Peter Is Not The Rock!

[narnia59]

Dear Narnia,

You ask:

Since the OO model is, as you suggest, somewhat different from the EO practice, and since I know absolutely nothing about the Southern Baptists, I'd have to admit that I can't answer this question.

Can you explain what the OO model is?

On this one:

the answer must lie in the practice and Councils of the Church, which recognised Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople as having special jurisdiction over their patriarchates. Thus, in the one I know best, canon 6 of Nicaea establishes the authority of Alexandria over the whole of Egypt and Libya.

peace,

Anglian

But from the EO perspective, doesn't that mean that primacy need not be established in the NT between the apostles for the church to in effect implement the primacy of one bishop over another? And if it takes an ecumenical church council to effect such a change, how did a patriarchate come about in Moscow?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Narnia,

This, from Scott Hahn seems relevant to our discussion.

One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." We will see."
Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority." Now let's just stop here and ask, "What is he talking about?" I think it's simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all. Let's go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.

That seems pretty persuasive to me. On the distinction some here have made between 'petros' and 'petra', this seems relevant:

Now people could say, "Wait a second. There is a distinction in the Greek language between petros," Peter's name and petra. Petros can mean stone, whereas petra can often mean "big rock." The problem with that is two-fold. First of all, Jesus probably didn't speak Greek when He was with the disciples. I mean that is held by 99.9 percent of all scholars. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that Jesus in His normal conversations spoke Greek. What's almost certain is that He spoke Aramaic and in the Aramaic there is only one word that could possibly be used and Kouman and other scholars have pointed to the fact that if Jesus spoke Aramaic, He only could have said, "You are Cephus, and on this Cephus I build my Church." So given our knowledge of the Aramaic language, there is no possibility for Jesus to have made the distinction between "little stone" and "big rock." The Aramaic language doesn't allow it.
Well, somebody could say, "The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to use two different words. Well, that's true, because "petra" is the word in Greek that is normally used for "large rock," but - I should say petra is the Greek word that means "large rock" but it's in the feminine form. In other words, the gender of this Greek word, petra, large rock, is feminine. You do not apply a feminine form of the word in order to name a male. You adopt it by giving the masculine form. In other words what Matthew was doing, guided by the Holy Spirit, is something that was rather obvious and practically necessary. That was to take the Greek from Jesus' saying and start by saying, "I will build my Church on this massive stone, this 'petra' in the feminine but then to show that Peter gets the name, "Rock" in its proper masculine form.
You wouldn't name him Josephine or Rockina or, you know, something like that. You give him the masculine form of the word. I should also add that there is absolutely no archeological evidence from antiquity for anybody having been named Peter before Simon. In other words, Jesus was taking a word that had never been used as far as all the many records we have are concerned, never was used to designate an individual person and Jesus gives that name, gives that word to Simon.

Certainly what he says here is true in Aramaic - as I have checked with some friends in the Syriac Church where it is still the language used.

So, for me, from the Coptic tradition, the question would resolve itself into this: does the Catholic view of Papal primacy fit with Canon 6 of Nicaea, which reads:

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

If it does, then there is, at least, a common ground on which we can stand whilst we talk.

peace,
Anglian

 

[squint]

Condemnation in what sense?

That would depend on the RCC viewer wouldn't it?

Certainly not claiming an individual cannot be saved,

By some if not most under the status of promulgated ex-comm. it is probably 'permanent' as how they in their own hearts see that status. By a very few THE BEST they could see in their own hearts would be temporary condemnation and MAYBE a later hope. Condemnation temporary or permanent in ANY sense and that by the 'viewer.'

Does scripture not provide the concept that the church (not individuals) can discipline its members

In any case it's still ONLY the measure of the RCC and their adherents unto each other.

and rightly judge whether teachings are true?

Judgment of teachings and judgment unto condemnation are different matters. In any case both Jesus and the Apostles did teach thusly:

Luke 6:
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.


So the RCC erects certain measures... pick any of the canons for example...and if any do not BOW to THEIR ERECTION of that measure, then same are JUDGED condemned. I say then that the measure of the RCC is in fact CONDEMNATION/CURSE...and in that measure they BRING condemnation/CURSE into their own hearts per the Word.

James 3:
8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

Anathema is LET HIM BE (A)CCURSED.

This is THE MESSAGE that is spread by the RCC.


As noted prior, Paul's admonishment in Romans 2:1 is that when CONDEMNATION is put upon another that SAME condemnation will NOT be avoided by the one MEASURING. They do in fact BRING THE CURSE into their OWN HEARTS in that process as THAT is what they CARRY and MEASURE to other people who have the same afflictions we ALL do, that being the presence of INDWELLING SIN.

I understand that you do not believe yourself to espouse false teachings, but again, we are viewing this through the eyes of what the church teaches and believes.

I can assure 'myself' that in measuring OTHERS as I would BE measured, IN LOVE, that condemnation will not be measured to me and do so by the authority of the Gospel. God will assuredly NOT be frying me alive or temporarily torturing me into some RCC concocted form of SUBMISSION in the after life. The 'conformance' is LOVE as He Is Love. Being measured into HIM does not bring condemnation, wrath OR judgment.

Jesus Himself stated even for the UNbelievers who hear His Words and BELIEVE NOT..."I JUDGE HIM NOT."

The Word that Jesus has spoken in these matters WILL be how UNbelieving mankind are judged and those WORDS have already been spoken and recorded as "I JUDGE HIM NOT."

In the entirety of these matters then what will assurdedly happen when ANY of us 'pick up the Word' our own HEARTS are reflected in the process more than anything any organization may preach.

And what is the MAJORITY reflection that has since transpired? DIVISIONS, CONTENTIONS, CONDEMNATIONS, STRIFE etc. These are the OPEN and OBVIOUS reflections that come from the hearts of ALL the 'church members' and this WITHOUT FAIL.

Are you starting to 'get the picture yet?'

I am not sure what discipline has to do with ‘not loving’? The purpose of discipline is to correct in love.

I cannot remedy loving my neighbors with condemnation either temporal or eternal. Love has set HIS MARK. Love does NO ILL. Love keeps NO RECORD of wrongs. Love believes in ALL THINGS...Hopes in ALL THINGS. DOES NOT VAUNT itself.

Love NEVER fails.

Is there a better measure? Without HIS MEASURE upon us and IN US we are as NOTHING.

Whether the person being disciplined accepts this, or views it in that regard – again, we’re speaking about how the church views this. It certainly isn’t in the view of trying to stop the love of God from working.

Salvation would indicate to me, the PRESENCE of God in the heart of any person and the EVIDENCE of that presence is FAITH which same WORKS through LOVE.

Obviously the RCC does not accept this measure IF they DENY people the 'presence' as THEY deem it, A PIECE OF WAFER rather than the REALITY of God in the HEART evidence by LOVE and the workings thereof which same are OF HIM. My not eating your transubstantiated wafer will never MAKE that transpire, nor will it HINDER God's workings regardless. If you believe that, and use that belief to condemn others, then you EAT IN CONDEMNATION even if you THINK you don't.

It seems you have the view that regardless of an individual's behavior or what they profess to believe, the church has no scriptural authority to discipline, and the thought of doing so infringes upon Christian love.

Whoa whoa whoa...we 'know' who is who by the evidence of the FRUIT or LACK of same.

Are any of us THE FULL REFLECTION OF GOD in our hearts at all possible moments? Surely not yet.

In the same stroke however can I honestly say that there is ANY person who has not loved in some way at some time? Sorry. Can't make that measure either.

And again, can you provide any Catholic documentation that equates excommunication with being damned, either permanently or temporarily? (And how can one even be ‘temporarily’ damned?

Perhaps you should go read about the curses your own organization makes upon MOST of our fellow man and get back to me?

I can call you brother because my church sees you as as my brother, because of your baptism (which is an assumption on my part that you have been), you are a member of the one body of Christ.

Such measure is NOT available to you. We cannot be in even PARTIAL communion under the sentence of MAJOR EX. It's NOT possible by the RCC measures.

You are a brother who no longer comes to the family table, but that does not change the fact that you are my brother.

Then I would simply point out that you have personally stretched beyond the measures of your organization. Major EX carries very certain measures to those who are marked therein. You should examine those measures before we speak if you desire to be 'obedient' to your 'standards.'

If you would like to shift the discussion to how one is saved, or how the temporal consequences of sin are removed, that would be a completely different topic. I’d rather finish the one we’re on first, which is making sure there is a complete understanding by you and others that the Catholic church does not teach that only Catholics may be saved. Once we’ve resolved that, we can move on if you wish.

And as prior noted what you speak of will vary person to person within your own organization by THEIR OWN MEASURES. There is NO UNCERTAINTY that MOST of those in the RCC do in fact condemn 'in their own hearts' other people who fit the measures of MAJOR EX already into ETERNAL CONDEMNATION and this cannot be denied by their own lips. I won't drag out the posts, but you will find MANY RCC members who DO OPENLY make this measure to our fellow man. It's pretty hard to avoid the obvious.

If you have chosen to step outside the boundries of the RCC in this matter...well, maybe you are nicer than your own pope?

Bear in mind there are numerous complexities to these issues as to who is who and how they are to be dealt with.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Which, btw, have we resolved that the Catholic church does not teach that if you're not a formal member, you cannot be saved?

There is no doubt that those in open knowing disagreement with RCC determinations in certain matters are via promulgation NOT SAVED and NOT in the community of the faithful which any Protestant or other Orthodox worth their knowing salt will openly and readily admit, even as we have seen in this thread when someone refuses to submit to the authority of the RCC Pope. Needless to say all the nicey nice is and remains 'churchypolitico' imho because when the facts hit the table from the RCC, the conflicts are inevitable in the discourse.

I haven't seen you make that statement in a while, and while we agree you are excommunicated, you have not provided any evidence of church teaching that says that implies a person cannot be saved.

Like I said...depends on who's doing the reflection.

Why would we extend purgatory as possibility for ALL mankind? That would mean we believe that all mankind will be saved and no one will end up in hell.

Well HEAVEN FORBID that should happen! lol

If you knew your own RCC early history you'd know that the majority held the view that all mankind would ultimately BE reconciled to God in Christ. But of course that's another topic.

To believe that there is indeed a hell you see as being a reflection of my heart?

I believe and accept every single eternal torment, damnation and wrath scripture. Just NOT unto my fellow man. How's that? What you reflect will show from your own fingertips...so there is no need for me to presume upon you, but even if YOU did believe that X amount of 'sinners' will be frying alive forever I still would not blame YOU for holding that position.

Any individual who opts to judge their fellow man should first consider the plank in their own eye. No problem there.

Indeed.

Again, condemnation in what sense? Certainly not claiming an individual cannot be saved, as you’ve been professing.

You just finished making your statement of INCREDULITY on this matter as if you cannot go there in your own heart. Allow me to cite it:

"WHY WOULD WE EXTEND PURGATORY AS A POSSIBILITY FOR ALL MANKIND? THAT WOULD MEAN ALL MANKIND WOULD END UP IN HEAVEN AND NO ONE WILL END UP IN HELL?"

And I will tell YOU that your own organization does NOT require you to believe that ANYONE of mankind will end up in hell under the purgatory allowance. So you see these matters ARE individually reflective as you have APTLY SHOWN. So thanks...I think....;(

I’m assuming from your comments that you would never see a case where an individual should discontinue fellowship with another, and to imply that maybe they should do so is unscriptural for it is ‘condemning’ the other and judging them?

I believe 'judgment' is a far more complex matter than many are allowed to see. Needless to say it starts at home with our own BEAM...

I do see the spec in quite a different fashion today than I did under the teachings of the RCC or the Reformationists and I thank God for that. The RCC could never teach me how to love ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS and my ENEMIES. That is God's Work in the hearts.

Whether you would ever be able to judge yourself in the way that I see the Apostles judging themselves would be an interesting discussion that I have engaged in here with many, and that nearly ALL would deny because it is personally offensive. I believe however the Apostles measures in these matters are exceptionally secure and therefore measured upon myself first with THEIR HANDS and I was laid hold of in that way.

enjoy!

squint

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Dear Monica,

I am grateful to yourself, Narnia and Rhamiel for your continuing engagement.

It seems to me that the Orthodox are not disputing the primacy of the See of St. Peter, just the interpretation of what that means; but as Rhamiel has pointed out with regard to the Eastern Rite Catholics, it may be that non-Catholics have a defective understanding of the Pope's relationship with non-Latin Rite Churches in communion with Rome.

I am still not seeing any of us offering a convincing account od what that name change was about. I take your point, and that of Narnia and Rhamiel about not reading Peter=Rock as contradicting the many assertions that Christ is the Rock upon which His Church rests.

On the Antioch front, however, I'm not seeing a satisfactory explanation from the Catholic side of this discussion. If there was an office and it was invested in Peter, one might have expected the first Church of which he was bishop to have been aware of it. One might also expect to see something of it in St. Peter's own epistles.

It still seems to me that we are in the arena of two developing traditions, with the West, for the historical reasons discussed above, coming to an understanding which differs from that of the East - before, of course, opinion in the West divided on the issue.

So I think the Orthodox can accept that Peter is the rock, if, by that, is meant something less than that his successor has authority over bishops in Alexandria, Moscow and Constantinople. As OrthodoxyUSA has said, historically such a power was not claimed (of course, in the case of Moscow it could not have been) in the early Church. That said, it is admitted that Rome held a special place in that Church.

peace,

Anglian

I always like to hear the Orthodox point of view. It always makes sense and is hard to argue with. However, I still stand by the RCC stance. LOL

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Fair enough Anglian. This is my question though.

How does the Orthodox model of autocephalous churches really differ from the model of many Protestant churches with autonomous local churches?

The Southern Baptists for example. They share a common statement of faith and do joint mission work. But each local church is autonomous in terms of authority.

The SB have several thousand of these local churches. The Orthodox have ?? (what, 12 or so that are autocephalous)? A great difference in number for sure, but conceptually have the same idea of what one church means?

And I'm not really sure that's a question for you, because in the OO that's not the organization structure at all, correct? Or am I wrong about that?

One big difference... APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Just excommunicated from your Denomination

LLoJ why do you call RCCs a Denomination?

Are they a branch of your church?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think it's strange that our Churches used to be united and they have such differing opinions on scripture. I'm sure it's cultural.

Forgive me...

Differing opinons?

I think the RCC shares most of your teachings, it is just that the RCC has elaborated on the understanding of those teachings. Otherwise there is very little that is different in way of teachings between RCC and EOC or even OOC. I think it is still one body.

Peace

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The NT is not fashioned after the OT.

Hopw many times does the NT reference the OT? How many times did Jesus reference the OT? It was a lot.

By the way did you know that Jesus quoted from the Septuagent?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hopw many times does the NT reference the OT? How many times did Jesus reference the OT? It was a lot.

By the way did you know that Jesus quoted from the Septuagent?

I don't know much about that, but now that I am thru translating Revelation I can now better harmonize it to the Gospels, Acts and Epistles.

This is interesting. This form of the greek word #3000 is used only in 2 places and look where one of them is

Acts 7:7 And the Nation to which if-ever they shall be slaving, shall be judging. I the God said and after these they shall be coming out and shall be serving/latreusousin <3000> (5692) to Me in the Place, this.

Reve 22:3 And every according devoted-thing not shall be still. And the throne of the God and of the Lamb-kin in Her shall be, and the bond-servents of Him shall be serving/latreusousin <3000> (5692) to Him.

 

[narnia59]

Squint, we&#8217;re getting too many quotes here so I am just going to pull out a few of yours, in blue instead of trying to quote everything.

By a very few THE BEST they could see in their own hearts would be temporary condemnation and MAYBE a later hope.

How on earth can you speak to what others see in their own hearts?


Judgment of teachings and judgment unto condemnation are different matters. In any case both Jesus and the Apostles did teach thusly:

Luke 6:
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

As noted prior, Paul's admonishment in Romans 2:1 is that when CONDEMNATION is put upon another that SAME condemnation will NOT be avoided by the one MEASURING. They do in fact BRING THE CURSE into their OWN HEARTS in that process as THAT is what they CARRY and MEASURE to other people who have the same afflictions we ALL do, that being the presence of INDWELLING SIN.

Paul must have brought a lot of condemnation on himself then. Or else, he understood the difference between an individual passing judgment on another, and official church discipline. Please stop trying to ignore the fact that the NT does indeed call for church discipline which is not seen to be in violation of the law of love of the Gospel.

Galatians 1:9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (anathema)

1 Timothy 1:20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!


Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

2 Corinthians 2:5-6 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent--not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him.

Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him


Anathema is LET HIM BE (A)CCURSED.

This is THE MESSAGE that is spread by the RCC.

Quite in line with Paul, don&#8217;t you think? Does it disturb you that the Council of Nicaea pronounced &#8216;anathema&#8217; those who denied the divinity of Christ?

However, if you&#8217;re referring to particular anathemas in relationship with doctrinal canons of church councils being applied to you, you need to catch up on your history. About 25 years ago the canonical penalty of anathema was abolished by the Code of Canon Law.


Obviously the RCC does not accept this measure IF they DENY people the 'presence' as THEY deem it, A PIECE OF WAFER rather than the REALITY of God in the HEART evidence by LOVE and the workings thereof which same are OF HIM. My not eating your transubstantiated wafer will never MAKE that transpire, nor will it HINDER God's workings regardless. If you believe that, and use that belief to condemn others, then you EAT IN CONDEMNATION even if you THINK you don't.

It would be helpful if you would stick to the topic at hand and not try to divert off into other theological areas where we differ. It is obvious to you that you do not believe you have been denied anything. I do not condemn you, and no insistence on your part that I or the church have will make it so. I might wonder why it&#8217;s so important to you to believe it is so?



Such measure is NOT available to you. We cannot be in even PARTIAL communion under the sentence of MAJOR EX. It's NOT possible by the RCC measures.

The only reason you can be excommunicated in the first place is because you are indeed my brother in the body of Christ. A Muslim can&#8217;t be excommunicated &#8211; they are not a member of the body of Christ. Again, you deny everything the Catholic church teaches about this. That is your choice. It is also your choice if you do not wish to view me as your sister. But I and my church view you as my brother. That is a fact you cannot change, even though it&#8217;s apparently quite important to you to try.



And as prior noted what you speak of will vary person to person within your own organization by THEIR OWN MEASURES. There is NO UNCERTAINTY that MOST of those in the RCC do in fact condemn 'in their own hearts' other people who fit the measures of MAJOR EX already into ETERNAL CONDEMNATION and this cannot be denied by their own lips. I won't drag out the posts, but you will find MANY RCC members who DO OPENLY make this measure to our fellow man. It's pretty hard to avoid the obvious.

If you have chosen to step outside the boundries of the RCC in this matter...well, maybe you are nicer than your own pope?

I cannot speak for individuals, but I can quite correctly make the statement that if individuals do condemn others, they are outside the boundaries of the Catholic church. And do you have something in particular you&#8217;re referring to about the Pope, because everything I&#8217;ve seen that he has written is completely in line with what I&#8217;ve been saying.

And again, what is with the making statements about what MOST people do and do not do in their own hearts?


I believe and accept every single eternal torment, damnation and wrath scripture. Just NOT unto my fellow man. How's that? What you reflect will show from your own fingertips...so there is no need for me to presume upon you, but even if YOU did believe that X amount of 'sinners' will be frying alive forever I still would not blame YOU for holding that position.


And I will tell YOU that your own organization does NOT require you to believe that ANYONE of mankind will end up in hell under the purgatory allowance. So you see these matters ARE individually reflective as you have APTLY SHOWN. So thanks...I think....;(

I have no clue about any &#8220;X&#8221; amount. I will simply state that the Catholic church does not teach universal salvation, although it does teach that God desires all to be saved. My statement about being able to command ALL to Purgatory is a reflection of my constant puzzlement that you seem to view Purgatory as some sort of &#8216;third&#8217; option or state for eternity. Or a place that may route you to either heaven or hell. I am beginning to believe that your interest does not lie is a legitimate conversation about actual doctrine. But, just in case, nobody who goes to Purgatory EVER ENDS UP IN HELL. It is not a permanent state, in the end it will cease to exist. It is simply a state of final purification before one enters heaven. Ending up there has to do with how complete (or lack therefore) a person's sanctification is. Nothing else.


So, trying to wrap this up &#8230;.. just because someone is seen as being out of communion (excommunicated) from the Catholic church, that does not mean the church teaches that they cannot be saved. The Catholic church does not teach that only Catholics can be saved. It does teach, as Pope Benedict said that "It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.&#8221;

I would really like to understand why it is so important for you to believe otherwise?

 

[beamishboy]

LLoJ why do you call RCCs a Denomination?

Are they a branch of your church?

Of course the RCC is a denomination, like the Mormon church. Neither the RCC nor the Mormon church is branch of our churches. Many people I know regard the Mormon church as a cult and many others have varying views regarding the RCC. But make no mistake about it. The RCC is a denomination.

But I do know that both the RCC and the Mormon church do not like the word "denomination". That's their taste; it's not reality.

 

[beamishboy]

Differing opinons?

I think the RCC shares most of your teachings, it is just that the RCC has elaborated on the understanding of those teachings. Otherwise there is very little that is different in way of teachings between RCC and EOC or even OOC. I think it is still one body.

Peace

That's wishful thinking. There are enough Orthodox sites I've gone to that speaks in very strong language against the RCC. And similarly, the Unam Sanctam excludes the Orthodox from salvation, however much you want to hedge around it.

I know of Orthodox people who get very angry when they mention the many differences between the RCC and the Orthodox position. EO and OO themselves can't even see eye to eye. Some EO official websites deal with whether an EO can marry an OO and even question if an OO is indeed Orthodox.

Get real!

 

[narnia59]

Dear Narnia,

This, from Scott Hahn seems relevant to our discussion.

That seems pretty persuasive to me. On the distinction some here have made between 'petros' and 'petra', this seems relevant:


Certainly what he says here is true in Aramaic - as I have checked with some friends in the Syriac Church where it is still the language used.

So, for me, from the Coptic tradition, the question would resolve itself into this: does the Catholic view of Papal primacy fit with Canon 6 of Nicaea, which reads:

If it does, then there is, at least, a common ground on which we can stand whilst we talk.

peace,
Anglian

Scott Hahn always has good stuff. Thanks Anglian.

 

[narnia59]

One big difference... APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

Well, I know that.

I was speaking in terms of the church being 'one' church, and what makes a church one church. If accountability only exists within silos (however many there are) and not universally, I'm not sure I see the EO as one church. My perspective is that they are one as long as nobody tries to move in any direction, but to make any type of shift, like a more exhaustive doctrinal statement just can't happen.

And I could be very wrong about that, and would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I don't know much about that, but now that I am thru translating Revelation I can now better harmonize it to the Gospels, Acts and Epistles.

This is interesting. This form of the greek word #3000 is used only in 2 places and look where one of them is

Acts 7:7 And the Nation to which if-ever they shall be slaving, shall be judging. I the God said and after these they shall be coming out and shall be serving/latreusousin <3000> (5692) to Me in the Place, this.

Reve 22:3 And every according devoted-thing not shall be still. And the throne of the God and of the Lamb-kin in Her shall be, and the bond-servents of Him shall be serving/latreusousin <3000> (5692) to Him.

So how did you study LLOJ?
I am curious.

Did you do so on your own?

Of course the RCC is a denomination, like the Mormon church. Neither the RCC nor the Mormon church is branch of our churches. Many people I know regard the Mormon church as a cult and many others have varying views regarding the RCC. But make no mistake about it. The RCC is a denomination.

But I do know that both the RCC and the Mormon church do not like the word "denomination". That's their taste; it's not reality.

Actually that is a mistake to suggest.
Denomination's are branches from the original.

denomination


• noun 1 a recognized branch of a church or religion.

Since all churches after the reform broke off the Church, then they are denominations from that Church which was the original Church.
Therefore classified as branches of the single Church...altho technically they do not see themselves as such.

 

[narnia59]

That's wishful thinking. There are enough Orthodox sites I've gone to that speaks in very strong language against the RCC. And similarly, the Unam Sanctam excludes the Orthodox from salvation, however much you want to hedge around it.

I know of Orthodox people who get very angry when they mention the many differences between the RCC and the Orthodox position. EO and OO themselves can't even see eye to eye. Some EO official websites deal with whether an EO can marry an OO and even question if an OO is indeed Orthodox.

Get real!

Regarding Unam Sanctam, I'm still waiting for any evidence that it is not as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it -- "The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Western Europe."

I mean really, in 2000 years of church documents, that one line is the best you can do?

And if you have one line that implies that, and hundreds of others that state otherwise, how can you justify raising it high and loud as being reflective of the Catholic church?

And thinking of that BeamishBoy, have you ever read the Chronicles of Narnia?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So how did you study LLOJ?
I am curious.

Did you do so on your own?

Well with a little help from online Greek and Hebrew resources.
It took me longer than expected to translate revelation as I used the 3 main greek texts. I figured before I could harmonize it with the rest of the Bible, I should have as accurate translation as I could get.

Lots of Variances in that book, such as this one in Chapt 22, the one I am now finishing:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

NKJV) Revelation 22:14 Blessed [are] those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

NASB) Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

TexRec) Revelation 22:14 makarioi oi poiounteV taV entolaV autou ina estai h exousia autwn epi to xulon thV zwhV kai toiV pulwsin eiselqwsin eiV thn polin

W-H) Revelation 22:14 makarioi oi plunonteV taV stolaV autwn ina estai h exousia autwn epi to xulon thV zwhV kai toiV pulwsin eiselqwsin eiV thn polin

14 Happy the ones [*rinsing/plunging the robes of them] doing His commandments, that it shall be the authority of them on the wood of the life, and to the gates they may be entering into the city.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Well, I know that.

I was speaking in terms of the church being 'one' church, and what makes a church one church. If accountability only exists within silos (however many there are) and not universally, I'm not sure I see the EO as one church. My perspective is that they are one as long as nobody tries to move in any direction, but to make any type of shift, like a more exhaustive doctrinal statement just can't happen.

And I could be very wrong about that, and would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

No, it cannot be done.
And regarding the EO, this is why they cannot define or explain the doctrines because they have no single leader to fall under who would keep all the shepherds under one roof of doctrinal agreement.

Which is why they do not define or explain doctrines.
The standard answer is - it remains a mystery.
And technically, even if explained, it remains a mystery, but with an explanation it does clarify the problems and removes heresies, which if we are honest - the Church through out the entirety of history [including in the councils] has indeed defined and explained the concepts many hold onto even today.
Such as the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Incarnation, etc etc
Without which - we could claim it remains a mystery - but no, the Church put it an explanation! Which is the reason for the existence of the Church - to make known what God wants and Who God is.

When the Church schismed - it is at that point when the East lost a chief leader to look up to, that all the Bishops [Patriarchs] were lost to define the doctrines as was the custom prior to the schism...when referring to the Pope to make it 'finito' and acceptable.

Its just something i have pondered... and i think an honest hard look at this would probably give many folks a moment of pause and hopefully a deeper prayer for unity.

 

[Photini]

Hopw many times does the NT reference the OT? How many times did Jesus reference the OT? It was a lot.

By the way did you know that Jesus quoted from the Septuagent?

You quote the Septuagint around these threads and you get accused of misquoting Scripture.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Well with a little help from online Greek and Hebrew resources.
It took me longer than expected to translate revelation as I used the 3 main greek texts. I figured before I could harmonize it with the rest of the Bible, I should have as accurate translation as I could get.

Lots of Variances in that book, such as this one in Chapt 22, the one I am now finishing:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

NKJV) Revelation 22:14 Blessed [are] those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

NASB) Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

TexRec) Revelation 22:14 makarioi oi poiounteV taV entolaV autou ina estai h exousia autwn epi to xulon thV zwhV kai toiV pulwsin eiselqwsin eiV thn polin

W-H) Revelation 22:14 makarioi oi plunonteV taV stolaV autwn ina estai h exousia autwn epi to xulon thV zwhV kai toiV pulwsin eiselqwsin eiV thn polin

14 Happy the ones [*rinsing/plunging the robes of them] doing His commandments, that it shall be the authority of them on the wood of the life, and to the gates they may be entering into the city.

Ok, well many times i dont understand where you get passages for a given discussion...

And still, an online resource is still going to be off.
Basically ancient Greek is not exactly like the modern Greek. Do you use ancient or modern?

I wonder tho - what do you think of the meanings behind the words thru the Greek dictionary [definitions]...??

Ok, well back on topic.

Peter is the Rock.
Whether because God the Father choose Him or because Jesus named him as such because of his confession - he was still the one choosen.