George wrote:
The false doctrine of the infallability of the pope does not mean that he is without sin. It means that when he speaks "ex cathedra" ("from the chair"- meaning, when he speaks from his office as pope) on matters of doctrine or morals, he is preserved from making an error in what he says.
Since when was any Orthodox hierarchy preserved that way?? Even the Apostles didn't have that privelege. Remember the arguements between St. Peter and Paul? The pope has become self-absorbed in his belief that his decisions are 'infallible", but he had also shown himself as believing that it extends to his personal stance. A man who believes that his decisions, in a formal capacity are unarguable, will also extend that to his personal self-evaluation. There was a pope who thought that way when he stated that it was no big deal to change the Creed and add the Filioque. He made an error, when in his position on the "Chair" about that. I can get you a quote from the letter the pope wrote about the filioque situation. I also have the book by Abbe Guettee.
You should ask forgiveness from your brother for speaking to him this way.
I do not hate the sinner, I hate the sin. I have done nothing wrong, George.
Seraphim wrote:
While it is true that no one will receive the fullness of either their blessing or punishment until the final judgement, it is incorrect to present the opinion that all exist after death in a fundamentally undifferentiated state, let alone that all "reside" in hades/sheol.
No one after death lives in an "undifferentiated" death. When did I say that? Don't twist my words. They have been judged in their personal death. They are in the anticipation of where they are going, but not arrived there as yet. Like a bride going to her wedding or a man going to his execution. They are not there, at that final moment yet, but they know what they are to face. Don't twist words around Seraphim. But, you believe that all are lounging in a semi-state of purgatory bliss? Purgatory is not an Orthodox teaching. That was my point, so, again, don't try to twist words around. Respond directly to the statement.
You're simply mistaken. The RCC does teach the Pope is "infallible" (un-failing) when he excercises the fullness of his authority in the teaching of doctrine or morality, but that is quite different than a claim that the Popes are sinless. That would be "impeccability", which the RCC does not teach, and which no shortage of RC theologians and historians would vehemently deny. I'm not sure where you gained your understanding of Catholicism, but I can tell you on this point it is mistaken.
Maybe you should read Vatican 1 and 2.
This much I'd (basically - though there is more to the story than this) say is basically true. The heterodox theology of the filioque was a bludgeon (along with other ideas/practices at variance with the ancient Roman and Orthodox usages) used by the Franks to shore up their claims to legitimacy. As for the issue of the expansion of Papal claims to authority, that is partially due to Frankish influence, but the seeds of this were sewed much earlier than the intrusion of the Franks into these matters; though perhaps without them (the Franks) this would never have become the divisive issue that it did.
Yes. I believe their identity was the Freemasons(Illuminati). But, that's a whole other thread.
btw. I do not posit that they are totally misunderstood; simply that some of the arguments used against the real excesses of Papism are very poor, both objectively, but more so in their value to actually convince anyone (save the already converted) to come over to the Orthodox view. Telling Papists they believe things they do not, will accomplish nothing.
Well, then. Perhaps I can enlighten you. Because any theological support of papism has always stood on weak legs. Perhaps you just haven't understood the difference. I promise you that, that my arguement against the papists would not be "poor". By the way, why are you arguing for the papists?
This is not to say that the actual RC teaching on indulgences is correct either - but THAT teaching, is markedly different than what the "abuses" indicated, and it remains the official teaching of the RCC. Thus, while the Sigillion had a value perhaps contemporary to the time of it's issuing (though I still think it's imprecise when it presents this as if it were the teaching of the Pope and those obedient to him), it's value now is almost nil in this matter, since this abuse was cleaned up by Trent.
"Teachings" ? "Values"? Are you serious? There is no Godly support of this fabrication in the church. It is COMPLETELY MADE UP FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTRACTING MORE MONEY FROM THE POOR VILLAGERS!!! JESUS CHRIST DID NOT TEACH THIS AT ALLLLL.
How can you sit there, like a pseudo-theologian, discussing the downfalls and benefits of a lie???
Once again, you're not reading carefully. I was presenting the actual Papist teaching here, not expressing my agreement with it. My point was to illustrate how this actual Papist teaching (which is heretical for it's own reasons) is different that the popular misrepresentation of it in the west, which is I suppose what the Sigillion was observing and reacting to (though erring by imprecision, imho, by not understanding that this disturbing popular practice in the west was not in line with the "dogmatics" of the RCC.)
Can you even express a comment in simple sentences?? Because your effort to be amiguous is incoherent.
Your whole "reply" is filled with a spirit of fear and sectarianism which I make no bones about trying to avoid.
Sectarianism? My friends would laugh if they heard this. What place is there for a papist discussion amongst established Orthodox? You did say you are Orthodox, or at least believed in it, right? So why support their feable arguement for supremacy? I wonder?
Just because an accusation or argument "really slams our foes", does not mean that lovers of truth should entertain them, which I always believed (and still believe) is what characterizes Orthodoxy - a love of truth.
Then WHY do you bring it into THIS forum?????
You seem to perceive any attempt at clarification, perhaps even trying to remove misconceptions some Orthodox may have about the Papists (which do not serve in any way to bring them back to a better way of thinking, but I guarantee you, will only drive them away and confirm them in their conceit), or being fair to them and what they actually believe, as being a slight against Orthodoxy. This is very unfortunate.
Clarification?? YOU actually want to CLARIFY the RC? For what? Having some faith? They support no truth and no faith. What is there to CLARIFY about their position except that they are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Misconceptions??? Are you joking??? From the time of 1054 A.D. the papists have been going their own course. WHAT POSSIBLE MISCONCEPTIONS CAN WE HAVE ABOUT THEM SINCE THEN??? Perhaps, the Crusaders. Perhaps the pope who murdered 10,000 people one year for not joining with him because of the CALENDAR issue. Or maybe the fact that they INTRODUCED THE FILIOQUE!!
Oh yes, let's not forget the fact that the pope of Rome refused to come to the aid of their Orthodox cousins, when THE TURKS ATTACKED.
But, of course, this may be only my own itty bitty misconceptions. I'm sure many Greeks in this forum couldn't care less about what the West did to their ancestors. Afterall, the issues of their fights were so insignificant, as you, Seraphim, view it.
And you SIT there and call yourself ORTHODOX????????
Please, Seraphim, tell us WHAT misconceptions we have HAD of them.
If you must know, personally I think the differences between the "revised Julian" and "Gregorian" menologians are so small, and will only be realized in terms of causing divergence between the two in the far future (long after both you and I or our children are dead, even if we live to a ripe old age), that the difference is a pharisaical one.
So I assume that you haven't read the explanations of the saints who stated that when we celebrate the saints and feast days on earth, that the angels in Heaven are celebrating them too. And serving in the altar. But, of course, when man decides to change the dates, then God and all of Heaven have to shift their calendar too??? I always thought that man conformed to God and not God to man.
People thought that adding the Filioque was a small change too. What's the harm? I guess that's the only way ignorant people see it.
There's alot more happening than meets the eye.
Seraphim, don't pretend to be Orthodox if you want to support the false papist doctrines. You become too obvious a hypocrite.
In Christ,
Joasia
Romans 10:2
Right back at ya. All you have been doing is defending the RC mentality. What does that make you?
I guess you were bored and wanted to stir up a little, you know what.
