Posted on 02/16/2009 12:41:27 PM PST by annalex
***The Nicene Creed developed from the Apostles’ Creed. The Apostles’ Creed was not confirmed by a Church Council; neither was the Athenasian Creed; however, we believe that they contain the Faith
Mark, this is only one opinion. More likely, the so-called Apostles’ Creed was influenced by the Nicene Creed.***
A very strong influence, as it were.
***At any rate, the Latin Church agreed to accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils and is therefore bound by them and by only official catholic Creed there is, the Nicene-Constianinopolean Creed.***
Agreed.
***I think it’s high time for the Latin Church to stop inventing and innovating and to start following her own tradition. but it seems disregard for Councils decisions is as old as the Tradition itself.
For instance, how many Catholics know that the first Ecumenical Council, whose decisions the Latin Church accepts as infallible and inspired, porhibited kneeling on Sundays?***
Not many. I was unable to find a coherant explanation of the process of how we arrived at the current kneeling practice other than it was considered to be practice after about 1200. There was much discussion over the penitents’ intentions and the proper attitude towards God and one’s soul, however. I find that kneeling during penitential prayer is significantly more emphatic to me than standing - my preference.
I think that JPII started the turn and the BXVI has found the Via and accelerated us back into orthodoxy. The old 60s women (of both sexes and all ages) that have helped the Latin church into vague Protestantism are gradually being moved aside in favour of orthodoxy.
***Although it was never a dogma, how many Catholics know that until the 11th century the Latins used to make the sign of the cross the same way as the Eastern Orthodox do? Three fingers held together, head, stomach, right shoulder, left shoulder?***
Not many.
***The Cordoba fathers knew Nicene Creed could not be changed, yet they changed it because they saw a “need” for it. The popes refused to officially acknowledge the filioque but allowed it. And so on.
How can a traditional Church show so much disregard for tradition? And why? Ego?***
The best motives possible - they thought it best.
Thanks much for the explanation and link. I noticed that Kosta disagreed that the (or some) Creeds were not dogma, and gave as the reason that they came from the Councils. So, if you haven't already addressed it in a follow up, what is the Latin view of the "unified Councils" (Latin + Orthodox, 1st millennium) in terms of dogma? I had thought at least those were part of inviolate Tradition.
The Catholic Chruch believes that they are dogmatic, whenever the intent was to establish a dogma, and when not, binding in accordance with the original intent.
Issues of rite, such as liturgical posture, I don’t think are considered dogmatic matter by definition. I am sure the Oriental Churches disagree.
The Nicene Creed IS a dogmatic expression of the Faith of The Church. Rome in its arrogance presumed to change it and then accuse the East of apostasy.
“Issues of rite, such as liturgical posture, I don’t think are considered dogmatic matter by definition. “
Such issues, to the extent that they are not matters of declaration by Ecumenical Councils, are not dogma binding on the entire Church. As matters of discipline for a local particular church, they may well be “binding” in those churches but not otherwise.
I think it's pathetic that God needs to manipulate people to show how powerful he is.
Why? It's a chosen means of revelation. He wants to be known. He is sovereign and in control of everything. The alternative, as I indicated, would make God subservient to luck.
FK: If our God chooses to work within time, and the Christian one clearly does, then He either implements a plan, or acts randomly, or reacts to situations dealt to Him by the driving power
Or he just knows everything that will happen and knows where to find you. :)
That still makes God subject to luck and the leadership of men. :)
The underworld (hades) will no longer have any souls in it if everyone is resurrected. It is after everyone has been resurrected that the condemned (unrepentant) will be sent to the Lake of (sulfur) Fire which was prepared for the devil ad his angels (and obviously those who choose to follow him), but that's not hell. Until that time, no one shall be in the lake.
Ah, then there's our disagreement. I see the Lake of Fire being exactly Hell as the Bible means it. Hell is the final destination for the damned. This passage distinguishes between Hades and Hell:
Rev 20:11-15 : 11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Based on the early understanding of the Church, Hades is the underworld. It consists of two parts separated by an unbridgeable chasm. One side is the "bosom of Abraham," or bliss, the other one of "unquenching fire," torment The souls of the departed end up in one of these two until the Last Judgment.
In the Orthodox tradition, Hades is the intermediate state of the souls, following particular judgment immediately after death. The souls can sense ("foretaste") the glory of being in God's presence or the agony of being in the Burning Lake.
The two parts of the Hades are "Paradise" and "Hell."
After the Final Judgment, there will be no souls left in the underworld, since they will all be reunited with (new) bodies. The saved will be eternally in the "New Jerusalem" on a "new earth" and the condemned (unrepentant) will be eternally in a lake of fiery sulfur.
However, there is another element in the "saved group." No one who dies is sinless. Those who are saved (destined to be in God's presence) must be cleansed of their sins which they can no longer renounce. They suffer in agony of shame yet their suffering is believed to be eased with memorial services and prayers. Our petitions for mercy and prayers of gratitude to God for his mercy on the souls of our beloved departed are believed to ease their discomfort.
This is very similar to the Catholic concept of the Purgatory, but not exactly the same. The end result is the same: those who died in "small" unrepentant sins are eventually cleaned and will enter the presence of God. Until that time, the souls are "tormented" by their sins (the Catholic version used to say that they were being purified with real fire). The purification, which comes from God, is fire to those who sinned, and therefore discomfort because they know they did not deserve to be saved.
Anyway, I am not sure who came up with these and what was the foundation of such beliefs. I do know that the Russians go one step further and imply that even after the immediate (particular) judgment, the angels and the demons fight over the soul at different "stations" or "toll houses" on their journey for a period of time.
Or it could be man's belief that this is a chosen manner of revelation. From a perfect God point of view a fallen and imperfect world is not a perfect creation, or at least not a perfectly maintained creation. It's like making a perfect house and factoring in elements that will cause it to deteriorate to the point of annihilation, and where fixing it the architect must die. That sounds more like something man would come up with than a perfect God.
That still makes God subject to luck and the leadership of men
There is no luck involved. If you knew exactly what will happen tomorrow you could take steps to be at a given place and a given time for maximum effect. No guess, no plan, no need to depend on others.
No kneeling on Sundays was specifically proclaimed by the First Ecumenical Council in order for all Churches to lead congregations in prayer exactly and uniformly.
The issue of rites, proclaimed and enacted locally, so long as they do not clash with the dogmatic teachings of the Church, are binding only to the local churches. The rites, however, cannot supercede that which was agreed upon by the Church as a whole, nor can they be in disharmony with the consensus patrum of the Church.
20About not needing (may de-een) kneeling, on Sundays and in the 50 days of Eastertime:
There are some people who kneel down on Sunday and during the Easter season, the fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday. Therefore, it has pleased the holy Council to decree that people should offer their prayers to the Lord, standing. This is required so that in each diocese (en pase paroikia) everything will be done in harmony (omoiohs).
"Kneeling", "kneel" in this Canon is literally "knee bending", gonu klinein. It is not clear what specifically is spoken about, genuflection or standing on knees. The canon does not prohibit kneeling but rather mandates standing during communal prayer. Catholics both genuflect and stand on knees at various times during the Mass, as well as stand (on feet) and sit. The priest is standing as he offers his prayers, the congregation stands for the penitential Rite, the Our Father, the Prayer of the Faithful, and dismissal rite -- that is when they pray as a group. The priest genuflects before the Eucharist in silence. The congregation genuflects entering and leaving the Church or the pew, and stands on knees during the Eucharistic prayer, before the Holy Communion and after. In all three cases the congregation is generally silent as it stands on knees, apart from responding to the priest briefly. Whatever is done, is done with uniformity during the Mass and the postures do not vary with the season (people pray in church before and after the Mass as they see fit, and exceptions are always made for the infirm and the children). I don't think it is an issue with respect tot he Canon at all. The Tridentine rite has a bit more standing on knees than Novus Ordo, but it has less vocal prayers from the pews.
But from what you're saying, at some time Hell will be emptied forever. I'm not sure that matches scriptures. Is there another name the Orthodox use for "lake of fiery sulfur"? Also, from your description there is a state or place worse than Hell.
This is very similar to the Catholic concept of the Purgatory, but not exactly the same. The end result is the same: those who died in "small" unrepentant sins are eventually cleaned and will enter the presence of God. Until that time, the souls are "tormented" by their sins (the Catholic version used to say that they were being purified with real fire). The purification, which comes from God, is fire to those who sinned, and therefore discomfort because they know they did not deserve to be saved.
The rich man specifically described both torment and fire. But, it wasn't so bad that he couldn't form thoughts and speak. Add to this that we are led to believe he was on the "bad side" of the underworld. This makes it sound like both sides are sort of the same experience.
From the actual text of the Council (321 AD), regarding Canon XX:
In addition, we have the writings of Tertullian (in De Corona Militis, s. 3) that says:
The way I see it, what your source is doing is just an attempt to obfuscate matters and somehow rationalize the deviant tradition that was allowed to develop in the West. The Council couldn't be clearer: it's not about what kneeling means, but about standing, and to the best of my knowledge there is nothing unclear about what standing means.
Excuses such as that this applies only to "communal prayer" is likewise an innovation, or even a disifnromation, that is baseless. The wise Synod states very clearly that it's about "prayer to God" and that includes prayer in general, i.e. all prayer, communal or not.
Hades will be emptied of souls, yes. That includes the "Paradise" as well as "Hell." The resurrected souls will be united to their new bodies and sent wither to this burning lake and others to New Jerusalem. There is no talk of returning souls united with bodies to the abode of the souls, the underworld (Hades).
So, when the Church teaches that Hell is a state of souls, that is correct. But the lake of fire is not a "state" any more than the New Jerusalem is. Both are supposed to be "real" physical locations. If that throws you off, think about Christ being somewhere bodily, sitting [sic] to the right [sic] of the Father...
Not as far as I know.
Also, from your description there is a state or place worse than Hell
Hades is a foretaste of what is coming, and that apllies to those who are saved (feeling the comfort) and those who are not (feeling the torment) spiritually. Neither the experience nor the nature of the judgment changes after the souls are resurrected into the new bodies. Only the duration; what befalls resurrected man is either eternal bliss or eternal torment.
Add to this that we are led to believe he was on the "bad side" of the underworld. This makes it sound like both sides are sort of the same experience
No, they represent opposite "states" of the departed souls: those in Abraham's bosom (comfort) and those in unquenching fire and thirst (torment).
I only used the source to get to the text in Greek and in translation. What is misleading in it?
The canon says, stand while praying. We do. It doesn’t say, never kneel. No problem.
No problem? Are you saying, the Latins never kneel when they pray on Sundays?
The canon does not prohibit kneeling. It mandates praying while standing. We obey the canon.
I also believe that New Jerusalem and the Lake of fire are real places. However, I have also thought that Hades was too. Jesus said "you will be with me IN...". We are told that Jesus descended TO ... We are told of the great gulf BETWEEN where the rich man was and where Lazarus was, that could not be breached. That would seem to indicate to me a place rather than just a spaceless state.
If that throws you off, think about Christ being somewhere bodily, sitting [sic] to the right [sic] of the Father ...
Well, Christ HAS a resurrected body. I'm not saying He is restricted to it, but where is that body today? :)
But that cannot be since, at least pre-Christ, to be in the "good side" of Hades was not to be in the presence of God. In Heaven we are forever in His presence. That's a huge difference. I don't think that Abraham's bosom can remotely be compared to being in the actual presence of God.
FK: Add to this that we are led to believe he was on the "bad side" of the underworld. This makes it sound like both sides are sort of the same experience
No, they represent opposite "states" of the departed souls: those in Abraham's bosom (comfort) and those in unquenching fire and thirst (torment).
How would you distinguish between the "purification state" and the "torment state" in terms of experience? That's what I'm really trying to get at.
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.