it was not finished, but is only a potential work that has to be completed by humans.
What makes you think man born of Adam has a free will to choose God?
Try Deuteronomy 30:19 "Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."
That does not say man has the capacity to choose God of his own accord.
Once again, you have to totally dismiss the passages I've cited already which clearly describe the human condition of those born of Adam as being DEAD, and having no desire for God in the slightest, but in reality being enemies of God, rejecting God at all points, and as Paul said, "are children of Wrath".
What that is, is a command by God to arrogant humanity to repent, and is a just command. Humanity since Adam choose to be their own god, to be the judge of what is right and wrong themselves, so God is just to command such an arrogant, self serving creature to repent. However, what man ought to do and what he can do are two very different circumstances.
I know it offends the sensibilites of those who have been influenced by the Aristotelian concept of free will to accept Apostolic teaching from the Scriptures, as I've cited Paul in Romans 3, thusly:
For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. 10 As it is written:
“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
But you expect us to accept that man born of Adam is good, and does good by choosing God, all which contradicts the Apostolic teaching of the Scriptures.
Had God not revealed Himself to man, man could not choose life.
It's not the "revealing" of God to humanity that gives a man the capacity to choose life, it is the regeneration from above, being "born again", whereby God regenerates the dark, hardened heart and mind of a man from spiritual death whereby man seeks the affections of his sinful heart and nature, to a new heart and new mind and new spirit by which his affections are redirected toward God and by which he understands, believes and receives the Gospel of Christ.
You see, God has revealed everything a man needs to know about God in creation, just as St. Paul says in Romans 1.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Man has all he needs to know of God, and is without excuse.
But man born of Adam is born with the sin nature he inherited from Adam, and is inclined to sin, as Paul says, is a slave to sin, and dead. Just as Lazarus, when 4 days in the tomb could not respond in death, until Jesus spoke, and brought him to life, so the slave to sin is just as dead spiritually and cannot respond until God breathes new spiritual life into him.
But our Lord and Savior appeared to us in human nature and gave us a choice. For a choice to be true the will to choose has to be free.
Men born of Adam follow their will, freely, but their will is utterly marred by sin, and are indeed slaves to sin, so man freely rejects God by following the desires of his darkened, hard heart, and does so at every point.
Once again, as Jesus told Nicodemus, unless a man is "born again", he cannot even perceive or understand the Gospel, which is reiterated by Paul, thusly:
Romans 8;
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those born of Adam are as Paul says, "of the flesh/carnal", which is death, an enemy of God, and cannot please God. Yet you are asking us to believe that those who are dead, carnal, enemies of God, of the flesh, can please God by choosing God while in that state of death, an enemy of God and self serving at every point.
Apostolic teaching of the Scriptures says otherwise.
The Holy Spirit is, of course. Your side just doesn't believe that the Holy Spirit would give us the time of day. :) We counter and say that the indwelling Spirit actually loves us and helps with our sanctification. Part of that is understanding the word of God so that we can better follow Him and conform ourselves to the image of Christ. We believe that God wants a personal relationship with us as individuals, not an impersonal chain of command.
But I know that Christ came to SAVE THE WORLD, FK. How about that little biblical truth?
It's true! He came and saved every single one of His children. None are lost.
If anyone wishes to subscribe to doom and gloom, fire and brimstones, that's their choice, but that's not the message Christ came to proclaim.
Gloom and doom is what we have without Christ. Praise God for the Good News! Remember that what you're criticizing is exactly the style used by John the Baptist in his preaching, and Jesus certainly approved of that.
“Dear Kolo and Kosta, do the Orthodox flatly deny there is Purgatory?”
Since we’re in Yes/No answer mode... YES!
Here’s a contemporary commentary on the purgatory discussion which took place at the Pseudo Council of Florence:
“The Greeks demanded a written exposition of this doctrine. When they received it, Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nice each wrote their remarks on it, which afterwards served as a general answer to the doctrine of the Latins. [3]
When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward. [4]
In the following sitting the Latins presented a defence of their doctrine on purgatory. As much as can be concluded from the answer given by the Greeks to it, they tried to prove their doctrine by the words of 2 Mac. xii. 42, 46, where it is said that Judas Maccabaeus “sent to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering,” remarking at the same time “that it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.” They also quoted the words of Jesus Christ, “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (S. Matt. xii. 32.) But their especial defence was founded on the words of the Apostle S. Paul (I Cor. iii. 11, 15): “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” Different extracts were also made by the Latins from the works of the Eastern Fathers—Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Damascene, Dionysius the Areopagite, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa; and the Western—Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great. They did not also forget to quote the authority of the Church of Rome in defence of their doctrine, and to make use of their usual sophistries.
To all this the Orthodox party gave a clear and satisfactory answer. [5] They remarked, that the words quoted from the book of Maccabees, and our Saviour’s words, can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after death; but whether by means of punishment by fire, or by other means, nothing was known for certain. Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with punishment by fire and tortures? Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once.
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. 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).”
In the end, StFA, the real issue comes down to God “punishing” us for sins rather than humans suffering the consequences of self-separation from God. Torment and “punishment” doesn’t come from God.
The consensus patrum is not contradictory (itf it is consensus!); it is what the Church as a whole recognizes as truth. Not everything the fathers wrote is part of consensus patrum. The Church does not teach any of the writings that are not part of the consensus.
Wrong again.
The filioque proves it.
Yes they were.
Explain then how God is just in commanding the infanticide of innocent babies.
Yup, they really do worship a monster whose wrath is slacked only with innocent blood, preferably the blood of its only son. Κυριε Ελεισον!
Certainly that is true.
I just don't see Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. releasing position papers that claim the Roman Catholics or any other denomination for that matter don't sufficiently have the REAL "truth" of Christianity.
Maybe they did recently, and I missed it.
That RCC claim of superiority just smacks of intolerance, pure and simple.
And if one can't see that, they are blinding themselves to reality.
PS -- and just so no one accuses me of Catholic bashing, I will say again that I dearly love my Catholic brothers in Christ, and admire and adore all the transformational good they've done in the souls of men and women.
“Wrong again.
The filioque proves it.”
Oh, I’d just love to hear your thoughts on this one! How about it, give us the Protestant read on the filioque innovation, especially its Patristic pedigree.
“God is in control. Get used to it.”
The perfect cop out, eh IT?
I spoke of Ecumenical Councils as being considered inspired, and you asked me about the iconoclastic one of 754. I believe you know very well that the Church does not recognize that council as one of the Ecumenical (7th) Councils, so why even ask me such a question unless you were suggesting it was?
There you go accusing me falsely of claiming that council to be an ecumenical council, which you cliam all heretics do, once again implying that I am a heretic.
I suggest you stop.
Iconoclasm is heresy, and those "churches" who advocate iconoclastic ideas are preaching heresy. Although iconoclasm was defeated in less than one century in large part thanks to the orthodoxy of the popes of Rome who lended their support to their Eastern brothers, Rome experienced its own iconiclastic heresy by none other than Frankish zealots on whose good will the popes of Rome depended heavily.
However, complete break with iconography did not occur until the Protestant deformation, which is also a heresy. You know all that because the nagture of your questions clearly shows that you know the material, and that you did not ask me that question as anything but a straw man.
In my response I said, as you quote me: " The "council" you are referring to is iconoclastic and it is no wonder that heretics of all shades would consider it an 'ecumenical' council."
Once again, the CONTEXT is you falsely claiming that I said that council was ecumenical, which you say all heretics do, which is directed at me personally.
There is not a shred of ad hominem in my response.
So you say after the fact.
But if you took an offense
What I found offensive, as I've already stated was your taking offense for the very thing you did yourself, which comes across as highly double minded and hypocritical.
, I assure you I was not making it personal.
So you say after the fact.
Do you also have some oceanfront property in Iowa to sell too?
I agree. However, Predestination, or "pre-ordained" or "Divinely appointed" as the citation from Acts shows clearly, of the Elect to Salvation IS, and cannot be denied as it is clearly taught in the Apostolic teachings of Scripture, unless one does a lot of Scriptural gymnastics, or outright denial of God's Written Word.
Amen, MLG! And this is side by side with the saved no less! :) I don't understand it.
While I would agree with the EOs on the point that the wide variety of imagery describing the state of eternal separation from the Love, Mercy and Grace of God, but not being separated from the Wrath and Justice of God, is describing a state far worse than the images can convey, to reject the doctrine of eternal punishment of the wicked in hell is a rejection of the revealed Nature of God's Justice and Wrath, which is exactly what Joel Osteen and so many others do.
The failure of humanity to repent ratifies his sin nature for all eternity, which he will still have as his nature when the wicked are resurrected to eternal damnation.
Now, I ask that this be considered concerning the "burning" aspect of hellfire.
For all eternity the desire for the sins which were the driving force of the affections of the wicked will still be present with the wicked, however, they will not have the circumstance to fulfill them, not even once, for all eternity.
Would that be like being in "fire"?
I think so.
I think where the easterns have difficulty here is the terminology of "place", which means a location in spacial dimensions, whereas they see the separation from God, which isn't truly a separation from God since God is Omnipresent, but is a separation from the Love, Grace and Mercy of God, as one being of a purely spiritual condition, of "darkness" or the absence of Light.
But in that construct, it is forgotten that the wicked will be resurrected to a real, physical body, which indeed does require a "place" since that body has spacial dimensions.
Yes. God is not a source or cause of wickendenss. Can God lie? God did not predestine wickedness.
You are misrepresenting the position we state there.
No one has implied that God pre-ordained wickedness or sin. Quite the contrary, Lucifer's and Adam's sin did not take God by surprise, since God knew full well that both would rebel against Him, and in His knowledge of all things, determined to Redeem the Elect of humanity as an inheritance for the Son, as the supreme expression of the Love between the Father and Son, to be witnessed by man and angels alike.
Drumbo, I’m pinging you to the link in the post that I’m responding to. I was shocked to see that this thread was still going, but I was even more shocked to see that Drumbo had posted to FR today! Long time no see Drumbo!! Do you still have a copy of that piece you wrote about “hell” & posted at DNet a number of years ago?
Do you really think that wickedness can thwart (I love that word)God’s will? Or does God use man’s wickedness to his own purposes?
I truly believe that God has ALL of this planned out, that NOTHING surprises God, that, as he says, all things work together for good to those who love God. Even wickedness. Take Joseph for example. His wicked brothers sold him into slavery. Definately wickedness, but it worked according to God’s purposes, to save the nation of Israel. In other words, God allows wickedness in the world to work his purposes and to do his will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.