www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Roman Catholic Church is not the One True Church

I can recognize your meaning.

You are using the terms and the capitalization (which matters) in the proper and conventional way.

-ray

Thank you Rachel ...

I am still not too clear on the thing ... but on Sunday I visit a dear friend of mine who is well trained in Greek (he is a Russian Orthodox priest) and is currently working with Yale University to translate Hebrew letters from the Holocaust - and he is learning Arabic. He recently was faculty at a University in Palestine. Life in danger - we convinced him to come home. Bomb, bullets, kidnappings.

I intend to asked him about this � and also about the transliteration �having been bound�. I want his opinion and ability. Hard-headed myself � I do not just cave in to anybody. While I do listen to people who are nice about it like you are.

I am luck � I have friends who are recognized as experts in my interests but I do not associate them by name to my wild ideas. Not that any would object (maybe they would?) but it is my courtesy as a friend.

I will present my 'keys' theory to him and see if he can shot a major hole in it. If he can - I will tell you and retract my opionins. If he can't ... I will let you know also (if you are interested). There are some things we disagree on and I don't care if he is the expert but there are something I have proven to him - yet we both know he can not publicly rock the boat. I love him. I gave him my relic of St. Fancis - so that tells you how much I think of him!

Peace to you in all things.
-ray

Rachel .. I just noticed that. "Ophthalmology"!

I love it!

I am a four finger typer and so seldom look up from the keyboard. When my spell checker does its thing - I usually take the first choice it offers because I take so long to type - I just want to be done with it.

Later on ... I sometimes notice what was done and I chuckle. People must read and think "What the h@ll is he talking about!!?"

... being odd - I have perfected being odd.

Nite. Bed bugs.
-ray

robster,

I am only meaing to discuss the words and writings of my Patriarch and to make sure they are taken accordingly. You, in your way, are also representing the words and writings of your Patriarch.

I don't know how much more evidence it would need. The very fact that Peter had Keys of authority which the other Apostles didn't, as well as other passages of Jesus emphasizing Peter's leadership role, and that Peter himself made it appear as if he had a Primacy of Authority, is pretty much more than enough. The idea that it was Peter's arrogant and selfish "personal opinion" and not a doctrinal Truth, would make the reader take the Bible with a grain of salt and pick and choose the passages they like. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is infallible and inerrable in all its parts, and that all the parts of the Bible are a united whole. More evidence would be the History of the Papacy, in which the Popes have often nullified Eastern Synods, and was often appealed to as a last resort by the East for theological and canonical questions. Popes have also deposed Eastern bishops, etc.


lol, I hope I didn't ram it down your throat and use it as a club. I agree that it takes time for one to understand these things. Sometimes, one can get "blown by every wind of doctrine." There is never complete certainty, not even among the most Saintly people, Blessed Mother Therese and St. Therese of Lisieux for example suffered with doubt.


The middle ground would be the Catholic Church.

I know that might sound wierd to you and others, but it's true. Sometimes something might sound too good to be true, except that it is True. It always takes a leap of faith to believe it. Sometimes that's hard to do.


Well, I was thinking of changing my nick name because of that. I have this name because its the name I use in MSN Groups, it was once "Roman_Catholic," but then I changed it because I didn't feel comfortable with it. Why I chose Roman_Army? I have no idea, I guess due to a fascination with the history of the Roman Empire and how they were able to conquer so much territory, they had to have had a powerful army. I liked the History of Rome, that's all. Then I came into this forum and others, with the same name, so that I wouldn't have to memorize so many different names, and so people from MSN Groups could recognize me. Plus, it's a unique name, nobody ever takes it. It never occured to me that it would be interpreted as me being a Roman tyrant trying to force everyone to accept Roman culture and theology, or some kind of radical traditionalist.


Well, certaintly the Church is not going to change its teachings for political correctness. What Cardinal Levada said is consistent with the Popes and Councils. By the way, Cardinal Levada never said that they have "'less' Christ." Read the documents yourself. He simply said that they are wounded in the sense that they reject the primacy of the Papacy. He explains further about the erroneous "Eucharistic ecclesiology" that the Eastern Orthodox believe in as a way of avoiding the office of the Papacy.

Now, in regards to the rest of your message. There is no way for ecumenism without one side admitting they have erred. Neither Church will be willing to accept such an ecumenism. That is a false ecumenism. We can only achieve unity by following the Truth. Now, I agree that Rome should let the Eastern Churches to choose its own Bishops, and that is already occuring now to some extent in the Eastern Catholic Churches. However, the Eastern Churches have to stop condemning the theology and practices of the Roman Church and accept it as they did before Photius came into the scene.

As for tolerance. Yes, I can tolerate your odd ways, Ray, if you can tolerate my odd name.

The following is from the Vatican documents in question:


The following is the Commentary of the above Response.

I guess we've digressed. The topic was supposed to be about how we shouldn't use the term "Roman Catholic Church" to describe the Catholic Church as a whole with all her rites. I agree 100% with JohnRussel on that. Even during the days when the Catholic Church was for the most part only the Roman rite, they didn't use the term "Roman Catholic Church" to describe the universal Church as a whole. My college history book uses the term "Latin Church," which is also wrong. They use that term due to prejudice. Just as the anti-Catholic Anglicans introduced the word "Roman Catholic Church" as an anti-Catholic slur. To my knowlegde, that term is only used in English speaking countries. Unfortunately, over time people get used to being called something that they don't want to be called as.

In the past 3 or 4 months, in as many online venues, this topic of what Christians in the Pope of Rome's communion are to be called has been found.

I like "Catholic" that is how I self identify.

In a perfect world, all qualifications would be made every time... but come on, that is a mouthful.

"Roman Catholic" "Eastern Rite" "Uniate" "Latin Church" "Orthodox Catholic" "Eastern Orthodox" "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" It can start to make the head spin...

Last time I was asked by a Protestant if I was a "Roman Catholic" I thought for half a second and, for expedience, rather than get out a map and a chalkboard, replied "I'm Catholic".

Two weeks ago a well-meaning elderly Jesuit asked if I was "a Uniate". I didn't have it in me to expend much more effort than

"Yes, but we like to be called Byzantine Catholics these days."

"Oh, OK, Byzantine Catholic, sure. They're beautiful, all those icons!"

At the invitation of a lovely couple I met who were Macedonian Orthodox I went to the dedication of their cathedral in my city. When 3 priests were trying to figure out "what" I was, (and I was begining to wonder if I shouldn't have worn more comfortable running shoes, already picturing the headline "Local man tarred and feathered by Macedonians.") The more elderly of the three "got it" and said "Oh, he just like us but have pope! Thank you for coming, come get something to eat and have a whiskey!"

Last time a Jehovah's Witness was at the door, I got a little more ethnic and explained "I belonged to the Ruthenian Church which is what my grandmother, a magyarized Rusyn was."

Yes, I did it just to see the blank stare on their face.

Shame on me!

Still, it was fun.

There is one man a sort of translation that actually used "having been bound ". it is called the Faithful New Testament (FNT). by William Zeitler. I was introduced to it by some cultists who call Paul a liar and reject most of the NT. It is a gas.

I notice that the Young's Literal Translation uses �

"shall be having been bound in heaven"

In the 5th paragraph of the Preface it is told why he and his crew paid special attention to the tense of the original languages.


Not having the original Latin yet � I notice this in the old English of the Douay-Rheims - - -


Did you notice anything?
Shalt { past tense }
Shall { present tense }
Bind {present tense }
Bound = { Past tense }
Loose = { present tense }
Loosed = { past tense }

It shall be past tense (done already).

�Whatso-ever you shalt� (equal to �had� of the past tense)
�Bind on earth� (present tense)
�It shall� (present tense)
�be bound� (past tense)

�Whatso-ever you shalt� (equal to had of the past tense)
�loose on earth� (present tense)
�it shall� (present tense)
�be loosed in heaven� (past tense)

Now this is not so difficult to understand� it is a projection into the future (Peter has declared nothing yet - but he will in the future) and so the implied action takes place in the future - as if it had already taken place.

Q: what - had just taken place?
A: Peter had just declared something (past tense) as binding (present tense) on earth.
Q: what takes place in heaven at the same time?
A: whatever it is will already have been bound in heaven.

If we want to state the usual translation it would have to be as below�
�Whatever thou shall make binding on earth - shall be binding in heaven.� Certainly the English of the time was capable of that structure. But notice - that structure is not used.

This is especially clear with the past tense of �loosed� - (cleared than the tense difference between bind and bound).

Loosed - can ONLY be a past tense. (�The man was loosed.� or �You are loosed� the action had already been done.) �you are loosed� is equal to telling someone to take a look at his hands - the chains are off already. It is making someone aware of a condition that had already taken place.

Now let us look even closer.


�Whatso-ever �thou �� which is �you� in the nominative case (generic or basic use with no inflection). To indicate a personal use (accusative) it would be thee (objective case) or thy (possessive case).

�Whatso-ever thee shalt bind on earth� would make it Peter alone (objective and accusative target - strictly personal to Peter). Whatever Peter � bind on earth.

While the use of �thou� makes it a generic use (any - single member of a group of like kind). Whatever Peter or any single person like Peter � bind on earth.

Wow. I will have to check this out and be sure.

I was with a language expert today who is employed by Yale University to translate Hebrew letters from the Holocaust. He was also trained in Greek and is currently learning (he speaks it already but wants to learn to write it) Aramaic. I asked him if he was aware of the tense used in the transliterations �having been bound� and I asked him if there was a reason why translations - translate this to the future tense �shall be bound� � his short reply was �

�Why? Why change the original tense?�

which was an answer (there is no reason to change the original tense) but also a reason (if the tense is changed - the one who changed it has his own reasons for changing the original meaning of the text.).

(Disclaimer: I am as confused as anyone else.)
-ray

It seems to me that the tense of the passage has no bearing on how we are to understand the Petrine primacy. The point is that Peter and Heaven are in accord.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along?!
You said something about not having the original Latin. The original was in Greek not Latin nor Hebrew as you said before.
Sorry no insult meant but you are more confused than the average.
Every tense that you mention is wrong!!!!
Those are all future not a one is past or present. And your supposed putting it in usual English is totally off the wall!
To put it in usual (today's) English all you have to do is change shalt or shall to will . Period!
Where do you get this stuff!!
You don't seem to know anything about grammar!!
Some are future tense active voice and some are future tense passive voice! Not a one is past or present!
You are also confused about thee's and thou's
first you say thou is nominative (subject)and thee is objective (object). Then you try to use thee as nominative (subject) to make it personal to Peter.
This is complete nonsense. You can't use objective case as the subject. Period!
Let's try it with I (nominative case-subject) and me (objective case-object).
I (subject and nominative case) eat bananas.
Me (subject but objective case) eat bananas.
Doesn't sound right does it!
There is no such thing as generic with no inflection!
Do you make this stuff up as you go along!
I hate to think what you would do with the Latin.
May I suggest that you learn English grammar before you tackle Hebrew, Greek or Latin.

Bind is not present action?
Bound is not the past action of bind?

Loose is not present (�the man is loose�)

LoosED is not past action? ( just add �ed� to the end of loose.)

Whoa - wait - I guess we did go to different schools.

Shalt is not past? Shall is not present? Thou is not nominative accusative? These things are still in my dictionary. A few of my dictionaries are old - all the better for these older words.

And to say there is no value to transliterations - nonsense.

Anyways ... Thanks for yor comments .. (I think).

The 'sorry' and 'no insult meant' does not erase the insult given of 'more confusde than the average'. I think you are confused if you think I would fall for that.

I gave you a shot melkiteman ... I gave you the benefit of the doubt ... but I do not cave into insults. They are the weakest argument a man can give.

-ray

The verbs without their subject are
shalt bind which is future tense active voice
shall be bound which is future tense passive voice
be bound shows that it is passive voice.
shall and shalt are auxiliary verbs.
shalt loose is future tense active voice
shall be loosed is future tense passive Voice
be loosed shows that it is passive

Loose in that sentence is an adjective and has no tense.

the verb is shall be loosed not loosed


No shalt is not past.
Shall can be present but here is the present form of shall used as an auxiliary verb to indicate the future.
Shall have been bound is the future passive periphrastic.
No, they are auxiliary verbs.
shalt is the 2nd person singular of shall.

shall is an auxiliary verb all persons singular and plural.
See above.


There is no such thing as nominative accusative. Either it is nominative or it is accusative. It can be either but not both at the same time.
Thou is always nominative
Thee is generally accusative or objective case except when speaking with the Society of Friends (Quakers) when it can be either nominative or accusative. [It took me a while to get used to that. I actually got to like it after a while.]

Show me where I said that. I was discussing your use of the transliteration.

I suggest that you get a grammar book with conjugations and look up future tense active voice and future tense passive voice.
Most likely you will encounter the auxiliary verb will where we have been using shalt and shall

Melkiteman,

Can you kindly change your tone of address in your posts. The appearance gives one the impression that you are condescending towards other posters.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Adminstrator