Zobel said:

---

No, not in the same way. Those saints in heaven are - as the scripture teaches - the spirits of the righteous made perfect, complete (achieved their end, their telos). We are not perfected yet.

---

The saints in the light, I love that St Paul says that we are saints as well, but only share a portion, a small part, in what the sanctified have in full.

Catag94 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

FYI- The Church in Rome is the same since its founding by St. Peter and St. Paul.

---

Except those added Dogmas. I think the EO would argue they are more the same than the RCC.

---

Which dogmas are you referring to? All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Any development in doctrine that then becomes dogma is based on this public revelation.

What verse is that? Would like to read what you referred to.

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

FYI- The Church in Rome is the same since its founding by St. Peter and St. Paul.

---

I know like Rome likes to tell itself this, but it's simply just not true.

---

What is not true? That the Church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul? This is scriptural. Or is it that others refute this fact?

For what it's worth, the spiritual head of the Eastern Orthodox Christians, Patriarch Bartholomew, attended the inauguration of Pope Francis in March, 2013. That should settle the matter in anyone's doubt.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

What verse is that? Would like to read what you referred to.

---

Colossians 1:12. It is very important to look at the actual word used that is often simply translated as "share" or "partake", it is directly translated as "giving us a portion of the lot of the holies in the light"

PabloSerna said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

FYI- The Church in Rome is the same since its founding by St. Peter and St. Paul.

---

Except those added Dogmas. I think the EO would argue they are more the same than the RCC.

---

Which dogmas are you referring to? All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Any development in doctrine that then becomes dogma is based on this public revelation.

---

Referring to the Marian dogmas and papal supremacy.

Both are rooted in scripture and tradition.

PabloSerna said:

---

Both are rooted in scripture and tradition.

---

They weren't dogma for many centuries. They weren't practiced, nor promoted as such by the early church fathers (say 1st century. This makes for a distinction between the original church and the RCC. That's my only point. In not saying it's right or wrong just it didn't seem to exist originally.

Ok so going back to your post you say we share ONLY a portion. A SMALL part. But the verse doesn't say that at all. You're adding words. It says share or partake or even your translate to portion. Doesn't have any bearing on a small. Also if you take the verses proceeding it it says this:

Colossians 1:912 (ESV): 9 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.


ALL wisdom
FULLY pleasing
EVERY good work
ALL power
ALL endurance and patience

So the verses before describe how much of the portion. And it's clearly ALL and FULL portion.

But not yet. Phil 3:12.

Right no one is perfected in this life. But the poster was saying there's a difference in that perfection between saints and apostles or higher saints. And that isn't the case demonstrated in the verse he used.

In those verses it's making the case the ones Paul is writing to will have the FULL inheritance. ALL wisdom, power, gifts, joy patience etc.

Not a lesser version.

For Our Lady; refer to the other threads on Mary and the Ark of the Covenant as well as the greeting given by the Archangel Gabriel, "full of grace".

For the primacy of Peter, refer to other posts here and the words of Jesus when he gave Peter the keys to bind/unbind.

Like I said, all based in scripture and tradition. But it does require one to dig a little deeper. Enough though to establish that the Church in Rome is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Ok so going back to your post you say we share ONLY a portion. A SMALL part. But the verse doesn't say that at all. You're adding words. It says share or partake or even your translate to portion. Doesn't have any bearing on a small. Also if you take the verses proceeding it it says this:

Colossians 1:912 (ESV): 9 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.


ALL wisdom
FULLY pleasing
EVERY good work
ALL power
ALL endurance and patience

So the verses before describe how much of the portion. And it's clearly ALL and FULL portion.

---

A portion of the lot is not a full portion. You cannot share a full portion of something, unless you are dead and become like God, which is what a Saint is. It would make no sense to draw a distinction between saints on earth and saints in the light if they both are receiving the fullness of grace.

We know that is not possible, we know that no human on earth is perfect; and we know that nothing that is NOT perfect can't abide with God, which is why we only receive a portion.

Think about what Paul also says to the church in Corinth. "For now we see through a glass;darkly, but then face to face:now I know in part, but then I shall know even as also I am known"

No, I'm saying between the living and the perfected in heaven. The church in Colossae would have been alive.

I don't agree. We're not all equal. The vision St John gives us is of elders in heaven, and a separate multitude, and separate martyrs. Sure on some level the promise of theosis is infinite and binary - but we also see distinction between some.

The promise to Abraham is that we will be like the angels, and become like the sons of God - Christ reiterates that. But angels aren't all equal. A hierarchy in heaven is very scriptural. I think moderns are egalitarians first and foremost and bring that into their soteriology.

Which is why Paul is making the case to the contrary. They will receive a FULL portion. Which is what the verses are literally saying. And you're saying they say the opposite.

I don't believe everyone is equal either. Scripture is clear that there are rewards for works. Which by the very nature excludes equality.

However that's not what the verses are speaking on.

Hang on. Sharing in the inheritance just means we become co-heirs with Christ, who is the (singular) seed and the (singular) heir. By being joined to him we become co-heirs, and therefore to receive a portion of the inheritance that Christ inherits fully.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Which is why Paul is making the case to the contrary. They will receive a FULL portion. Which is what the verses are literally saying. And you're saying they say the opposite.

---

They will receive a full portion when they die and go to heaven. While they are alive, they only have a partial.

Right… maybe we are speaking past each other.

The poster said Paul says we are saints but lesser saints. I asked for verse. He gives me Colossians 1. But those verses Paul is making the case that they get the full inheritance of the Gospel message. Not something in part. So quite literally the opposite of what the poster was claiming.

There is no partial Gospel message. Everyone can have access to the fullness Of The Gospel.

I could be miss understanding what the poster was say to be fair too

That verse says nothing about a gospel message. It just says we have been qualified to share in the inheritance.

Colossians 1:58 (ESV): 5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and increasingas it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth, 7 just as you learned it from Epaphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf 8 and has made known to us your love in the Spirit.

… that's a separate thought.

Honestly I don't even know what we're talking about any more.

Paul is writing there is no difference in the Gospel message and power there in for him and those he is writing to.

Yeah… I don't see that. He says they heard the gospel, and because of that and Timothy are praying for them, including being thankful to God who qualified them to be heirs.

I am familiar and have dug deeply into those topics. I understand the scriptural basis for each. My point is, and your reference to the scriptures etc hasn't refuted, the fact that these are dogmas that were officially add to the RCC Catechism centuries later and did not exist in the early church. One of the main difference, as I understand, between the EO and the RCC the approach development of doctrine. The EO would point to these as examples of dogma in the CCC today that simply didn't exist in the early church. They would also suggest that, if suddenly, St Peter were reading the CCC today he may be asking where those came from?
Well, St Peter, they came some 1800 years later when the RCC started adding them out a concern they had a conundrum.
1854 Immaculate conception- as a result of being consumers with the original sin doctrine and to eliminate the possibility that Jesus was exposed to original sin in Mary's womb.
-1870 Vatican 1 Papal infallibility
And then
-1954 Assumption of Mary because, well it is sort of required by immaculate conception.

I know you can point to some tradition and reference some saints on each of these but not as far back as the first century. So, my point remains these point to a difference. The EO, to my knowledge, rejects these making them, at least on these issues, more like the original church.

PabloSerna said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

FYI- The Church in Rome is the same since its founding by St. Peter and St. Paul.

---

I know like Rome likes to tell itself this, but it's simply just not true.

---

What is not true? That the Church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul? This is scriptural. Or is it that others refute this fact?

For what it's worth, the spiritual head of the Eastern Orthodox Christians, Patriarch Bartholomew, attended the inauguration of Pope Francis in March, 2013. That should settle the matter in anyone's doubt.

---

I'm fairly sure our friend Zobel can tell us about the Bishop that currently resides in Rome that is not the Pope.

But beyond that. Yes, there was a Church established in Rome. No that Church is not the Roman Catholic Church, which finds it's beginning much later when it leaves the historic Church with doctrine that strayed.

I don't think anyone is saying it's not the church with roots and history back to Peter. And, I think you know that. The strayed part, you suggest, is somewhat what's being said, but only with respect to only a few dogmas.

Blessed Sunday to you all.

Heirs of only part of what Paul is an heir to?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Heirs of only part of what Paul is an heir to?

---

I think there are three different arguments being made here. For mine own, it is merely stating that Paul is saying that in the Church on earth, we have a small part of what the heavenly Church has. We will only have that small part until we die, and hopefully become one with God.

Catag94 said:

---

I don't think anyone is saying it's not the church with roots and history back to Peter. And, I think you know that. The strayed part, you suggest, is somewhat what's being said, but only with respect to only a few dogmas.

Blessed Sunday to you all.

---

I may be very mistaken (it would be a pleasant surprise if I was), but I suspect Pablo and others will say that they are the same Church that Peter and Paul established, and presumably the Church that Peter was the head of.

Gotcha. Ya I totally misunderstood what you were saying. My bad

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Gotcha. Ya I totally misunderstood what you were saying. My bad

---

Haha that's okay brother. The whole time I was like "I think we are saying the same thing, but I'm not sure"

Haha ya I was too quick on the trigger. I apologize

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Haha ya I was too quick on the trigger. I apologize

---

No need brother