Are there any official sources of Orthodox teaching?

[ArmyMatt]

Other saints have works entitled against the teachings of Orthodox bishops that contradict current Orthodox teaching. According to your logic, that proves the Orthodox Church changed its teaching.

not really. current Orthodox teaching does not contradict Apostolic Orthodox teaching. so it doesn't prove we have changed anything according to my logic.

Since the Orthodox believe in purgatory as you admitted earlier, I don't see how that proves anything.

we don't believe in Purgatory.

What catechism teaches a literal fire?

fairly certain I quoted Trent as having mentioned it, which started your line about the catechism being true but not infallible, even though it came from an infallible council.

Why should I trust you over the cardinals and bishops of the RCC when you're not even RC?

you're dodging what I asked. you are the one defending what is or is not infallible in the RC, yet you quote those that agree with your position and say those that don't agree as being mistaken. I am not saying to listen to me over an RC, you just seem to be very selective about which ones you are listening to, and it seems to follow the conclusion that you already made.

It's clear you won't listen so I'm not gonna waste my time.

I would if you posted something clear that shows your point, but you haven't.

 

[samir]

not really. current Orthodox teaching does not contradict Apostolic Orthodox teaching. so it doesn't prove we have changed anything according to my logic.

Current RCC does not contradict earlier RCC teaching.

we don't believe in Purgatory.

Every Orthodox source I checked said the Orthodox Church believes in purgatory. If you want to claim otherwise, I need to see some evidence because I haven't seen any yet.

fairly certain I quoted Trent as having mentioned it, which started your line about the catechism being true but not infallible, even though it came from an infallible council.

I read all your posts. You didn't quote anything from Trent that mentioned it. The quote you posted from Trent says the same thing the current catechism teaches which shows the teaching hasn't changed.

you're dodging what I asked. you are the one defending what is or is not infallible in the RC

I'm not defending anything. I simply explained the clear teaching of the RCC regarding infallibility which you can easily learn by reading how RC councils defined it. I even said I'd prefer you'd read it for yourself instead of relying on what I say. If you refuse to learn what the RCC teaches or choose to pretend the RCC teaches something else because you feel the need to justify your separation from the RCC to ease your conscience then I can't help you.

yet you quote those that agree with your position and say those that don't agree as being mistaken.

I don't have a position on the details of purgatory nor did I ever say anyone you quoted was mistaken regarding those details. I rely on the official councils where RCC teaching is formulated and the catechisms that summarize RC teaching. All I did was point out that if you want to know what the RCC taught you should look at what the RCC taught instead of relying on a theologian's opinion and assuming it's RCC teaching.

I am not saying to listen to me over an RC, you just seem to be very selective about which ones you are listening to, and it seems to follow the conclusion that you already made.

I have not made any conclusions nor have I been selective. If I quoted an Orthodox theologian's opinion and assumed it was Orthodox teaching and wanted you to believe it was Orthodox teaching, would you accept it was Orthodox teaching if I was unable to provide any evidence the Orthodox Church ever taught his opinion?

I would if you posted something clear that shows your point, but you haven't.

You refused to listen to what I already wrote so I'm not going to waste more time posting something else I know you won't accept. You've made up your mind and no amount of evidence will ever convince you to reconsider it.

 

[samir]

and then you have visions and experiences which confirm the belief in a literal fire

http://aleteia.org/2013/11/01/3-sobering-visions-of-purgatory-from-the-saints/

Can you show me where the RCC teaches that all of its saints visions are RC teaching? If an Orthodox saint has a vision, is everything in that vision considered Orthodox teaching that you are required to believe?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Current RCC does not contradict earlier RCC teaching.

yeah it does.

Every Orthodox source I checked said the Orthodox Church believes in purgatory. If you want to claim otherwise, I need to see some evidence because I haven't seen any yet.

uh huh, well I seeing as how are saints have consistently rejected it as heresy, as have our hymns, I am gonna say that you are not looking at legit Orthodox sites.

read Metropolitan Heirotheos Vlachos' Life After Dead, Fr Seraphim Rose's the Soul After Death, Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave by Archimandrite Panteleimon, and St Mark of Ephesus' homilies against the Purgatorial fire. and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

I read all your posts. You didn't quote anything from Trent that mentioned it. The quote you posted from Trent says the same thing the current catechism teaches which shows the teaching hasn't changed.

"Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth." Catechism of Council of Trent

"Prayers for the dead, that they may be liberated from the fire of purgatory, are derived from Apostolic teaching" Catechism of Council of Trent, Prayer

"We also beg of God that we be not cut off by a sudden death; that we provoke not His anger against us; that we be not condemned to suffer the punishments reserved for the wicked; that we be not sentenced to endure the fire of purgatory, from which we piously and devoutly implore that others may be liberated." Catechism of Council of Trent, The Lord's Prayer, Seventh Petition

read closer

I'm not defending anything. I simply explained the clear teaching of the RCC regarding infallibility which you can easily learn by reading how RC councils defined it. I even said I'd prefer you'd read it for yourself instead of relying on what I say. If you refuse to learn what the RCC teaches or choose to pretend the RCC teaches something else because you feel the need to justify your separation from the RCC to ease your conscience then I can't help you.

yeah, I know you said that, but any evidence to the contrary you just chalk off as not being infallible. I can read, and have read, the source material, and when speaking to RC friends, none of them have been as pick and choose concerning infallibility as you have. I don't agree with what you have said the RC teaches. and I am fine being apart from Rome. it was Pope Francis who said he longs for communion with us, to which we say the chrism awaits.

I rely on the official councils where RCC teaching is formulated and the catechisms that summarize RC teaching.

you mean like Trent's catechism?

I have not made any conclusions nor have I been selective. If I quoted an Orthodox theologian's opinion and assumed it was Orthodox teaching and wanted you to believe it was Orthodox teaching, would you accept it was Orthodox teaching if I was unable to provide any evidence the Orthodox Church ever taught his opinion?

of course not, and that is not what is going on here. stuff from their councils, their saints, their theologians attest to a literal fire. we are not merely speaking about an opinion.

You refused to listen to what I already wrote so I'm not going to waste more time posting something else I know you won't accept. You've made up your mind and no amount of evidence will ever convince you to reconsider it.

of course I am not going to listen, unless you actually show something of substance (like Trent). all you have given is your opinion, not being RC, on what Rome teaches, and have given no reason why I should accept your position over those of their own tradition.

Can you show me where the RCC teaches that all of its saints visions are RC teaching? If an Orthodox saint has a vision, is everything in that vision considered Orthodox teaching that you are required to believe?

well, you have yet to show anything that contradicts those visions, and this is supported by their councils (see above) and their art. if an Orthodox saint has a vision, it would be checked to see if it falls in line with the teaching. the visions of a literal purgatorial fire do fall in line with the Roman tradition.

 

[samir]

yeah it does.

Your opinion is noted. If you ever find any evidence to support it, I'd be happy to see it.

uh huh, well I seeing as how are saints have consistently rejected it as heresy, as have our hymns, I am gonna say that you are not looking at legit Orthodox sites.

read Metropolitan Heirotheos Vlachos' Life After Dead, Fr Seraphim Rose's the Soul After Death, Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave by Archimandrite Panteleimon, and St Mark of Ephesus' homilies against the Purgatorial fire. and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

How do they explain the verse that says "nothing impure will enter" if they don't believe in purification after death?

"Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth." Catechism of Council of Trent

"Prayers for the dead, that they may be liberated from the fire of purgatory, are derived from Apostolic teaching" Catechism of Council of Trent, Prayer

"We also beg of God that we be not cut off by a sudden death; that we provoke not His anger against us; that we be not condemned to suffer the punishments reserved for the wicked; that we be not sentenced to endure the fire of purgatory, from which we piously and devoutly implore that others may be liberated." Catechism of Council of Trent, The Lord's Prayer, Seventh Petition

read closer

I read that earlier. The current catechism says the same thing:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.

Where did the RCC ever teach the fire was literal?

yeah, I know you said that, but any evidence to the contrary you just chalk off as not being infallible.

The "evidence" you provided to support a literal fire clearly doesn't meet the definition of infallibility defined by the RCC so why should I accept it? If you could explain which criteria theological opinions meet that makes them infallible, I'd gladly accept it.

I can read, and have read, the source material, and when speaking to RC friends, none of them have been as pick and choose concerning infallibility as you have.

So they told you the RCC changed it's teaching? If they did, they weren't RC.

I don't agree with what you have said the RC teaches.

Feel free to verify it to correct your misunderstanding.

and I am fine being apart from Rome.

Then why do you feel the need to invent differences between Orthodoxy and Rome?

you mean like Trent's catechism?

Yep, I accept that too. I believe I said earlier that its teaching on purgatory may be infallible.

of course not, and that is not what is going on here. stuff from their councils, their saints, their theologians attest to a literal fire. we are not merely speaking about an opinion.

If a saint or theologian believes something the RCC never taught, that doesn't make it RC teaching. You can easily verify this if you don't believe me.

of course I am not going to listen, unless you actually show something of substance (like Trent).

I will show you where the RCC never taught a literal fire as soon as you show me where the Orthodox church never taught that Santa Claus is real.

all you have given is your opinion, not being RC, on what Rome teaches, and have given no reason why I should accept your position over those of their own tradition.

I never expressed my opinion and have no position on the matter. I posted the official teaching from Florence and Trent which explains the RCC teaching on purgatory. You claimed they taught something beyond what those councils stated but so far you haven't offered any evidence to support your position.

well, you have yet to show anything that contradicts those visions, and this is supported by their councils (see above) and their art. if an Orthodox saint has a vision, it would be checked to see if it falls in line with the teaching. the visions of a literal purgatorial fire do fall in line with the Roman tradition.

I already answered these questions earlier.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Your opinion is noted. If you ever find any evidence to support it, I'd be happy to see it.

Rome initially agreed to Ephesus which said you cannot altar the Creed, Rome initially agreed with Constantinople 4 which anathematized the filioque, Rome accepted the filioque and condemned those that did not use it at 2 Lyons, Rome now says that the filioque may or may not be used.

How do they explain the verse that says "nothing impure will enter" if they don't believe in purification after death?

purification we agree with, purgatory we do not.

Where did the RCC ever teach the fire was literal?

this is where those saint visions come into play since it nowhere teaches that it is not literal.

The "evidence" you provided to support a literal fire clearly doesn't meet the definition of infallibility defined by the RCC so why should I accept it? If you could explain which criteria theological opinions meet that makes them infallible, I'd gladly accept it.

it came from an infallible council. you have yet to show how an infallible council would produce doctrinal statements that are not.

So they told you the RCC changed it's teaching? If they did, they weren't RC.

well they are RC, and many of them do think that Rome changed because of the belief in progressive revelation.

Feel free to verify it to correct your misunderstanding.

why? your opinions vs what RC catechisms have said and their saints have experienced, I don't need to verify anything until you show that you are understanding RC teaching properly.

Then why do you feel the need to invent differences between Orthodoxy and Rome?

I don't, we reject purgatory.

Yep, I accept that too. I believe I said earlier that its teaching on purgatory may be infallible.

you either accept the catechism, to include the teaching on purgatory being fire, or you don't.

If a saint or theologian believes something the RCC never taught, that doesn't make it RC teaching. You can easily verify this if you don't believe me.

hence not merely quoting the saint, but quoting others and their councils.

I will show you where the RCC never taught a literal fire as soon as you show me where the Orthodox church never taught that Santa Claus is real.

if you could show clearly where the fire is not literal, you would. so you have nothing.

I never expressed my opinion and have no position on the matter. I posted the official teaching from Florence and Trent which explains the RCC teaching on purgatory. You claimed they taught something beyond what those councils stated but so far you haven't offered any evidence to support your position.

aside from the catechism from Trent, which says purgatory is fire, and the visions of RC saints.

I already answered these questions earlier.

I didn't ask any questions....

 

[samir]

Rome initially agreed to Ephesus which said you cannot altar the Creed, Rome initially agreed with Constantinople 4 which anathematized the filioque, Rome accepted the filioque and condemned those that did not use it at 2 Lyons, Rome now says that the filioque may or may not be used.



purification we agree with, purgatory we do not.

I've already explained it to you.

this is where those saint visions come into play since it nowhere teaches that it is not literal.

A saints visions are not RC teaching so they contribute nothing.

it came from an infallible council. you have yet to show how an infallible council would produce doctrinal statements that are not.

Already answered.

why? your opinions vs what RC catechisms have said and their saints have experienced, I don't need to verify anything until you show that you are understanding RC teaching properly.

Everything I know about the RCC comes from RC sources. The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent, and many other RC sources agree with me. If you don't believe what I say and aren't willing to verify it, there is nothing I can do about it.

you either accept the catechism, to include the teaching on purgatory being fire, or you don't.

I accept the catechism's teaching on purgatory as an accurate summary of RC teaching.

hence not merely quoting the saint, but quoting others and their councils.

You have not quoted any councils that support your claims.

if you could show clearly where the fire is not literal, you would. so you have nothing.

It's not my job to prove your claims.

aside from the catechism from Trent, which says purgatory is fire, and the visions of RC saints.

The catechism quotes you posted don't say the fire is literal and visions of saints are irrelevant.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I've already explained it to you.

yeah but not to show that is not complete contradiction. you have not shown how Popes in council can call the filioque heresy, and then say it is not heresy, and claim they never changed.

A saints visions are not RC teaching so they contribute nothing.

funny, please back this one up. explain how Rome does not view Fatima as teaching

Already answered.

nope.

I accept the catechism's teaching on purgatory as an accurate summary of RC teaching.

so then you agree that it is fire

You have not quoted any councils that support your claims.

I quoted Trent

It's not my job to prove your claims.

I know it's not and that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. the question is about purgatory, no one here is asking you to show we don't agree with Purgatory, so this post makes no sense.

The catechism quotes you posted don't say the fire is literal and visions of saints are irrelevant.

it doesn't say it is merely a metaphor or an analogy either, and no, the visions of the saints is not irrelevant.

 

[samir]

yeah but not to show that is not complete contradiction. you have not shown how Popes in council can call the filioque heresy, and then say it is not heresy, and claim they never changed.

No pope has ever called the filioque heresy.

funny, please back this one up. explain how Rome does not view Fatima as teaching

You already said you won't believe me and that I shouldn't explain RC teaching because I'm not RC. If you want to know, look it up for yourself. I really don't care what you believe about it.

so then you agree that it is fire

I already told you I believe the RCC teaches purification after death that can be referred to as purgatorial fire. Words like fire can be understood literally or metaphorically. What I haven't seen is any evidence the RCC ever taught there was a literal fire.

I quoted Trent

No, you quoted a catechism and even that didn't teach a literal fire. Try again.

I know it's not and that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. the question is about purgatory, no one here is asking you to show we don't agree with Purgatory, so this post makes no sense.

You've already acknowledged the Orthodox believe in purification after death which is what the RCC calls purgatory so both agree purgatory exists even if you don't like the name of it. You keep claiming Rome taught a literal fire and asking me to prove Rome did not teach a literal fire which is ridiculous as it's impossible to prove a negative.

it doesn't say it is merely a metaphor or an analogy either, and no, the visions of the saints is not irrelevant.

It doesn't have to say the fire is a metaphor as it's completely irrelevant. The fact the RCC did not say the fire is literal is enough to know the RCC did not teach a literal fire. If you want to pretend the visions of the saints are RC teaching, you would be wrong, but I really don't care so I'm not going to waste more time repeating myself again.

 

[ArmyMatt]

No pope has ever called the filioque heresy.

the one who signed off on Constantinople IV did, and Pope John X (I think) signed off on a local council that excommunicated anyone who added it. plus Ephesus which said no alterations of the Creed.

You already said you won't believe me and that I shouldn't explain RC teaching because I'm not RC. If you want to know, look it up for yourself. I really don't care what you believe about it.

I would if you actually provide concrete stuff for what you are saying. I said I won't believe you over what actual RC say.

I already told you I believe the RCC teaches purification after death that can be referred to as purgatorial fire. Words like fire can be understood literally or metaphorically. What I haven't seen is any evidence the RCC ever taught there was a literal fire.

hence what I said before about what their saints say, and that you also have shown no teaching that it is simply a metaphor. you are only saying that you think it is metaphorical. that is why I am taking what you say with a grain of salt.

No, you quoted a catechism and even that didn't teach a literal fire. Try again.

from a council they consider to be ecumenical, and it also does not teach a metaphoric fire.

You've already acknowledged the Orthodox believe in purification after death which is what the RCC calls purgatory so both agree purgatory exists even if you don't like the name of it.

that is not the issue we have with purgatory.

You keep claiming Rome taught a literal fire and asking me to prove Rome did not teach a literal fire which is ridiculous as it's impossible to prove a negative.

well no, while you cannot prove a negative, you can prove the Rome taught a symbolic or allegoric or whatever fire. but if you could, you would have already I suspect.

It doesn't have to say the fire is a metaphor as it's completely irrelevant. The fact the RCC did not say the fire is literal is enough to know the RCC did not teach a literal fire.

not necessarily, the fact that much of the debate with Mark of Ephesus concerned their view of the purgatorial fire pretty much shows that they taught it. added to that you find it in their art and such, you definitely have to go searching to show that it was not a literal fire. saying that since they did not use that exact word of literal to describe purgatory as showing that they never taught it is a weak argument.

If you want to pretend the visions of the saints are RC teaching, you would be wrong, but I really don't care so I'm not going to waste more time repeating myself again.

again, you just saying stuff for the sake of saying stuff. that is just silly. to say that the visions of Francis of Assisi, or Fatima, or Lourdes are not RC teaching is just incorrect. in fact, it was a Marian vision at Lourdes where, according to Rome, Mary identified herself as the Immaculate Conception.

 

[samir]

the one who signed off on Constantinople IV did, and Pope John X (I think) signed off on a local council that excommunicated anyone who added it. plus Ephesus which said no alterations of the Creed.



I would if you actually provide concrete stuff for what you are saying. I said I won't believe you over what actual RC say.



hence what I said before about what their saints say, and that you also have shown no teaching that it is simply a metaphor. you are only saying that you think it is metaphorical. that is why I am taking what you say with a grain of salt.



from a council they consider to be ecumenical, and it also does not teach a metaphoric fire.



that is not the issue we have with purgatory.



well no, while you cannot prove a negative, you can prove the Rome taught a symbolic or allegoric or whatever fire. but if you could, you would have already I suspect.



not necessarily, the fact that much of the debate with Mark of Ephesus concerned their view of the purgatorial fire pretty much shows that they taught it. added to that you find it in their art and such, you definitely have to go searching to show that it was not a literal fire. saying that since they did not use that exact word of literal to describe purgatory as showing that they never taught it is a weak argument.

I already answer your objections multiple times and you chose not to listen so I won't repeat myself again.

again, you just saying stuff for the sake of saying stuff. that is just silly. to say that the visions of Francis of Assisi, or Fatima, or Lourdes are not RC teaching is just incorrect. in fact, it was a Marian vision at Lourdes where, according to Rome, Mary identified herself as the Immaculate Conception.

Irrelevant. The Immaculate Conception became a dogma of the faith when the pope pronounced it ex cathedra not when a saint had a vision of Mary supposedly teaching it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I already answer your objections multiple times and you chose not to listen so I won't repeat myself again.

no you didn't

Irrelevant. The Immaculate Conception became a dogma of the faith when the pope pronounced it ex cathedra not when a saint had a vision of Mary supposedly teaching it.

please, evidence from a Catholic source that this is irrelevant.

 

[samir]

no you didn't

Feel free to read my posts again if you missed it.

please, evidence from a Catholic source that this is irrelevant.

You can look it up yourself if you're interested. I want to discuss purgatory, not the sources of Catholic dogma. If you want to discuss purgatory or any other RC teaching it would help if you understood what the RCC taught. If you think a saints visions are RC teaching I suggest you do some research to correct your malformed opinion before discussing RC teachings.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Feel free to read my posts again if you missed it.

I did and you didn't. either Rome was correct when they said it was heresy, or they were correct when they proclaimed it to be true. both cannot be correct.

You can look it up yourself if you're interested. I want to discuss purgatory, not the sources of Catholic dogma.

you want to discuss a Roman dogma, but not discuss the source of that dogma. that makes no sense, especially if you are claiming this has always been the Church's teaching.

If you want to discuss purgatory or any other RC teaching it would help if you understood what the RCC taught. If you think a saints visions are RC teaching I suggest you do some research to correct your malformed opinion before discussing RC teachings.

there you go voicing opinion again. I do get what the RC teaches. every RC I have spoken to, and stuff from their own history are all in opposition to what you are saying. so I trust they know their own theology better than you do.

 

[samir]

I did and you didn't. either Rome was correct when they said it was heresy, or they were correct when they proclaimed it to be true. both cannot be correct.

Rome never condemned the filioque as heresy. Rome's teaching is unchanged but you can believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me either way.

you want to discuss a Roman dogma, but not discuss the source of that dogma. that makes no sense, especially if you are claiming this has always been the Church's teaching.

If I'm going to debate Orthodox teaching, the first thing I do is learn what the OC teaches. Only then would I attempt to refute it. What I would NOT do is attempt to refute an Orthodox doctrine without understanding it and ask the Orthodox poster to prove what the OC teaches.

If you're willing to take the time to learn what the RCC teaches on purgatory and still wish to refute it, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

there you go voicing opinion again. I do get what the RC teaches. every RC I have spoken to, and stuff from their own history are all in opposition to what you are saying. so I trust they know their own theology better than you do.

I bet if you went to the OBOB forum I'm sure every RC would agree with me and say you misunderstand what is RC teaching. I say that because every RC site I checked was unanimous and your opinion wasn't taught anywhere.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Rome never condemned the filioque as heresy. Rome's teaching is unchanged but you can believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me either way.

incorrect. they agreed to Constantinople 4 which anathematized the filioque.

If I'm going to debate Orthodox teaching, the first thing I do is learn what the OC teaches. Only then would I attempt to refute it. What I would NOT do is attempt to refute an Orthodox doctrine without understanding it and ask the Orthodox poster to prove what the OC teaches.

If you're willing to take the time to learn what the RCC teaches on purgatory and still wish to refute it, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

I do. I am currently with RC chaplain candidates and they disagree with you. I go with Roman Catholics to get Roman teaching. not someone who is not RC.

and in an earlier thread you said we affirm purgatory, so so much for actually finding out what be believe to discuss. seems you don't try to understand Orthodox teaching.

I bet if you went to the OBOB forum I'm sure every RC would agree with me and say you misunderstand what is RC teaching. I say that because every RC site I checked was unanimous and your opinion wasn't taught anywhere.

yeah I am sure, prolly from the same places where you found that Orthodoxy teaches purgatory (despite our hymns and saints saying otherwise. the RC folks I spoke to disagree with you. I am gonna go with them over you and your sites.

 

[samir]

incorrect. they agreed to Constantinople 4 which anathematized the filioque.

Your opinion is noted.

I do. I am currently with RC chaplain candidates and they disagree with you. I go with Roman Catholics to get Roman teaching. not someone who is not RC.

Understood. I prefer to learn RC teaching from what the RCC taught through councils and the magisterium. If you want to learn RC teaching from what you think those RC chaplain candidates told you that's your choice but if you don't object to anything the RCC actually taught then we have nothing to discuss.

and in an earlier thread you said we affirm purgatory, so so much for actually finding out what be believe to discuss. seems you don't try to understand Orthodox teaching.

You admitted earlier that purgatory is Orthodox teaching.

yeah I am sure, prolly from the same places where you found that Orthodoxy teaches purgatory (despite our hymns and saints saying otherwise. the RC folks I spoke to disagree with you. I am gonna go with them over you and your sites

I don't know what you thought you heard from those supposedly RC folks but if you can't confirm it is RC teaching from RC sources then I'm not going to waste my time discussing it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Your opinion is noted.

that is not an opinion, that is historic fact.

Understood. I prefer to learn RC teaching from what the RCC taught through councils and the magisterium. If you want to learn RC teaching from what you think those RC chaplain candidates told you that's your choice but if you don't object to anything the RCC actually taught then we have nothing to discuss.

I agree, I just think they know more about their own councils than you do. and I quoted councils and saints more than you did.

You admitted earlier that purgatory is Orthodox teaching.

negative, I agreed to a purging, but no purgatory. and I have said that over and over again. and you were the one who said every Orthodox site you found confirm that Orthodox believe in purgatory. which leads me to question the legitimacy of those sites.

I don't know what you thought you heard from those supposedly RC folks but if you can't confirm it is RC teaching from RC sources then I'm not going to waste my time discussing it.

if you think RC priests are not RC sources and know their own faith better than you, who are not RC, then by all means stop wasting your time.

 

[samir]

I agree, I just think they know more about their own councils than you do. and I quoted councils and saints more than you did.

You didn't quote any councils and you have not shown any evidence that visions of saints are RC teaching.

if you think RC priests are not RC sources and know their own faith better than you, who are not RC, then by all means stop wasting your time.

I've had RC priests tell me things that contradict the RC catechism. They are fallible men who can make mistakes. It's not about who knows the RC faith better. It's about what the RCC actually taught. I would never expect you to rely on me when it comes to RC teaching. That's why I verified every claim I made by quoting the actual RC teaching. You have been unable to verify any of your claims. Do you really expect me to accept what you thought you heard (most likely misunderstood) from those RCs when it disagrees with everything I heard from RCs especially since you are unable to verify any of it?

Would you like it if I quoted Orthodox saints who taught a literal fire and kept insisting without any evidence that their opinions were the teaching of the OC and claiming the OC's teaching had changed because it no longer teaches a literal fire?

 

[ArmyMatt]

You didn't quote any councils and you have not shown any evidence that visions of saints are RC teaching.

I quoted the catechism from Trent, as well as one other thing that came from Trent. so yeah, I did. as far as saints go, to say their visions are not Catholic teaching is just silly (Lourdes, Fatima, etc) and you have shown nothing to show that they are not RC teaching.

I've had RC priests tell me things that contradict the RC catechism. They are fallible men who can make mistakes. It's not about who knows the RC faith better. It's about what the RCC actually taught. I would never expect you to rely on me when it comes to RC teaching. That's why I verified every claim I made by quoting the actual RC teaching. You have been unable to verify any of your claims. Do you really expect me to accept what you thought you heard (most likely misunderstood) from those RCs when it disagrees with everything I heard from RCs especially since you are unable to verify any of it?

I have verified it. what they said falls in line with Trent and their saints. you are the one who disregards saints, and have yet to show why those specific visions and the stuff from Trent are not RC teaching. you have quoted stuff but have only given your interpretation. nothing you have shown contradicts a literal fire aside from you. whatever I quoted that affirms a literal fire you say is not RC teaching, and the only thing you have to back that up is you.

Would you like it if I quoted Orthodox saints who taught a literal fire and kept insisting without any evidence that their opinions were the teaching of the OC and claiming the OC's teaching had changed because it no longer teaches a literal fire?

well, seeing as how we don't believe in purgatory, you would be hard pressed to find a saint who teaches it. that being said, I also quoted stuff that came from one of their councils. if you can show doctrinal statements from the councils and the saints, you might have something.